The Corporate Care Illusion.

The Corporate Care Illusion. 

Why Companies Support the Role — But Not the Human Behind It.

“We care about our people.”

But the data tells a more uncomfortable truth:.....

Transcript

The Corporate Care Illusion. 

After more than 20 years in leadership roles, and even in my current industry, I’ve heard the same sentence repeated across industries, cultures, meetings, and mission statements.

  At the close of this thought, I will also share my thoughts on a specific team I worked on during my years in the cable industry, as well as on one interview that panned out very well. I will also include a conversation I had with Human Resources after another supervisor questioned my interviewing style because I did not hire his friend. But let’s get back to the topic.

The Corporate Care Illusion. 

Why Companies Support the Role — But Not the Human Behind It.

“We care about our people.”

But the data tells a more uncomfortable truth: that most companies don’t actually care about the person.

They care about the function the person performs, and employees feel the difference.

The Gap Between Words and Reality.

Let’s start with a simple but powerful statistic:

In 2024, only 39% of U.S. employees strongly agreed that someone at work cares about them as a person — down from 47% in 2020. 

That means 6 out of 10 workers do NOT feel personally cared about at work.
Yet nearly every company claims to prioritize people.

So what’s happening?

Organizations often care about:
Retention.
Productivity.
Engagement scores.
Output.

But those are metrics tied to the employee identity, not the human identity.

Engagement Is Collapsing — Despite All the “People First” Messaging.

If companies truly cared about people holistically, we would expect engagement to rise.

Instead:
Only 31% of U.S. employees are engaged at work — a 10-year low.  
Globally, engagement sits at just 21%.  
62% of employees are not engaged, and 17% are actively disengaged.  

Even more telling:

Global disengagement cost the economy $438 billion in lost productivity in 2024. 
Companies are investing heavily in wellness programs, engagement tools, and culture branding.
Yet the lived experience of employees continues to decline.

That’s because most initiatives are designed to improve:

Performance.
Retention.
Efficiency.
but —not human flourishing.

Companies Invest — But Often for Output.

Research consistently shows that when companies invest in people, performance improves:
Recognition increases engagement by 69%.  
High engagement organizations see 43% lower turnover.
Companies prioritizing appreciation experience have 31% lower turnover.
Sounds great — until you ask:

Why are these investments made?
Often not because leadership values human dignity — but because engagement improves:

Productivity (+18%).  
Profitability (+23%).  
Earnings per share (+125%).  
In other words:
Care is frequently instrumental, not intrinsic.

The Manager Effect: Care Is Local, Not Corporate.

Another revealing insight:
70% of team engagement is determined by the manager. 

Translation:
People don’t feel cared about by companies.
They feel cared about by humans inside them.

This aligns with another finding:
Only 27% of managers globally are engaged themselves. 
Burned-out leaders cannot create human-centered cultures.

So the system defaults to operational care:
Career growth programs.
Wellness initiatives.
Learning platforms.

All useful…
But still centered on improving the employee-as-asset.

The Structural Truth: Organizations Optimize Roles.

Organizations are designed to maximize:
Stability.
Efficiency.
Predictability.
Humans are complex; Roles are not.

So systems naturally drift toward caring about:

How well you perform your function, rather than how well you live your life

This is why:
41% of employees cite lack of growth as a top disengagement driver  
58% blame complacent leadership for disengagement  

People don’t disengage because companies fail to offer yoga classes.
They disengage because they feel unseen beyond their output.

The Exception: Companies That Act, Not Speak

Some Organizations are trying to bridge the gap.

Lists like “100 Companies That Care” are based on surveys from over 8.4 million employees and highlight companies investing in:

Tuition-free education
Mental health support
Community impact  

But the existence of such lists proves the rule:
If true care were standard … We wouldn’t need rankings to identify it.

The Leadership Challenge.
Real care is costly because it requires:
Flexibility over uniformity.
Humanity over efficiency.
Long-term trust over short-term output.

And most systems are not built that way.

So the modern workplace lands in a middle ground:
“We support your role.”
“We value your performance.”
“We invest in your development.”

But rarely:
“We care about you independent of what you produce.”

Final Thought.
Companies don’t intentionally become uncaring.
They become optimized, and optimization rarely aligns with humanity.

The future of leadership won’t be defined by better engagement tools.
It will be defined by a simple shift:
From managing employees to stewarding people.

The Team

I’ve always believed that if you’re going to lead people, you need to know them. Not just their employee ID—but who they are, what drives them, and what matters to them outside of work.

I never asked anyone to do something I wouldn’t do myself. I understood that most people come to work for a paycheck—but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to do a good job. Most do. They just want to be respected while they’re doing it.

When you genuinely care about people, they care back. That’s exactly what I experienced with my last team as a Tap Audit Supervisor at Bright House Networks many years ago. I had led several teams before them—but this group was different. They were special.

You could see it at the end of every single workday.

Like clockwork, they would check in with me. And almost every time, it started the same way:

“Where do you need me?”
“Who needs help?”

You could set your watch by it.

Sometimes they didn’t even wait for me. They were already checking on each other. They were willing to stay late if needed—something almost unheard of among service techs at the time. They had each other’s backs, and I was beyond proud of them.

A few examples still stick with me:

Corie and Bruce worked in the same area. One afternoon Corie called and said,
“Hey, Bruce is tied up on one and he’s going to be there awhile. Send me the other one.”

Scapp would call in with,
“Alright, who’s in trouble and where are they?”

Bruce once checked in and said,
“Corie’s on his last one and should be done shortly. Anyone else need help?”

That was their mindset.

What they didn’t say—what I heard so often from other teams over the years—was,
“Can I go home?”
Or complaints when asked to cover another job.

There was no whining. No resentment. Just accountability and teamwork.

They took pride in their work. They took care of each other. And because of that, they made my job easier than any team I had ever led.

That wasn’t luck. That was culture.

The Interview

I once interviewed a woman for an HSD Call Center position—what we called a Product Specialist at the time. She arrived well-dressed, poised, and clearly very intelligent. Her resume was impressive.

After speaking with her for a few minutes, it became obvious that she was significantly overqualified for the role. But like many people during that time, she simply needed work and was ready to get started wherever she could.

I paused for a moment and then told her honestly that she was overqualified for the position she was applying for. I could see the disappointment flash across her face.

Then I asked her something I don’t normally ask in interviews:
“Do you truly want this job?”

I went on to explain in detail what the role involved—the repetitive calls, the structured scripts, the frustrations that come with front-line customer service.

She didn’t hesitate. She wanted to move forward.

That’s when I told her, “I’ll recommend to HR that we bring you onboard. But understand this—I’m not hiring you just for this position. I’m hiring you for what you’ll become here. There will be days when things won’t make sense. There will be processes that frustrate you. If you can push through that and stay the course, I believe you’ll be an asset to this company in future roles.”

She agreed.

Over time, she proved that instinct right. She not only succeeded in the role but went on to earn several leadership positions within the company.

Sometimes the best hires aren’t for the job in front of you—they’re for the potential you see beyond it.

The HR Conversation

A fellow supervisor was upset with me because I didn’t hire a friend of his. As a result, I was called into HR and asked why I approve fewer candidates than some of the other supervisors.

I explained that earlier in my career, I hired a young man who turned out to be a nightmare employee. He caused ongoing issues, and looking back, I realized I hadn’t done my job properly during the interview process. That experience forced me to change my approach.

Now, when I receive a resume, I carefully review the applicant’s previous occupations. I research those roles—tools used, required skills, even industry-specific terminology. During the interview, I ask detailed questions about their past work.

I’m not just looking for technical overlap with the cable industry. I’m listening for something more important: Did this person take the time to truly learn their previous job? Can they clearly explain their responsibilities? Do they use accurate terminology and describe their work in a way that shows engagement and understanding?

Even if their prior experience has nothing to do with cable, that doesn’t disqualify them. What matters most to me is whether they cared enough to master their last role. If they did, there’s a strong chance they’ll take the time to learn this one.

HR understood my reasoning, and the issue was dropped. Ironically, the candidate in question was later hired in another region—and ended up causing significant problems there.