forbes.com
Global Manager Engagement Crisis Costs \$438 Billion in Lost Productivity
Gallup's 2025 report reveals a 21% global employee engagement rate, costing \$438 billion in lost productivity, primarily due to declining manager engagement (27%), impacting team performance, well-being, and economic growth. Three key solutions are proposed: manager training, coaching-based leadership, and ongoing support.
- What is the primary cause of the significant drop in global employee engagement in 2024, and what are its immediate economic consequences?
- In 2024, global employee engagement plummeted to 21%, costing the world economy \$438 billion in lost productivity. This decline is primarily attributed to disengaged managers, whose engagement dropped from 30% to 27%, impacting team performance and overall well-being.
- How does the decline in manager engagement disproportionately affect specific demographics, and what are the implications for future leadership?
- Gallup's research reveals a strong correlation between manager engagement and team engagement, with managers accounting for at least 70% of the variance. Declining manager engagement, particularly among younger and female managers, signals deeper organizational issues impacting productivity and economic growth.
- What long-term strategies can organizations implement to address the manager engagement crisis and foster a more sustainable and productive workforce?
- The crisis necessitates a three-pronged approach: providing basic management training to all managers, implementing coaching-based leadership techniques, and investing in ongoing development and support. These strategies, when effectively implemented, can significantly boost manager well-being, leading to higher team engagement and improved profitability.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue as a "crisis," using strong language to emphasize the severity of declining manager engagement and its economic consequences. While the statistics are alarming, this framing could be perceived as overly dramatic or alarmist. The headline and introduction immediately establish the critical nature of the situation, potentially influencing the reader's interpretation before presenting detailed data and analysis.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotive language, such as "staggering," "alarming," and "crisis," throughout the text. While aiming to highlight the significance of the issue, this language may lack objectivity. For instance, instead of "staggering $438 billion in lost productivity," a more neutral phrasing would be "a significant $438 billion in lost productivity." Similarly, replacing "alarming decline" with "substantial decrease" could enhance neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on manager disengagement and its impact, but could benefit from including perspectives from other stakeholders, such as employees or executives with different experiences. While the article mentions the challenges faced by young and female managers, it does not explore the experiences of managers from other demographic groups or those in different industries. The impact on specific sectors or geographical regions beyond the US and Canada could also be explored.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic view of the problem, focusing primarily on manager engagement as the sole driver of employee disengagement. While it acknowledges other factors indirectly, a more nuanced discussion of the interplay between various workplace factors would strengthen the analysis.
Gender Bias
The article acknowledges the disproportionate impact on female managers, noting their steeper decline in engagement. However, it could benefit from a more in-depth analysis of the underlying reasons for this disparity and offer concrete recommendations beyond general training suggestions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant decline in global employee engagement, resulting in substantial economic losses. Disengaged managers negatively impact team performance, productivity, and overall economic growth. The $438 billion loss in productivity is a direct consequence of low manager and employee engagement, hindering economic progress and demonstrating a negative impact on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). The lack of manager training and support further exacerbates the issue, preventing the achievement of decent work conditions and sustainable economic growth.