The Question At Hand

Is there an economic benefit to increased engagement? That's the question at hand.I don't know of any measures that directly calculate the economic benefit of having engaged members or franchisees…or customers for that matter. Yet there are studies that show the benefit of having employees that are engaged. Is it fair to say that if companies that have a higher level of “employee” engagement are more successful, then companies with a higher level of “member,” “franchisee” or “customer” engagement will also be more successful? I’d say yes. And, in fact, I’d argue that these companies would be able to achieve a higher economic reward.Recently, I stumbled on an economic study by Gallup consulting that compared the economic differences between top- and bottom-performing publicly held companies in terms of employee engagement. It showed the companies with engaged employees had 2.6 times better earnings growth than the companies with unengaged employees. Pretty conclusive data to show the importance of employee engagement.How would you answer the below questions?

• Do you think that running a co-op, franchise, buying group or dealer network with highly engaged members, franchisees or customers would produce higher economic return?
• Do you think that highly engaged members, franchisees or customers would reduce member turnover, increase purchasing loyalty and make it easier to recruit new members?
• Do you think that highly engaged members or franchisees would make it easier to implement programs and improve your ability to execute higher-level programs?

I'll be asking these questions at the IFA's Annual Convention in San Antonio, TX. Looking forward to seeing some of you there.