Engagement readiness and the commitment factor
I appreciate the ideas of Peter Drucker. In particular, his thinking about commitment struck me immediately. He says,
“Unless commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes…but no plans.”
This statement supports the notion that, in the context of readiness to engage, understanding organizational commitment is as important as understanding organizational capacity and expectations. It shapes the structure of engagement (e.g., resources, timing, etc.) and its function (e.g., level of engagement, phases of engagement, how the input will be used). In short, it shapes the plan. Without an understanding of organizational commitment, things like focus, team cooperation and engagement performance are put in jeopardy.
There are three forms that commitment takes – normative (have to), continuance (ought to) and, affective (want to) [1]. It is advantageous for all three to be present to support engagement readiness however, the combination of “have to” and “ought to” are typically most prominent. The “have to” form of commitment often shows up as a sense of obligation influenced by policy and, relationships with and expectations of the community. The “ought to” form often shows up as a recognition of the potential risk of not engaging.
A belief that engagement will be of benefit or value, the “want to”, is often overlooked when exploring readiness. In many cases it is taken for granted because we assume that when we engage we want to use the input in some way. However, accounting for its presence is critical to shaping the role engagement will play.
Examining the “want to” form of commitment allows the organization to be deliberate in answering the question – how will this engagement support the project and decision-making process? It encourages contemplation and confirmation of the benefit and value the engagement will offer. And it foreshadows the degree of cooperation within and championing of [2] the engagement initiative.
While things like policy and risk often take the driver’s seat in our understanding of commitment, “want to” can be likened to a car’s GPS. It guides the engagement readiness route. The diagram below offers an overview of the three forms of commitment and key questions to help explore organizational commitment. It is my hope that it will help foster some good discussions as part of your readiness practice.
[1] J. P. Meyer and N. J. Allen (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
[2] Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P. (2002) Commitment to Organizational Change: Extension of a Three-Component Model Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 3, 474–487.