What is Commitment?

I am reading a lot more than I am writing lately. Actually, that’s not 100% true. I am still writing as much, if not more, but I am not publishing the writing — mostly I am engaging in more intimate conversations, and peeling back the layers in the community-building work that I am doing.

I am fine-tuning the work I am doing in my community, to focus more intentionally on the underserved, under-the-radar businesses and entrepreneurs who traditionally are not included in the conversations of Economic Development.

I recently discovered a resource called Civic Engagement and the Restoration of Community, written by an organization in Cincinnati, OH called A Small Group. I found the resource in my research on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Building on a post by Faces of Founders via the Case Foundation.

I was struck by something on the opening page of this document (yes, on the very first page!) A definition that gave me pause and forced me to really consider the message:

Commitment
To be committed means you are willing to make a promise with no expectation of return; a promise void of barter and not conditional on another’s action. In the absence of this, you are constantly in the position of reacting to the choices of others. The cost of constantly reacting is increased cynicism.

In the context of civic engagement, creating change, shifting mindsets and reimagining cultural paradigms, — especially when it comes to discussions regarding economic prosperity for communities with a desire to open the doors toward a more inclusive culture — this statement carries so much weight and I felt compelled to dig into it even more, because I believe it just might be the foundation for the entire conversation.

When you think about commitment, what comes to mind? Relationships? Agreements? I have never thought of commitment as selfless, as this definition seems to suggest — “no expectation of return.”

I was immediately reminded of another message that stuck with me when I read it from Seth Godin’s book What to do When it’s Your Turn (and it’s Always Your Turn).

On page 100, Seth begins writing about Obligations. He suggests there are four kinds of obligations: Social Obligations, Legal Obligations, Moral Obligations and Artistic Obligations. He breaks each of the first three down to explain them — nothing out of the ordinary in his explanations of these obligations.

But when he gets to Artistic Obligation, he does what Seth is known to do: He challenges the reader.

It’s a perfect pattern interrupt:

Artistic Obligation:
This is the one that really matters to our discussion. We needed to break out the other sorts of obligations so we could get to the core of what’s holding us back, which is an expectation of what others should do when they encounter art.

What do we owe the singer who trained for years to sing us that song? What do we owe the person who spoke up at the meeting with a brand new idea? We have all sorts of moral and cultural obligations, but the artist must act as if:

We might, in fact, want to applaud her, encourage her, motivate her to do it again. We might buy from her, endorse her, or cheer the artist on.

And if we do, that’s great…

But the productive artist refuses to incur an artistic obligation. She acts as though the audience doesn’t owe her anything, and forgiving them in advance gives her the freedom to make the work she needs to make.

The flipside though, is also true. The productive artist must act as if she owes the audience, and in unlimited measure.

And this is what I believe the authors of Civic Engagement workbook are suggesting. In order to move the conversation forward, we must arrive at the point at which we will share our contributions as gifts — with not expectation of being owed anything in return.

As Contributions — not as contracts.

When we show up with a willingness to listen to other people’s point of views and let our ideas be shared, we can’t take it personally when our ideas are not part of the action plan immediately. Because if that is why we’re sharing our ideas — if we’re walking into the room with the expectation that our ideas will be adopted, we’re really not committed to the purpose of the meeting. Meaningful change will come when we can be committed to the outcomes to the benefit of all parties, no matter whose idea it is, or how long it takes to get there.

If we act as if we are committed, our level of accountability shifts to more of an ownership of the problem, as opposed to a victim of the situation. We become accountable. Our mindset becomes one of action, not of finger pointing. One of service, not of entitlement. One of responsibility, not of blame.

The authors describe accountability as:

Accountability:
The dominant existing public conversation is retributive, not restorative. It is void of accountability and soft on commitment. In this way it drives us apart, it does not bring us together. The existing conversation is about entitlement, not accountability. To be accountable, among other things, means you act as an owner and part creator of whatever it is that you wish to improve. In the absence of this, you are in the position of effect, no cause; a powerless stance.

I want to be part of conversations like this. And I am eager to shift the way we talk about local economies toward a more open, even playing ground, in which we can all work together to shape the future of our cities — based on our commitment to making community action a place for everyone to contribute.