For me, trust starts with everyone knowing what the other has committed to and what they can count on. Commitment-Based Management helps make those commitments specific.
The visible connection between the supports represents a clear agreement between two people.
Say a colleague sends you a text with a note that AI has already prepared it. You are meant to forward it to a customer. Nobody has said whether she checked the content or whether that falls to you. Before you use it, you need to know what she is handing over.
Talk about what you are promising
‘The text is done’ can mean a lot of things. It might be a first draft. Or someone may have checked the details against current documents, and it can go to the customer as it is. If your colleague means something different by ‘done’ than you do, you will plan your next steps on the wrong basis.
I work with Commitment-Based Management for this. One person commits to delivering a specific result to another by an agreed time. Both understand the same thing by it. Before committing, they talk about what has to be in place.
In the example, your colleague could commit to sending you a checked reply to the customer's question. You then agree with her which details she will check and what you will decide yourself. If all she can deliver is a first draft, she says so. You plan your own work around that.
Making the commitment specific
01
Name the result
You say what you will deliver, to whom and by when. You agree with the other person what ‘done’ means.
02
Raise the conditions
You say what information is already there and what still needs clearing up before you deliver.
03
Say what stays with them
The other person needs to know what they can use and which questions remain theirs.
The graphic follows the handover of a customer reply. The commitment is between the people involved, even when AI helps with the text.
People need to be able to say no
Anyone asked for a commitment must be able to say it can't be done under the current conditions. In the example, your colleague may be missing up-to-date information. Or she can prepare the draft but can't check the substance herself. Once she says so, you can work out who picks up the rest.
So whoever asks for a commitment has to be able to take a reasoned refusal. The conversation then turns to what is still missing for a reliable commitment. Perhaps she needs one more piece of information. Perhaps the date can't be met.
Leadership, as I see it, means people can describe their situation openly. When someone raises a problem early, you can act with the people involved while there is still room to move. That only works if you genuinely want to understand what lies behind their answer.
Agree changes with the people involved
Even a carefully agreed commitment can come under strain when circumstances change. A detail gets corrected, or a piece of information arrives late. Whoever made the commitment tells the other person as soon as they see the consequences.
Then you need a new agreement. Simply changing a date in a list isn't enough. The person waiting for the result needs to know what has changed and what that means for their own work. In the example, that includes whether the customer will still get a reply in time.
Trust grows when everyone knows what still stands, because changes are raised early. People who hear about a change early can adjust their next steps.
People stand behind the commitment, even when AI helps
AI can prepare a text and help with checking it. Whether the content fits the task and is ready to use is down to the person passing it on. So a handover has to make sense to someone who doesn't know which AI was involved.
I want to know what a person stands behind and which questions are still open. A clear commitment tells me how to carry on with my own work. When people talk to each other like this, everyone can also see what the AI contributed.
