However, while we all have our own ideas about what "engagement" should mean, because we all kind of understand the point that this word is getting at, generally, the fact is there's no real consensus around any particular definition of the concept. And unless we define the term more precisely, we'll soon hear complaints from the press, the blogosphere, and the digerati that the term "engagement" is too squishy and fungible to be useful. Wally Bock's recent post is a case in point.

When the same kind of controversy initially surrounded the whole 1-to-1 marketing and CRM definition, Martha and I proposed a very simple, four-word definition of CRM: "Treating different customers differently." This definition has pretty much survived intact, and was once even described by a Gartner analyst as the simplest, most obvious and straightforward definition of the CRM movement (importantly, he was talking about the business discipline of CRM, not the software domain).

So our equally simple, obvious, and direct definition of engagement is: "proactive involvement."

When a customer is engaged with your brand, they are proactively involved with it. They may help specify the product or service you're delivering to them. They may refer friends or colleagues to you. They may take an interest in your success or failure. All these behaviors are indicators of their engagement with the brand.

When an employee is engaged with their work, they are proactively involved with it. They may not wait for orders, but instead take their own initiative to solve problems. They may self-organize, with other workers, to accomplish the company's goals. They may actively promote and defend the business with friends, colleagues, or even among strangers. These behaviors indicate that an employee is engaged with the career they have at your firm.