Why Meaning Had to Come First

On the Assumptions That Shape Human Action and Outcomes

© 2026 Luis A. Marrero. Boston Institute for Meaningful Purpose

[Text written by, with, and for human intelligence.]

Revised on January 17, 2026

Old North Church, Boston, Massachusetts

I am often asked why I chose to start a new school of psychology, pioneer Organization Development 2.0, and place meaning at the center of my work—especially given the many existing theories, methods, and interventions already available. It is a fair question.

To begin answering it, I invite you to pause for a moment. Scroll through the news on your phone. Listen to the headlines during your commute. Watch a broadcast from your living room. Notice the recurring themes: war, crime, corruption, division, mistrust, and social breakdown.

These themes are not new. Most of us remember seeing them years—often decades—ago. And despite enormous advances in science, technology, and expertise, they do not appear to be receding.

The same dynamic appears closer to home, inside our organizations. Consider employee engagement, leadership effectiveness, or large-scale change initiatives. Despite billions of dollars invested in training, consulting, research, certifications, and development programs, core indicators such as engagement and trust have remained stubbornly low. Progress has been modest at best. Longitudinal workplace studies have consistently confirmed this pattern over time (Gallup, 2000–2024).

Over the years, I have encountered many explanations for why progress in these areas has been so slow. Some point to weak leadership, others to poor execution, cultural resistance, misaligned incentives, or insufficient accountability. Each of these explanations captures part of the picture, and none should be dismissed lightly.

Yet what has consistently troubled me is that even well-intentioned, well-designed efforts often fail to produce lasting change. Organizations adopt new models, roll out training programs, revise values statements, and restructure teams—only to find themselves confronting the same challenges again a few years later.

What makes this especially troubling is that solutions are not absent. In many cases, we already know what reduces harm, improves cooperation, and strengthens institutions. The problem is not a lack of knowledge. It is the persistent gap between what we know and what we actually do. This pattern has been widely documented in organizational research (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000; Collins, 2001; Pfeffer, 2015, 2018).

This suggests that the issue may not lie primarily in effort, intelligence, or commitment. In many cases, people are genuinely trying. The problem appears deeper and more structural: interventions frequently address what people do without examining how people make sense of what they are doing.

Before any action takes place, individuals interpret their situation. They form beliefs about what is happening, decide what matters, adopt attitudes, and orient themselves toward particular aims. These processes shape behavior long before skills, incentives, or policies come into play. When this underlying logic remains unexamined, even sophisticated solutions are absorbed into existing patterns rather than transforming them.

It is here that meaning quietly but decisively enters the picture—not as a philosophical abstraction, but as the organizing framework through which people understand their world and decide how to act within it.

Not Blame, but Concern

At this point, it is important to be clear about what this argument is not. It is not an indictment of individuals, leaders, professionals, or institutions. In most cases, people are acting with good intentions, sincere effort, and a genuine desire to improve outcomes.

My concern lies elsewhere. It lies in the assumptions that quietly guide how problems are defined and how solutions are designed. When those assumptions remain unexamined, even well-meaning efforts can unintentionally reinforce the very patterns they seek to change.

Many contemporary approaches assume that if people are given the right information, tools, incentives, or structures, better outcomes will follow. While these elements matter, they presuppose something more fundamental: that people already share a coherent understanding of what is happening, what matters, and why their actions are meaningful.

When this coherence is missing, progress stalls—not because of resistance or incompetence, but because action is being guided by fragmented or misaligned interpretations operating outside awareness. In such conditions, asking people to try harder or adopt new techniques often adds strain without producing clarity.

The concern, then, is not a lack of goodwill or capability, but a blind spot. Meaning is already shaping behavior, decisions, and priorities. When it remains implicit and unexamined, it quietly governs outcomes. When it is brought into view, it can be examined, refined, and realigned.

This concern brings us back to the original question: why start a new school of psychology grounded in meaning?

Meaning as the Ground of Understanding

To answer that question, we must begin with a simple but often overlooked observation: before people can act, decide, or change, they must first understand what is happening to them and what it means. Meaning is not an outcome of understanding; it is the medium through which understanding occurs. It shapes how situations are interpreted, what is taken to be true, what is valued, and which possibilities for action even become visible.

Over time, this recognition led me to a clear conclusion: meaning had to come first because it already does—whether we acknowledge it or not. This conclusion also carries an important implication: every field that studies human behavior and systems already operates within a framework of meaning, whether explicitly or implicitly. Psychology, economics, leadership, education, ethics, and the sciences all depend on assumptions about what matters, what counts as success, and which questions are worth pursuing.

Every field of human endeavor already depends on meaning. 

Approaches differ in what they emphasize. Positive Psychology, for example, focuses on well-being and strengths. Systems theory examines patterns, structures, and interdependencies. Logoteleology does not replace these perspectives. It examines the underlying meanings that give strengths direction and systems purpose, helping to clarify how interpretation, valuation, and aims silently shape outcomes across domains (Marrero, 2020; Marrero & Persuitte, 2022). Later developments in the field have likewise underscored the importance of meaning for depth and sustainability (Wong, 2011).

When meaning remains implicit, it often operates below awareness—shaped by partial understanding, inherited assumptions, or distorted information. In such conditions, even well-designed systems tend to fracture over time. When meaning is examined and made coherent, action stabilizes, learning deepens, and coordination becomes possible. This helps explain why persistent problems endure despite increasingly sophisticated solutions: the deeper logic guiding understanding and action is rarely brought into view.

Knowledge does not stand on its own; it stands on meaning. Study logoteleology's meaning to understand knowledge—and to direct it wisely.

Giving Meaning a Practical Structure

Recognizing meaning as foundational raised a further question for me: if meaning truly shapes outcomes, can it be examined and worked with responsibly rather than left implicit?

Early in my work, I became convinced that it could—and that it had to be. If meaning organizes understanding and action, then leaving it vague or rhetorical is not neutral; it is risky. Meaning must be accessible to careful examination and deliberate alignment.

This realization led to the development of a practical framework for understanding how meaning operates in everyday life. The framework focuses on a small set of interrelated elements: how people explain what is happening to them, what they believe to be true, what they value, how situations are experienced internally, the attitudes that follow, and the aims that ultimately guide action.

When these elements are aligned, life and work tend to feel coherent and sustainable. When they are misaligned, people often experience confusion, friction, and repeated self-sabotage—without a clear sense of what is driving it. For instance, the experience of cognitive dissonance.

This logoteleological framework was not designed to replace existing methods. Its purpose is to illuminate the layer of meaning that already organizes them, making their use more coherent, intentional, and effective.

Filling the Gap

Logoteleology—the field of Meaningful Purpose Psychology—emerged as a response to this unresolved gap. Its focus is not to compete with or replace existing sciences, but to study meaning directly: how it organizes understanding, guides action, and shapes outcomes long before success or failure becomes visible.

Viewed through this lens, many harmful outcomes are not simply accidental or random. They are often produced through systems of meaning—interpretations, values, and aims—that operate outside the awareness of those attempting to address them. In this sense, harm is frequently unintended yet meaningfully organized (Winn, 2000).

This helps clarify why persistent challenges remain evident across domains that matter most for human life, including relationships, trust, cooperation, and social cohesion. Long-term workplace and well-being indicators suggest that neither established approaches nor newer innovations have resolved these issues in a durable way. Effort has increased; coherence has not.

If all knowledge is oriented toward an aim, then it already operates within structures of meaning—whether those structures are examined or assumed. This makes it possible, in principle, to study any domain of knowledge—scientific, organizational, or social—through methods that bring meaning into view rather than leaving it implicit.

The need for a logoteleological, meaning-centered science did not arise from theoretical ambition, but from following this line of reasoning to its implications. Meaning can be understood as what is meant—what an action, belief, or effort is directed toward—or as an aim tasked with fulfilling an intention. In this sense, knowledge is never neutral. It is always oriented, applied, and acted upon for something.

Conclusion

Meaning had to come first because it is already doing the work—quietly shaping how people interpret reality, decide what matters, and act in the world. When meaning remains implicit or becomes distorted, even the best knowledge struggles to take hold. When meaning is examined and coherent, action becomes steadier, wiser, and more durable over time.

Many contemporary disciplines rightly recognize the importance of meaning. They explore purpose, values, narratives, and fulfillment, often offering valuable insights and practices. Logoteleology enters this landscape with a distinct focus: it treats meaning not only as an experience or aspiration, but as a structure that can be examined, evaluated, and responsibly aligned. Its contribution lies in making visible how interpretations, beliefs, values, lived experience, attitudes, and aims come together to organize behavior and outcomes.

This work does not promise quick solutions to war, division, or institutional failure. It rests instead on a more grounded conviction: when meaning is clarified and responsibly aligned, different choices become possible—first for individuals, then for groups, and over time for societies. Lasting change rarely begins all at once. It begins by restoring coherence where meaning has become distorted or unseen.

This essay is part of an ongoing effort to make meaning visible, examinable, and practical. If these questions resonate with you, I invite you to continue the conversation through current and future essays and learning experiences.

Let us know what you think.

Would you like to see a short video of this article? If so, awesome! Click below.

Watch Video

Selected References & Influences

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. HarperBusiness.

Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Frankl, V. E. (1969). The Will to Meaning. New York, NY: New American Library.

Haynes, T. (n.d.). Work wellbeing: Human perspectives. Indeed Career Guide. Edited by J. Gafner. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/news/work-wellbeing-human-perspectives

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Marrero, L. A. (2013). The Path to a Meaningful Purpose: Psychological Foundations of Logoteleology. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.

Marrero, L. A., & Persuitte, D. (2022). Meaningful Purpose: A Primer in Logoteleology.  Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The Knowing–Doing Gap. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS: Fixing workplaces and careers one truth at a time. HarperBusiness.

Pfeffer, J. (2018). Dying for a paycheck: How modern management harms employee health and company performance—and what we can do about it. HarperBusiness.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. New York, NY: Free Press.

Winn, D. (2000). The Manipulated Mind: Brainwashing, Conditioning, and Indoctrination. Los Altos, CA: Malor Book

Wong, P. T. P. (2011). Positive Psychology 2.0: Towards a Balanced Interactive Model. Springer.

Gallup. (2000–2024). State of the Global Workplace Reports.