Psychological safety at work is no longer a vague or emerging idea. Largely through the work of Amy Edmondson, it has become a well-established concept within the field of organisational behaviour. Research now consistently links psychological safety to stronger teamwork, higher engagement, and improved organisational performance.

As a result, psychological safety is becoming increasingly important across organisations of all sizes and industries. The rise of remote and hybrid working following the COVID-19 pandemic has further heightened its importance, as increased uncertainty and reduced face-to-face interaction can make employees less likely to speak openly or take interpersonal risks (Edmondson, 2023). 

What is psychological safety? 

At first glance, psychological safety can seem like a complicated concept. However, the idea is simple: psychological safety refers to how individuals perceive potential threats or rewards when they take interpersonal risk at work (CIPD, 2024). In a psychologically safe environment, employees feel comfortable speaking up, sharing ideas and differing opinions, asking questions, admitting mistakes, and raising concerns without fear of negative consequences (CIPD, 2024; McKinsey & Company, 2023). McKinsey & Company (2023) further emphasises the importance of psychological safety describing its wide recognition as a basic human need that enables people to perform, contribute, and reach their full potential. 

Benefits of psychological safety 

Creating a psychologically safe workplace is an important part of an organisation’s engagement strategy due to the wide range of well-researched benefits it provides at both an individual and organisational level. 

From an individual perspective, psychological safety is associated with higher job satisfaction, greater motivation to go above and beyond, and stronger employee retention (CIPD, 2023). Each of these outcomes is closely linked to high levels of employee engagement. 

From an organisational perspective, psychological safety encourages greater information sharing, collaboration, and innovation within teams. In addition, psychologically safe environments are less likely to experience harmful behaviours such as bullying and unethical conduct (CIPD, 2023). It is clear how these outcomes can help create a more engaged, productive, and supportive workplace. 

Edmondson (2023) summarises the value of psychological safety by arguing that it goes beyond simply making employees feel comfortable; it acts as a mechanism for learning, performance, and adaptability. 

Creating a psychologically safe workplace 

Despite the benefits of a psychologically safe environment being clear, creating one can be challenging. To create a psychologically safe workplace, organisations must actively foster conditions that encourage openness, trust, and learning. The American Psychological Association (2024) outlines several actions that organisations and leaders can take to help develop a psychologically safe workplace. Organisations can: 

• Examine the organisation for unnecessary hierarchies, chains of command or boundaries that may discourage communication, risk taking and information sharing 

• Provide means to recognise and celebrate unique skills and talents, organisation wide 

• Emphasise zero tolerance towards unwanted behaviours, such as discrediting or undermining the efforts of another employee  

• Train leaders and managers on steps that develop a culture of psychological safety, including: 

• • Celebrating learning from mistakes  

• • Leading by example by showing how to raise discussion around problems and tough issues, whilst also encouraging all team members to raise issues that may be on their minds 

• • Applauding and demonstrating risk taking 

• • Recognising the unique skills and talents brought by all team members 

Importantly, Edmondson (2023) argues that psychological safety should not be treated as an end goal, but rather as a tool that enables organisations to perform more effectively. Its value lies in supporting effective teamwork, learning, and adaptability, rather than existing as a standalone objective (Edmondson, 2023). 

Summary 

Psychological safety isn’t a tick-box exercise or a one-off initiative. It’s a condition that needs to be actively created and consistently maintained – and one that sits at the very heart of a healthy engagement strategy.  

The good news is that it’s measurable. Employee engagement surveys, when designed thoughtfully, can capture how safe people feel to speak up, share ideas and raise concerns. That data gives organisations a clear starting point – identifying where psychological safety is strong, where it’s fragile, and what needs to change. 

Because ultimately, an organisation where people feel genuinely safe to be honest is one where engagement can truly thrive. And that is worth investing in. 

Contact us now to see how we can help you.

Sources 

American Psychological Association. (2024). Psychological safety in healthy workplaces. American Psychological Association  

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2024). Trust and psychological safety: An evidence review—Practice summary and recommendations. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/evidence-reviews/2024-pdfs/8542-psych-safety-trust-practice-summary.pdf  

Edmondson, A. C., & Bransby, D. P. (2023). Psychological safety comes of age: Observed themes in an established literature. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 10(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055217 

McKinsey & Company. (2023). What is psychological safety? McKinsey & Company 

A four-star rating tells you something, but it does not tell you everything. Was the food excellent but the service slow? Did most people have a good experience, while a few had a very poor one?

In terms of engagement the overall number is useful, but it only becomes meaningful when you understand what sits behind it. A score that looks strong at first glance may hide issues in specific teams or locations, while a lower score may still contain clear strengths to build on.

So, what actually counts as a “good” employee engagement score? And what should you do if yours is lower than expected?

Firstly, what do we mean by an employee engagement score?

An employee engagement score is a summary measure of how employees feel about their experience at work. The questions asked explore things like pride, motivation, commitment, advocacy, leadership, communication, development, recognition and whether people feel able to do their best work.

In simple terms, it’s not just a measure of whether employees are “happy” at work. It’s a way of understanding how connected people feel to the organisation, how motivated they are to contribute, and how likely they are to speak positively about their workplace.

We calculate the score itself by taking the percentage of employees who responded positively to the engagement questions. For example, a score of 70% positive means that, on average, seven in ten responses to those questions were favourable.

There is no single universal “good” score. A score of 70% positive might be strong in one organisation, reasonable in another, and slightly underwhelming somewhere else. It depends on the sector, the organisation’s history, the questions being asked and what employees have recently experienced.

So, what should you look for in an engagement score?

A good engagement score is one that suggests most employees feel positively connected to the organisation, it’s work and their role within it.

The real value comes from looking at three things:

• How does your score compare to previous surveys? If engagement has improved, even modestly, this can suggest things are moving in the right direction.
• How does it compare to relevant benchmarks? External comparisons can help show whether your result is broadly in line with, above or below similar organisations.
• How consistent is the score across the organisation? An overall score might look healthy, but hide major differences between teams, departments, locations or employee groups.

Why a drop in your engagement score isn’t always a disaster 

Seeing your engagement score fall can feel uncomfortable, particularly if leaders have invested time and effort into improving the employee experience. 

But a drop in score isn’t automatically a sign of failure. Engagement scores are relative and contextual. A shift may reflect recent organisational change, increased workload, sector pressures, restructuring, leadership transitions or simply a workforce that feels more confident sharing honest feedback. 

The important thing is to understand what has changed and where. Is the drop seen across the organisation, or is it concentrated in particular teams, locations or employee groups? Are the same issues appearing year after year, or has something new emerged? 

A falling score should be treated as a signal, not a verdict. It gives employees a structured way to say, “Something feels different, and this needs attention.” 

The real problem isn’t seeing a drop in your score, it’s seeing the warning signs and doing nothing with them. 

How can you improve your engagement score? 

The first step is to avoid jumping straight to solutions. It can be tempting to launch a new initiative, benefit or communications campaign, but without understanding what is driving the result, you risk fixing the wrong thing. 

Start by looking beneath the overall score. Which groups are most and least positive? Are there differences by department, location, role, length of service or working pattern? 

Next, identify the strongest drivers of engagement. The most useful question isn’t just “what scored lowest?” but “what is most likely to be affecting engagement?” A low score could be linked to workload, leadership visibility, manager capability, communication, pay, progression, recognition, change fatigue or lack of voice. 

Survey comments are also important. They bring the numbers to life and help explain the “why” behind the results. A single strongly worded comment should not outweigh the wider evidence, but repeated themes are worth taking seriously. 

Once the results are understood, be honest with employees. Acknowledge what they have said, thank them for their feedback and be clear about the areas that need improvement. 

Finally, focus on a small number of meaningful actions. Trying to fix everything at once can quickly become overwhelming. It’s usually better to choose a few visible, realistic priorities that are clearly linked to the survey findings.

The number is useful. The action is what counts.

It’s natural to want to see a strong employee engagement, or to feel concerned when scores have dropped. But the real value of engagement research isn’t just the number itself. It’s what the number helps you understand. 

A strong score should prompt the question: what are we doing well, and how do we protect it? 

A drop in score should prompt the question: what has changed, where are the shifts happening, and what are we prepared to do about it? 

The most useful engagement score isn’t always the highest one. It’s the one that leads to better conversations, better decisions and better outcomes for employees. 

Need help making sense of your engagement results?

Understanding your employee engagement score is one thing. Knowing what to do next is where the real value sits.

At The Survey Initiative, we help organisations move beyond the headline number by identifying what is driving engagement, where experiences differ across teams, and which actions are most likely to make a meaningful difference.

Whether your scores are strong, lower than expected, or somewhere in between, we can help you turn employee feedback into clear, practical next steps.

If you would like support with your next employee engagement survey, results analysis or action planning, get in touch with our team!

The evidence connecting engaged workforces to stronger business outcomes continues to mount, though the relationship is more nuanced than many assume.

The Business Case

The relationship between employee engagement and business performance is well established. Research consistently shows that organisations with more engaged employees outperform their peers across a range of commercial and operational measures.

According to data cited by Engage for Success, engaged teams demonstrate approximately 21% higher profitability, experience 41% lower absenteeism, and see employee turnover reduced by up to 59%.

These differences are significant and the CIPD reinforces this evidence, highlighting that engaged employees contribute to stronger business performance through higher productivity, improved customer satisfaction, greater innovation, better retention, increased efficiency, and stronger health and safety outcomes. In fact, organisations with high engagement are reported to be up to four times more likely to succeed than those with lower engagement levels.

Taken together, this evidence shows that engagement is not a single-point driver of performance, but a factor that influences multiple aspects of how organisations operate. The impact is both broad and interconnected.

The Productivity Premium

One of the most tangible benefits appears in productivity metrics. Studies suggest that engaged employees are approximately 18% more productive than their disengaged counterparts. This productivity boost stems from what researchers call “discretionary effort” – the extra mile that engaged employees willingly travel.

As the Engage for Success movement emphasises, engaged employees don’t just meet their job requirements; they actively contribute beyond their core roles. They identify opportunities for improvement, support colleagues, and genuinely care about organisational success. This contextual performance – going beyond formal job requirements – creates significant value that’s difficult to achieve through management directive alone.

The Correlation vs Causation Challenge

It is tempting to present engagement as a direct switch: improve engagement, improve performance. The evidence is more nuanced than that. The CIPD’s evidence review makes clear that the relationship is real, but much of the data shows correlation rather than simple one-way causation.

A more accurate reading is that engagement and performance reinforce one another over time. Stronger engagement can support better performance through greater focus, commitment, and contribution. In turn, good performance can strengthen engagement by creating momentum, recognition, and a sense of progress.

That matters because it shifts the conversation away from quick fixes. Engagement should be understood as part of a wider performance ecosystem shaped by leadership, culture, job design, and management practice.

What Drives Engagement?

Understanding what creates engagement matters as much as measuring its outcomes. The Say, Stay, Strive model, engagement is driven by six key factors:

• People (leaders/managers): Effective leadership and supportive management are the strongest predictors of employee engagement and directly influence team performance and retention.
• Work/Values (meaningful work): Employees are more engaged when they understand how their role contributes to the organisation’s purpose and feel aligned with its core values.
• Opportunities (career growth): Clear pathways for development and progression motivate employees to invest in their roles and grow with the organisation.
• Total Rewards (pay/recognition): Fair pay, competitive benefits, and regular recognition make employees feel valued and reinforce desired behaviours.
• Company Practices (DEIB/communication): Inclusive practices, equitable processes, and transparent communication build trust and foster a culture of belonging.
• Quality of Life (work-life balance): Support for wellbeing and flexible working helps prevent burnout and enables sustainable, high-level performance.

These enablers underscore that engagement isn’t created by surveys or initiatives alone – it’s built through consistent leadership, clear communication, and genuine respect for employees as stakeholders in organisational success.

The Measurement Imperative

As CIPD research emphasises, measurement is crucial but only a starting point. Gathering engagement data through surveys provides diagnostic insight, but what organisations do with that information determines whether engagement improves.

The most effective approaches combine quantitative measurement with qualitative understanding, tracking engagement alongside performance metrics over time. This allows organisations to identify what’s working, where gaps exist, and which interventions deliver genuine impact.

The Reality Check

It’s worth acknowledging the sobering statistics on engagement levels. Despite widespread recognition of its importance, Gallup’s 2025/2026 State of the Global Workplace report suggests only 10% of UK employees feel genuinely engaged at work.  This represents enormous, untapped potential – and significant room for improvement.

The challenge for organisations isn’t just understanding that engagement matters, but building the culture, leadership capability, and management practices that consistently nurture it.

Evidence-Based Engagement

The data connecting employee engagement to business performance is compelling, though more complex than headline statistics suggest. The relationship is real, significant, and bidirectional. Organisations that successfully engage their people see tangible benefits in productivity, profitability, retention, and innovation.

However, creating engagement requires more than just measuring it. It demands strategic commitment, capable leadership, authentic communication, and genuine respect for employee voice. The evidence is clear: engagement isn’t a soft HR concern – it’s a performance strategy that distinguishes high-performing organisations from those that struggle.

For organisations serious about performance, the question isn’t whether to invest in engagement, but how to do it effectively and authentically. The data provides the business case. The hard work is making it real.

Discover how employee engagement surveys can help you identify what is holding your teams back – and what will help them perform at their best. Contact us today!

Sources and References

CIPD Employee Engagement & Motivation Factsheet

CIPD Employee Engagement: An Evidence Review

The Evidence – Engage for Success

Engaging for Success: Enhancing Performance Through Employee Engagement (MacLeod Review)

Nailing the Evidence – Employee Engagement Task Force

REBA Resource on Engage for Success Evidence

Gallup’s 2025/2026 State of the Global Workplace

Today, with hybrid working, persistent external/economic pressures and employees being more vocal about their expectations, engagement is no longer a nice-to-have. It has become a strategic necessity.

Good engagement is not just a score. A well-designed survey is a valuable way to understand how people are feeling and where attention is needed. But engagement also shows up in everyday behaviour, like the energy in a team meeting, how freely people share ideas, low turnover, and the extra effort people choose to give.

At The Survey Initiative, we use a behavioural framework to understand what engagement looks like in practice. One that aligns with the principles championed by Engage for Success and supported by CIPD research.

The Say, Stay, Strive Framework

The Say, Stay, Strive model, originally developed by Aon Hewitt, resonates strongly with the outcomes-focused approach promoted by engagement professionals. It shifts the focus from sentiment to observable behaviours that drive performance.

• Say: Do employees speak positively about the organisation to colleagues, customers and potential hires?
• Stay: Do they intend to remain, demonstrating loyalty and low attrition?
• Strive: Are they motivated to go the extra mile, innovate and contribute beyond their core duties?

This model aligns with findings from the CIPD Good Work Index 2025, which revealed that only around half of UK employees report feeling enthusiastic about or immersed in their work. This is a clear call to action for organisations aiming to move beyond basic satisfaction.

What Has Changed?

Several trends are reshaping the engagement landscape.

1. Employees Are More Discerning
   The CIPD’s 2025 research found that 3% of employees, around 1.1 million workers, left a job in the past year due to a lack of flexible working. This underscores a shift. People no longer wait for organisations to catch up. They move on when their values: flexibility, purpose and respect are not met.
2. Managers Are the Critical Lever
   The CIPD Good Work Index 2025 found that while 79% of employees say their manager is supportive, only two in three managers receive the training and time needed to manage well. This gap is critical. As widely cited in UK HR practice, 70% of the variance in team engagement is attributable to the manager. Investing in manager capability is not HR ‘fluff’. It is a performance multiplier.
3. Trust and Transparency Are Non-Negotiable
   The Engage for Success movement, established from the 2009 MacLeod Report, identified four enablers of engagement. Strategic narrative, engaging managers, employee voice and organisational integrity. In 2026, “integrity” – walking the talk – is under intense scrutiny. People expect leaders to communicate openly, act on feedback and align values with actions. Silence after a survey erodes trust. Follow-through builds it.

What Good Engagement Does Not Look Like

Good engagement is not:

• A wellbeing initiative that masks poor management
• An annual survey that gathers dust
• A rising score achieved by lowering expectations

As the MacLeod Report warned, too many organisations treat engagement as a tick-box exercise. Running surveys without acting, or confusing activity with impact, undermines credibility. True engagement requires consistent effort – through leadership behaviour, in two-way communication and in creating an environment where people feel safe to speak and contribute.

The Starting Point. Ask, Listen, Act

If you are unsure where your organisation stands, the most honest step is to ask your people. Through a well-designed, independent engagement survey. Done right, this is not about chasing a number. It is about gaining a clear picture of what is driving engagement, where the greatest opportunities lie and what to prioritise.

The organisations excelling in engagement are not necessarily those spending the most. They are the ones listening most carefully. And acting most consistently.

Contact us today!

References

CIPD. (2025). Good Work Index 2025. https://www.cipd.org/en/views-and-insights/thought-leadership/insight/risks-rewards-engagement/
CIPD. (2025). Flexible and Hybrid Working Practices in 2025. https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/reports/flexible-hybrid-working/
Gallup. (2025). State of the Global Workplace Report. (Widely cited in UK HR circles; non-competitive benchmark data.)
MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for Success. Enhancing Performance through Employee Engagement. https://engageforsuccess.org/engaging-for-success/
HR Magazine. (2009). The MacLeod Report – Making It Happen. https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/features/the-macleod-report-making-it-happen/

This is where employee engagement and speak-up culture come together.

Engagement is not simply about whether people are happy at work. At its heart, it is about involvement, enthusiasm and the sense that your contribution matters. Gallup’s long-running work on engagement makes that clear, and one of its most telling indicators is whether employees feel their opinions count. When people do not believe their voice is welcome, engagement becomes shallower, more performative and far less resilient.

The same applies to values. A values statement can say all the right things about respect, inclusion, accountability or integrity. But employees will judge those values by what they see and experience every day. They notice who gets listened to, whose behaviour is excused, whether poor conduct is challenged consistently, and whether senior people are held to the same standards as everyone else – the real litmus test! CIPD guidance on ethics at work makes much the same point: values have to be applied consistently in decision-making and role-modelled in practice if they are to mean anything at all.

That is why speaking up matters so much.

A healthy organisation is not one where everyone agrees, avoids friction and keeps concerns to themselves. It is one where people can question, challenge and raise issues without fearing that doing so will damage their standing. A recent Psychology Today article makes that tension clear: speaking up can help organisations course-correct and innovate, but people often stay quiet because they fear retaliation, being labelled difficult, or being seen as disruptive. Research highlighted by Harvard Business School and CIPD echoes that point: psychological safety is what allows openness, learning and better performance to coexist.

My lived experience shows me that this is the bit many organisations still underestimate. Having values is not the same as living them. Living them means creating the conditions in which people can safely call out behaviour that falls short. It means equipping managers to handle challenge well, not defensively. It means making sure there are clear routes for raising concerns, that follow-up is visible, and that people trust they will be treated fairly. Acas is very clear that policies help, but culture matters just as much: people need to trust management and feel safe and encouraged to raise serious concerns.

Leaders have a particular responsibility here. Employees watch closely. They notice whether challenge is welcomed or tolerated. They notice whether dissent is treated as commitment or inconvenience. As Amy Edmondson argues, psychologically safe leaders invite input, ask good questions, and do not “shoot the messenger” when they hear something uncomfortable. In practice, that is often the difference between values being lived and values becoming wallpaper.

So, yes, values and behavioural frameworks matter. But they are only the starting point. The organisations that genuinely strengthen engagement are the ones that go further: they make it safe to speak up, normal to challenge constructively, and are expected to act when behaviour falls short. Because in the end, values only have real weight when employees feel safe enough to defend them.

References

• Psychology Today. Speaking Up at Work: The Price for Rocking the Boat (5 March 2026)
• Employee voice | CIPD Viewpoint
• Ethics at work: An employer’s guide
• Global Indicator: Employee Engagement
• Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. Four Steps to Building the Psychological Safety That High-Performing Teams Need (14 June 2023)
• Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. In Tough Times, Psychological Safety Is an Asset, Not a Luxury (5 November 2025)
• Having a policy – Whistleblowing at work
• Raising and dealing with problems at work

And when that emotional load shows up at work, engagement can suffer. CIPD’s 2025 work on health and wellbeing found that a significant minority of employees regularly feel exhausted or under excessive pressure, and it explicitly warns that feeling negative about work can increase the risk of people feeling less engaged in the work they are carrying out. The same dataset shows that around 8.5 million UK workers say work has a negative impact on their mental health, and where mental health is negatively affected, people are less satisfied, less likely to recommend their employer, less inclined to go above and beyond, and more likely to consider leaving.

So while a war or geopolitical crisis may not appear in an engagement survey as a tidy variable, its effects can still be felt through energy, concentration, trust, emotional resilience and relationships at work. Gallup’s 2025 global data points to a broader fragility here too: global engagement fell to 21% in 2024, wellbeing has been declining since 2022, and manager engagement has weakened materially. That matters because managers shape much of the day-to-day employee experience, I am sure you will have heard me say on more than one occasion – the relationship we have with our managers is probably the single biggest influencer on our engagement!  When the wider world is tense, the pressure often lands in the middle of the organisation first.

The risk is not only stress. It is silence, division and inconsistency

There is another layer to this. Global conflicts and geopolitical issues do not just create worry; they can also create friction. They can sharpen differences of opinion, heighten sensitivities and make people less sure what is safe to say. CIPD’s recent work on inclusion argues that organisations need environments for respectful disagreement and appropriate speak-up cultures, because conflict, misunderstanding and competing perspectives are now part of the reality many workplaces are navigating.

This matters for engagement because employees are always watching how the organisation behaves when issues become difficult. They notice whether leaders stay human or become corporate. They notice whether some colleagues are quietly carrying grief, fear or anger while everyone else pretends it is business as usual. They notice whether respectful challenge is possible, or whether people retreat into silence. And they notice inconsistency very quickly. If an organisation talks about care, inclusion and values, but goes quiet when global events are affecting its people, that gap will be felt. That is when trust starts to ebb away.

UK evidence on conflict at work reinforces the point. CIPD found that employees who experience workplace conflict have much lower job satisfaction and are more likely to consider leaving, while Acas found that over half of people who reported conflict experienced stress, anxiety or depression as a result. In unsettled times, organisations do not need to create more debate for the sake of it, but they do need the maturity to hold difference, support people well and stop stress turning into avoidable internal conflict.

What should organisations do?

The first thing is not to overreact, but not to ignore it either.

Employees generally do not need their employer to issue a statement on every global event. Nor do they want empty gestures. What they do need is evidence that leaders understand that the outside world affects the inside one. A calm, human acknowledgement can go a long way, especially when teams include people who may be personally affected. For global organisations, McKinsey’s recent work is useful: in times of geopolitical strain, leaders need clear norms that help employees work effectively across geographies even when governments are at odds, alongside a “one company” approach that keeps internal culture from fracturing along external fault lines.

Second, line managers need help. Engagement lives in everyday conversations, managers are the ones spotting changes in energy, focus, mood and behaviour. They are also the ones most likely to mishandle the moment if they have not been equipped properly. Gallup’s data that 70% of team engagement is attributable to the manager is highly relevant here. In more volatile times, the manager’s role becomes even more important: not to be a counsellor or political commentator, but to be observant, compassionate, steady and fair.

Third, organisations should make practical support visible. That includes reminding people about employee assistance support, mental health resources, wellbeing conversations, flexibility where appropriate, and the simple permission to step back from the 24-hour news cycle. Mind’s advice is strikingly practical here: acknowledge feelings, set boundaries with news habits, focus on what can be controlled, and talk to someone trusted. Those are personal actions, but organisations can reinforce them culturally by not rewarding performative busyness and constant availability.

Fourth, protect respectful dialogue and psychological safety. Not every workplace should become a forum for geopolitical debate. But every workplace should be clear about standards of respect, behaviour and inclusion. People need to know the difference between disagreement and harm, between discussion and hostility, and between support and silence. CIPD’s guidance is clear that organisations need appropriate speak-up cultures and spaces for respectful disagreement. That is not a “nice to have” in tense times; it is part of protecting engagement.

Finally, keep the basics of engagement in view. During unsettled periods, there can be a temptation to focus only on wellbeing support. That matters enormously, but it is not the whole answer. People still need clarity, fairness, manageable workloads, decent communication, good line management and a sense that their work matters. CIPD’s Good Work research consistently shows that health, relationships, workload and manager support are closely tied to satisfaction and enthusiasm. Supporting staff through difficult times is not separate from engagement work; it is engagement work.

The leadership question

Perhaps the biggest question here is not whether global conflict affects employee engagement. It is whether organisations understand engagement well enough to recognise how and why it does.

Engagement is not a sealed system. Employees do not arrive at work untouched by the wider world. They arrive as whole people, carrying worry, identity, family ties, values, grief, anger, distraction and hope. In calmer times, organisations can get away with treating engagement as a survey score. In more volatile times, that becomes much harder. The organisations that hold engagement most effectively are usually the ones that understand something simple but important: when the world feels unstable, employees look for steadiness, humanity, fairness and meaning at work.

If your people find those things, work can become part of what helps the stay grounded rather than another source of strain.

References

• Good Work Index 2024: Summary report
• Good Work Index 2025: Survey report
• Health and wellbeing at work 2025: Views of employees
• Resetting EDI and reaffirming inclusion
• Workplace conflict puts strain on job quality for estimated eight million UK workers
• How prevalent is individual conflict at work in Great Britain in 2025?
• State of the Global Workplace 2025
• How to cope with distressing events in the news
• Multinationals at a crossroads: Adapting to a new geopolitical era
• Five imperatives for CEOs amid geopolitical uncertainty

Oddly enough, blockbuster films like Jurassic Park, Barbie and The Avengers offer surprisingly sharp lessons about what makes engagement unravel and what makes it thrive. Beneath the spectacle of dinosaurs, pink utopias and superhero battles sit very human lessons about voice, identity and shared purpose.

Let’s start with the dinosaurs…

Jurassic Park: When No One Listens Until It’s Too Late

On the surface, Jurassic Park is a visionary success. It is bold, innovative and breathtaking in ambition. John Hammond genuinely believes he has created something extraordinary. The technology is advanced, the investment is significant and the launch is carefully staged. Everything appears controlled.

Yet throughout the film, warning signs are present. Experts raise concerns. Systems are rushed. Complex risks are underestimated. The people closest to the ground can see vulnerabilities forming, but their voices do not meaningfully influence decisions. Confidence gradually overrides caution.

The park does not collapse simply because dinosaurs exist. It collapses because leadership assumes that vision and infrastructure are enough. What is missing is a culture where concerns shape action.

In organisations, disengagement often follows a similar pattern. Leaders may feel assured that the strategy is sound and morale is stable. Feedback is collected and acknowledged, but not always acted upon. Over time, employees notice when their input does not alter outcomes. They begin to conserve energy. They speak up less frequently. Silence replaces challenge.

By the time visible problems emerge, the cultural foundations have already weakened. Engagement depends not only on enthusiasm, but on whether people feel safe and valued when raising difficult truths. When employees stop saying “this won’t work,” it is rarely because everything is perfect. More often, it is because they no longer believe their voice will make a difference.

Barbie: The Fragility of Perfect Culture

If Jurassic Park shows the danger of ignored warnings, Barbie Land represents a different cultural risk: surface-level perfection.

At first glance, Barbie Land appears to be the ultimate engaged environment. Everyone is accomplished. Every day is celebratory. Roles are clearly defined and confidently performed. The culture looks vibrant and successful.

However, the system only functions because no one questions it. When Barbie begins to experience doubt and curiosity about her identity, the seemingly flawless environment starts to destabilise. Ken’s journey highlights another dimension: when someone feels peripheral or undefined within a system, they search for validation elsewhere.

In many organisations, culture is carefully curated. Values are articulated beautifully. Internal communications highlight positivity and achievement. Yet beneath this polished exterior, employees may feel constrained by expectations about who they are supposed to be. They may feel rewarded for fitting in rather than standing out, or valued for output more than individuality.

When people sense that they are playing a role instead of expressing their authentic selves, engagement becomes performative. Work continues, targets are met, smiles are present, but energy is limited, and creativity narrows.

Sustainable engagement requires more than visible happiness, it requires belonging and the sense that identity can evolve without penalty. When individuals feel genuinely seen and accepted, they invest more deeply. When culture prioritises appearance over authenticity, commitment becomes fragile.

Barbie Land’s perfection is compelling, but it is also delicate. Real-world cultures are stronger when they allow complexity, vulnerability and growth.

The Avengers: Purpose, Complementary Strengths and Psychological Safety

When the Avengers first assemble, they do not resemble an engaged team. Their initial interactions are marked by tension, ego and mistrust. Tony Stark challenges authority, Captain America questions motives, and each member carries distinct assumptions about leadership and responsibility. Their differences feel divisive rather than complementary.

What transforms the group is not the elimination of conflict. They do not suddenly become uniform or effortlessly aligned in personality. Instead, they gain clarity. They understand the scale of the threat they face and the necessity of working together. Roles become clearer, strengths are recognised and individual abilities are channelled toward a shared objective.

The iconic moment when the team stands united in battle symbolises something fundamental about engagement. It is not constant agreement that binds them; it is shared purpose.

Within organisations, teams often struggle not because individuals lack talent, but because direction is blurred. When responsibilities overlap without clarity, when strengths are underutilised or when the broader mission feels abstract, energy dissipates. Differences can feel threatening rather than valuable.

When purpose is compelling and clearly communicated, however, diversity becomes an advantage. People understand how their contribution fits into the bigger picture. Friction becomes productive rather than destructive. Engagement strengthens because effort feels meaningful and collective.

The Common Thread

Across these three stories, a consistent pattern emerges. Jurassic Park highlights the risk of ignoring voices that matter. Barbie illustrates the fragility of culture built on appearance rather than authenticity. The Avengers demonstrate the power of aligning diverse individuals around a shared mission.

In each case, engagement is less about perks, incentives or surface-level positivity and more about fundamental human experiences. People want to feel heard when they raise concerns. They want to feel seen as individuals rather than stereotypes. They want to feel connected to work that matters.

When those elements are present, organisations build resilience. When they are absent, cracks begin to form long before visible crises appear.

Dinosaurs, pink dream houses and superhero battles may belong to cinema, but the cultural dynamics they reflect are entirely real. Every workplace tells a story about whose voice counts, whose identity fits and what the mission truly means.

The question for leaders is simple: if your organisation were a film, would it be heading toward collapse, confusion or collective strength? Because engagement, like storytelling, is ultimately about how people experience the world around them – and whether they believe they have a meaningful role within it.

Celebration ranking results

Leading questions

Leading questions are defined as questions that may cause a respondent to answer in a biased or particular way, often a way that aligns with the goals of the asker. Because leading questions are often unintentional, it is especially important to know how to identify them (Webb, 2017). 

By describing Bounty as an outlier and as a chocolate that should not be eaten as a first choice, the prompt inviting participants to our chocolate poll could be considered a leading question. This framing unintentionally suggested that Bounty was an inferior choice among the Celebrations. 

Unfortunately, leading questions are not limited to chocolate ranking polls; they can have several implications for the validity of employee engagement surveys. Perhaps the most significant effect is that employees who disagree with an implied position may feel that their true opinion is unwelcome, consequently causing their response to gravitate towards what they perceive to be the desired answer. 

At the same time, leading questions can motivate respondents who strongly support a particular option to participate in order to defend it – which may have been the case in our chocolate ranking survey. How else would Bounty rank so highly 😉? 

Together, these effects can significantly distort survey results. In extreme cases, this may go beyond minor bias and may dramatically skew the overall sentiment captured by the survey. 

Furthermore, when participants develop a perception that questions are worded to elicit a certain response, they may view the survey as performative rather than genuine. This may reduce trust in the survey process and weaken employees’ belief that their feedback will lead to meaningful action. 

However, despite the problems discussed, leading questions are easy to address. To mitigate them, it is important to ensure that questions are worded in neutral language, avoid assumptions, and offer balanced response scales with an equal number of agree and disagree options. 

Confirmation bias

In addition to leading questions, the recent Chocolate poll prompted discussion about issues that can arise when interpreting the results of a survey. One such issue is confirmation bias, which refers to a human tendency to seek out and interpret information in ways that align with our pre-existing belief (Casad, 2026).  

As someone who does not like Bounty – and who placed them at the bottom of my ranking (only ahead of Snickers) – seeing them come second was surprising, and something I attributed to a flaw in the poll. However, after taking a step back and reviewing the results from an objective perspective, it became clear that I had fallen victim to my own confirmation bias: I had expected Bounty to rank poorly simply because they are not my preference. 

Just as with leading questions, confirmation bias is not limited to chocolate-ranking polls and can have significant implications for the usefulness of employee engagement surveys. When reviewing survey results, confirmation bias can lead to overemphasising findings that align with prior expectations, while downplaying unexpected results. Negative comments or low scores may be dismissed as outliers or the opinions of a few disgruntled individuals, rather than being recognised as potential indicators of wider issues. 

When actions taken in response to survey results are influenced by confirmation bias, employees may lose confidence that their feedback will lead to meaningful change, potentially creating apathy towards future surveys. However, as with leading questions, confirmation bias is relatively easy to overcome. Ensuring an open-minded approach to survey results – consciously setting aside existing beliefs (or tastes, in the case of the chocolate poll) – allows for more accurate interpretation of findings and more effective action. 

One sure-fire way of avoiding leading questions and confirmation bias is to involve a third party in the survey process. By bringing in people who are experienced in question design and are not emotionally invested in the results – or have preconconceptions, organisations are able to gain a fresh perspective that challenges assumptions, ensures questions are neutrally framed, and uncovers insights that might otherwise be overlooked. If you would like support with your employee survey, to ensure your data is accurate, balanced and genuinely useful, contact us – we’ll be happy to help!

Sources 

Casad, B.J. (2026) Confirmation bias | Definition, Examples, Psychology, & Facts. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias 

Webb, N. (2017) ‘Survey: Leading Questions’, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Available at: https://methods.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-research-methods/chpt/survey-leading-questions 

Our in-house research examines movements across the core dimensions of engagement – Pride, Motivation, Advocacy, and Intent to Stay, providing a longitudinal perspective on how these measures evolve over time. With overall engagement stabilising and strengthening compared to 2024, the data points to a clear uplift in Motivation alongside consistently high levels of Pride and Intent to Stay. Here, we explore where organisations are gaining momentum in re-energising their people and the areas that continue to present the greatest challenges to engagement.

What do we see?

The end of 2025 marked a period of measured recovery and renewed momentum across employee engagement, following a slight decline late 2024. Overall engagement has strengthened year-on-year, rising from 80.6% in 2024 (1 year score) to 83.6% in 2025 (1 year score), bringing results back in line with long-term benchmarks and signalling a return to a more stable engagement baseline.

This improvement was not uniform across all areas. The most notable change has been a strong uplift in Motivation, which increased significantly from 75.0% in 2024 to 82.7% in 2025. This gain suggests that employees feel more energised and willing to invest discretionary effort – a critical leading indicator of future performance. Pride and Intent to Stay remained consistently high, reinforcing the view that emotional attachment to organisations has been resilient, even through periods of uncertainty.

2024 saw significant engagement drops, driven primarily by weaker motivation and advocacy scores, reflecting the cumulative impact of workload pressure, change fatigue, and external uncertainty. However, the first half of 2025 saw a significant rebound in engagement, with Motivation and Advocacy showing meaningful gains alongside sustained strength in Pride and Intent to Stay. The second half of 2025 paints a picture of stabilisation rather than continued upward trajectory, with engagement dropping slightly as we moved towards the end of 2025.

Overall, 2025 tells a story of recovery followed by consolidation. Organisations appear to have regained employee energy and commitment, particularly through improved motivation. However, the data also suggests that future gains will depend on converting this renewed effort into stronger advocacy and a deeper willingness for employees to actively recommend their workplace.

What is having the greatest impact on engagement?

Engagement levels in 2025 were shaped by a complex mix of economic, workplace, and external factors that extended beyond the immediate control of individual organisations. While many employees continued to feel proud of working for their employer and expressed a strong intention to stay, the broader environment influenced how much discretionary energy and advocacy they are able or willing to give.

Pressures related to the cost-of-living, evolving expectations around hybrid and office-based work, shifts in the labour market, and ongoing global uncertainty all contributed to this dynamic. Together, these forces help explain why engagement has stabilised rather than accelerated, with impacts most clearly felt in Motivation and Advocacy rather than in core attachment or retention intent.

1. Cost-of-living pressure and “pay not going as far”
Even with inflation easing, prices continued to rise in late 2025 (CPI 3.2% in the year to November 2025; housing-related inflation higher).

Financial strain tends to show up first in Motivation and Advocacy – people can still feel proud/loyal but be less inclined to go above-and-beyond or be an ambassador when they’re stretched.

2. Hybrid/return-to-office friction (wellbeing, fairness and commuting cost)
Through 2025 there was heightened noise around return-to-office expectations, with evidence that fear of being ordered back can harm wellbeing and that commuting costs are a major driver of resistance.

These tensions often depress Advocacy (people are less likely to recommend an employer if flexibility feels threatened/unequal) while Intent to Stay can remain stable if the external job market feels uncertain or switching costs are high.

3. Labour market cooling and rising insecurity

ONS data shows vacancies falling year-on-year and more unemployed people per vacancy (a “cooler” market).

In “cooler” job markets, Intent to Stay can stay strong (or even rise) because people are cautious about moving, while Motivation and Advocacy may decline if uncertainty increases and people focus on security over discretionary effort.

4. Persistent global geopolitical tensions and uncertainty

CEOs globally report that geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainty remain top business risks, affecting confidence, planning, and investment decisions, which can dampen internal morale and discretionary energy.

Unpredictable external conditions can increase anxiety among employees about business prospects and stability, which often shows up first in Motivation and Advocacy before Pride or Intent to Stay.

What can we expect to see in 2026?

1. Engagement will be increasingly defined by motivation, not attachment
Pride and Intent to Stay are expected to remain comparatively high in 2026, particularly if labour market uncertainty persists. However, Motivation is likely to remain the most volatile and differentiating dimension of engagement.

Organisations that fail to address workload sustainability, flexibility, and meaningful recognition risk seeing motivation stall or soften again – even if retention intent remains strong. In contrast, those that actively support employee energy, autonomy, and purpose are likely to pull ahead.

What this means for 2026: Motivation will become the clearest early indicator of future performance, burnout risk, and productivity – well before turnover shows up in the data.

2. Advocacy will become the most stubborn engagement area to shift
The 2025 data suggests that while employees are willing to stay, they are more cautious about actively recommending their employer. This pattern is expected to continue into 2026.

Cost-of-living pressures, hybrid work tensions, and broader economic uncertainty are likely to keep Advocacy lagging behind other engagement dimensions, unless organisations make deliberate efforts to strengthen trust, fairness, and employee voice.

What this means for 2026: Advocacy will increasingly reflect how safe, fair, and sustainable the employee experience feels – not just how satisfied or loyal people are.

3. “Staying but withdrawing” will be a growing risk
Wider research points to an increased risk of passive disengagement in 2026 – where employees remain in roles due to uncertainty or limited external options but reduce discretionary effort.

Our 2025 data already hints at this pattern: strong Intent to Stay paired with softer Motivation and Advocacy.

What this means for 2026: Headline retention metrics may look healthy, while underlying engagement and performance risk quietly builds. Organisations will need to look beyond turnover data to spot early warning signs.

4. Flexibility and fairness will remain central to engagement

Hybrid work expectations are unlikely to “settle” in 2026. Instead, engagement outcomes will increasingly depend on how fair, consistent and transparent decisions around flexibility and hybrid working are perceived to be, rather than on any single policy stance.

Employees are expected to become more sensitive to:

• Perceived inequity between roles or teams
• Lack of clarity around flexibility expectations
• The financial and wellbeing costs of commuting

What this means for 2026: Engagement will be shaped less by where people work, and more by whether flexibility feels equitable, predictable, and genuinely supported.

5. Financial wellbeing will continue to influence engagement more than pay alone

Even if inflation continues to moderate, cost-of-living pressure is expected to remain a significant backdrop in 2026. Research consistently shows that financial stress erodes Motivation and Advocacy before it affects Pride or Intent to Stay.

Organisations that broaden their approach – through financial wellbeing support, clearer reward communication, and realistic workload expectations – are likely to see more sustainable engagement outcomes than those relying solely on pay increases.

What this means for 2026: Employees will increasingly judge employers on how well they acknowledge and respond to financial pressure, not just on remuneration levels.

6. Leadership capability will be a key engagement differentiator
As external uncertainty persists, the role of leaders – particularly in communication, trust-building, and sense-making – will become even more critical. Wider research indicates that in uncertain environments:

• Clear, honest communication supports engagement
• Visible leadership builds psychological safety
• Poor communication accelerates disengagement

What this means for 2026: Variability in engagement will increasingly reflect leadership effectiveness, not organisational intent or strategy.

How we can help!

The 2025 results show that many organisations have successfully recovered lost ground in engagement and rebuilt momentum following the challenges of 2024. Motivation has strengthened, Pride and Intent to Stay remain high, and overall engagement has stabilised at healthier levels. However, the data also makes clear that this progress is fragile, with external pressures continuing to constrain advocacy and discretionary effort.

This is where targeted, insight-led actions matter most. Understanding where engagement is holding steady, where it is softening – and why, allows organisations to focus their efforts on the issues that will have the greatest impact – whether that is addressing flexibility concerns, supporting employees through cost-of-living pressure, strengthening trust and communication, or converting renewed motivation into stronger advocacy.

Our engagement surveys and benchmark insights help organisations move beyond headline scores to identify the specific drivers shaping employee sentiment in their context. By combining robust data with practical, actionable insights, we support leaders to make informed decisions that sustain engagement gains and build resilience into 2026 and beyond.

If you’d like to understand how your organisation compares to these benchmark trends, or explore the key factors that strengthen Motivation and Advocacy in your workforce, our team is here to help – Contact us today!

We’ll also be finishing a little earlier than usual on Friday 19th December at 13:00, as we head off to enjoy the TSI Christmas lunch.

We love what we do and are truly appreciate your support. Wishing you a joyful holiday season and a healthy, happy New Year.

Warm wishes,

From everyone at The Survey Initiative