On a fascinating webinar today Daniel Mezick of Open Space Agility highlighted the huge commercial value of employee engagement.
Research shows that organisations with a high level of employee engagement:
- report 22% higher productivity
- have double the rate of success of lower engaged organisations
- report 48% fewer safety incidents; 41% fewer patient safety incidents; and 41% fewer quality incidents (defects).
Daniel said that in a typical Agile implementation, having people fully engaged and bought in to the process could halve the cost: from $200,000 to $100,000, for example. “Engaging people pays for everything,” he said.
This stuff matters, on all kinds of levels.
Both Daniel’s approach, based on Open Space Technology, and mine, based on Clean Language, are designed to get people deeply engaged. In both cases we do that by creating opportunities for people to talk about what matters to them as individuals, and to decide for themselves about those issues (rather than doing just what matters to the company/the boss/the facilitator).
Because we engage people in process of change, evidence suggests, any change is more likely to go smoothly and to stay changed.
When it comes to selling what we do, it pays to remember how precious engagement can be… and use it in our sales process. That’s why I use Clean Questions to find out what a potential client would like (Caitlin Walker has written up something similar here), and to work with them to co-create that outcome.
And today, for the first time, I started wondering whether the same logic could be extended. Could the same kind of process be used with a group of students on a course like Metaphor Mastery? It’s a recorded course, where I’m “the trainer” and our direct interactions have been limited to a Facebook group.
In this situation, can I hope for greater engagement? Would some of them be willing to co-create something with me, based on what matters to them?
I’ve asked the question in the group. Watch this space!