The Soul and the System of Why

I’ve been following Mark’s Why Series with great interest. He and I have had dozens of conversations about the different motivational forces that drive us, and it is one of the most interesting and deep rabbit holes out there. There is a clear intersection between the topic and my work at TypeCoach. We spend a lot of time in our training and delivering insights via our platform around what drives different people and personalities. I’m delighted to offer my perspective as a parallel exploration alongside his writing.

I believe "Why" is the most powerful word in leadership. It animates vision, shapes culture, and sustains endurance when the path grows difficult. Yet, Why is not one-dimensional. It is both a discipline of leadership — clarified, protected, and embedded into organizational systems — and a deeply human driver, rooted in the existential motivations that compel us to care in the first place.

This article weaves together two complementary perspectives: Mark’s founder-centric framework for carrying purpose through organizations, and my temperament-based exploration of the hidden forces that underlie our pursuit of meaning. Together, they suggest that Why must be both systemic and soulful if it is to endure.

The Discipline of Why

As the Why Series has hopefully made a strong case for, Why is not fluff. It is a discipline, tested and proven throughout resilient organizations. Great leaders:

• Clarify their personal Why, anchoring themselves before leading others
• Protect purpose through trade-offs and decisions that demonstrate conviction
• Embed Why into organizational agreements and culture so it persists beyond personality
• Discern causes from correlations, asking harder questions to avoid narrative traps
• Design systems-rituals, incentives, feedback loops-that carry purpose long after founders move on

The story of enduring companies is not charisma or luck, but the way their systems consistently reinforce what Ninety refers to as a Compelling Why.

The Depth of Why

While Mark explains how to carry Why, I am here to shed light on why we seek it at all. Each of us is temperamentally driven by a hidden existential fear based on the four core temperaments (NT, SJ, SP, NF) used in TypeCoach’s framework: 

• NT (Conceptualizers) fear irrelevance — that their life won’t matter at scale.
• SJ (Traditionalists) fear exile — that failing in responsibility will cost them belonging.
• SP (Experiencers) fear suffocation — that their freedom will be crushed.
• NF (Idealists) fear non-existence — that they will dissolve into insignificance without authentic impact.

These fears fuel our search for meaning. They explain why purpose is not optional; without it, we drift toward anxiety, burnout, or control.

Where the Two Frameworks Meet

1. Personal Why: Mark calls leaders to author their Why, while I  am drawn to how temperament reveals the shadow that distorts it. Together, these perspectives offer leaders a map for distinguishing authentic purpose from fear-driven compulsion.
2. Organizational Why: Mark demonstrates how to embed purpose at scale. I ask you to consider how different temperaments protect, resist, or embody that purpose. Together, they provide a tool kit for leaders to craft systems that resonate across diverse human drivers.
3. The Canon of Why: Mark points to thinkers like Frankl, Sinek, and Toyoda. In my series, I add literary and existential voices from throughout history from each of the temperament groupings, including Steven Hawking, David Whyte, and Amelia Earhart. Together, these voices offer both pragmatic models and soulful reminders of what is at stake.
4. The Discipline of Causality: Mark urges leaders to practice causal reasoning. I’d like you to more deeply appreciate how each temperament’s bias can either enrich or distort this discipline.
5. Enduring Legacy: Mark teaches that systems must carry purpose beyond individuals. I believe individuals only contribute meaningfully when their personal Why transcends ego. Together, the Why endures when it is grounded in both soul and system.

When Purpose Aligns, and When It Doesn’t

The same forces that give a leader their strength can also become their undoing. Each temperament carries a hidden existential driver — a deep Why behind the Why. When that driver is out of sync, fear shapes leadership in destructive ways. When it is in sync, that same energy becomes a source of authentic power.

What follows are four archetypal portraits, composites drawn from patterns we’ve seen across industries. They are not about any one person, but they will likely feel familiar.

NT (Conceptualizers: Fear of Irrelevance)

Out of Sync: Meet Alex, a visionary tech founder in his early forties. On the outside, Alex looks unstoppable: sharp keynote speeches, glowing press, a track record of bold bets. But inside, he’s haunted by the fear that if he doesn’t leave a monumental mark, he’ll be forgotten.

That fear fuels behaviors his team dreads. At the Monday all-hands meeting, Alex strides in late, launches into a speech about “redefining the entire industry,” but mispronounces the name of a product manager who’s been with the company for six months. On Tuesday, he scraps a quarter’s worth of work after reading a competitor’s blog post, declaring, “We’re pivoting, effective immediately.” On Wednesday, he fires a director via email, cc’ing the entire exec team, to “send a message.” By Friday, he’s berating an engineer in front of peers for missing a deadline on what had been, just two weeks ago, a low-priority project.

To Alex, it’s urgency. To his team, it’s chaos and bullying. People burn out. Trust evaporates. The once-bright culture now feels like a pressure cooker, serving one man’s quest for cosmic relevance.

In Sync: Fast forward two years. Alex has confronted the reality that his desperate chase for significance was ego-driven. He hasn’t lost his fire, but now his urgency is grounded in contribution. At this all-hands, he speaks less about disruption and more about customers helped. He calls out team members by name, celebrating progress others might overlook. Decisions are no longer unilateral decrees but conversations, and dissent is welcomed as fuel for better thinking.

The change is palpable. People work hard, but no longer out of fear, but out of pride. Projects land, systems hold, and innovation feels sustainable. Alex is still chasing impact, but it no longer feels like a monument to himself. It feels like a legacy the whole team owns.

SJ (Traditionalists: Fear of Exile)

Out of Sync: Meet Linda, a COO at a healthcare company. Linda is the definition of responsible: She knows every process, every budget line, every compliance regulation. But beneath the competence lies a deep fear that if she slips, she’ll lose the trust and belonging she craves.

That fear plays out in her leadership style. She double-checks expense reports at midnight, not because she doubts her team, but because she can’t bear the thought of being caught unprepared. She asks to be cc’d on nearly every email, creating a culture where no decision feels safe without her sign-off. Her one-on-ones with managers turn into interrogations, leaving people defensive. Staff describe the culture as “walking on eggshells,” where mistakes aren’t just corrected - they’re remembered. Loyalty is held in place by guilt and fear of exclusion.

In Sync: Now imagine Linda after a turning point. She comes to see responsibility not as a burden she must shoulder alone, but as an act of chosen service. The binders are still there, but she uses them to empower her managers, not control them. She stops hovering over details and starts asking bigger questions: “How can I help you succeed?” She sets clear expectations, then trusts her team to deliver.

The shift is dramatic. Her employees feel safe to own their work, knowing Linda’s steadiness is there if needed. Meetings shift from tense reviews to collaborative problem-solving. Loyalty arises naturally, out of respect and gratitude. Linda hasn’t abandoned her sense of duty - she’s elevated it. She no longer clings to belonging; she creates it.

SP (Experiencers: Fear of Suffocation)

Out of Sync: Meet Marcus, a marketing VP with charisma to spare. Marcus lights up a room. His brainstorming sessions are legendary - whiteboards covered, music playing, ideas flying. But under the surface, he fears being trapped in boredom or routine, driving him to constantly chase the next craze.

His team knows the pattern: a high-energy launch sprint followed by abandonment the moment Marcus’s attention drifts. Last quarter’s campaign is shelved mid-stream because Marcus wants to ride a new social trend. A partnership is announced with fanfare, then forgotten within weeks. Staff joke about needing seatbelts for Marcus’s rollercoaster, but privately, they’re exhausted. Work feels like spinning in circles, exciting but never complete. To Marcus, he’s fighting suffocation; to his team, he’s creating chaos.

In Sync: Now picture Marcus after learning to harness his drive. He still thrives on energy and change, but he’s discovered that freedom doesn’t mean constant novelty. It means choosing meaningful commitments. He channels his spark into making the workplace dynamic: mixing up team rituals, infusing campaigns with fresh creativity, and keeping morale high when pressure mounts. But now he balances it with discipline: fewer pivots, more follow-through.

His team feels the difference immediately. They’re still on an adventure, but now the ride has a destination. Crises become opportunities for Marcus to shine. His courage steadies the group, and his adaptability turns roadblocks into fuel. Freedom is no longer destabilizing. It’s galvanizing.

NF (Idealists: Fear of Non-Existence)

Out of Sync: Meet Sarah, the founder of an education nonprofit. Sarah’s passion is undeniable. Her TED-style talks move audiences to tears, and donors write big checks after hearing her speak. But privately, Sarah’s sense of self is fused with the mission. Every setback feels existential. When a grant falls through, she spirals into despair; when a staffer questions her approach, she takes it as personal betrayal.

Her team lives in the wake of these emotional swings. One week they’re swept up in Sarah’s fervor; the next, they tiptoe around her volatility. Staff meetings oscillate between soaring inspiration and manipulative guilt trips. Donors start to sense the edge in her urgency. The mission suffers, not because it lacks merit, but because Sarah’s need for validation overshadows the work itself.

In Sync: Now imagine Sarah after confronting her fear. She still speaks with passion, but her words feel lighter, steadier. She no longer needs the mission to prove her worth; she sees herself as a steward, not the embodiment, of the cause. In staff meetings, she listens as much as she speaks. Her recognition of others feels authentic, not performative. Donors sense the shift too, and they’re drawn to her humility as much as her vision.

The culture transforms. People feel seen and valued, not just as soldiers in Sarah’s crusade but as partners in a shared purpose. Her passion, freed from ego, becomes contagious in the best way. Sarah has discovered that meaning doesn’t vanish when it’s shared — it multiplies.

Conclusion

These portraits remind us that leadership is never neutral. The same temperament that drives a leader’s greatness can, when distorted by fear, create dysfunction. But when aligned with an authentic Why, those same drivers produce leaders who are both powerful and humane.

Mark’s framework provides the systemic discipline to sustain purpose; I submit that the lens of temperaments reveals the existential roots that make it real. The best leaders honor both — the soul and the system of Why.

That’s what Mark and I think. We'd love to hear what you think.