Having spent a great deal of time in the "more commitment" camp - and
having worked with similar sounding approaches to that - let me offer a
different perspective that does not require the use of the "C" word.
Consider the idea that once a group, team or project has started, it has a
force of its own that is either strong enough to continue or will die.
The thing that we call individual commitment will occur naturally if
certain conditions are present and will not if they are not. What are
these conditions? What needs to occur for commitment to occur in a team?
Complexity theory suggests that the energy and information available will
flow towards and around "attractors". These attractors will create
positive returns. That is, they will continue and even build on their own
if they are sufficiently strong and function within the system.
The attractors may be values, principles, goals, theories, emotion - many
things. We can probably only focus on a few of them.
There is another very important attractor that has been neglected because
it's been made into a matter of personality, psychology and authority.
That is, someone with a clear intention, a great deal of energy, etc. is
In this sense a project can certainly use a leader to continue
successfully. Once the leader (or team) has been effective at replacing
the leader in individual form with strong attractors which are independent
of the leader, then the team can be expected to continue on its own.
It's not a matter of "commitment". It's much less personal and individual
than that - given this model.
Try viewing leadership as "being an attractor" and see what it gives you.
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus
Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <email@example.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>