Purpose vs. principles

Purpose or principle orientation is a dimension of value orientation. It describes a person's tendency to use the goal of an action rather than the path to achieving goals as a compass for their own action.

In doing so, the individual orientation of a person can be classified on a continuum between the two poles purpose orientation and principle orientation. The value of each person can therefore be located at one point on the following scale:

Purpose orientation

People who are more focused on purpose evaluate actions and decisions based on the resulting result.

For them, good decisions are those that create the greatest possible advantage for the maximum possible number of people (Bentham, 1781). In order to achieve this, the end justifies the means for them.

Principle orientation

People who are more oriented towards principles evaluate actions and decisions based on whether they comply with norms and laws and respect the rights of each individual.

The following applies to them: Good decisions do not discriminate against anyone, even if overarching community goals are not fully achieved (Frankena, 1973).

Benefits in a professional context

As you can see, the best fit for a vacancy depends not only on the person's purpose or principle orientation, but also on the characteristics of the vacancy.

Depending on the corporate culture, a person oriented towards a purpose or a person oriented towards principles can best contribute. If the focus is primarily on achieving goals, a person oriented towards the purpose can flourish. If the focus is instead on value-oriented action, a person based on principles is the best choice.

With a value diagnosis, you can therefore reduce the risk of mis-hires and at the same time achieve greater diversity in the workplace!

How is purpose or principle orientation measured?

Want to record the purpose or principle orientation of your applicants and find out whether they are a good fit for you? Aivy is happy to help you with this!

Our mini-game “Trolley” offers users the opportunity to find out, in a short period of time, whether they use the purpose of an action or the principles behind it as a compass for their own actions. The game is based on the famous trolley problem (Thomson, 1976) and presents users with a moral dilemma.

Sources

• Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S.H. (2003). Values and Behavior: Strength and Structure of Relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (10), 1207-1220.
• Bentham, J. (1781). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
• Blau, P. (1964). Power and Exchange in Social Life
• Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., & LePine, J.A. (2007). Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 909.
• Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes.
• Frankena, W.K. (1973). Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Hall.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures (Vol. 5019). Basic books.
• Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709-734.
• McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., & Chervany, N.L. (1998). Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 473-490.
• O'Reilly III, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487-516.
• Parsons, T. (1991). The social system. Psychology Press.
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free press.
• Thomson, J.J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist, 59 (2), 204-217.

Aivy captures this orientation in its culture-fit assessment.