A single high-volume location inside a national retail network, and subsequently the wider region it belonged to. The work began as a site leadership assignment and grew into a multi-unit one, which is what makes the second half of this story more useful than the first.
Engagement sat at forty percent, the lowest of any location in North America. The score was the symptom. Four things underneath it were feeding each other.
The site work and the regional work are the same discipline at different scale. What made the region move was not running the site playbook thirteen more times. It was that the playbook had been proven, so other leaders could be held to it credibly.
Both results happened over the same three years, which matters: the regional result is what shows the approach was transferable rather than personal.
Eighty-seven percent in year one, ninety-four in year two, ninety-seven in year three. The highest engagement score across the North American network.
Over the same period the region became the highest performing in North America, across the full operating scorecard rather than engagement alone.
Recognised in back to back years for the highest level of associate engagement.
Any capable leader given one location and enough time can move a number. What tells you whether the approach was sound is whether it worked when applied by other people, in other locations, without you in the room.
Low engagement is what you can measure. What you are looking at is usually staffing, or a manager, or a promise made and not kept. Treat the score as the problem and you get engagement campaigns. Treat it as a symptom and you get change.
Most turnarounds get a first year bounce from attention alone. What separates genuine change from temporary change is whether improvement continues once the novelty has gone.
You tell me what is going on. I tell you whether I can help, and if I cannot, who I think can. Both outcomes are useful.