Re: Commitment LO236

Jim Michmerhuizen (
Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:20:30 +0001 (EST)

On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, C. B. Willis wrote in LO133:

> Michael McMaster wrote:
> > "Commitment" or its lack seems to explain everything. "If only top
> > management was committed, then it would all work out." And if it doesn't
> > work out, then "Top management must have lacked commitment."
> > What is this phenomenon, commitment?
> Commitment isn't mental, a mental decision. It's often approached as
> mental, a mental decision, but i submit that's the illusion of commitment,
> and often falls apart, giving the "committer" a loss and everyone else a
> betrayal. Commitment is energetic, it has to do with being, the substance
> underlying a situation, who we are, what we're about, energy levels. As
> such it's deeper than common dialogue, although dialogue can address it,
> can touch on it. Commitment seems "magical" and elusive because it deals
> with the energetic dimensions we don't commonly talk about.
Uh-huh. "Commitment" is an observer's word, not a participant's. People
who are committed show it. They don't usually have any reason to use the
word itself.

There are more different kinds of people in the world than there are people...