DOES TECHNOLOGY ENABLE OR PREVENT OVER-COMMITTING, UNDER-COMMITTING?

Some time ago, I published an article titled “DO YOU USE TECHNOLOGY TO LIE? ”.?There’s another aspect that I’ve been wanting to talk about ever since. It’s an almost everyday occurrence: either over-committing, or under-committing, over-promising and under-delivering.

Technically, all the above could be termed ‘lying’ whether intentional or not.?I’d like to find out what you think about this.?Have you fallen into this trap, or have people you deal with? And do you think that technology makes it easier to do this, or can it help prevent it?

Over-committing:

This is a tricky one.?It’s not only bad practice, it’s also often unintentional.?Sometimes we over-commit because we don’t want to disappoint someone.?Sometimes, we’re fearful of setting boundaries (link to last week’s article) and we agree to something we know is either not possible, or which we’re unable to fulfill. Sometimes, we do it out of ignorance, and sometimes because we don’t have all the information we need to make that commitment.?

For example, we promise our teams that something will happen, but it doesn’t, due to circumstances beyond our control. We could have made the commitment in all sincerity, but we might have been given incorrect data, or it could be something right out of left field, such as the C-Suite having a change of heart, or a client unexpectedly changing a deadline. ?

Where the trouble arises is if we don’t communicate to our teams, in a timely and honest manner, the reasons for our inability to stick to what we’ve promised. In most instances, communicating quickly goes a long way to restoring trust and inspiring our team to work together to find alternatives to handle the changes and to minimize negative fall-out.

But sometimes, over-committing is deliberate. For instance, when trying to make a sale. Over-committing, in order to swing the deal and planning to make excuses later to cover-up, is always going to backfire.?

In all instances, it’s important to be able to audit who said what when and to whom and lay hold of all the relevant supporting documentation. When it’s all part of a workflow and miscellaneous conversations and meetings rather than in work orders, purchase orders, invoices etc. that audit trail can be fragmented, or even non-existent. IF you can even find it…

The question is, does the technology we use facilitate over-commitment?

We’ll take a look at this shortly. In the meantime, let’s look at the other side of commitment:?

Under-committing:

What’s the big deal with under-committing? Wouldn’t that be better than over-committing? First of all, let’s make a distinction between under-committing and under-promising. They may sound alike but in reality they’re quite different.?Under-committing is what people do when they’re asked, or expected, to do something but are reluctant to give it their full attention.?Or sometimes, even reluctant to get involved at all.

The trouble with under-committing is that it’s wishy-washy and often difficult to detect until it’s too late. It won’t manifest as a definite ‘yes’ or ‘no’. More often, there will either be a complete ‘no show’ as far as action is concerned, or the action will be half-hearted at best and downright incompetent at worst.

This leaves everyone who has been relying on that commitment scrambling to pick up the slack and leaves the person responsible with a very damaged reputation.

Once again, the question is, does the technology we use facilitate under-commitment?

The role of technology in commitment:

As I’ve mentioned before , we’re all familiar with the dynamics that come into play when we’re using multiple software and technology every workday.

One of those dynamics is the difficulty of keeping track of who said what to whom; who promised what; who did what when… Well, you get the idea!?It makes it easy to lose track of what we, or others, have committed, or not committed to.?

With technology stacking, it’s easy to fall into the ‘over-commitment’ or ‘under-commitment’ trap, simply because we can’t easily keep relevant data and historical sequences at our fingertips.?Which contributes to a lot of unintentional bad practices. Those bad practices can add up to lost trust, lost credibility and lost support from our teams, as well as those above us in the corporate hierarchy, not to mention our clients.

As you might remember from a previous article , one of the things I really disliked about the available software was the way it actually complicated my life instead of making it simpler. Which is why I really enjoy Optevo ‘Work Pods’ , where everything is housed in a single dashboard, or ‘Work Hub’.?Now, I have all the data, conversations and historical context I need whenever I need it. It declutters my day, my mind, my ‘to do’ list. Plus it keeps everyone I’m dealing with on whichever project we’re collaborating, on the same page all the time. It’s easy to look back and find whatever information I need without trying to remember if it was in my email, or messenger app, or anywhere else. ?

Having said all that, what I’d really like to know is how you view either over-committing or under-committing and whether you have strategies to deal with those situations?

#Leadership #HybridWork #RemoteWork #Optevo #CWM #business #technology #innovation #Integrity #FutureOfWork #Commitment #Credibility #Integrity #Trust