Disengagement by Design: The 3 Big Mistakes Leaders Keep Making

Introduction: Good Intentions, Bad Results

Many organizations believe they are doing everything right when it comes to employee engagement: surveys are administered, feedback is collected, and wellness programs are promoted. But the data keeps telling us a different story. In Europe, only 13% of employees are engaged (Gallup, 2025). And this isn’t just a European problem. Globally, companies are grappling with burnout, high turnover, and unproductive teams. McKinsey estimates that disengagement could cost a median-size S&P 500 company up to $355 million annually (De Smet et al., 2023). If you feel like you’re working harder than ever but seeing fewer returns from your people investments, you’re not alone. The problem may not be lack of effort, but misdirected effort. Let’s look at the three biggest mistakes companies are making that perpetuate disengagement rather than solve it.

Mistake 1: Treating Engagement as a Tick-Box Exercise

Many leaders treat engagement as a compliance function: something to measure and manage quarterly, usually through a survey. Once the survey closes, they rush to interpret the scores, build action plans, and launch a handful of visible activities. But these efforts often fail to change how people feel about their work or workplace. Employees see through the theatre when real issues go unaddressed. Too often, surface-level perks (meals, vouchers, online challenges) are offered instead of real solutions (manager development, workload management, meaningful recognition). Real engagement is cultural, not transactional. It requires psychological safety, open communication, and a leadership team that listens and acts authentically.

Mistake 2: One-Size-Fits-All Thinking

Organizations still tend to view employees as one homogenous group, assuming what works for one works for all. But engagement is deeply personal and increasingly generational. According to Gallup (2024), younger employees are significantly less engaged than their older counterparts. Engagement among older millennials fell 7 points, while active disengagement rose by 5 points. Why? Younger generations value growth, connection to purpose, flexibility, and being heard. Yet many workplaces still emphasize outdated structures, top-down communication, and office mandates.

Similarly, manager demographics matter: Gallup found that engagement among female managers dropped by 7 points and among younger managers by 5 points. These are the very leaders we rely on to engage others – and they’re slipping away. We must segment and personalize.

Different archetypes, demographics, and job roles need different support.

Mistake 3: Ignoring Manager Burnout

Managers are the linchpins of engagement. They influence at least 70% of the variance in team engagement (Gallup). But right now, many managers are burned out, unsupported, and disengaged themselves. They’re being asked to meet KPIs, care for team wellbeing, implement hybrid policies, and drive innovation – often without adequate training or recognition.

Gallup’s 2025 report notes that manager engagement fell from 30% to 27%, while employee engagement remained flat at 18%. That’s a warning sign. When managers disengage, it creates a ripple effect. Teams feel it immediately in how feedback is delivered, decisions are made, and motivation is (or isn’t) sustained. Investing in manager training, coaching, and wellbeing is not a luxury. It’s the cost of maintaining an engaged workforce.

What We Should Do Instead: Segment, Personalize, Humanize

Let’s flip the script. Instead of launching one-size-fits-all initiatives, consider how different segments of your workforce experience work. McKinsey (2023) introduced the idea of employee archetypes as follows: – The Thriving Stars (4%) – The Quitters (10%) – The Disruptors (11%) – The Mildly Disengaged (32%) – The Double Dippers (5%) – The Reliable and Committed (38%) Each group requires a different leadership approach: – For Disruptors: Focus on career development. – For the Mildly Disengaged: Offer autonomy and meaningful work. – For the Reliable and Committed: Recognize, stretch, and retain.

Generational trends matter too. Gen Z and Millennials want to contribute ideas, understand their purpose, and develop continuously. We need to stop guessing and start listening. Use engagement data not as a scorecard but as a segmentation tool to guide more tailored support.

Final Thought: From Metrics to Meaning

We don’t have an engagement problem because people have changed. We have an engagement problem because organizations have not. Stop measuring what’s easy and start fixing what’s hard: – Coach your managers. – Segment your strategies. – Design for belonging, not just attendance.

In the final article of this series, I will share a new framework based on 8 engagement principles that can help organizations move from programs to purpose.

Until then: What engagement mistake have you seen most often? And what would you do differently?

If you would like to discuss how you might reframe engagement in your organization, feel free to reach out: pknowles1@gmail.com or connect on LinkedIn