Employee engagement reduces staff turnover

It was interesting to read in HR Magazine that a company has reduced its staff turnover from 75% to 1% in just 30 months, due to a focused engagement and recognition policy. It was curious however to learn that the company is actually an engagement consultancy, O.C. Tanner. Quite how an engagement consultancy experienced a 75% turnover of staff, even through mergers and acquisitions, is a mystery.

However, the lesson to take away from this is that having a defined engagement strategy is essential. At the very base level, there has to be effective two-way communication and recognition of employees when they make a valuable contribution to the business' objectives. Ensuring that everyone understands their and their team's goals and is able to input into formulating those goals, is an important ingredient in employee satisfaction and buy-in.

Middle managers are internal communication weak link?

That's the finding of a national survey in the US reported on Reuters. And it's one that will be familiar to many internal communicators who see messages through the line frequently break down at the line manager level.

According to the national telephone survey of 420 employed adults with supervisors:

• Only half of America's employees (50%) agree that their supervisors give them the information they need to do their job well;
• And even fewer employees - four in 10 - feel their supervisor keeps them informed about what's going on in the organization (42%);
• Finally, only 41% of employees feel their supervisor takes action on the ideas and concerns of his or her employees.

Chicago-based internal communications agency dg&a commissioned the survey. The agency's founder and president, David Grossman, added another finding that internal communicators will recognise all too well:

"Supervisors are the preferred and most trusted information source inside organizations today - yet they're clearly not getting the information and training they need for those they supervise."

Grossman goes on to remind people, quite rightly, that 'mid-level managers who can engage and motivate their staff can be a company's strongest means of accelerating success'. After that the piece then turns into a sales pitch for dg&a's "Ultimate Leader Tools".

The piece does however focus attention on what remains a real challenge for many businesses. How do you turn trusted and visible sources of information into people who communicate clearly with their teams?

When speaking with line managers about the need for them to have solid two-way discussions with their teams, one frequently cited hindrance is time. Line managers always say they have a lot to do and too little time in which to do it. This is where the soft skills of the internal communicator should be employed, because it is possible to influence line managers - and the senior managers above them - to put more a greater priority on sharing relevant information with teams and listening to what the teams have to say. After all, communicating with colleagues and employees is too important to business performance to be pushed down a list of priorities.

Yes, there will always be the manager who doesn't have the inclination to communicate properly with their team, but that is a performance management issue for their own line manager to address. In fixing the weak link that has been identified by the survey, communicators already have the solution to hand in the form of our soft skill set. There is no need to accept middle or line managers being a perceived communication weak link.

Changing the behaviours and thinking in a business will likely require the use of soft skills such as negotiation and motivation. But this survey and many others like it provide us with the all-important evidence required to influence management into giving communication a much greater emphasis. As communicators it's just another example of the value we add to an organisation.

An ironic example of poor communication

Here is an example of frustrating writing that I stumbled across because the topic happened to be internal communication. After being hooked by a strong title, "Internal communication saves time and money" and ploughing through a fairly uninspiring example of the consequences of not communicating effectively, I arrived at the author's conclusion, where the words "internal communication" were used for the first time in the text:

Large companies often have entire departments dedicated to internal communication, but small companies are far from immune from communication problems. Learning when and how to communicate can be the difference between a good company and a great one.

Setting aside the fact the construction of the first sentence could give the impression that having an entire department dedicated to internal communication means those companies have communication problems, the conclusion made me bury my head in my hands.

Here is a piece aimed at a small business audience, designed to make that audience think about how its members engage with their people. Kudos for that. After all, I have previously written about small businesses needing to benefit from engagement inclusion. But after telling the audience that the difference between a good company and a great one is learning how and when to communicate, the piece leaves them hanging in mid air because it does nothing to tell the audience how to do this or even where to start. It's like a multi millionaire being asked to explain how to become super wealthy and replying "work long hours and invest wisely".

Think how much more valuable this piece would have been if it had pointed readers - who are likely to have time constraints given the nature of small business - to resources that would help them, books they could read, reports that showcase leading practice, or listed some simple practical steps they could take to promote better communication and engagement in their organisation.

Could you imagine the reaction of employees if they received a memo from their CEO telling them a horror story from another business and concluding that they must work smarter, but not explaining how? That's what the article felt like. Although the sentiment was right, the information the audience would most want was missing. The irony is that the article itself is a good example of the poor communication it encourages others to avoid.

Engagement inclusion

We've all heard politicians and sociologists talk about social inclusion in recent years. It's succeeded in shifting the focus of politicians and agencies on problems in society that need to be resolved.

So isn't it time that internal communications professionals started to promote the concept of 'engagement inclusion' to generate a focus on problems in the business world that could be addressed with better engagement?

Although it has been something rattling around inside my head for a while, it was seeing, yet again, a valuable message like this being tucked away in the specialist pages of a media, marketing and advertising journal that has prompted this blog post. It seems to me such a waste to only ever see our unique value proposition being used as part of sales pitches for workshops and seminars. Rightly or wrongly, it makes me feel as if my profession is being used by some people as a chance to make a quick buck by preaching to the converted.

We are all familiar with the thinking in the pitch that takes up the first three paragraphs. But it seems to me that we as professionals aren't making the best use of channels (in the widest sense) to share our important value proposition with a segment of business that doesn't currently engage effectively with people in their organisations. There are plenty of organisations where there is an absence of any kind of engagement strategy or focus, and perhaps we should be working to start a discussion with them to explain what we have to offer from a professional standpoint.

Promoting the positive and substantive contribution internal communication and employee engagement can make to a business that does not engage with its people is a great opportunity to enhance the professional standing of internal communicators. Maybe the time has come for internal comms thought leaders should make use of their networks and connections to get space in mainstream publications to explain two key messages:

1. what employee engagement is about
   
2. why more businesses should embrace a professional approach to engagement
   

This could serve two purposes. First, that decision makers in small and medium enterprises gain greater awareness and understanding of internal comms and can consider making use of a valuable function that remains too far the preserve of large businesses. Second, that internal comms rightly positions itself as a professional function that plays an important and valuable role in business and can offer solutions to problems that exist in too many organisations.

I believe that communicators who are passionate about their work and view what they do as a vocational undertaking will recognise and share my sentiments. I hope they are sufficiently motivated to start a conversation about stepping up to meet this challenge of bringing engagement to those in business who do not experience it. Maybe engagement inclusion should be a topic that comes up at the numerous conferences and get togethers of professionals in our field as it is an important piece missing from our jigsaw.

A timely reminder why employee engagement matters

Executives and managers in Brisbane are being invited to attend a business breakfast where they will be told how to engage and reward their people in tough times. We need to see lots more of these sessions in the UK where thought leaders in communications and employee engagement can explain why employee engagement matters - especially in a challenging market environment.

Perhaps in the UK the message to promote interest and get business leaders to such a session should be "How better engagement with your people can boost your business". Regardless, the thinking behind the Brisbane session is excellent. Its organiser, the General Manager and Co-Founder of Pure Source Recruitment, Tracey Montgomery, hit the nail on the head in explaining why employee engagement matters:

“With redundancies and pay freezes lurking in the shadows of Brisbane’s corporate market, employee morale is under threat and this can be very dangerous to firms’ bottom lines,” she says.

“A lot of employers think because it’s a tight job market at the moment, they don’t have to try as hard to engage with their employees. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Employers need to sustain a strong corporate culture to ensure their firms continue to run efficiently and effectively in this tough market.

“With most workplaces going through tough times, employee morale and spirit may be low so there has never been a more crucial time to remind firms how to effectively engage and reward employees.”

Perhaps more internal communicators in the UK should be taking a lead in organising similar events here.

Senior leaders should take off their sunglasses

Recently I took the opportunity to visit an organisation and find out more about their internal communication and employee engagement. I was presented with the findings of the most recent employee survey conducted by a reputable polling company - and the results were very interesting.

The headline elements of the survey revealed the staff like working for the organisation and believe their work is valuable. By a very large margin they also felt the direction of the organisation was appropriate and approved of the goals they have been set in support of the organisation's objectives. They felt too that service delivery was good.  As internal comms professionals in most organisations will recognise, this group of employees also demonstrated the almost tribal instinct of being particularly fond of their immediate team mates.

There were two findings that stood out for me.  One was a huge rise in the number of respondents who thought the internal communication was very good or good.  Specifically they felt their intranet was easy to use, contained relevant information and helped them to do their jobs well.  Other channels received similar positive feedback.

The second was surprising for the high percentage of people whose responses indicated they had little or no confidence in their senior management.  Over 30% of respondents felt that way.  The number of highly positive responses was barely in double digits.  It seemed contradictory to me because the staff had already stated the direction of the organisation was appropriate and they approved of the goals set for them in support of the organisation's objectives.  The direction and goals cascade from senior management's strategic decisions.  So if the staff were happy with those, how on earth could they have such little confidence in the senior managers who determined them?

What sprung to mind was a recruitment advert run by the British Army in recent years.  The scene is shown ' through the eyes' of a young British officer on peace keeping duties, who is trying to speak with a group of armed African tribesmen.  The leader is agitated and aggressive, gesticulating and shouting, and as a result his men are nervous and have twitchy fingers on their rifles.  The view through the camera becomes brighter as the young British officer 'removes' the sunglasses he is wearing.  Suddenly the leader starts to calm down and his men begin to relax as the tension is defused.  The reason?  Removal of the sunglasses - because making eye contact with locals is an important part of communication and engendering trust and confidence.

The advert is a useful metaphor for explaining the actions senior managers need to take.  By being visible and not concealing themselves senior managers can build a relationship of trust and confidence with the people they lead.  The results of the survey demonstrate the direction management has set already meets with the approval of the staff.  But to alter the perception staff have of the senior management at this organisation, those senior leaders need to do more than make good decisions - they need to take off their sunglasses and make eye contact.

Consequences of poor engagement

When something controversial or unsettling happens in an organisation an understandable response is that people ask pointed questions about it.  Good internal comms professionals would counsel the leadership to engage with their people to explain why 'it' happened, what the leadership thinks about it and what actions they might take.

Successful engagement is grounded in openness and transparency and requires leaders to set an example that embodies the organisation brand and its values.  It requires an honest two-way conversation for it to be effective.  Only by visibly 'living' the brand values themselves can leaders expect their people to have confidence in the organisation and its direction.  So when those people are unsettled and asking questions leadership needs to step up or its credibility can be damaged.

It's with that in mind that the political world has provided us with yet another case study in poor engagement.  Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has been repeatedly asked to state what he thinks about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.  However, to date, Mr Brown has refused to comment on the matter.  The public reaction to this silence demonstrates the consequences of a failure to engage on matters that are of significant concern.

The lesson in this for managers and executives is clear.  Credibility and authority are major casualties of a failure to engage effectively with your people.  If your people are to believe in your brand and values you must exemplify them; and you should actively listen and respond clearly.  Burying your head in the sand is one of the most damaging things you can do.

Internal Communications - what on earth?

My name is Tony and I'm an internal communicator.  There, I've admitted it to myself and to you, dear reader.  Cue warm applause, murmurs of approval, pats on the back and perhaps a personal sense of relief.  After all, identifying your specialism is half the battle, isn't it?  The other half as I see it is defining exactly what an internal communicator is and explaining why the job is important.

For despite the preponderance and visibility of internal communications teams in business around the globe, many people still don't have much idea of what internal comms functions do.  For a field of endeavour that, among other things, does so much in explaining the vision, strategy, challenges, successes (and disappointments) of a business, internal comms has been surprisingly poor at defining itself to the audiences it engages with.  Perhaps it is due to the quiet modesty exhibited by most internal comms professionals... but I doubt it.

So it was great to learn that a team of internal communications experts - Rachel Allen, Abi Signorelli, David Ferrabee, Liam FitzPatrick, Wedge and Lee Smith - took the bull by the horns and formed a comms 'flash mob' to set about correcting that state of affairs.  They have published an up to date page on Wikipedia which everyone can read here.  It explains what internal communications is and what internal communicators do.  The page remains work in progress and other communicators have joined in, helping to populate it with additional useful information.

Thanks to the efforts of all those contributors, the process of demystifying internal communications has taken an overdue step forward - and I feel like my specialism has more of an identity.  Internal communications will remain a niche business area, but the people who read that Wikipedia page will now be able to see just how broad the expertise in a comms function really is and recognise the value internal comms expertise can add to a business.  Yes, that's right, value.

Far from being a cost centre that derives no revenue for the business, an internal communications function is actually a value centre that undertakes activity which adds to the bottom line.

With the recession biting deep in many sectors of the UK economy, businesses with internal comms functions are learning just how valuable they can be in facilitating engagement between management and their teams.  I will wager that businesses that use internal communication professionals to share management's direction and objectives, and explain what is expected of their teams, are the ones that will come out of the recession in better shape for their people having clearly understood and delivered what was required.

That's an important part of what internal communicators do.  The work can be challenging and there can be obstacles to overcome.  But the buzz you can get when you see a business succeed because you have helped management and people to understand each other and work together... it can be highly addictive.  So when I say 'my name is Tony and I'm an internal communicator', I don't feel embarrassment or shame, I can feel a sense of pride. By the way, welcome to my blog!