It is easy to perceive how the need to have a staff "committed" to the company to achieve goals and objectives is repeatedly repeated. It is usually a compulsory topic in talks, courses and workshops to highlight "commitment" as an indispensable requirement in the formation of high-performance teams, successful organizations and optimal management models.
The «commitment» is observed as an unconditional way of facing the challenges that both the processes and the administration demand of the human capital, as well as the maximum expression of the bond between employers and employees. The true meaning of such a common word does not seem to be realized, which translates into a paradox of contemporary administration.
According to the Spanish VOX dictionary, the word "commitment" means, among other things, "obligation contracted, word given, faith pledged", indeed, if we do a simple decomposition exercise, the phrase "with promise" seems to emerge.
The above leads us, then, to ask ourselves several questions: Do we want to have a staff that works for an obligation contracted with the company? Is it managing people who give us their word for success? Do we want our people to pledge their faith to achieve the objectives of the organization? Or, simply, that it works well because you have promised it to us before and during your hiring.
The "commitment" arises from the old practice (still present) of the psychological contract with the employee, oriented to create fidelity by "gratitude" and "dependence" and not by cohesion and identification. It is worrying to observe how the commitment is spoken without stopping for a moment to observe what is really being demanded of the staff, what this contains in its content and, furthermore, that such requirement is endorsed as a plausible practice in current management.
Committing is forcing yourself. When the work is done by obligation, there is pressure, demotivation and the lack of quality is feasible. The answer is not in the commitment, it is in the identification. One of the most important elements attributed to leadership is precisely that the leader achieves such identification with his followers that they offer him loyalty and fidelity practically without demanding anything other than mutual benefit, and this principle is what should govern organizations.
People do not want to feel compelled to perform the task, the work is already demanding enough that there is an additional feeling that compromises the effort that is made, however, when the employee is identified with the task and with the entity for whom it is performed. complies, it is pleasant to him, creativity reaches high levels and the results are higher than expected.
It is easy to differentiate those workers who feel committed or identified with the company, even if it is to say that in practice both terms mean the same, here are some of the differences: Committed workers are faced with the expectation of job offers, either through print or electronic media, they strictly adhere to working hours and exceed them when the boss proposes them.
Although they know and manage quality, they tend not to add value to the process, unless they are required, since their task is to respond to the requirements as indicated. They don't avoid work, but they don't offer to do it. They tend to offer expressions in the third person when referring to the company where they work, trying not to link with it totally.
They highlight errors, they are able to perceive them, but they do not offer solutions. They are average employees, noted for the accuracy of their work and consistency, but rarely for the drive to change and improve.
When talking about the organization, they refer to the "bonuses" and "helps" that they have obtained from it as motivation to continue working. Now, the employees identified with the company feel it is part of themselves.
They are in constant search of quality and process improvements, they know and are involved in all those areas and activities where they can add value. They think ahead and feel responsible for helping to build it.
Time is a secondary factor, without falling into work addiction, they manage and control time according to priorities. They observe changes as a way to renew themselves, so if they do not observe their presence they promote it.
They speak of the company with a sense of ownership, they see themselves as part of the team, they promote leadership and they assume it according to the case. They usually stand out because they go beyond what is required, they know that the success of the company depends on the energy that is printed in its processes.
In other words, committed people feel that they must do their job, internalizing it as an inescapable and necessary sacrifice, they know that they have to do it because they have no other resource and this is reason enough to do the job. Employees identified with the company want to relate to the process, for them work is not an obligation but a contribution, a way to contribute to success.
It is very common to observe how companies flaunt their values, mission and vision, exposing them to their clients in order to express the orientation and moral basis they possess.
When human talent observes that such statements coincide with their expectations, that they are not only a banner to boost sales, but that in fact there is a deep conviction, this is usually compared to their values and goals, they seek the coincidence between each of them and that is precisely where identification is born.
To the extent that organizations offer their human capital a balance that achieves the common benefit, the commitment will disappear, people will not be forced to carry out the task, nor will any personnel be required to experience this feeling. Companies will have to fight so that the more than committed individual feels identified with them, adopts them in such a way that they carry out their work at ease and with optimism, knowing that in each step they are adding value to the process.
