Employee Engagement presentation delivered at the HR Directors Summit 2012

1. 24th January
Employee and, 2012
People
Science® Engagement nothing
the whole but
truth,
The
Tour
truth, the
2012
truth.
Nicholas J Higgins
CEO, VaLUENTiS & Dean, ISHCM
DrHCMI MSc Fin (LBS) MBA (OBS) MCMI
HR Directors Summit 2012
ICC Birmingham

2. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be
reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, microfilming recording or
otherwise without the express permission of the author.
Please e-mail nicholas.higgins@valuentis.com regarding any
matters of reproduction.
© 2012

4. Due out
(finally)
2012

5. Audience
participation
time!

7. „Is there an elephant in the room?‟
(Every time you see this slide)

8. Employee Engagement Agenda
• The Why and the What of engagement
• The How of measuring engagement
• Minding the gap (what’s going on here)
• Engagement & organisation performance

9. Organisations and employee engagement:
The 4-ball model: ‘We don’t...’
‘It’s all about PR…’ Play down
Play act
‘At least we audit/
benchmark...’
Play safe
‘We do it…’ The four progressive states of
Play make employee engagement
embeddedness in organisations
LOGO

10. Employee Engagement Agenda
• The Why and the What of engagement

11. Source: Question posed in VaLUENTiS „skunkworks‟ output 2003

12. 3
1
“Organisations were
looking for a quick-win
means of improving
performance”
2
“Organisations were
looking for a means
to differentiate for
hiring talent in PR
terms”
Source: Question posed in VaLUENTiS „skunkworks‟ output 2003

13. Of course, this answer
was based on the
premise that most
organisations were not
optimising their people
management….

14. • Embed an optimised people-productivity
culture
• Attempt to mitigate against operational
employment risk
• Means to collectively „evaluate‟ line
management „competence‟ /organisational HCM
• Provide benchmark data on the „soft‟ area of
operations (quasi-audit)
• Provide rationale and objective focus for
management development programmes
• Means of providing intelligence and/or
empirical evidence used in conjunction with
other organisation performance data
Second order
(derivative)
rationale/spin-offs Source: Question posed in VaLUENTiS „skunkworks‟ output 2003

15. 1a Primary rationale ‘say/do/evidence’
exercise
LOGO

16. 1b Secondary rationale ‘say/do/evidence’
exercise (limited to four)
LOGO

17. Evidence that in fact the Primary reasons had swapped places (notwithstanding the
definitions and slightly confusing categories)
Source: HR Employee Engagement survey 2010 HR magazine

19. Source: Follow-on question posed in VaLUENTiS „skunkworks‟ 2003

20. This question proved the more difficult to answer as you see. It became more clear
as more and more research was done that engagement was a concept (differing from
the Macleod review definition) that had been in the making for some time, stretching
back to Taylor‟s (much misunderstood work).
Employee engagement can be seen to have four levels: individual, immediate team,
wider group and organisational (the micro-, macro- and meso- levels).
Most, if not all of these theories have been subject to empirical evidence and a
number have received intense scrutiny. Some of the more well known ones have not
always stood up to such scrutiny but remain popular because of the acceptability of
the idea. A number of these theories overlap whilst some occasionally conflict as you
would expect. Amongst all of the contributing authors we‟ve picked out a dozen of
„the hard to ignore‟ variety.
In our view, the understanding of employee engagement became clearer to define
through distilling various contributions – „standing on the shoulders of giants‟, so to
speak. I‟d also point out that engagement as a concept is consistent with Kahn‟s
conclusions back in 1990 – his article being acknowledged as a reference point.
As „employee engagement‟ has grown in business focus we‟ve been concerned that
much published material/product on engagement has referenced so little with few
exceptions. Effectively, and collectively, as a movement „we‟ve‟ been selling
ourselves short, expending much energy on the reinvention of wheels, and, sewing
much confusion in the process (where have we heard that before?).
Incidentally little has changed on this slide over the past ten years save more
research in these subjects, notably wellbeing and burnout…….

21. Concept Concept
EMPLOYEE Concept
Concept ENGAGEMENT
Concept

22. The concept of Employee Engagement:
A synthesis of antecedent theories and empirical evidence with human capital
management practice related to organisation performance – 100 years in the making
•Leadership theory •Decision-making theory •Organisation performance & measurement*
•Organisational „fit‟ theory •Conflict theory •High performance work systems
•Commitment theory •Trust theory Human Capital Management practice/systems:
•Goal setting and task theory •Teams theory •Group theory •Talent management
•Expectancy theory •Performance management
•Equity (justice) theory •Reward & recognition
•Motivation theory •Employer brand
•Job satisfaction •Human capital retention
Individual Immediate Wider Organisation
•Needs theory •Resourcing & selection
Team Group
•Trait theory •Training & Development
•Social cognitive/ •Workforce diversity
self efficacy theory •Leadership
•Psychological contract
•Organisation design
•Organisation Citizenship Behaviour •Organisation communication
•Taylor - Scientific management
•Emotional Intelligence •Organisation culture
•Munsterberg - Industrial psychology
•Behaviourism
•Fayol - Principles of management
•Cognitive dissonance
•Follett - Management relations/integration
•Learning theory
•Mayo/Hawthorne studies
•Wellbeing/Burnout
•Lewin (MIT) - group dynamics/behaviour
•Other I/O psychology
•Likert – Management system/measurement scale
contributions
•Tavistock – Socio-technical systems
•McGregor Theory X/Y
•Hertzberg – Two factor theory
Source: The antecedents of Employee Engagement, Nicholas J Higgins - VaLUENTiS technical paper 2003 •Drucker – Practice of management
Also in Employee Engagement: The Definitive Guide, forthcoming
•Kahn – Personal engagement

23. “Employee engagement is an
„outcome-based‟ concept.
It is the term used to describe the
degree to which employees can be
ascribed as „aligned‟ and „committed‟ to
an organisation such that they are at
their most productive.”
VaLUENTiS International School of HCM
2005

24. More likely to
More likely to More likely to produce higher
achieve goals embrace set grade/quality of
set values work (less errors)
More likely to be More likely to give
flexible to discretionary effort More likely to ‘own’ More inclined to More inclined to
organisation needs above contractual their development input into ideas/ share knowledge
(if equitable) obligations innovation
Less likely to suffer
Less inclined to Less likely to stress Less likely to
take days off move employer (but more likely to commit
suffer burn-out) fraud/sabotage
‘Most productive’ meaning…individuals are:

25. Our model incorporates five interlocking domains (constructs) which then provide an
overall primary construct.
The five domains can each provide sub-constructs depending on focus where
required.
When relating to surveys/questionnaires we remain consistent with Likert‟s original
meaning of scale, i.e. not the item response format which most have come to
mislabel but the use of the item response format against a defined construct….

26. VaLUENTiS 5D Employee Engagement Framework
Line-of-Sight Work Environment
Objectives awareness Cultural elements
Behaviour alignment Team dynamics
Role „fit‟ Communication
Organisation operating
Performance management culture Resources
Feedback Local management
Capability Physical environment
Organisation design
Performance/talent
management
Remuneration equity „Corporate‟ Leadership Career progression
Bonus/incentives Communication Competencies
Decision rights
Benefits Work values Succession planning
Role equity Trust Job/ Role architecture
Recognition Training/ Learning
Promotional aspects Coaching/ Mentoring
Reward (equity) Development
© VaLUENTiS Ltd 2002-12

27. I‟ve mentioned some of the greats – one of those being Kurt Lewin. He is mostly
remembered in the OD field with his forcefield analysis which has been much
imitated and applied in other contexts.
Employee engagement of an individual can be though of as a daily flow of constant
competing forces (vectors) affecting the individual‟s level as shown here with an
illustration.
Pragmatically, organisations have tended to make use of annual employee surveys
(in some cases quarterly etc) as a means of a proxy of gauging employee
engagement levels; it can be thought of as similar to finance producing accounts,
for example.
This type of approach provides for analysis, intervention and evaluation when looking
at engagement and I expect more and more of this application as organisations
finally get past „Go‟ in their approach to improving employee engagement...
Note I‟m not spending too much time on surveys and measurement in today‟s
presentation.

28. poorly
communicated
reorganisation perceived
short-staffed reward
inequity interpersonal
planned conflict
training
cancelled
uncaring incentive
new boss misalignment
enlarged Well-received
role performance
appraisal hit
personal hit team
targets/ targets/
objectives objectives
salary enrolled on MD
increase programme
Employee engagement as a sum of constant work
‘forces’ (illustrative vectors)

29. 2 Organisation approach to defining
employee engagement exercise
LOGO

30. LOGO

31. The concept of Employee Engagement:
A synthesis of antecedent theories and empirical evidence with human capital
management practice related to organisation performance – 100 years in the making
•Leadership theory •Decision-making theory •Organisation performance & measurement*
•Organisational „fit‟ theory •Conflict theory •High performance work systems
•Commitment theory •Trust theory Human Capital Management practice/systems:
•Goal setting and task theory •Teams theory •Group theory •Talent management
•Expectancy theory •Performance management
•Equity (justice) theory •Reward & recognition
•Motivation theory •Employer brand
•Job satisfaction •Human capital retention
Individual Immediate Wider Organisation
•Needs theory •Resourcing & selection
Team Group
•Trait theory •Training & Development
•Social cognitive/ •Workforce diversity
self efficacy theory •Leadership
•Psychological contract
•Organisation design
•Organisation Citizenship Behaviour •Organisation communication
•Taylor - Scientific management
•Emotional Intelligence •Organisation culture
•Munsterberg - Industrial psychology
•Behaviourism
•Fayol - Principles of management
•Cognitive dissonance
•Follett - Management relations/integration
•Learning theory
•Mayo/Hawthorne studies
•Wellbeing/Burnout
•Lewin (MIT) - group dynamics/behaviour
•Other I/O psychology
•Likert – Management system/measurement scale
contributions
•Tavistock – Socio-technical systems
•McGregor Theory X/Y
•Hertzberg – Two factor theory
•Drucker – Practice of management
Source: The antecedents of Employee Engagement, Nicholas J Higgins - VaLUENTiS technical paper 2003 •Kahn – Personal engagement

32. Just a quick note – some of you may have spotted that the HCM elements associated
with the organisation (to the right of the diagram) bear a resemblance to our
management pathfinder evaluation and you would be right. This is in fact how it
came into being…..

33. VaLUENTiS VB-HR Rating Level 2:
Management Pathfinder
TRAINING &
DIVERSITY
DEVELOPMENT
TALENT EMPLOYEE
MANAGEMENT
813 CENTRICITY
EMPLOYER
REWARD BRAND
674
599 416
657
615
HR
RETENTION GOVERNANCE
742 431
684 487
HR
RESOURCING
642
OPERATIONAL
603 594 EXCELLENCE
628
‘Out-performing’
(world class)
‘Out-performing’ PERFORMANCE LEADERSHIP
(peer) ORIENTATION
‘Comparable’
796
(peer)
ORGANISATION ORGANISATION
‘Under-performing’ DESIGN CLIMATE
(peer) ORGANISATION
COMMUNICATIONS

34. Employee Engagement Agenda
• The How of measuring engagement

35. Lord Kelvin

36. Requires
Reverse engineering the
a
definition employee engagement
Requires
some
question…..
underlying
construct
Requires some
form of
measurement/
evaluation
Requiring
better Leveraging
distributed „positive‟
leadership/ associations
management /events
Minimising
„negative Through
associations improving
/events‟ productivity
Improve
business
performance
through
people
Source: VaLUENTiS „skunkworks‟ simplified collective output 2003

37. I‟ve said I‟m only going to touch briefly on surveys and measurement today and I‟ll
keep my promise.
I just want to illustrate a model we introduced a few years back to highlight the
potential problems with employee engagement construct and survey design.
The Y-axis represents the breadth and balance of items (what we call question-
statements) included.
The X-axis represents the design and balance of the statements themselves and the
response format chosen.
The model shows four potential outcomes – only one of which is useful.
We would urge organisations to always check their design, whether provided
internally or externally. Coming up short on either axis is undesirable.
The last thing you want is to base interventions on potential G-I-G-O „blind‟
scenarios…..

38. The employee survey expertise model
HIGH
HCM subject matter expertise
Survey instrument design & measurement expertise
LOW HIGH
LOGO
© ISHCM 2006

39. The employee survey expertise model
HIGH
HCM subject matter expertise
Myopic 20/20 Foresight
Result: Result: organisation has
misleading or erroneous sufficient in-depth, robust
interpretation knowledge to act upon
Blind Unfocused
Result: end up with ‘garbage in- Limited insight due to limitations
garbage out’ syndrome of HCM knowledge
Survey instrument design & measurement expertise
LOW HIGH
LOGO
© ISHCM 2006

40. The employee survey expertise model
HIGH
HCM subject matter expertise
Myopic 20/20 Foresight
16% 8%
Blind Unfocused
51% 25%
Survey instrument design & measurement expertise
LOW HIGH
LOGO
Sample: 147 employee surveys. All organisations with over 750 employees. ISHCM research team. Study carried out 2006-7

41. Y-axis: Breadth and balance of coverage required
VaLUENTiS 5D Employee Engagement Framework
Line-of-Sight Work Environment
Objectives awareness Cultural elements
Behaviour alignment Team dynamics
Role „fit‟ Communication
Organisation operating
Performance management culture Resources
Feedback Local management
Capability Physical environment
Organisation design
Performance/talent
management
Remuneration equity „Corporate‟ Leadership Career progression
Bonus/incentives Communication Competencies
Decision rights
Benefits Work values Succession planning
Role equity Trust Job/ Role architecture
Recognition Training/ Learning
Promotional aspects Coaching/ Mentoring
Reward (equity) Development
© VaLUENTiS Ltd 2002-12
LOGO

42. Q-S (question-statement) design error
typology: avoiding the pitfalls
I. Leading questions
II. Double barrelled/multiple questions
III. Knowledge or projection (proxy)
IV. Response extremity
V. Responses open to social desirability/prestige
VI. Responses implying causality
VII. Questions that impose unwarranted assumptions
VIII. Questions that include hidden contingencies
IX. Questions that include ambiguous time periods
X. Questions containing concepts that are open to differing
interpretation
XI. Question that duplicates another or is a reverse of another
XII. Questions requiring a tendency to acquiesce and/or imply
„psychological threat or hostility
XIII. Questions that are exclusively positively or exclusively negatively
clustered
XIV. Questions which are culturally loaded and or overly long
Source: VaLUENTiS QS methodology 2003

43. 3 Parameter ‘say/do/evidence’ exercise
LOGO

44. 4 Employee Engagement construct
parameters exercise
LOGO

45. LOGO

46. Employee Engagement Agenda
• Minding the gap (what’s going on here)
LOGO

47. LOGO

48. Staff engagement:
The challenge for organisations
Fully
congruent Knows what to
do/achieve Could do Fully
but unlikely to more productive
achieve it “Only one box in
nine reflects the
constant „high
More likely to Less than bar‟ challenge for
Individual‟s have
Job gets optimally
performance/ productive - organisations in
degree of done
capability Could do more optimising
Alignment issues „well‟ engagement
across the
Likely to have
performance, More likely to High probability workforce on a
attitudinal have objective of wasted daily basis”
and/or and/or „potential‟ effort/
behavioural issues frustration
Incongruent issues
Continuance Degree of Affective
Commitment © VaLUENTiS Ltd 2002-12

49. Engagement responses:
Scoring high
‘The Good The OK and
•Work and sense of personal accomplishment
•Pride in working for the organisation
•Opportunity to utilise skills
The Ugly’
•Adequate training to perform the job
•Personal values/company values aligned
•Honesty and integrity in business activities
•Accurate evaluation of performance in last appraisal
Scoring midrange
•Physical working environment
•Adequate resources to work effectively
•Company values visible in the day-to-day activities of my team
•Receiving recognition for doing a good job
•Understanding how to get promoted
•Equity of being paid compared with others in organisation
Scoring low
•Company doing a good job in providing opportunities for advancement
•Well-being of employees when management make important decisions
•Senior management in touch with everyday issues
•Equity of being paid compared with others in other companies who hold similar jobs
•Clear communication of rationale behind promotion and career development
Source: VaLUENTiS Engagement database, collated since 2004
Please note: Actual Question-statements paraphrased for the purposes of this slide

51. Management – just how many have a ‘license
to manage’....?
• Managers are significantly under-qualified compared to other professional
occupations: 41% of managers hold below a Level 2 qualification…….
• …..Just 38.5% of managers and senior officials are qualified at level 4 and
above, compared to 80.9% of those in other professional occupations.”
• “It is estimated that the proportion of managers with management-related
qualifications will not get much above 20 per cent in the longer term at the
current rate of achievement……..
• ….. The literature review revealed that there is a growing body of evidence
showing the impact of not only management skills but management
qualifications on productivity.”
Source: The Value of Management Qualifications, Chartered Management Institute 2007

52. We along with others recognise the big factor in employee engagement – namely line
management.
What perhaps is not so recognised is the issue of engagement with individual
managers themselves.
It is extremely unlikely that highly engaged employees will be found working for
managers who have low engagement themselves. And even if they did – it wouldn‟t
be for long.
We recently took a random sample of manager engagement scores from our
database to provide a picture. The next two slides show the same data in two
different formats – the bell curve and percentile histogram.
I don‟t have time today to go into great detail but I would ask you note the 1 in 7
managers whose score is more than 1 (negative) standard deviation from the norm.
In this sample, 1 in 7 managers equates to about 3000 employees. That‟s a serious
concern…………….

53. ‘Line Management’ engagement scores ‘bell curve’
Management cadre sample 2010-11
Sample size: 1400 managers
(employee population: 20,000)
Score range 200-1000
14.5% below 1sd 13.9% above 1sd
200 738 1000
Source: VaLUENTiS Engagement database

54. 910
‘Line Management’
engagement score by 860
percentile (same study) 813
790
760
Management cadre sample 2010-11
Sample size: 1400 managers representing 20,000 employees
Source: VaLUENTiS Engagement database Score range 200-1000

55. The ‘Broken Windows’ hypothesis
The theory states that monitoring and maintaining urban
environments in a well-ordered condition may stop further
vandalism as well as an escalation into more serious crime.
Applied to engagement…
The theory states that monitoring and maintaining work
environments in a well-ordered management condition may
stop further engagement erosion as well as an escalation into
more serious disengagement issues.

56. One other interesting application re line management I‟d like to touch on today – the
„Broken Windows‟ theory.
Some of you may be familiar with this – particularly if you‟ve read Malcolm Gladwell‟s
„The Tipping Point‟. The actual research dates back to 1982 with Wilson and Kelling‟s
work (and later Kelling and Coles) – the central tenet being that the monitoring and
maintaining of urban environments in a well-ordered condition may stop further
vandalism as well as an escalation into more serious crime; i.e. broken windows
beget more broken windows etc.
Though the theory has come in for some criticism – notably Harcourt, it remains a
powerful concept.
And thus for a moment I‟d like you to conceive the Broken Windows metaphor
applied to line management, switching a few words for appropriateness.
Rather revealing? And maybe useful for organisation messages.
Thus the manager who keeps, for example, (i) postponing an individual‟s appraisal,
(ii) late with signing off expenses, (iii) taking time off him/herself at short notice
whilst not tolerating others in the same manner, (iv) not confronting a persistent
lateness offender, (v) not instilling office tidiness and so on………well you get the
similarities……I‟m sure you can identify with many more……….
And whilst we‟re on the subject of line management and „license to manage‟ - here‟s
some common problems and some suggested fixes.
The question is do you recognise these and what fixes are taking place, or aren‟t
they?

57. The ‘people competency’ of line
management......
...common problems ...‟fixes‟
• Lack of understanding across • Clear communicated framework of
managers as to what good people good people management practice
management is and its impact together with learning exposure
• Varied mix of line managers with • Utilise management competency
variation in people practice and platform with structured programme
resulting issues of learning and assessments
• No set bar to becoming line „people • Adopt „license to manage‟ standard
manager‟, i.e. no „license to manage‟ with appropriate hurdles and gradings
• Too many „B‟-players in managerial • Instigate talent assessment where
positions who limit employee necessary, with career option route-
engagement potential paths including exit
• Too often, HR as „personnel function‟ • Assess if issue relates to culture,
compensates for deficiencies vague role definition or both, in
conjunction with above actions

58. 5 Management fix-implementation exercise
LOGO

59. LOGO

60. Employee Engagement Agenda
• Engagement & organisation performance

61. The traditional view of employee engagement
contributing to improved organisational
performance...
Higher Higher
Higher
employee organisation
productivity
engagement performance

62. The emerging view of human capital management
practice and employee engagement contributing to
improved organisational performance (as a system)
More effective
human capital
management
Higher
Higher
organisation
productivity
performance
Higher
employee
engagement

63. However, remember the converse.....
More ineffective
human capital
management
Lower
Lower
organisation
productivity
performance
Lower
employee
engagement

64. So how do organisations go about improving employee engagement in a coordinated
coherent manner?
A very good question. Most case studies, or more precisely mini-case study capsules
provide little insight („the more and more providing less and less‟).
When we refer to case studies we refer to the Harvard-types used at the School
(ISHCM) or sometimes in our management workshops where much more learning
takes place.
Thus, increasingly, we‟re finding the „EE playbook‟, or „Definitive EE playbook‟ giving
its correct name, of great value.
The book in itself doesn‟t necessarily have to exist per se but the contents do.
I‟ve shown an example EE playbook on the next slide and examples of operating EE
system models, including the original Sears model which is now almost 20 years old
and how these types of models have advanced. Again I don‟t have time to go into
great detail today but you get the gist of what‟s its about.
I‟d like to think all HR departments have one though preferably it should be
distributed around the organisation. It‟s the symbolism here that counts as much as
the detail.

65. The ‘Definitive EE’ Playbook
P
E
R
Leadership F
Goal Team O
alignment development R
M
A
Work environment N
C
Performance E
appraisal Managing Incentives
conflict Role design

66. What organisations (HR) keep getting
wrong (this is a short ‘shortlist’)…
Strategies
Contents
1. Engagement strategies
2. Engagement operating „system‟
models and analytics templates
3. Question-statement selection and
Models
construct design
4. Measurement index construction,
maintenance and reporting
5. Engagement Driver Factor (EDF)
Implementation
analysis
6. Engagement „forcefield‟ analysis
7. EE project management methodology
and flowcharts
8. Engagement „issue work-through‟
Learning
tools
9. Management learning programme
design and evaluative criteria
10. Engagement Transformation
Programme (ETP) methodology
11. Core applied theory summary
capsules
12. Human Capital Management
framework
4 EE playbook

67. A look back at The original Sears
‘system’ model…
Employee Revenue
Retention Growth
Internal Employee External Customer Customer
service Satisfaction Service Satisfaction Loyalty
quality Value
Employee Profitability
Productivity
Putting the Service-Profit chain to work
Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser Jr & Schlesinger
Harvard Business Review Mar-Apr 1994

68. Moving on from the Sears model…
Example „Macro‟ model NHS version 1.20
Leadership
Leadership Trust
Shareholder
Employer
Employer
&& performance
value
brand
brand
governance
governance
Human
Human Work values Safety
Work values Portfolio mix
Capital
Capital External Patient
Line -of-sight Clinical External Customer Quality of
Revenue
Practices
Practices Line -of-sight X - selling
Satisfaction
treatment Satisfaction services
Growth
Development Staff
Employee Individual/ Patient focus
Development Individual/ Service Value
Engagement
Engagement team Value
Reward
Reward team Prompt service
Portfolio mix
Productivity
Productivity Proposition Patient
Work environment
Work environment Environment Proposition Customer UseProfitability
of Resources
X - selling experience
Loyalty
Community
Service
Staff
Employee
Retention
Retention
Compliance
Compliance
„Local‟
„Local‟
Management
Management Cost control
Cost control
© VaLUENTiS VBM Analytics methodology 2008-12

69. 6 Employee Engagement: Organisation
reality exercise
LOGO

70. We could spend a whole day just on this slide (but we’re not!)……
Source: HR Employee Engagement survey 2010 HR magazine

71. Now you‟ve hopefully been completing the „quick and dirty‟ mini–exercises along the
way.
By now you should have a (little) more informed view of where your organisation (or
chosen organisation) is?
And so, to return to the beginning and the 4-ball model – the question is where is
your organisation?
PLAY-DOWN
PLAY-ACT
PLAY-SAFE
PLAY-MAKE?
Your initiation has begun………
Thank you.

72. Organisations and employee
engagement practice model: ‘We don’t...’
‘It’s all about PR…’ Play down
Play act
‘At least we audit/
benchmark...’
Play safe
‘We do it…’ The four progressive states of
Play make employee engagement
embeddedness in organisations
LOGO

73. Employee Engagement Agenda
• The truth
• The whole truth
• And nothing but the truth
(well as we see it, anyway!)
Thanks for participating……