Skip to main content

Commitment

This third level is often considered the ultimate goal for companies. Committed employees are loyal, willing, and dynamic. They are not afraid of difficulties because they are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for an idea, an ambition, a company...!

Let's define the term "commitment". Someone who commits is someone who "pledges", literally. It means that they invest a part of themselves, whether it be money, materials, time, or expertise. In all cases, they go beyond the official framework of their contract in the hope of a reward other than salary, such as financial participation or, more commonly, moral or ethical satisfaction. So, there is a notion of duration added to the equation. We are not seeking immediate returns on our investment; we are willing to accept delays in our rewards. However, it is important to note that we still expect and demand a return.

According to the Allen and Meyer (1991) model, there are three types of commitment:

  1. Continuity commitment is when an employee is reluctant to leave the company because they are uncertain about finding another job elsewhere.
  2. Affective commitment is when employees develop a strong attachment based on their adherence to the company's values and objectives.
  3. Normative commitment is when an employee stays with the company due to a sense of obligation.

The framework advocated here emerged in the late '70s with the work of Mowday et al. (1979). According to them, organizational commitment is reflected in accepting and believing in an organization's goals and values, a willingness to work towards their fulfillment, and a desire to remain a member. These authors focused more on the affective aspect of the relationship between an individual and their organization.1

Commitment usually refers to a psychological state in which the employee strongly identifies with the company:

  1. Pride (pride of belonging and identification): I identify with the company's values, am proud to work here, and am ready to recommend my company to others.
  2. Attachment (attachment to my work team, manager, and trust): I feel a sense of solidarity with my colleagues and indebtedness to my direct manager.
  3. Desire to perform (interest in the job, energy to work): I am motivated by the objectives of my job, and I come to work with enthusiasm.2

Undoubtedly, employees are fully invested in their work at this level of engagement. They do what they do because it aligns with important values shared by society.

This can be observed in hospitals or the fire department, as well as in NGOs, in the defense of all life forms.

At this level, financial difficulties become secondary. People make do with what they have and do not give up at the first sign of difficulties. Service to values becomes more important than personal gain.

This is where we see the limitation of Maslow's model, for the need for fulfillment can exist even if security needs are not fully met.

When Sea Shepherd activists confront a Japanese whaler enduring downpours in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it is not personal security that drives their actions, but rather the conviction that the lives of cetaceans are more important than archaic traditions.

This level of mobilization is facilitated through leadership. It requires a shared vision and a strong sense of trust to willingly devote oneself to a job or, even more so, to a joint project.

This level of mobilization is often seen as the ultimate goal by managers, who view it as the culmination of their role.

However, this perception is an illusion. Managing this level of mobilization is highly complex and even dangerous.

Commitment to action often requires resources and time that the economic reality cannot fulfill. During times of crisis, this frustration can lead to irrecoverable "collapses" for both employees and the company.

We will explore these challenges in a later chapter. While this level allows for incredible achievements, the company must provide the necessary framework and resources for its employees. It is often at this point that difficulties arise.

  • 1

    Vigan Fanou Arsène, « Peut-on parler d’engagement affectif et d’engagement calculé chez les agents publics africains ? », Gestion et management public, 2017/4 (Volume 6 / n° 2), p. 89-105. DOI : 10.3917/gmp.062.0089. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-gestion-et-management-public-2017-4-page-89.htm

  • 2

    John P. Meyer et Natalie J. Allen, « A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment », Human Resource Management Review, 1991, vol. 1, p. 61