What If Employee Engagement Wasn’t a Survey — But a System of Practice?

^{“Only 1 in 10 UK employees are engaged at work — a figure unchanged since 2020.” — Gallup, 2024}

The Engagement Paradox: More Listening, Less Change

‍

Employee engagement is big business. The market for engagement platforms is set to hit $3.6 billion by 2034 (Future Market Insights, 2024). Companies are investing. HR teams have said they are “listening” to concerns of employees. Dashboards are growing more advanced.

And yet? Engagement is stuck.

According to Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2025:

• Only 23% of employees globally feel engaged
• 60% are “quiet quitting”
• 44% report daily stress
• The UK and Europe lag behind, at just 13%

Even more revealing? 70% of the variance in engagement is driven by managers—but over half of them aren’t engaged.

We’ve created systems to collect insight. But we haven’t built systems to act on it. Engagement has become something we measure—not something we practice. Let’s explore the five most common ways these systems fail—and what to do instead.

‍

🔄 Problem → Solution: Rethinking Engagement

‍

Here are five current issues with the system we have set up for managing engagement. 

‍

1. The “Monkey Off My Back” Problem 

‍

The Problem:

Surveys launch. Employees respond. Dashboards populate. But soon after: silence.

Many employees view filling in surveys as a handoff. “I gave my input—my part is done.”

The psychological reasons for feeling like this? 

• Diffusion of responsibility (“Someone else will fix this”)
• Mere-measurement effect (The act of being asked feels like action)

‍

The Fix: Invite Shared Ownership

Treat feedback as the start of a conversation—not the end.

• Use active questions that invite the participant as part of the solution: “What’s one thing you’ve done to support this?”
• Shift from org-wide surveys to team-led reflections - closer to where issues can realistically be fixed 
• Integrate the results and feedback into regular team rhythms—not just reporting cycles. 

Developing a sense of shared ownership for acting on the results turns data into dialogue—and dialogue into movement.

‍

2. The Accountability Gap 

‍

The Problem:

Even when survey data is strong, action often stalls. Why? Because no one knows who owns what. From our analysis of 300+ engagement questions, it’s estimated:

• ~60% can be addressed by managers and teams
• ~40% require action from HR or senior leadership

But without clarity about who will address the feedback; managers get overwhelmed, HR becomes reactive, and employees become cynical.

‍

The Fix: Be Clear Who Will Be Accountable

Use the 60/40 model to develop guidelines for responsibility.

• 60% team-level issues: feedback, morale, clarity, recognition
• 40% org-level issues: pay, tools, policy, inclusion

Make ownership visible. Track progress. And close the loop—publicly.

‍

3. Out-Of-Sync Cadence 

‍

The Problem:

Surveys often move too slowly for modern work.

Teams shift. Priorities change. Challenges evolve weekly. But surveys remain quarterly, or worse—annual. By the time results are reviewed, the insights are stale.

The Fix: Embed Feedback in Work Rhythms

Often the best feedback relates to how your teams already work. These are best uncovered by regular discussions. 

• Weekly 1:1s: catch friction early
• Monthly retrospectives: reflect on energy and clarity
• Quarterly climate reviews: check alignment, trust, and wellbeing

These touchpoints don’t need to be fancy—they just need to be consistent.

‍

4. Goodhart’s Law 

‍

^{“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” — Charles Goodhart}

‍

The Problem:

Engagement data is only useful if it reflects reality. But in many organizations, it doesn’t.

We’re not dealing with mass manipulation—engagement scores aren’t artificially high. They’re flat. Stuck. But what’s more revealing is why they’re stuck.

Because in many teams, people aren’t saying what they really think. Not fully. Not clearly. Not consistently. And here's the uncomfortable truth: The fact that engagement surveys need to be anonymous is itself a signal of a lack of trust. If people don’t feel safe giving feedback with their name attached, that’s not just a survey design issue. It’s a cultural warning sign.

Anonymity is often treated as a psychological safety net. But in many cases, it becomes a workaround for broken dynamics. Teams where people fear consequences. Managers who don’t invite candour. Organizations that listen—but don’t act.

And so the feedback that does come in is filtered. Tentative. Strategic. Vague.

‍

The Fix: Treat Data as a Doorway, Not a Scorecard

If engagement is to mean anything, we have to move beyond surveys as the only safe space to speak.

• Position survey scores as starting points for exploration, not measures of success.
  
  
• Ask: “What might this reflect about how we’ve been working?”
  
  
• When possible, replace anonymous data with named dialogue—1:1s, retros, facilitated team sessions.
  
  
• Build psychological safety not through form design, but through consistent, visible leadership behavior

The most powerful signal of a healthy culture isn’t necessarily a high engagement score. It’s a team where people speak up—even when they don’t have to hide their name.

‍

‍

5. Insight Without Action 

‍

The Problem:

Even when issues are clear, action doesn’t follow. Why? Because most teams don’t know how to respond.

Survey data arrives. It’s accurate, even urgent. But the tools to translate insight into action? Missing.

The Fix: Invest In The Ability To Change

Don’t stop at analysis. Build an engagement engine that can support change. The goal isn’t more information—it’s more ability to act. Here’s what that should look like

‍

From “Knowing” to “Doing”: COM-B 

Fixing these failure modes helps. But if you want engagement that sticks, you need to initiate new behaviors. The COM-B model offers a simple yet powerful frame: for any behavior to occur, people need:

• Capability – the skills and know-how to change
• Opportunity – the environmental support 
• Motivation – the spark to act and keep acting

Let’s explore how COM-B shows up in team engagement.

‍

Capability: From Insight to Action

‍

Change doesn’t come from good intentions—it comes from knowing how to act. And that’s often what teams lack. We assume people will naturally respond to survey results or team tensions. But spotting the problem isn’t enough. Teams need the capability to make change real.

That capability rests on a few key building blocks:

• Shared Mental Models – A common understanding of what “good” looks like, practiced and reinforced daily
  
  
• Habits – Small, repeatable actions that shape consistency and growth
  
  
• Rituals – Team routines like retros or shout-outs that anchor new behaviours
  
  
• Peer Learning – Practical spaces to exchange ideas and build confidence
  
  

Of all the tools, habits and rituals are especially powerful. They don’t just introduce change—they embed it. Playbooks and toolkits help too—but only if they’re simple, actionable, and usable tomorrow.

Because meaningful change rarely starts big. It starts with rhythm. And rhythm builds identity. Identity drives lasting change. This isn’t about adding another training. It’s about teaching teams how to translate insight into action together.

Opportunity: Create Conditions Where Change Can Happen

‍

Even the most capable teams stall when the environment works against them. No time. No clarity. No safety. Good intentions aren’t enough—opportunity must be designed.

Three levers matter:

• Culture – Change sticks when reflection feels safe.
  Ask: Can people speak up? Challenge the status quo? Are mistakes part of growth?
  Leaders set the tone by modeling humility and inviting feedback.
  
  
• Time – Teams say, “We’re too busy.” But without time to reflect, they end up fixing avoidable issues.
  Change needs protected space—10 minutes after a meeting, a monthly check-in, a standing habit.
  
  
• Clarity – Vague intentions stall. Clear prompts move things forward:
  “Let’s run one new ritual this month.”
  “Let’s end each sprint with a quick reflection.”

Opportunity isn’t about grand gestures. It’s about removing friction—and making space for action.

‍

Motivation: The Spark 

‍

Motivation is the spark for change. It rests on three beliefs:

• Value – This is worth the effort
  
  
• Belief – We can improve
  
  
• Identity – We’re a team that learns and grows

But motivation doesn’t live in dashboards—it lives in everyday team moments:

• A manager says, “You’re making a difference”
  
  
• A teammate offers recognition
  
  
• A reflection surfaces progress: “One thing that improved this sprint…”

There are two kinds of motivation:

• Extrinsic gets us started—bonuses, praise, promotions
  
  
• Intrinsic keeps us going—purpose, progress, pride
  
  

The catch? Motivation isn’t constant. It spikes after a retreat. Dips after a tough quarter. That’s human.

That’s why motivation alone isn’t enough. Only when it’s combined with capability (skills) and opportunity (support) does change become sustainable.

‍

🔚 Final Thought: Engagement Is a System of Practice

‍

We’ve gotten very good at listening to employees. What we haven’t done is respond meaningfully and systematically.

Surveys help surface signals. But without shared practices, clear ownership, and behavioral support, they become graveyards of good intention.

The shift we need is from:

• Metrics → Movements
• Scores → Stories
• Dashboards → Dialogue

Engagement isn’t a survey. It’s a system. A rhythm. A practice.

One built not on platforms alone—but on people who know how to make change real.

📚 Full Reference List

‍

‍1. Latane, Williams, & Harkins (1979) – Social Loafing
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-30335-001 

2. Darley & Latané (1968) – Diffusion of Responsibility
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383. 

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1968-08862-001 

3. Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski (2000) – Cognitive Dynamics of Surveys
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press.

https://books.google.mk/books?id=bjVYdyXXT3oC&dq=Tourangeau,+Rips,+%26+Rasinski+(2000)+%E2%80%93+Cognitive+Dynamics+of+Surveys&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

4. Goldsmith, M. (2015) – Stakeholder Centered Coaching & Active Questions
Goldsmith, M., & Reiter, M. (2015). Triggers: Creating Behavior That Lasts—Becoming the Person You Want to Be. Crown Business.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/kajabi-storefronts-production/sites/2147554771/themes/2150676493/downloads/PViX68aBTNi8cqN1he1j_Triggers.pdf

5. Anderson, Hansen & Simester (2009) – Mere-Measurement Effect
Anderson, E. T., Hansen, K. T., & Simester, D. I. (2009). The Option Value of Returns: Theory and Empirical Evidence. Marketing Science, 28(3), 405–423.

https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/anderson_e/htm/personalpage_files/Papers/Option%20Value%20Final.pdf

* For a classic overview of the mere-measurement effect in survey psychology:
Morwitz, V. G., Johnson, E., & Schmittlein, D. (1993). Does measuring intentions change behavior? Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 46–61.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24098813_Does_Measuring_Intent_Change_Behavior 

6. Krosnick, J. A. (1991) – Satisficing in Surveys
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305

7. Gallup (2025) – State of the Global Workplace (UK Engagement)
Gallup. (2025). State of the Global Workplace Report. Gallup, Inc.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx 

8. COM-B Model of Behaviour Change
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(42).

https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

9. Goodhart, C. A. E. (1975) – Goodhart’s Law
Goodhart, C. A. E. (1975). Problems of Monetary Management: The U.K. Experience. In Papers in Monetary Economics (Vol. 1). Reserve Bank of Australia. Popular citation: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7901608/