Why Engagement Scores Are Incomplete and What to Do Instead

For people and business leaders, an engagement score can feel like clarity - a single number, simple to track. The tension is that this simplicity hides a messy truth, that engagement is only a proxy for a more complex relationship between a person, their work and their employer. No matter how well it’s measured, 'engagement' isn’t the relationship itself. It’s a compressed signal - by design - an oversimplification of a dynamic too intricate to capture fully. That makes it incomplete, even inadequate. So, yesterday's conversation with Jordan Saxby naturally led to: 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥? Because in employee listening, the goal isn’t to measure engagement. The goal is to understand what we can improve and how to prioritise our response. Improved employee engagement comes from improving the conditions that drive it: manager support, communication, growth opportunities, inclusion. That’s where interventions live. But to know what to go after, you need an anchor, and the engagement score provides that reference point. It 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐬 frame where to put limited time, effort and resources. In that sense, the engagement score is a means to an end: a conversation starter with an executive team, not a definitive list of actions. And certainly not a target to chase. The real value isn’t in the outcome measure itself but in the predictors of that outcome. So a relatively simple engagement index - with intention to stay, advocacy (eNPS), motivation - can be ‘good enough’, provided those outcomes matter in your context. Because when survey space is limited, every extra question spent on the outcome is one less question on what actually drives change. Which leads to this question: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐨 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐨?