1. Why Does Engagement Decline?
When engagement declines, many organizations tend to explain it by saying, “Younger employees today lack motivation,” “attachment to the company has weakened,” or “people leave quickly if conditions are not good.” But if the issue is framed only that way, the real cause is easily missed.
In reality, not everyone starts out cold toward the company at the time of joining or reassignment. On the contrary, many people begin work thinking, “I want to grow here,” “I want to contribute,” and “I want to meet expectations.” The company also has expectations, such as “we want this person to perform” and “we want this person to become a core contributor.”
Even so, over time, proposals decrease, people speak up less, they do only the minimum required work, or they begin thinking about leaving. These changes are not explained by personality alone. In many cases, they occur as the result of expectation gaps being left unresolved.
2. At the Time of Joining, Both Sides Have Positive Expectations
When employees join a company or are assigned to a new role, both the individual and the company usually begin with positive expectations. The individual thinks, “I want to use my strengths,” “I want to grow,” and “I want to be recognized.” The company thinks, “We want this person to take on this role,” and “We expect this person to contribute in this way.”
In other words, both sides typically begin with a certain level of positive expectation. The real issue is how far those expectations are actually shared, confirmed, and adjusted after work begins.
If that remains vague, employees begin to feel, “This is not the kind of work style I expected,” or “I do not understand what is really expected of me.” The company, meanwhile, begins to feel, “We want this person to act more proactively,” or “Why does this person not think and act independently?” As this gap accumulates, engagement quietly weakens.
3. TO DO Is Discussed. But TO BE Is Not Shared
In many companies, TO DO is communicated relatively clearly: the work itself, the goals, the scope of responsibility, and the deadlines. It is easier to explain what needs to be done, how far it should go, and what should be achieved.
However, what has a major impact on engagement is not only that. TO BE is often left surprisingly vague: what kind of attitude is expected in the role, what should guide judgment, and how the person is expected to relate to others.
As a result, employees may understand the work they are expected to do, but still not understand what they are expected to stand for, what should be prioritized, or what kind of presence they are expected to be in the role. The company thinks, “We should not need to spell all of that out.” The employee thinks, “That was exactly what I needed to be told.” This gap widens the disconnect in expectations.
4. Why Do Organizations Avoid Putting TO BE into Words?
TO DO is easy to put into words, but TO BE is not. That is because TO BE is not just about tasks. It touches on a person’s way of being, judgment tendencies, values, and interpersonal stance.
Organizations also tend to hesitate, thinking, “Wouldn’t that be too prescriptive?” or “Wouldn’t it be better to leave it vague so there is more flexibility?” As a result, TO DO is documented, while TO BE is left to atmosphere, culture, or each manager’s individual sense.
But when TO BE remains vague, employees are asked to deliver results without being given a clear picture of what kind of presence they are expected to be. The company thinks it is expressing expectations, but because the substance of those expectations is not actually shared, the workplace easily drifts into a state of “I will do what I am told, but nothing beyond that.”
In other words, engagement is not only an emotional issue. It is also a matter of how expectations are designed and shared.
5. Engagement Is the “Degree of Alignment in Expectations”
Engagement is not simply the amount of motivation a person has. It is heavily influenced by what the individual expects, what the company expects, and how closely those two expectations are aligned.
When the degree of alignment is high, people can understand their role more clearly and are more likely to contribute with a sense of conviction. When the gap in expectations continues, people begin to feel, “Nothing I do is ever enough,” “I cannot see the basis on which I am being judged,” or “I do not understand the point of continuing to work hard here.” At that stage, the way they engage with the organization quietly weakens.
For that reason, declining engagement cannot be solved by blaming only the individual’s motivation. The organization must review the operations that align expectations themselves: the fairness and clarity of evaluation, the fit of placement, dialogue with supervisors, and the clarity of role expectations.
So then, if engagement is to be reorganized not as a motivation problem, but as a problem of expectation design, what exactly needs to be reviewed?
6. What Needs to Be Reviewed to Move Toward a Solution
To solve this issue, organizations first need to clarify not only TO DO, but TO BE as well. It is necessary to put into words and share not only what needs to be done, but also what kind of stance is expected, what should guide judgment, and how people are expected to work with others.
In addition, when hiring, placement, evaluation, development, and dialogue with supervisors all operate separately, expectation gaps do not close. It is important to create one consistent line regarding what kind of person is being entrusted with what kind of role, and what will count as strong performance in that role.
A concrete solution to this issue is explained in detail on the following page.