COMMITMENT OR INVOLVIMENT?

Sometimes we use those two words as synonyms to indicate one of the most used subjective “KPI´s” to evaluate the dedication of a professional towards a company or an activity, but their meanings are different under the semantic point of view and brutally different under the professional evaluation point of view.

For me, the “COLLINS” dictionary shows us the best differences of these two words:

We clearly see that commitment is a much “stronger” attribute, as it subliminally involves a moral and ethical aspect in the participation process of a person in one activity.

It is really evident that all the companies want, like and need to have professionals who are committed to their teams in order to be more productive, efficient and competitive, mainly in time of crisis like the one we are going though right now. Just being hired or making part of a team already makes them involved and this is not enough.

Professionally and in a very playful way, I consider that the best image we can give concerning the difference between these two words is the assessment of the participation of the two elements that make up the traditional “bacon n´eggs” breakfast. We have the chicken, that is involved into this process by providing the eggs and the pig, is committed with this process by giving its own life in order to provide the ham!

In addition to the aspect of synonymous use of the aforementioned attributes, there are other factors that, along the time, disqualified the importance in its use:

– The term commitment, due to its overexposure, that is, of its intense referral in almost all professional evaluation models, became worn out and lost the strength which is intrinsic to it.

– The lack of a clear definition (professional one) of which behaviors correctly characterize the commitment of a person within one organization.

– Also, as it is a subjective evaluation attribute, it is closely linked to the generation to which the evaluator belongs.

Examples: one evaluator that belongs to the “baby boomer” generation may consider (because he was evaluated like that) as a commitment to the dedication of the professional to the companies along the years, that is, how much time of his life he dedicated to the company, his punctuality, his attendance, etc. One evaluator that belongs to the  “X” generation looks much more to the “guts” with which the professional faces his challenge and which is his efficacy of his dedication. Now, an evaluator of the “Y” generation may disregard the attendance and punctuality aspects (as he has grown in a connected and virtualized world) in his evaluation.

I do not mean with those arguments that the attribute should no longer be used in the subjective evaluations of the professionals but, instead, it must be used correctly!

First and foremost, in my opinion, the commitment attribute should not be used as an individual evaluator but, instead, as one intensifier of all other subjective attributes of evaluation, as any activity can be performed with higher or lower commitment.

Secondly, one must clearly define which characteristics or behaviors will be regarded as indicators of commitment so that the evaluators can get aligned and the evaluated persons will be become aware of it.

José Paulo Graciotti, is consultant and founding Partner of GRACIOTTI ASSESSORIA EMPRESARIAL, engeneer by Escola Politécnica Universidade de São Paulo, with Financial MBA at FGV and specialized in Knowledge Mnagement by FGV. ILTA Member since 1998 (International Legal Technology Association) and ALA (Association of Legal Administrators), with more than 27 years managing Law Firms in Brazil – www.graciotti.com.br