From this NYT article, comes this quote:
“There’s a difference between being involved and being committed. To be an athlete you must be committed.”
and this one also:
“Commitment is a state you find yourself in when the gun goes off.”
I love the running metaphor as I get back into the whole fitness thing and start thinking of that part of my life differently.
But the reason the idea caught my eye today is really more about current thoughts on the dynamics of teams.
What makes a difference between someone who is involved on the team, and another who is committed to the success of the team? And is it alright to have someone simply involved? And then as a leader, are there things any of us can do to create or inspire and perhaps even mandate commitment? Or does it start with the person, and what they choose to put into the game.
The quotes above suggest to me that commitment is something each of us choose to bring to the game. And as leaders, our role is to choose who gets on the team in the first place but trying to adjust attitude after the fact is equivalent to trying to change one’s spouse after one has gotten married. Seems like both a bad idea and a way to drive yourself insane.
Technorati Tags:
commitment, team dynamics
Nilofer: I thought you were going to use the oft-told joke that (in its most compact form) goes like this:
As for getting people committed, the only way I’ve found that works is leading by example.