Speaking in the context of the recently announced public sector budget cuts, Nita Clarke said, “There has to be an understanding across Whitehall and spending departments that staff involvement has got to be at the heart of any changes.” 

This is a subject on which Clarke can speak with some authority.  As co-chair of the MacLeod Review of Employee Engagement and co-author of the subsequent report “Engaging for Success”, she has studied the opportunities effective employee engagement can offer, in good times and in bad.  As the MacLeod report quoted Paul Drechsler, CEO of Wates Group, “…a leader’s focus on engagement is even more important during difficult times to motivate, engage and ultimately retain your people.”

The May 2010 PAYdata UK Reward Survey set out to test how well organisations have bought into the principles of employee engagement.  We asked participants to agree or disagree with a number of statements adapted from the MacLeod and Clarke report.  While most organisations felt they had “clearly expressed mission and goals” a notable 20% did not think that their employees had “a clear understanding about how their roles impacted the organisational goals.”

This line of sight issue is one that is frequently at the centre of HR-led change programmes such as developing reward strategy.  It is the key consideration when developing performance-related base and variable pay systems. 

But where change programmes negatively impact employees directly, for example redundancy programmes and pay freezes, they are inevitably much harder for employees to connect with.  Giving people a feeling that they have some degree of control over their own destiny, and a sense of what the reshaped organisation is trying to achieve, can help to keep people engaged.  As Clarke herself points out, “It’s vital that staff … feel that they are the agents of change rather than the victims of cuts.”