Purpose This study aims to challenge the common organizational practices surrounding employee engagement and seeks to clarify a fundamental misunderstanding about what engagement truly is. While organizations often equate engagement with visible participation or interactive activities that check a box, this paper argues that genuine engagement is not about procedural interaction but about eliciting employees’ discretionary energy and emotional commitment to meaningful work. Design/methodology/approach The author adopts a conceptual and illustrative approach, drilling into definitions and using anecdotal evidence as well as hypothetical scenarios (drawn from his extensive employee engagement work) to demonstrate how engagement initiatives are frequently misapplied. The comparative examples explore the difference between interaction-based engagement and energy/effort-based engagement. It also examines the dual dimensions of engagement: rational (information-driven) and emotional (meaning-driven) commitment. Findings The author’s paper finds that many engagement efforts fail because organizations confuse the means of engagement (activities such as meetings and breakouts) with the essence of engagement (employees’ willingness to invest extra effort). Effective engagement arises when employees derive meaning and purpose from their work, not merely when they are included in interactive formats. The author proposes that leaders focus less on fostering interaction for its own sake and more on creating environments where work carries personal and organizational significance. Originality/value The author’s work offers a fresh semantic and conceptual distinction between two forms of engagement – interaction/connection versus energy/effort. By reframing engagement as a “feeling state” rather than a set of activities, it provides practical and theoretical insight into why many engagement initiatives fail to produce the expected business outcomes. The article contributes a novel lens for leaders seeking to cultivate authentic, sustainable engagement in their organizations.
John Guaspari (Fri,) studied this question.