We’ve seen it happen many times: A store employee sees a shoplifter taking a five-finger discount, gives chase, captures the suspect and/or retrieves the stolen item, and is rewarded for his or her effort with a one-way trip to the unemployment line.

The latest incident involves a 13-year assistant manager at a Kroger grocery store in Arlington, Texas, and it’s a bit more blood-chilling than usual. The suspected shoplifter pulled a knife on the employee. The manager kept his cool, disarmed the shoplifter by shoving him against a parked car, then body-slammed him onto the asphalt.

The suspect is in jail, charged with aggravated robbery. The assistant manager is at home, clutching a pink slip from Kroger.

Of course, in our plugged-in age, the confrontation was captured on someone’s smartphone, posted online and has now gone viral. The firing of the employee prompted a wave of protests on social media, which in turn has led to news coverage Kroger likely would have preferred to avoid.

While it seems to me a less severe action would have worked, I’m no HR expert, so I’m reluctant to comment about Kroger’s decision. What the employee did was exceptionally dangerous—which is why most retail stores have policies against apprehending shoplifters, instead directing employees to call police. In this case, the assistant manager easily could have been injured or killed.

But I do feel qualified to opine on Kroger’s PR response. In my view, they dropped the ball.

When asked why it fired the employee, Kroger’s spokesperson responded via email with dry corporate language about its policies: “[The employee’s action] is not a reflection of our company’s fraud prevention protocol, procedures or training…. He is no longer employed by our company.”

In going the fired-for-breaking-the-rules route, Kroger told the world it doesn’t care about their employees’ well-being; it only cares about policy.

The company should have placed its decision within the context of worker safety. “We’re determined to keep our employees safe at work at all times. That’s why we train them on what to do, and what not to do, when a crime happens at one of our stores. Going beyond that training puts people at risk. We simply can’t allow it, not even once, because next time someone might get hurt or killed.”

Even a response along this line wouldn’t rescue Kroger from all criticism. But at least it would have cast the company in a more favorable light, one in which a hard decision was made for the sake of people rather than policy.

Tell us what you think: Was Kroger best served by citing its rules and procedures? Should it have focused its message on employee safety? Or should it have taken an entirely different PR approach?

“It’s time to rethink the concept of employee engagement” writes Josh Bersin in Forbes. He’s correct—but maybe not in the way he means.

Bersin makes good points about how “employee engagement” has become more of an annual measuring stick rather than a daily workplace philosophy. Actually, engagement is just the first step. “We want them to be married. That is, fully committed,” Bersin writes. Achieving that means companies must make themselves “irresistible” to the people they attract, hire and hope to keep.

“Our research shows that we may need to change the way we manage people (end appraisals?), change the work environment (open offices? nap rooms? ping pong tables?), and change who we hire (are we hiring the right people for our mission, culture and values? are we assessing well?). All these things tend to go well beyond the typical engagement survey,” Bersin says.

While I’m not qualified to dispute Bersin’s research, I do think it’s missing two fundamental components: respect and stability.

I’m continually amazed when companies routinely ax workers in the name of “strategic alignment” and “leveraging resources more effectively” and then wonder why their employees aren’t “engaged.” In keeping with the marriage metaphor, one can hardly expect a spouse to remain dutifully committed while the other runs around.

No company can guarantee a job for life, of course. But every employer can commit to honest and open communication on this front. What are the challenges? What input can employees offer? How can they actively contribute to resolving the issues?

Rarely has a company been so bold as to tell its employees, “We’re in trouble, and we need everyone to come together to fix it.” This kind of commitment goes way beyond nap rooms. It’s about genuinely connecting with employees, individually and collectively, so that they are an integral part of the company’s success. Part of making that connection is respecting them and, as much as possible, providing secure employment with compensation that reflects their value.

Sadly, that’s where the marriage often crumbles.