“In short, effective employee engagement made UK business more competitive." Steve Doswell on the rise and rise of employee engagement

The internal communication sector is in the grips of a very British kind of revolution. Normally, revolutions begin in the street and swell until they finally engulf the government. In this story, the flow was reversed.

And then came a report that is changing the world of IC – not suddenly, not convulsively, but progressively, in a sustained way, over time. The report, of course, was called Engaging for Success: Enhancing Performance through Employee Engagement, more commonly known as the Macleod and Clarke report. What gave the report its power was its depth of research, the calibre of its authors and the client who commissioned it. This was not a sales pitch thinly disguised as a white paper. It was a report to the government, no less. Governments may have no intrinsic interest in IC but they are deeply interested in the economy. Where a link can be made, the government takes note.

Anyone unfamiliar with Macleod and Clarke should read their report as essential professional development activity. They found that engaged employees were more highly motivated, more productive and more likely to stay than to leave. As a consequence, their employers were more successful, more innovative and delivered better financial returns. In short, effective employee engagement made UK business more competitive. And that, in a challenging world economy, was an insight worth discovering. Here was an influential report, well-researched and presented by highly credible authors, and there was a government prepared to listen. In March 2011, prime minister David Cameron set up a task force involving the report’s authors and senior figures from across British industry, “To spearhead a movement to enhance levels of employee engagement across the UK workforce.” After years of politely tapping on the CEO’s door, here was IC, being welcomed through the door of No 10 Downing Street. Well, almost.

So there’s now a widely acknowledged fourpart canon of engagement. It says that leaders should provide a strong strategic narrative about the organisation, where it’s come from and where it’s going; that engaging managers should coach and stretch their employees, and give them the scope to do their job; that employers should encourage employee voice throughout the organisation and that there should be organisational integrity.

Today, the E4S (Engage for Success) movement is everywhere. It is espoused by virtually every significant employer in Britain. It has provided a toolkit from which anyone can adopt techniques and approaches for engagement. It has spawned a level and volume of dialogue and a common language around employee engagement that has done more to spotlight the contribution of IC than anything in recent memory.

The engagement movement presents both opportunity and threat. Opportunity, because engagement is in vogue. It is a ‘business process reengineering’ of our time; it brings management time and attention, kudos and recognition. Threat, because IC is not employee engagement, not exactly, anyway. Good internal communication is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for engagement to exist. Other things contribute to engagement, too, and IC practitioners need to be clear about the part they can play – the extent but the limits, too. This is probably a once-in-a-generation opportunity for IC’s contribution to organisational success to be recognised. If we steer adeptly, the engagement tide will lift IC’s boat. The alternative should not be contemplated.

Steve Doswell is chief executive of IoIC.