Guido asks some really good questions about commitment. Should we be
concerned about commitment to the actual process or to the outcomes?
Like a good politician, I have to say 'that depends.' Of course, all we
really care about is the outcome, assuming it is adequately defined and
prescribed. On the other hand, passive resistance -- the most effective
kind -- frequently comes in the form of resistance to the process, while
proclaiming enthusiastic allegiance to the outcome. The problems with
managing this are two-fold. First, the outcomes are frequently _not_
adequately defined, so one can proclaim having arrived when most observers
would not think so. Second, Implementors seldom really follow through
with effective performance evaluation systems that in effect measure and
publicly announce progress toward the well-defined goal(s).
Therefore, my answer based on my own limited experience is that if the
outcomes are well-defined, and success or failure is shouted from the
rooftops, then "outcome-only" works. I know that works every time -- at
least three times, anyway.
In the absence of these two variables -- well-defined outcomes and shouted
from rooftops -- I cannot say that proclaimed commitment to the process
will have much impact. What are other peoples' experiences with that?
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc. 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>