> Michael McMaster wrote:
> > "Commitment" or its lack seems to explain everything. "If only top
> > management was committed, then it would all work out." And if it doesn't
> > work out, then "Top management must have lacked commitment."
> > What is this phenomenon, commitment?
>
> Commitment isn't mental, a mental decision. It's often approached as
> mental, a mental decision, but i submit that's the illusion of commitment,
> and often falls apart, giving the "committer" a loss and everyone else a
> betrayal. Commitment is energetic, it has to do with being, the substance
> underlying a situation, who we are, what we're about, energy levels. As
> such it's deeper than common dialogue, although dialogue can address it,
> can touch on it. Commitment seems "magical" and elusive because it deals
> with the energetic dimensions we don't commonly talk about.
>
Uh-huh. "Commitment" is an observer's word, not a participant's. People
who are committed show it. They don't usually have any reason to use the
word itself.
Regards
jamzen@world.std.com
There are more different kinds of people in the world than there are people...