Too much talk around employer engagement is about making people feel a certain way or (worse) hitting some "engagement scores" based purely on surveys. Is that somewhat dismissive? Yes, I'll own that. But I've gotten in trouble for saying things like, "no one comes to work wanting to be disengaged, so I wonder where the issue lies?" A lot of the issue is that we've lowered the bar on what "engaged" means, to the point where it feels like "not actively planning the company's downfall" feels like a win. In reality, engagement means giving a crap about the people, the purpose and organization. It means a level of emotional commitment in outcomes and processes.

What you reward is who your company is. But how do you reward people in a remote work situation? Stories Incorporated has some ideas on the subject.

Further evidence that you and your marketing team should be spending more time together and occasionally taking long walks on the beach: employee advocates are the new “influencer.” In a lot of ways, influencers made a kind of sense in a world with a million options (or products, services, lifestyles, etc) because they acted as a kind of “native guide” to these things. A Kardashian can point to weight loss products and fashion because it’s something they know about. But as influencers as a celebrity become stale, the new advocate is the insider, someone with the inside view on things. They have a more credible voice and are seen as more real than marketing and can change people’s minds about your company (both as an employer, and as a vendor).

Pop quiz: what’s the one thing that adds authenticity to your brand claims? When actual employers align to those claims. Even more so when they can internalize those ideas and even talk about the less-attractive aspects of the brand (all traits have good and bad features, and every strength becomes a weakness if taken too far). Charlotte Marshal breaks it down.

Who’s in charge of your company’s employee activation? Chances are, it’s no one. So I guess it’s up to you. But here’s an idea. Rather than think about employee activation as the best way to get your most authentic and credible employer brand narrative out into the world (which it most certainly is), what if you were to think about the rest of the organization first? Who are all the departments who would love to tap into that resources? If you want to make yourself invaluable, manage this ideas for them first (and your outcomes will come all by themselves).

Oof. When HBR is arguing against “talent management optimization,” you gotta ask: why aren’t we treating each and every employee like an artist? How is it that Taylorism is still alive and well?

According to Gallup's most recent data, employee engagement is at an all-time high. Huh?

Long-time readers of this newsletter will know about my love/hate relationship I have with HBR. When they aren’t mis-representing what EB is, or clinging to a fairly outmoded sense of who is in charge of an individual’s career, they occasionally drop an article like this one around how “feel good” messages don’t always motivate your employees. Personally, I would have re-written around how not all employees respond to feel-good messages (or any one kind of message, frankly), but good for them to at least consider that employees aren’t interchangeable cogs…

Internal surveys are useful, but deeply flawed. They only show the perception of those who self-select into the survey. They rarely ask good questions (where everyone answering them are actually answering the same question in their minds). And most staff don’t reveal what they really think for fear of retribution. But they are useful if you know how to design and administer them.