I am Ashraf Salem. I chose listening over policies, and engagement followed

Employee engagement is often treated as a programme to be launched or a score to be lifted. Ashraf Salem has spent his career arguing the opposite. Across telecom, heavy industry and healthcare, he has learned that engagement is built quietly, through trust, clarity and everyday behaviour. When asked to reflect on his journey, his answers consistently return to one idea: organisations are shaped less by policy than by how people are treated when no one is measuring it.

When asked about his professional path, Salem starts with people rather than roles. His early career sat firmly in HR, in sectors such as telecom and hospitality, where daily interaction with employees was unavoidable. Over time, he began to notice a gap between formal policy and lived experience. Rules existed, but they did not automatically create commitment or loyalty. What made the difference was communication, care and whether employees felt someone was listening. That realisation gradually drew him into internal communications, employee engagement, employer branding and CSR as disciplines in their own right, not side functions of HR.

On the question of how varied sectors shaped his thinking, Salem is clear that context matters. Telecom rewarded speed and innovation. Heavy industry demanded discipline and structure. Healthcare, however, reinforced a more fundamental truth, that people always come first. Taken together, these experiences convinced him that engagement cannot be templated. It has to flex with working conditions, risk levels and employee realities, while staying grounded in basic respect and humanity.

When the conversation turns to what real engagement actually means, Salem deliberately strips away tools and tactics. Surveys and activities have their place, but they are not the substance. Engagement shows up in how people feel when they arrive at work and whether they believe their contribution matters. Feeling heard, respected and connected to purpose is, in his view, far more telling than any index score.

Pressed on common failures, Salem points to a familiar pattern. Many companies treat engagement as a project with a start and end date, rather than as a cultural foundation. Others borrow initiatives from peers without understanding their own workforce. Both approaches miss the point. Engagement is not transferable wholesale, and it does not survive once the campaign ends.

Asked to reflect on the evolution of internal communications, Salem describes a clear shift. The function has moved from broadcasting information to building trust and direction. Today, the emphasis is on listening, simplifying and helping employees make sense of change. Announcing decisions is no longer enough. People want to understand why something is happening and what it means for them.

When asked how he aligns communication with business objectives, Salem explains that his starting point is always the strategy itself. Once he understands the goals, he focuses on translating them into language employees can relate to. When people grasp why something matters, they are far more likely to support how it is implemented. Alignment, for him, is an exercise in interpretation rather than persuasion.

On the question of channels, Salem resists the search for a single best platform. He argues that effectiveness depends on audience and context. Emails, town halls, digital screens, managers and informal conversations all have a role. The real priority is clarity. The tool matters less than whether the message lands and is understood.

When the discussion moves to employer branding, Salem is unequivocal about its relationship with engagement. The two are inseparable. An employer brand cannot be sustained externally if employees do not believe it internally. Any gap between message and experience is quickly exposed, and credibility is lost.

Asked how he evaluates engagement initiatives, Salem looks beyond headline metrics. Participation, feedback, behavioural change and leadership involvement all matter, but the deeper test is whether communication is building understanding and trust. Numbers can indicate activity, but trust reveals impact.

When asked for an example of successful initiatives, Salem points to wellness and recognition programmes that prioritised mental health, appreciation and visible leadership involvement. The outcomes were not abstract. Participation increased, leaders became more engaged and employee feedback and morale improved in ways that were both observable and measurable.

On the broader rise of corporate wellness, Salem draws a clear line between substance and surface. Impactful programmes are consistent, inclusive and supported by leadership. They respond to real needs rather than fashionable ideas and are embedded into daily working life, not confined to one-off events.

Asked about leadership’s influence on engagement, Salem frames it as decisive. Leaders set the tone through how they communicate, listen and show care. When that behaviour is authentic, engagement follows naturally. When it is absent, no programme can compensate.

When the conversation turns to uncertainty, Salem emphasises transparency and presence. Employees do not expect perfect answers, but they do expect honesty and reassurance. Silence, in his experience, creates far more damage than admitting what is not yet known.

Asked to reflect on generational change, Salem notes that younger employees prioritise purpose, growth and authenticity. Organisations need to communicate more openly, listen more closely and invite employees into shaping culture. This is less about adopting new language and more about demonstrating genuine intent.

Finally, when asked what guidance he would offer peers in HR and communications, Salem returns to first principles. Start by listening. Keep communication simple and consistent. Remember that engagement is built through everyday conversations, not through campaigns or slogans.