.svg){kind=small}
by Jeanne Bell and Dan Tucker, Co-Founders
Photo taken by Dan Tucker of mural by David Choe
Blog No. 13 - August 2025
Adult learning and change specialists Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, both Harvard lecturers, coined the term “competing commitments” to explain why people struggle mightily to make changes that they genuinely want to make. The core idea is to examine what else is driving individual, team, or organizational behavior other than the stated goal.
Competing commitments are very often in play after organizations articulate new strategies in a strategic plan or theory of change. By “new,” we mean that enacting them would require people to approach the work they have been doing differently: new methods, new habits, new internal and/or external collaborations, etc.
In justice-committed organizations, new strategies are typically developed in a facilitated, at least semi-inclusive, process; people are sensemaking together and articulating what could be and why it will be even better than what is now. Competing commitments arise, however, when it’s time to activate the new strategies because that’s when theoretical changes impinge on people’s actual attachment to existing structures and practices.
Let’s look at a familiar example below. The organization has just adopted a strategic plan. It aims to establish itself as a national thought-leader in its field and so has included a new strategy in the plan: Embed learning and innovation practices across our core programmatic work. Six months later, they have not moved the dial on this desired change. In fact, the new Chief Learning Officer feels like people are actively resisting her mandate to activate this strategy.
What’s happening here? During the strategic planning process everyone agreed that embedding learning and innovation practices across their core programmatic work would make them better at what they do and increase their influence in the field.
The Answer: The organization adopted a new strategy without attending to what roles, structures, and systems it would require for activation. Leaders did not use organizational design to mitigate fairly predictable competing commitments among staff.
Bottom Line: The organization is not yet designed to embed learning and innovation practices across its core programmatic work. This strategy will likely continue to stall or sputter.
The above scenario is all too common in justice-centered organizations. So what can we do instead? Here are five questions to ask in order to bring organizational structure and design lenses to a new strategy before and as you adopt it.
- What kinds of competing commitments will activating this new strategy likely bring up for our staff? How do we surface those candidly and plan together to mitigate them?
- Does this new strategy require change and/or collaboration across multiple teams or departments? If so, a cross-functional implementation group is very likely necessary and will be a place to address competing commitments as they arise.
- Do our staff need training or deeper socialization to the “why” and “how” of activating this strategy? Being grounded in the “why” supports people in making conscious choices in the face of competing commitments.
- If we are creating a new role to steward this strategy, how will we ensure that everyone feels accountable for their success, not in unwitting competition with it?
- And, do we stand ready to learn from our effort to implement this strategy and adjust for the competing commitments that will likely surface?
New strategies require shifts in people, structures, systems, and habits. Rather than letting competing commitments undermine strategy activation, we must attend to the shifts in design that allow people to engage in it fully. Watch our new video to learn more about how to link organizational strategy and organizational design.
