Engagement Isn’t Broken. The System Around It Is.

Employee engagement hit its lowest point in 2025 and continues to decline. Most organizational responses have been predictable: more in-office mandates, more offsites, more attempts to recreate a sense of connection through proximity.

But none of this is really moving the needle.

Burnout is still rising. Trust in leadership is eroding. And beneath it all is a much deeper shift that most organizations aren’t naming.

We’re in a new era of work where AI can write code, build software, create images, and handle large portions of administrative and analytical work. The work is getting done but the question of what human contribution is valued is increasingly unclear.

At the same time, employees are watching organizations hire, then lay people off just as quickly, often while reporting record profits. Roles feel less stable, and pay isn’t keeping up with cost-of-living pressure. In some cases, people are being asked to prove their value continuously through AI usage, output metrics, or constant justification of their role without any corresponding investment in development, learning time, or clarity.

So no, disengagement isn’t surprising.

Nearly 80% of employees are disengaged, with the sharpest drop among Gen Z and younger millennials. Fewer people believe someone genuinely cares about their development. Fewer people understand how long-term commitment is rewarded - or if it even is.

What’s happening underneath the data is that many people no longer feel safe enough to invest themselves fully at work.

• If I speak up, will it hurt me?

• If I slow down to learn, will I look replaceable?

• If I don’t adopt AI fast enough, am I at risk?

• If I do adopt it, am I training my replacement?

When the system feels unpredictable or unfair, people disengage. Discretionary effort disappears, curiosity narrows, and people do just enough to stay out of trouble.

I see this play out in small, everyday moments. A manager mandates AI adoption but doesn’t remove any existing workload. A team is told roles are safe, only to watch a neighboring function be laid off weeks later. A leader assumes expectations are “clear” because HR documented them somewhere - while employees are left guessing which standards actually matter.

Against that backdrop, asking people to come into the office four/five days a week in the name of “engagement” and “collaboration” often backfires. Not because in-person work is bad (it isn’t) but because control is being mistaken for connection.

So where do leaders start?

Not with perks. Not with policies. And not by trying to recreate 2019.

Before the pandemic, engagement was higher because people had clearer answers to a few basic questions that now routinely go unanswered:

• What is actually expected of me here?

• Do I have the tools - including time and permission - to do this job well?

• Am I getting to use my strengths, not just my stamina?

• Does anyone notice my effort, not just my output?

• Why does this work matter, beyond quarterly results?

Communication sounds obvious, but it’s consistently underestimated. Many leaders assume expectations are clear when they’ve never been explicitly defined or modeled. People can’t meet standards that exist only in someone else’s head, or that aren’t consistently referenced for accountability and recognition. Too often, leaders assume HR or L&D has handled this - while HR and L&D assume leaders are reinforcing it. When clarity lives “somewhere else” in the organization, it effectively lives nowhere.

The same is true for AI. Mandating its use without giving people time to learn, experiment, or shed other responsibilities doesn’t increase engagement - it increases resentment. Learning requires dedicated space and time. Development requires intention. Neither happens accidentally.

Recognition matters too and right now, private “thanks” aren’t enough. People need to know their work is spoken about positively in rooms they’re not in. Visibility is currency in systems where stability feels uncertain.

And finally, people need a why. Not a slogan but a real one.
Why this work matters.
Why this problem is worth solving.
Why their role exists at all.

Without that, engagement initiatives become noise.

Ironically, some of the simplest changes are also the most effective: fewer meetings that could be emails, real permission to decline meetings where no value is added, and intentional use of in-person time for collaboration - not surveillance.

Engagement doesn’t increase because people sit closer together.
It increases when people feel clear, capable, trusted, and treated fairly.

Right now, most organizations are trying to solve a trust and safety problem with attendance policies.

And employees feel the mismatch.

A useful place to start:
If engagement feels low on your team, ask yourself - what feels unclear, unsafe, or unfair right now?
That answer is usually far more actionable than another policy change.