Employee engagement vs. enablement

with 1 Comment

Employee ‘enablement’ seems to be the latest term to emerge in the Internal Communications world. It has been mentioned in a few circles recently, including this article that suggests enablement is ‘the missing link to productivity’ in business today.

But is there really a difference between engagement and enablement? Is anyone out there using ‘enablement’ and if so, how do you implement it alongside engagement?

Do we really need to re-badge or re-brand our communication activities?  Shouldn’t we really just focus on whether there’s been a change in behaviour and that there have been good outcomes for the business?

Or maybe this is too simplistic….



Download PDF

Download PDF

One Response

  1. Sean Trainor
    |

    David, I first came across the enablement term back in March http://uberengagement.com/index/?p=820
    It seems to be a term pushed by Hay Group. Old wine in new bottles.
    The reality is that all people management interventions are (or should be)enablers to business outcomes. Some of that is internal comms, some of that is engagement some of that are the HR interventions that Hay would call enablement.
    The label doesn’t matter, it’s about what the interventions achieve. sadly too many consultants have never managed change outside of a Gantt chart or impacted behaviour or business outcomes in a positive way. So they need labels to hide behind. I think most practitioners see through this. Top tip for practitioners: the next time a consultant asks “what does success look like” don’t yawn, instead ask them “when have you ever delivered success”

Leave a Reply

four × one =

closeShare
#
#
#
#
#