Commitment to Change LO7934

Tobin Quereau (quereau@austin.cc.tx.us)
Mon, 17 Jun 1996 21:44:19 -0500 (CDT)

Replying to LO7801 --

I am way behind on my messages, so this may be coming in from left field,
but your query, Guido, brought some interesting thoughts to mind.

On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Guido Thys wrote:

> I have posted a question re Management Commitment elsewhere on this list.
> Here is one with a somewhat broader scope.
>
> With respect to commitment in general, and more specifically commitment to
> change processes, is there a fundamental or essential difference between
> different levels of management and the workfloor? And if so, is this a
> difference in TYPE of commitment (e.g. mgt commitment goes deeper, or
> whatever), or a difference in SCOPE (the commitment is related to
> different types of actions or behaviour)?
>
> Any input welcome!

This sort of question is likely to bring up all of my "unexamined
assumptions" (this could also mean stereotypes), since it is very broad
and not likely the subject of much discussion in advance with those very
people it encompasses, but here goes...

What came to mind about commitment when I read the post is wondering about
the many kinds of commitment one could feel--commitment to one's job, to
one's co-workers, to the organization as a whole, to doing one's best or
to feeling good about what one is doing on the job. In those respects, I
would hazard a guess that the range of responses might actually be fairly
similar at all levels.

As to the issue of commitment to change, I would think that the issue
would be tied closely to one's perception of the change and its impact on
the future for that person. If the change is a senior level manager's way
of improving the organization and thus succeeding in securing further
success for herself or himself, then strong commitment would be
easy to understand. If a line worker saw the same change as a threat to
his or her job, then the opposite makes sense. Then again, many times I
have seen a powerful commitment to change from the front line workers
which was equally powerfully "resisted" by senior level management
because of the threat to their way of doing things.

In both cases, I can see that the "commitment" or lack of it is still a
reflection of personal security or stability of a sort, and also a desire
to be more effective in some fundamental way. I keep going back to what
Herzberg found to be essential motivators--challenging work, a sense of
responsibility, achievement and recognition for work well done, a feeling
of growth and development, etc. I don't think these motivators are limited
to any one part of an organization.

I guess what I am saying is that discussions of commitment may be best
understood in the context of the people involved, the situation they
are a part of and the perceptions which they have of it..

Now, after all that, have I said anything relevant to what you were asking??

--

Tobin Quereau Austin Community College quereau@austin.cc.tx.us

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>