Terminology<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, much depth is crucially lacking<\/a><\/strong> in several places.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Maybe especially in conceptual modern human-oriented science, where it is nevertheless most \u2013 deeply \u2013 needed. Rationality and human depth ought to be friends<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, this lack of depth leads to a meaning crisis<\/a> that engulfs large parts of the world, getting significantly worse every year. I see as main reason for this the discrepancy between technological and human progress. That conundrum will not be solved by superficially making people \u2018accountable.\u2019 Even more, doing so quickly becomes part of the problem. Meanwhile, technological progress is not a bad thing. Let\u2019s use it for people, not against them. So, what is needed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, depth<\/a> is not the most accessible concept. Yet without it, one may want to realize many three-dimensional things in a two-dimensional way. Effective? Towards what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Superficial engagement <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is about over-dramatizing, demanding excessive attention, (c)overt manipulation, ducking from responsibility, weakness instead of gentleness<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Superficial engagement<\/em> is fickle as mere-ego<\/a> \u2014 better therefore not to call it engagement<\/em>. Emotional contagion<\/em> (in the landscape of empathy<\/a>) might be a more appropriate concept to work with in contrast to genuine, deep engagement, which is simply called engagement<\/em> in the rest of this text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Without the third dimension, things may backfire.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n One then thinks to engage people while driving them away. Unfortunately, one may conclude after a while that ‘engagement<\/em>‘ principally doesn\u2019t work \u2014 the more so if the situation seems to clear up after striving less for (this kind of) engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You got it: Here comes a new swing of the pendulum. This can go on and on because, in two dimensions, nothing related to human complexity really works. As a result, the goal itself of HR (human resource departments) lies under serious scrutiny. Meanwhile, the new whatever may temporarily seem<\/em> to work because expectations work \u2014 for a while, even after repeatedly having been \u2018new.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a physician and cognitive scientist, I know how well expectation works, for instance, in the placebo phenomenon. Notoriously, a new placebo-rife medication generally shows a honeymoon period after which the magic (and effectiveness) drops. Ask any insightful physician.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New fads can keep working as long as they keep up the expectation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the meantime, lack of deep engagement leads to burnout<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This doesn\u2019t put guilt anywhere. Burnout is the object of joint responsibility, no guilt<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The negative influence of low engagement may be less apparent because it plays at longer term. The long and winding road of burnout<\/a> may thus affect companies (and societies) profoundly in less obvious ways. \u2018Successful\u2019 short- to mid-term solutions are not necessarily the best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Burnout is not a symptom of people\u2019s laziness or ethical shortcomings. It is a symptom of the above-mentioned discrepancy and meaning crisis. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Naturally, people loathe jobs and love to work<\/a>. So, what is needed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Engagement drives results (and prevents burnout) if it\u2019s the right <\/em>engagement.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Such engagement is rooted pretty deeply\/strongly. Without solid roots comes a storm and gone is the tree. Conversely, look at the results. If they don\u2019t show and keep showing, or trees are falling, the engagement may not be strong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the question is, what leads to strong engagement?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Does accountability do the trick?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, accountability may look purely at numbers and treat people as tools. We\u2019re not even talking about that. Facts are facts. One fact is that people are natural organisms, not mechanisms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Feeling accountable, too, may go superficial or deep. The former option can be more readily seen as a conscious choice, relieving the burden from who might otherwise be seen as responsible in leadership. As you may guess, I\u2019m rather into deep accountability, where conscious choice is less evident, and accountability drifts to engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The more genuine the engagement\/accountability is, the better it may grow. People become more self-accountable\/self-engaged from the inside out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whence come the results of deep engagement?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n One may look at the same source as with deep motivation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yes, \u2018deep\u2019 again, as in many overlaps of broad mental-neuronal pattern (MNPs)<\/a> in the brain \u2015 with each other and with outside patterns, thereby putting things into motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The search is for how to encourage these overlaps \u2015 preferably without any manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, what may concretely lead people to high accountability\/engagement?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n One element is already present in this question, where you find \u2018lead,\u2019 which indicates leadership. I dare say, Open Leadership<\/a>, pointing to profoundly inside, in overlap of MNPs, then to profoundly outside. Open Leadership is a joint effort to the highest degree, as is anything that leads to genuine engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Still, this doesn\u2019t diminish the leaders\u2019 job \u2014 for instance, in being the prime source of jointness. Open Leadership makes people feel accountable\/engaged from the inside out, where it is most effective. In such cases, people\u2019s trust in their leaders is earned by the latter. The Open Leader\u2019s role is not to make people (superficially) happy but meaningful \u2015 which is, of course, the true source of happiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Eventually, the goal of it all is a continual striving for true excellence<\/a>.<\/p>\n