I stumbled upon his TEDx talk “Start with Why” (https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action) during one of my documentary watches. I then skimmed through his book, which essentially recaps what he explains in his talk. Everyone who has watched it would readily admit that he is a great speaker, very persuasive. In fact, his book sales are doing well, and this video on the TED website is soon about to surpass 55 million views.

The Concept

This concept was initially developed for entrepreneurs and business leaders to help them inspire: inspire their employees (because we never work better than when we share the mission of the company, among other things) and inspire consumers. But you might be wondering why I am interested in this, as it doesn’t seem to have much to do with career guidance. Well, think again! He used this concept to craft a method for guidance—or at least, a method that helps anyone find their “Why.”

For those unfamiliar with the principle he describes, it’s essentially about explaining that to inspire people, you need to be driven by a mission, not just trying to make money. Yet we are indeed dealing with a subject related to enhancing engagement and sales. We’ll then focus on the underlying issue of influence.

He breaks down his concept into three layers of three circles: at the center is the “Why,” the reason or purpose; next is the “How,” the method; and finally, the “What,” the product or outcome.

I won’t paraphrase the author word for word, but rather summarize the concept. He explains that most companies complain about not succeeding or not selling their products because they fail to communicate with our deep emotional center—this part of the brain that guides most people’s instinctive choices. On this point, various psychological studies have proven that many of our choices are influenced by emotion.

To influence emotions, according to Sinek, we must start with the “Why”—why I do what I do—rather than the “What”—look at how great my product is. Communicating from the “Why” ensures an emotional attachment to the cause, the desire in humans to belong to a group—a group that is formed based on shared beliefs or goals in this case.

To inspire, influence emotional choices, and sell products, you need to start with Why: why we offer or develop a particular product. This contrasts with everyone else who starts with their product, explaining why it’s better than others.

We could debate this idea at length, especially knowing that many marketing and business studies show that the key to selling is to communicate the customer benefit. Apple does this very well. When the iPod launched, the slogan was something like, “Over 30,000 songs in your pocket.” There are many other talks on the subject, notably from Harvard professors. But numerous psychological studies on commitment and how to foster it in individuals show that the most powerful driver is not knowing why we do something and communicating it, but rather playing on mimicry or conceptual adherence. Either we act because others are doing it, driven by a herd mentality, or we act because we buy into the speech or ideology of the person promoting it.

If we approached the concept from this angle, it would already start to waver...

But for Sinek: “People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it!”—people don’t buy your product; they buy why you created it.

The Argument:

First, a question arises. Does the “Why” really act on emotions? What proves this to us? Taking Apple as an example, what is the main reason I personally choose an Apple product? Is it innovation, design, features, brand image, what I think of myself when buying it, or the Why (do I even vaguely know what it is, other than what Sinek mentions)? I haven’t found any scientific studies or theories, even loosely, supporting the idea that the reason why companies were founded and products developed plays on emotions and ensures product success and sales as the author suggests. It sounds true, it resonates, makes sense, even seems logical—but that doesn’t mean it’s true. In short, it could be a fallacy, even if the conclusion happens to be correct.

Let’s now address Sinek’s argument, which is that money is just the outcome, and it’s the reason why we do what we do that matters and drives sales.

He cites three examples: Steve Jobs, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers.

Apple’s boss, Steve Jobs, according to what Simon Sinek implies, didn’t have making money as his primary motivation when he began building his first computer in his garage. This claim would require research that I simply don’t feel like doing.

However, when we look at Apple’s economic history, we realize that there are certainly many other factors contributing to the success or turnaround of a company than merely starting with Why.

We can also look at it differently.

There are many successful companies around the world. Can we explain these successes using Sinek’s concept? He hasn’t ventured there...

Marketing experts know how to generate sales and even habits, or even addictions, without the company necessarily finding its Why. I’m thinking, for instance, of the pork industry, which surrounded itself with top-tier marketers to find the best way to influence the masses. They even hired doctors to publicly promote their products, turning bacon into a staple of the American breakfast and ultimately creating an emblem, even a cultural symbol. They succeeded in making people believe it was good for health.

Regarding Martin Luther King, Sinek merely points out that to rally people, King started with “I have a dream,” which is indeed impactful. Good. But does that really support his concept?

The example of the Wright brothers is even more surprising, as it is so fantastical, even blatantly historically inaccurate. I encourage you to read this well-documented resource, which, by the way, comes from American sources on the subject: http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/.

I mention it because the issue still divides people despite historical evidence and deeply ingrained popular beliefs.

Sinek claims that the best example of his theory is the Wright brothers, who had no money, no grants, no engineers or “brains” helping them, and who weren’t driven by money but by something else. That’s what made them the first to create a motorized airplane and to fly. He compares this to Samuel Langley, who had all those resources at the same time but didn’t succeed and resigned when he heard the Wright brothers had flown, instead of offering his contribution. Sinek concludes that the Wright brothers succeeded because they were motivated by something deeper than money.

I’ll leave you to research the topic, but all of this is completely false.

The Wright brothers weren’t the first to fly a motorized airplane; they merely glided for 50 to 100 meters in a glider propelled by a sort of catapult from a sand dune. They were so attracted to money that they drew inspiration from the research of other builders at the time but didn’t share their progress. They immediately stopped developing their prototype to focus on selling their invention in Germany and France because the U.S. government wasn’t interested. But without making any demonstrations, they wasted so much time trying to monetize their invention that Louis Blériot ended up crossing the English Channel.

In short, his concept is ultimately based on rather thin arguments, if not nonexistent or built on debatable or false elements when you dig a little deeper.

The Limits:

Here we see the impact of the influence of a good speaker who seems passionate and convinced about what they’re saying. Your defenses drop, and the message gets through. What he says then integrates into you not as a belief but as knowledge.

Yet is this really new knowledge on this subject? A discovery?

Absolutely not. What he says has no basis, is not empirically tested, validated by other professionals, or scientifically proven, and the argumentation on which this edifice rests is vague, debatable, or outright false.

I have great respect for Simon Sinek, and I want to emphasize that he presents himself as a “leadership expert” and that many of his short videos on his YouTube channel are quite interesting. Wanting to “inspire” business leaders and employees by making them reflect on the Why of what they do seems beneficial for everyone. However, if we stop at the theory behind this message, it shows a number of weaknesses when we quickly dissect it, much to the dismay of his fans.

It’s important to note here that what is also interesting is that what he says seems to make “sense” to many people. He has managed to convince a lot of people.

I think the main reason is that he touches on the question of meaning. We are dealing with the theme of the meaning of our lives and what we will leave behind for future generations—something that leaves no one indifferent and is, of course, of crucial importance.

The search for meaning and the Why is fundamentally tied to human evolution and our understanding of the world.

That being said, it seems rather weak to attempt to adapt this to create a career guidance method—or perhaps even terribly problematic. I will try to delve deeper into this in a future article on Sinek’s next book “Find Your Why”, which is directly focused on the issue of career guidance and personal development.