Not so long ago (although admittedly before "cuts"), I led a team that managed, after leaping vast and extensive procurement hurdles, to secure a government contract to assess the current culture within a government department and recommend ways to improve employee engagement.

The results of the diagnostic were broadly what you would expect of an organisation that effectively coined the bureaucratic model. We were then asked to step aside while the senior leaders there took over and led the change process.

Two years later we were asked to re-measure (after another complex and expensive pitch process). Needless to say, the way the top team answered our questions had changed. Elsewhere, it was very much "business as usual"...or very little business, in fact.

So it troubles me to see the government, however well intentioned, giving high-profile support to a notion it has itself failed to implement and appointing a so-called task force to a job that has a very "Establishment" feel about it thus far.

I know David MacLeod has the best of intentions. But, if the task force is going to live up to its billing, it will have to:
- practise what it preaches
- say it like it is, even if that means ruffling a few "Establishment" feathers
- co-create inspirational engagement route maps that most leaders can follow
- seek out and publicise quick and big wins.

Employee engagement is an essentially simple concept. It has been overcomplicated to such an extent that many people are still stuck on definitions and finding reasons "why", when they should be well down the track in terms of implementation, especially in the current economic conditions.

We’ve arguably missed the boat on this one, but better late than never. I just hope the task force can live up to its billing.