This third level is often presented as the grail for companies. It's the ultimate level. Committed employees are loyal, willing, and dynamic. They're not afraid of difficulties because they're not fighting for themselves; they're fighting for an idea, for an ambition, for a company...!
Perhaps we should agree on the use of the word "commitment". Someone who commits is someone who "pledges", literally. It means that he commits a part of himself, with money, material, time, or even with expertise, a specialty. In all cases, he goes beyond the official framework of his contract in the hope of a reward other than salary, be it financial participation or, more commonly, moral or ethical. So, there's a notion of duration added to the equation. We're not looking for a quick return on our investment; we're willing to accept a delay in our rewards. But beware: we expect and demand a return all the same.
According to the Allen and Meyer (1991) model, there are three types of commitment:
The framework advocated here is the one "that emerged in the late '70s with the work of Mowday et al. (1979). For them, organizational commitment translates into accepting and believing in an organization's goals and values, a willingness to work towards their fulfillment, and a desire to remain a member. These authors focused much more on the affective aspect of the relationship between an individual and his or her organization.[1]"
Commitment usually refers to a psychological state in which the employee identifies strongly with the company:
Undoubtedly, at this level of engagement, employees are invested in their work (and not just in their work). They do what they do because it carries important values shared by society.
This can be seen in hospitals or the fire department, but also in NGOs, in the defense of life in all its forms.
At this level, financial difficulties are secondary. You make do with what you have; you don't stop at the first difficulties. Service to values is more important than oneself.
It's here, for example, that we see the limit of Maslow's model. The need for fulfillment can exist even if security is not met.
When Sea Shepherd activists storm a Japanese whaler, only to be repelled by downpours in the middle of the Pacific, it's not personal security that drives the action but the certainty that the lives of cetaceans are more important than archaic traditions.
This level of mobilization is managed through leadership. It takes a shared vision and solid trust to agree to give so much of oneself to a job or, even more, to a common project.
This level of mobilization is seen as the ultimate goal by managers, who see it as a kind of finality in their role as managers.
But this is an illusion. Managing this level of mobilization is very complicated, not to say dangerous.
Commitment to action often requires resources and time that the economic reality cannot satisfy. And in times of crisis, this frustration can lead to irrecoverable "collapses", both for employees and for the company.
We'll see in a later chapter. If this level allows incredible things to be achieved, the company must be able to provide the framework and the means for its employees. And this is often where the difficulties begin.
[1] Vigan Fanou Arsène, « Peut-on parler d’engagement affectif et d’engagement calculé chez les agents publics africains ? », Gestion et management public, 2017/4 (Volume 6 / n° 2), p. 89-105. DOI : 10.3917/gmp.062.0089. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-gestion-et-management-public-2017-4-page-89.htm
[2] John P. Meyer et Natalie J. Allen, « A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment », Human Resource Management Review, 1991, vol. 1, p. 61