By LaPora Lindsey

Engagement is no doubt key to retaining employees and getting things going, but it’s important not to oversimplify it as the sole measure of productivity. 

A few weeks ago I was invited to a panel to discuss employee engagement. During this panel, data was shared linking engagement directly to productivity. I partially disagreed with this view but didn’t have the chance to elaborate during the discussion. Since then, I’ve had time to reflect, and I’d like to share why I believe the employee engagement-productivity correlation is misguided.

Historical Data for a Modern Shift

For years, discussions about engagement have often assumed it directly correlates with productivity. While there is truth to this in some cases, employee engagement alone does not guarantee productivity. In fact, focusing exclusively on this connection risks overlooking other critical factors that drive performance. While engagement can influence productivity, it is only one of many factors that impact overall performance and success.

This year, as always, the anniversary of my book’s release coincided with Labor Day, a time dedicated to recognizing workers’ contributions. This U.S. holiday not only honors today’s workforce but also reflects on labor conditions over a century ago. During the Industrial Revolution, many manual laborers worked 12-hour days, seven days a week. Only after workers went on strike to demand a reasonable work week did productivity standards begin to shift. 

Even today, debates over the 32-hour versus 40-hour workweek illustrate how our understanding of productivity continues to evolve. These historical and modern changes in how we measure productivity underscore the importance of rethinking how we assess both engagement and productivity today, ensuring neither is oversimplified.

Defining Engagement and Productivity

Before I continue, it’s important to clarify what is meant by employee engagement and productivity.

Employee engagement refers to the mental and emotional investment an employee has in an organization’s mission and goals. It’s often described as the level of involvement and enthusiasm an employee brings to workplace activities, particularly their relationships with colleagues.

Productivity measures the amount of work an employee completes. Changes in productivity provide metrics that show how well an organization is progressing toward its goals. 

As Samantha Elizabeth, an Employee Experience/Engagement Consultant, states, “While an engaged workforce is likely to be motivated, productivity also depends on other key factors such as clear goals, the right skills, available resources, and efficient processes.” 

Foundationally, this reminds us that there is no one size fits all. You can have someone who is engaged but with low productivity due to numerous factors. Similarly you can have someone with low engagement, but with the proper resources, tools, and the right skills they are able to increase productivity.

A common belief is that the more we can get employees to buy into the organizational mission and goals, the more productive they’ll be. But this is where I believe the challenge and solution are misaligned. I know of many highly productive employees applying for jobs outside of their current organization every week. They are productive to keep their current jobs and to demonstrate to other companies just how productive they can be, but that doesn’t mean they were sold on the mission or goals of their current company. 

Shifting the Correlation

So how do we shift from the idea that employee engagement alone leads to productivity to and start considering other factors? First, it’s crucial to recognize that productivity doesn’t exist in isolation. Factors such as workplace culture, job fit, available technology, and personal motivations all contribute to productivity. Engagement is part of the equation.

A 2022 Forbes article by Mex Emini noted that companies have been investing millions in engagement initiatives, yet research showed that only 20% of employees were actively engaged. 

As my parents would say, this means we are “missing the boat.”

In order to address the gap in engagement and productivity Emini notes that factors like technology automation, job flexibility, and a positive company culture should be closely considered in driving both employee satisfaction and productivity. With a focus on technology as a primary component that can affect productivity amongst employees, Emini states,  “Employees can utilize smart tech to improve performance and reduce stress, increase their balance, improve collaboration and accomplish milestones effectively.”

In our current age of technology, we should specifically evaluate how technology impacts different roles. This could be from introducing a more advanced automated tool, but it could also be something such as finding effective ways to use inexpensive automation tools.The goal, regardless of the tool, is to reduce time spent on repetitive tasks, allowing employees to focus on more productive areas.

Second, productivity is often measured by quantifiable metrics like key performance indicators (KPIs). However, not all roles lend themselves effectively to such measurements. Qualitative outcomes or the quality of service, can be just as important as the number of tasks completed. For many roles, success is more about the impact made than the volume of work produced.

It’s also important to recognize that some positions are evaluated solely by productivity metrics, and a dip in performance could lead to job loss. In such cases, employees might maintain high productivity levels simply to keep their jobs, even if they aren’t engaged or satisfied.

One way to address productivity with positions that tend lean towards one end over the other, is to conduct a role evaluation to identify measurable areas. Examining the role holistically to identify where improvements can be made, both from the employee’s perspective and in terms of available resources. In larger organizations, using focus groups or surveys may offer a practical way to gather insights and better understand these needs. 

Third—and I consider this point critical—productivity doesn’t always correlate with long-term commitment or satisfaction, especially when there’s change. In my career across public sector roles, nonprofits, higher education, government contracting, and corporate environments, I’ve met highly productive individuals who decreased productivity due to the introduction of new technology that employees struggled to use effectively creating dissatisfaction in their role.

While there is no one formula for training that will make everyone happy. When new processes are introduced, include affected employees in the conversations if possible and be clear about the expectations in the role, this includes skill level, time allotted, technology that will be provided etc.  With well-defined milestones, potential challenges to productivity can be identified early, minimizing disruptions.

As Anthony Calleo, CEO of Calleo EX, explains, “Productivity is a multi-dimensional outcome influenced by resource availability, effective leadership, clear goals, and organizational culture.” He emphasizes that engaged employees may still face productivity challenges or burnout, noting that “engagement must be paired with strategic support mechanisms—like streamlined processes, skill development, and workload management—to drive sustainable productivity.”

The Engagement and Productivity Fit– Broader Impact

Both engagement and productivity require consistent fine-tuning and balance. Drawing the conclusion that more engagement equals higher productivity is overly simplistic and, in many cases, can lead to one-sided or misguided strategies that fail to account that while engagement can spark short-term productivity, long-term success requires a broader strategy, a closer look at the systems and organizational structures. 

If productivity is a priority for your organization, as it is for many, engaging with employees is a process to more closely examine, not just level of employee engagement. Engaging with employees consists of building rapport and understanding their roles, their challenges, that affect their productivity. 

To increase productivity in a way that is more stable consider the following: Ensure that goals are clearly communicated—not just to executives and the C-suite, but also to the employees doing the work every day. Evaluate job fit to ensure employees are positioned to drive productivity, equipped with the right resources, technology, and time. 

With so many factors affecting productivity, it can be challenging to determine what to prioritize. So, I’ll leave you with this: real improvements come from actively engaging with all team members and involving them in the conversations that shape their work—and, ultimately, their productivity.