The customer service revolution is here and now – Interview with Mikkel Svane CEO of Zendesk
June 26, 2012Customer Feedback: Could we improve response rates by adding a question?
July 3, 2012
I was approached recently by a large organisation to go and talk to them about ‘Engagement’. The issue that they were having was that when they put customer in front of engagement, Marketing wanted to own it. But, when they put employee in front of it then HR wanted to own it.
I tell people about this story and they smile, knowingly.
Therefore, my client wanted me to come along and share a few ideas with them about what I have seen and had learned about the connection between the two and, to, effectively, referee a wrestling match between Marketing and HR (I’m only partly kidding). However, the overall objective was to help them come up with a way of figuring out what engagement meant for their organisation and how both departments could work together on the issue.
Now, I’ve written about this before in:
But, I haven’t written about it in a while.
So, a wee while ago I saw the following article (http://blog.biworldwide.co.uk/employee-engagement—on-the-right-track.html) and it made me think a bit more about engagement. This article and the ones it refers to seem to indicate that for many organisations they look at employee engagement as a stand-alone issue. The article argues that whilst there is a lot of attention being paid to creating an engaging workplace and engaged workforces, it is being handled in isolation by HR and that clear links are not, necessarily, being made to how improved employee engagement will deliver real business benefits.
Professor Ivan Robertson, writing in The Guardian, suggests that improving peoples attitudes to work does not necessarily mean that they will be more productive, work harder or improve performance. But, data and insight from Gallup and Kenexa show the business benefits of an engaged workforce.
What’s the difference? I would bet that the organisations typified by the high performers in the Gallup and Kenexa research have made the connections, that investing in your people and your environment has to have expected dividends.
So, what does this mean? Well, I would suggest that we should not pursue employee engagement for engagement’s sake. Right? We are in business after all.
Investment in employee engagement should be conducted with expected benefits in terms of better lower staff turnover, higher customer satisfaction or repeat business or something like that.
Also, the employee engagement issue cannot just sit in the HR department. As an initiative it has to bust out of a departmental focus to become something that is an intrinsic part of the business, the planning process, expected business benefits and the targets that get set and monitored over time.
What do you think? I look forward to your thoughts and comments.
Thanks to BetterWorks for the image.
Note: I write these posts because I am passionate about great service and helping companies get more value and growth out of the customer relationships they already have. If you’d like to find out more about how I do that then get in touch here. Alternatively, sign up for my monthly newsletter here.
16 Comments
Totally agree Adrian.
I would ask the question, however – what’s not to like about having employees who come to work because they want to, not just because they have to? I have experienced working for a business where that was the case, and we achieved extraordinary things!
Hi Graham,
Thanks for your comment.
In answer to your question: Nothing at all.
However, wouldn’t it be great if we could have a combination of the two ie. engagement efforts that are tied to business benefits and a place of work that people really wanted to come to?
Best regards,
Adrian
Adrian,
If you want employees to engage they have to engage with something.
If that something is doing a professional job, treating customers well, being effective and taking pride in what they do, then engagement is easy for employees.
I’d love to engage with an organisation like that
Wouldn’t you?
James
Hi James,
Me too. Doesn’t seem like a lot to ask. Right?
Why do so many seem to get it wrong?
Lack of care? Lip service? Lack of understanding? Culture?
Delete as appropriate.
Adrian
We deal with many businesses and find the best ones (large and small) help make work a place where people want to come into, work hard, look after customers and be fairly rewarded.
Keeping employees engaged is not a one off project, its needs regular scheduled meetings with all staff to ensure levels of engagement are kept.
Hey there,
Couldn’t agree more. The best type of engagement is an ongoing process that requires the right sort of actions and behaviours executed continuously but with a clear eye on business benefits. In the cases that you mentioned that seems to be looking after customers and delivering great customer service.
Thanks for dropping by and adding your voice.
Best wishes,
Adrian
Hello Adrian
Employee engagement is mostly hot air. And where it is not hot air it is code for ‘how can we get employees to put more into the game for the benefit of the company’?
It also shows that what the company does and the way that it does it including the way that it treats it customers and employees is leaving the employees uninspired and even cynical.
If I correct so far then the challenge is not to do ’employee engagement’. The challenge is to let go of practices that are generating employee disengagement. And that means fundamental change in management practices. I wonder if HR will be running to the CEO, the Board, the senior leadership team and asking them to change their ways?
As you might have guessed I am not a fan of employee engagement. I am of the view that if the right management practices exist including hiring the right employees then all this talk and work on ’employee engagement’ is unnecessary.
Maz
Hi Maz,
I see where you are coming from. Reminds me of the idea that if we only focused on what we should not be doing then by default everything would get better.
Adrian
Hi Adrian,
Spot on. Engagement never should be, and in our experience thankfully rarely is pursued for its’ own sake.
The clients we work with that take engagement seriously are also taking quality, customer service and integrity seriously. And unsurprisingly, doing well at these things supports engagement (and vice versa). These are all components of a virtuous and self re-enforcing cycle. Rarely do we see high levels of engagement without also seeing good scores on these other dimensions.
This comes down to leaders pursuing a balanced strategy for success (whether commercial or otherwise), where that strategy is rooted in a clear sense of principles and values that are lived rather than espoused.
Quality, service and integrity sit alongside engagement. They are, in effect, all on the same team.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for sharing your perspective and insight. Great to hear that the clients that you work with ‘get’ it.
Adrian