Skip to main content

Compliancy vs Commitment

I don't see criticism and (a certain level of) conflict as unhealthy in an organization. The contrary! It is when people stop raising their voice and sharing their feedback that you need to start worrying. It could be a sign that people no longer care and have decayed from commitment to compliance.

Beyond following orders

As leaders we are constantly seeking ways to drive results. But there's a fundamental distinction worth understanding on how to achieve this: 

If we collaborate, the result is commitment. If we coerce, the result is compliance.

Commitment comes from within, whereas compliance is forced by an external source. When people comply, they're simply following orders. They do just enough to get by, meet the bare minimum requirements, or check the box. There's no personal investment in the outcome.

Commitment, on the other hand, invites full participation, engagement, and discretionary effort.

The language of Commitment

L. David Marquet states in his book ‘‘Leadership is language’ that our language reflects and reinforces this distinction in powerful ways. In the book he gives the example on how you talk to yourself when trying to change a habit

  • "I can't eat sweets" (compliance) vs. "I don't eat sweets" (commitment)
  • "I can't miss this deadline" vs. "I don't miss deadlines"
  • "I can't spend my time that way" vs. "I don't spend my time that way"

The word "can't" suggests an external restriction—something is preventing you from doing what you actually want to do. "Don't," however, reflects an internal choice and identity. You're the kind of person who doesn't do that thing. This subtle shift in language creates a remarkable difference in results.

Choice: The foundation of commitment

For commitment to exist, there must first be choice.

If a person has no choice but to say yes, then what we have is compliance. 

This explains why common workplace initiatives to "inspire" and "empower" employees often fall flat—if people don't genuinely feel they have a choice, their response will be compliance at best.

Compliance also:

  • Gives people a pass on thinking
  • Removes personal responsibility ("I was just following orders")
  • Creates fragile operations due to lack of context

Building a culture of commitment

The key is creating conditions where people can make genuine commitments rather than merely complying with directives.

How can we foster commitment rather than settling for compliance?

  1. Provide context, not just directives. When people understand the "why" behind a request, they're more likely to commit.
  2. Create genuine choice. Even when options are limited, finding ways to give people some agency in how they approach their work fosters commitment.
  3. Use the language of commitment. Pay attention to how requests are framed and how decisions are discussed.
  4. Recognize that commitment is personal. Groups don't make commitments—individuals do. Honor the personal nature of commitment.

So the next time you're facing resistance or lackluster results, ask yourself: Am I seeking compliance or commitment? The answer might reveal exactly why you're not getting the engagement you desire.

More information

Discontinuous improvement

Appreciate, don’t evaluate

Trust & Inspire instead of Command & Control

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...