Are We Mission Bypassing? A Question for Social Impact Leaders
I’ve had some conversations recently with folks in the social impact space about seemingly disparate issues:
A lack of accountability in a purpose driven organization because employees think providing tough feedback means they don’t believe in the mission.
Being treated unfairly by a purpose driven leader and asked to do work for free (for the mission!).
Well-meaning social impact folks asking to “pick your brain” but not reciprocating support in any way.
In my own world: Responding to an arduous RFP for an organization committed to equity but realizing how inequitable their RFP process was.
Different issues, but with an underlying connection. These are all versions of what I’ve started referring to as “mission bypassing” - spiritual bypassing for the corporate world.
What is spiritual bypassing?
If you’re unfamiliar with the term, it was first coined in the early 1980s by psychologist and Buddhist teacher John Welwood. He noticed that many people in his spiritual community were using their practices to avoid dealing with psychological wounds or "messy" human emotions.Spiritual bypassing is the tendency to use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks. In simpler terms, it is a defense mechanism where "the divine" is used as a shield against "the human." I remember during the unrest after the murder of George Floyd there were calls for “love and light” on social media (mostly from white folks). That was spiritual bypassing - avoiding the discomfort of systemic change and silencing justified anger by prematurely calling for peace and unity.
The Corporate Version: Mission Bypassing
Mission bypassing is the tendency to use a company’s mission and vision of a better world to avoid the operational and human realities that might not be in line with the mission. In the examples above, the mission wasn’t just a goal - it was a shield. When an organization committed to equity creates an arduous, unpaid RFP process, they are bypassing the relative reality of the labor they are extracting in favor of the "noble" end result. We see this same pattern on a massive scale with figures like Adam Neumann, co-founder of WeWork, who once famously said: "Our valuation and size today are much more based on our energy and spirituality than it is on a multiple of revenue." That is the ultimate bypass - using "spirituality" to ignore the relative truth of financial sustainability and common sense. He even used the mission to justify the "passion tax," claiming: "I believe that when you do what you love, you find higher levels of satisfaction that can compensate for lower income." When we hear that, our "unlearning" bells should be ringing. That isn’t regenerative; it’s extractive.
Insight vs. Embodiment
These organizations are all choosing the feeling of being "good" over the hard work of being just. It’s as though an organization can do all the work to envision a better future, align on their role in creating that future, declare a mission and integrate it into their messaging - and stop there. Because stopping there feels good. It feels wonderful to declare a mission you believe in, to get a whole host of people behind it, and to feel alignment in what you’re working towards. And it feels good to announce that to the world. But those missions and visions are often outside of the current system we live in, so the task of actually embodying who you want to be within that system is especially hard. It’s one thing to proclaim it, and it’s another thing to be it, to live it. It’s the difference between insight and embodiment. It’s a bit like when you attend a really inspiring conference, where the keynote speaker brings you to tears, and you feel a real buzz among the community. Then you go home and get back into your same routine. No follow up, no changes in behavior, on to the next. Real change takes time, it takes daily practice, it takes commitment, it takes sacrifice. It’s hard. And it often doesn’t feel good.
Allowing for the Messy Journey
The antidote to mission bypassing isn't being a "perfect" company. In fact, the demand for perfection is often what leads to the bypass in the first place. If we feel we must be the perfect B Corp or the perfect leader, we become terrified of the "ugly" bits. We stop being open to feedback because our identity is so wrapped up in being the "good guys." It’s easy to point out how companies are falling short of their grand proclamations for change, especially in an era of keyboard warriors and cancel culture. But that’s not my goal here. Most of these organizations and leaders are well intentioned. They likely aren’t aware that their behaviors and actions are out of line with their stated values. This is where it gets messy. We have to move away from the black and white thinking that equates a bad action with a bad person. In this work, true accountability is an act of care. We must point out the missteps because we believe in the mission and we want the leaders to live up to it.
The Long Game of Alignment
We also have to acknowledge the long term nature of having a vision for change. Both the internal and external change required to get there takes time. We can’t expect an organization to declare a mission and vision and immediately align all their actions and behaviors with it. Can we give grace to a company or leader that behaves in a way that’s out of line with their mission? Can a leader be honest about their missteps, and open to hearing about the missteps they aren’t aware of?We should actually expect missteps. Then comes the real work: the long, messy work of accountability. Enlightenment doesn’t happen overnight - neither does our creation of a better world.
Choosing "Alive" Over "Good"
In our fast-paced world of high expectations for performance and rampant perfectionism, is it possible to reframe what it means to be purpose-driven? These forces are all around us, we live in this system even if we’re actively trying to change it. So choosing to behave and act differently takes more energy, more intention, and more messiness. To bypass that messiness feels good. But is the goal to feel good? I’m much more interested in feeling alive.Maybe being mission-driven shouldn’t always feel "good." Maybe it should feel like difficult conversations, conflict, and the exhaustion of truly trying to do things differently.I’ll leave you with a question I’ve been asking myself: Would you rather feel "good" (the bypass) or would you rather feel alive (the mess)? Impact isn't a destination we reach by checking boxes. It’s a way of being that requires us to stay present to the human reality of our work, even when it’s inconvenient for our brand.
Recommended Posts
1/29/2026
My Nervous System Wanted a Gun. My Values Wanted a Network.
