What Leaders Can do to Encourage Commitment

Leaders can create a culture of commitment by addressing the three major reasons people don't commit.

Perception of Dishonorable Intent

As Bob's son would have said when he was a teenager, "This one's a no-brainer.'' If it looks, smells, or feels unethical, dishonorable, or illegal, don't do it. The real litmus test is: Would you be proud to tell your son or daughter what you are doing? Would you want them to repeat the act?

Likewise, would you want your employees to model their behavior after yours? Do they know where you stand on issues like truth, honesty, and forthrightness so they can model themselves after you? Creating a published set of core values that includes these virtues is a good first step. Living and preaching those core values every day raises the odds your employees will follow the same path.

In his 1963 booklet, A Business and Its Beliefs, Thomas J. Watson, Jr., former IBM chief executive, said:

I firmly believe that any organization, in order to survive and achieve success, must have a sound set of beliefs on which it premises all its policies and actions. Next, I believe that the most important single factor in corporate success is faithful adherence to those beliefs. ... Beliefs must always come before policies, practices, and goals. The latter must always be altered if they are seen to violate fundamental beliefs.

Of course, it's important that those values are worthy of your followers' respect. In 1973, Ford Motor Company became engulfed in a firestorm of lawsuits over its failure to install safety features that would keep Ford Pintos from exploding when involved in rear-end collisions. A cost-benefit analysis prepared by Ford environmental and safety engineers estimated that if left unfixed, Pintos and Ford Light Trucks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles, which would result in $49.5 million in legal damages. They calculated that the cost of correcting the fault in the fuel system that caused the problem would be $11 per vehicle, or $137.5 million total. So Ford executives decided not to make the repairs.

Can you imagine being one of the engineers who was privy to the reasoning behind this decision? Assuming that you have a high regard for human life, you certainly would have been appalled to see that your leadership was willing to sacrifice so many lives and cause so much suffering in order to save $11 per car. You may have gone along with the decision, fearing that if you blew the whistle, you would suffer the fate of most other whistle-blowers. But your view of your executives surely would have become jaded, at the least. And the likelihood that you would enthusiastically support other management decisions? Probably poor. Your perception of their dishonorable intent would simply be too great.

So the bottom line for avoiding this perception is to have a published set of worthwhile values, and to live by them.

Perception of Unfairness—Explain the Big Picture

Allowing people to have input into decisions through participation and consensus raises the odds that they will feel the decisions are fair. At the same time, autocratic and consultative decisions can also be perceived as fair. The trick is making sure that lines of communication are open and that everyone understands the "why'' of decisions as well as the "what.'' This means the leader must articulate the reasons for her decisions and how those decisions support the company's mission, goals, and objectives.

We're reminded of a scene in the movie Saving Private Ryan. The platoon, led by Tom Hanks's character, has been ordered to find Private Ryan, who is somewhere in the French countryside in the days following D-Day. The platoon comes upon the bodies of some GIs who were apparently ambushed by a German machine gun nest perched at the top of a hill. When Hanks orders his men to take the hill, some of them object, reminding him that their objective was to find Private Ryan, not to take this hill. Hanks retorts, "I thought our objective was to win the war.'' Then he turns and heads up the hill with his men following close behind.

When people understand the bigger picture and that the bigger picture fits with what they believe to be right and beneficial, the strongest reluctance can be overcome.

Perception of a Sham—Only Ask If You Want to Hear

Here's another "no-brainer.'' Obviously, the best antidote for this one is to not ask people for input unless you plan to seriously consider what they have to offer.

It's possible you may have had the best of intentions when you solicited input or sought collaboration, but for sound business reasons, you have now decided that you will take a different direction than the recommended course. In such cases, it is imperative that you take the time and spend the energy to explain to all those who participated why you've chosen to do so. Nature abhors a vacuum and, absent your explanation, people will often assume the worst and decide that your request was a sham. So beware!

Perception of Being Powerless—Promote Positive Change

Given the three healthy choices that we offered earlier (PAL), providing people with opportunities to exercise the first option, positive change, increases the likelihood that they will commit to what they have agreed to. One way to promote this approach is by providing a realistic picture of what can or can't be changed. Here's an exercise that you can do with your people:

• Ask your group to brainstorm a list of things about their jobs that bothers them.

• Explain the PAL (Positive Change—Acceptance/Embracing—Leaving) concept.

• Have them put a P by those items they think they might be able to change. Have them put an A by those items they are sure they can't change and will have to accept. Have them put an L by those items (hopefully very few) that they will eventually quit over if things don't improve.

• Lead a discussion of everyone's responses. Allow people to not discuss any item on their lists, but remind them that if they don't bring it up, for whatever reason, they have made a choice to accept. And lipotage is not allowed. (They can also discuss it outside the meeting, in private with the person or persons best suited to help them resolve the problem, if that's more comfortable for them.)

The point here is to help people understand that there are some things that can be changed and some that can't. This seems like common sense, but if it's so common, why do so many people complain about what can't be changed and do nothing about what can?