what are we talking about?
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:45 am
When we talk about commitments,
In general, people are different in terms of the interpretations they make of things. Each of us gives meaning to what we do or say based on our experiences, life stories, learning and the environment or cultural context in which we have developed. That is why, when faced with any concept that arises in a conversation, it is good to ask yourself about the interpretation that the person who mentions that term is giving it, that is, what their interpretation is of what they are saying.
On one occasion, while talking to Gabriel, a businessman in the tourism sector, he told me that he felt that his staff was not committed and that this was causing him many problems. When I asked him why he said this and what he would like to see happen in his company, he told me that unfortunately his workers did not have the “shirt on” and therefore they worked doing the minimum possible, they did not have a good attitude towards clients and the coordination between the work teams was terrible, which forced him to change his staff to find people who were really committed. By the way, a situation that I have heard on more than one occasion and unfortunately also with a rather limited analysis of the situation from the person who should be exercising leadership and who does not take charge of the conversations that need to be held with his work team in order to reverse the situation.
On the other hand, Gabriel told me that he expected a different attitude from his team, one that would show a person who likes what he does, who has no problem satisfying the client in their various requirements and, fundamentally, who maintains a good predisposition to work collaboratively. I was left thinking about the answer I had received and I wondered not only what would make a person be evaluated as more or less committed, but from a more comprehensive perspective how to promote and manage the commitment of the people who make up an organization, whatever its characteristics.
The first thing I found interesting to share with Gabriel was to explain to him that all people in an organization are committed, although not all are necessarily committed to the purpose of the organization and often only look out for their own personal interests, that is, there is always something that moves or motivates people to take one action or another.
Then, based on my experience in the field of consulting and organizational development, I explained to Gabriel that when talking about commitment, there is a first area to consider that necessarily has to do with a strategic view and the role that the person called to exercise leadership plays in the organization. It is not true that the greatest competitive advantage of a company is its people; what is really critical is to have people who are aligned with the organization's mission. When the staff is in tune with the company's sense of purpose, they manage to understand not only the importance of their role, but they also manage to understand how their work contributes to achieving a greater objective, and with this they give greater meaning to their work, generating greater commitment in the company as a consequence.
From a more operational perspective, it is key to promote an adequate customer orientation and thus be able to commit to practices that allow alignment with the company's strategy, where personal capabilities are critical, such as the attitude of committing to what is being done and which is normally manifested through practices and work styles rooted by the company, philippines business mailing list based on the values that explicitly or implicitly configure the way of acting in the organization. If people share the company's values, their attitude and predisposition will make others perceive them as a person very committed to the company; otherwise, their frustration and stress levels will be visible on the part of the staff.
Another relevant aspect has to do with generating in organizations the practice of maintaining an impeccable fulfillment of commitments. This does not have to do with fulfilling one hundred percent of the commitments assumed. Rather, this conversational competence seeks to encourage workers to fulfill a high rate of commitments assumed and, in those few cases in which they cannot fulfill what was promised, to seek to take charge of the repercussions that this may bring for the person to whom said commitment was made. Maintaining this practice not only generates a positive perception in the area of personal responsibility, but also contributes to the judgment of trust that this person can create in others. The greater the positive evaluation achieved in terms of the sense of responsibility, the more trustworthy that person will be for others.
Finally, we cannot base our analysis of people's commitment by judging only their actions and thinking that this level of commitment is only the responsibility of that person or, worse still, if we perceive that a person is not committed, the first option is to change them. Before reaching this conclusion, which is certainly valid and could ultimately be an option to consider, it is necessary to take a more leading role in terms of being aware of the management that has been carried out (or not carried out) by the person who has the power to exercise leadership in the organization and to challenge oneself by asking the following questions:
Have I done everything possible to adequately socialize the purpose (mission) of the organization, making each person aware of the contribution they make to the development and growth of the company?
In general, people are different in terms of the interpretations they make of things. Each of us gives meaning to what we do or say based on our experiences, life stories, learning and the environment or cultural context in which we have developed. That is why, when faced with any concept that arises in a conversation, it is good to ask yourself about the interpretation that the person who mentions that term is giving it, that is, what their interpretation is of what they are saying.
On one occasion, while talking to Gabriel, a businessman in the tourism sector, he told me that he felt that his staff was not committed and that this was causing him many problems. When I asked him why he said this and what he would like to see happen in his company, he told me that unfortunately his workers did not have the “shirt on” and therefore they worked doing the minimum possible, they did not have a good attitude towards clients and the coordination between the work teams was terrible, which forced him to change his staff to find people who were really committed. By the way, a situation that I have heard on more than one occasion and unfortunately also with a rather limited analysis of the situation from the person who should be exercising leadership and who does not take charge of the conversations that need to be held with his work team in order to reverse the situation.
On the other hand, Gabriel told me that he expected a different attitude from his team, one that would show a person who likes what he does, who has no problem satisfying the client in their various requirements and, fundamentally, who maintains a good predisposition to work collaboratively. I was left thinking about the answer I had received and I wondered not only what would make a person be evaluated as more or less committed, but from a more comprehensive perspective how to promote and manage the commitment of the people who make up an organization, whatever its characteristics.
The first thing I found interesting to share with Gabriel was to explain to him that all people in an organization are committed, although not all are necessarily committed to the purpose of the organization and often only look out for their own personal interests, that is, there is always something that moves or motivates people to take one action or another.
Then, based on my experience in the field of consulting and organizational development, I explained to Gabriel that when talking about commitment, there is a first area to consider that necessarily has to do with a strategic view and the role that the person called to exercise leadership plays in the organization. It is not true that the greatest competitive advantage of a company is its people; what is really critical is to have people who are aligned with the organization's mission. When the staff is in tune with the company's sense of purpose, they manage to understand not only the importance of their role, but they also manage to understand how their work contributes to achieving a greater objective, and with this they give greater meaning to their work, generating greater commitment in the company as a consequence.
From a more operational perspective, it is key to promote an adequate customer orientation and thus be able to commit to practices that allow alignment with the company's strategy, where personal capabilities are critical, such as the attitude of committing to what is being done and which is normally manifested through practices and work styles rooted by the company, philippines business mailing list based on the values that explicitly or implicitly configure the way of acting in the organization. If people share the company's values, their attitude and predisposition will make others perceive them as a person very committed to the company; otherwise, their frustration and stress levels will be visible on the part of the staff.
Another relevant aspect has to do with generating in organizations the practice of maintaining an impeccable fulfillment of commitments. This does not have to do with fulfilling one hundred percent of the commitments assumed. Rather, this conversational competence seeks to encourage workers to fulfill a high rate of commitments assumed and, in those few cases in which they cannot fulfill what was promised, to seek to take charge of the repercussions that this may bring for the person to whom said commitment was made. Maintaining this practice not only generates a positive perception in the area of personal responsibility, but also contributes to the judgment of trust that this person can create in others. The greater the positive evaluation achieved in terms of the sense of responsibility, the more trustworthy that person will be for others.
Finally, we cannot base our analysis of people's commitment by judging only their actions and thinking that this level of commitment is only the responsibility of that person or, worse still, if we perceive that a person is not committed, the first option is to change them. Before reaching this conclusion, which is certainly valid and could ultimately be an option to consider, it is necessary to take a more leading role in terms of being aware of the management that has been carried out (or not carried out) by the person who has the power to exercise leadership in the organization and to challenge oneself by asking the following questions:
Have I done everything possible to adequately socialize the purpose (mission) of the organization, making each person aware of the contribution they make to the development and growth of the company?