Comments on: Engagement: Our controversial view

By: Chris Cox

Chris Cox — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:23:24 +0000

I agree with the sentiment, but like Kevin I think the word is the problem. I’d argue the real purpose of Internal Communications is to generate enthusiasm across an organization. Not to engage, but to enthuse.

To most people Engagement sounds like classic business jargon, driven by a desire to control people rather than to help and support them. Hold a gun to my head and I’m engaged, but I’m not enthused. Communications today is about what you can do 4me not 2me.

Internal Communications is about changing (or at least influencing) mass behavior. In today’s world that means colleagues influencing each other as much as leaders influencing from on high. Enthusiasm is infectious, is engagement?

I’d bet on an enthusiastic organization against an engaged one any day… especially these days.

h/t to John Grant for kick-starting the idea of Marketing Enthusiasm.

By: Sean Trainor

Sean Trainor — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:02:05 +0000

So engagement is down to the line manager…and I was expecting a controversial view. I think you will find most organisations, including those that offer packaged solutions, have been advocating this pov for many years. I believe the real controversy is that the same organisations dont seem to have been able or know how to tackle the issue, and spend a lot of time and energy arguing semantics.

By: Kevin Keohane

Kevin Keohane — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:16:00 +0000

I always have mixed emotions. I’m not sure which irritates me more – the word “engagement” or people who insist on trying to argue about what it means when they should be doing something about it.

It’s sort of like Values. I’m redoing a global professional services firm’s Value and have banned them from using

Integrity
Teamwork
Innovation
Honesty
Respect
Diversity
etc.

… for much the same reason. Sometimes its what you DON’T say that tells volumes…

By: The client is never wrong (but they could be “more right!”) « corporate responsibility matters

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:07:23 +0000

[...] 26, 2009 Anyone interested in the concept of engagement would be wise to look up a great post from David Ferrabee on his Able & How blog. In it, he makes a great case for viewing engagement not as a series [...]

By: David Ferrabee

David Ferrabee — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:51:28 +0000

Dan, I am just teasing you. I know what you meant. Our view is that purchasing decisions of all shapes and sizes are being put off. Biro makers are suffering as much as the M&A market. The upshot is probably that many ills are being neglected and they’ll be all the worse for it when the bandages are removed.
/df

By: Dan Gray

Dan Gray — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:36:38 +0000

Don’t get me wrong, I’d go along with Cesar Ritz too. I’m not questioning clients’ enlightenment (I can’t afford to do that either!) so much as lamenting the notion that the current climate may provide succour for the ‘one size fits all’ brigade.

By: David Ferrabee

David Ferrabee — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:38:45 +0000

You’re a brave man, Dan, to question the enlightenment of a client in this market! We can be quite critical of fellow consultancies who have a ‘whatever your problem is, I have the same answer’ approach, but in this market we find that whatever is ailing our clients is the only thing that we can afford to focus on.
Marshall Fields and Selfridges are credited with saying “the customer is always right”, but it probably comes from the Frenchman, Cesar Ritz, who said “the client is never wrong.” The difference is subtle, but good for us.
/df

By: Dan Gray

Dan Gray — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:14:25 +0000

It doesn’t sound odd to me; it makes perfect sense. Indeed, I’ve been saying much the same about those other oft-mistreated buzzwords ‘responsibility’ and ‘sustainability’.

These concepts have nothing to do with discrete roles, initiatives or targets. They are, as you say, a state of mind – a way of thinking, acting and behaving.

I wonder how many potential clients are enlightened enough to consider the benefits of such an approach though, versus those who continue to think in terms of neatly packaged, productised, tactical interventions.

By: Howard Krais

Howard Krais — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:52:54 +0000

I agree with the sentiment that it is about line managers and not senior leaders but the trouble is who is the line manager’s line manager? … and so on all the way up the organisation.

If the ultimate line managers (senior leaders) aren’t inspiring their direct reports (often very senior power brokers themselves) then the whole thing can fall down

By: Liam Fitzpatrick

Liam Fitzpatrick — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:59:21 +0000

I’ve been trying to ban the very word for years – mainly because it seems to mean so many things. Here’s a short list that I’ve seen in use recently:
* Attention grabbing (as in “If we could get people Engaged in the website…”)
* A way of managing attendance (as in “Our engagement strategy is all about reducing sickness and absence”)
* The state when people are committed to a course of action
* The state when people do what senior managers tell them to without asking

And I’ve stopped counting…

Liam