It happens to hear that commitment of working groups and consequently of companies depends on what a CEO represents for the company itself. It is certainly true that CEO is the first spokesperson of what a business is and therefore embeds message and an example of what could be, but it is not enough to really influence commitment; it seems to me a great falsehood and reality distortion idea. The thing that annoys me the most is the fact that who writes these things are experts of the field of human resources. A CEO is an example, but not as it is closest colleague or colleague next room; real examples are those who you have a close relationship and you have “connections” that involve several aspects of your work. Here below you find some reasons about the fact that CEO is not first influencer of commitment in every organizations.
1 ) You do not meet CEO every day. Proximity is one of the main aspects that characterizes commitment. Proximity does not mean physical proximity of the office but it is in terms of work exchanges and communication.
2 ) Need of long term relationship. Commitment is created, modified and also established with long term relationship. In addition to what I said at point 1, it could happen that CEO is replaced so another one does not modify commitment.
3 ) CEO does not know content of you work. Commitment it is not only related to relationships’ statuses, but also to work content. So, the person with whom you speak with must know exactly the content of your work.
4)Openess . You’d have a clear and transparent relationships with colleagues but you won’t have same with your CEO, even if you are a his/her direct reports. Commitment needs open relationships because in opposite case, employees will imply detachment.
In conclusion, and as also reported many times in several posts of the blog, companies should therefore analyze more closely who actually is examples for employees and neglect that kind of hypocriesis