A company’s strategic agenda represents its framework for engaging the people of the enterprise in the work of business growth, performance and change.

Engagement brings together the cultural and structural forces of the organization, matching strategy and resources with:

The Evolving Considerations of the Business

      Marketplace and Enterprise

The Goals and Objectives of Stakeholders

      Strategic and Economic Value

A management view of enterprise engagement covers such matters as forward planning, decision making, problem solving and planned innovation. Resetting the strategic focus, behaviors and energy of the organization is what enterprise engagement is all about.

A governance view of enterprise engagement covers broader matters including accountability and sustainability.  The measures for enterprise accountability must recognize near-term and long-term intentions.  Sustainability is about business evolution, and it is enabled by enterprise engagement.

Enterprise engagement begins with purpose.  Strategy connects people with a powerful sense of what the organizations stands for and where the business is headed.  It blends together critical behaviors including membership responsibility, intentional discovery, respectful and enthusiastic relationships, discretionary efforts and effective collaboration.  These behaviors are learned in the context of a strategic agenda that is backed by thoughtful, engaged and purposeful leadership at every level of the enterprise.

Further discussion on enterprise engagement is provided in my 2007 book, Prepared and Resolved: The Strategic Agenda for Growth, Performance and Change, dsb Publishing.

There is growing concern in business, education, science and other KM fields regarding cognitive distraction and reflection. Everyone has constant personal and work process distractions, and some of us are more vulnerable to the effects of distraction. Others partition their time and attention more effectively.

Web-enabled communication provides a powerful means for social connectivity and access to information. This, in turn, speeds up contact and automates the flow of data. In general, these are good things. However, some would argue that we are beset with some unintended effects and consequences of a constantly connected world.

1. In her book Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age, researcher Maggie Jackson suggests that we are well on our way to becoming a less capable society as people are saturated with instant response connections at the expense of true connection and engagement.

2. Productivity observers submit that people are not only distracted by connectivity-based stimuli, but also by the explosion of social networking, phone/text noise, standard e-mail streams and other attention-grabbing diversions.

This is an important subject for knowledge workers, because they are employed to utilize precisely those cognitive resources that are being effectively taken away by proliferating distractions. There are multiple technical, behavioral and economic implications of distractions-related tendencies. First, the problem is significant enough for Microsoft and others to get into the act with software-based attention interfaces. Second, more and more organizations are improving employee policies and education that deal with distractions. And third, most KM-based employers are exploring the development of technical and emotional literacy as a backdrop for avoiding distraction effects. Most HR/PD teams are baking this subject into policy.

The longer-term effects of distraction on cultural degradation require further analysis. However, observers in higher education are making more and more focused comments on this subject regarding the impact on students vis-à-vis reflective, serious thought, discourse, problem solving, decision making, subject matter expertise and leadership.

As I have said in recent meetings, people make strategy happen, and while that sounds obvious and simple, it seems to misfire in a lot of companies. An effective strategic agenda shapes the everyday thought and behavior of employees. But what stands in the way? What keeps people from engaging in the direction and expertise of company strategy? What issues of content and context pose barriers? Consider:

1. Problems with Relevance…sometimes a company’s strategy just doesn’t seem all that meaningful.
2. Problems with Structure…sometimes the strategy doesn’t mesh with organization design and systems.
3. Problems with Measures…sometimes the strategy doesn’t have a practical cause-and-effect set of signals.

Engagement is a special blend of appreciation, commitment, advocacy, motivation and accountability. It expresses energy and enthusiasm, and a certain membership in the company’s agenda for growth, performance, and change. Strategy engagement is a unique human capital process.

A recent Business Week [09/10/07] article “How to Make a Microserf Smile” reflects on the cultural and human capital challenges faced by the HR chief at Microsoft. Keeping people engaged in the company’s strategic agenda is an ongoing challenge, a dynamic challenge. It takes an approach to HR and human capital that adapts and responds to the strategic agenda. Strategy problems are people problems, as John Boustead states on the back cover of my book, Prepared and Resolved. He nails the issue, straight on. Strategy has cultural foundations and without the engagement of people at every level, the strategic agenda is blocked.

One of the most common issues in business growth and change strategy is the mismatch of intention and organization behavior. There are several aspects at play here, and they are important. Serious research and common sense take us to a few key points:

First, when senior executives miss or ignore the realities of the marketplace or their organization, customers, employees, suppliers and investors notice and credibility is diminished.

Second, when management gets confused about strategy and resources, and when the messages it sends to stakeholders get jumbled, the changes of engaging people in critical plans diminish.

Third, when the organization conveys value propositions that are not in sync with a thoughtful, relevant business agenda, they are driving messages that undermine the company’s intent.

These are problems of engagement in strategy. They are cultural in nature and they are the products of experience, leadership, perspective and knowledge. They are tempered by trust and confidence. They are shaped by awareness, understanding and appreciation.

Jeffrey Pfeffer remarks about the divide between what organizations know and how they act. Our Corporate Aristotle group shares many great examples of private companies and public organizations that “expose” one strategy and “inform” another. And corporate board members who ask about the “real strategy” of the company they serve are posing a great question: Is our strategy relevant, meaningful, and credible to the people who play a part in our organizations’ success?