The commitment… consisting of the deep assumption of an obligation that must be defined, seems to materialize in a proactive attitude behind the shared goals in the company; but there is room for much reflection on this encouraging and guiding element of our efforts.
When speaking of the degree to which each of us contributes to the results of his organization (and starting from a sufficient harmony between the position and the person who occupies it), it seems that we relate it very directly with elements such as responsibility, motivation, intelligence, professional satisfaction, talent, diligence and, among others, commitment.
We are dealing with complex and interrelated concepts that must be interpreted rigorously, without adulteration; In these paragraphs we are going to stop at the last one cited: commitment. Consisting of the deep assumption of an obligation that must be defined, it seems to materialize in a proactive attitude after the shared goals in the company; but there is room for much reflection on this encouraging and guiding element of our efforts.
It is not a matter of -commitment- an innate personal skill or ability or to acquire, but, more precisely, a feeling to cultivate or develop, generating positive attitudes and behaviors. Something indefinite in the past, the commitment seemed to come marking the border between the "we" and the "they" in organizations; but perhaps today we should think of a compromise compatible with the questioning of the status quo and, of course, definable. In a commitment that extends to the entire organization. In a commitment to something concrete: explicit and shared goals.
Commitment can also be seen as a strength of character that, like others - the desire to learn, the wide-mindedness, creativity, integrity, prudence, diligence and some more - involves the intervention of the will, to decide our performance or posture in a scenario that demands it. We decide to commit, or not to; And when we commit, our efforts are focused, our interests are subordinated, and our behavior is adapted. There are people more willing to commit than others, and in doing so they do not erode their freedom but exercise it.
Not all companies expect full organizational commitment from all their people, and some may even limit themselves to asking their managers and managers, depending on the case, for responsibility, loyalty, results, collusion, proactivity, imagination, business contacts, unlimited working hours. work, or other specific or particular manifestations of commitment. However, there does seem to be a general trend towards collective commitment (managers and workers), and of course the management gurus postulate the emotional activation of people behind business goals: I could see this at the Expomanagement´2004 in Madrid (Peters, Covey, Bedbury, Maguire, Teerlink, Senge…).
What moves our will and what do we commit ourselves to? Or, to begin with, what do we call commitment, in our work? With my own formulated here, I only intend to encourage the reader's reflections, especially regarding the types of business goals that we decide -or not- to assume as our own.
What do we call commitment at work
According to the dictionary, commitment is understood as an obligation contracted; but located in a work environment of large or medium company, it is worth doing an applied reading and talking about levels or types of commitment:
- “I get paid, I come every day and do my job”; “I like my colleagues and my job, and I do the best I can”; “opportunities arise for me to learn and develop; part of him"…
Workers of a hundred years ago were not always expected to approach the most authentic level of commitment (the one formulated last), but already in the final decades of the 20th century it seemed desirable that this idea be present both in managers and in workers: be part of the company project.
So, while each limiting ourselves to the level of responsibility of the position held in the organization, in addition to giving time, attention, intention and even a little heart, some large companies today expect us to align our goals with theirs, and to achieve our goals. professional achievement contributing to the community. I will refer to this organizational commitment, already studied among other experts by Meyer, Allen, Baker, Mathieu or Zajac; But I will do it in my language as a former worker in a large company, a witness to the changes, and a modest human resources consultant.
We are already seeing that one can speak of commitment both physically, cognitively and emotionally (not to mention here the spiritual); But, with some possible exceptions, we are not asked to unbalance our family, social and work life, even when we occupy managerial positions. Of course: that the presence is full in the time dedicated. (Well, maybe there are excesses: I have been told that a large company has set up its golf course so that managers go to play on the weekends, and that managers now feel compelled…).
Giving in to hindsight again, in the past and for workers, it was almost forbidden to think; Putting a heart into work was not frowned upon either… especially if the boss didn't. Or put another way: performance was not expected to generate positive emotions of a transcendent nature, and not even of an autotelic origin; so these emotions were often viewed with reservations and prevention. Now, although we also find different currents of opinion, it is recognized that emotions are valuable resources, and emotional intelligence is making its way, sometimes with some difficulty.
At this point in the article, I have felt the need to get up and go see "The practice of emotional intelligence", by Daniel Goleman: "The essence of commitment is to tune our objectives with the goals of the organization, thus generating a commitment strongly emotional… ”. And more: "Those who estimate and embrace the goals of an organization can not only make a great effort on behalf of it, but are also willing to make personal sacrifices when necessary."
I would gladly reproduce this section of the book here. There are things like these: "Companies or organizations that lack an explicit and clearly formulated mission, or whose statements in this regard are mere public relations ruses, provide very little opportunity for engagement." Insisting that the authentic commitment that we have been talking about stems from the emotional bond, Goleman reminds us that the same adverse circumstances can be experienced with some despair, as burdensome and stressful, by the uncommitted, while committed people, who grow up before pressures and challenges, they can live without loss of satisfaction (whether they are managers or workers).
It is evident that every day there are obligations that we attend to cold, but I have resorted to Goleman because he has certainly been appealing to the emotional dimension of commitment: the alignment of people with the goals and values of the organization. The repeated idea of “shared vision” - one of the disciplines that Peter Senge spoke to us about - is but one more expression of this emotional bond. It is not about abiding by the objectives of the future, but about assuming and sharing them: such is the commitment that is demanded of us. One can contract this maximum obligation from the limits of his responsibility, or he can simply "fulfill" his work.
The latter is, of course, the natural option of those who feel excluded or disconnected from the decisions that affect them, of those who view concerned corrupt behavior by their superiors, of whom they know that they are victims of an upcoming cut in their workforce, of those who perceive the underlying cynicism in internal communication…; but the ideal is that there is nothing of this, and that, beyond "fulfilling", we contribute decisively to the collective goals.
It may be thought, if they stop at parallel reflections, that the generalized demand for emotional commitment is not consistent with the excessive distances between the "we" and the "they"; it is also not consistent with mass layoffs or temporary contracts; which is also not consistent with the spectacle of mercenary CEOs who enrich themselves and their entire offspring while their companies go down; that it is also inconsistent with the flight of senior managers to be better paid by the competition; that often the goals formulated are for the gallery while the true purposes of the company are different… That seems to me. Without a doubt, it is healthy and enriching to live intrinsically committed to some goal, both professionally and personally,but we have to be cautious and insightful when giving our trust, and then adopt the goals that are proposed to us.
Our will
To commit ourselves in the way we refer to, no one can compel us, just as we do not allow them to force us to marry or have children. Clarence Francis, who was an adviser to President Eisenhower, said: “You can buy people's time, their physical presence in one place, and even a certain number of muscle movements per hour. But you don't buy their enthusiasm, they don't buy their loyalty, they don't buy the devotion of their hearts: you have to earn that. ” So you commit freely, especially because you are attracted to the goals of the organization. And why do these goals appeal to you?
Psychologists speak of "self-interest", or the "vital issue", to refer to what a person focuses his will above all else, and the means he uses for it. In the management literature there is talk of particular design, of purpose. Robert K. Cooper tells us: "Design is the inner compass of our life and work." If our purpose in life is in tune, or coexists in harmony, with the objectives and strategies of our company, we are closer to the effectiveness and satisfaction pursued. For managers, the purpose is essential, and if they are not very defined, they should adopt one that connects to the vision or mission of the company to which they contribute. You already know about the doctor: depending on how you look at it, their mission is to prescribe, or, more effectively and enrichingly, to contribute to the quality of life of their patients and their environment.
People who have a desire of this nature can give meaning to everything that happens to them: it will be positive if it brings them closer to their goal, or negative if it takes them away. Whoever lacks a defined desire, has more trouble interpreting events and, in general, loses positive emotions. As Professor Csikszentmihalyi points out to us, when a person's psychic energy is put at the service of his life theme, consciousness achieves harmony and the individual fulfills itself. We can accept that committing is emotionally intelligent: it "fills" our professional life; Perhaps that is why we activate our will to commit ourselves.
Of course, some reader will think, on the one hand, that there are goals and "goals", and on the other hand, that this whole theory is adulterated in real life, and that sometimes what the will decides is to pretend commitment and expect several things: a good salary rise, a rapid rise and the attainment of power (perhaps to use it for their own benefit)… Without ruling out that, once at the top, the executive will earn more money, precisely from the competing company. It can also happen that the commitment is authentic at first, and becomes adulterated or corrupted later… But let's continue; Let us continue with the most virtuous hypothesis: the integrity of people, be they managers or workers.
What do we commit to?
We share - we have said - the goals of the organization, and this moves us to work for the short and long term. When we drive our car on the road, we attend to our immediate surroundings but we do not lose sight of the horizon, nor do we forget the destination. Whether the analogy is correct or not, we must attend to the short and long term, ensuring that what we do every day brings us closer to - and does not take away from - the so-called “vision”. So, although the managers approach every day what their agenda dictates and also something unforeseen, their focus is on the goals for the end of the year and, perhaps especially, on those of the desired future (leading the market, consolidating innovations introduced, etc.).
So healthy does this way of working seem that the formulation and assumption of objectives was also extended to workers, in not a few large companies, in the 80s and 90s.
I am afraid that things would not work well -the frequent adulteration of the management system by objectives is known-, but the fact is that we are seeking commitment to the results to be obtained, beyond the regulated daily performance. Now, on what or who does the desired result depend? Indeed, as the reader will be thinking, sometimes we are asked for results that do not depend on us, and not even that we work as a team… Sometimes, the Senior Management seems more busy in mergers and acquisitions than in the running of the company., and a certain gap appears in the coordination.
It does not serve to prolong the day in the afternoon - not even as a defensive argument - if the objectives pursued are not achieved. We work hard every day to achieve the medium and long-term results to which we are committed, but this only works in collective synergy, under inclusive leadership. The Directorate certainly plays a fundamental role in consolidating people's commitment; It can encourage it, but it can also block or suffocate it, with more or less awareness of it. In line with this, Tom Peters himself points out that people have a good nose for detecting commitment - or their absence - in leaders; if they pursue goals other than those stated, you end up knowing. I also remember Peter Senge saying that the Directorate would have to start by ceasing to demotivate people.
Before moving on, we can focus a little more on the goals of the organization, beyond the annual goals. I have experienced things like "leading the Telecommunications market in Spain", or "getting the EFQM quality award", which very legitimately interested the CEO of my company in the 90s, and surely other CEOs in other sectors: At that time there were great obsessions to lead markets, and there are still today. But there will be those who align themselves better with goals or "visions" of greater social orientation, such as "each person with their mobile phone", or "Internet for each student", or "flat screens for everyone", or "silent appliances", or "Clean energy", or "wheels without punctures", or "houses without leaks", or "smart telecommunication networks", or "ergonomic mattresses", or "dentures without caries",or "a world without AIDS", or "shoes without pain", or "taps without drips", or "zero-defect medical diagnostic instruments", or "a harmless alternative to tobacco", or "protection of nature", or "Buttonless shirts", or "safe computers", or "punishments for corruption (instead of prizes for ethics)", or "socks without tomatoes", or "non-polluting cars"…
Let us join the contribution to the welfare and social progress, or to the legitimate ambition of the Board of Directors of the company, or to the mere survival of it, how does our commitment materialize? What influences does it generate? Thinking of a knowledge worker or a middle-low level manager, I believe that the commitment, if authentic, takes the form of courage or determination, which is perceived in attitudes and actions such as the following:
- Carry out our tasks diligently and carefully. Ensure their contribution to collective results. Neutralize any circumstance or event that puts the goals at risk. Guide, where appropriate, the actions of our collaborators. Ensure their alignment with common goals. the rules and methods established for professional coexistence Subordinate self-interests to the collectives Cultivate corporate values Collaborate with others Exercise constructive criticism, intelligently formulated Make the information and knowledge available to us Flow Be loyal, honest and consistent.Be proactive or proactive, far from reactivity or inactivity. Combine the perception of reality with optimism. Persevere in the face of difficulties. Overcome ourselves every day. Pursue continuous improvement and innovation.Represent our organization with dignity before third parties, Balance the personal relationship with the execution of tasks, Contribute to the quality of life at work.
The reader can complete this list because I have improvised it with the first 20 ideas that emerged: I leave it open. They are, so to speak, some indicators of commitment. If we wanted to measure the commitment of people, we would have to observe behaviors like the previous ones and verify their authenticity.
Loss of commitment
With what has already been said about organizational commitment, we can agree that it is made solid by the catalysis of elements such as trust, alignment with goals, progress towards them, internal relations, cohesion and coherence of the community, satisfaction general, the prevailing ethics and justice, internal recognition, the social prestige of the organization, etc. And we can also agree that it would be lost by weakening its foundations; we will talk about this now. In truth, there may be doubts until we decide to commit ourselves fully, but in your case, the commitment is usually quite automatic.
Our commitment can fade for endogenous and exogenous reasons; Among the latter, we can highlight some perhaps more frequent:
- Corruption of executives Deviation from original goals Loss of validity thereof Lack of transparency of the organization Failure in results Feeling of being excluded or excluded Disagreement with tactics or methods.
Endogenous reasons for breaking commitments are equally important, but may vary more from person to person. I have stopped at this about the fragility of the commitment because I think that organizations have more problems to keep it in their people than to get it initially. In any case, it must be stressed that not all commitments really are: that is, that one could also speak of false commitments or extrinsic commitments.
Final reflection
We already know that some companies seem more concerned about desirable social well-being than others, and that, of the latter, some pursue economic profit even if it is precisely at the cost of that well-being. Here I would insist on the automobile analogy: I believe that a company can lead the Telecommunications market, the e-learning market, or another market, if it takes its gaze further, to broader horizons; But if he stays to pursue the lead, it may be more difficult to achieve it. In the face of obsessions with excessive growth, we could, for example, begin to consider it valid to bribe those who make purchasing decisions, because that would bring us closer to the goal…
There are those who think that in business the end justifies the means, but the truth is that, as I read in a column by Juan F. San Andrés, director of Oracle, “ethics is the great creation of humanity, to make possible the coexistence". Business and ethics are often declared incompatible, and in fact the media report cases of high corruption in large companies to us almost every day. When corruption reigns, the organization detects it and either "due obedience" undermines our integrity and self-esteem, or our rejection turns against us; of course there is no longer room for intrinsic engagement.
One believes that the prosperity of the organizations passes through the efficiency after goals of social interest, by the quality of life at work and, in short, by the choice of the virtuous circle, far from the vicious one characterized by psychic entropy, nervous tension, the empire of the short term, the camouflage of bad results, the degeneration of good uses and customs… There is room for other beliefs, but one believes that the common good is more nutritious than the individual.
In closing, if you are fortunate enough to belong to an organization that aims at prosperity and the common good, do not hesitate to commit yourself; And if presented with the opportunity to straighten a failed or crippled business, it also seems like a stimulating goal. In short, it seemed to me that this was a topic for reflection and even for debate, but I did not intend to exhaust it but to encourage it. I hope, as I was saying, to have achieved some dose of assent on the part of the reader, but be encouraged to dissent or open new avenues of reflection.
