Talking engagement (if I must)

OK, I admit it, I hate the 'e' word. It's joined 'strategic' and 'culture' as one of those wibbly terms that gets bandied about constantly whilst half the time people don't really know what it means ... but they manage to have an earnest-sounding conversation about it anyway.

I've seen a few debates on the go on various networks debating what 'the word' actually means. For a profession that's supposed to be about making the complex simple and creating understanding, we've done a great job at creating confusion by making a piece of jargon part of every day language.

I'm as guilty as anyone else. The first time I was asked to organise an 'engagement day' I moaned for ages about how people would think it was about wedding planning. These days it's just part of my vocabulary.

Excuse me for sounding cynical, but I've been in comms a long time (I have the scars to prove it) and the debates that go on around engagement are the same debates that have always happened. Except people used to talk about 'employee commitment' or 'involvement' or even 'morale' (ugh. Hated that one too. Yep, it's our job to make everyone happy smiley people. Where shall we have the Christmas party this year?).

But hurrah for 'engagement' - it's been a great excuse for survey producers and conference promoters I've never even heard of (where the heck are they all springing up from?) to persuade people there's something else they need to buy.

Not like me to rant, I know, but Liam's working overseas this week so I'd hate you to feel you were missing out...

Sue

 

Comments

[Anita Patel]

Sue

I know what you mean about the 'e' word but then again there is also the 'i' word (involvement).

I have to say in my last 2 roles one at Vodafone and more recently at BP, I am proud to work with teams and Communication leaders who take these words seriously - You know who you are Annette & Guliz.

They want their people to be involved in what goes on in the company, to create excitement, to take people with them on their every changing business journey's but overall they want them to be proud of working with a leading brand.

Where I get disillusioned is where people/leaders pay lip service to engagement and involvement and actually don't want to play a part in either but think it's cool to have those words tagged on to Communications.

Over and out

Anita

[Graham Keen]

For what it's worth, I think there's always a current 'big thing' (or rehashed old thing). It's a varation on the 'new', 'now with extra...', 'improved' (etc) blurb that gets wrapped around those things we must have and buy every week!

No matter what its called I think the challenge for internal communications is to turn the sentiment into something meaningful for people. As Anita says, not just paying lip service.

I don't think you can get away from the next survey or conference about the next 'big thing' though. Every now and then, of course, there is genuinely something new to hear about...

[Sue]

I'm not good at this ranting stuff. I spent all day thinking 'oh dear, wonder if I was a bit harsh ...'. Think I'll leave it to Liam next time.

Anyway, yes, don't have a problem with the sentiment of engagement. What gets my goat is exactly your point Graham of people presenting something existing as something 'wow, like, totally new'! Whenever someone mentions the e word I always say 'what's your definition?' and see what comes back.

Personally I always go with Hewitt Associates' say/stay/strive definition. I like it because it's simple. Engaged people say nice things about their organisation (great for your reputation), stay even when there are tempting jobs on offer elsewhere (lower recruitment costs and attrition rates) and strive to perform better in their jobs. All roads lead to better business performance.

[Graeme Gisnberg]

Hi Sue & Graham

Totally agreed with all. Sparked by all the great debates that have been popping up, it occurred to me this morning on the Tube (while looking at one of those inane little notices encouraging passengers to take some dubious-looking, quasi-medical cure/procedure) --- what do employees actually think of the word ‘engagement’?

In the non-corporate world, consumers are very aware of being marketed to/at and this has led to organisations having to move towards ever more sophisticated marketing programmes that acknowledge this awareness. The terms they use for their objectives have also evolved from creating simple awareness of a product, to creating loyalty, to brand equity --- consumers have become aware of the process of marketing and need/demand deeper 'relationships' with the products and the organisations that create them if they are going to choose to part with their money for them. Quite simply, there are so many products, so much competition, so much choice, ever greater sophistication, danger of cynicism, and so on.

Perhaps surveys don't ask employees enough if they feel that they’re being ‘fed’ engagement (or perhaps “engagemented at”?). This isn't the same as asking them if they feel satisified, involved, smiley, happy, etc at work. If we as communicators are getting suspicious and tired of the word, then it could be that employees’ becoming aware and suspicious (even cynical) of the process are only a step around the corner. Then, perhaps like marketing, organisations will need to adopt even more sophisticated terms that capture the complex relationship that employees need/demand.

Communicators already develop and implement extraordinarily sophisticated communication programmes, but do they have appropriately sophisticated terms for what they're trying to do through them?

Graeme

[Liam]

Nice try for a first rant Sue - you are learning well and hope you follow further in the master's steps...

I'm with Graham here. It's a variation on an old theme - but it has done the profession some good in that it seems to have got onto the radar of those we choose to work with. Managers are talking about it which has to be a good thing?

And Sue's got it right though when she complains (well moans a little) that we've allowed the term to be flabby and imprecise.

In recent weeks I've heard it used to describe everything from attention grabbing through to turning corporations into workers' co-operatives.

All worthy things, but maybe our job is to challenge people when we hear terms like this and ask them exactly what they mean. That way we can differentate between naked emperors and people with a real point to make?

Liam

[Liam]

Hey - just noticed that Graeme's been double-dipping! He posted that to the Melcrum Comms Network the cheeky boy!

Liam

[Sue]

Yes, I always ask people exactly what they mean by engagement. (And 'strategic'. And 'culture'.) Exactly for the reason you say Liam. Emperors new clothes syndrome is just what I'm watching for.

Graeme,to your point about what do people think we mean, now and again I ask friends in non commsy jobs what they understand by some of our terms. Answers on 'engagement' have ranged from 'what??' (chemical engineering friend!) to 'talking to people'. (nurse)

But no, please, we don't need more complex words! Half the time we're talking about commmon-sense stuff, but we like to dress it up in fancy-schmancy terms. Let's keep it simple.

BTW see over on Lee Smith's Talking IC blog for some more views on this.

[Timm]

No matter what you call it: If authentic interest in employee's wellbeing is lacking, it's not going to work anyway.

[Mike Klein]

Great post, Sue... Interestingly, I now work with a company that calls meetings between senior management and managers/staff further down "engagements". At first I thought it was silly, but it effectively prevents the use of the term "engagement" ad the kind of platitude or manifestation of organisational hypocrisy that it has come to mean in some quarters...

And as for ranting--we need more people to rant, particularly established pros like you.

[Kieron Shaw]

I did some research with Melcrum a couple of years ago on Engagement – and after 6 months and 40-odd interviews with leading professionals came to much the same conclusion. Everyone at the time was so very, very excited about "engagement". Everyone wanted to be interviewed about it. Everyone had an opinion. Everyone wanted their organisation to be a part of this incredible new model of internal comms. Everyone saw it as the new future. But it turned out, when asked what 'engagement' meant, or how it was substantially different to the practices that had previously gone under the banner of "strategic communication" (well-designed IC, related to the business, involving rather than dictating, and with clear goals in mind)... each one in succession fell silent.

The issue, of course, is to separate the term from the intent. The intent of "engagement" (whatever the nuance of your personal definition) is fine, as long as it is real and carried through. The problem Sue highlights is that it's largely another example of us putting a new and sexy word on an old practice. And the problem with that is that large tracts of the IC community then start to believe their own publicity, I think, and believe that it actually IS something radically new.

In support of Liam's point, too, it was interesting how many of those involved in the research conceded: "Yep, it's the same as we were doing before. But when I talk to senior management and put that stuff under the heading 'engagement', they listen in a way they wouldn't if it was labelled 'internal communication'."

[Justin Bieber Shoes]

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.