Talking tech: information is not engagement

At an event last week, I heard some worrying words about the role of tech in employee engagement.

Ostensibly, the event was celebrating the difference that tech can make to engaging a dispersed workforce. A premise that I absolutely agree with: within a planned and co-ordinated channel mix, and with a clear role in a wider plan, digital tools and tactics are incredibly helpful.  

However, there were a few statements during this event to the effect that using tech helps you reach more employees, and once they have more information as a result, they will be engaged. That’s it, nothing more needed.

Not the exact words used, but that was the gist of the point being expressed.

This worried and surprised me: it was a throwback to the non-digital days in which a senior external comms colleague once suggested my job essentially involved the use of kitchen posters and mouse mats to share “stuff”. In other words, just put info out there and the job is done.

We’ve moved a long way since then, as a communication profession and a business world. Wave after wave of studies, surveys and case studies have demonstrated the difference that building strong connections, based on two-way communication, makes to employers and employees alike. The explosion of new technology offers many opportunities to take that further.

However, digital tools can only help us achieve that if they are used in the right way. To share information, yes, but also to build dialogue that helps individuals and teams discuss, interpret and respond to the company’s ‘direction of travel’. To nurture the commitment and common purpose that every organisation needs to thrive. As part of wider efforts to align the way the organisation works with the drivers of engagement.

That requires more than posting “stuff”, no matter what the channel. Suggesting anything otherwise risks going back to those dark days and the modern-day equivalent of a mouse mat.

Let’s not risk reviving misconceptions about what employee engagement is and involves. Let’s talk about the role tech plays in a wider context. It will be much more beneficial for everyone involved.

Outing the issue of out-of-hours emails

The BBC has reported on an interesting academic study suggesting that efforts to ban employees from accessing work email out of hours – in an effort to curb burnout – could actually increase anxiety for some.

Who would have thought it: one size does not fit all.

This study does speak to me on a personal level, because I am undoubtedly one of those for whom a blanket ban would cause issues. I also think it’s impractical. In a global economy, many of us need to liaise with people in different time zones, all the time. It’s just not possible, or desirable, to work within some allocated hours for such projects. Squeezing the work required into mandated hours would, as the study suggests, inevitably cause more stress.

That’s not to say I don’t appreciate the spirit of the idea. I can absolutely see the risks of an ‘always on’ environment and can understand why there is a search for potential solutions. But, for me, the answer lies not in mandates from outside an organisation, but in enlightened management within it.

If you work in an organisation – or for a manager – that recognizes the demands of your role, and the peaks and troughs of workload, then you may be able to flex your working pattern accordingly.  To take account of the fact you may be working with colleagues on the other side of the world late at night. To get more of a break from “traditional” working hours elsewhere as a result. That understanding, and that flexibility, helps release the pressure that build up (as long as you deliver!).

The horror stories you hear of people feeling like they always have to be online – on top of their ‘normal’ working hours – emerge from a culture in which expectations are both unhealthy and unrealistic. In such situations, there is no way of releasing the pressure: perhaps a manager insists on you always being ‘present’ and/or imposes rigid working patterns that take no account of the fact you’re essentially working round the clock when others have disconnected. No blanket ban is going to circumvent those cultural issues: the unrealistic expectations will remain, and employees will be expected to keep up through other means. The self-destructive culture will remain in place.

The way to address this issue is, surely, to build rapid and wider understanding about the damage that unrealistic expectations, and rigid working patterns, do to many organisations and the people who work for them. And to showcase alternative ways of working that help keep everyone happy. We have to help organisations, and managers, to have the ‘light bulb moment’ for themselves.

The draining effect of ‘empty engagement'

We all know authenticity matters. To us as individuals, to our teams, to our organisations. So why do some organisations persist in tinkering with efforts to engage employees rather than really committing to it?  

Study after study highlights the importance of doing what we say we will. Of demonstrating integrity in our work and behaviour. This rather basic concept was last expressed in an ornate way by this year’s Edelman Trust Barometer, which sign-posted the importance of authenticity in a society wracked by ‘fake news’.

But it is hardly rocket science, is it? The thought that we might actually connect with and have greater confidence in someone who is genuine, has nothing to hide and makes real attempts to connect and communicate with us as individuals. I hardly think we need a multi-page research report to articulate this human truth.

Yet I still hear stories of organisations who approach engagement as a concept they feel they should act upon, without understanding the culture required to sustain it. This means any attempts are undermined from the start and can only be cosmetic: ‘empty engagement’ (let’s call it that), rather than a way of working that benefits everyone.

I once sat on a panel discussing what makes an engaging workplace. One of my colleagues cut through all the noise on the topic with this simple statement:

“If you’re going to change, you’ve got mean it”.

That, I think, is the fundamental point. 

Shaping successful company narratives

One of the fascinating areas in which my colleagues and I are working is the development of company narratives. These are endlessly intriguing, stimulating projects from which the outputs can make a major difference for any organisation, no matter what size or sector. I’ve seen them work wonders in terms of enhancing engagement, alignment and common purpose.

But they are often discussed in articles and commentary in wildly dramatic terms, as if there is some mystic art behind their development and delivery.

There isn’t.

A narrative should be a clear, concise and practical tool for the organisation, forged from the culture of the organisation and used as the foundation for all engagement activities with stakeholders. It should be developed with extensive input from those within the company and embedded across all the organisation’s touchpoints with those groups. There should be at least as much emphasis on embedding its use as there is on its articulation in the first place.

Here are a few steps (among many) I would recommend:

1. Understand parameters 
Any narrative project, however wide the commitment to employee involvement, must start with a framework. This must come from conversations with leaders, so you gain a clear understanding – in their words – of the organisation’s purpose, ‘north star’ and strategic themes. Those leaders will also set the cultural tone for the organisation and act as guardians of its core values. Drawing out different leaders’ views on all these areas will give you a framework within which to work.

2. Involve team leaders/supervisors
Sometimes, in these projects, there is a rush to involve front-line employees as quickly as possible. Such involvement is, of course, essential to creating a narrative that is both compelling and credible. But don’t neglect the ‘squeezed middle’: the team leaders and/or supervisors who play a pivotal role in translating strategic aims into day-to-day action. They are a crucial group in their own right, so gain sufficient representation from them and tailor your research guides and materials to seek their input.

3. Craft, test, craft, test 
One great challenge in these projects is to collate and distil key themes emerging from employee involvement into a clear, concise and compelling narrative. But don’t shape it solely behind closed doors and then unveil it to the world. Test it with key stakeholders to help maintain their involvement and assess whether the themes (and words) you’re proposing resonate and inspire. Make it an iterative process.

4. Find the ‘proof points’ 
Any narrative stands or falls on its credibility and, therefore, must be supported by evidence. This can come in several forms, from facts & stats to mini case-studies, all of which should form part of the supporting material on which you can draw for engagement activities. Spend time seeking these ‘proof points’ early on.

5. Work with touchpoint ‘owners’
Every organisation has multiple touchpoints with its stakeholders. These are often managed by many different people, with limited interaction or cross-over: these colleagues’ adoption of the narrative – or otherwise – will mean the difference between a narrative that lives and breathes within the company and a project that withers on the vine. So identify these colleagues and examine how best to connect and communicate with them. Lean on your senior sponsors to help them set expectations. Work with touchpoint ‘owners’ to engage them in the narrative, identify their support needs and flesh out any concerns. Provide a simple toolkit of materials and guidance to help them. Stay in touch and work with them on delivering principles in practice. Be a collaborator, coach, agony aunt and steadfast support.

6. Keep evolving 
A narrative should be a living, practical tool for the organisation. It should not be a set of fine words that sits in a document or is posted on a website and forgotten about. As the company changes, the narrative should evolve with it. Establish a practical and systematic process for reviewing, updating and re-issuing the narrative (and/or supporting ‘proof points’) to touchpoint owners.

There are many other steps to consider, but these are some fundamental pointers that make a big difference, whether you’re an SME or a multinational.

A fresh perspective for 2016

The end of the year often brings relief and reflection in equal measure. We look back at what’s gone well and vow to change what hasn’t. But when we’re back at our desks in the New Year, this commitment often wanes and we slip back into the way we’ve always done things (with predictable results).

In the world more widely, surveys often proclaim employee engagement to be a priority for leaders in the following year. But time passes, and little changes. And the same surveys will be saying the same thing the next time round.

But what if, this year, we really do keep our resolutions? What if we have a fresh look at employee engagement and change what we do, if only in small ways, to help us succeed?

With this in mind, we offer some thoughts on how to make more of engagement in 2016.

1. Be smart about goals

Obvious, but often overlooked. We’ve all got to understand where our organisations are heading (whether we’re in them or consulting for them) so we can define how better engagement can help. We’ve got to be ever more informed to help us interpret opportunities and deliver the value that our organisations want and deserve from us.

2. Understand interaction

Please let’s stop talking about audiences. The ‘fourth wall’ in organisations has well and truly crumbled: we’re all swimming in a sea of interaction with each other and the outside world. Let’s explore and understand what this really means and take action to nurture the type of culture that makes best use of a world in which we’re all connected, all of the time.

3. Be an activist

Let’s make this the year in which we become real activists within our organisations. People who question, challenge and critique the world around us, acting as advocates for employees and the litmus test for our leaders. Let’s be more proactive, and frankly more of a nuisance, than we’ve ever been before. If we do it well, we’ll add increasing value to those we work with and build our own credibility as a result.

4. Make more of managers

We all know that managers are the missing link in employee engagement: we can have the most inspirational leaders but their efforts will fall flat if managers lack the spirit and skills to spark and sustain engagement with their teams. We know this is a major issue, but we’ve still not managed to crack it. So let’s put in the effort required to resolve it and increase both competence and confidence among managers.

5. Let’s be creative

Creativity isn’t all about campaigns (although we’d all love to see more exciting activity, rather than the same old ‘stuff’). There are many different ways of being creative in the aim of achieving engagement, from the way we plan programmes to the tactics we use. It’s about a mindset, rather than money or team size. Let’s challenge ourselves to think differently in 2016.

6. Prioritise the personal

We all know the personal touch goes a long way. Where possible, face-to-face communication remains the most valued and credible way of striking and sustaining engagement. But when it’s not possible to do this physically, there are many different ways of doing so virtually. They’re increasingly easy and cheap, but sometimes neglected. There’s really no reason for ignoring them, not matter how big and complex an organisation is, so we hope they are harnessed more and more in 2016.

7. Don’t be dazzled by technology

Embrace new technology but use it wisely. In the rush to embrace what’s possible, what’s really relevant sometimes gets missed. Any technology, however clever it is, only helps if it fulfils a defined role. Too many times, we see technology retro-fitted to support a strategy, rather than being seen as the right solution for an identified need. Start with the need, not the kit, and go from there.

8. Evaluate every day

Finally, the thorny topic of evaluation. Only we think it’s more straightforward than others make it seem. Our industry still sees measurement as an end-point exercise, rather than a day-today process. We think assessing progress little-by-little, rather than focusing all effort on an annual evaluation jamboree, provides more insight on what’s happening and more chance to address issues. As the reliance on set-piece surveys ebbs away make this the year when measurement becomes part of ‘business as usual’.

In the end…

That’s it. They are simple steps to help bring a fresh perspective – and maybe new vigour – to employee engagement in the year ahead. It’s not an exhaustive list, we know that: we could probably all keep adding to it until this time next year. But we hope it’s some food for thought, and maybe a prompt, as you seek to spark and sustain effective engagement in 2016. Good luck!

If you could do with a fresh pair of eyes on employee engagement, if only for a chat over coffee, then do get in touch. We’re specialists, we have extensive experience, and we can help.

Why VW should start from the inside out

As if it couldn’t get any worse. Today it’s the reputation of the whole car industry with different manufacturers now potentially implicated in the emissions scandal. Previously we’ve seen commentators sounding the death knell for the diesel engine. And some have gone as far as to use the deception as a proxy for all that’s wrong with capitalism and why (with the help of Mr Corbyn) it’s time for real change.

I’m afraid my take is a little more mundane. We’ve seen plenty of ‘reaching out’ to customers, regulators and other stakeholders, but what about the poor bloody employee? Even if the culture at VW has tacitly supported the manipulation of emissions tests over the past few years, one must assume that for the majority of employees the recent turn of events is as much a surprise to them as to the wider public. 

I have no doubt the internal communication machine has gone into overdrive in trying to keep people, firstly, informed of the facts and current status and, secondly, attempting to communicate some semblance of ‘business as usual’ (even when it patently isn’t).  The new CEO, Matthias Mueller has a crucial role to play, a role that can’t be delegated to others in the executive team. Of course the demands on his time will be significant but if he understands the link between engaged employees and satisfied customers the residue of trust, which I believe still exists with the VW brand, can be harnessed to mutual benefit.

So it’s important for leadership to understand that VW cannot hope to emerge from this crisis without the support and commitment of its people. But there are also more pragmatic reasons for focusing attention internally. A rush to the exits remains a real possibility as disenchanted employees realise the implications of what’s gone on. And what about maintaining a decent influx of talent to sustain the company in the future? The threat to the ‘employer brand’ becomes very real.

Without clear and consistent, responsive and fact-based communication then the (extreme and opposing) scenarios outlined below could become a reality with all the attendant damage it brings. Think about the simple job interview and the potential response of the uninformed manager (it would be more of a surprise if the candidate didn’t ask about current events, even if only in an innocuous way):

"So tell me how you are responding to events surrounding emissions tests?”, (as opposed to “Tell me why on earth I should join an organisation that has been involved in the wilful and organised deceit of both customers and regulators?”).

Potential answer 1:

Good question. I’m glad you asked me that. Of course you do realise it’s been blown up out of all proportion. A little local difficulty with our friends in the US. Before you know it, everyone will have forgotten about it and we’ll back to the business of selling cars. You really don’t need to worry about it. Next question…”

Potential answer 2:

I’m glad you’ve raised this. To tell you the truth I think we’re doomed. No one is telling us what’s going on and every day brings new revelations.  God knows what the people involved thought they were doing. Now everyone is asking why I work for such and organisation.

I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

Nick 

Santa, can you help employee engagement?

Dear Santa,

My kids have been crafting their Christmas lists for weeks so I thought I’d send you mine too. It’s just a handful of things I’d love to change about the profession I’m part of. Can you help us achieve the following?

1.     Stop trying to define what we do – unless your elves can create a universally-accepted explanation, in which case please feel free to drop it down the chimney. Currently, the time we spend discussing what we do hinders us from getting on and doing it.

2.     Focus increasingly on business need – we’re getting better at this, but we must ensure everything we plan and do is rooted in – not just related to – business goals. We’ve got to articulate a clear, strong and measurable link at all times.

3.     We end talk of ‘adding value’ – I hate the phrase. It may be a personal thing, but I can’t believe people will be clamouring to keep it. Let’s just show how we plan to make a difference and get on with doing it.

4.     We accept surveys for what they are – they have a role: they’re not perfect, but let’s recognise that, take what we need from them and move on. 

5.      We give managers more attention – we know managers need more support to build communication skills and confidence. We’ve talked about it a lot, but not done enough about it. Let’s work with colleagues in areas like HR to make this a priority in 2015.

6.     We tame technology – new tools and platforms offer us major opportunities to improve the way we engage with employees, but we’re in danger of being dazzled by them. Let’s be clear on the engagement needs in our different organisations and find the right tool(s) to meet them (rather than approaching things the other way round).

7.     We get better at measurement – yes, I know I asked for this last year, but we need to go even further in the next twelve months. We need to be clearer, more consistent and more sophisticated in the way we evaluate progress, identify issues and demonstrate the difference we deliver.  

I could go on, but you’re a busy man (and having seen what my kids have written, I doubt you’ll have time to consider the rest of us). Any help with these areas would really benefit me, my colleagues and the organisations we work in or with. And I won’t have to hassle the Easter Bunny in a few months’ time.

Thanks in advance

Paul

Five steps to improve employee surveys

One of the reasons employee surveys have been getting a kicking recently (just check out other commentary for evidence) is a lingering perception that organisations won’t act on them. This is unfair – I don’t think anyone spends money on such surveys with the aim of ignoring them – but employers could get far more from them by involving their people in the process. Rather than treating them purely as passive recipients of a questionnaire, organisations should seek ideas and feedback from employees to inspire enthusiasm and advocacy for the exercise. I offer the following suggestions of steps to success.

1.      Involve employees in design – every organisation will have core questions that are repeated every time a survey is run. But don’t stick purely to these questions if they ignore current, pressing issues on which employees want a say. Explore whether there are other areas that you need to cover. Involve an employee panel if you have one, or regular focus groups if you run them. Take soundings from managers or employee representatives. It might identify other issues on which employee views would be valuable and on which questions would inspire them to take part.  

2.     Involve employees in communication – some organisations still follow a ‘hit and hope’ approach to survey implementation, sending out questionnaires supported by generic communication materials. But we’d never do this in any other campaign: we know we need diverse methods to connect and communicate with different employee groups, who prefer to engage with the company in different ways. So ask people in different parts of the organisation how you can best communicate with them and their colleagues regarding the survey. Then shape your communication plan and the tactics involved accordingly.

 

3.     Involve employees as champions – in many other initiatives, it is accepted good practice to seek employee ‘champions’ who can spread the word to colleagues. Yet it’s comparatively rare in connection with employee surveys, despite the benefits it could bring. Why not identify ’influencers’ for your different employee groups and connect with them to explain the aims of the survey. Emphasise that employee feedback can help shape the company, and that the survey is not being done for ‘show’. Ask them to encourage colleagues to take part, because the more voices you hear, the more compelling the evidence will be.

4.     Involve employees in analysis – not in the data crunching itself, but in interpretation of what the numbers really tell you about your organisation. It’s easy to draw conclusions from the centre, or based on a provider’s comparison with other companies, but discussing hypotheses and testing interpretations with employees can be a powerful way of rooting interpretation in the specific circumstances and culture of your particular company.

5.    Involve employees in action planning – finally, keep involving employees as you consider how to address the themes raised by your survey. After all, they have raised the issues: let them help shape the solutions. Creating working parties for different parts of the business, with a cross-section of employees in each, is a good way of spreading ownership of the process and inspiring collective commitment to action.

These are simple steps that would help to establish surveys as an effective part of continuous improvement for everyone in the company, not “yet another initiative” from the centre. As with so many things in the world of engagement, involving employees holds the key.

I don't want no satisfaction

Holidays meant I missed this little gem exploring factors informing adaptability to change.

It summarises research suggesting that highly satisfied employees don’t always advocate change. Which seems to me fairly obvious: satisfaction inevitably equates to contentment with the status quo. And that hardly breeds enthusiasm and energy for change.

To me, it’s another reason why exploring employee satisfaction is a complete red herring (don’t even get me started on ‘happiness’). Far better to focus on nurturing a culture that inspires and supports people to keep growing and challenging. To go beyond what’s needed. To look for ways of changing how things are done.

Such spirit doesn’t come from being satisfied, it springs from being dissatisfied – or at least being unwilling to accept that the way things are is the way they should always be. That’s what we need to be inspiring within our organisations, along with the systems and tools that help people turn such restless energy into efforts and activities that align with organisational goals.

Help employees connect with the company mission, strategy and values. Give them clarity on roles and expectations. Keep sharing information and discussing their questions and concerns. And give them the opportunity and autonomy to shape the world they work in.

There’s a lot covered by those 40 words. And no doubt much more besides them. But nurturing a culture along those lines is far more conducive to growth, and the change that’s necessary to spark it, than focusing on satisfaction with the status quo.  

Survey seems to be the hardest word

The knives are out for employee engagement surveys. Detractors are speaking out ever-more strongly, criticising the value such surveys deliver and attacking the cottage industry that has sprung up around them. I have been at events where such objections have been strident and impassioned. But are they really fair?

Let me get this straight, I am no apologist for employee engagement surveys. I do think they can be overly complex and, in my view, too many research houses roll out a set methodology to everyone, rather than identifying and pursuing the type of research that best suits a particular organisation and its goals.

But I feel they may be getting a raw deal here.

Surely, the fact that we have research dedicated to employee engagement is a step forward. We now have employers who recognise the importance of the topic, see the difference that it can make to their organisations and want to understand what they can do better. In the days when employee engagement or internal communication were dismissed as distractions from core business, that was never the case. But now, we have research exploring the environment from many different angles, rather than – at most – a few vague questions in a much broader survey.

The large research houses have clearly invested in developing robust methodologies, as is their wont, having seen a commercial opportunity to extend their research expertise into this area. You can’t blame them for that. As highlighted above, I do have concerns over ‘one size fits all’ methodologies, but at least there is now a ready-made range of options for those organisations who want to take action. And I know some have derived useful insights from them.

Of more immediate concern, I think, are the organisations who go ahead and conduct research but then do nothing with it. You know the situation: an organisation launches a survey – with or without a research partner – and tells people it’s a chance to ‘have your say’. People give their time and views – but nothing ever happens. At the very least, as someone who takes part in research, you expect some sort of acknowledgement and feedback, if only to know why certain suggestions won’t be followed up. You’re probably hoping for change in some areas. Instead, you hear nothing as the research findings get filed in the proverbial drawer and left to gather dust.

There may be many reasons behind this this lack of action. Insights might be complex. Actions might be unclear. Resources might be tight. But all of these can be overcome.

Analyse the findings in more depth to crystallise the most powerful insights. Share findings for functions or departments with the leaders there, and get them to create action plans with their people. Identify volunteers to help you make progress on ‘quick wins’. There are many different ways of using the research itself as a catalyst for action, rather than it becoming a roadblock to progress.

In these situations, research really is killing engagement rather than helping it. That’s why, to me, lack of action is the most immediate issue to address. If research is more routinely seen as a launch pad for progress, rather than a self-contained exercise, we’ll see surveys as a practical tool to improve engagement and value them more highly as a result. If research is not approached in this context, it can be more destructive to engagement than not doing anything at all.

The flexibility challenge

The increasing popularity of flexible working across Great Britain has been highlighted this week in a report from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC).  The study – Flex appeal: Why freelancers, contractors and agency workers choose to work this way – says that more than one in three people has worked as a contractor, freelancer or agency worker at some point, and 41% of people are considering working that way in the future.

Increasing flexibility can offer benefits to people on both sides of the working equation. It can help employers introduce more fluidity to their staffing plans as they seek to get the right people, in the right places, at the right time – and can increase their ability to change plans rapidly where needed. It can also give workers, many of whom are now meshing rather than balancing work and home lives, the chance to exercise more control over their short- and long-term assignments.  There is a potential ‘win win’ for everyone involved.

From an employer’s point of view, however, this does bring its challenges.  After all, workers might want flexibility – but customers want cohesion. They neither know nor care whether the people they deal with are temps or ‘lifers’. They just want consistent, top-quality service and will judge the company – and decide the future of their custom – on their experience. So it’s essential that all the workers concerned are engaged and equipped to deliver brand values day in, day out.

The growing array of employment arrangements, patterns and/or locations makes this more difficult. Organisations must connect and communicate with an ever-broader range of people to ensure they understand and can deliver the behaviour needed from them. And this means a more sophisticated approach to engagement may be required: from greater understanding of each group to tailored programmes of activity that inspire spark and sustain the response desired from them. 

As ever, this is not just about sharing information, but also about building dialogue; whether someone is with you for a week or 20+ years, they need the same opportunities to ask questions or raise concerns. They may even bring fresh ideas that long-standing employees would never have thought of.

Flexibility in, cohesion out. It’s a process of increasing importance to employers of all types and sizes. And a more sophisticated approach to engagement holds the key.

Trust matters

The CIPD’s Employee Outlook report, published this week in association with Halogen, suggests that employee trust in senior managers has fallen to a two-year low. It’s the latest in a long line of such studies, stretching over many years, highlighting an erosion of trust that can undermine performance.  

The key factor in this research is that employees do not feel involved in important decisions. Without an opportunity to give input to the organisation they work for, employee confidence and trust fades away. Suspicion about instructions from ‘on high’ pervades.  

Hardly surprising, is it? We all feel more confident in, and committed to, an organisation if we feel we have some involvement in it, that our views and opinions matter. If we’re expected simply to do what we’re told, with no chance to explore or make suggestions, the whole relationship is very transactional. There’s no warmth, little engagement and no chance for ideas from the front-line. And if employees feel they are simply being ‘done to’, why should they give their best? Or bring energy, enthusiasm and discretionary effort to support an employer that sees them simply as a recipient for instruction?

Given this is hardly rocket science, it’s frustrating to see the same type of findings come up again and again. Senior managers in all industries have to grasp the benefits that a more engaging culture can deliver and start implementing simple systems to nurture stronger relationships with their people. There are many simple, practical ways to spark and sustain dialogue with employees, within teams and beyond, to help the organisation work more effectively. After all, you can hardly forge trust in an environment when communication is wholly one-way.  Unless leaders finally respond, they’ll simply see more trust drain from their organisations and leave vast vats of employee potential left untapped.

Missing people in M&A

There’s a slightly depressing story in Human Resources this week suggesting that people problems in mergers and acquisitions are on the rise. In a thawing economic environment, where such deals are bound to increase, that’s got to be a concern.

But the most depressing thing is that we have heard similar things before. Many times.  

There is plenty of literature, going back many years, on the importance of engaging and supporting people involved in a merger or acquisition (on either side). Focusing too much on meshing facilities or balance sheets, and not enough on fashioning an effective team, means any new entity becomes rather less than the sum of its previous parts. The value that the change is expected to deliver proves rather illusory as previous projections become akin to a house built on sand.

There are many people issues involved in any such change and highlighted in the Mercer report that lies behind this news story, but to my mind none is more important than employee engagement. It is simply vital to develop and implement a clear, comprehensive and flexible engagement programme to inform and involve diverse employees in the progress of change. This much is intuitive. So why doesn’t it always happen?

There is no simple answer, but I would highlight two, contrasting situations that I have seen over the years:

·         in the first, employee engagement is simply not seen as important enough in the grand scheme of things, and the team involved in designing and delivering change only looks to colleagues for support when they have, to all intents and purposes, already developed the approach themselves. Those nominally responsible for employee engagement or internal communication are then handed something of a ‘hospital pass’ as they seek to weave in some core principles and good practice – but they are already fighting a losing battle

·         in the second, internal communicators are involved – much earlier on – but are so keen to make things happen, or feel the need for action is so great, that they essentially escape the bounds of the change programme they are supporting. This can lead to a rush of unco-ordinated communications, at different times, with confusing messaging and inconsistent dialogue. A recipe for disaster, through which communication is throwing up more obstacles rather than smoothing the way.

These scenarios may look extreme, but I’d suggest both are fairly common. And they both demonstrate a poor grasp of the role and importance of employee engagement during change.

To me, the way to resolve is this is to establish engagement as a core business priority from the early stages of planning for change, and to ensure that the resultant programmes always maintain an umbilical link with the project they are there to support. This is vital in any scenario, let one in which the stakes are as big as they are for a merger or acquisition. As the pace of such deals picks up, I hope it’s something we’ll see more of in practice.