Organizations have a long and surprisingly durable habit of prescribing training whenever performance is not quite where someone hoped it would be. A team is missing deadlines, so perhaps it needs time-management training. Managers are avoiding difficult conversations, so perhaps they need a workshop on courageous leadership. Employees are not making proper use of the new system, so everyone is invited back for another demonstration, this time with refreshed slides and a facilitator who has been encouraged to make the material more interactive.

Sometimes training is exactly what is needed. At other times, it is a square peg being carefully and professionally introduced to a round hole, followed by an evaluation form asking whether participants enjoyed the experience.

The problem is rarely a shortage of available interventions. Organizations can communicate more, train more, coach more, restructure the work, revise incentives, introduce a new process or remind everyone that the matter has become a strategic priority. What they often lack is a sufficiently clear understanding of what is preventing the desired action in the first place.

That same problem may sit quietly inside the way we think about employee engagement.

Engagement is commonly presented as a score: a summarized indication of how employees feel about their work, their leaders and the organization around them. The score is portrayed on a dashboard, usually accompanied by a trend line, a comparison with last year and some colour coding intended to reduce the amount of time anyone must spend thinking about it.

There is value in knowing whether people feel connected, supported, proud or inclined to remain. Yet the score can also become performative. Leaders celebrate when it rises, worry when it falls and occasionally commission an action plan whose first recommendation is to communicate the survey results more effectively.

The more useful idea may be that employee engagement is not principally a score at all. It is an inventory of readiness to act.

That readiness includes the willingness and ability to contribute, cooperate, persist, exercise judgment, adapt, raise concerns and solve problems. It also includes an innovative readiness to act: the preparedness to notice that something is no longer working, imagine an alternative and participate in making it real.

Once engagement is understood that way, however, it can no longer remain an abstract quantity. Readiness always points toward something, which means that the question “How engaged are our employees?” is incomplete until someone adds, “Engaged and ready for what?”

The Missing Object of Engagement

People are seldom ready for everything in equal measure. An employee may be thoroughly ready to provide dependable service while being reluctant to challenge a process that everyone knows is inefficient. Another may be eager to improve the work but no longer willing to absorb a sixth organizational priority while the first five continue to occupy the calendar.

A manager may care deeply about the organization and still lack the authority to make the decision leadership says should be made closer to the work. A team may possess the knowledge and motivation required for change while having no practical space in which to attempt it.

A general engagement score can flatten these distinctions. It may provide a useful signal about the overall employment experience, but it tells us much less about whether people are ready to do the particular things upon which the organization’s plans depend.

This is where the square-peg problem returns. When an important action does not occur, organizations tend to reach for familiar explanations. Employees are resistant. Managers need to be held accountable. Communication has not landed. The culture is not sufficiently innovative. Someone needs training.

Any of those explanations may be true, but each points toward a different remedy. If people do not understand what is expected, communication or instruction may help. If they understand and agree but have no time, another course merely occupies more of the time they do not have.

If employees know how to raise a concern but believe doing so will damage their standing, the problem is not a deficiency in speaking-up skills. If managers have been told to exercise judgment but every consequential decision is reversed or escalated, the organization has created readiness in theory and discouraged it in practice.

Training sometimes fails because the training was poor. It also fails because it was asked to repair an absence of capacity, permission, trust, coordination or consequence.

A readiness lens does not remove training from the toolbox. It simply discourages the organization from selecting the tool before it has looked properly at the hole.

Readiness for Consequential Work

The idea becomes more interesting when we stop treating readiness as a generic quality and instead ask what kinds of work the organization may need people to be ready for.

Perhaps the work ahead will require people to adapt established practices, collaborate across boundaries, exercise greater judgment, raise concerns earlier or persist through a difficult transition. Perhaps it will require people to learn something new, challenge an assumption, protect an important standard under pressure or redirect effort toward a priority that cannot simply be added to everything else already on the list.

These are not identical forms of readiness, and they may not be equally available.

An organization can therefore appear broadly engaged while being poorly prepared for a specific demand that matters greatly. People may care deeply about the organization while lacking confidence in a new role. They may support a strategy while doubting that leadership will make the trade-offs required to deliver it. They may be perfectly capable of offering dissent while having learned that dissent is rarely welcomed when the stakes are high.

The practical question is not whether employees possess some general reservoir called engagement. It is whether the forms of readiness the organization expects to rely upon are actually available when needed.

That distinction matters because readiness is not located entirely inside the employee. It is produced through the relationship between the person, the work being asked of them and the conditions surrounding that work.

A person may understand what is needed and see good reason to act, yet lack time or authority. Someone else may have the capability and permission but believe, based on prior experience, that acting will lead nowhere. In both cases, readiness exists in part but is not fully accessible to the organization.

That is a more useful diagnosis than simply declaring that engagement is low.

A Different Kind of Inventory

Thinking this way does not necessarily require an enormous new measurement system. In fact, the concept loses some of its usefulness if it becomes another sprawling diagnostic whose complexity exceeds the problem it was meant to clarify.

The beginning is more modest. An organization identifies the forms of readiness that matter to the work ahead, explores whether those forms of readiness appear available, and pays attention to the conditions that strengthen or constrain them.

The result is less a scorecard than an inventory.

It might reveal, for example, that employees are strongly ready to maintain reliable service but only conditionally ready to adopt a new operating model. It might show that people are willing to raise concerns but doubt that those concerns will produce useful action. It might reveal considerable capability for collaboration sitting inside systems that make cross-functional work unnecessarily difficult.

Those distinctions matter because they suggest different responses.

Sometimes the answer will indeed be training. In other cases, the organization may need clearer authority, more capacity, better coordination, fewer competing priorities, a different managerial response or greater evidence that speaking, contributing or experimenting will actually lead somewhere worthwhile.

The point is not to admire the inventory. It is to make better decisions about what the organization must change if it wants to rely upon the readiness it is asking people to supply.

A More Useful Engagement Question

Traditional engagement measures need not disappear. Pride, trust, belonging, advocacy and intention to stay can all reveal important features of organizational life.

The readiness idea simply asks more of the concept. It asks what engagement makes possible.

A strategy is not executable merely because leaders have approved it, announced it and placed it into a document with an impressive opening photograph. It becomes executable when people are ready to perform the actions it requires under actual operating conditions.

The more useful question may therefore be less “How engaged are our employees?” and more "What are our people presently ready to do, what will we need them to be ready to do next, and what conditions will determine whether that readiness becomes action?"

That is not a rejection of engagement. It may be a way of making engagement more consequential.

And perhaps that is the larger point. If engagement is an inventory of readiness to act, then the organization’s responsibility is not merely to measure it. It is to understand what that readiness is for, where it is available, where it is being constrained and whether the organization itself has created conditions worthy of the effort it hopes people will make.

‍