My latest blog follows on from David Fairhurst's article in this month's Human Resources Magazine.

Let me say at the outset I am a big fan of David. I appreciate he's not everyone's cup of tea, however he has got something to say, he's thought provoking and innovative in his thinking.

However to my main point or David's point. Harley Davidson have the ultimate customer advocacy given that their customers get the logo tattooed somewhere on their person. Whether you see it depends on the location and their desire to show it to you!

That set me thinking. What do we need to do as HR professionals to get employees to show that same level of advocacy? Indeed is it a desirable objective? Having been sold to by Christian Scientists and those involved in the pyramid selling techniques of water purification systems, both of which can't be faulted for their commitment to their cause, but they do come over as a little creepy if not scary.

However having started my career in the NHS, I was very impressed by everyone's belief in the institution. Free health care irrespective of who you are. Implicitly getting engagement has got to be in part believing in what the organisation does.

So my starting point is that the organisation has to be seen to deliver something that the community at large values. Hence the difficulty of getting people to sign up to careers with estates agents, double glazing sales, red top journalism and dare I say working in investment banks currently.

So does that rule out the majority of employers who just can't reach that self actualisation level if I borrow an analogy from Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

MacLeod on analyzing what drives engagement focused on understanding the business strategy and the employee's role in that strategy, having voice and being listened to, having a manager who demonstrably cares about employees and their development and finally working for a business that has integrity.

Michael's model is less sophisticated. People want recognition (financial and non financial), social networks, and personnel development.

However I sense both of these models are the micro drivers of engagement. There is an over arching need to sign up to what the organization stands for. I believe if you hit both levels you are well on the way to the "self actualization of engagement" with the employees queuing up to see the tattooist.

So what can you do about it? You need to understand your customers. Employees are our customers. We need to ask what is important for them about the organisaiton for which they work. How can it be that research shows that a third of organisations still fail to ask the question?

Assuming we ask the questions, are we asking the right questions. Do we need to know how our employees want the organisation to be perceived by it's customers and the community at large. Marketing people spend a lot of time asking customers how they feel about the organisation, I am not sure HR has grasped this nettle.

It also takes us into dangerous territory, having asked the question, are we not then obliged to incorporate the results into the business strategy. How about Nike's employees insisting on fair-trade and a move away from production in low cost third world countries, GSK employees insisting on selling cheap drugs to the third world, or closer at home, a desire of female employees to see at least one third representation on the plc board.

So to my final point, I think we all understand the benefits of increasing engagement, however if we are to move up the engagement hierarchy towards self actualisation, or to which I shall in future refer to as wearing your heart on your sleeve (company logo tattooed on your arm), we need to think of macro as well as micro level engagement and maybe giving the lunatics a greater say in the running of the asylum. Or at the very least have a say who they treat and the treatment regime employed.

Looking forward to your feedback.