The truth is that some things that we read about leadership - perhaps the loudest buzzword of the moment in management literature - in the company, remind us more of McGregor's Theory X, than his most suitable Theory Y, perhaps the origin of this cultural changes of the 90s. The truth is that commitment is essential in the organizations of today's economy…, at least while it lasts (commitment). We have known, by the way, the first executives who, without having spent two years in their company, have gone to the most direct competitor, with the same position (perhaps more salary), after preaching the commitment among their followers.
Recently, an SME worker told me that he would like to get more involved, commit more, that he would like to contribute more to the prosperity of his company (in which he had only been a short time), but that his boss, one of the owners, did not left that he was hiding information from him, perhaps to neutralize his suggestions and criticisms; that he restricted information, perhaps so as not to reveal how bad things were being done; who seemed to fear their opinions and initiatives, precisely because they were wise. This comment came to me at the same time as reading some articles on the commitment of managers and workers, and encouraged me to reflect.
When in the company we talk about the contribution of each person to the collective results, terms such as responsibility, motivation, intelligence, competence, talent, diligence and, among others, commitment arise. We are faced with complex and interrelated concepts that we have to interpret rigorously; in these paragraphs we will stop, yes, in the last one cited: commitment. Through commitment, which aims at our will, we generate an intrinsic obligation that must be well identified and subjected to a reciprocal analysis.
I have observed that some of our national experts, those belonging to the club of the so-called top ten - perhaps a kind of unofficial national management establishment - have been speaking and writing frequently about compromise, and it should not be free; It is certainly a subject of which there is much to say. I myself, with a certain boldness, took up the subject in 2002. Then I remembered that, as professionals, we have to commit ourselves “to shared individual and collective goals”, which naturally encompasses both quantitative and qualitative results (customer satisfaction). It seemed important to me to emphasize it then, although perhaps in practice we have always linked the commitment “with the company” and even “with the boss”.
Within the field of feelings, attitudes and behaviors, I focused, in fact, six years ago, on some strengths in which it seemed to me that commitment was unfolding in daily action. I stood out then:
- The spirit of community. The responsibility. The proactivity. The desire to excel.
The spirit of community meant submitting to the rules of coexistence, sharing common goals and subordinating their own interests to the collectives; It also involved an attitude of collaboration with others, sharing tasks and knowledge. By responsibility, I meant behaviors characterized by loyalty, self-discipline, integrity, and consistency. With proactivity, he aimed at initiative, diligence, optimism, perseverance, and anticipation. Finally, I identified the desire to excel, to remember that commitment moves us to personal and professional development, serving shared goals and the organization's own development.
A review of engagement
I read, for example, carefully a recent article by the prestigious expert José Aguilar López. I was interested because it highlighted the stable nature of the commitment and because it said things like: "They demand and generate commitment that, in turn, they commit themselves: with their market, with their clients and, of course, with their employees." I believe, yes, that in his career, the individual will celebrate an attractive, professionally stimulating project, but will also link his commitment to perceived reciprocity, with a certain continuity over time.
It does not seem that the commitment should be discussed without making clear what we are committing ourselves to. We can consider that we do it with the collective interests, with the business goals, with the prosperity of the organization: professionalism would move us, whether we were managers or we were skilled workers. But it is also possible to think that a company hires people for special missions, to obey a boss, to carry out a certain task, for a limited time…, without demanding an organizational commitment. Perhaps we could not expect much more than competition and submission, if we perceived workers as mere employees, subordinates, resources, followers, collaborators… It would be something else to see them and treat them, in their case, as professionals, as human capital,what seems a demand of the knowledge and innovation economy.
Certainly, there are companies (and bosses) that seek obedience from their employees, and others, intelligence. The former focus on power and the others perhaps more on knowledge. If one is to wait for instructions, one can only commit to obeying in the best way; If you commit to generating results, then there is room to apply intelligence to all your resources.
It could be said that in the past, commitment, as we understand it, had been marking the border between “we” and “them” in organizations, that is, between managers and workers; But perhaps today we should think of a commitment that can be extended to all people, in a company of committed individuals, in a group that is aligned (and not alienated) and synergistic behind prosperity goals. The division of people, far from that of leaders and followers, could be formulated in another way: management professionals and professionals in their respective technical and functional fields.
Naturally, the degree of commitment can be different for each person, and thus expressions such as the following, from least to greatest:
- “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.” “I have opportunities to learn and develop. part of it. "" I assume convinced collective responsibilities after the results.
Fifty years ago, workers were not always expected to identify with the company, but already in the final decades of the twentieth century it seemed desirable that this idea be present in both managers and workers: being part of the company project. So, even though we each limit ourselves to the level of responsibility of the position held in the organization, in addition to giving time, attention, intention and even some intuition-heart, some (perhaps not all) companies today expect us to align our goals with the theirs, and that we achieve our professional achievement by contributing to the community. To this organizational commitment - levels 4 (workers) and 5 (managers) indicated -, already studied among other experts by Meyer, Allen, Baker, Mathieu or Zajac, we refer to as optimal.
But no one would feel very compromised if he had to just obey, or if, for example, he observed corrupt behavior in executives: he would think that, rather than compromise, he is asked for complicity. We have certainly known the excessive enrichment of some first executives while their companies were visibly impoverished. Peter Drucker himself highlighted in one of his latest books the blatant greed of executives of our time.
More about engagement
We can see commitment as a strength of character that, like others - the desire to learn, open-mindedness, creativity, integrity, prudence, diligence and some more - points to the will to decide our action or posture in a scenario that demands it. We decide to commit, or not to; And when we commit, our efforts are oriented, our interests are subordinated and our behavior is modulated. There are people more willing to compromise than others, and in doing so they do not limit their freedom but they manifest it.
When consulting “The practice of emotional intelligence”, by Daniel Goleman, we read: “The essence of commitment is to tune our objectives with the goals of the organization, thus generating a strongly emotional commitment…”. And also: "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." And even more: "Companies or organizations that lack an explicit and clearly formulated mission, or whose declarations on the matter are mere public relations tricks, offer very few opportunities for commitment."
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 without cold or heat, 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 the so-called intelligent organizations seem to demand 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 none of this, and that, beyond "fulfilling", we contribute decisively to professionally attractive collective goals.
It may be thought, if the reader pauses in parallel reflections, that the generalized demand for emotional commitment is not consistent with the excessive distances between the "we" and the "they", not to mention about the supposed leaders and the supposed followers; 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 all their 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 must be cautious and insightful in granting our trust and adherence, and adopting the goals set for 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, your mission is to prescribe, or, more effectively and enrichingly,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. Those who lack a definite desire, have more trouble interpreting events and, in general, they lose positive emotions. As Professor Csikszentmihalyi points out, when the psychic energy of a person is put at the service of his vital subject, the consciousness achieves harmony, and the individual, fulfillment. 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?
Let me remember - you will soon see why - statements by a well-known winemaker from Rioja who 30 years ago set out to increase his production and spread his best wine around the world: “To achieve this, it was necessary to put in place a well-thought-out plan 10 years from now. It was obvious - Don Julio Faustino Martínez said in the Wine and Gastronomy magazine - that the basic and primary objective was to obtain a land of exceptional quality, to plant the best varieties of wine from La Rioja… We had to de-scour the entire land… Finally, we had to drain, manure and disinfect the soil in several plots and do a good job of deforestation… ".
Don Julio seemed to be proud not only of having successfully achieved his goal, but of the work done for it; He did not speak of economic results but of professional achievements, and this seems to be the most frequent in the wine sector, not only in Spain. But also in the economic press, statements can be found in this vocational direction of offering satisfaction to the expectations of consumers. In El País-Negocios, to put one among many possible examples, a text appeared in 2006 about the Bodegas López Hermanos (those of Málaga Virgen). We could read: "More than 120 years of a difficult and exciting history", "The winery bets for the first time in its history on a red wine (Pernales), made from the Syrah variety", "… four varieties exclusively: Pedro Ximénez, Chardonnay,Muscat and Syrah ”,“… the famous Málaga Virgen or La Quina San Clemente, indicated in those times to whet children's appetites ”.
However, I also found reports and statements (2004) from executives of some well-known wineries (Bodegas Vinartis, with table wines such as Cumbres de Gredos and others of high quality such as Pata Negra, then chaired by Don Miguel Canalejo, well-known financier), which were unusual for me: "Spanish wine has a problem of competitiveness abroad: Denominations of Origin" (Expansión, in June); "The objective is to increase sales in 2004 and obtain an EBITDA of 15 million, 17.1% more" (Expansión, in June); "The estimated ebitda for 2004 amounts to 14.5 million, which represents an increase of 20.8%" (Cinco Días, in December); “Cumbres de Gredos prepares to disembark in the Rioja denomination” (Business strategy, in December);"Next year we will strengthen ourselves with the purchase of wineries in Rioja and Ribera del Duero" (Expansión, in June); "Cumbres de Gredos prepares to land in the US market" (Cinco Días, in December). It was about the wine sector, but the intentions seemed different.
There are certainly entrepreneurs, managers and professionals who try to achieve the highest quality and competitiveness of their products or services (earning money as a consequence), and others who are mainly oriented to financial parameters, that is, to generate benefits with professional activity, lived this as a means; this with all the intermediate possibilities and without undermining legitimacy. (It would perhaps be a digression for us to stop now in remembering that Don Miguel had to sell Vinartis in 2007, at a price significantly lower than that paid by these wineries in 2003).
The above serves to suggest that perhaps a good professional prefers to display his commitment in a more autotelic company (those of the first type), rather than in an exotelic company, oriented above all to figures; But we must not rule out that there are also good technical professionals in companies with an exothelical profile, as there were at ITT in Geneen's time (allow me to draw here on my personal experience at ITT, where I was a modest employee in the 1970s, but I was able to live with magnificent Spanish professionals at the Madrid Research Center: I remember Rafael Burriel, for example).
We share - we have said - the "professional" 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 (win clients, lead the market, consolidate the innovations introduced, etc.).
So healthy seems this way of working, 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 system is known management by objectives-, but the fact is that the commitment to the results to be obtained is being encouraged, beyond the daily performance of tasks. Now, on what, or by whom, 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.
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.
Commitment materialization
I would insist on the necessary reciprocity of the commitment, so that if the company considers us a mere inevitable cost, we will take care to adjust; But let's keep imagining the best scenario: intelligent organization. Thus, the best commitment relationship would catalyze behaviors 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 could be quite automatic, if necessary.
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, excluded or underestimated Disagreement with tactics or the methods.
Endogenous reasons for breaking commitments are equally important, but may vary more from person to person. I have stopped in this from the fragility of the commitment because I believe that the 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.
Of course - I do not know if this reflection fits here, or should have been done before -, I would like to dwell on the fact that it may be difficult to expect or maintain the commitment of those whom we visibly see as mere resources, employees, collaborators, followers or subordinates, and of who only seek obedience without qualms. I say this because from some of our top ten (the apparent establishment I was talking about) thoughts like these come out: “a good manager-leader is one who knows how to get the best from his collaborators”; "A good manager-leader is one who makes subordinates obey convinced and happy", "a good manager-leader will not expect an employee to obey him out of fear or for a reward -as a manager would-, but motivated by the real value of action "," leadership and coaching become the same "…
If this is the mental model that guides the conception of training programs, perhaps we have found the explanation of the results achieved; Perhaps we can better explain the lack of managerial quality that Juan Carlos Cubeiro talks about. I don't know: think about it. I believe that relations should not be established on the basis of command and obedience, or on the basis of the exemplary manager and the worker who imitates it, but in accordance with the growing weight of knowledge in the economy of the 21st century, which seems to be the economy of knowledge and innovation, economy of professionalism for all.
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 remains to pursue the lead, it may be more difficult to achieve it. In the face of obsessions with excessive growth, a company could, for example, begin to consider it valid to bribe those who make purchasing decisions, because that would bring it closer to the goal…
There will be those who think that in business the end justifies the means, but the truth is that, as I read long ago in a column by Juan F. San Andrés, director of Oracle, “ethics is the great creation of humanity, to make coexistence possible ”. 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 organizations depends on the effectiveness of social interest goals, the quality of life at work and, in short, the option 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 have not tried to exhaust the first but to encourage the second. I hope I have achieved some dose of assent from the reader, but be encouraged to dissent or open new avenues of reflection. Thanks for your attention.
