Designing Engagement That Lasts

Matthew Haywood, Student Communities and Leadership Manager, University of Sydney Union

What is meaningful engagement beyond headcount?

For years, student program success has typically been measured by attendance, sign-ups and post-event satisfaction surveys. Although these metrics are straightforward to collect, they seldom indicate whether students genuinely benefit from participation. In my experience across leadership, well-being, volunteering and co-curricular programs, an overemphasis on headcount as a vanity metric often diverts attention from the core purpose of student engagement: meeting student needs in a meaningful and sustained manner.

If performance were assessed solely by attendance, one could simply hand out money on campus to attract crowds, yet this would not deliver purposeful value. Universities and student-led organisations exist to support students during a formative and often demanding period of their lives. Meaningful participation begins by asking a fundamental question: what problems are our programs addressing for students, and are we the best equip to solve them?

Across diverse student programs and cohorts, a consistent truth emerges; students fundamentally seek connection, respect, support and confidence in their futures. Although student needs evolve, these foundational drivers remain stable. Participation becomes meaningful when programs are intentionally designed to achieve these outcomes, rather than retrofitting impact claims during post-program evaluations.

Reassessing passive involvement

A common assumption is that passive participation is inherently less valuable than active student contributions. However, I contend that even brief, restorative engagement, such as a student attending an activity between classes and leaving feeling more grounded, constitutes as meaningful impact. Engagement exists on a spectrum, and not all students are able or willing to participate at the same intensity. This variation does not diminish a program’s success or impact, although traditional success measures may suggest otherwise.

Problems arise when institutions expect active contribution without first addressing barriers to entry. Students are acutely aware of opportunity costs, as time, energy, and emotional capacity are limited, especially for those balancing work, study, financial pressures, and personal responsibilities. Students transition from passive to active engagement when they perceive their contribution as worthwhile, supported and achievable within their circumstances.

Programs that provide clear value, flexible entry points, and visible benefits are more likely to foster deeper involvement. Empathetic design, appropriate timing, and thoughtful content structure are critical. When students feel supported rather than burdened, participation becomes sustainable instead of merely transactional.

What actually develops student leaders?

Programs that most effectively support leadership development are not necessarily the most polished. Instead, they provide opportunities for students to assume responsibility, make substantive decisions, and experiment. Leadership is cultivated through authentic experiences, navigating ambiguity, managing relationships, solving problems and learning from conflict and failure.

High-impact leadership programs tend to share 3 qualities:

1. Psychological safety: students feel trusted and supported, even when things go wrong.

2. Embedded reflection: helping students recognise the subject content rather than assuming development is self-evident.

3. Consistent support structures: particularly during stressful periods or when more pressing matters get in the way.

Leadership roles can be both deeply rewarding and highly demanding. Students frequently experience significant growth through these challenges. Supporting student leaders involves ensuring that the benefits of leadership outweigh the associated costs, rather than simply reducing responsibility. Programs should identify and prioritize the elements that matter most.

Measuring what matters

Evaluating whether a program makes a genuine difference is challenging, as campus life is dynamic and continually changing. Each semester introduces new students, pressures, and contexts. Traditional metrics such as headcount and surveys are best used as health checks rather than definitive measures of success.

In my experience, two indicators have proven particularly valuable.

“Participation becomes meaningful when programs are intentionally designed to achieve these outcomes.”

1. Advocacy: whether students would recommend the program to others. This metric reflects trust, perceived value, and the program’s future sustainability, and is effectively captured by a Net Promoter Score (NPS).

2. “Better Off” Reflection: whether students believe they have become better students or individuals through their participation. This indicator captures holistic impact rather than mere satisfaction with service delivery and is measured through end-of-program surveys focused on personal reflection.

Inclusive program design

Inclusive programs are not created solely through universal design, but through local understanding. Each campus has its own demographic profile, cultural dynamics, and barriers to participation. Effective program designers listen closely to the student voice, not just elected student representatives, but all leaders within different student communities, and adapt accordingly.

Relevance is contextual. Programs that resonate at one institution may not translate directly to another. Inclusion requires continual reflection, consultation and a willingness to change.

Strengthening long-term participation

Today students encounter increasing pressures, and the opportunity cost of participation continues to rise. Simultaneously, the importance of meaningful connection, community and personal development is greater than ever. Institutions seeking to strengthen engagement must reduce friction, eliminate unnecessary administrative barriers and design programs that respect students’ time, expectations and circumstances.

Importantly, impact strengthens with regular participation. One-off events and interactions can spark interest, but meaningful outcomes are built over time. Recent research I’ve conducted consistently shows that well-being and personal development are the strongest drivers of sustained long-term participation.

Meaningful participation is not about the number of students who show up. It’s about whether students leave more connected, more confident, and better equipped for what comes next. When we design with that goal in mind, engagement becomes not just measurable, but transformative.

Financial

Leadership Development