Having full economic engagement from both employees and society is essential to fostering the highest-performing organizations and economy possible. Just as a car cannot operate at full speed if only four of its eight cylinders are firing, an economy cannot reach its potential without fully engaged human capital. A fully engaged workforce drives higher performance, productivity, and innovation—making it clear that maximizing human potential wherever possible simply makes sense.
Consider the concept of “quiet quitting.” This occurs when people feel their efforts are not adequately recognized or rewarded in the workplace, leading them to reduce their contributions. Although often discussed as a modern phenomenon, it has likely existed across generations. In the past, a factory worker might have slowed down on the assembly line; today, in a knowledge-based economy, it might mean withholding one’s best ideas.
Another scenario arises when favoritism or nepotism shapes workplace opportunities. In such environments, individuals who possess greater skill or talent may recognize that advancement depends more on affiliation than merit, leading them to disengage. As a result, the organization’s most capable individuals may not perform to their full potential because the system rewards the wrong criteria.
For various reasons, employees may not always be fully engaged. Yet, as leaders, the more we can encourage people to contribute their ideas, creativity, and innovation, the stronger our economy becomes. Increased participation leads to more invention, diverse perspectives, and new ways of solving problems—all of which drive economic growth. While the value of engagement is not always easy to quantify, it is certainly measurable and meaningful.
The following piece, The Economics of Engagement, explores this concept in greater depth. It presents research and evidence demonstrating that full employee engagement leads to higher performance and offers insight into the types of studies conducted in this field.
Applying to the Story of the Clan:
Let us consider this within The Story of the Clan as a philosophical and theoretical thought experiment exploring what happens when intentional wrongdoing leads to lower or higher societal performance. In this story, laws were manipulated to protect misconduct, and those who came forward to report it faced retaliation, targeting, and false accusations. Hate-based rumors were used to block employment and social participation (ostracization), while those same rumors hindered investigations that could have protected future victims. Ultimately, it was the community that had to take action—initiating investigations through information requests, removing allegedly corrupt officials, and demanding transparency—because many decision-makers within and outside the Clan had lost sight of the higher purpose of law.
In this example, excluding certain members of society while favoring other (in-group/clan) led not only to deep disparities but also to a diminished capacity for collective progress. The values and moral resolve of the people eventually helped correct the wrongdoing that had limited their growth. In standing up for what was essential, they discovered renewed social and economic benefits that strengthened their sense of community and created new opportunities for the future. While research continues to explore the relationship between full economic engagement, the integrity of social contracts, and societal outcomes, this story illustrates that these elements are deeply interconnected. We should judge leadership on their ability to create opportunities for maximum engagement and success.
No comments:
Post a Comment