As promised, here is my next set of scribblings, my interpretation of the second part of the engagement taskforce “guru group” meeting. I can barely bring myself two write those two words. Guru. Group…..shudder! I really don’t like that term – enough said on that.
Part two of the meeting involved a discussion at tables for twenty minutes to decide what activity we thought the taskforce should prioritise. Now if getting answers to the first question had at times proved tricky – what followed was a little more challenging. I often observe that people sometimes need gentle reminding and refocusing on the matter in hand. Folk are generally great at offering opinions – not always so good at answering questions. And I find this often gets even trickier when it comes to making specific actionable suggestions. I want to be clear – I’m a part of this group and therefore partly responsible. I’m not singling it out, this is behaviour I observe often and so I was not surprised to see it here.
Our table discussion started and it was almost all theoretical. I sat and listened, waiting for action to emerge from theory. I waited for over ten minutes before interjecting and suggesting that with half our allotted time gone, we should move from theory to practice. Here’s what we managed to come up with:
- Experiment more – be open to trying things differently and learn from them, don’t punish mistakes in this experimental environment
- Why is the engagement taskforce here? Clarify it? Its intention is to achieve what? How do taskforce members see it contributing to other things?
- Do more qualitative analysis
- Involve younger people
- Stop doing employee engagement surveys
- Use social tools to help create a community resource
After the twenty minutes were up each table was invited to set out its stall. I must stress that what follows is what I heard – it is not some official output. I tried really hard to capture what people were saying and just like before I’m sure I will have missed stuff. So here goes:
Transcript from the Engagement Taskforce Guru Group Meeting held at 1 Victoria Street London on 19 May 2011
Question #2 what things do we think the taskforce should prioritise and address first?
What’s in it for the employer and employee? Need both for UK plc
Share experiences and stories of employee “voice”.
Identify where improvement has been sustained and share – what is the succession plan?
Shareholders as blockers
How does a manager become engaging?
Engagement as part of core values
Share reality of good practice
The language is too simplistic
How do we deal with a U shape of engagement where the people at the top and the front line are engaged and middle management isn’t?
Is employee engagement too passive could it be more two way?
Use social tools to help give voice
Create a community resource – open source employee engagement
1 – A discipline, on the surface it’s disposable deeper it sustains, create meaning, it’s an enabler not an outcome
2 – Data versus insight, quantitative versus qualitative
3 – What’s in it for the employee and the employer? Value congruence – wellbeing
Why are you (the taskforce) a part of this? Passion? Gain? Personal and give and share?
Experiment together – try new stuff and see what works and what doesn’t
Stop doing engagement surveys, at least for a while. Stop the measurement and focus more on the doing
Embodiment of engagement
Twelve months time looks like what?
Survey versus intelligent data
Civil service, engagement has gone down, and pockets have gone up – why?
Leadership style for engagement – what is it?
Don’t want a set of tools for middle management
Separate the engagement index from bonuses
Blank sheet – ask employees what they want to do – not a choice of x, y or x
How do the armed forces create engagement?
Challenge the assumption that scores should go up every year – this is not sustainable
There are some things in this list which interest me and at the same time I’m not very comfortable with it. Maybe we need a clearer view on what resources the taskforce is to invest into the project to help focus the thinking, but for me – this output is too loose and too theoretical. When a colleague at our table read out my stop doing the surveys request and focus on acting on what people are saying – that got a laugh. I had to stress that I was quite serious and I’d like this request put to the taskforce. I wonder if it will make it onto the list?
So there you have it – my views on an interesting gathering last week. It’s early days so I ask that we don’t judge too harshly yet. I will be interested to see what emerges post the taskforce meeting scheduled for June 8th. And if there is anything you wish to add to this post I would be very pleased to hear from you.
47 thoughts on “Support Act – Part Two”
Thanks for taking the time to summarise the discussion, Doug.
Who was facilitating?
Seems like a tough gig given the timescales and the risk is that the usual self serving “foghorns” will dominate.
What was agreed in terms of forward process and who will decide what makes it onto the final agenda?
I’m glad to see values on the list but am very surprised that there’s no reference to organisation culture.
Did you leave with any confidence that this will emerge as anything more than a “camel” (horse designed by a committee)?
Hello Ian – David MacLeod was facilitating and yes, it was tough given the timescales and the method used.
Very little if anything was agreed there and then so I will be interested to see what happens next, and I’m open minded about how things may emerge….we’ll see 😉
Thanks for letting me live a bit of this vicariously from the prairies of Canada. I would have appreciated watching this process unfold. Having facilitated the Employee Engagement Network online for over 3 years I realize what a challenge it can be to move to action. We have created 7 eBooks and some good resources yet we still have a long way to go. My challenge is that I am very tactical and not all that engaged with strategy unless I see the action, I just want to get things done!
My absolute pleasure David. I agree the move to action is not an easy one for folk, and particularly so when the group is larger. I’ve tried to exercise caution in not expecting too much and yet I think some folk may read through this and default to “well I told you this was a waste of time!”
We’ll see. And of course getting stuff done is great 🙂
Thanks for this. I note your comment on little reaction when you announced you were part of this group. I suspect that many are sceptical about if such a givernment backed, general task force can make a difference, and if not then why waste time.
That said the malaise is not the fault of the taskforce whose intentions are, I am sure, well intentioned.
As a long time City dweller the phrase “follow the money” has never been more relevant nor I suspect widespread. The term basically means work out who has the most to gain and how and you will then guage the motivation and likely actions. As we move to ever shorter reporting and reward cycles throughout the working world along with a more risk averse/avoiding culture, the emphasis is on short term activity in order to reap reward now and leave the next person to pick up the future, which may well change anyway. Engagement takes time, often longer than the reward cycles and as such gains only passing support
Link that with a preponderance of introvert, analyticals sitting on the top floors (I avoided C-suite!) with broadcast as their most comfortable style (rather than dialogue) and it is not surprising we are where we are. Even if they want to do better, they have no time to learn and no appetite to make themselves vulnerable.
The biggest positive shifts in engagement in my experience come when a senior figure dares to be different, engages in dialogue and is prepared to expose themselves to examination and possible ridicule. Not sure I saw much about that in your notes! 🙂
But then maybe your fellows did not want to stand out?
Hello Ian, and thanks for a very interesting, considered response. I think you are right that the taskforce is well intentioned, and also that there will be some doubt – folks are only human eh.
I think your following points about follow the money, plus short term plus introverted analyticals = a difficult job (please excuse my typically poor maths) are a tricky combo to overcome.
Really appreciate what you’ve said here. Cheers – Doug
“Stop the surveys” idea which I raised at the engagement debate you joined on 15th March [wpvideo CjuOLD5Z] didn’t just get a laugh at the group Doug, it got an uncomfortable shuffle from those who earn a living from it. I must say it is a bit previous to criticise inputs to and outcomes from the TaskForce before our group outputs have been boiled down into an agreed set of recommendations. Maybe you should take up your uncomfortableness direct with David and Nita? For me, it was the most constructive 2 1/2 hours I have ever spent discussing this topic (compared with endless, fruitless on-line conversations) I think the group outputs were very disciplined considering the diversity of views. Less ‘foghorns’ and ‘camels’ than I would have suspected. Good job all round. http://ciprinside.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/macleod-the-man-in-the-arena/
sorry embedded link didnt work above…videos and podcasts of the debate are here.
Coming to Doug’s defence in the face of what is a pretty aggressive counter-critique from Sean, I’m sure many people appreciate the “warts and all” approach he’s taken to sharing the process. As Doug states, throughout, he’s being open and honest and taking some risks, seemingly without an overt commercial agenda, which is a darn site more engaging than some well rehearsed PR or cascade.
What’s fascinating isn’t whether either of you are right, but the divergence in perspectives from two well informed people who attended the same meeting.
I think most of us have seen the videos of the CIPR engagement debate. Again, some interesting perspectives, none of which can claim to be definitive. Many people, as you say, have contributed to online discussions etc. But to assert that any of particular media should dominate flies in the face of the communication principles we should all embrace. Any pragmatic vehicle is relevant and how useful it becomes is surely dependent upon how it’s facilitated and what happens with the outputs. Having vociferously initiated many of the debates yourself, whether online or in person, I’m surprised by your cynicism Sean.
What emerges from these “taskforce” discussions will doubtless be very different from the workings. Who knows, perhaps discussions like these are lighting bushfires everywhere? But I’m not sure how helpful it is slating factions of the engagement industry whether HR/PR/Comms, engagement “thinkers”, consultants or the measurement fraternity given one of the key aims of the process is surely to bring a select few of the representatives together for the greater good rather than alienating the majority.
Doug and I dont have divergent perspectives. We agree on all points. My critique was less “aggressive and cynical” as you suggest ian and more a constructive suggestion for Doug to address his concerns with the process owners. Thats likely to be more influential.
I don’t see the “slating of the factions of the engagement industry” or “alienating the majority”. What I see is a few well intended challenges on conventional wisdom that has proved to be less than wise over the years. Over-investment in “engagement” surveys is one of them. But you raise an interesting point that engagement is an “industry” Ian. Maybe it’s time for engagement to go back to its heartland of being a management discipline and more effort is put into supporting the managers who are ultimately responsible for driving it.
“Doug and I dont have divergent perspectives. We agree on all points.”
Just to be clear, no we don’t
Hello folks – I’ve been contacted privately and asked to elaborate. Quite right too and apologies for not doing so earlier. I will come back to this next week when time permits with greater details and for now:
“For me, it was the most constructive 2 1/2 hours I have ever spent discussing this topic (compared with endless, fruitless on-line conversations) I think the group outputs were very disciplined considering the diversity of views.”
I may change my mind on this – and whilst it was interesting I disagree with the above points. And I expect we support different football teams too – let’s face it – total agreement is, well, so boring eh 🙂
Have a great weekend
One of you has emerged with the perspective that this was “the most constructive 2 1/2 hours I have ever spent discussing this topic “, the other with reservations. Diverse?
With regard to “slating the factions”, whether you see it or not, that’s how your postings criticising, for example, “those who earn a living” from measurement et al come across, however well intended they doubtless are. Coming, as they do, from someone who also makes his living within the engagement “industry”, they’re fairly cheecky wouldn’t you say?
I agree wholeheartedly with you about the engagement heartland, though. If debates such as these aren’t serving the most important stakeholders, namely the first line managers, then why are they happening? Having spent the best part of my career empowering that community in one way or another, I’m encouraged to see that employee engagement is attracting so much passion at the moment. Let’s hope this initiative doesn’t get sidetracked by conflicting personal or commercial agendas or overburdened by administration, though, as engagement is going to be key to shifting brand Britain back into the black!
Going back to the “wildfire” metaphor, quite coincidentally have just been invited to something tantalisingly termed a “Dangerous Dinner” in The City. Doubtless informed by the engagement agenda, the “menu” includes a debate about Gallup’s Q12; the role of HR and the dangers of Social Media! Will have to let you know how tha plays out, but let’s hope this heat continues to spread.
I never said I didnt have reservations and Doug never said it wasn’t constructive. My point was that any reservations are best discussed with the people who can influence the agenda. For the record Ian, I don’t make a living within the engagement industry. I am a business consultant who helps connect people with organisations that are going through various changes like revised customer promises, safety culture, mergers, divestments, brand positioning, downsizing etc Most of my work has been about getting line managers to deliver those changes through their teams, which is built on first hand experience of doing this myself. Good to hear you’ve been doing work in this area too Ian. david is keen to hear case studies so perhaps you could feed your personal examples through to David?
My experience, and others, is that the big interventions like workshops and surveys get in the way of progress and lead to employee cynicism and other unintended consequences within organisations. The fact that millions is spent on these interventions, and my view this is wasted, is not being cheeky – it’s being challenging and is grounded in a non self-fulfilling or commercial agenda. No doubt some will try and push their boat out, but I believe voices like Doug and mine will help keep it real. The subject of line management (at all levels not just the front line) was well aired at the meeting which is why I found it so useful and constructive. The most objective views came for academics and business consultants who, like me, wouldn’t readily associate with the “engagement industry”
I think it is worth reiterating that this is initiative is led by industry, endorsed by government and advised by a broad church of academics. consultants and practitioners. Political and commercial objectives aren’t driving this, Industry is (and I dont mean the “engagement industry”). For this reason, I’m optimistic that admin won’t get in the way and the transparency of personal agendas won’t get past the group.
What’s this, the Trainor PR hour? LOL!
Having given you a glowing reference in Brand Champions (which is packed full of the case studies you mention) and having worked with you over at CIPR Inside for some time, I clearly appreciate your talents. So let’s not play games eh?
Challenge is fine. But it helps to be respectful and to have a pragmatic aim. Can’t say I buy your attempts to create and then distance yourself from the engagement industry which you reference with such surprising disdain. After all, you went out of your way to invite many of the household names onto the Advisory Board at CIPR Inside. If you don’t respect our opinions and track record then what was the agenda?
I know most of your work has been in house and on locum contracts (which is more than most can claim), but you have a consulting model and tactical tools as well as a fairly extensive measurement model of your own, do you not? I’m sure you would defend your own tools as vociferously as Angela Sinickas etc and the other more established figures have done when you’ve criticised them in the past.
I haven’t been as close to David as some but have respectfully made my views known to David and will continue to do so as this process unfolds. As I said earlier, if initiatives like Doug’s blog help to widen the debate, then we may be onto something.
I feel confident that with you guys representing elements of the engagement agenda at the meetings, Sean, the debate will be vociferous. As ever, your passion and optimism is commendable. But then I’m used to your style 😉
Indeed I do have a couple of models (which are merely an articulation of my thinking, not a commercial commodity) and a couple of surveys that are focussed on garnering key insights (like culture) and help drive achieve actionable outcomes (like advocacy) not pop-psychology like a lot of surveys based on some pseudo social science of “engagement drivers” which I dispute the validity of. But at the end of the day I always maintain people buy people not models so mine are open source and only protected by creative commons. I respect most opinions, even those I dont agree with as they encourage dialogue and any opinion is better than none. My own vociferous style always aims to attack the issue, not the individual, so I try an keep it impersonal. Just to keep up the PR, my openeness to diversity on a group like CIPR or the Task Force is testimony to my lack of personal agenda. If I can provide someone with a platform to promote their thinking, contribute to the debate and support a community of practitioners through speaking at events and mentoring, my only selection criteria is their own personal conviction and passion in their field, whether I agree with them or not. The reality is that debate should aim to highlight points of difference but in doing so it masks the common ground. My experience is that practitioners in our field have far more common ground than points of difference, are far more polite than provocative and far more consensual that contravential, far more respectful than discourteous. All great personal traits but not associated with the second-order, disruptive behaviours that drive change. So, if we all accept that things are broken and need fixed, let’s keep the debate going.
I guess, whatever the motives behind its development, nothing’s a commercial commodity until someone buys it (or the people)! Therein lies the dilemma for many people who have entered into the soft skills arena with all the best of intentions (and I’ve encountered very few who have a solely commercial intent).
I hear what you’re saying about facilitating debate but my experience is that if what we say, how we say it, what we do and how we do it isn’t always in synergy the debate can be fairly disengaging (but that’s a whole different story).
Not sure what you mean by second order (isn’t that “reich” in German)? And before you start, I’m not about to buy New Order either!
I don’t believe that ALL is “broken”, as you imply. That’s just revisionist spin! Much like managing change within organisations, the first step should be appreciative and to respect what’s right about the engagement landscape (legacy is a loaded word but can’t think of a better one at the moment).
We’re all standing on the shoulders of others in this area and there are loads of best practices if you bother to look whether they’re championed by the thought leaders, consultants, executives, line managers or invoicing clerks who’ve contributed to the development of the thinking and, yes, the doing!
Sure, improvement is very much needed for all the well publicised reasons. But the way those improvements are sourced and implemented and, yes, debated should role model the change.
Now, as far as I’m concerned, as exciting as this is, we’ve taken up enough of Doug’s blog airtime. I’m sure he’ll be pleased to see the energy but doubtless has a few things to add himself (and no one wants to come across as the intoxicated nutter on the bus)!
Look forward to hearing more as this process unfolds!
Noone knows the power of the what and how of the say and do model more than its creator (yours truly) and Im glad open source has led to this knowledge share rather than wrapped up in copyrights. The interesting thing about some “thought leaders” is when you dont see too many people wanting to work for them, if only they could practice what they preach! Things are broken, not everything, but enough that needs fixing. I am all for the strengths based appreciative movement which is why the case studies need to be found and, unlike the ones in the original report, validated. Not sure anyone wants spin and I certainly dont buy any revisionist stuff, there’s far too many books with the same content and different covers out there already. Ta for now, I’ve got a bus to catch.
Hello Sean and Ian. Just a quick note to thank you both for your contributions and debating skills. I’ll be coming back to all this again after the long weekend and I didn’t want to leave the thread hanging without a thanks 🙂
Glad you enjoyed the “debate” Doug.
Most of the rest of us hid under the seats……..
…Mind you don’t bang your head as you get up!
Thanks for popping by Lisa.
~peers out to see if it’s safe to come out ~
….loved the bit where ST claimed he invented the “do as you say” model though.
Only hope there’s abit more “listening” in those meetings.
Hi Emma – Thanks very much for your visit. Listening, it’s where all the good stuff starts eh 😉
Thanks – Doug
Emms, I was referring to a model Ian and I have discussed at kength. It adds on the dimension of what and how,linking brand integrity with brand engagement.
At the risk of you unloading at me too, this or any model isn’t the point. I’m not really interested in self promotion.
This sort of hectoring, attacking and critical style gets in the way of constructive discussion, I’m afraid.
I look fwd to hearing your constructive input Emma.
I thought I had just offered it!
~gives up and heads to bed~
I’ve seen the rather over hyped, so-called engagement debate video.
Wasn’t impressed with the combative style.
Smacks of self promotion.
So do the links posted on this blog (please!!!).
The insulting style is a turn off .
Let’s face it both Smythe and Buckingham have at least tried to move the engagement agenda forward, regardless of whether you buy what they say in their controversial books.
Don’t get how someone can appear to talk for David M and Nita on this thread either.
Great that you have an opinion.
That’s one (a loud one yes but just one).
Now let’s hear what other people have to say.
For my tuppenny-worth I’ll suck it and see for now and get on with the day job of engaging those I can influence!
Hello John thanks ever so much for your comment. I choose not to censor what people post on here (except for personal abuse). I do this on the basis that the good stuff will be engaged with – the less good will fall to the cutting room floor. I apologise if that means sometimes things aren’t to everyone’s liking but the approach feels open to me. And in taking this approach I hope it gives rise to others voices – so yes, let’s hear what others have to say. Keep up the influencing please 🙂
Cheers – Doug
Hi, I’d love to say this is interesting but sadly it isn’t and having read through as much as I could tolerate I have to say that I would rather be, I would much rather be forever in blue jeans. (Sorry Neil Diamond just popped up again)
David Zinger reveals a personal challenge ‘I am very tactical and not all that engaged with strategy unless I see the action, I just want to get things done!’
If a survey helps some people get a little better, do a survey, if reading a book helps read a book, if a business process helps do it, if a well intentioned task force of guru groupies helps so be it – what works for some doesn’t work well for everyone so guess what – there is no right answer! I have a model too – it’s called involvement. Thank you Doug for being involved – surely better that you are there than not despite your initial reluctance.
It’s not the theory that will change behaviour it’s being engaged and engaging. Theorists, your work is hugely influential and your knowledge is respected, researchers you help us understand the benefits and pitfalls. IC and HR you do a brilliant job in championing the cause. Doug please do your best from within and try to ensure that reality is represented and that the right people are involved – particularly those that are meant to be engaging and those that are lambasted for not being engaged. If they were we wouldn’t need a task force. Come on engageees – sort yourselves out! C suite (yeuk) get your aprons on and your barbecues and bangers out and don’t forget the relish!
Hello David – it is great to hear from you. Agree – let’s get on and do what works, and for a lot of folk your involvement suggestion is the beginning of a fun and useful journey.
I will do my best to keep it real – with all my flaws and propensity for making mistakes. I’m coming to your barbecue, hope that’s OK?
Cheers – Doug
“Sweet David M” (duh, duh, duh) “Good times never seemed so good”!
My personal challenge is to deal with the day to day reality of being an HR professional torn between the demands of constant process changes, chronic levels of low morale and no development budgets.
I only hope there are real people in those meetings who worry about the same issues as they catch the bus or tube to work everyday and try not to make eye contact with the guy carrying the soap box and can of beer.
amen. I mean I like beer don’t get me wrong, and it always tastes better after a day of managing the day to day well. Thanks Emma for the useful reminder.
We did go on a bit……..
But at least it inspired a song or two!
Take your guitar to the next meeting Doug (but someone shoot him if he starts a chorus of “I’d like to teach the world to sing”).
Well, as someone who took part in the “over-hyped video debate”, I think the aim of the taskforce is laudable, but I’m wondering when anything it comes up with would be credible, given the level of redundancies and cuts going on. Engagement – in this business environment – is pretty much a nice to have, and falls pretty far down the list which has “a job” and “reasonable pay” at the top of it.
This is not to say that engagement (whatever the definition and I’m not getting in to that here) isn’t something worth striving for; but it requires more than an initiative. I’m with Chris Roebuck who says (probably more eloquently than I do) that if managers managed well and ethically, we wouldn’t need engagement as a concept or as a taskforce. We’d have people who liked work because they knew they’d be treated fairly and with some respect. This is not something which will be “discovered” in the task force, because presumably, it’s stating the bleeding obvious.
And call me a cynic, but I’m still worried about the timing of this – something to make employees more productive at work at a time when fewer people are being asked to do (much) more with (much) less. It strikes me as exploitative and politically (small p) tinged. The TUC, in the first report by MacLeod, noted their concern about workers being asked to do more for the same or less money.
And now I’ve added my thoughts – doubtless soon to be machine-gunned – I’ll be off. I’ve missed one bus and am hoping another comes along soon.
Thanks for the summary, Doug. Interesting stuff.
Hi Karen – a lovely summary of your current thinking I appreciate you posting it here. I expect you are not alone with your thoughts.
Having enjoyed your recent Ruts flavoured blog post I will continue the punk/new wave theme with an observation that we practice Machine Gun Etiquette here. I see no need to pull the trigger. I hope you got the next bus 😉
Ah yes…arguably The Damned’s finest album….
Probably not an argument we’ll be having. I had a serendipitous moment in Croydon many moons ago. Walking down George Street with some newly purchased vinyl in my hand who should I bump into but Captain Sensible himself. Ever the opportunist out came the record and pen, “sign this please” I asked. He obliged and scribbled “Captain Sensible – the next Pope!” across the cover.
Well said Karen.
A realistic and a brave posting.
and thank you! 🙂
Croydon, Captain Sensible and the Pope in a single post……..! You’re a genius Doug.
I reviewed the Engaging for Success report two years ago and was not impressed.
The report did not give any understanding of what engagement was nor of what to do to achieve it, and in several cases where they had spoken to people who clearly did know what engagement was, they did not recognise what was being said or had been achieved.
I noted with some trepidation in the EE forum when the taskforce was announced because I believe that engagement is the single most powerful tool in a managers arsenal but that most managers are still not aware of how to use it, or how powerful it really is.
I am worried that this taskforce will reinforce the impression given by the report that nobody really knows what enagagement is, does not know what to do to produce it and that the very word “Engagement” will suffer the same fate as the words Empowerment and Ownership that both fell out of favour because nobody could figure out what to do to realise the potential that the vocabulary promised.
I want to be able to assist the taskforce by giving them the benefit of practical, documented experience of enagaging workforces.
I don’t want to see them continuing to struggle to understand what for some of us is standing in plain sight.
Can you suggest a way to contact either of the principles or another representative of the workforce to try to help.
Peter A Hunter
…and to round off this fascinating rant…has anyone noticed that the “shouty” self publicist above has just published a surveymonkey survey and smeared it all over Linkedin….claiming to be for the taskforce, yet oddly under his consultancy brand….?
Could this be the same guy who said (above):
“Stop the surveys” idea which I raised at the engagement debate you joined on 15th March xxxxxxx didn’t just get a laugh at the group Doug, it got an uncomfortable shuffle from those who earn a living from it. I must say it is a bit previous to criticise inputs to and outcomes from the TaskForce before our group outputs have been boiled down into an agreed set of recommendations.”
Can’t stand a hypocrite!
Hi Davidoff – would you mind stepping from the shadows so we might have a sensible conversation about this? It’s too easy to fling mud from behind a veil of anonymity. You have nothing to fear – we don’t bite!
Hope to hear from you soon – Doug
No, that’s not fair, Davidoff. When it comes to supporting our family and earning a living, frankly there are few of us who AREN’T hypocrites in one way or another. I challenge any of us to point to an occasion where we’ve been asked to do something we know won’t work – but we did it anyway and collected the fee.
As for the survey – although Sean doubtless would be the first to say that it doesn’t get to the subtleties of the picture – we have to start somewhere. And I doubt this survey will be making the claims of some of the engagement surveys in use, being mostly concerned with some fairly basic questions.
Forgive me, but I can’t help think of “Cool Water” when i see the name Davidoff. I used to “splash it all over”! Oops I got that confused with ‘enry!