Engaging “Engagement”—CommsOffensive325 Goes on the Offensive
Dear Friends:
It’s now seen as the most important topic in the arena of internal communications. It is also a word that has penetrated the lexicon of senior executives, and it is seen as having the promise to secure better-than-average returns on investment in terms of employee productivity and happiness. I speak of course of the concept of “Engagement”.
“Engagement” promises much—but can it deliver?. Its embrace of “Engagement” as the bailiwick of the internal communication practitioner and consultant, the internal comms profession has yet to engage in a robust and critical discussion of “Engagement” and its implications, one addressing such basic issues and parameters as:
Definitions: Is there a common definition of “Engagement” that we are all to work towards, or are there other definitions that are more appropriate and could provide the basis for more effective solutions?
Methodologies: Are the methodologies being employed and sold to deliver “Engagement” robust enough to deliver the outcomes being promised?
Support of Clients: Are clients prepared to offer the financial, logistical and political support required to develop approaches that sufficiently transcend existing cultures, hierarchies and vocabularies, or are they asking for “Engagement In A Box? And, more to the point, are they willing to ensure those they assign responsibility for “Engagement” initiatives will be sufficiently willing and able to commit attention and resources to the cause?
Employee Respect: Is there a willingness to accommodate and leverage the unique nature of employee roles and the networks of their relationships, or demand a single desired level of additional commitment and productivity all must meet?
Structural Commitment: Is the client prepared to back up the “engagement” effort with changes to fundamental policies, procedures and practices, even those with financial, service-level and organizational implications?
The initial reports are not encouraging. Many organizations are seeking top-down-one-size-fits-all (TD OSFA) approaches, either demanding them of their internal communications professionals, or purchasing them from consultants or research companies like
The consequences of failure are also worth noting. Internal communicators were hit hard by the recession, and if the “engagement” trend leads to failed initiatives, gun-shy clients and discredited practitioners, we could be in for a deep recession of our own making. For this reason alone, I think it’s worth it for us to “engage” in a bit of professional self-reflection at this point in time.
In this edition, CommsOffensive325 will engage “Engagement” by:
* Offering an alternative definition and model of engagement
* Challenging the current consensus and raising key questions
* Offering an opportunity to join the “CommsOffensive”.
Thanks for reading so far, and I’m looking forward to your thoughts, ideas and comments.
Mike Klein
CommsOffensive325
