What organizations get wrong about employee engagement (hint: it starts two levels up)

Engagement surveys are everywhere. So are the responses to low scores: better perks, more townhalls, another recognition program. All well-intentioned, and all aimed at the symptom instead of the source.

Here's the cascade most organizations miss.

Engagement is almost entirely determined by the quality of someone's relationship with their direct manager. That relationship shapes whether people feel safe raising concerns, admitting mistakes, or asking for help. And the quality of that manager relationship is determined by something companies rarely look at directly: the inner world of the manager themselves.

Let me walk through it.

A leader's self-trust shapes their team's psychological safety. A manager who is harsh with themselves tends to be harsh with their team, even when they don't intend to be. A manager who can sit with their own mistakes without spiraling creates room for their team to do the same.

Psychological safety shapes engagement. When people feel safe bringing up problems early, contributing ideas, and being honest about capacity, engagement follows naturally. It's not something you can install through a program. It's something people feel in the room.

Engagement shapes retention. People don't leave companies as often as they leave managers, and specifically, they leave managers who made them feel small, unseen, or unsafe.

Gallup's research puts a number on all of this. Managers account for roughly 70% of the variance in team engagement scores. That single statistic explains why company-wide programs so often underperform. The manager is the variable doing most of the work, for better or worse.

So which specific behaviors move the needle? Gallup's research, along with Lencioni's work on trust, points to a consistent set. Regular, high-quality 1-on-1s. Frequent recognition, not just an annual review. Clear expectations, so people know what they're being measured against. Consistent feedback, given close to the moment rather than saved for a formal cycle. And a degree of autonomy, calibrated to what each person is actually ready for.

Every one of those behaviors is simple to describe and hard to do consistently. Giving feedback close to the moment means being willing to have an uncomfortable conversation today instead of postponing it. Recognizing someone genuinely means paying enough attention to notice what's actually worth recognizing. Calibrating autonomy means trusting someone enough to let go, even when it would be easier to hold on.

That's where self-trust comes back in. A manager who doesn't trust their own judgment will avoid the feedback conversation, over-manage instead of calibrate autonomy, or give recognition that feels hollow because it's not backed by real attention. These behaviors don't happen consistently by accident. They happen consistently in managers who have done the inner work to trust their own read on a situation and act on it.

So when engagement scores come back flat or take a nosedive, the instinct is to treat the visible layer. More recognition. More perks. More surveys. What actually moves the needle is investing in the inner development of the managers themselves. Doing so will help them build psychological safety from the inside instead of trying to manufacture it from the outside.

That's a longer, less flashy fix. It's also the only one that holds.

If your engagement scores are suffering despite your best efforts, the lever might be your managers' development. I'd love to talk about what that looks like.

Fernanda Brasileiro

People Development Consultant & Strategist

CONNECT

© 2026. All rights reserved.

Services

About

Set up a free consultation

GET FREE DIAGNOSTIC