Originally posted on 2022-05-20 at Medium

#articles

Todd Smith (or his ghostwriter), a person who seems very invested in selling you his book and course, says on his blog:

When you simply desire something, you do it only when circumstances permit. When you’re committed, you accept no excuses, only results.

Commitments are Serious Business

Commitments are powerful because they influence how you think, how you sound, and how you act. Unlike a half-hearted hope or ‘best shot,’ making a commitment means that you try harder, you look for solutions when faced with obstacles, you don’t consider quitting as an option, and you don’t look back.

That’s… uh, quite American of him. Is that real though? It’s not like he really lists sources.

Is commitment about the feeling of satisfaction you get when you complete a task? Does it make you more engaged and thus more guaranteed to achieve it, as Todd claims?

The Community Toolbox, an organization founded in their words “for those working to build healthier communities and bring about social change” has a different take:

WHY DO YOU NEED TO MOBILIZE AND SUSTAIN COMMITMENT?

Commitment is the backbone of a group or organization. It is what gives a group its strength.

Here are several reasons it is important:

  • The more committed people there are, the more effective they are in influencing others. If a whole group acts with determination and commitment, great numbers of people will really pay attention.
  • People who are committed are the ones who don’t take discouragement seriously – they don’t give up. They set an example for those who don’t have the confidence or experience to go through the hard times and hold out for the rewards of success.
  • People cooperate at a higher level when they share commitment. Commitment fosters camaraderie, trust, and caring – the stuff a group needs to keep it going for the long run.
  • If people are committed to an effort for a period of time, they will learn what they need to know to be more effective. People need time to try things out, make mistakes, and then figure out a strategy that works.

They link to some books which I don’t have access to.

Is there any peer reviewed research on the impact of commitment besides all this anecdotal evidence? Is commitment as a feeling (“I am invested in this”) and commitment as an action (“I am going to do this by tonight”) even the same thing?

On 2022-02-20 I tried to commit to researching about commitments. It had fairly low value to get me to actually do the thing. I did however do a bunch of other tasks that I enjoyed writing down as “successes” and also completed tasks that were pending for a while, even if I hadn’t committed on them.

During the same day, my partner committed to doing 4 things and achieved 3. I tried to motivate/inspire/chase her a lot to do them. She reported that she felt the day was very successful. The search for the meaning of commitment continues.

https://student.cc.uoc.gr/uploadFiles/1110-%CE%91010%CE%9A/BECKER2_ARTISTIC%20WORK.pdf

“Notes on the concept of commitment” by Howard S Becker who is thankfully not trying to sell me something, though his depictions of communists, stalinists and marxists is… a colorful inclusion to the 10 page article from 1960.

He complains that there’s no previous literature, and introduces some broad stroke definitions of commitment:

… commitment is used to explain what I have already called “consistent behavior”… but the notion of a consistent line of activity implies more than this… the examples just cited conceal a great diversity of activity

The diverse activities have in common the fact that they are seen by the actor as activities which… serve him in pursuit of the same goal

So we commit to goals, not “lifestyles” or “processes”. Means to an end.

But here’s where he gets to the good stuff:

Commitment comprises 3 parts:

  1. A thing of value (“sidebet”)
  2. Placing the sidebet
  3. Recognition of the sidebet and costs

In short, commitment is about (usually deliberately) putting yourself in a situation where the costs of “not doing the thing” are worth more than actually doing it.

Sidenote: This does neatly explain the “deadline motivation” - as the deadline looms closer, the cost of not doing the thing becomes more perceptible and thus higher. It also covers why paying for the gym membership appears more effective than working out at home.

But Howie keeps going:

  • Sidebets may be placed for us, usually due to existing systems we haven’t fully understood (such as bureaucracy, or social norms in a group)
  • In a long running commitment, the value of the sidebet and the expected action may actually evolve over time, possibly motivating a person to reject the original goal
  • (Classist educational opinions that I skip)
  • Social pressure actually supports the “fake it until you make it” style, as people generally act supportive towards your perceived persona to some degree, so that you can “save face” if you do something off. This can also work in reverse though, so initial impressions do carry some weight
  • Commitment can be built over time with tiny imperceptible decisions that eventually add up to single concrete sidebet that is very valuable to the person (e.g “my life” or “my community”)
  • The value of a sidebet is well… determined by the value system of each individual group and is also subject to change based on those groups

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/50450660/Testing_the_Side_Bet_Theory_of_Organizat20161121-9771-nu30oc-with-cover-page-v2.pdf

“Testing the “Side-Bet Theory” of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations” by John P. Meyer and Natalie J Allen.

The year is 1984 and Becker’s sidebet theory has actually become established. There’s also a lot of other things going on this year, but let’s stick to commitments.

Continuance commitment

Commitment to continue a certain line of action. Examples are vesting shares, or pension plans that the org provides.

Affective commitment

Commitment to the organization “for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth”

“Sidebets accumulate over time, so age should be the best single predictor of organizational commitment” reasoned some sociologist, and I am not sure I agree. Thankfully, neither do the authors.

The subjects were 64 male and female introductory psychology students who volunteered to participate in the study as part of a course requirement

Data were collected from a sample of full-time employees, at various job levels, in four administrative departments in a large Canadian university. Of the 229 questionnaires distributed, a total of 130 were completed and returned (a 56 7% response rate)

Yeah, I’m not sure imma trust your results dog. Did you really get a bunch of students to test your theory on organizational commitment, which has a heavy focus on working environments and long-term commitments? One where you are even actively trying to flush out age as a predictor?

Anyways, their results are that affective commitment shows up a lot in their data and is correlated to some results, which isn’t exactly what Howie’s theory suggested.

… the measure used to test Becker’s side-bet theory of commitment is saturated with affective commitment and, as such, does not allow the theory to be tested appropriately…

They point out that their criticism is about the methods used in testing (no shit) and not the theory itself.

If, as Ritzer and Trice (1969) suggest, side bets increase with age and tenure, these variables should correlate significantly with the continuance Commitment Scale. These correlations, however, were negligible Why might this be the case? Certainly it seems reasonable to suggest that some costs associated with leaving will increase over time (for example, nonvested pension plan contributions, seniority privileges, organization-specific training). Others, however, may actually decrease. Younger employees, for example, may be particularly sensitive to the fact that, with less work experience, they often have fewer job opportunities. As they obtain more experience, however, alternate employment opportunities may increase, thus decreasing the magnitude of one important cost associated with leaving—that of having no other job.

A 1993 paper by our recent friends Meyer and Natalie J Allen gets us back on track.

It’s been 10 years and the field has largely exploded. Lots of folks are doing research across different verticals but there is no standardized rubric or even metrics in the field. So the authors set out to develop one. They also refer to themselves (current and previous) in the third person for the entire article, which feels weird.

Three-component model of commitment:

  1. Affective commitment: Attachment to the organization (I <3 my job)
  2. Continuance commitment: Perceived cost of leaving the association
  3. Normative commitment: Obligation to remain in the organization

Meyer & Allen chose nurses as their study group, which makes for a whooping 98% of their respondents identifying as women.

Again, in spite of the restriction in range for this sample, correlated negatively with affective commitment both at the beginning and end of the year. Year in the program correlated positively with continuance commitment and negatively with affective and normative commitment on both occasions of measurement.

Job satisfaction correlated positively with 1 & 3. 2 & 3 correlated positively with a sense of obligation. 1 & 3 correlated negatively with intentions to leave and voluntary abscence. They correlated negatively effective use of time 2 correlates with less involvement “above and beyond” such as subscribing to journals. However, it has little effect beyond that.