The best intentions don’t build the best engagement.

Employee engagement programs don’t fail because organisations don’t care. They fail because caring isn’t the same as designing.

Every employee engagement program begins with a good intention. “We want our people to feel recognised.” “We want to bring out the best in our people.” “We want to build a stronger culture.” These are among the most common reasons organisations invest in employee engagement programs. And they’re all worthy ambitions. 

But good intentions alone can’t build good engagement. It would be a stretch to say that good intentions pave the road to engagement hell, but it’s certainly true that those good intentions can easily go awry, or just not go anywhere at all. They are only a beginning. There is – or should be – a lot of thinking that happens between the initial intent and the eventual outcome.  

This is where the program design happens. And it’s this space that determines whether an employee engagement program will succeed, or quietly fall short of its potential. Because it’s not a space for simply ticking boxes or colouring by numbers. It’s a space for interrogation, filled with complexity, best navigated with experience and skill. 

In this article, we’ll look at the three common examples of good intentions, and how complicated they become once you begin asking the right questions (and they are questions that must be asked). We’ll cover some of the potential pitfalls and mistakes that can be made. And we’ll also provide some insight and direction to avoid those pitfalls.

“We want our people to feel recognised.”

Recognition seems simple enough. And at a very basic level, it is: Someone does good work. They receive recognition. They feel appreciated and motivated. 

But almost immediately, the design questions begin. 

Who can recognise whom? Should recognition come only from managers, or should peers be able to recognise each other too? 

What kinds of contribution deserve recognition? Should exceptional performance be recognised differently from consistent day-to-day contribution? 

How do you ensure that employees working in support functions, remote environments or behind the scenes are just as visible as, say, customer facing teams? 

What happens if one manager embraces the program enthusiastically while another rarely participates? 

Without careful design, a program intended to make people feel valued can inadvertently create the opposite effect. Employees compare experiences. Some may feel consistently recognised while others feel invisible. Some achievements may be celebrated repeatedly while other equally valuable contributions go unnoticed. Unintentionally, recognition can feel inconsistent and, worse, have a negative effect. 

The answer isn’t to recognise everyone in the same way. Ironically, that often removes the very thing that makes recognition feel genuine. Instead of seeking uniformity, good program design should create consistency. 

Consistency in this context means that everyone understands what kinds of behaviours are recognised, how the program works, and how recognition aligns with organisational values. Within that framework, managers and colleagues still have the freedom to recognise people in authentic and appropriate ways. The goal isn’t identical experiences, but rather a shared sense that recognition is fair, meaningful and deserved. 

Good design will account for this in the rules, mechanics and communication. Poor design will overlook the small details, which are often only visible to the trained eye.

“We want to bring out the best in our people.” 

This sounds equally straightforward. Until someone asks a deceptively simple question: What does “the best” actually look like? 

Different organisations will answer differently. For some, it means productivity. For some, innovation. For others, customer service. Collaboration. Safety. Leadership. Continuous improvement. 

The program can’t be designed until that question has been answered. 

One of the most common design mistakes is rewarding what is easiest to observe rather than what matters most. Sales figures, for example, are easy to measure. But helping a colleague solve a difficult problem is less visible. Individual achievements are often easier to recognise than collaborative ones. The employee who quietly mentors new team members may have a greater long-term impact than the person who delivers one outstanding result. 

Good program design starts by identifying the behaviours that contribute to success, not simply the outcomes that success produces. 

If collaboration is critical, recognise collaboration. If innovation matters, recognise curiosity, experimentation and problem solving, not only successful ideas. If customer experience is the priority, recognise the behaviours that build trust and relationships, not just revenue. 

This distinction matters because recognition always tells employees something. Subtly, implicitly, but very powerfully, it tells them what the organisation notices. More importantly, it tells them what the organisation values. 

When those two things are aligned, recognition does more than show appreciation. It shapes behaviour – the kind of behaviour an organisation values. 

“We want to build a stronger culture.”  

Culture is one of those words that shows up in mission statements, value posters or leadership presentations. But actually, culture is built much more practically than that. It’s built through repeated behaviour. 

The behaviours that an organisation encourages, rewards and celebrates gradually become the behaviours its people believe matter most. 

Every recognition program, therefore, shapes culture, whether intentionally or not. 

Imagine two organisations that both claim to value teamwork. In the first, almost every award recognises individual performance. Top salesperson. Highest productivity. Biggest account won. In the second, recognition also celebrates mentoring, cross-functional collaboration, knowledge sharing and helping colleagues succeed. Both organisations talk about teamwork, but only one consistently reinforces it. 

The same principle applies to every organisational value. If inclusivity matters, recognition should reach every part of the workforce, not just the people whose achievements are easiest to see. If continuous improvement matters, employees should be recognised for identifying better ways of working, not only for delivering exceptional results. If wellbeing matters, organisations should be careful not to celebrate behaviours that unintentionally reward burnout, like consistently working long hours. 

Recognition isn’t just recognition. It communicates expectations. Every recognition decision sends a signal about what success looks like in this organisation. 

Thoughtful design ensures that those signals are intentional.

Design is the program behind the program. 

When employees experience a successful engagement program, they see only a small part of what has been designed. They see a recognition platform, receive a reward, attend a celebration. 

What they don’t see is the thinking behind those moments. 

How were the behaviours selected? How were managers prepared to participate? How was fairness considered across different roles, departments and locations? How were the program rules designed to encourage participation without complexity? How were recognition moments balanced between formal and informal, individuals and teams, public and private? How were rewards chosen so they reinforced the program’s objectives? 

None of these decisions are necessarily visible. But together they determine whether the program feels natural or forced, fair or inconsistent, motivating or forgettable. 

The irony is that the best designed engagement programs often feel effortless. Employees don’t experience the hundreds of design decisions that made it possible. Conversely, if the right kind of effort hasn’t been made behind the scenes, the program can fail or be forgettable. And good intentions never become more than just that.  

Get our eGuide: How to design an incentive program.
This 7-part series covers the major parts of program design in short, accessible issues. Get Issue 1 now.