Latest news with #purposeDriven
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Why Doing More Doesn't Work—And What Does: The Formula For Fulfillment
We've been told a story: that success—authentic, fulfilling, legacy-worthy success—comes from doing more. More hustle. More goals. More boards. More self-care. More impact. More everything. But for many high-achieving leaders, that story is starting to fall apart. In quiet moments—on the plane, before the Zoom room opens, late at night—there's often a quiet pulse: Is this it? Despite the accomplishments, there's a feeling of incompleteness. A missing 1%. And here's what I've come to believe, after decades of working with purpose-driven leaders, building the Lead in 3D framework, and testing it in boardrooms and barns: Doing more—especially in one area—inevitably leads to diminishing returns. Doing more of the 'right' thing can achieve a certain amount of success, but then it stops working. But there's a powerful alternative. And it's the key to unlocking the formula for fulfillment. Economists have long used farming to illustrate the concept of diminishing returns. Imagine a farmer with a fixed plot of land, a set amount of seed, and a labor force. Adding more land won't help if there aren't enough workers or seed to use it. Doubling the seed won't produce double the harvest if the land and labor stay the same. Eventually, pushing on just one lever flattens out—and the marginal benefit shrinks. This isn't just economics—it's how many of us live and lead. We go all in on one dimension: Each of these is admirable. But when pursued alone, they eventually stall. They top out. And they often leave us burned out, disconnected, or quietly unsatisfied. This is the diminishing returns trap. It's linear, fragile, and finite. In the world of technology, we've embraced exponential growth. Moore's Law. AI processing speed. Digital integration. We accept that computing power doubles every 18–24 months, and that innovation feeds on itself. But when it comes to our own growth—our fulfillment, our impact, our joy—we're still thinking in straight lines. We over-invest in one area and hope it will carry us all the way. It won't. You might have seen this more directly in your business: You hire a new salesperson—but don't increase your lead volume. No surprise, they don't drive revenue. More effort in one lane can't create exponential returns on its own. Many high performers structure their lives like a monocrop—intensive, high-yielding, but vulnerable to disruption. A 3D-aligned leader builds a regenerative system, more like permaculture—diverse, resilient, and self-sustaining. Authentic and sustainable success comes from as diverse a set of inputs as a healthy farm plot. Here's the insight: When we invest across multiple aligned dimensions—what I call ME, WE, and WORLD—we don't just grow. We compound. Leading in 3D means aligning your time, energy, and attention toward: When all three are in motion, the returns don't just add up—they multiply. Clarity in your ME strengthens your leadership in WE. Meaning in your WORLD fuels your stamina. Boundaries in ME prevent burnout in WE. And so on. This is the formula for fulfillment:Compounding returns = (ME + WE + WORLD) x Alignment The more congruent your investments across these dimensions, the more momentum you generate—and the more exponential your results become. The blue line shows the power of compounding growth that results from Leading in 3D, rather than the ... More diminishing returns of a one-dimensional approach. This 3D approach to leadership aligns with research on intrinsic motivation—what Daniel Pink outlines in Drive as autonomy, mastery, and purpose. When we invest across all three, we don't just perform better. We live better, with sustainable fuel to persist, particularly through challenging times. That quiet ache of 'Is this it?'—even at the height of outward success—isn't a failure of drive. It's usually a failure of balance. I know because I've lived it. In my earlier career, I spent nearly a decade in the nonprofit sector, pouring everything into WORLD. Every role brought me closer to the front lines—until I was embedded in a refugee community, doing work that felt meaningful and urgent. It was mission-driven. It was good. But it was also unsustainable. I was so focused on making a difference that I neglected WE—my closest relationships, a viable business model, the people who needed me outside the work. I neglected ME—my energy, my health, my own professional growth and personal joy. The consequences were real: my first marriage ended. I missed my dad's funeral. That's when I realized the truth: Even purpose, when pursued in isolation, can push us into the red. The good news is, that ache—the missing 1%—is a signal. Not of failure, but of opportunity. It's an invitation to rebalance. To align. To lead in 3D. So ask yourself: If so, you're likely living in the diminishing returns curve. The path forward isn't about pushing harder. It's about pulling your life back into alignment. You don't need another productivity hack. You don't need another degree, another board seat, or another hour tacked onto your already-overflowing calendar. What you need—what most high performers quietly crave—is alignment. A formula for fulfillment that compounds, not just accumulates. So here's your challenge:Stop asking, 'What more can I do?' Start asking, 'Where am I underinvesting?' Because that's where the missing 1% lives. And when you shift from single-focus effort to integrated, intentional alignment— That's when you stop burning fuel and start building fire. That's the curve worth riding. Align your Me, We, and World investments to find your wave to ride to fulfillment.
Fast Company
2 days ago
- Business
- Fast Company
The importance of B Corp certification
Butler/Till was introduced to the idea of becoming a B Corp in 2015 when we acquired a small marketing consultancy that did a lot of work in the energy space. Being a B Corp was really important to those employees, and with just a little bit of homework, we realized that the values involved in the certification process were the same values we'd woven into our DNA since our founding. The B Corp designation has become a kind of shorthand for a purpose-driven company that balances profits with people and the planet. The designation is not 100% altruistic, nor should it be. B Corps are for-profit companies that believe you can do business for good and that your employees, your clients, and your business all benefit when you do. We are just finishing up the recertification process, which is required every three years. While it can be a challenging process, it pushes us to reevaluate our commitment to corporate social responsibility across five areas: community, governance, customers, environment, and workers. At Butler/Till, this is not a top-down process; it is spearheaded by a dedicated committee of employees who want to ensure we stay true to our values every day. The problem with B Corp certification In recent years, B Corp certification has come under fire from within the community. In 2022, a group of B Corp organizations sent an open letter to B Lab, the nonprofit organization behind the process, protesting the certification of a multinational company with a history of child labor issues and anti-environmental practices. The letter pointed out flaws in the certification process, suggesting it had become susceptible to exploitation for greenwashing purposes and demanding changes. In response, B Lab acknowledged these concerns and published a set of new rules in April to rectify the situation. While the rewriting of these rules took longer than expected, Dr. Bronner's—one of the companies that signed the letter in 2022—decided not to wait. Earlier this year, the company publicly announced it would be relinquishing its B Corp status when it expires near the end of 2025 and that it would be taking the B Corp logo off of its products. The founders explained, 'Sharing the same logo and messaging regarding being of 'benefit' to the world with large multinational CPG companies with a history of serious ecological and labor issues, and no comprehensive or credible eco-social certification of supply chains, is unacceptable to us.' I applaud their conviction for a just and sustainable planet, but I think their decision to denounce the system rather than stay and fix it is shortsighted. The letter pointed to other highly successful companies committed to justice and sustainability, notably Patagonia and Ben & Jerry's, as examples of those doing it right. The not-so-subtle message here is that the 8,000+ companies that have invested the time and resources to become certified B Corps are not doing it right or not doing enough. Work together to do good This 'you can't be us' message is the opposite of the inclusivity organizations seek when they commit to becoming a B Corp. We're in a moment in this country when companies face backlash for DEI efforts, and the need for corporate social responsibility of any kind is being questioned. This is not the time to give up on efforts to do business in a better way. If anything, employees need us to lean in more than ever. The B Corp values of working together to do good are engraved into our ethos. We make a conscious effort to create an environment where people get to do their best work, feel fulfilled, acknowledged, and respected, and earn a good living doing it. We are also a 100% ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan), meaning that the company is fully employee-owned. This keeps us independent and allows us to make decisions that are truly in the best interest of our clients and also happen to be in the best interests of our employee-owners. We've also committed to spending a certain portion of our dollars with like-minded, minority-owned, women-owned businesses, including other B Corps and other ESOPs. Social good is ingrained in everything we do. B Corp certification helps us solidify and display that commitment to our employees, our clients, our partners, and our community. Giving that up because the process is not perfect would be steps backward versus forward. Throwing away certification isn't the answer It's easy to call people out—it's practically all anyone does on social media these days—but purity tests aren't useful. B Lab's process may certainly be flawed. Companies are scored in each area, and then the results are averaged. This means a low score in one area, like customers or governance, could be essentially ignored if the scores in other areas were high enough. I certainly hope that B Lab's new rules fix this glaring error in calculation, but throwing the certification away entirely is not the answer. The truth is that most companies do not meet the existing metric. Isn't it better to call them in versus out and give them something to strive for than to declare that there's a small club of pure companies out there that they can never belong to, even if they try?
