Episode 36 - The New Shape of Commitment

“They’re all committed… but not in the same way as before.”

This simple observation opens a deeper question.

In this episode, Giovanna explores how commitment is changing inside organizations.

People are showing up. Delivering. Participating.

And yet… something feels different.

Less intensity. Less automatic ownership.

What does commitment look like now?
 And how do you lead when people are “in”… but only partially?

The Orange Twist is hosted by Giovanna D’Alessio, MCC — reflections on leadership, culture, and change for HR professionals and organizational leaders.
Connect with Giovanna on LinkedIn.
New episodes released regularly. Stay curious.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:03

Welcome to the Orange Twist, your 10 minute shot of insight to shake up your thinking on leadership, culture, and change. Hosted by Giovanna D'Alessio, Master Certified Coach. Episode 36, the New Shape of Commitment. I was speaking with an HR director a few weeks ago in a large organization. The kind where you have layers, processes, a lot of coordination across functions, nothing unusual. She was telling me about a leadership team she works with. Solid people, experienced, no obvious issues. And then she said something very simply, almost like an aside. They are all committed, but not in the same way as before. We stayed there because it's easy to say engagement is down or people have different expectations. But that's not quite what she meant. She gave me an example. They had launched a cross-functional project quite visible internally, something that required real collaboration between business, HR, and operations. The kind of initiative where a few years ago you would expect a certain level of intensity. People leaning in, going beyond the scope, chasing things, calling each other, pushing. And what she observed instead was something more contained. People were doing their part, delivering on time, showing up to the meetings, but not much more than that. No one was blocking anything. No one was really carrying it either. So the project was moving but without traction. You know that feeling when something progresses technically, but it doesn't quite take off. And at some point she asked one of the leaders quite directly, what's your level of priority on this, really? And he answered very calmly, no defensiveness. It matters, it's just one of the several things that matter. And there was something very honest in that. No pretending, no overcommitment, just a different calibration. If you look at some of the recent data, it's not entirely surprising. Gallowp keeps showing relatively low engagement level globally, but what's interesting is not only the percentage, it's the type of disengagement. Less active resistance, more detachment. People are not necessarily unhappy, they are just not investing themselves in the same way. And at the same time, you have everything around flexibility, hybrid work, more explicit boundaries, people making very conscious decisions about how much of themselves they bring into work. So, yes, you could say it's generational, partly, but it's broader than that. I see it with senior people as well. People who 10 years ago would have defined themselves through their role much more strongly. And now they hold it differently. Still responsible, still professional, but slightly at a distance. And this is where it becomes tricky for leaders because the old signals don't work anymore. Presence in a meeting doesn't mean much. Participation doesn't mean much. Even agreement doesn't mean much. You can have a room full of people nodding and very little actual movement afterwards. I was in a session not long ago where a team had just agreed on a set of priorities for the next quarter. Clear, well articulated, everyone aligned, and one of them said, half smiling, okay, so who is actually going to push this when it gets messy? There was a pause, a real one, because the answer was not obvious. In the past, someone would have stepped in almost automatically. Now it's less clear. Not because people don't care, but because they are holding multiple commitments, multiple priorities, and they are constantly, almost invisibly, arbitrating their attention. So when leaders say, I feel like my team is not fully there, I think this is what they are sensing. Not absence, not disengagement in the traditional sense, but a different kind of presence, more selective, more conditional. The instinctive reaction is to try to pull people back in. More check-ins, more clarity, more emphasis on purpose, on impact. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it just creates a bit more polite compliance. And then people step back again internally. So maybe the question is slightly different. Not how do I get them fully in, but what does in even look like now? Is it realistic to expect the same level of immersion, the same kind of almost automatic commitment that many organizations were built on? Or are we in a space where commitment is negotiated continuously? Where people decide consciously or not how much they invest moment by moment. And if that's the case, what does leadership become? Because leading people who are fully in is one thing. Leading people who are partially in and who might shift that level at any point, that's a different game. It requires a different kind of attention. Maybe less assumption, more explicit conversation, more ability to sense where people actually are, not where we expect them to be. I'm not sure this is comfortable territory. There is less solidity in it, less than you can take for granted. But maybe it's closer to what is actually happening. So I'm left with something quite simple and not entirely easy to answer. When you think about your team, who is really in right now? And how do you know? If this episode still something in you, subscribe to The Orange Twist, your weekly shot of insights on leadership, culture, and change served with the twist. So join me next time for another Fresh Pour of Perspective.