From Control to Commitment

The importance of commitment was highlighted by Walton (1985a and b). His theme was that improved performance would result if the organization moved away from the traditional control-oriented approach to workforce management, which relies upon establishing order, exercising control and ‘achieving efficiency in the application of the workforce’. He proposed that this approach should be replaced by a commitment strategy. Workers respond best – and most creatively – not when they are tightly controlled by management, placed in narrowly defined jobs, and treated like an unwelcome necessity, but instead when they are given broader responsibilities, encouraged to contribute and helped to achieve satisfaction in their work. Walton (1985b) suggested that in the new commitment-based approach:

Jobs are designed to be broader than before, to combine planning and implementation, and to include efforts to upgrade operations, not just to maintain them. Individual responsibilities are expected to change as conditions change, and teams, not individuals, often are the organizational units accountable for performance. With management hierarchies relatively flat and differences in status minimized, control and lateral coordination depend on shared goals. And expertise rather than formal position determines influence.


Put like this, a commitment strategy may sound idealistic but does not appear to be a crude attempt to manipulate people to accept management’s values and goals, as some have suggested. In fact, Walton does not describe it as being instrumental in this manner. His prescription is for a broad HRM approach to the ways in which peopleare treated, jobs are designed and organizations are managed. He believes that the aim should be to develop ‘mutuality’, a state that exists when management and employees are interdependent and both benefit from this interdependency.