I’ve been puzzled by the recent debates about the “real definition of engagement” and recent noise about the spectacularly mis-named engagement “Task Force”.

Why? Well it has a disappointing sense of deja-vu.

When I wrote Brand Engagement back in 2007  around the time my former SDL colleague, John Smythe wrote The Chief Engagement Officer, it was summing up a decade of employee engagement work and the talk was of “how to engage employees?” not “why?” or “what?”.

Then the banks imploded and the recession hit as they dragged other sectors down with them.

Contrary to the loud and often contradictory statements, engagement is a simple notion which has multiple applications. In brand terms it describes the degree to which customers connect with a brand in a way which causes them to become advocates, buy more product and “spread the word”.

The same notion applies to employee engagement. But in the world of the employee, the degree to which they are engaged with their employer either leads to a decision to join, to stay or, most importantly, to voluntarily give more, go the extra mile, innovate.

When expressed in these simple terms, there’s a clear business case from the point of view of the organisation (or brand). There’s plenty in it for the individual too who, let’s face it, wants to enjoy what they do for a living.

Pre-recession, all the talk around this topic concerned employee retention, the “war for talent”, maximising returns, idea generation, gaining competitive advantage. During the recession, as discretionary spending suddenly disappeared, it was all but forgotten as ”engagers” (including the communication and HR communities),became embroiled in the bloody business of surviving, re-sizing and damage limitation. So, perhaps it’s a good sign that we’ve come full circle and the “innovation” word is back?

Perhaps!

The difficulty I have with much of the noise in this area is that we’ve already covered this ground. Even the quantitative crew got it some time ago, typified by Peoplemetrics in their 09 White Paper on this subject.

We now run the risk of re-obsessing about definitions when what employees and businesses need is action. Regardless of the fact that the platforms and media  have expanded in the last 4 years, they haven’t replaced the classics. No, Facebook simply hasn’t supplanted Facetime The beauty is somewhere in the blend and unless we inspire engagement rather than pay it lip service, we really run the risk of regressing and simply playing an old tune on a new fiddle.

I was lucky enough to spend a week on a whirlwind business tour of India a few years back travelling to five cities and meeting executives from many of the leading Indian brand names from Tata through to Titan. As many people are, however, I was struck by the contrast between extreme wealth and the tenacity of the so called untouchable class of fervent entrepreneurs who keep India buzzing.

One of my contacts from that trip sent me this story. It speaks volumes:

A Blackberry addict discovers grassroots enterprise in India

A greater ‘hole in the wall’ you cannot imagine.  A small fading sign on the top saying “Cellphoon reapars” barely visible through the street vendors crowding the Juhu Market in Mumbai. On my way to buy a new Blackberry, my innate sense of adventure (foolishness) made me stop my car and investigate. A shop not more than 6 feet by 6 feet. Grimy and uncleaned.

‘Can you fix a blackberry ?”

‘ Of course , show me”

” How old are you”

‘Sixteen’

Bullshit. He was no more than 10. Not handing my precious blackberry to a 10 year old in unwashed and torn T shirt and pyjama’s ! At least if I buy a new one, they would extract the data for me. Something I have been meaning to do for a year now.

‘What’s wrong with it ?”

‘Well, the roller track ball does not respond. It’s kind of stuck and I cannot operate it”

He grabs it from my hand and looks at it

“You should wash your hands. Many customers have same problem. Roller ball get greasy and dirty, then no working’

Look who was telling me to wash my hands. He probably has not bathed for 10 days, I leaned out to snatch my useless blackberry back.

” you come back in one hour and I fix it’

I am not leaving all my precious data in this unwashed kid’s hands for an hour. No way.

“who will fix it ?”

‘Big brother’

‘ How big is ‘big brother?’

‘big …. umm ..thirty’

Then suddenly big brother walks in. 30 ??? He is no more than 19.

‘What problem ?’ He says grabbing the phone from my greasy hand into his greasier hand. Obviously not trained in etiquette by an upmarket retail store manager.

‘Normal blackberry problem. I replace with original part now. You must wash your hand before you use this’

What is this about me washing my hands suddenly ??  19 year old big brother rummages through a dubious drawer full of junk and fishes out a spare roller ball packed in cheap cellophane wrapper.  Original part ? I doubt it.

But by now I am in the lap of the real India and there is no escape as he fishes out a couple of screwdrivers and sets about opening my Blackberry.

“How long will this take ?”

” Six minutes ”

This I have to see. After spending the whole morning trying to find a Blackberry service centre and getting vague answers about sending the phone in for an assessment that might take a week, I settle down next to his grubby cramped work space. At least I am going to be able to watch all my stored data vanish into virtual space. People crowd around to see what’s happening. I am not breathing easy anyway. I tell myself this is an adventure and literally have to stop myself grabbing my precious blackberry back and making a quick escape.

But in exactly six minutes this kid handed my blackberry back. He had changed the part and cleaned and serviced the the whole phone.  Taken it apart, and put it together. As I turned the phone on there was a horrific 2 minutes where the phone would not come on. I looked at him with such hostility that he stepped back.

‘you have more than thousand phone numbers ?”

‘yes’.

‘backed up ?’

‘no’

‘Must back up. I do it for you. Never open phone before backing up’

‘You tell me that now ?’

But then the phone came on and my data was still there. Everyone watching laughed and clapped. This was becoming a show. A six minute show.

I asked him how much.

‘ 500 rupees’ He ventured uncertainly . People around watched in glee expecting a negotiation. Thats $ 10 dollars as against the Rs 30,000 ($ 600)  I was a about to spend on a new blackberry or a couple of weeks without my phone. I looked suitably shocked at his ‘high price ‘ but calmly paid him. Much to the disapointment of the expectant crowd.

‘do you have an Iphone ? Even the new ‘4′ one ?

‘no, why”

‘I break the code for you and load any ‘app’ or film you want. I give you 10 film on your memory stick on this one, and change every week for small fee’

I went home having discovered the true entreprenuership that lies at what we call the ‘bottom of the pyramid’. Some may call it piracy, which of course it is, but what can you say about a two uneducated and untrained brothers aged 10 and 19 that set up a ‘hole in the wall’ shop and can fix any technology that the greatest technologists in the world can throw at them.

I smiled at the future of our country. If only we could learn to harness this potential.

‘Please wash your hands before use’ were his last words to me.

Now I am feeling seriously unclean.

I’ve long been a fan of integration and collaboration across the engagement disciplines of internal and external communication in the interests of developing healthier, sustainable brands. So I’m pleased to see what the PR industry has been up to in Stockholm recently and the publication of the Stockholm Accords.

Notable PR professionals have recently gathered at the World Public Relations Forum where they have been produced a “call to action” for what they call Public Relations Professionals.

The Accords are a rallying call for the global PR community to commit to work to some code of practice.  The aim is to “administer its principles on a sustained basis and to affirm them throughout the profession, as well as to management and other relevant stakeholder groups”.

In short, those who have gathered have created a model suggesting that if we coordinate all communication, then we have a sound basis for management, the basis for communicating internally, which gives us the basis for communicating externally which then provides the basis for governance and social responsibility. All sweet music to my ears.

They also suggest that by doing all of these things correctly, we will achieve organizational sustainability. In short, public relations, through holistic stakeholder management, can ensure that organizations adapt and endure, largely through listening and responding.

Interestingly, the Accords give prominence to internal communication and communication from the inside out and outside in. Surprisingly perhaps, 2 of the 7 Accords are about Internal Communication.

Now I’ve been a longstanding critic of what I have referred to as a plague of short termism within organizations.

I have also pointed to lack of authenticity as a largely unrecognized catalyst behind the recent global recession, creating flawed notions of performance culture development and a boom and bust approach to management:

 As a result, I’m likely to support anything which has the vision of sustainability at its core and the song of authenticity in its heart. I applaud initiatives that look to bring the communication and engagement disciplines closer together to reverse the negative perceptions associating PR with the 90s phenomenon of spin and lack of authenticity. I’ll certainly celebrate anything that raises the profile of the power of joined up communication in the interests of developing organizations fit for the medium to long term purpose.

But the words need to be accompanied by actions. Apparently around 1,000 international communications professionals contributed to the Accords. The fact that they have devoted so much time and effort at such trying times speaks volumes. There really aren’t any excuses left for failing to take an integrated approach to managing brands.

The Peter Principle states that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr Lawrence Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book by the same name.

I call them “the brand dead” or “brand spectators” who fur up the organisation’s arteries. Most MDs tolerate a Peter or two. But when conditions change, Peter and pals can very quickly poison your brand from within. When the big battalions are mobilised and change is demanded, the Peter’s, not the market conditions, are your worst enemy.

Consider the impact a Peter can have on your recruitment drive.

“Hire people who are better than you are, then leave them to get on with it . . . ; Look for people who will aim for the remarkable, who will not settle for the routine.” The late David Ogilvy, advertising executive

“If you pick the right people and give them the opportunity to spread their wings—and put compensation as a carrier behind it—you almost don’t have to manage them.” Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric

Ogilvy and Welch point the way towards recruitment nirvana – making the most of the fact that it’s an employer’s market to recruit experienced; challenging; maverick; game changers who will stimulate the innovation you need.

But the Peters will desperately cling onto the status quo, recruit in their own image and reinforce the employer brand which failed to spot the issues which have since marched all the way around the corner and into your boardroom.

And if you’ve encouraged Peter-style behaviour within your intermediaries and recruitment agents, you’re in deep trouble as they will doubtless perpetuate a protectionist culture.

When you get a moment, just take a look at the various recruitment and blogging forums and consider how many really good people are out there at the moment. Listen to what they’re saying about the recruitment practices of the Peters. Ask yourself whether you know who your Peters are and whether Peter can be motivated to change?

But most of all question whether your recruitment strategy is paying Peter by robbing Paul and the impact this is having and will have on the performance of your brand.

Never in everyday pursuit of corporate endeavour have so many been force fed by so few.

The proliferation of communication channels given the rise of social and technological media means your average employee claims to be nearing communication saturation point. But are they? I would suggest that the appetite for effective communication has never been more keen, yet effective communication is still in very short supply.

Lest we forget, communication is essentially an outcome, not an input. As I had to make a point of reminding a group of senior civil servants while running Team Briefing workshops recently, “success isn’t measured by volume, pace or quantity. Good communication is a product of whether the message has been received, understood and has resulted in the necessary action”.

For a number of years now, when I’ve conducted communication audits for clients, employees across sectors have complained about being bombarded. Despite the rather trendy discussions about the difference between internal communication and employee engagement, message management and push communication appears to be increasing.The biggest culprit is the dreaded email.

The Evils of email Management

Having just carried out an audit of internal communication channels for another public sector client currently undergoing major change, I’ve been struck, once again, by a bizarre, and frequently seen contradiction.

In answer to the question “How would you prefer to be informed of changes”, a whopping 76% of respondents voted for face to face communication.  Of those 76%, some 68% wanted that communication to come from their immediate line managers.

The second preference was for some form of internal social media allowing them the opportunity to provide feedback and debate in an interactive, real time environment.

However, when we looked into the Communication Department’s communication method of choice, they prioritised:

1. Lunch Meetings with the CEO and senior team
2. email bulletins
3. voicemail
4. publications

In fact, as the change programme gathered pace and brought with it “right sizing” and major structure changes, the top two methods fast became the only “official” channels.  Sadly team briefings led by line managers, once a norm, had faded to sporadic bursts.

It’s perhaps understandable that a number of line managers and supervisors had taken a backward step when faced with extremely difficult message management.  But in this case, it was soon very clear that abdication on this scale reflected deep-seated leadership issues.  Their CEO, in Hero Leader guise, although well intended, was clearly undermining his leaders. They had also lost faith in their communication function which, disempowered, was simply stepping aside by pressing the forward and cc buttons. 

But what’s the problem with push communication?

There clearly isn’t a single answer to this question but a glance at this famous learning effectiveness pyramid illustrates the power of face to face interaction with warm-blooded peers. 

The simple fact is that top down, cascade bombardments, usually delivered by email these days, are synonymous with lecturing.  They allow the originator to tick an activity box but are largely ineffective and simply reinforce one-way messaging. Cascades create a wider push communication culture as the approach is seen to be sanctioned from the very top.

As employee engagement requires:

-         interaction

-         involvement

-         feedback

-         opportunities to check understanding

-         emotional connection

by cascading swarms of messages the organisation promises one thing yet delivers another. It’s disingenuous and creates deep seated resentment.

Most of us learn much more effectively in interpersonal environments, when we’re involved and can interact with others. This is one of the reasons why line managers and immediate supervisors are increasingly important communicators. When they have the opportunity and take the time to commit to Facetime rather than Facebook, employees are enlightened and reassured by the example being set as well as the opportunity for face-to-face discussion, debate and reflection.

We all appreciate the merits of electronic communication. But despite the simple temptation of “compose, click and send” and the sophisticated charms of new-wave social media tools and techniques there really is no replacement for good, old fashioned, face to face, eyeball- to- eyeball communication. This is especially true during testing times when people lose what appetite they may have had for Foie Gras and deeply resent the fact that there’s no comfort food on the menu.

Ian Buckingham (ian@by2w.co.uk) is the founder of the Bring Yourself 2 Work Engagement Fellowship www.by2w.co.uk.  He is the author of Brand Engagement – How Employees Make or Break Brands  http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=281268. and Brand Champions (due Oct 2010)

I was at a dinner party thrown by a former HR director friend recently and as I arrived at his house was struck by the number of high performance cars on the driveway and then, once I was introduced to his guests, was equally surprised by the fact that most were from the HR community.

Now, I’m not deriding folk for their success. It just took a little getting used to, especially as most of the conversation revolved around the financial benefits associated with acquiring a reputation as a downsizing expert and “being the last one to turn out the lights” before moving on.

It’s clearly wrong to claim that re-sizing has become the raison d’etre of the modern HRD. But this perception wasn’t helped by the dinner party conversation about what it really means to trust and whether trust has any place at work?  

One premise was that the last two years has seen employees’ trust in their organisations fall dramatically and that organisations need to work at ways of re-engaging and re-establishing the psychological contract. The opposite - and prevailing view - was that there are certain things in business that have to remain secret, that being open and honest is often impossible and people should be mature enough to accept that.

The concensus was that trust has no real place at work any longer and that a healthy scepticism should prevail recognising that the employer/employee relationship is “a marriage of convenience”. Neutrality was seen as preferable but is it possible or even desirable to remain neutral in a vocational environment you devote the largest portion of your life to?

I appreciate that many of the HRDs I seem to meet these days are vassels for the process re-engineers and have become de-sensitised to emotions in a similar way to soldiers on the frontline. But is this a reflection of behaviour born of survival or how they really believe things should be?

Trust is a fairly fundamental emotion. If there’s no trust there’s no psychological contract between employees and the employer. Without that there’s no “extra mile” and no relationship development.

I guess you can have a relationship or marriage of convenience based on neutrality, without passion; empathy and drive. But then you can also join Victorian role playing societies to escape from reality.

In the UK we’ve become obsessed with the notion of the Employer Brand.  There are a number of definitions but, in short, this is essentially the brand (in its physical and behavioural forms), the employer presents to existing, potential and new employees. 

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with positioning brand as a concept as applicable to the internal audience and employee audience as the customer audience. And it’s a welcome change to perceive employees and potential employees as customers of the internal support functions.  However, it’s an equation without balance.

I believe our HR functions can and should take a step further towards embracing the role of brand management in the motivation, development, recruitment and management of employees (see Brand Engagement ). That extra step means moving beyond Employer Branding and embracing the notion of the Employment Brand. It calls for a lot more than a simple shift in semantics.

We can lure employees to our employer shop window with silvery-tongued promises, clearly differentiated package, glitzy brochures featuring models airbrushed offices and slick recruitment processes, with a seamless link between the core business and linked suppliers like recruitment companies and marketing organisations.  But how do we keep them people once they step through the doors and complete the induction programme? How do we prevent potential brand ambassadors from becoming brand saboteurs if they become disenchanted with the difference between what they were promised and what they experience?

Just as a brand, from a customer perspective, isn’t the promise made but the promise delivered, the Employment Brand is the result of the Employer Brand minus the Employee Brand (i.e. what the people processes promise minus what they actually deliver). 

It’s a simple twist but by focusing on the notion of Employment Brand it keeps the minds of those responsible for managing the people processes firmly focused on constantly ensuring they understand what they’re promising new as well as existing employees and that they are delivering against that promise. 

This approach calls for close collaboration between recruiters; inductors; measurers; people developers; communicators and brand managers. It’s a massive and positive opportunity for HR departments to step confidently into the brand breach with their marketing colleagues:

-         to develop one compelling story about the brand

-         to work to a consistent set of values

As recruitment markets gradually move back in favour of the talent pool, this shift in emphasis may just be a genuine brand differentiator.

There’s been much written about employee engagement in recent years as this relatively modern phenomenon continues to evolve from its internal communication roots.

Although often over complicated, the general premise of employee engagement is simple. Individual contributions of employees in the workplace is influenced by the strength of their emotional connection to their employer. The stronger and more positive that connection, the more likely it is that the employee will contribute their best effort for the sake of their organization or brand.

At its core, EE is based upon reciprocity. The employer works to create a work environment that is satisfying and rewarding for employees and stimulates their emotions and higher order needs. It literally invites them to bring themselves to work and become similarly invested (engaged) in their organisations long-term success. The concept is fairly simple to grasp, but not necessarily easy to implement.

One of the challenges is that emotional connections can be difficult to define and measure and are prone to shift in response to changes in the work environment. More confounding is that these relations are influenced by multiple variables (line management relationships, organizational mission and values, workload, peer relationships, etc.).

Add to this the cost/resource challenges created by the worst recession since the Great Depression and the fact that EE is reliant on discretionary budgets and EE as a business strategy can quickly become a “nice to have” in the good times.

These challenges aside, engagement as a strategy is not only important, but vital, especially in a climate of economic uncertainty, to the long-term viability of most business enterprises. According to a proprietary report just completed by the University of Akron’s Centre for Organizational Research, engaged employees tend to:

• Be more satisfied with their jobs
• Be more likely to stay with their employer even when other opportunities emerge
• Be more tolerant of (perceived) temporary economic hardships due to the economy
• Bring a consistently higher level of commitment, creativity and energy to their jobs
• Demonstrate higher levels of “good citizenship” behaviours both at and away from work

As a general rule, it’s safe to say that most employees are not engaged with their employers right now. In fact, the most recent Conference Board survey in the US found that only 45% of employees currently report being satisfied with their jobs (the lowest since the survey was started in 1987). As many as 60% indicate that they plan to actively seek new employment sometime in 2010.

Can Employee engagement really be reserved as “nice to do” strategy for when times are good? Employees are smart and quickly spot insincerity. In tough times, resorting to push communication cloaked in the trappings of engagement is like washing the car and then parking it under a tree full of pigeons.

 Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an organisation development process or philosophy that engages individuals within an organisation in its turnaround, renewal, change and focused performance.

It’s a particular way of asking questions and envisioning the future that fosters positive relationships and builds on the basic goodness in a person, a situation, or an organization. Put another way, it’s an approach that believes in the power of positive thinking and seeks to draw out the superhero in every employee rather than a self-fulfilling belief that all employees are scheming super villains.

Used effectively, it enhances an organisation’s capacity for collaboration and change.  It’s a fantastic way of signaling an energising alternative to the depressing and draining, downsizing mentality of a recession.

Appreciative Inquiry utilizes a cycle of 4 processes focusing on:

1. DISCOVER: The identification of organizational processes that work well.
2. DREAM: The envisioning of processes that would work well in the future.
3. DESIGN: Planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.
4. DESTINY (or DELIVER): The implementation (execution) of the proposed design.

Even the headings are inspirational.

The basic idea is to build organizations around what works, rather than just trying to fix what doesn’t. It is the opposite of problem solving. Instead of focusing on gaps and inadequacies to find blame and remediate skills or practices, AI focuses on how to create more of the occasional exceptional performance that is occurring (and there will be examples), regardless of conditions, because a core of strengths is aligned.

The approach acknowledges the contribution of individuals, in order to increase trust and inspire best practice. The method aims to create meaning by drawing from stories of concrete successes with the potential of becoming best practices and lends itself to cross-functional social activities. It can be enjoyable and natural to many managers, who, let’s face it, are often sociable people when they come out from behind the badge.

There are a variety of approaches to implementing Appreciative Inquiry, including mass-mobilized interviews and a large, diverse gathering called an Appreciative Inquiry Summit Both approaches involve bringing very large, diverse groups of people together to study and build upon the best in an organization or community.

The basic philosophy of AI is also found in other positively oriented approaches to individual change as well as organizational change. AI fosters positive relationships and builds on the basic goodness in a person, or a situation. The idea of building on strength, rather than just focusing on faults and weakness is a powerful idea in use in mentoring programs, and excellent performance evaluations – where superheroes come into their own.

So if you’re wondering what to do with your employee survey in the face of an increasingly cynical workforce and are a little nervous about how any internal benchmarking activity will be received; if you’ve had enough of the pessimism and would like to know more about the power of Appreciative Inquiry or just need a hand spotting those brand champions quietly battling the economic doom and gloom, find out more. In the current climate, a change of tone may just make a difference.