The Problem With Today’s Engagement Conversation 

Imagine two university rowing teams preparing for a championship.
One coach leans on pressure: row harder or you’re letting everyone down.
The other appeals to heritage: row to honour the legacy of those who came before you. 

Traditional management thinking assumes the second team – united by purpose – will win.
And for decades, much of the engagement literature has pushed this same idea: give people a mission, involve them in decisions, and watch motivation rise. 

But this model feels increasingly disconnected from the way people actually work today.
Remote and hybrid practices haven’t just changed where work happens – they’ve changed why people work and what motivates them to stay engaged.

A Personal Story That Shows How Motivation Has Shifted 

Thirty years ago, I stepped away from the predictable office path. While colleagues climbed corporate ladders and chased executive titles, I chose something different: adventure and travel.

Eighty countries later, I can say it was the right choice. 

Choosing autonomy over hierarchy didn’t make me less productive. If anything, it made me more focused, more efficient, and more driven to deliver. My motivation wasn’t tied to visibility or career progression. It was tied to crafting a life that mattered – and doing excellent work to protect that freedom. 

This is the gap in most engagement conversations: not everyone is motivated the same way. 

While some people want advancement, others want stability.  Still others want flexibility, while their teammates might want challenge. And many – far more than leaders acknowledge – simply want meaningful work that doesn’t consume their life. 

Engagement is not a universal formula.
It’s a negotiation between personal motivation and organizational needs. 

Management Responses Aren’t Helping 

Engagement declines have triggered a predictable set of reactions in government and industry board rooms. We’ve seen widespread mandates to bring people back to the office – and for those people able to work remotely, usual practices are to increase supervision, hold more meetings, and reinvest in communication campaigns.   

But the data does not support these conclusions. Study after study points to a different cause and effect. 

• Engagement has fallen globally for the first time in over a decade – dropping from 23% to 21%. 

• In the U.S., engagement has reached a 10-year low.

• Microsoft reports that 68% of employees lack enough focus time during the workday.

• Future Forum reports 40% higher burnout among employees facing heavy cognitive load.

• Research across OECD, MIT, and HBR consistently shows that autonomy, not proximity, drives performance and engagement. 

Workers aren’t struggling with location – they’re struggling with overload and lack of uninterrupted time.  It isn’t brain surgery to reason that burnout rises sharply when work becomes fragmented or chaotic.  

Remote workers report higher life satisfaction and lower interest in climbing the corporate ladder – not because they are disengaged, but because they value autonomy and balance. Despite this, leaders continue to anchor their thinking in an office-era model built for a different workforce and a different world. 

You don’t create engagement by adding more contact points or pushing more involvement.
It comes from understanding what motivates each individual – and designing leadership practices around that reality. 

The real task for managers is not to pump up purpose or schedule more conversations.
It is to understand what each person needs to perform – and lead accordingly.

Purpose Still Matters – But Not the Way We Used to Think 

Purpose is often described as a motivational force, something that inspires teams to row harder.
That may have worked in the past. Today, purpose functions differently. 

Employees are looking for direction, not slogans.

They want to understand what impacts their careers – and their lives: 

• what matters most now 
• how priorities interlock 
• what success looks like for their role 
• what trade-offs the organization considers acceptable 

When purpose is grounded in this kind of clarity, it becomes operationally meaningful. It guides decisions, reduces uncertainty, and supports autonomy. But when purpose is treated as an emotional lever (think about all the  “rah rah sessions” we’re all gone to) rather than a strategic anchor, it fails to move anyone. 

Want Engagement? Consider Retrospectives 

Retrospectives – borrowed from Agile – are one of the simplest, most effective ways to build engagement without overwhelming people. They create a structured, recurring moment to pause, reflect, and adjust course. 

A well-run retrospective helps teams make sense of their work. It brings into view what’s working, where friction is building, and what needs to shift before small problems become major blockages. It allows teams to co-create solutions, recalibrate expectations, and express concerns in a constructive environment. 

Most importantly, retrospectives strengthen trust and restore alignment without adding surveillance or noise. Retros provide clarity without micromanagement and connection without constant touchpoints – two conditions that modern workers repeatedly say they need in order to stay engaged.

To explore practical retrospective formats and see how structured reflection can improve clarity, alignment, and engagement across distributed teams, visit our Retrospectives Explained playlist on Virtira’s Great Meetings Explained channel. 

What the Winning Team Looks Like Today 

If we return to the rowing analogy, the winning team is not the one driven by fear.
Nor is it the one swept up in mission and purpose. 

The winning team is the one whose leader understands that engagement is personal. It is built through autonomy, supported by alignment, and sustained by work rhythms that make sense for the people doing the work. These leaders recognize that not everyone wants to climb the ladder. They understand that many high performers want to excel professionally and still have a meaningful life outside of work. And they use tools like retrospectives to keep their teams connected without overwhelming them. 

This represents a shift from “managing work” to understanding workers – and it’s the shift the engagement conversation has been missing.