An organisation can report high employee engagement and still struggle to retain its best people. Employees may express satisfaction with their workplace while simultaneously considering opportunities elsewhere. The contradiction raises an uncomfortable question for HR: are engagement surveys measuring what organisations actually need to know?
For Dev Jha, CHRO at India Glycols, engagement is only one part of a much larger picture. The real indicators lie in whether employees choose to stay, develop their careers and contribute beyond what their roles formally require. The same distinction between what organisations say and what employees experience runs through his views on workplace grievances, AI adoption, compensation transparency and sustainability.
India Glycols operates in chemicals and biopharma, with green chemistry and the use of natural and renewable raw materials forming part of its business approach. In conversation with HRKatha, Jha explains why employee trust depends less on declarations of intent than on the decisions and practices people encounter at work.
What engagement scores miss
If an organisation reports high engagement but continues to lose valuable employees, what is its engagement survey failing to capture?
Engagement scores are useful, but they are not the same as commitment or retention. A highly engaged employee can still leave if career growth, compensation, role opportunities or external prospects change.
There is a need to move beyond measuring “how happy are you?” to “how connected are you, and what are you willing to contribute?”
Engagement surveys need to be complemented with indicators such as retention of critical talent, internal mobility, career progression, manager effectiveness and discretionary effort.
These tell you something that a satisfaction score cannot.
The real measure of engagement is not what employees say in a survey, but whether they choose to stay, grow and contribute beyond the minimum.
“Purpose becomes credible when it is built into the business model and experienced in everyday decisions, not simply communicated in reports.”
The internal signal behind the public outburst
When employees take workplace grievances to social media, is that primarily a reputation-management problem or evidence that internal listening mechanisms have failed?
HR and corporate communications have different responsibilities, but in a crisis they must operate as one coordinated team. HR owns the employee and workplace dimension. Communications manages the external narrative. Both must be aligned on facts and transparency.
Public outbursts are often a signal that an employee did not feel heard or did not see an effective internal channel to raise a concern.
The bigger lesson for HR is to strengthen listening mechanisms, manager connect and grievance-resolution processes so that concerns are addressed internally before they escalate externally.
Ultimately, the best reputation management starts with a healthy employee voice system inside the organisation. By the time a workplace issue becomes a social media story, the internal failure has already happened.
Pull quote: “Transparency in compensation is about trust and credibility. People may not always agree with an outcome, but they should understand the principles behind it.”
AI as amplifier
As AI enters laboratories, manufacturing plants and supply chains, how can organisations help employees see it as an extension of their capabilities rather than a threat to their roles?
The focus should be on helping employees understand where AI can improve productivity, decision-making and learning in their day-to-day roles. Position AI as an amplifier of human capability, not a replacement for people.
The reskilling approach is practical: build AI awareness for everyone, role-specific digital skills for relevant functions, and deeper capabilities for teams working directly with technology.
Encouraging employees to experiment with AI in real business use cases is equally important. That is where confidence comes from, not from classroom sessions alone.
The biggest pushback is usually not about the technology itself, but uncertainty about how roles will change. Transparency, hands-on learning and demonstrating tangible benefits are therefore critical to building confidence and adoption.
“The biggest pushback on AI is not about the technology itself, but uncertainty about how roles will change.”
Transparency that builds trust
With salary information becoming increasingly accessible, how can organisations offer meaningful pay transparency without disclosing every employee’s compensation?
Compensation transparency is increasingly becoming an expectation, but transparency does not necessarily mean publishing every individual salary.
The focus should be on ensuring that the compensation philosophy is fair, market-aligned and internally consistent, with greater clarity on how pay decisions are made.
As salary information becomes more accessible, employees naturally benchmark themselves against the market. The business case for transparency is therefore trust and credibility.
People may not always agree with an outcome, but they should understand the principles behind it.
The right direction is towards greater transparency in pay structures, career progression and performance-linked rewards, while retaining appropriate confidentiality around individual compensation.
That balance is harder to achieve than either full disclosure or full opacity, but it is the one that actually builds trust over time.
“The best reputation management starts with a healthy employee voice system inside the organisation.”
Sustainability as business model, not agenda
Many organisations communicate a strong sustainability purpose. How can employees distinguish a commitment embedded in the business from one that exists mainly in corporate messaging?
Sustainability is not just a stated value. It must be embedded in the business model and the organisation’s heritage.
At India Glycols, a belief in green chemistry means that a significant part of the raw material feedstock comes from natural and renewable sources. That is not a sustainability initiative layered on top of the business. It is the foundation of how the business operates.
Sustainability influences not only the projects invested in, but also the capabilities built, the talent attracted, the behaviours recognised and the choices made as an organisation.
Employees need to understand that sustainability is not the responsibility of one function. It is a business responsibility.
The real test of authenticity is whether the sustainability philosophy is visible in everyday business decisions, innovation and operations, and whether employees can see a clear connection between what is said and what is actually done.
Purpose becomes credible when it is built into the business model and experienced in everyday decisions, not simply communicated in reports or presentations.
“The real measure of engagement is not what employees say in a survey, but whether they choose to stay, grow and contribute beyond the minimum.”