Speaker: Denis Migot
This talk wasn’t about tech — but about people. Specifically, what it really means to be engaged (or not) at work, why it matters, and how misunderstandings around engagement can hurt both individuals and organizations.
Engagement isn’t a well-defined or stable state. Neither employees nor managers often agree on what it means, what its effects are, or how it should be cultivated.
What Is Engagement?
Referencing John Meyer & Natalie Allen’s work, the speaker outlined three types of engagement:
-
Affective Engagement: Emotional attachment to the organization. It’s the strongest predictor of whether someone stays.
-
Continuance Engagement: Staying because leaving would be costly — financial, social, or career-wise.
-
Normative Engagement: Staying out of a sense of moral duty or obligation.
François Dupuy added that real engagement is seen when people do the little extra things not formally in their job descriptions or rules.
The Dark Sides: Disengagement and Over-Engagement
Disengagement can show up as:
-
Physical, emotional, and cognitive absence.
-
Lack of vigilance, interest, and interpretation.
-
Following rules without critical thinking — like a customs officer sticking to inefficient rules leading to chaos.
Over-engagement happens when employees internalize organizational goals to the point they transform them into personal compulsions — especially in startups promoting hustle culture. This can quickly turn toxic, leading to burnout when recognition or balance is absent.
Misconceptions & Organizational Traps
The speaker tackled several flawed ideas:
-
Being engaged is always good: No — constant over-involvement without recognition breeds resentment and exhaustion.
-
Engagement is stable: False — it fluctuates with tasks, teams, context, and even within the same job.
-
Engagement means working long hours: Not at all — someone working relentlessly might be ineffective or self-destructive, while a truly engaged person finds meaning and satisfaction in their work.
-
Disengagement is an individual’s fault: No — it often stems from structural problems: lack of recognition, absence of career prospects, poor management, toxic environments, health and psychosocial risks.
Building Real Engagement
Denis Migot argued you can’t decree engagement through top-down processes, slogans, or annual seminars. Engagement grows through:
-
Recognizing people meaningfully
-
Allowing people to be authentic at work, to express doubts and frustrations without fear
-
Creating safe, constructive spaces for disengagement and recovery
-
Being honest during recruitment about the realities of the job, not selling a fantasy
Amélie Sandoval’s thesis emphasized that engagement isn’t just about financial perks but about psychological safety and recognition.
Side Notes & Critiques
-
Criticism of corporate “values” reduced to marketing slogans and meaningless seminars.
-
Acknowledgement that silos naturally happen, but poor communication across them fuels conflict through misunderstanding.
-
Startups often blur the line between personal and professional life — this can feel engaging at first but risks manipulation.
In the Q&A, there was a sharp critique of some consultants who exacerbate organizational problems for personal prestige.
And a note that engagement varies culturally — in France, for instance, people expect strong recognition for their work.
Key Takeaway
Engagement is a complex, multi-dimensional, unstable force that binds employees to their organizations.
You can’t fake or impose it. People naturally commit to meaningful work, but when that effort isn’t acknowledged or valued, it turns into disengagement, cynicism, and burnout.