Attitudes Toward a Vision

POSSIBLE ATTITUDES TOWARD A VISION

Commitment: Wants it. Will make it happen. Creates whatever “laws” (structures) are needed.

Enrollment: Wants it. Will do whatever can be done within the “spirit of the law.”

Genuine compliance: Sees the benefits of the vision. Does everything expected and more. Follows the “letter of the law.” “Good soldier.”

Formal compliance: On the whole, sees the benefits of the vision. Does what’s expected and no more. “Pretty good soldier.”

Grudging compliance: Does not see the benefits of the vision. But, also, does not want to lose job. Does enough of what’s expected because he has to, but also lets it be known that he is not really on board.

Noncompliance: Does not see benefits of vision and will not do what’s expected. “I won’t do it; you can’t make me.”

Apathy: Neither for nor against vision. No interest. No energy. “Is it five o’clock yet?”

Consider a road with a speed limit of fifty-five or sixty-five miles per hour. A person who was genuinely compliant would never drive more than the official speed limit. In this analogy, a formally compliant person might drive five to seven miles over the limit, believing that the rule will not be enforced so strictly. Someone grudgingly compliant would drive the same speed and complain continually about it. A noncompliant driver would “floor it” and do everything possible to evade troopers. On the other hand, a person who was truly committed to the official speed limit would drive that speed even if it were not a legal limit.

In most organizations, most people are in states of formal or genuine compliance with respect to the organization’s goals and ground rules. They go along with “the program,” sincerely trying to contribute. On the other hand, people in noncompliance or grudging compliance usually stand out. They are opposed to the goals or ground rules and let their opposition be known, either through inaction or (if they are grudgingly compliant) through “malicious obedience”—“I’ll do it just to prove that it won’t work.” They may not speak out publicly against the organization’s goals, but their views are known nonetheless (They often reserve their truest sentiments for the restroom or the bar.)

Differences between the varying states of compliance can be subtle. Most problematic is the state of genuine compliance, which is often mistaken for enrollment or commitment. The prototypical “good soldier” of genuine compliance will do whatever is expected of him, willingly. “I believe in the people behind the vision; I’ll do whatever is needed, and more, to the fullest of my ability.” In his own mind, the person operating in genuine compliance often thinks of himself as committed. He is, in fact, committed, but only to being “part of the team.”

In fact, from his behavior on the job, it is often very difficult to distinguish someone who is genuinely compliant from someone who is enrolled or committed. An organization made up of genuinely compliant people would be light-years ahead of most organizations in productivity and cost effectiveness. People would not have to be told what to do more than once. They would be responsive. They would be upbeat and positive in their attitude and manner. They might also be a bit drone-like, but not necessarily. If what was expected of high performers was to take initiative and be proactive, they would exhibit those behaviors as well. In short, people in genuine compliance would do whatever they could to play by the rules of the game, both the formal and subtle rules.

Yet, there is a world of difference between compliance and commitment. The committed person brings an energy, passion, and excitement that cannot be generated by someone who is only compliant, even genuinely compliant. The committed person doesn’t play by the rules of the game. He is responsible for the game. If the rules of the game stand in the way of achieving the vision, he will find ways to change the rules. A group of people truly committed to a common vision is an awesome force.

Tracy Kidder, in his Pulitzer-prize-winning book The Soul of a New Machine, tells the story of a product development team at Data General, brought together by a talented team leader to create an ambitious new computer. Against a business atmosphere of urgency bordering on crisis, the team turned out a ground-breaking computer in remarkable time. Visiting with the team manager Tom West in the book, and team members several years later, I learned just how remarkable their feat was. They told me of a stage in their project when certain critical software was several months behind schedule. The three engineers responsible came into the office one evening and left the next morning. By all accounts they accomplished two to three months of work that evening—and no one could explain how. These are not the feats of compliance.

What then is the difference between being genuinely compliant and enrolled and committed? The answer is deceptively simple. People who are enrolled or committed truly want the vision. Genuinely compliant people accept the vision. They may want it in order to get something else—for example, to keep their job, or to make their boss happy, or to get a promotion. But they do not truly want the vision in and of itself. It is not their own vision (or, at least, they do not know that it is their own vision).

Highly desired, shared commitment to a vision can be an elusive goal. One executive VP at a consumer goods company deeply desired to turn the very traditional organization into a world-class competitor by developing shared commitment to a new business vision. But after a year’s effort, people continued to follow orders and do what they were told.

At this point he began to see the depth of the problem. People in his organization had never been asked to commit to anything in their careers. All they had ever been asked to do in their careers was be compliant. And consequently, that was all they knew how to do. That was the only mental model they had. No matter what he said about developing a real vision, or about being truly committed, it didn’t matter because they could only hear it within their model of compliance.

Once he grasped this, he shifted tactics. He asked, “What might people be able to commit to?” He initiated a “wellness program,” reasoning if there was anything to which people might become committed, it would be their own health. Over time, some did. They began to see that true commitment was possible in the workplace, and a new “ear” for the vision was opened.

Traditional organizations did not care about enrollment and commitment. The command and control hierarchy required only compliance. Still, today, many managers are justifiably wary of whether the energy released through commitment can be controlled and directed. So, we settle for compliance and content ourselves with moving people up the compliance ladder.