Engaging the ‘poor cousin’ An exploration into employee engagement in a subsidiary

Employee engagement has received many definitions since it was first described as ‘the harnessing of organisation members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances’ (Kahn, 1990). The literature is dominated by definitions from a psychological state perspective for example a ‘positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004. p. 295) but has also been described as a trait where some individuals have a propensity for engagement who seek out opportunities (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Despite a lack of consensus of definition, and the evolution of previous concepts of job satisfaction and organisational commitment leading some to describe engagement as a ‘fad’, the interest in engagement stems from an acceptance amongst practitioners that employee engagement is related to business performance (Saks, 2017). Therefore, competitive advantage is sought through its people, who in exchange for satisfaction of psychological (satisfying work, being treated fairly) and material (pay) needs, contribute to improved task performance and increased discretionary effort, e.g. innovation, described as Social Exchange Theory (SET). A further stream in the engagement literature is the dominating job demands-resources model (Demerouti et al, 2001) which asserts job demands (workload, role ambiguity) can result in burnout or exhaustion through sustained physical or mental effort and how job resources (pay, training opportunities) and personal resources (self-efficacy, resilience) directly impact work engagement which can create additional effort, resourcefulness and engagement, leading to increased financial benefits. However, people are not a homogenous groups and work has many facets including task, organisation and team (Saks, 2017; Albrecht et al, 2015) which have the potential to have a significant impact on engagement, which this research will discuss. The area of engagement has become a popular research area in the last 10 years (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014; Saks & Gruman, 2014) where over 250,000 have been identified (Bailey et al, 2015). This interest has been fuelled by The Gallup Q12 engagement survey which showed the association between a higher score on the Q12 measure and indicators of higher organisational performance; and a 2009 study by MacLeod & Clarke, published by BIS ‘Engage for Success’ which suggests engagement correlates with performance and innovation, including positive impacts on turnover, absence, customer satisfaction, productivity and profitability. Furthermore, globally an ‘engagement gap’ is said to exist where just four in ten employees are highly engaged (Willis-Towers-Watson, 2014) which has placed engagement at the top of the HR Manager agenda (Clinton and Woollard, 2012) in order to increase customer satisfaction, company status and value to stakeholders (Lockwood, 2007). It is important to acknowledge that engagement can be both a human condition and a workplace approach to create the conditions for engagement which highlights the potential conflict in motivation between employees and organisations. For example, engagement approaches perceived as ways to intensify work that overlook employee well-being are unlikely to produce discretionary effort or engagement. Therefore, the psychological state that engagement reflects and the consequences of what it brings are, and remain, important. This research was undertaken in a subsidiary of a Higher Education Institution, the parent company, providing catering and nursery services to subsidiary and parent company employees. On 1 August 2013, existing employees, many with long service TUPE transferred to the new subsidiary on existing terms and conditions, more favourable than those designated to new employees (annual leave, pay, pension scheme). The subsidiary was created to separate peripheral services from core business to cut employee costs which included reduced employer pension contributions from 16.1% to 3%. Subsequently Unions are concerned, declaring it creates a two-tier workforce with poorer terms and conditions for new staff and threat for existing staff (Unison, 2016). The organisational governance therefore raises the profile of the subsidiary, increasing interest further. The differentiated terms and conditions, organisational legacy and the jobs located in the service sector provided an opportunity to explore employee engagement and attitudes as well as managers who have a major impact on how employees feel and perform at work