🟨⬜What does it mean (not) to commit to the iOS?

Who this article is for...

  • new team members (Onboarding)

  • existing team members

  • anyone who is interested in our Operating System

In or Out?

Some things are negotiable, some are not.

The essentials of our iOS are the foundation on which all our work is built on. So committing to them is necessary, if you want to be part of the (inner) team.

Being in means committing to the essential action. Failing to commit (or to follow your commitment) means you're out.

Remember though:
It's about intention, not perfection.

What is the consequence of committing?

The consequence of committing to our iOS is...

  1. that you give your best to apply our high SoP (Standard of Performance) within our group and in your life.

  2. that you're ok, that other people hold you accountable to it!

  3. that you're out if you don't follow up with your commitments.
    (again: intention, not perfection)

What happens if I don't commit?

Well, short version: Then you can't be part to the (inner) team.

Yep, that's how important it is!
No one is bigger than the team. Not having a shared foundation on which to build on, hurts the synergies and therefore the whole group.

So we rather pay the price of not having this person's skills + time + attention on board, than pay the (more subtle) price of the negative influence on the whole.

Which doesn't mean there is no way to work together...

Is there a way to cooperate without committing (fully) to the iOS?


As always it's about clarity more than about the fact itself.
If you don't want to commit to the iOS now, then it does mean you can't be part of the main / inner team.

But we can get creative to find a role, that

  • doesn't hurt the whole group and our SoP

  • allows you to contribute

How this could look like exactly is different from case to case.

Here just one example:

Let's say someone doesn't want to commit to our communication-essentials, as it seems to much work for him/her to follow up with them.

He or she might be included in single projects or tasks having some kind of "internal buddy" who is committed to our high SoP and serves as a kind of "translator" (e.g. documenting ideas + etc. + then communicates them instead of this specific person)

This person might be included in certain calls + get's questions passed along from the buddy, but has no decision-making power, especially not in general question that are outside of the concrete project / task.


English: commitment

Was this article helpful?