You Can`t Kiss A JPEG

Scott MacKenzie done a sterling job chairing the CIPR Inside annual conference on Internal Communications on Monday, check his blog here for a summary. I came away with a sense of optimism and confidence about the future for employee engagement. Comparing the day with the first CIPR Inside conference seven years ago the shift was notable .

From ‘Old Hack’ to ‘Cutting Edge’
Niall Cook impressed the audience with a consultants view of how social media can improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Efficacy of internal communications, especially with a workforce that is part of a mobile society. You might be surprised that his presentation doesn’t appear on his blog but you wont be dissapointed to learn that he posted the above photo of Scott opening the conference here on Twitpic.

From ‘Silo Thinking’ to ‘Thought Leadership’
Great to see Sharon Saxton and Leona Deakin representing HR and OD and making the link between effective communications and employee engagement. They gave specific insights on managing survivor syndrome and maintaining business performance in organisations during difficult times.

From ‘Plaudits’ to ‘Audits’
The subject of measurement was well discussed during the interactive session showing the increasing pressure on operational budgets and demonstrating return on investment.  Paul Inglefield showed us all how he has deployed best practice communications on a modest budget at Camden Council. Residents of Camden can rest assured that their council tax is being put to good use.

From ‘Mailing Lists’ to ‘Audience Insights’
Audience segmentation is a passion of mine. So it was great to hear Niall talk about the future potential of social network analysis as a tool to help understand employee behaviour.

However, the greatest insight on segmentation came earlier in the day.  In my 24 years in industry I had never appreciated the fact that all engineers are bearded, sandal wearing people who are just like their colleagues in finance  - thrive on data, have small right brains and don’t understand the value or art of communications!

I wonder why I had failed to see this.
Is it because I graduated from the dark side of arts – engineering – and cannot see the wood for the trees?
Is it because engineers like me who studied control and system theory are different to those other engineers who do boring things like design rockets?
Is it because I am the exception to the rule?

Whatever,  it just goes to show…you should always try and understand a little bit about your audience before you communicate with them or you might just end up putting your foot in it.

It’s not rocket science!

Recent research by the Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM) shows senior management need to do more to win the trust of their employees.

The Index of Leadership Trust 2009 report suggests that employees have far more confidence in their line managers than chief executives. Interestingly, it suggests that CEOs need to demonstrate more integrity whilst line managers need to demonstrate more empathy to win the trust of their workforce.

Penny De Valk, ILM’s chief executive, said: “Teams are more effective in a trusting environment, and people work better and harder if they trust their leaders.

“For leaders, being good at their job is simply not enough anymore. The more senior you are, the more gap between what you say and what you do… is amplified.”

Listen to what Penny has to say in her interview with BNet.

Closing the gap. That’s what we help organisations do; helping them build trust between employees and leadership and management at all levels.

We know from experience that employees are influenced more by leadership actions than words. It’s all about Leadership; Leadership by example.

Last week the Prime Minister and his wife added their Tweets to thousands of heartfelt declarations from patients, nurses and other medical practitioners on Twitter’s #welovetheNHS topic.

PM: NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there,”

Sarah Brown: “#welovetheNHS – more than words can say.”

What a shame the 45,000 NHS workers* who call in sick each day dont exhibit the same level of advocacy. This is one and a half times the average for private industry.

*From a recent government review assessing links between staff habits and NHS productivity Fat, unfit NHS staff top the sick league 

Unsurprisingly, the report shows that hospitals with the poorest staff health are less productive. Three-quarters of staff  believe that the state of their health affects patient care. Disturbingly, they are proven right as hospitals with the worst staff well-being have higher patient mortality rates.

The report concludes that there must be a complete NHS culture change to make workforce health “the responsibility of every single member of staff”. It underlines the irony of the NHS’s focus on the public health agenda whilst not investing in their own staff to become exemplars.

“High quality care for all” has always been the central guiding principle for NHS staff – it’s what the NHS brand stands for. They now have evidence that there is a large gap between what they do and what they say they do.We see this gap in a lot of organisations we work with.

Closing the gap. That’s what we help organisations do; helping them to improve the health of their brand. 

We know from experience and from research that the health of any brand is directly related to the level of internal advocacy. Investment in engaging employees around the organisation’s central guiding principle (their brand) is the medicine to boost internal advocacy.

The contents of the MacLeod report saved as a word cloud.

Here are 2 other perspectives of MyCloud, which I suppose proves that it doesn’t matter which way you look at it, it says the same thing.

I’m sticking with this one for a bit.  

David MacLeod believes “Whether we are in a downturn or in better economic times, engagement is key to innovation and competitiveness.

Lord Mandelson goes one step further “organisations that truly engage and inspire their employees produce world class levels of innovation”

Other commentators (see below) have expressed their views but here’s mine:

The key word is innovation, yet I get no sense that this is high up on leadership agenda. In fact, the report says that leaders believe that innovation will become more increasingly important over the next three years yet managers appear to be increasingly less likely to encourage innovation in the workplace: less than half of all employees say that their manager encouraged and supported new ways of doing things, developing their own ideas or trying out new ideas (decline of 20% in the last year).

From the report there is no real evidence that engagement surveys measuring ‘drivers’ for engagement help drive innovation or management commitment to innovation in the workplace. This may be a case of “If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got” and conducting the same old surveys that tell us the same old thing year on year is hardly an innovative way of engaging employees.

For me the priority for change in business is for leaders to adopt more innovative ways to engage their managers and their employees.  That’s not about micro-analysis of ‘performance’ measures and ‘engagement’ scores but encouraging innovation and ideas in the workplace that are focused on competitive advantage and differentiation of your brand. That’s what inspires people. Even the micro-analysts will be inspired as they will be able to show an increase in ‘performance’ and ‘engagement’ metrics.  A win-win.

Other commentary:

Stephanie Bird, director of HR capability, CIPD, backed the report’s recommendations. “This report puts engagement where it properly belongs: at the heart of business performance. HR professionals will see this report as an endorsement of what many of them are already doing, as well as a stimulus to do more 

Paul Sweetman, director of the employee engagement, Fishburn Hedges, said: “Overall, it’s a platform for progress, but also misses a few opportunities; I think it could have gone further and provided more practical guidance on the steps that employers should be taking right now” 

Ruth Spellman, chief executive of CMI, who will be part of the sponsor group, said: ” Right now, organisations across the
UK are hampered by poor management skills, with leaders who have an inability to ‘let go’ and allow staff to take ownership of their work. The end result is talented people becoming frustrated and disengaged at best, or ready to leave, at worst.”

David Coats, associate director at The Work Foundation, believes that “The very notion of engagement fails to take account of the fundamental imbalance of power in the relationship between workers and their employers. These unavoidable realities must be part of the national debate that David McLeod has said he wishes to promote”

Lord Mandelson, the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) today endorsed the key point that I made yesterday – the publication of the Macleod review is timely. 

So what does the 153 page report say? see here (beware it’s full of numbers)

Does it address my 3 hopes from yesterday? Yes - it does go further than the Scottish Executive review, it is more enlightening than the author’s presentation to CIPD and it does build on HMGs vision for economic recovery.

Does it make the link between brand and engagement? Well, my Acrobat word count shows ‘brand’ appear 10 times and ‘engagement’ appear 1028 times, sadly never in the same sentence.

On the other hand HR appears 298 times and 1 of the references makes the link to brand. It suggests that HR needs to be re-branded! (page 136 if you are interested)

I’ve paraphrased the key findings below:

4 broad barriers: Leadership understanding; Leadership commitment; Management culture; and Poor communications.

4 broad enablers: Shared vision; ‘Inspiring’ managers; Employees ‘given a voice’; and Leaders ‘walking the talk’.

3 recommendations: Raising awareness; Aligning resources; Collaboration and knowledge share.

Ah, now I see the link to brand – it doesn’t need to be explicit!

P.S. 3 new working groups are to be established: “High level sponsor group”; “2010 Working Group” and “Practitioner Forum”

It’s been a long time in the making but we are now on the eve of the publication of MacLeod review of employee engagement. see here

I have 3 hopes for this report

1. It goes beyond the study commissioned by the Scottish Executive 2 years earlier see here

2. It is more enlightening than the author’s presentation to ACAS CIPD in April see here

3. It builds on HMG’s vision for Britain’s economic recovery in New Industry, New Jobs published last week see here

Whatever the content, my belief is that the timing of this publication is perfect.  

We have recently witnessed British brands struggling to remain competitive under existing regulatory frameworks – BA, BT, National Express, Royal Mail, RBS, Lloyds Group to name a few. 

Lord Mandelson recently fired warning shots over the bows of British business by making it clear that HMG is not an ATM for bailing out British brands who cannot remain competitive. 

I think most business leaders understand the link  between engaged employees and performance and can also see the link between driving innovation in products and services and brand differentiation. 

I don’t think that the Macleod review will draw the explicit link between employee engagement and brand, which is unfortunate as I believe that employee brand engagement absolutely addresses why Macleod believes engagement matters in the future: realise untapped potential; enable the best of people; compete with BRIC economy; provide public services we want; innovate; bespoke.

But three hopes in one day is enough for anyone, right?