Article 05 - Employee Engagement - Motivation or Manipulation?
Employee engagement is often seen as a key driver of performance and retention. It refers to the emotional and mental connection employees have with their work and organization (Armstrong, 2017) . Engaged employees are more committed, motivated, and willing to put in discretionary effort. However, in modern workplaces, engagement is increasingly managed through digital tools, which makes me question whether it is still authentic.
The concept of engagement can be traced back to William Kahn, who described engagement as employees fully expressing themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally in their roles (Kahn, 1990). This suggests that engagement is deeply personal and cannot be forced.
However, today’s organizations often try to measure and influence engagement using surveys, apps and performance-linked systems. While these tools provide useful insights, I believe they may also encourage employees to respond in ways that reflect expectations rather than their true feelings.
From a theoretical perspective, engagement is influenced by both rational and emotional drivers. Rational drivers include understanding one’s role and how it contributes to organizational goals, while emotional drivers relate to how employees feel about their work and relationships with managers (IDS framework). In digital environments, I think organizations focus more on measurable rational factors while overlooking emotional aspects, which are harder to quantify.
In practice, many organizations use engagement platforms that include surveys, feedback systems and gamification features such as rewards and leaderboards.
This is particularly relevant in the banking sector, where engagement is often linked to performance metrics such as sales targets, customer satisfaction and service efficiency. Digital dashboards and internal systems allow organizations to track these indicators continuously. While this improves visibility, it can also create pressure to “act engaged” rather than truly experience engagement.
Across sectors, the approach to engagement varies. In technology companies, engagement is often supported by autonomy, flexibility and development opportunities, which align with intrinsic motivation.
In contrast, in more structured environments such as banking or call centers, engagement is often tied to targets and monitoring systems. This shows that engagement depends not only on tools, but on organizational culture and leadership.
Despite its benefits, I believe modern engagement practices introduce several risks.
One concern is authenticity. Employees may report high engagement levels without genuinely feeling connected.
Another issue is pressure, as continuous measurement can lead to stress rather than motivation.
There is also a risk that organizations prioritize engagement scores over actual employee well-being.
From my perspective, employee engagement should not be reduced to metrics or system interactions. It should be built through meaningful work, trust and strong relationships. Digital tools can support engagement, but they should not replace the human elements that make engagement real.
📚 References
Kahn, W.A. (1990) ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692–724.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2023) Employee engagement and motivation factsheet. London: CIPD.
Deloitte (2024) Global human capital trends 2024. Deloitte Insights.
This is a very thoughtful and well-balanced exploration of employee engagement in the digital era. I like how you clearly distinguish between engagement as a genuine psychological state (based on Kahn’s theory) and engagement as something that is increasingly measured and influenced through digital systems. The way you question whether employees are truly engaged or simply responding to metrics is particularly insightful.
ReplyDeleteYour comparison between sectors like banking and technology adds strong practical relevance and shows how organizational context shapes engagement strategies. I also think your point about authenticity versus “performing engagement” is especially important, as it highlights a real risk in data-driven HR environments.
Overall, this provides a strong critical perspective that combines theory, practice, and personal reflection, while reinforcing the idea that engagement should remain rooted in trust, meaning, and human relationships rather than just numbers.
Thank you, Thathsara, for your thoughtful feedback. I’m glad the distinction between genuine engagement and measured engagement stood out. Your point on authenticity versus “performing engagement” really reinforces the core concern, engagement should be rooted in trust and meaning, not just metrics.
DeleteThis is a very engaging and reflective article. I particularly liked how you linked engagement to Kahn’s theory and questioned whether digital tools can truly capture genuine employee emotions. The idea that engagement might be “managed” rather than naturally developed is very interesting and relevant in today’s workplaces.
ReplyDelete