Hacker News Reader

Another definition of mine: employee engagement is the proportion of the total employee cost that can be cut before the productivity starts decreasing, over the total of these expenses. Ranges between 0% and 100%. "100% engaged" ==> most probably the business owner: ready to pay all expenses from own pocket.

View on HN

How much you can exploit your employees before they abandon you is not a measure of engagement, it's a mesure of gullibility. Edit: or dependence.

LOL. People engage for all sorts of reasons, aren't they? Some could be very lucid but have no choice. Is exploiting those better then exploiting gullible people?

People engage for all sorts of reasons, indeed. Many of these reasons don't align well with predatory behaviour from the employer. That is why your definition is flawed.

I don't think my definition above is all that flaved (I have several, all more or less imperfect). By that definition, any reason making people be engaged, is good for employer, good as cost cuts with no downsides can be.

Note that this cost cutting can be considered predatory or not -- what if the engaged person's pay-and-benefits have a big proportion of RSUs which gain value after said cost cutting?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com