Let’s not lose the human touch

 

Internal communicators have a lot thank technology for. We have many more tools and platforms than were available even five years ago, giving us more ways of building closer connections with employees. But is tech always the right solution?

I worry that there is so much attention on different tools to seek views or track sentiment that we are losing focus on human interaction. That a new platform can actually increase the distance between employers and employees rather than reduce it.

Rather than reaching for a new tool of some kind (and the ever-growing array of suppliers willing to sell us one), I feel we should be spending more time on helping our leaders and managers reach into our organisations, to connect with colleagues and have open and productive discussions. That will help us strengthen the culture of engagement far more than a shiny new platform alone, however sophisticated that may be.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

There has been quite a bit of commentary following the publication of IC Index 2023 this month. The Institute of Internal Communication and Ipsos Karian and Box have delivered a comprehensive and rigorous report, which contains real insights - but also some reminders of persistent concerns.

Take trust in CEO communication, for example. Worryingly, the report shows that only 54% of employees trust what their CEO communicates. It’s a concern that has echoed through the years. Many leaders and internal communicators are still seeking to resolve it.

Another example: more than half of employees do not see their organisations listening to and acting on feedback. Again, a long-standing issue, on which the dial does not seem to be moving - despite all the options available. This is more about culture than capability: if organisations aren’t really committed to fostering genuine dialogue, no technology can fix it.

The report also shows that many employees want to hear more from managers, yet one in three of those managers feels ill-equipped to lead conversations. Managers clearly need support - but it is a familiar cry for help. It’s frustrating to see such issues persist, nearly 15 years after the MacLeod Review highlighted ‘engaging managers’ as a crucial enabler of employee engagement. Of course, that Review also identified a strong strategic narrative and employee voice as two other drivers...

There is much in this report for communicators to consider in the context of their own organisation. There are important insights, such as the 15 minutes we have to connect with employees each day. There are also some nuggets that challenge received wisdom (for example, the fact that email remains the preferred method for employees to receive news may put a dent in ‘shiny new toy syndrome’). However, it’s disappointing that so many long-standing issues remain unresolved and to see the impact these have on employees.

Surely, now is the time to take action.

The company walk

 A few years ago, my client Renishaw introduced me to their  ‘company walk’:  not a Monty Python-esque affectation, but an informal practice that has become part of that organisation’s HQ culture. It struck me as a simple step to aid physical and mental wellbeing.

The HQ site contains a range of offices, labs and manufacturing facilities. It takes 10-15 minutes to walk around the perimeter path (depending on your pace!). During my visits, I would often see people following that path, particularly at lunchtime: in groups, in pairs or on their own.

This, I was told, is the company walk. People use it to exercise, to hold walking meetings or simply to disconnect from their desk or lab bench. I tried it myself on a few occasions with my clients. Not only did we develop a few ideas as we strolled around the site, we also returned to the office refreshed and re-focused for the rest of the day. 

Although this HQ is a self-contained site, I can see the idea working just as well in a city, with a route embracing some quiet streets and/or local landmarks.

Sometimes, simple and effective solutions are right in front of us.

What is the meaning of work?

Discussions around the meaning of work are always  fascinating. They can become quite conceptual, which is frustrating, but the  aim of exploring what really helps us feel fulfilled is laudable.

Although, from my perspective, it is a doomed quest.  

As I have written in this blog before, we respond to work in different ways and my purpose may not be the same as yours. For example, the protagonist in the track quoted above does not derive much meaning from his work, he uses work as a means to an end. He is not alone, but others will see work as giving their life wider meaning. We all have our own personal value systems.  

At an event I attended a few years ago, one of the panellists talked about interviewing circus performers about how they found meaning in their work. They could not discern any differentiation between what was and wasn’t work: it was all a way of life for them.

So organisations can’t appeal to everyone in exactly the same way, and should not try to. Over the years, I have watched from afar as different companies have tried to use fancy tools and tactics to push a pre-determined notion and inspire alignment across very different groups of people. These quite quickly become programmes akin to a house built on sand.

It’s far better to look inwardly, to articulate why the company is in business and to really engage employees in that process: finding out what inspires them and what it is about the company’s aims that really resonates with them.

An engagement exercise of this nature – one for which the solution is really open for discussion and to contributions – can help you find the ‘sweet spot’ for your organisation. A solution that articulates and reflects the factors that align and inspire ostensibly very different employee groups.

‘Common purpose’, if you will.

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.

Getting back to basics in 2020

As usual, the beginning of a new year has sparked a flood of recommendations or ‘hot topics’ for 2020. I hardly dare look at LinkedIn for fear of seeing another deluge of earnest proclamations and warnings of issues to watch out for.

I shouldn’t really complain: at Sweet Comms, we have engaged in crystal-ball gazing ourselves on several occasions. Normally, because we have felt there are some really important ideas or issues that have not gained the attention they deserve.

This year, however, I think there is one simple requirement, for organisations of all types and sizes: making sure that the basics are in place to nurture a culture of engagement that benefits all involved.

Over the years, as the field of internal communication has become more sophisticated, we’ve all seen plenty of new frameworks, initiatives and tools emerging to accelerate momentum. While these may have opened up new possibilities for enhancing the contribution we make to employee engagement, they have also sparked the risk of an internal comms ‘arms race’, if I can use that phrase, as different participants pile on new idea after new idea to demonstrate a difference or an ‘edge’.

As I have written in these pages before, I think that creates the risk of ‘shiny new toy’ syndrome. And it may also mean we lose sight of the value we should be adding to our organisations and the colleagues who work for them.  

Communicating clear and compelling messages about where the organisation is going, why and how our people fit in. Sharing regular material (in whatever form) on plans, progress and the people who make this possible. Making sure such information is open to all, not a protected commodity.

Making sure everyone in every area (and at all levels) of the organisation has opportunities to raise questions, give feedback and submit ideas. Demonstrating that dialogue is vital and a non-negotiable element of a healthy culture. Celebrating the insight and ideas we gain, to show how ‘common purpose’ makes a practical difference to achieving the organisation’s goals.

Of course, there will still be a host of different options on how to make it all happen. I’m sure new tools and ideas will emerge during 2020. However, any method or mechanism we embrace should always have a clear role in a strategy that will help us deliver the valued expected of and needed from us.

Otherwise, even the most exciting ideas or tools will become akin to a house built on sand.

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. 

Changing times should mean a changing role

There continues to be plenty of discussion around the changing role of the internal communicator. A particular seam of debate is the impact of rising peer-to-peer collaboration, enabled by tools such as those found in Office365.

The debate centres on whether the rise of such tools, and the resultant increase in peer-to-peer communication, make internal communication - in its ‘traditional’ form - redundant. The implication being that, if employees can speak directly to each other, why would they need communication from the company?

Sweeping past the simplifications (and generalisations) involved in this line of argument, I’d take issue with anyone who feels that a company no longer needs to share information or build dialogue with its employees.  To align discussions with business goals, peer-to-peer interaction and collaboration needs context. Any company should be providing that context through proactive and regular engagement with employees around purpose, vision, strategy and values. it should also be sharing and inspiring discussion around points of progress, ideas, and things that have gone well – or not so well – to help its global team pursue shared goals.

As a grandee of the field once said to me, informed discussion is likely to provide far more beneficial: for both employer and employees.

That said, our role as internal communicators does need to change if we are to help our organisations harness the opportunities that more peer-to-peer communication can offer. As professionals, all of us have embraced roles with many elements for many years. We have to be adept at flitting between those different facets, from strategic advice to event organisation, writing to content curation.

We now need to add another element: sparking and sustaining interaction.

We can help our organisations understand how to nurture a culture of greater connectivity and collaboration, using relevant tools and platforms, within the context of company goals. We can place and prize peer-to-peer interaction at the heart of a broader strategy to embed ‘common purpose’.

In essence, rather than being replaced by this type of peer-to-per interaction, internal communication could have a chance to add even greater value.

This is a tremendous opportunity, if not an imperative, for every internal communicator. Our role has always evolved. This is the latest development. 

People are people

I suspect few would have synth-pop legends Depeche Mode down as pioneers of employee engagement. But the more complex that participants in this field try to make it, the more their simple refrain ‘People are people’ appeals.

The articulation and application of labels to groups in the workforce has almost become an industry in its own right. To be fair, it’s not just this profession: many protagonists have helped to light the fire, but we avidly fan the flames. And I’m not sure it’s doing us or our organisations many favours.

Supporters argue that such segmentation helps us make sense of changing workforce needs. Detractors say that it introduces massive generalisations that don’t help anyone.

Cynics might argue that developing new labels provides an opportunity to sell something different.

There’s probably some truth in each case. But I feel that developing labels has become a distraction from our core challenge of understanding and responding to the needs of our particular organisations and their people.   

Let’s get back to some basics and the principles that those boys from Basildon espoused more than 30 years ago. Let’s understand our people as they are. Not through the lens of a label that is foisted upon them.

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.

Engagement before induction: the ‘Peacock Principle’

At the Engage for Success conference last month, I was inspired by a tale from serial entrepreneur Sir Eric Peacock regarding one of the practices he follows within his companies.

It’s a simple thing: his companies send a bottle of champagne with a couple of glasses to people about to join them. The message is clear: “we’re looking forward to seeing you”. The aim is to engage the employee before they even walk through the door, to demonstrate that this is an employer that will value them. Of course, there’s a defensive aspect to this – they don’t want the prospective employee to be attracted by a counter-offer from their current company – but there is also a real commitment to engagement and to treating an employee as individual, even before he/she joins.

It’s not the only thing that is sent. There is other material that follows it, including the usual pre-joining stuff you will get in any company. But the celebration comes first: an important signal that sets the context for the connection between employer and employee.

I’ve heard about it before, but I still found it inspiring. Why? Because we don’t do enough of it, in any of our organisations. It doesn’t have to be champagne, that’s not right for everyone, but a gesture that shows we are excited to welcome a new employee and can’t wait to start working with them is a powerful signal of intent. It’s easy to appreciate the warmth that such a gesture creates. So why don’t we do more if it?

To start as we mean to go on, to really connect with people and seek to build engagement, we should be using every opportunity. We should also be creating additional touchpoints to ensure a connection struck during recruitment is maintained and even strengthened rather than falling fallow. The ‘Peacock Principle’ as I shall now be calling this, is one to remember. 

Culture starts and ends with each of us

I’ve seen a rush of recent articles and blog posts on elements of ‘cultural transformation’. Model after model on how to mould an organisation’s culture around the way you want things done. Isn’t this the wrong way of looking at things?

No model or process is going to ‘make’ people do things differently, willingly and enthusiastically, in a way that re-shapes the organisation. No employees take an edict from on-high and embrace it to the extent that they love and follow it as their own.

What anyone eager to change the way an organisation works must do is articulate a vision of the future and engage them in the benefits of that change. Don’t lay down, in minute detail, every element you want to re-shape, but engage people in the ‘whats’ and the ‘whys’ and allow them to connect, interpret and change working practices to align. Set the parameters, in other words, and support teams and individuals to respond.

You can’t forcefeed colleagues with culture change. Instead, engage and empower them to take on your goals as their own, and make their own changes to support the vision you’ve outlined. I feel that’s a big difference between ‘transformation efforts’ that become embedded into the organisation and those that simply wither on the vine. 

Stories with substance

There remains so much discussion of company narratives in the communications world, the whole issue is becoming a story in its own right.

The story arc began with discovery of a pressing need: the cry for a new way of crystallising an organisation’s purpose, vision and differentiating factors. It (still) continues through a journey of seminars, white papers, sample structures and sage advice. It might end with storytelling as a blizzard that blows itself out as another new need is picked out.

There is truth in the identification of a need, of course, but perhaps less in its sudden “discovery”. Organisations have been telling stories about themselves for years and probably didn’t need a new wave of discussions and recommendations to point out the way. But even those latest discussions and the advice that emerges from them expend too much energy on the articulation of a story, and not enough on its use.

A story should be a practical tool. It should cover all the ground that those involved will point you towards, and it must deliver on the core principles of ‘concise and compelling’. But, if you’ll forgive me, the story does not end there. The articulation has to be applied, clearly and consistently: internally and externally, across channels and tools, in different disciplines. It has to form the foundation for all communications so that repetition becomes reinforcement. So that it starts to shape how the organisation is known. Understood. Responded to.

This is hardly new, either but is frequently forgotten. There’s no point pouring all your time and resources into a perfectly-cast narrative with no link to how it will be applied. Or monitored and updated. Because the organisation is always evolving, the story has to keep pace. Else what the organisation says and what it does can quickly become fractured.  

A company’s story can serve it well. But only if it is designed and developed with action in mind. 

A manager’s magic dust

If you’ve ever been in any doubt as to the importance of a manager’s words and motivation, take a look at the England football team’s performance on Monday night.

In the first half, I’d say performance was good but not spectacular. In the second, the team fell apart. What happened in between? A team talk from the manager and his coaches. What should have been a chance to regroup, ensure clarity over roles and build confidence for the second half seems to have had exactly the opposite effect. Team members looked unsure, made individual errors and began to lose collective composure. The result…well, you’ll have seen it (watching through your fingers, if you’re anything like me).

The events just show how pivotal a manager can be to performance. Giving team members clear objectives. Helping them understand what is expected of them in their roles. Building their self-belief and inspiring increasing collaboration. Helping individuals gel to become more than the sum of their parts: in other words, an effective team.  

And yet we still fail to prepare managers for this aspect of their roles. We continue to promote people on technical merit rather than their ability to inspire, challenge and support team members. We don’t put enough focus on training, guidance or support (in whatever form this takes) and we seem to hope managers pick it up as they go along. Individuals, teams and organisations suffer as a result.

I’ve never seen any team shrink in quite the same way as we witnessed on Monday night, but I’ve seen many smaller-scale meltdowns triggered by ill-equipped managers, who have simply not been prepared for possibly the most important aspect of their role. I fervently hope we can address this issue within our organisations and industries in the months ahead. If we don’t, we’ll keep undermining our own performance and the prospects for achieving our goals.  

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 

Who holds the power of purpose?

In a recent piece for HR magazine, Cary Cooper says “a sense of purpose has to be ingrained within each member of staff” by “smart leaders” who interact with staff. He concludes by proclaiming that HR directors “need to remember that connecting with employees is the soul of effective engagement”.

There is obvious truth in all of this, but there are also several dangers. Not least in assuming that this type of connection can be forged from the top.

Ultimately, whether we connect with our company’s vision, and develop a sense of shared purpose, is up to us. No leader has the power to create that connection for us. Even the most charismatic individual cannot “ingrain” common purpose within a group of people, and it’s dangerous (and overstating things) to claim that he or she can. It’s up to each of us to make our own connection with it and to imbibe that purpose as our own.

“Smart leaders” (to use Professor Cooper’s phrase) recognise this and create the right conditions for us each to take the final step ourselves. Sure, they set out their stall for the ‘direction of travel’. They ensure there is regular sharing of information about the business and its progress.  And they act as role models for the dialogue that allows individuals to check understanding, ask questions and raise concerns.

However, they go beyond these steps by inviting and supporting us to really get involved in our organisations. They give us opportunities to shape the working world around us, through our ideas, feedback and energy. They nurture a culture that enables us to help create, interpret and propagate the purpose that has evolved has a result.   

Now, more than ever, common purpose evolves from participation in our organisations. Leaders who recognise this will be rewarded with employees who really share common goals and radiate them to colleagues, customers and the communities around them. 

Why are we still speaking about 'soft skills'?

The campaign launched last week to promote ‘soft skills’ in the workplace is a laudable initiative. But it’s disappointing that we seem to need it. 

We all know, intuitively, how important such attributes are within teams. If we’re lucky, we’ve been part of groups with respect, integrity, warmth and openness at their core. We’ve experienced – and aided – the communication and collaboration evolving from this blend. We’ve been more engaged, committed and productive as individuals and teams as a result.

On the flip-side, we may have experienced teams where a lack of ‘soft skills’ led to friction, distrust and even open hostility. The impact can be destructive for everyone (and the organisation) involved.

We can all see the importance. So why do we need a campaign to explore and promote such skills? Why aren’t they already valued and cherished?

Well, there are no doubt several factors at play. For a start, the collective name has never been helpful. ‘Soft skills’ suggests these attributes and behaviours are all a bit flaky, a bit touchy-feely, rather than core and crucial aspects of day-to-day business. I think anyone who still holds this view should contact someone who has been involved in the type of destructive environment outlined above to discuss.

A second is that it’s difficult to quantify the precise and direct impact of such skills on performance. And this flies in the face of the apparently unquenchable thirst for measurement within business. If we can’t measure, we can’t prove value. And to circle back to nomenclature, ‘soft skills’ pale in comparison with ‘hard data’.

The new campaign has sought to address these issues head-on by releasing research saying ‘soft skills’ are worth £88 billion to the UK economy (a value that is rising every year). They are seeking to quantify the effect that such skills have on organisations and, by extension, the economy as a while. It will be interesting to see if the campaign seeks to maintain this emphasis on quantification moving forward.

In my view, there must be a balance. We do need to demonstrate impact – of course we do – and we need more rigour than perhaps we have had in the past. My own field of employee engagement is a good example; the range of metrics now being employed is helping practitioners both to identify strengths and weaknesses in methodologies and to make the case for further investment. But in engagement, as with ‘soft skills’ more widely, we must be wary of trying to force out statistics that don’t make sense. It’s not always possible to describe the precise effect of human interaction (or the skills that inform this) on performance in terms of numbers or percentage points. Some degree of assessment and reasoned interpretation will always be required.  And the fact that we can’t create a numerical causal link doesn’t mean ‘soft skills’ don’t have a major impact. 

So I hope the campaign goes well and that as many of us as possible contribute to its consultation. I hope it identifies new ways of nurturing such skills and that, through the ideas it uncovers, the whole area attracts greater and more consistent acclaim. I just believe metrics should be an element of the discussion, not the substance.

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

What does Sir Bob Geldof know about employee engagement?

One of the highlights of Microsoft’s ‘Future Decoded’ event this week was a presentation from Sir Bob Geldof.

He was discussing the education of future generations. And he suggested that we are, as a society, way behind where we need to be: the world has changed around us, but we are still living and teaching in the 20^th century. The reason, he believes, is that we are still grappling with the implications of a tidal wave of technological change. We have not been able to answer a fundamental question:

What does it mean when we are all connected to each other, all of the time?

It was a regular refrain during his talk. What does this ability to connect, the advent of ‘always on’ systems and devices, mean for the way we live and interact with each other? How is it re-shaping the nature of our conversations and relationships? And how should we change the way we prepare young people for society in response?

This fundamental question has resonance in the workplace too.

What does it mean when we are all connected to each other, all of the time?

Within our organisations, we’re introducing an increasing array of tools and mechanisms that ensure we are connected to our companies and to each other, any time, any place. In this digital workplace, we’re always seeking more methods for unlocking greater connectivity, more information sharing and increasing collaboration.

There are opportunities. But there are also implications. Do we always think these through?

Do we have a clear sight of how such tools are going to fit within – or help to reshape – the way we work? Are we effectively preparing our current employees (as well as new recruits) to make use of them? Are we engaging people on cultural usage as well as technical requirements? Are we regularly sharing and celebrating success stories as we see them? Are we doing enough to identify and address emerging issues?

If we can’t answer in the affirmative, I’d suggest we haven’t really grasped what these tools mean (or may mean) for the way we work and for the people we work with. We’re in danger of ushering in a new technological framework that is divorced from, rather than resonant with, corporate culture (even if the plan is to catalyse change in that culture).  

I sound this only as a note of caution. Technology is giving us many, many opportunities to enhance the way we work and engage with each other. But there are risks we need to manage, and we should think about Sir Bob’s fundamental question as we plan the road ahead.