[lukethomas]

I should have clarified this a bit more in my post. I think it's possible for people to perform at a high-level and be "engaged" at work, even if the company isn't constantly winning like the warriors.

The only analogy I can think of is another sports one. I used to do track & field. I wasn't the fastest guy running, but I still pushed myself to beat my previous records. I felt a sense of progress/fulfillment when I ran faster than the past.

I think this can exist inside a company as well. It's highly unlikely that people find fulfillment by the mission of a company, but they can find some sense of fulfillment (at least in a work context), by "playing the game their way" and continuously improving.

[rpcastagna]

The problem with sports analogies is that athletes typically actually matter to the success or failure of their organization, and that's both immediately visible to and recognized by everyone involved.

Even for athletes, though, you see more simple name recognition for NBA players than for, say, NFL players, simply because basketball teams are smaller and the individual players are so much more pivotal to the team's success.

[losteric]

It can exist in a company, but I think the likelyhood of encountering such an environment is inversely proportional to the size and growth rate of the company... rapid growth in a large corporation leads to metric-driven management as established leaders try to retain control over broader business areas, disconnects between budgets and requirements arise due to increased organizational depth, and there's a loss of individual "freedom" in execution as managerial roles multiply to offset lower hiring standards of ICs. All of which have tertiary consequences, collectively strangling the freedom required for pride in work.

To use your analogy, it's like running if you were following a cart that laid out every foot step and were followed by another cart with a whip. There's no incentive or freedom to engage.