Engagement at Its Deepest Level
Last week, we met with the executive team of a company with more than 1,200 employees. As often happens, a recurring question came up—one that appears almost systematically in conversations with managers:
How do we improve engagement?
How do we get people to “wear the jersey”?
Why don’t some employees value how good an employer we are?
As consultants, we sometimes wish there were a simple, almost mechanical solution: tighten a screw, align the pieces, and solve the problem quickly. We live in an era where we expect immediate results. As Víctor Küppers puts it, “we want a talk that changes our lives in 15 minutes… and if it’s in 14, even better.”
However, when it comes to people, that logic does not work.
Stephen Covey already warned in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People that many executives look for a “key” to open the brain, tighten a few bolts, and close it again, expecting human behavior to change automatically. But organizations are complex social systems, where each part has its own intentions—not always aligned with the whole—as Russell Ackoff pointed out.
That is why talking about engagement requires a broader, systemic perspective.
What Do We Really Mean by Engagement?
Today, there are multiple models to measure engagement, but when reviewing them together, a common pattern emerges. For the purpose of this series of articles, we propose understanding engagement through six key elements:
- The individual.
- Contractual formalities (compensation).
- Organizational well-being.
- Leadership.
- Colleagues and team dynamics.
- Job design.
Evidence shows that in some cases, one of these factors may be decisive; in most, several interact; and in very few, all are present at the same time. This is why treating engagement as a single, isolated action often leads to frustration.
First Element: The Individual
Just as with happiness—where authors like Tal Ben-Shahar highlight a combination of personal, decision-based, and contextual factors—engagement also has a deeply personal component.
Beyond momentary motivation, there are individuals who choose to act with consistency, responsibility, and commitment, even in challenging contexts. This action-oriented mindset has been studied for decades. David McClelland, through his theory of needs (achievement, power, and affiliation), showed that the need for achievement is a key predictor of sustained behavior.
Where can a manager detect this? The first critical moment is during the selection process. Actively engaging in recruitment, using critical incident interviews or behavioral event interviews, and asking well-designed questions helps reveal what candidates have actually done in real past situations.
Even so, not everything is visible in an interview. That is why it is important to complement this process with psychometric assessments and, later on, with observation over time. While people can change, understanding their motivational foundation leads to better talent management decisions.
Second Element: Contractual Formalities and Compensation
Compensation remains a sensitive—and sometimes underestimated—factor in building engagement. Authors such as Edward Lawler and George T. Milkovich & Jerry M. Newman have shown that compensation serves not only an economic function but also a symbolic one: it sends clear messages about the value the organization assigns to roles and people.
Here, we include several key components:
- Type of contract.
- Internal equity.
- External competitiveness.
- Variable compensation.
- Emotional salary.
Internal equity is fundamental for the perception of organizational justice. As John Stacey Adams explains in his equity theory, people compare what they contribute with what they receive and adjust their level of effort when they perceive imbalances. Job evaluation, salary bands, and consistent decision-making are basic conditions—not luxuries.
External competitiveness also plays an important role. Studies by Mercer and Willis Towers Watson show that positioning compensation in higher quartiles does not guarantee absolute retention, but it significantly reduces unwanted turnover in critical roles.
Variable Compensation and Emotional Salary: Power and Balance
Variable compensation has proven to be a powerful driver of performance when well designed. Lawler notes that variable pay schemes work best when employees can clearly see the relationship between their effort, the results, and the reward.
A common question from managers is valid:
Won’t this make people work only for money?
Evidence shows that variable compensation helps, but it does not replace other engagement factors. When it becomes the only driver, it loses effectiveness.
Finally, emotional salary plays a decisive role. Authors such as Jeffrey Pfeffer and Teresa Amabile & Steven Kramer have shown that genuine care, recognition, development, and support at key moments build bonds that are difficult to break.
As we often say: when a contract is signed, the mind commits; the heart is given only when the company earns it.
A Systemic Perspective on Engagement
It is worth emphasizing: engagement does not depend on a single variable. Building a real engagement strategy is one of the greatest challenges of modern management.
A mentor once said: “When someone is not contributing, ask yourself what they are gaining by not doing so.” That question remains incredibly relevant today.
At Euro Business Coach, we support organizations in evaluating the employee experience, designing balanced compensation strategies (equity, competitiveness, variable, and emotional), and strengthening—through executive coaching—more mature conversations about engagement, contribution, and performance.
This is the first article in a series dedicated to optimizing talent contribution, where we will continue to explore the elements that make people not only stay, but truly contribute.
