The managers are supposed to be committed, but every time a greater commitment is expected from the rest of the workers with the company project. The truth is that when you try to get it, you don't always get it right. As long as there is a noticeable and noticeable distance between "us" and "them" in companies, the respective commitments cannot be expected to be comparable. The smartest companies have chosen to reduce the distance we were referring to, and try to share the image of the desired future, so that it constitutes a collective goal. Obviously, this is only possible from the authenticity, integrity and the example of good managers, who are many. A good manager knows how to win the adherence and commitment of his collaborators,how to achieve your best performance and how to create a climate of professional satisfaction. It is not necessary to remember that the persecuted prosperity happens through the organizational synergy; But it also seems obvious that workers who are emotionally separated from the company project are not going to assume an intrinsic commitment to the collective results.
When talking about the degree to which each of us contributes to the results of the organization (and even starting from a supposed harmony between the competence profile of the position and that of the person who occupies it), it seems that we relate it to elements such as satisfaction professional, motivation, intelligence, talent, knowledge, diligence and commitment. Although, at first glance, it might seem that all these concepts (and probably others that we have not mentioned) point to the same north, some reservations arise. Because talent cannot necessarily be assimilated to high performance, nor can it be inferred that high professional satisfaction always coincides with extraordinary motivation or contribution to results, nor do we believe that intelligence is always put at the service of the organization,neither knowledge always conquers ignorance, nor can we ensure that visible dissatisfaction will always generate poor performance.
The intrinsic commitment
But commitment (perhaps more than motivation itself) does seem like an effective catalyst for performance; That is why it is not surprising that it is often formulated as an outstanding corporate value in large companies: innovation, customer orientation, commitment to results… Obviously, we must be clear, at all times, with whom we are committed and what. It is possible, of course, to distinguish general levels of commitment: “they pay me, I work”; "I like my colleagues and my work, and I do the best I can"; “I think it's a stimulating project and I want to be part of it”… This last reflection is related to what we call “intrinsic commitment”. We have to agree that commitment -like motivation- is deeper and more decisive when it generates intrinsic will (free from “impurities”), beyond compliance.This feeling has to shape our daily effort; It is not a personal commitment to the boss (or bosses), but rather the commitment of both - of all - with the company project and its daily demands. When we drive our car on the highway, we pay attention to our immediate surroundings but we do not lose sight of the horizon. Whether the analogy is correct or not, we must pay attention to the commitment to the short and long term, because our performance must also be at the service of the present and the future.Whether the analogy is correct or not, we must pay attention to the commitment to the short and long term, because our performance must also be at the service of the present and the future.Whether the analogy is correct or not, we must pay attention to the commitment to the short and long term, because our performance must also be at the service of the present and the future.
A digression
No matter how musical and heavenly our previous words may seem, it does not escape us that, both managers and workers, can seem very committed to their companies without this preventing them from legitimately looking for another, in which they enjoy, for example, more power or greater economic benefit. But leaks can also logically be related to a lack of confidence in the future of the company, or lack of harmony with the Management. If an individual (wrong or not) disagrees with the ideas of the Directorate, he cannot feel very comfortable in the organization; in this case, sometimes what appears to be commitment is simply submission or compliance. It is already seen that the Management must not only have good ideas or strategies, but also communicate them in a convincing way to the rest of the organization, if it is to seek collective commitment.The Directorate certainly plays a fundamental role in consolidating people's commitment; it can encourage it and it can also block or stifle it, even with more or less awareness of it.
Commitment and performance
High performance built on misaligned stresses cannot be expected; We know that it is not so much about working hard, as about working well in the established direction and generating the desired results: if we were convinced that our work is good, well oriented, contributes to results and is recognized, that would feed back our commitment and our motivation, for the benefit of performance. Obviously we would also be more satisfied.
It seems that we have just reformulated the "Theory Y" of Douglas McGregor (among whose pupils, as the reader will recall, was Warren Bennis, great guru of leadership in the company). Seen this way, it would seem that, rather than encouraging the commitment of their people, well-organized companies should be careful not to discourage it: something like this says, with his usual irony, Scott Adams, when he talks about motivation. However, and as Daniel Goleman suggests in “Working with emotional intelligence”, companies that lack explicit references (vision, mission, values, strategy, etc.), leave little room for the transcendent commitment of their people. Indeed, as many organizations know well, the intrinsic emotional commitment passes through an attractive company project, formulated with authenticity, and open to dialogue;and it also goes through a rigorous reflection of all this in daily performance: the lack of authenticity would ruin the collective commitment. Let's say that, with its ingredients of loyalty, proactivity and subordination to collective interests, commitment to results appears to be a key element for improving performance, competitiveness and prosperity.
Commitment dimensions
Going deeper into the meaning of intrinsic commitment, we believe that this intrapersonal feeling generates attitudes and behaviors encompassed in dimensions such as the following:
- Spirit of belonging. Responsibility. Proactivity. Eagerness to excel.
For both managers and workers, the spirit of belonging implies submitting to the rules of coexistence, sharing common objectives and subordinating their own interests to the collective ones. It also supposes an attitude of collaboration with others, sharing tasks and knowledge.
When speaking of responsibility, we try to refer to behaviors characterized by loyalty, self-discipline, integrity, authenticity, and consistency. This dimension of commitment is also desirable in all the people in the organization, although it is fundamental in the management personnel, who are the object of permanent observation.
When we speak of proactivity (far from reactivity and beyond preactivity) as a contribution to the future we seek, we are thinking of attitudes and attributes such as initiative, diligence, optimism, perseverance and anticipation. All of this may be more aimed at management personnel, but it is equally desirable in all members of the organization, each one from their job position.
And finally, when we refer to the desire to improve, we see it composed of traits such as self-criticism, continuous improvement, lifelong learning, the desire to achieve and receptivity to feedback. Each individual, from her position in the organization, has to participate in this effort for the collective benefit. Commitment moves us, therefore, to personal and professional development, at the service of shared goals.
conclusion
Managers can be attributed a high degree of commitment to their companies, but the degree decreases when the compensation - financial or not - that the individual receives does. However, a greater commitment of the workers, and a consequent better performance, constitute a clear necessity and inevitably go through a new cultural conception of the company, in tune with the so-called knowledge era (considered already in a certain decline the industrial era and almost agricultural era forgotten). Cultural changes are oriented towards this purpose and aim at a more intelligent and synergistic functioning of the organization, which values all individual contributions and in which the distance between “us” and “them” is reduced.The intelligent company of the 21st century cannot be conceived without a solid commitment from its people - managers and workers - behind shared goals, including that of the individual's own development.
