Commitment. At a time when feminist and ecological activists tend to become the new influencers, engagement seems to be on the rise. But what does it really mean to " be committed "? Is this always a good thing? Aren't the battles we fight when we commit ourselves to one or more causes sometimes risk losing us? Conversely, is a person who is not or only slightly involved in his or her professional activity useful to the company and is there not a risk of becoming demotivated? Here is a brief overview of the notion of commitment.

Engagement, over time 

In concrete terms, what is commitment? Over the course of history, this concept has taken on different dimensions. The word appeared in Old French in the twelfth century and means " the action of pawning something ". There is therefore no commitment without compensation. A century later, the notion of commitment is somewhat relaxed and becomes the "action of binding oneself by a promise" that one makes to oneself or to others.

Then in the 17th century, a person who was committed was " in a relationship with obligations "... to become " a person engaged in a social situation with obligations " a few decades later. Finally, in the middle of the twentieth century, commitment was the work of people who put their " thoughts, [their] art, [their] actions at the service of a cause". In a few centuries, this word, which underpinned the existence of a debt to others, has gradually been transformed to become the illustration of the gift of oneself for something that is beyond us.

When we talk about commitment, we often think of the bond that unites two people, in the context of an interpersonal or romantic relationship. This term is also found in English to mean "engagement"... It is not uncommon to hear : " he or she is afraid to commit " or " they are finally committed", as if commitment were an end in itself. However, it is far from obvious and requires the person who takes the plunge to take a certain risk requiring courage, combined with the acceptance that a part of oneself can only be fulfilled through it. So not so simple ! You can get involved for yourself, for a cause or for a professional activity.

Commitment has therefore become part of our lives, even if it means becoming an essential value for evaluating an individual's interpersonal skills through their involvement. Because it is no longer enough to be motivated, it is now necessary to be individually committed to the service of the collective and this by having " the will to succeed and to go beyond the limits of what is possible."  From docile and constrained commitment, the various works on management and leadership have gradually made it possible to reflect on a healthy commitment, autonomous and more responsible individuals around a project that makes sense and is a source of personal fulfillment. This is called empowerment : " being yourself in order to be able to act ".

There is a definite link between an individual and his or her actions, " and more specifically his or her behavioral acts ." And this link is commitment ! This is what the Theory of Commitment promoted by Professor Kiesler tends to demonstrate. Engagement resolves a cognitive dissonance between our attitudes (convictions, opinions, etc.) and our behaviors. When a given situation creates contradictions, they push us to act. In other words, an individual is only committed by his actions and not by his ideas or opinions, and the link between the individual and his actions is subject to " degrees of nuance " :

• " strongly committed (condition of free decision),

• weakly committed (condition of forced decision),

• or not committed at all "

The level of commitment therefore varies from one person to another but also from one situation to another or from one project to another, especially in the professional sphere. To be interested in the notion of commitment is also to describe the contours of over-commitment or non-commitment. Indeed, what employer does not fantasize about committed and therefore more productive employees? What employee doesn't want to invest themselves fully in the activity where they spend three-quarters of their time? The question remains the delineation of this commitment, which – if it is too strong or too weak – can prove harmful.

Over-commitment 

Today, it is not uncommon to admire a person who works overtime, demonstrations against police violence and evening Zooms to accompany the ecological transition. Over-commitment is highly valued, even though it is not without danger for the person concerned by this excessive involvement, often to the point of forgetting themselves and being prone to burnout, for example. The boundaries between commitment and over-commitment are porous and it is often impossible to realize on your own that you are falling into excess.

 Where commitment is the combination of three factors : enthusiasm for one's work (and/or organisation and/or mission), perseverance and " the ability to accept the perceived negative aspects of one's work ", over-commitment is more about developing a " preponderant interest in one's work ". to neglect one's personal life and to persist compulsively in professional tasks... Hence the importance of understanding the motivations for this over-commitment, setting limits and knowing how to show " healthy selfishness" in order to protect yourself.

Non-commitment 

In politics, the compound noun non-commitment (neutrality policy) appeared in 1949. This concept is opposed to the sense of " the action of binding oneself by a promise ". What is the situation in the world of work? Non-commitment, or disengagement, " is at the crossroads of a posture, a state of mind and a feeling ". In fact, this translates into a " gradual decrease in investment, a lack of proactivity and more passivity, with direct impacts on individual and collective efficiency." 

 Where burnout ort is not likely to appear, its sidekick, bore out, or boredom at work, can interfere in the daily life of disengaged people... as well as turnover, absenteeism, and a whole series of associated psychosocial risks. Whose fault is it? Or rather to what? Most of the time, according to Daniel H. Pink, if at least one of the three main intrinsic motivations of employees – autonomy, the feeling of control over one's activity and meaning – is threatened, commitment  is likely to be threatened as well. Thus, how can we guarantee reasoned commitment at work?

Reasoned commitment

If the ideal commitment is between disengagement and over-commitment, it is a question of paying close attention to the three intrinsic motivations for work mentioned above. Whether at the individual, team or managerial level, there are good practices to be observed, such as learning to say " no " to an employee, or giving the right to make mistakes as a manager.

Above all, it's about knowing yourself well... and to promise to respect the framework of one's own limits, before throwing oneself body and soul into any undertaking, mission or cause, or on the contrary, to invest in an activity that does not suit us, to the point of disengaging completely over time, and neglecting our motivations at work. Reasoned professional commitment is the result of a threefold responsibility :

• that of the organization in the culture it conveys ;

• that of the team in the " active vigilance" that it puts in place ;

• that of the individual who must know how to listen to himself.