The management of the Massive Transformative Purpose in Exponential Organizations

The scope of this work aims to investigate the Massive Transformative Purpose (MTP) of Exponential Organizations (ExOs) from a scientific standpoint. The topic is considered diffused among practitioners (Allen, 2020) but not yet in academia (Pompa, 2019) which contributes to what Bansal et al. (2012) call the research-practice paradox. The intent of this research is to explore and bridge the ongoing exchange between academics and practitioners in this field. I started by analyzing the current context called VUCA world or disruption, the relative management challenges (Marchese et al., 2023), and the cultural milieu of Singularity University, in California where the ExO concept emerged by studying the behavior of the Unicorn Club (Lee, 2013), the world's fastest-growing start-ups. Accordingly, an ExO is defined as a firm “whose impact or output is disproportionately large -- at least 10 times larger -- compared to its peers because of new organizational techniques that leverage accelerating technologies” (Ismail et al., 2014, p. 61). In Appendix 2. I have collected the three main streams of literature that can be associated with the ExO concept, and the comparison between the definition of Exponential Organization provided by Marchese et al. (2020) with the one of Ismail et al. (2014). The MTP “defines the core purpose of the organizations’ existence” (Ismail et al., 2018, p. 76) and reveals what the company wants to achieve. For Ismail et al., the MTP represents an essential requirement for an organization to be considered an ExO (2014). Accordingly, the MTP must have specific characteristics: it must address an abundance, inspire a transformation, and must state the organizational purpose, and the reason why an organization exists (Ismail et al., 2014). For instance, Google’s MTP is “To Organize the World’s Information” (Ismail, et al., 2014, p. 62). To proceed, first I reviewed the concept of corporate purpose in management literature together with similar alternatives like “purpose-driven” and “purposeful” organizations. These definitions have been collected in Table 2.7. Finally, two juxtaposed perspectives have been identified. Friedman talks about profit maximization as the sole purpose of an organization (Gartenberg et al., 2019). While Freeman’s viewpoint led to “stakeholderism” (Bebchuk & Tallarita, 2020); social and civil parts are seen as firm constituents. Accordingly, corporate purpose must be made explicit because firms' behaviors are legally tied to its achievement (Mayer, 2020). After this analysis, I focused on the MTP, by deepening the research in two directions: First: The MTP as a concept. I performed a systematic review of literature, for achieving a scientifically solid definition of MTP. Second: The MTP as a management tool. I analyzed the MTP from this perspective within the literature review process and then I performed a multiple case study analysis, leveraging an inductive approach, to provide empirical evidence about the management of the MTP for ExOs. The MTP as a concept. The MTP construct is considered new, not very present in academic publications, and “still accumulating” (Dimitrov, 2022, p. 319) different shades to its original meaning. To proceed, I identified the MTP’s four main areas of impact according to Ismail et al. 2 (2014, 2018) and I related per each area some keywords that I used to perform the literature review. The process of keywords definition is collected in Table 2.6. Thereafter, I conducted the literature research per each different stream using Scopus. The first group included “corporate purpose”, “organizational purpose”, “business purpose” and “company purpose”, while the other two groups included respectively “brand purpose” and “corporate brand identity”. The keyword set was found on title, abstract, and keywords, only on scientific articles in the English language. Then I used the ABS guide reference to estimate the quality of the publication as already done by previous ExO scholars (Marchese et al., 2020). A preliminary selection was made based on the pertinence of the results by reading the abstracts. A final list of 94 papers made the basis for the literature review. The process can be reviewed in Table 2.8. Following the analysis of the literature, a framework to establish the MTP as a concept emerged and four main dimensions are identified and described in Table 2.13. While the first refers to purpose and regulation, my analysis focused on the other three. Corporate purpose is analyzed: Internally, as Guiding Philosophy, externally as Brand Purpose, and in the strategy process, defined as a Competitive Advantage. Each of these facets reveals a relation with the others: Purpose Activation, Shared Purpose, and Implementation are studied. Finally, the three main dimensions overlap: Purpose is the Identity of the Organization. Here the MTP is defined as part of the core of the organization (Mayer, 2020) where the meaning of the firm can be found (Urde, 2013), the heart of the corporate brand identity of the firm (Urde & Greyser, 2015; Balmer & Pondar, 2021). The MTP as a management tool. In order to validate the impact of the MTP, I compared each of the previously defined dimensions with Ismail et al.’s viewpoint (2014, 2018). All the different areas converge in the central dimension: the MTP is demonstrated having an impact on the entire firm, being part of the core of the organization. This concept refers to the brand orientation theory (Urde, 1994, 1999) which is an organization’s process “around the creation, development and protection of brand identity” (Urde, 1999, p. 117). Furthermore, the MTP can be considered part of the corporate brand identity which for Balmer (2013) is “the entity’s cornerstone” (p. 724) that “provides direction and purpose“ (Greyser & Urde, 2019, p. 83). Urde (2016) calls this dimension brand core: the ultimate source of identity that works as “inspiration and challenge for the organization” (p. 29). In order to validate this concept further, I conducted a comparative analysis between the MTP and the Brand Core in terms of concepts and impact. The literature review evidences an alignment between the brand orientation theory (Urde, 1994, 1999) and the work of Ismail et al. (2014, 2018). Evidence is collected in Tables 2.21 and 2.22. Accordingly, the MTP can be considered part of Urde’s brand core (2016) together with core values and brand promise. This is an important step to provide the MTP concept with a theoretical validation, addressing the research-practice gap (Bansal et al., 2012). Moreover, for Urde (2016) the brand core applies for every kind of brand, including new organizations such as Airbnb, Spotify, or Uber which Ismail et al. (2014) call Exponential Organizations. Finally, to address the challenges related to the management of the brand core, Urde (2013) proposed the Corporate Brand Identity Matrix for “the definition and alignment of corporate brand identity” (p. 744). 3 According to all these elements, if the MTP is part of the brand core, which is suitable also for new brands that can be considered ExOs, and if the brand core is managed by the CBIM (Urde, 2013), hence it is important to investigate the relationship between MTP and CBIM and identify their differences when it comes to the management of Exponential Organizations. My research questions are detailed accordingly: RQ1: “How and why does the Massive Transformative Purpose work in the management of an Exponential Organization?” RQ2: “What is the relationship between the Massive Transformative Purpose and the CBIM?” RQ3: “What is the role of the MTP in building the Corporate Brand Identity of an Exponential Organization?” For Yin (2014), the nature of the research questions and the way it is formulated influences the methodology choice “in large part” (p. 4). This leads to qualitative methodology to respond to the research questions. The same emerges as preferred option for scholars when it comes to researching the “softer aspects of management” (Henderson, 2021, p. 5481) as, for example, the identity of a business (Van Riel & Balmer, 1997). Secondly, qualitative methods have been used when researching corporate brand orientation studies (Urde, 1999; Balmer, 2013; Urde & Greyser, 2016). Finally, the case study analysis is the preferred choice in “examining contemporary events” (Yin, 2017, p. 8) and when “relevant behaviors cannot be manipulated” (Yin, 2017, p. 8) as in the case of my research. To define the most suitable research methodology the satisfaction of the criteria of “validity”, “reliability“ and “generalizability” (Beverland & Lindgreen, 2010) has been included in the research design. Therefore, each case study has been developed in a stand-alone perspective according to its specific conditions to achieve “replication and not sampling logic” (Yin, 2017, p. 45). Cases selection was conducted according to purposive sampling (Bryman, 2016), leveraging heterogeneity in terms of industry, type of organization, equity/capital structure, market presence, and business model. A total of four organizations have been analyzed, from three different industries. Criteria are illustrated in Table 3.1 and Table 5.1. Finally, the research has been designed using a semi-structured interview methodology (Rowley, 2012) to have the needed flexibility to apprehend the differences between CBIM and MTP. The interviews have been organized around Urde’s “guiding identity questions” (2013, p. 754) for the application of the CBIM model (Urde, 2013). All the questions are collected in Figure 3.1. Primary and secondary data have been utilized to develop four case studies about different companies from diverse profiles and industries: Airbnb, MSC, Mylia, and Shippeo. Finally, the MTP Management Model is proposed, to define the eleven dimensions of the Corporate Brand Identity of an Exponential Organization. This tool allows decision-makers to understand how the MTP is 4 perceived and to manage its effectiveness in different dimensions. The results of the analysis have been collected and conclusions are presented.