A directive tells your team exactly what to do. Keep the ticket queue under ten by end of day. Close forty cases a week. Respond to every email within two hours. Directives are authoritative. They come down from above, and the person receiving them has no input, no flexibility, and no voice in how the result gets delivered. They just execute.
A commitment works differently. It names something worth becoming true, in plain language anyone in the company could understand, and it leaves room for the people closest to the work to figure out how to get there.
Years ago, leading a technology organization, I gave the company a commitment instead of a directive. Every employee's first day will be excellent.
That single sentence did more for alignment than any policy document I could have written.
What a directive would have looked like.
If I had written a directive for new hire onboarding, it might have said something like this. IT will provision new hire accounts within 24 hours of the start date. Technically measurable. Technically achievable. And almost entirely disconnected from what actually makes a first day good or bad for the person walking in the door.
A directive like that gets followed to the letter and misses the point entirely. Accounts get created on time. Laptops sit in a box, unconfigured, until someone gets around to it. The new hire spends their first morning waiting for IT to show up, and nobody technically failed at anything.
What the commitment made possible.
Every employee's first day will be excellent is a sentence the whole company could understand and relate to, not just IT. That is what made it powerful. Each team could take that commitment and translate it into their own tasks and goals, in their own language, based on what they actually controlled.
For IT and HR, it drove real alignment. HR needed to get new hire notifications to IT with enough lead time for accounts, access, laptops, monitors, and a workstation to be ready before the person's start date, not scrambling on day one. That alone changed how the two functions talked to each other.
But the team took it further than I asked. They built in thirty to forty five minutes on that new employee's first day dedicated to technology training, not just handing over a laptop and a login. That time became a chance to start building comfort and a relationship with the help desk team before that new hire ever had a problem that needed solving. Nobody told them to do that. The commitment made it obvious.
What happened when we missed?
The commitment also became the standard we measured ourselves against, and we did not always meet it. When a first day fell short, whether it was a laptop that was not ready or a new hire who sat idle for an hour waiting on access, we talked about why.
Those conversations looked different than a missed metric review. Nobody was defending a number. The team was asking a real question together. What happened, and what does it tell us about how we deliver on this for the next person. The commitment held every team accountable, not because a target was missed, but because a standard everyone had agreed mattered was not met. Ownership stayed high because the standard belonged to everyone, not just to me.
Why this matters for how you lead?
A directive produces compliance. People hit the number because the number is what gets measured, and they stop thinking about it the moment the number is hit. A commitment produces ownership, because the team has to interpret what it means in their own area, and interpretation is where people start caring about the outcome instead of the metric. It also produces a different kind of accountability, one built on a shared standard rather than a scoreboard.
If you are setting goals for your organization this year, look at the language you are using. Does it tell people exactly what to deliver, or does it describe something worth becoming true that they get to help build toward, and be answerable for together? The first approach is faster to write. The second approach is the one people actually remember six months later, because they had a hand in shaping what it meant and a stake in whether it held.
Reflection for this issue:
If you asked five people on your team to describe your organization's current goals in their own words, would you get five different, specific answers, or one flat repetition of a number you handed them?
If someone forwarded this to you and you would like to subscribe, visit thecandidwalk.com.