Engagement’s Holy Grail

Just came back from an interesting meeting with yet another client interested in ensuring that their people, across internal and close stakeholder segments, understand what the brand means, what they need to do and do differently to create a truly differentiated customer experience.

What am I finding these days? On the one hand, clients are increasingly sophisticated and often have many pieces of the overall puzzle in place. On the other hand, in 5 out of 5 recent meetings the penny has dropped that Employee Engagement isn’t “owned” by internal communications.  And Brand Engagement isn’t owned by Marketing.  And HR has a stake in the whole thing, too.

And these functions need to start sitting down and working together (amongst the thunder and dust of silos falling) to make this happen in a holistic, co-ordinated manner.

Those doing so already are ahead of the game.  Those who do so now will have a competitive advantage.  Those who insist on empires and ownership will be left with disengaged employees and dissatisfied customers, and eventually they will sink without a trace.  Well, they’ll suffer a bit…

It’s really exciting.  A lot of this wasn’t happening except in the most forward-thinking organisations five years ago.  There’s now  a burning platform — it’s get it right or don’t bother trying time.  Can all the grown ups raise their hands?

 Let’s get moving!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Engagement’s Holy Grail

  1. I take a different view on engagement–that it’s not whether employees are “engaged” or “disengaged”. I see “engagement” not as a normative nirvana state all companies must strive for–nor as something to be demanded from employees.

    I’m in the process of organizing my own thoughts and presenting them in the weeks to come, but people in the “engagement” game have some major issues in terms of the vocabulary used, the strategic and analytical tools applied, the outcomes sought, and the intellectual and ideological honesty with which is is being pursued.

    To put it bluntly, when I see Melcrum case studies talking essentially about “Engagement-In-A-Box”, there’s cause for concern.

    Thanks,

    Mike

  2. Maybe not so different, really. I agree the terminology is all skewed, and that the tools are looking a bit tatty and disingenuous. I’m enjoying your blog – keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s