This article was originally posted on Adrian Evans excellent newsletter.
Individuals and teams often enthusiastically commit to projects, yet when deadlines loom, tasks fall undone. It’s a surprisingly common outcome. Research shows that what people intend to do only explains about a quarter (27%) of what they actually end up doing. There are a number of reasons for this.
When people are in groups, they often don’t act because they assume someone else will. This is called the diffusion of responsibility or bystander effect. It’s not just that people choose not to act; something deeper is happening in the brain.
Simply being around others makes people feel less personally in control, even though they actually still could act. This happens because decisions get more complicated when you have to think about what others might do, which slows down or confuses your own decision-making.
Brain studies show that when people act in groups, their brains react less strongly to the results of their actions meaning they’re less tuned in to what happens and less motivated to learn from it. This suggests the bystander effect isn’t just an excuse; it’s a real drop in how our brains connect what we do with what happens next. So, just blaming people afterwards for “not taking responsibility” doesn’t fix the problem, organisations need to design systems that make it easier for individuals to act and feel responsible in group settings.
A related problem is ‘social loafing’ when people put in less effort in a group than they would if they were working alone. This happens when it’s hard to see who’s contributing what, when people don’t feel personally invested, or when rewards don’t recognise individual effort. It’s often a sign that the group’s goals are unclear or the leadership isn’t motivating or supportive enough.
What can you do about it?
The starting point is to check that people have what they need to complete the task be they skills or resources.
Forming “implementation intentions” has been shown to double follow-through. An implementation intention is an "if-then" plan that links a specific situation to a specific behavior, helping to turn a goal into an action. It is a pre-decision that helps bridge the gap between having a good intention and actually acting on it by making the response more automatic and less reliant on willpower.
Accountability also plays a key role. Shared responsibility and public commitments increase follow-through. Making a public pledge makes success a matter of personal integrity, boosting commitment. In teams, setting up simple accountability rituals like asking a member to report progress to the group can curb social loafing.When people feel accountable to each other, effort goes up.
Even with clear goals, people need motivation beyond obligation. Studies of meaningful work show that when tasks connect to a larger purpose or personal values, engagement, and hence commitment soars. Help people understand why their work matters.
Organisations can close the gap between good intentions and real action by shaping environments that make the right behavior automatic rather than dependent on willpower.
Beyond individual planning, contextual cues and ‘nudging’ can steer collective behavior. The physical layout, workflow, and culture of an organisation influence how people act, often more than their personal traits. By adjusting the environment such as using reminders, and ‘CEO awards’ that celebrate the right approach to work, or figuring out how to make ‘the right thing to do’ the ‘easiest thing to do’ can help make the desired action the simplest one to take. This approach shifts focus from blaming individuals to improving system design.
Sustaining active commitment, however, requires deeper internal motivation.
Leaders should nurture autonomy, competence, and relatedness to drive genuine engagement. Servant leadership, value alignment, and meaningful work strengthen these needs, transforming compliance into authentic, self-driven action. When combined with the other strategies outlined, these practices create reliable, intrinsically motivated teams who act decisively and collaboratively without constant oversight.
Ⓒ Dr Dominic Irvine 2025
Useful sources:
- Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 186–199.
- Geldenhuys, M., Łaba, K., & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), Article 1098.
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task performance: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
- McAnally, K., & Hagger, M. S. (2024). Self-determination theory and workplace outcomes: A conceptual review and future research directions. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), 428.
- Rachman, M. M. (2022). The impact of motivation on performance: The role of organizational commitment. Jurnal Manajemen: Theory and Applied Management, 15(3), 376–393.
- Stewart, V. R., Snyder, D. G., & Kou, C.-Y. (2023). We hold ourselves accountable: A relational view of team accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(4), 691–712.