Susan Brien

Are we getting "staff engagement" wrong? Part two. A summary of comments on my last post about reframing engagement at work as “energy redirected”, not “energy absent” from across multiple social channels. I pulled out five themes from the comments: 1. The problem sits in the system, not in the individual: Søren Wieck Mellemgaard said the reframe moves us from fixing individuals to improving systems. Cara Bowman added that locating engagement in individuals lets organisations avoid admitting the system is at fault. Thiago Raydan argued that performance frameworks turn systemic problems into individual attributes with a look of objectivity. Clare Chalmers offered the practical question: what does our system encourage, reward or make difficult. Mike Chitty questioned the belief that we can stand outside the system and pull levers 2. People can disengage from the organisation and stay committed to the work: Achyut Valluri said frustration often comes because people still care and the system gets in the way of good care. He cautioned that withdrawal is understandable and it affects colleagues and people who use services. Tracey Watson's own data showed staff engaged with their work and line manager, and not with the organisation. Katie Driver asked whose perspective we measure, noting "resistant" people may be highly engaged from the patient's view. Jack Ricchiuto and Rashmir Balasubramaniam picked up the agency point, Rashmir asking what would be released if people did not have to protect patients from poor decisions 3. Managers are carrying the strain: John-Paul Crofton-Biwer said if we judge managers only on targets and deadlines, we should expect them to treat staff that way. David Howell described managers holding more complexity than their role allows and passing reduced capacity down. Chris Cooper's global surveys found strong staff attitude scores only where leaders routinely make step changes that benefit patients and staff, giving staff-led improvement oxygen 4. Agency to improve the work is the fuel of engagement: Ben Allen linked engagement to agency and suspected high sickness absence often reflects a lack of it. Penny Pereira has long felt that being enabled to make improvements fuels wider agency, and that limits on this are corrosive. Kathryn Atkinson added Zach Mercurio's work on mattering 5. Listening is the hard but necessary part: Nicholas Jackson said listening means hearing things you have to act on. Noel Hatch invited colleagues who challenge into redesign teams as critical friends, surfacing problems others had missed or would not raise. Sarah Jenkins said the challenge is to listen and then act, which takes integrity and courage. Tina Patel Gunaldo pointed to the people who never answer the survey Thanks to all who commented.

Leaders of change & improvement don't typically fail because they lack technical skills. Part 2. A summary of comments on my last post about "The Space Between People," the @CCLdotORG report on relational infrastructure. The comments, from across multiple social platforms, were richer than my post! Five themes stood out. 1) Trust is an operational condition, not a "soft" extra: Akolisa Ufodike said trust is operational, not a cultural outcome, and leaders should ask whether the connections exist to carry a plan through pressure. Søren Wieck Mellemgaard reflected that organisations overinvest in individual capability and underinvest in relational infrastructure. Bill Powell reframed it: relationships aren't just how we execute change, they're how we understand reality. Deirdre Joyce added that damaged relationships cost time, energy and innovation. Brian Evje noted teams always have relational capacity, whatever the constraints. Karyn Zuidinga and Michael Olen made related points. 2) Relational work is real work but isn't recognised as such: Trish Wilson recalled being asked if she was really paid to chat in the kitchen. Grant Hughes pointed to people who translate across teams and surface signals early, roles outside formal structure that run on goodwill. Josie Gibson said relational work is rarely funded despite underpinning collaboration, and warned against extractive intent wrapped in warm words. Sue Howard has never been asked about her relationships or network in an interview, yet that's how she gets things done. 3) Frameworks can crowd out relationships: Samantha Robinson asked whether human capabilities shrink in a system where every new approach spawns another framework, and called for a shift from consultation to partnership. Samina Arfan said inclusion is treated as a cost when it's one of the best investments. Katie Driver said every system, however automated, comes back to people. Sian-Lee Ewan sees the same in medical education. 4) Where the power for change sits: John Dean argued that the constant focus on senior leaders has reduced frontline clinicians' agency, and that a "chattering class" of leaders may be disconnected from those doing the work. Simon Borg-Bartolo agreed, saying clinician leaders who hold teams together often deliver more value than corporate leadership. John-Paul Crofton-Biwer said followers create the leader, and policy is too often developed apart from the environment it lands in. Marcelo Lopez asked who is expected to build trust in whom, given the power imbalance. Nadiya Sunderji recommitted to rounding and skip-level talks. 5) Human interaction and AI: Victoria Hewitt shuddered at human interaction becoming a redundancy. Farhad Ali said relationships no longer form naturally in AI-enabled, hybrid workplaces, so they must be built and maintained deliberately. Arokia Antonysamy said people move at the speed of trust. Andrew Jacobs warned AI risks removing interactions that look inefficient but carry context, trust and early warning. Thanks to everyone who commented.

Only 10-15% of workforce training transfers to workplace practice: part 2. Here are themes from the comments to my previous post across multiple socials: "Only 10-15% of workforce training transfers to workplace practice: what we can do about it". The environment where learning lands dominated the comments. Reza Hosseini Ghomi described teams leaving training energised only to return to unchanged incentives, zero protected time, and blame culture. Anthony Lawson talked about “the system eating the learning”. Ish Ahmed described how changing the conditions around a clinical service— not new training — moved performance from the 4th quartile nationally to the 1st. There was discussion about the “validity” of the “10-15% of workforce training transferring” statistic. A challenge by Jim Sellner that the figure is an opinion & not evidence-based made me delve deeper & I couldn’t find an empirical basis for it in the quoted literature. However, Jim Campbell said it was consistent with findings in The Lancet of a 10% figure in healthcare workforce development. For me, the underlying message (that formal training alone has a significant transfer problem) still stands and is supported by the broader research literature regardless of the precise percentage. David Wylie and Stefan Powell named specific barriers. David raised "tall poppy syndrome": managers feeling threatened by team members developing capabilities beyond their own, leading to skills suppression. Stefan pointed to eroded line manager capacity — managers working more "in the business" than "on it," leaving little space to develop their people. Learning as an ongoing process, not a training event, was another strong theme. Paul Jocelyn argued that using training to address performance problems is a limited lever and that L&D is structurally over-indexed as an intervention. John-Paul Crofton-Biwer stressed learning happens in the days and weeks after training - testing whether what people are being asked to do actually fits their work. Callum Brown described the 70:20:10 model and argued the best time for improvement training is when someone has a live project to consolidate skills. Dr Ian Thomson flipped this to 10:20:70 to reflect the transfer sequence and discussed the importance of define outcomes and behaviours before designing content. Paula Beattie included individual coaching as standard and used the Toyota A3 as a personal development instrument for each participant, with experimentation as the site of real learning. Helena Jackson, Ralph Talmont and Lesley Parkinson, extended the conversation to varied methods (on the job practice, arts based approaches, micro learning over time) and the need to match delivery to busy realities. Across the comments, a consistent set of themes emerged: co design rather than top down training, coaching and feedback embedded into work, timing learning around real problems, supporting and equipping line managers, addressing cultural blockers and treating training as one element in a broader system of change rather than the primary solution. Thanks to all commenters.