Reflections and lessons about commitment (1)

The theme of the commitment of the people has been and remains one of the concepts on which gives more laps as we talk about leadership, people, attitudes, and competitive teams. And it is very clear relationship between commitment, productivity and retention of talent. This year, I guess because of the influence of the recession and why generational coexistence in organizations is now a tangible reality that I have seen many discussions about the commitment that has allowed me to build a little more than opinion on the concept. And I put on "electronic paper" my thoughts and learnings. Reflection will divide into two parts: the first reason for this post, I develop my views on the concept of commitment, and in the second, at the next post, I'll explain how I think it is possible to facilitate engagement of people from the leadership.

First, and I think that is something too easily forgotten, the commitment that a person acquires with something is a totally voluntary. Viewed with a radical perspective, the person has the right to decide what level and type of commitment you want to buy. It is impossible to force people to commit.

Maybe I should start by explaining what I mean by commitment. In my opinion, compromise is my level of car demand with my actions and decisions regarding the success of the organization (social environment), the success of the team which I belong (immediate environment) and my own success (intimate setting.) Therefore, the commitment is visible through my auto demand behavior, and is effective when I get a satisfactory balance between success in the three environments: social, close and intimate.

If my commitment is not balanced and focuses mainly on one of the environments, is when there are three types of malfunctions: the perversions (corrupt people or yoístas "), which will adversely affect the commitment of others, the frustrations (the negation of self and its needs and motives), which negatively impacting just my personal future will commit, and disorder (corporatism or "Department"), which creates inefficiencies, wastage of energy and emotional conflicts between people. These three shortcomings are responsible for the disaffection of the people.

The compromise, as an exercise of self and balance requirement, means giving and prioritize. And the criteria by which any person chooses to give up something, why else priority, are entirely personal and also changing the evolution of life from that person. It is therefore a mistake to expect to find or lead an environment of people constantly engaged and that they are in the same way.

When we prioritize and give account of a number of factors. Some are rational or tangible in each particular time, and others are intangible and more difficult to argue because they are intrinsic to our own beliefs or preferences. But in any case, the resignation or the prioritization, and therefore the commitment, are not generally free. We tend to commit to the success of the external environment (social and close) when we see respect for our personal success (our interests and our motives.) When in doubt about the respect for the success of our intimate setting, the chance of disaffection of the person increases. Expect free commitments of other people's vanity and naivete. Free commitments are a thing of heroes and heroines, and even heroic people "if any Hayles' heroism is rare and occurs in extreme situations or specific. Keep indefinitely in the time or trust that anyone might want to be heroic ... I do not know, I know.