Improving employee engagement against the odds: a longitudinal analysis of antecedents in a

knowledge-intensive setting

Dr Morag McLean

Glasgow Caledonian University

M.McLean@gcu.ac.uk

1

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To longitudinally examine if there were stable linkages between twelve antecedents

of engagement and overall employee engagement (EE), in a knowledge-intensive firm (KIF)

during a period of great market turbulence. This was done by conceptually developing and

empirically testing a partial mediation model of EE within Integrated Environmental

Solutions (IES), a smaller KIF which supplies software and professional services to the

architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) sector.

Design/ methodology/ approach: The research adopts a realist approach. Data were gathered

via employee surveys, interviews, focus groups and company documents. Descriptive

statistics; ANOVAs; correlational and content analyses were utilised.

Findings: Strategic company responses to survey feedback, sustained (or improved)

satisfaction with all antecedents of engagement, apart from that of rewards and recognition.

The study suggests that four antecedents can now be described as fundamental drivers of high

engagement: long-term strategic direction and alignment; a strong people-centric culture; job

satisfaction and knowledge-sharing.

Research limitations/ implications: Findings are not generalisable and the relatively low

population sizes limited statistical analyses. However, longitudinal analyses can help identify

drivers, and KIFs could benefit from a focus on EE, even in a recession.

Social implications: By identifying and monitoring context-specific drivers of engagement,

organisations and employees can benefit

Originality/ value: There is a paucity of prior longitudinal academic study into EE, especially

in a KIF in a recession; this study contributes to knowledge gaps. Further, this study offers

conceptual insights into a contextualised partial linkage model of EE.

2

Keywords: employee engagement; antecedents; knowledge-intensive; longitudinal; mixed

methods

Introduction

Despite intense research interest in employee engagement (EE) (Bowles and Cooper, 2012;

Guest, 2014; Shuck et al., 2011) there has been very little empirical testing of HR

interventions to improve EE and organisational practice; longitudinal research is needed

(Bakker et al., 2011a; Kular et al., 2008). A paucity of longitudinal studies has left

researchers unable to test causal linkages between HRM and organisational performance

using EE as a key mediator (Freeney and Tiernan, 2006; Huselid and Becker, 2010; Sparrow,

2014). Moreover, while studies have identified what and how HR architecture and/or

management practices can influence EE; the identification and exploration of apposite

antecedents of engagement in firm-specific settings is needed (Alfes et al., 2012; Boselie et

al., 2005; Crawford et al., 2014; Guest, 2011a; Macey et al., 2009; Van Veldhoven, 2005). To

date, there has been limited research into smaller, economically important knowledge-

intensive firms (KIFs), particularly how they have managed EE in recessionary times

(Attridge, 2009; Georgiadis & Pitelis, 2012; Gilman & Raby, 2012; Holbeche and Matthews,

2012; Macleod and Clarke, 2009; Majeed, 2009). Wollard and Shuck state the paucity in

studies “represents a void in practices, not just in theory and research” (2011, p.430).

This paper therefore seeks to fill gaps in knowledge and organisational practice by

conceptually developing and empirically testing a partial mediation model of EE within IES,

a world leading KIF and small-medium enterprise (SME). It supplies complex software and

professional services (PS) to the global AEC sector thereby advancing green building design

(http://www.iesve.com/). Its vision is to use technology to “dramatically reduce the carbon

emissions produced by the built environment, and optimise the use of energy and other

3

resources” (IES, 2014). The company introduced an EE strategy in 2008 to support its

international expansion and to help it manage rapid organisational change but within a year,

the AEC market went into summary decline as recessionary forces hit. Like other KIFs the

company’s wholesale reliance on its highly qualified professionals with its associated labour

costs, renders staff engagement of vital concern.

Literature Review

Using EE and antecedents of engagement as proximal variables is considered both

theoretically credible and less methodologically complicated than traditional HRM-

Performance research (Becker and Huselid, 2006; Boselie et al., 2005; Boxall et al., 2011).

By understanding the effects of HRM on EE via an examination of identified antecedents of

engagement allows researchers to measure the influence of a firm’s HR architecture on the

engagement and performance of its employees (Albrecht, 2010; Alfes et al., 2012; Biggs et

al., 2013; Crawford et al., 2014; Guest, 2011a). The tenet is that if EE is high, then

organisations should expect superior levels of performance (Gallup, 2013; Truss et al., 2006).

A review of literature provides support for examination of three relevant constructs discussed

below.

Employee Engagement (EE)

There is no agreed definition of EE; definitions can be both complex and contested, giving

rise to considerable interpretational diversity. For example, EE has been conceived as an

affective state, a performance outcome and an attitude; sometimes all three (Little and Little,

2006; MacLeod and Clarke, 2009; Parker and Griffin, 2011; Robertson-Smith and Marwick,

2009; Shuck and Wollard, 2010). Utilising different protocols, certain researchers have

chosen to define engagement as uni-dimensional while others see it as multi-dimensional

(Wefald et al., 2012). Hence, cross-comparative research becomes exceptionally challenging

4

or impossible to conduct (Keenoy, 2014). To confuse matters further, Meyler indicated that

engagement can mean different things in various company cultures, asserting that definitions

should be contextually driven (2010, as cited in Accor 2010, p.7). A similar stance was taken

by Schaufeli, who declared that whilst diverse perspectives prevail, the researcher’s decision

about how to define engagement is “the most useful one” (2011). Yet, an examination of a

wide range of definitions (McLean, 2008) reveals that the original inductive work of Kahn

(1990) is visible. He depicted EE as consisting of three dimensions: emotional, cognitive and

behavioural (ibid.). After an in-depth review of contemporary EE literature, this researcher

defined EE as:

“a positive, relatively stable psychological construct with state-like dimensions,

experienced by employees who typically demonstrate strong relationships with their

employing organisation and its agents; work intensely in the belief their contribution is

business-critical and valued; and, continuously display high effort and performance in their

job role” (McLean, 2008, p.34).

Employee Engagement and Social Exchange Theory (SET)

SET is underpinned by the idea of mutuality: that an employee’s experience of HR and

managerial practices affects their willingness to engage and perform. SET essentially states

that people’s actions are “contingent on the rewarding actions of others, which over time

provide for mutuality, and rewarding transactions and relationships” (Cropanzano and

Mitchell, 2005, p.890). It is posited that voluntary employer actions that are beneficial to

employees (e.g. providing development opportunities), will be reciprocated by higher levels

of EE and performance (e.g. positive attitudes and discretionary behaviours) (Blau, 1964;

Byrne et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2004).

5

Nevertheless, where employee economic or social needs are not met or where managers fail

to deliver on promises and trust is undermined, potential breaches of exchange can occur,

putting EE and long-term organisational success at risk (Bal et al., 2010; Coyle-Shapiro,

2002; Rayton and Yalabik, 2014). Workers can become less ‘available’, consciously (or

unconsciously) withdrawing emotional, cognitive and behavioural resources at work (Kular

et al., 2008). Evidently, employment relationships require mutuality to remain stable and

sustain EE (Balain and Sparrow, 2009; Boxall et al., 2011). From these key insights, SET

provides a robust “theoretical rationale” for EE and helps to explain varying levels of

engagement within organisations (Saks, 2006, p.603). However, the EE literature to date has

not fully examined how companies can achieve effective reciprocity, especially in difficult

times (Robertson-Smith and Marwick, 2009).

According to Muse et al. (2008), employers focusing on tangible outcomes of improved EE

should establish areas of reciprocation where both employer and employees profit.

Investments in antecedents via HR interventions can provide a strong signal to employees

that a company is prepared to manage EE as a two-way process, engendering reciprocation

(Balain and Sparrow, 2009; CIPD, 2009; Coyle-Shapiro and Shore, 2007; Robinson, 2007).

Moreover, employee perceptions of the reasons for the implementation of HR architecture

have been found to be important influencers of EE (Aggarwal and Bhargava, 2009; Alfes et

al., 2012; Edwards, 2009; Frenkel et al., 2012; Nishii et al., 2008).

Assessing the perceived value of various organisational actions or investments over time thus

becomes important so employers can establish levels of engagement they can afford,

optimising returns on investment (ROI). As EE is not static it must be regularly measured.

However, as Balain and Sparrow (2009) pointed out, measuring levels of engagement alone

is insufficient; companies must identify and measure apposite antecedents of engagement

(Bradon, 2008).

6

Antecedents of EE

A review of the leading studies of EE (e.g. Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004) exposed a degree of

reliability regarding ten generally important antecedents of EE which were subsequently

augmented/ amended after the first survey (McLean, 2008) and subsequent focus groups and

interviews (McLean, 2009). As Lockwood (2007) and Truss et al. (2006) distinguished,

unique firm-specific antecedents of engagement need to be identified; there is no universal

template (see Appendix 1). Nonetheless, of the study’s final 12 antecedents discussed below

(italicised), 11 resonate with contemporary literature; knowledge-sharing is a more recent

contextual addition (Albrecht, 2010; Balain and Sparrow, 2009; BlessingWhite, 2013;

Robertson-Smith and Marwick, 2009; Wollard and Shuck, 2011).

Where leadership at all levels has provided alignment with a clear strategic vision in an

appropriate management style, staff have been found to be more collaborative, displaying

higher levels of emotional and cognitive attachment (CIPD, 2011a; Wang et al., 2011; Wu et

al., 2010, as cited by Pereira Gomes, 2012, p.5). Strategy implementation can be speedier

through the creation of a shared mental model (Sparrow, 2014) with company goals and

culture becoming internalised by employees (Macey et al., 2009; Rothmann and Welsh,

2013). Employees gain ‘meaning’ and alignment through an understanding of the objectives

and behaviours their employers value (Macey et al., 2009; Rothmann and Welsh, 2013),

commonly through a company’s performance management system (Medlin and Green, 2009).

Employees become stimulated to invest personal energy (Biggs et al., 2013). Nevertheless, in

periods of upheaval, satisfaction with this antecedent may be challenging (CIPD, 2011a);

confidence in senior management’s strategic narrative has become disturbingly low

(BlessingWhite, 2011; Towers Watson, 2010).

7

A strong people-culture and social context is very important to EE through development of a

“strong (ideally emotional), shared connection or bond to an organisation’s core purpose”

(CIPD, 2011a, p.17). Two cultural influences seem fundamental: firstly, an enabling culture

which creates positive relationships (De Mello and Pauken, 2008; Leiter and Bakker, 2010;

MacLeod and Clarke, 2009) and secondly, employees believing that their organisation has

embedded ‘lived’ (rather than just espoused) values (De Mello and Pauken, 2008; MacLeod

and Clarke, 2009; van Wanrooy et al., 2013). Furthermore, this antecedent has been found to

be of high importance to PSOs whose success relies on building effective client/ customer

relationships based on said values (Purcell et al., 2009).

Studies by the IRS (2011) and Towers Watson (2012) have indicated that pay is the top factor

affecting EE in the UK, and the leading global factor respectively. The CIPD (2012a) has

reported that pay has become more important than job satisfaction as discretionary incomes

faltered throughout the recession, although, this maybe workforce dependent (Brown and

Reilly, 2013). Evidence suggests that lower levels of satisfaction with pay can be found

amongst highly qualified professional groups who occupy challenging roles and

responsibilities; they expect significant rewards (George, 2011; Horwitz et al., 2003; Purcell

et al., 2009; Towers Watson, 2010). Moreover, Rothmann and Welsh (2013) observed that

perceptions of personal ROI often derive from recognition at work. Emphases on recognition

through non-financial rewards such as learning and development and line manager

recognition have been found to differentiate high-performing companies from others (Brown

and Reilly, 2013). Cumulatively, research suggests that dissatisfaction with pay levels (an

aspect of economic exchange) may affect engagement but recognition (an aspect of socio-

emotional exchange) should be given greater prominence by employers to support EE (Byrne

et al., 2011; Guest, 2011a).

8

Satisfying jobs are central to engagement (Alfes et al., 2012; Attridge, 2009; BlessingWhite,

2011; Jacob et al., 2008; Robinson, 2007; Schaufeli, 2011; Shirom, 2010; WERS, 2004).

Moreover, job satisfaction has been found especially important to engagement in PSOs (Chen

et al., 1999; CIPD, 2011b; Purcell et al., 2009; Serrano and Reichard, 2011). Indeed,

meaningful work has been found to be the strongest predictor of EE and other employee

outcomes by numerous researchers (e.g. Balain and Sparrow, 2009; Fairlie, 2011; May et al.,

2004; Rothmann and Welsh, 2013; Truss et al., 2006). Equally, if employees feel their

contribution is meaningless their motivation may not be sustained; it would be a waste of

personal resources (Shuck and Rose, 2013). Disengagement and a readiness to quit may be

precipitated (CIPD, 2013; Holbeche and Matthews, 2012).

Management concern about employee welfare is a regularly cited antecedent of EE (Bakker

et al., 2011a; Robinson et al., 2004; Rodrigues, 2008; Tower Perrins, 2008; Watson Wyatt,

2009). Given the recent economic climate with work intensification, rising stress levels and

redundancies, employers may struggle to convince workforces that their welfare is of high

organisational significance; the notion of EE may be perceived as wholly business-led rather

than concern for employee well-being (Bakker et al., 2011a).

Line managers (LMs) are vital implementers of a firm’s HR practices whose behaviour

affects EE, possibly on a daily basis (Kinnie et al., 2005). Line management have been

described as vital “cultural bridge[s]” (Bowles and Cooper, 2012, p.25) and pivotal

organisational “transformers and translators” for employees (CIPD, 2011a, p.5). Research

demonstrates LMs supportive behaviours facilitate EE and individual performance (Alfes et

al., 2013; Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010; Xu and Thomas, 2011). This

occurs when managers are capable of balancing both technical and people skills (CIPD,

2011a); found to be especially important in KIFs (Donnelly, 2010; Swart et al., 2003). The

often narrow status differentials between managers and teams in KIFs mean high quality

9

relationships, social contexts and LM skills are pivotal to maintaining high levels of EE

within such organisations (Pulakos, 2009 as cited by Gruman and Saks, 2011, p.123; Risler,

2000; Swart et al., 2003).

Repeated cross-sectional research by Towers Perrin (2008) has established that training and

development (T&D) is a consistent antecedent of engagement and habitually strongly

associated with EE (Shuck et al., 2011; Xu and Thomas, 2011). Nonetheless, in short-term,

cost-focused environments, opportunities for personal and professional development may

decrease or be deferred thus impacting reciprocation, as viewed through a social exchange

lens. Within a KIF context, this antecedent has been established as crucial to the retention of

valuable, often unique, knowledge workers (CIPD/ Hays, 2012c; Corporate Executive Board,

2010; Donnelly, 2010; Horwitz et al., 2003; Swart et al., 2003; Towers Watson, 2010).

High quality, regular communication is a recognised antecedent of EE (Balain and Sparrow,

2009; CIPD, 2009; CIPD, 2010; Hewison et al., 2013; Iyer and Israel, 2012; Kahn, 1992;

MacLeod and Clarke, 2009; Welch, 2011). However satisfaction levels with communication

are relatively low (CIPD, 2013). Meaningful communication gaps have occurred and are

particularly prevalent in times of rapid organisational change (CIPD, 2012b; Shirom, 2010).

Moreover, studies suggest that what is communicated and how, needs to be carefully

managed or EE levels may diminish (Iyer and Israel, 2012; Welch, 2011). KIF employees

may be particularly sensitive to this; knowledge workers can feel less valued because of

inappropriate communication (Robinson et al., 2004). Overall, open, regular communication

and access to reliable data at both job and organisational level seem central to high EE.

Recent studies have suggested that employee voice is a key part of social exchange; the

association between voice and EE is partially mediated by trust in senior management, and to

a lesser extent by employee/LM relationships (Cheng et al., 2012; Farndale et al., 2011a;

10

Rees et al., 2013). Commentators agree that employee voice is fundamental to EE, especially

in a recession (Farndale et al., 2011a; Purcell, 2014). Moreover, voice can lead to feelings of

being valued by, and belonging to, an organisation, although it is unclear whether direct and

indirect forms of voice are essential to EE (Beaumont and Hunter, 2003; Guest and Michie,

2000). Professionals’ satisfaction with both direct and indirect communication, consultation

and influence, has been shown to be generally low despite many practices being embedded in

the respondent organisations (Danford et al., 2009). Increasing numbers of knowledge

workers are demanding a voice at work (Beugre, 2010). Indeed, MacLeod and Clarke (2009)

suggested that there is a strong relationship between employee voice and perceived equity,

especially in highly qualified/ educated workforces. Empirical evidence seems to point to

employee voice being the most crucial antecedent of EE among most, if not all, employee

groupings (ACAS, 2010; MacLeod and Clarke, 2009; Purcell et al., 2009; Robinson, 2007;

Sunday Times, 2010; Truss et al., 2006).

Antecedent belonging to a team has both resource-related and relational aspects. First, team

members can become potential job resources through which emotional and cognitive

crossover occurs, thereby positively influencing group engagement, team behaviours,

employee effectiveness, well-being and retention (Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010; Jacob et

al., 2008 Purcell, 2009, as cited by MacLeod and Clarke, 2009, p.30; Serrano and Reichard,

2011). Teams are therefore structural resources that can help link EE to organisational

performance (Shirom, 2010). Second, work relationships themselves “provide varying levels

of feelings of belongingness”, increasing the meaningfulness of individuals’ job roles (Kahn

and Heaphy, 2014, p.85). Notably, context- relevant studies have indicated that many

workers in KIFs are client-facing; their locus of engagement and loyalty may be external and

thus a potential issue (Chen et al., 1999; Donnelly, 2010; Purcell et al., 2009; Scholarios and

Marks, 2004). Consequently, KIFs may choose to build a strong team culture to engage and

11

retain these valuable employees. It would appear that organisations should focus on both the

resource and the relational aspects of this antecedent to optimise EE.

Bakker et al. (2011a) proposed that if job demands are high and job resources low,

disengagement and burnout can occur (Attridge, 2009; Bakker and Demerouti, 2008;

BlessingWhite, 2011; Crawford et al., 2014; Freeney and Tiernan, 2006; Xanthopoulou et al.,

2009). Further, evidence points to high-earning professionals experiencing significantly

higher levels of anxiety in this situation, as compared to other occupational groups (van

Wanrooy et al., 2013). Furthermore, overloaded staff and a long-hours culture have been

found to be key barriers to effective organisational change in KIFs (Hetland et al., 2007 as

cited by Lehner et al., 2013, p.1886). Conversely, where resources are plentiful, they become

positive influencers on individual psychological ‘availability’ and engagement (May et al.,

2004; Rothmann and Welsh, 2013). Literature thus suggests that organisations need to

identify interventions that provide support to employees especially in recessionary times

when job demands are high and job resources are low.

Knowledge-sharing is considered to be a fundamental feature of KIFs and an important

antecedent of engagement (Majeed, 2009; Minbaeva et al., 2012). Dynamic business

environments require KIFs to constantly obtain and create knowledge so that they can remain

adaptable, but concurrently maintain temporary but steady organisational states over time

(CIPD, 2012b; Nijssen and Paauwe, 2012; Swart, Kinnie and Purcell, 2003). Managing this

antecedent and creating a knowledge-sharing community with supporting processes and

procedures has been found vital to the development of engagement in KIFs (Gilman and

Edwards, 2008; Nadin and Cassell, 2007, as cited by Mason and Brown, 2012, p.38; Shuck,

Rocco and Albornoz, 2011). Community boundaries however need to extend beyond the firm

to external as well as internal stakeholders in KIFs and PSOs (Ayuso et al., 2011). The

infrastructure for, and handling of, knowledge-sharing in KIFs should therefore contain both

12

horizontal and vertical aspects (CIPD, 2011a). Hence prudent management of the knowledge-

sharing process and related behaviours seems to be required.

It can be suggested these 12 antecedents have resonance with KIFs. Highly qualified

employees can be expected to be attracted to, and be engaged with, organisations that meet

their individual needs for role challenge, reward and recognition. It can also be seen that

knowledge workers desire to work for organisations with a high capacity for visioning and

knowledge-sharing and which display strong values and support for their intrinsically

valuable employees. However, these antecedents need to be effectively implemented in order

for them to engage workers. Antecedent satisfaction therefore requires monitoring so low-

cost, easy wins that are of benefit to staff and KIFs can be identified and implemented over

time. Longitudinal analysis becomes essential.

The purpose of this paper is to conceptually develop and empirically test a partial mediation

model of EE in a KIF over time, addressing two key research questions:

How and why does satisfaction with antecedents of EE change longitudinally?

What antecedents correlate with overall EE and are these antecedents stable longitudinally?

Research Methodology

By adopting a realist research approach and conducting quantitative and qualitative research,

the study provides analytical insights into what, how and why changes in antecedent

satisfaction and their relationships with overall EE occurred, directly illuminating the middle

ground of HRM-Performance research (Barber et al., 1999; Gelade and Young, 2005). Whilst

positivism has been by far the most common epistemology in engagement research (Fletcher

and Robinson, 2014), recent calls for more interpretivist approaches are also addressed

(Fleetwood and Hesketh, 2010; Kim et al., 2012; Robertson-Smith and Marwick, 2009). Data

13

were gathered in a period of great market turbulence at IES (2008-2010) via three on-line

employee surveys, interviews, focus groups and company documents (e.g. MD/ Board reports

(MD Report); company newsletters (VEnture). The study is a “trend or repeated cross-

sectional study” (Taris, 2000, p.5) and focuses on aggregated workplace data from IES,

allowing patterns of change to be identified although the data was insufficiently robust to

establish causality. Additionally, it is a formative evaluation study (Robson, 1993); IES made

adjustments to its HR architecture, culture and/or managerial practices based upon the

findings.

Data Collection and analysis

This study had a total population design whereby a census of the IES workforce was

conducted for each research wave (Menard, 2008).Response rates were consistently high,

with 61 respondents (78%) in 2008; 74 (100%) in 2009 and 70 (86%) in 2010. Although

some researchers have indicated that participants should be identical in each wave, this makes

evaluation of HR interventions extraordinarily difficult (Page et al., 2006; Rajulton, 2001;

Taris, 2000). A repeated-measures study was not practicable since the surveys were

anonymised and IES experienced new starts and leavers 2008-2010. Nonetheless, due to high

response rates, low labour turnover and the relatively short period for data collection, the vast

majority of respondents were the same.

This study primarily utilised engagement measures following the needs-satisfying approach

to EE (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014). Antecedent scales were developed after scrutiny of

various studies, adapting relevant scales/ items to the context of IES. Internal scale

reliabilities were then examined using Cronbach alpha tests, informing EE and antecedent

item/ scale improvements, e.g. numbers of scale items were increased to improve scale

sensitivity (Zikmund, 2002). This upgrading of measures is considered beneficial (Wright et

14

al., 2001). However, only core EE and antecedent scales, made up of the 80 items present in

all three surveys, were analysed in this paper. This maintained high replicability so attitudinal

(alpha) change of respondents was isolated.

Cronbach’s alpha for overall engagement (12 item scale) ranged from .76 to .81 over the

three years (see RA, Tables 2-4). Like other authors, the results supported conceptualisation

of EE as a higher-order concept (e.g. Christian et al., 2011; May et al., 2004; Ng and

Feldman, 2010; Rich et al., 2010; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010). Cronbach’s alpha for

antecedents (3-13 item scales) ranged from.46 to .96 across the three years, with none <.67 in

2010. Further, since the questionnaire items became scale components and approximated

interval scales; parametric analyses were used (Bradon, 2008; Zikmund et al., 2010). Survey

data were statistically analysed using SPSS 19.0.

Differences between-years (2008-2010) in terms of satisfaction with antecedents of

engagement were analysed via ANOVAs. Two post-hoc tests were conducted (Tukey and

Scheffe). Additional eta squared tests were conducted to explore the possible effect size of

time on antecedent satisfaction. Table 1 shows means, standard deviations and outcomes of

the Levene’s, post-hoc, ANOVA and eta squared tests. Since the company surveys were

conducted over three years it is assumed that recessionary changes and company events

influenced the results.

Descriptive non-experimental correlational analyses between overall engagement and the 12

antecedents were performed in each year via Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

(r) tests (Tables 2-4). Strength of relationships between variables was determined using

Cohen’s classification (1988, as cited by Pallant, 2010, p134). Further, estimations of

coefficients of determination (r2) allowed shared variance to be identified. Due to low

population sizes more sophisticated analyses of interrelationships were not viable

15

(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). However, by 2010 (apart from A3 Rewards and Recognition

antecedent) a growing confidence in the statistical results can be discerned (Pallant, 2010).

All correlations were < 0.70 which, as Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) have stated reduces the

likelihood of multicollinearity; all measures were appropriate for analysis.

Statistical analyses were augmented by content analyses, providing valuable insights into the

research questions and company context. Themes, categories and codes were explored across

the qualitative data, looking at frequency and regularities (connections and divergences) for

explanations and links to theory (see Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Miles and Huberman, 1994;

Robson, 1993). This process thus fitted the realist approach by combining numbers and

meaning. Due to the longitudinal nature of the study, data could be used to trace events

chronologically, helping this researcher interpret the why research questions and to represent

the company context over time.

16

Table 1: One-Way Between-Groups ANOVA: Employee Satisfaction with the 12 Antecedents of EE across 2008-2010 (Sign. changes are highlighted )

LIST OF THE 12 ANTECEDENTS’ MEANS 2008-2010

based on matched scales across years

Nos. of

scale

Items

2008

Scale 1-5 except ^

(3 scale)

2009

Scale 1-5 except ^

(3 scale)

2010

Scale 1-5 except^

(3 scale)

Levene’s Test

Results

ANOVA (p=);

Post-hoc test using Scheffe

(2-tailed)

*p<0.05 **p<.001

Cohen’s (1998)

Effect Size

.01 (small);

06 (medium);

.14 (large)

Comments on Trends

Total nos. matched items 2008-2010 68 N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD Sign. Value

A1: Clear long-term Strategic Direction and Alignment 7 49 4.05 .533 66 3.98 .611 62 3.81 .795 .006*violation

Welch* =.173

ANOVA, p=.142 (n.s.) eta sq.=.02 Decreasing

A2: Strong People-Centric Culture (internally &

externally)

7 45 4.07 .486 63 4.02 .532 61 3.93 .674 .078 ANOVA, p=.445 (n.s.) eta sq.=.01 Decreasing

A3: Rewards and Recognition 3 43 3.67 .766 53 3.38 .803 50 3.16 .936 .208 ANOVA, p=.017

*2008/2010

eta sq.=.06 (medium) Sign. decrease from

2008-2010

A4: Job Satisfaction/ Motivation 7 55 4.01 .560 70 3.93 .605 63 3.94 .718 .154 ANOVA p=.741 (n.s.) eta sq.=.00 Decreasing / minor

increase

A5: Interest in Employee Health & Well-Being 5 46 4.02 .460 57 3.93 .585 54 3.87 .655 .337 ANOVA p=.424 (n.s.) eta sq.=.01 Decreasing

A6: Team Leader/ Line Manager Support 13 52 4.14 .598 64 4.07 .721 59 3.94 .754 .177 ANOVA p=.305 (n.s.) eta sq.=.01 Decreasing

A7: Opportunities for Personal Growth 4 49 3.79 .747 58 3.62 .717 60 3.50 .933 .095 ANOVA p=.178 (n.s.) eta sq.=.02 Decreasing

A8: Communication 7 52 2.24^ .365 48 2.55^ .330 46 2.43^ .408 .216 ANOVA p=.000 **2008/

2009 **2008/ 2010

eta sq.=.11 (medium) Highly sign.

increases from 2008

A9: Employee Involvement/ Voice 3 52 3.46 .945 62 3.56 .880 59 3.50 .937 .884 ANOVA p=.813 (n.s.) eta sq.=.00 Fluctuating

(+ve)

A10: Belonging to a Team/IES 5 56 3.89 .681 69 3.82 .687 67 3.86 .759 .365 ANOVA p=.839 (n.s.) eta sq.=.00 Fluctuating

(-ve)

A11: Resources (mental and physical) to Perform the Job 4 56 3.76 .595 69 3.85 .644 64 3.62 .715 .413 ANOVA p=.121 (n.s.) eta sq.=.02 Fluctuating

17

(-ve)

A12: Knowledge-Sharing 3 53 3.65 .922 68 3.70 .760 65 3.64 .935 .371 ANOVA p=.906 (n.s.) eta sq.=.00 Fluctuating (+ve)

18

Table 2: Pearson Product-Moment Correlations between Overall EE (12 Items) and the 12 Antecedents of EE, 2008

MEASURES: ENGAGEMENT and the 12 ANTECEDENTS

(Numbers of computed scale items in brackets)

RA N Mean SD Overall EE: via Pearson

Product-Moment

correlations r =

Strength of Relationship % Variance Shared

Overall EE (12) .76 49 3.90 0.46

A1: Clear long-term Strategic Direction and Alignment (7) .78 49 4.05 0.53 .47** Medium 22%

A2: Strong People-centric Culture (internally & externally) (7) .74 45 4.07 0.49 .40* Medium 16%

A3; Rewards and Recognition (3) .70 43 3.67 0.77 -.08 (n.s.) N/A N/A

A4: Job Satisfaction (7) .81 55 4.01 0.56 .42** Medium 18%

A5: Interest in Employee Health & Well-Being (5) .46 46 4.02 0.46 .30 (n.s.) Medium 9%

A6: Team Leader/ Line Manager Support (13) .93 52 4.14 0.60 .13 (n.s.) Small 2%

A7: Opportunities for Personal Growth (4) .79 49 3.79 0.75 .29 (n.s.) Small 8%

A8: Communication (7) 3pt Likert scale .69 52 2.24 0.37 .30 (n.s.) Medium 9%

A9: Employee Involvement/ Voice (3) .90 52 3.46 0.95 .25 (n.s.) Small 6%

A10: Belonging to a Team/IES (5) .78 56 3.90 0.68 .34* Medium 12%

A11: Resources (mental and physical) to Perform Job (4) .68 56 3.76 0.60 .14 (n.s.) Small 2%

A12: Knowledge-Sharing (3) .88 53 3.65 0.92 .50*** Large 25%

Notes: Significance level * p <0.05 level (2-tailed); **P < 0.01 level (2-tailed); ***p<0.001 level (2-tailed)

19

from Cohen (1988, as cited by Pallant, 2010, p.134) r= .10 to .29 (small); r= .30 to .49 (medium); r= .50 to 1.0 (large).

20

Table 3: Pearson Product-Moment Correlations between Overall EE (12 Items) and the 12 Antecedents of EE, 2009

MEASURES: ENGAGEMENT and the 12 ANTECEDENTS

(Numbers of computed scale items in brackets)

RA N Mean SD Overall EE: via Pearson

Product-Moment

correlations r =

Strength of Relationship % Variance Shared

Overall EE (12) .76 59 4.21 0.40

A1: Clear long-term Strategic Direction and Alignment (7) .85 66 3.98 0.61 .30* Medium 9%

A2: Strong People-centric Culture (internally & externally) (7) .80 63 4.02 0.53 .39** Medium 15%

A3: Rewards and Recognition (3) .52 53 3.38 0.80 .02 (n.s.) N/A N/A

A4: Job Satisfaction (7) .83 70 3.93 0.61 .50*** Large 25%

A5: Interest in Employee Health & Well-Being (5) .60 57 3.93 0.59 .23 (n.s.) Small 5%

A6: Team Leader/ Line Manager Support (13) .96 64 4.07 0.72 .31* Medium 10%

A7: Opportunities for Personal Growth (4) .63 58 3.62 0.72 .44** Medium 19%

A8: Communication (7) 3pt Likert scale .61 48 2.55 0.33 .20 (n.s.) Small 4%

A9: Employee Involvement/ Voice (3) .90 62 3.56 0.88 .46** Medium 21%

A10: Belonging to a Team/IES (5) .81 69 3.82 0.69 .35** Medium 12%

A11: Resources (mental and physical) to Perform Job (4) .64 69 3.85 0.64 .28* Small 8%

A12: Knowledge-Sharing (3) .74 68 3.70 0.76 .52*** Large 27%

21

Notes: Significance level * p <0.05 level (2-tailed); **P < 0.01 level (2-tailed); ***p<0.001 level (2-tailed)

from Cohen (1988, as cited by Pallant, 2010, p.134; see McLean, 2011 p.33) r= .10 to .29 (small); r= .30 to .49 (medium); r= .50 to 1.0 (large).

Table 4: Pearson Product-Moment Correlations between Overall EE (12 Items) and the 12 Antecedents of EE, 2010

MEASURES: ENGAGEMENT and the 12 ANTECEDENTS

(Numbers of computed scale items in brackets)

RA N Mean SD Overall EE: via Pearson

Product-Moment

correlations r =

Strength of Relationship % Variance Shared

Overall EE (12) .81 62 4.15 0.50

A1: Clear long-term Strategic Direction and Alignment (7) .90 62 3.81 0.80 .59*** Large 35%

A2: Strong People-centric Culture (internally & externally) (7) .88 61 3.93 0.67 .67*** Large 45%

A3: Rewards and Recognition (3) .68 50 3.16 0.94 .24 (n.s.) Small 6%

A4: Job Satisfaction (7) .89 63 3.94 0.72 .61 *** Large 37%

A5: Interest in Employee Health & Well-Being (5) .71 54 3.87 0.65 .35* Medium 12%

A6: Team Leader/ Line Manager Support (13) .95 59 3.94 0.75 .40** Medium 16%

A7: Opportunities for Personal Growth (4) .84 60 3.50 0.93 .44** Medium 19%

A8: Communication (7) 3pt Likert scale .67 46 2.43 0.41 .33* Medium 11%

A9: Employee Involvement/ Voice (3) .91 59 3.50 0.94 .45** Medium 20%

A10: Belonging to a Team/IES (5) .81 67 3.86 0.76 .46*** Medium 21%

22

A11: Resources (mental and physical) to Perform Job (4) .68 64 3.62 0.72 .37** Medium 14%

A12: Knowledge-Sharing (3) .89 65 3.64 0.93 .57*** Large 32%

Notes: Significance level * p <0.05 level (2-tailed); **P < 0.01 level (2-tailed); ***p<0.001 level (2-tailed)

from Cohen (1988, as cited by Pallant, 2010, p.134; see McLean, 2011 p.33) r= .10 to .29 (small); r= .30 to .49 (medium); r= .50 to 1.0 (large).

23

Case Study Context 2008-2010

Pressure to become more competitive in a business context that is both uncertain and

complex, has forced KIFs like IES to capitalise their organisational resources, including

human (Isik et al., 2013). The development of IESs unique workforce and an inherently high

level of tacit knowledge and skills have meant that these intangible asset and core

competences are IES’s principal forces for value-creation (Bolisani et al., 2013), reflecting a

resource-based view of the firm (Barney and Arikan, 2001). However, in common with other

KIFs, recruiting and retaining a labour supply in a small, highly specialist and competitive

labour market has been challenging, even in the recession (Donnelly, 2010; Swart et al.,

2003). Thus the meticulous development of an apposite HR architecture and company culture

is contended to be fundamental to EE, and IESs long-term success. At the start of this study

in 2008, IES employed 78 professional and technical staff, all of whom were educated to at

least degree level; 12 staff had PhDs. The current workforce is 160, of which 19 have PhDs

(IES, May, 2015). These figures mask some changes in the numbers employed in the

intervening years due to substantial fluctuations in IES’s business environment, particularly

during the period under investigation. Three distinct contextual phases can be identified

within IES, 2008-2010.

1. Full of hope and engaging with HRM (2008-09)

Research pinpointed that IES had a generally cohesive and unique culture based upon four

key values, two centred on people: “human capital is prized and people are trusted to get the

job done” and “human capital is developed” (Maxwell, Findlay and McLean, 2008, pp.3-4).

A further two related to knowledge-sharing: “communication is transparent and open” and

“employees are actively involved in company activities” (ibid.). These values can be seen as

fundamental to the achievement of IESs vision (p.3). Moreover, interviewees distinguished

24

team working, commitment, and the ability to adapt as behavioural norms, while promoted

staff also noted a positive work ethic and continuous improvement (ibid, p.5). The research

also revealed company concerns about sustaining a unified culture, an effective work

environment and communication across its increasingly dispersed and growing workforce

(ibid.). Further, internationalisation had prompted particular HR issues: fairness and equity in

total rewards packages, communication and knowledge-sharing, and the performance

management of non-UK staff (McLean, 2008). It is fair to say that the company was

challenged; its existing, more informal HR policies and practices were proving inadequate at

a time when the company required staff to work collaboratively across the globe (VEnture,

Issue 17, 2008) and to operate as “One Team” (VEnture, Issue24, 2008, p.1). For these

reasons the first EE benchmark survey was launched and the levels and nature of EE and

antecedents of engagement at IES became codified and used to inform the development of

HR strategies and to identify key HR gaps and priorities for company action. To help foster

engagement, survey data and corporate objectives were published in October 2008 and a Staff

Management Committee (SMC) was established in November 2008 to discuss “matters of

significance to the future of IES” (VEnture, Issue 31, 2009, p.4).

Despite a worsening global economic crisis the company conviction was that its impressive

growth rate (40% year on year) and international expansion into the US and UAE would

continue, albeit more slowly (VEnture, Issue 21, 2008, p.1). However by December 2008,

IES revised targets downwards and instigated a recruitment freeze as the AEC market

collapsed (Kollewe, 2011; Nijssen and Paauwe, 2012). Simultaneously the Managing

Director (MD) reiterated the company’s commitment to EE and ‘One Team’, assuring

everyone that its HR strategies were a business imperative (IES Staff Presentation, December

2008).

25

2. Reality hits: a test of HRM and engagement (2009-2010)

The second phase marked the most intensely difficult period in the company’s history. IES

faced the need for more data and formal business systems (infrastructure), to enhance control

in an uncertain environment. A strategic performance management system was activated;

however planning became almost impossible as business levels fluctuated early 2009, forcing

the company into short-term decisions some of which were deeply upsetting (e.g.

redundancies; a pay freeze; budget cuts). Nonetheless IES responded to the first EE survey

and addressed a number of recognised barriers to EE, particularly communication and staff

involvement. Continued investment in HR and employee well-being ensued, for example

through developments in team leader training, a job groupings framework, the company

healthcare and flexible working schemes. These actions and the company mantra about the

value of its people and ‘One Team’ culture became regularly communicated via monthly

newsletters, quarterly all-staff presentations by the MD, SMC meetings, team meetings, new

cross-team knowledge-sharing workshops and company intranet. It is suggested these

interventions helped create a shared understanding and improve the implementation of

change at IES, helping the company to maintain its crucial focus on EE and performance (Bal

et al., 2010; Edwards, 2009; Metz et al., 2012).

Typically staff attributed deteriorating work conditions to the challenging external business

environment observing that the recession “has increased job uncertainty and the pressure to

deliver” (R8, 2009). Meanwhile the MD noted “the culture has prevailed, with many staff

stepping up and being more determined to drive the company forward, irrespective of the

depth or duration of the recession” (McLean, 2009). A shared purpose in the face of

adversity may have created a positive feeling of ‘we’ rather than ‘us and them’, thus

enhancing EE at IES (Purcell, 2009, as cited by Robertson-Smith and Marwick, 2009, p.39).

IESs crucial role in mitigating climate change was also found to contribute, extending to a

26

shared ‘higher’ purpose and meaningfulness for staff, beyond the confines of individual or

team roles, the organisation, or the AEC industry (McLean 2009). Moreover, the company

maintained significant investment in R&D, signalling a long-term approach to achieving its

vision.

High participation (100%) in the second survey and increased numbers of comments (from

95 in 2008 to 121 in 2009) suggests stronger felt-influence via employee voice. Whilst survey

results were generally good they did reveal diminished employee confidence in management,

suspicion of the job groupings framework, lower levels of job security and anxiety about the

reducing variety of work and opportunities for learning and development. These findings

were not unexpected given the turbulent business environment and deterioration in social

exchange at IES; job demands were high and resources were limited. Nonetheless, strong

team leader/ line manager support and behaviour were sustained (Tables 2-4). Encapsulating

many others’ views, one respondent stated that:

“although redundancies have taken place and this was not a nice period, I feel the remaining

staff are being treated fairly at the moment, the company team structure is much clearer and

it is obvious IES management are making efforts to listen to the needs of staff. This

contributes to a much improved working atmosphere” (R23, 2009).

Intense recessionary pressures continued into 2010 precipitating further budget cuts, although

deteriorating exchange rates helped moderate issues of insufficient global growth and cash

losses, in what remained a volatile AEC market.

3. Battle of endurance, concerns about EE and green shoots (2010-2011)

This third phase was a time of endurance for IES. While the anticipated business upturn did

not occur until late 2010, the company sought alternative avenues for revenue growth,

27

thereby increasing its R&D headcount and opening an Asian office with a lower cost base.

Meanwhile staff experienced further intensification of their workloads, with little prospect of

reciprocation through monetary rewards. At the same time US staff cuts were made. Unlike

best practice redundancy handling in the UK (2009), staff experience of the US HR service

provider was quick and brutal, reducing trust and confidence in IES management. Some of

the company’s senior management actions attracted open criticism by employees and their

representatives at the company’s SMC. Further, key HR interventions became subject to the

availability of company resources, leading to lower overall investment in people in 2010.

Concerns about EE were raised and potential strains in employment relationships such as a

deteriorating reward/ effort bargain were exposed. However, by the start of 2011 the third

survey revealed that as business improved, IES seemed to be taking appropriate HRM actions

although some key areas such as performance feedback and rewards and recognition

remained perceived barriers of EE, across time. Nevertheless, a “good team spirit and

connectivity among colleagues” was typically commented on (R5, 2010) with another

observing that “we have pulled together to make it through the economic crisis” (R18, 2010).

To summarise, IES’s positive business trajectory was halted by recessionary factors outwith

its control. In response IES endeavoured to retain its employee-oriented approach and

preserve its ‘One Team’ culture, whilst making hard business decisions to protect its core

business. As the AEC market deteriorated, HR architecture implementation in IES slowed;

the company failed to provide crucial resources in response to high job demands. Yet

throughout 2008-2010, EE remained of fundamental importance to IES; its EE strategy was

sustained.

Analysis and Discussion of Findings

28

Notably, levels of overall engagement improved significantly at IES between 2008-2010,

contrary both to company expectations and trends across the UK (CIC, 2010a; van Wanrooy

et al., 2013). Indeed, overall engagement scores appeared to reach potentially ‘world class

levels’ during what was a sharp downturn in the company’s global AEC market (CIPD, 2013;

Gallup, 2013; Jaidi and Thevenet, 2012). This points to a longitudinal alpha change in overall

EE but there is a need to determine what influenced the marked improvements in EE scores;

satisfaction with antecedents were examined.

Satisfaction with antecedents of engagement, 2008-2010

Results demonstrated that ten of the 12 antecedents were curiously invariant during what was

an exceptionally volatile period for the business (Table 1). Notably, a further antecedent (A8:

communication), described as a barrier to engagement (McLean, 2008), displayed significant

improvement in scores from 2008-2009 and in 2010. It can now be categorised an antecedent

of engagement at IES. Meanwhile A3: rewards and recognition displayed a significant

decline in satisfaction levels over the period and considered a barrier to EE by 2010.

Nonetheless, antecedent satisfaction scores at IES were regularly higher than relevant

benchmarked data (e.g. CIPD, 2011a; Towers Watson, 2012; van Wanrooy et al., 2013). It

seems that the strategic company responses to survey feedback via targeted actions and HR

interventions sustained (or improved) satisfaction with all antecedents of engagement, apart

from that of rewards and recognition. To the best of our knowledge there are no comparable

KIF studies; this finding is therefore generative.

There was a need to explain why these primarily positive results transpired; a complex web of

factors was untangled through analysis of qualitative data and is summarised in Figure 1

which portrays a number of key internal and external forces and management actions that

29

were found to have influenced satisfaction with antecedents and EE at IES, 2008-2010. This

force field analysis contributes to extant knowledge and suggests that satisfaction with

30

Figure 1: Force Field Analysis of EE at IES (2008 – 2010)

31

Employee Engagement

antecedents of engagement and the organisation’s internal and external context had

considerable effect on EE at IES.

Linking antecedents and EE at IES, 2008-2010

It appears that four features of working life at IES were consistently perceived by staff as

particularly important to their engagement over time. Correlational analyses revealed there

were stable moderate-large, positive relationships between four antecedents and EE; 2008-

2010 (see Tables 2-4). Firstly, A12: knowledge-sharing seemed a particularly important

antecedent, displaying a consistently large, strong relationship with overall EE. It has been

found that EE in PSOs centres on their shared interests with, and access to, an internal bank

of tacit knowledge (Donnelly, 2010). Secondly, the relationship between antecedent A4: job

satisfaction and EE increased in strength. This finding was not unexpected in a PSO given the

nature of the work undertaken by high qualified personnel; job satisfaction is exceptionally

important (Chen et al., 1999; CIPD, 2011b; Purcell et al., 2009; Serrano and Reichard, 2011).

Thirdly, there was a pattern of growing strength in the relationship between A2: strong

people-centric culture and overall engagement, reflecting IESs key focus on sustaining its

culture. Lastly, A1: clear long-term strategic direction and alignment exhibited a consistently

moderate-large correlation with overall EE 2008-2009 although shared variance dipped in

2009. This coincided with difficulties in planning after the recession hit. While it is not

possible to determine the unique relationship these antecedents have with EE, as data was not

sufficiently robust, the shared variance results of 2010 (Table 4) were eminently credible

(Pallant, 2010).

It can thus be proposed these four antecedents are the mainstay of engagement at the

company, substantiating data from earlier focus groups and interviews which identified the

nature and meaningfulness of work (A4: job satisfaction) and company culture (A2: people-

32

centric culture) as key drivers of EE at IES (McLean, 2009, p.40). Furthermore, IES’s

mission to alleviate pressing global concerns about climate change and the need for

intellectual collaboration to achieve it can be evidenced in the predominance of drivers A1:

clear long-term strategic direction and alignment, and A12: knowledge-sharing. The nature of

the company context as a KIF becomes apparent.

In addition, A10: belonging to a team/IES was correlated with EE across 2008-2010 with

repeated moderate-strong associations. Despite severe disruption to the business, a “good

team spirit and connectivity among colleagues” remained (R5, 2010). Moreover, results

revealed that by 2010 three other antecedents demonstrated relevance and displayed medium

strength associations with EE and shared variance of at least 16% (A6: team leader/ LM

support; A7: opportunities for personal growth, A9: employee involvement/ voice). This

finding points to these four as crucial supporting antecedents.

There is a need for caution about relationships between the final four antecedents and overall

engagement (A3: rewards & recognition, A5: interest in employee well-being; A8:

communication; A11: resources to perform job); each set of correlations in 2008 were non-

significant (p>.05). By 2010, there was medium strength of relationship between the latter

three and overall engagement. Conspicuously, A3: rewards and recognition demonstrated a

non-significant negative relationship with EE in 2008 and very small positive relationships,

2009-2010. Severe financial constraints may have affected respondents’ perceptions as this

transactional component became ‘off-limits’ at IES. Further, staff may have considered pay a

hygiene factor and/or tolerated the pay freeze during the AEC market downturn and therefore

not associated it with engagement.

Figure 2 summarises these results via a proposed contextual partial mediation model that

links 12 antecedents to overall engagement at IES.

33

Figure 2: Partial mediation model of EE in a knowledge-intensive setting

As the model presents, there are a number of major contextual ‘golden threads’ that can be

proposed as fundamental to EE at IES. Two have made significant contributions to the ‘IES

tapestry’ - the company’s overarching ‘higher’ mission or global cause, and its knowledge-

intensive setting, the nature of this business. These are encompassing components of this

model and jointly, interweave the company’s external and internal environments and have

become part of IESs unique fabric. A third thread concerns the IES culture i.e. its values,

34

beliefs and behaviours, underpinned by trust. Further, strategic decisions to invest in HR, to

sustain levels of investment in R&D and to develop the company infrastructure have

demonstrated the company’s belief in its long-term future and continuing success, making up

the final three ‘golden threads’. It can be suggested that this contextual tapestry has informed

the nature of the work, the workforce and the company’s internal environment; it has

influenced antecedent satisfaction and overall engagement in this KIF.

Conclusions

The study’s results verified Kahn’s (1990) original conceptualisation of EE. It can be inferred

that overall engagement worked well as a uni-dimensional measure, corroborating other

academic evidence as to its value (Christian et al., 2011; ESRC, 2011; Ng and Feldman,

2010; Rich et al., 2010; Viljevac et al., 2012; Vosburgh, 2008, as cited by Inceoglu and

Fleck, 2010, p.77).

A key conclusion was that the organisational context had a considerable effect on EE; the

complexity of competing and overlapping factors that impacted upon engagement and

antecedent satisfaction in IES was profound. A key implication is that the study supports the

HRM-Performance paradigm of the Contextual school which incorporates “factors

influencing and shaping …HRM policies and practices” (Paauwe, 2004 as cited by

Fleetwood and Hesketh, 2010, p.57). Further, it is contended that the partial mediation EE

model in Figure 2 transcends the rather simplistic linear models in literature into one which

more closely represents the complex reality of this KIF, contributing to ongoing theoretical

development.

This longitudinal study infers that four antecedents should now be described as fundamental

drivers of high engagement within a KIF during this difficult period: long-term strategic

35

direction and alignment; a strong people-centric culture; job satisfaction and knowledge-

sharing.

Justifiable inferences can be drawn as to why the positive findings occurred at IES; several

possibilities emerged. Following Purcell et al.’s 2009 investigation of the characteristics of

high performance cultures it can be concluded that the company ‘cause’ regarding reductions

in global carbon emissions was unquestionably IES’s ‘Big Idea’ which provided staff with a

‘higher’ shared purpose. This study found that IES had sustained its distinctive culture,

consistently embedding it through its values, beliefs and behaviours and maintaining the

message that ‘people matter’. Despite dramatic changes in company circumstances this key

message endured. Whilst IES’s culture was influenced by events such as redundancies,

continued investments (time, effort and financial) in HR architecture, line managers,

company infrastructure and R&D became tangible signals to the workforce that IES believed

in its long-term vision. The fact that the company invested voluntarily in all of these areas

when it could least afford to do so seemed to have a positive impact on EE, supporting Nishii

et al.’s findings (2008).

Improved horizontal and vertical communication and greater openness and transparency

regarding key company data by senior management helped support EE after cost-cutting and

the intensification of job demands were experienced across the organisation. Efforts to

increase knowledge-sharing across teams and multiple locations contributed to the

development of a more collective culture; teams evolved to become structural and relational

resources. A major implication of this study has therefore been that IES improved and

sustained EE through a focus on its unique culture and placing the engagement of its

employees at the centre of its business success.

36

Moreover, findings point to the importance of listening to, and acting on, employee voice. It

is concluded that ignoring the (sometimes pointed and in-depth) feedback from the

company’s highly qualified and interested workforce was not an option. Authors such as the

CIPD (2011a) and Sengupta and Whitfield (2011) concur with this view. Further, the study

revealed that in times of extreme organisational turbulence, highly qualified workers may

scrutinise and develop enhanced awareness of the external business environment and

subsequent company responses. Given that KIF employees have a high degree of power in

the employment relationship (Donnelly, 2010; Mason and Brown, 2012), it is suggested that

such organisations need a heightened appreciation of how management actions at such times

might impact the engagement of their inherently valuable workers.

It is concluded that social exchange theory (SET) was a valuable conceptual lens through

which to explain the changes in levels of EE and satisfaction with antecedents based on

notions of mutuality. The results identified various barriers to EE which had impacted upon

social exchange relationships (see Figure 1). However, through regular implementation of

management and HR interventions over time, the much needed perceived organisational

support (POS) was more evident, and was found to stabilise/ improve EE. It can be suggested

that Clarke’s view (2011), that in recessionary times, employers should focus more on socio-

emotional elements of social exchange whilst transactional elements of exchange are not

feasible, was validated by this study. However, what clearly emerged was the failure of a key

transactional element of social exchange (A3: rewards and recognition antecedent) to

correlate with overall engagement; this was contrary to other evidence (e.g. ACAS, 2010;

IRS, 2011). This infers that an unknown moderating variable may be present, or that IES

respondents were pragmatic, perceiving this antecedent as independent of their engagement

and not part of social exchange at this time. Another interpretation is that the same employees

37

manipulated their survey responses and that this finding was politically motivated. Further

exploration is required.

Moreover, the study outcomes offer support to MacLeod and Clarke’s notion that an effective

EE strategy is worthwhile even when strategy development is challenging in difficult

business environments (2009). Even where HR interventions were not entirely successful, it

seemed that employees were appreciative of management efforts, particularly in such a

testing business environment.

Implications for Practice

This study’s findings suggested that in times of organisational threat, managers who work in

labour-dependent knowledge-intensive sectors (with their associated high labour costs)

should focus on EE as a fundamental business imperative. It appears that without senior

management’s affirmation of the value of EE and investment in its antecedents, it is likely

that KIFs highly-educated employees may fail to fully reciprocate, possibly damaging long-

term organisational success. Further, as potentially untapped resources, it appears that KIF

employees expect to be involved and consulted in difficult times; their collective company

and market knowledge should be utilised. Employee voice through surveys and other

feedback can supply vital data that can be used to help break established patterns of

management practices and challenge existent strategies, monitoring the effect of new.

Companies should consider focusing on prioritising key, small but easy wins when their

budgets are severely constrained. Doing so may help to sustain engagement by supplying

much-needed elements of social exchange when major items are off the agenda.

38

Limitations and future research direction

As a case study, the findings are non-generalisable however, they could be located in other

populations in similar contexts e.g. KIFs of a comparable size and type in the AEC sector.

This may reveal whether there are unique characteristics of EE in this setting and test the

proposed conceptual model. This longitudinal study continues; IES has repeated the staff

survey and continues to use the results to assess its HR architecture, culture and EE levels. As

the company has grown in size the issue of relatively low population sizes which has limited

this study’s statistical power is removed.

References

ACAS (2010) Building Employee Engagement, ACAS Policy Discussion Papers, January

2010, Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2672&p=0, Accessed on

20 February 2011

Accor (2010) Reward to engage more: rewards, benefits and employee engagement in

today’s organisations, Available at: http://engagement.accorservices.co.uk/website/employee-

engagement-whitepaper.html. Accessed 12 January 2011

Aggarwal and Bhargava (2009) Reviewing the relationship between human resource

practices and psychological contract and their impact on employee attitude and behaviours,

Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.33, pp.4-31

Albrecht S.L. (ed.) (2010) Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues,

Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, US

Alfes K, Shantz A.D, Truss C. and Soane E.C. (2012) The link between perceived human

resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated

mediation model, International Journal of Human Resource Management,

DOI:10.1080/09585192.2012.679950

39

Alfes K., Truss C., Soane E.C., Rees C. and Gatenby M. (2013) The Relationship Between

Line Manager Behaviour, Perceived HRM Practices, and Individual Performance: Examining

the Mediating Role of Engagement, Human Resource Management, Vol.52 No.6, pp.839-859

Attridge M. (2009) Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of the

Research and Business Literature, Journal of Workplace Behavioural Health, Vol.24, pp.383-

398

Ayuso, S., Rodriguez, M. A., Garcia-Castro, R. and Arino M.A. (2011) ‘Does stakeholder

engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation?’ Industrial Management and Data

Systems, Vol. 111, No.9, pp.1399-1417

Bakker A.B. and Demerouti E. (2008) Towards a model of work engagement, Career

Development International, Vol.13 No.3, pp.209-223

Bakker A.B, Albrecht S.L. and Leiter M.P. (2011a) Key questions regarding work

engagement, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol.20 No.1, pp.4-

28

Bakker A.B, Albrecht S.L. and Leiter M.P. (2011a) Work engagement: Further reflections on

the state of play, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol.20 No.1,

pp.74-88

Balain S. and Sparrow P. (2009) Engaged to Perform: A new perspective on employee

engagement, White Paper 09/04, May 2009, Available at:

http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/files/hr/16878.pdf, Accessed on 7 July, 2013

Barber L., Hayday S., and Bevan S. (1999) From People to Profits: The HR link in the

service-profit chain, IES Report 355, IES Research Networks, UK

Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. M. (2001) The resource-based view: Origins and implications,

chapter in Hitt M. A., Freeman R.E., & Harrison J.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Strategic

Management: pp.124 –188. Oxford: Blackwell

40

Beaumont P. and Hunter L.C. (2003) Information and consultation: from compliance to

performance, CIPD Research Report, UK

Becker B.E. and Huselid M.A. (2006) Strategic Human Resource Management: Where do we

go from here? Journal of Management, Vol.32 No.6, pp.898-925

Beugre C.D. (2010) Organisational conditions fostering employee engagement: the role of

‘voice’, chapter 14 in Albrecht S.L. (ed.) (2010) Handbook of Employee Engagement:

Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, US

Biggs A., Brough P. and Barbour J.P. (2013) Strategic alignment with organisational

priorities and work engagement: A multi-wave analysis, Journal of Organisational

Behaviour, DOI: 10.1002/job.1866, Accessed 1 March 2014

Blau P.M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life, New York, Wiley

BlessingWhite (2011) Employee Engagement Report, Available at: http://www.blessingwhit

e.com/eee__report.asp, Accessed on 26 February 2011

BlessingWhite (2013) Employee Engagement Research Update, Available at:

http://www.blessingwhite.com/content/reports/BlessingWhite_Employee_Engagement_Rese

arch_Report_2013.pdf, Accessed on 7 July, 2013

Bolisani E., Paiola M. and Scarso E. (2013) Knowledge protection in knowledge-intensive

business services, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.14 No.2, pp.192-211

Boselie P., Dietz G. and Boon C. (2005) Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and

performance research, Human Resource Management Journal Vol.15 No.3, pp.67-94

Bowles D. and Cooper C. (2012) The high engagement work culture: balancing me and we,

Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan

Boxall P, Hwee Ang S. and Bartram T. (2011) Analysing the ‘Black Box’ of HRM:

Uncovering HR Goals, Mediators and Outcomes in a Standardized Service Environment,

Journal of Management Studies, Vol.48 No.7, pp.1504-1532

41

Bradon P. (2008) Best Companies – Methodology, February 2008. Available at:

http://www.bestcompanies.co.uk//Downloads/Best%20Companies%20-%20Methodology.pdf

Accessed May 2008

Brown D. and Reilly P. (2013) Reward and Engagement: The New Realities, Compensation

and Benefits Review, Vol.45 No.3, pp.145-157

Brown M. (2012) Response to work intensification: does generation matter? International

Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No.17, pp.3578-3595

Byrne Z, Pitts V, Chiaburu D. And Steiner Z. (2011) Managerial trustworthiness and social

exchange within the organisation, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol.26 No.2, pp.108-

122

Chen, CC, Ford, CM and Farris, CF (1999) Do Rewards Benefit the Organization? The

Effects of Reward Types and the Perceptions of Diverse R&D Professionals, IEEE

Transactions in Engineering Management Vol. 46 No.1, pp.47-55

Cheng Jen-Wei, Lu Kuo-Ming, Chang Yi-Ying and Johnstone S. (2012) Voice behaviour and

work engagement: The moderating role of supervisor-attributed motives, Asia Pacific Journal

of Human Resources, http://doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00030.x

Christian M.S, Garza A.S. and Slaughter J.E. (2011) Work Engagement: A quantitative

review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance, Personnel Psychology

Vol.64 No.1, pp.89-136

CIC (2010a) The Impact of the Recession on Construction Professional Services: Executive

Summary, Available at:

http://www.cic.org.uk/newsevents/ImpactRecessionResearchExecutiveSummary.pdf.

Accessed on 23 June 2011

42

CIPD (2009) An HR director’s guide to employee engagement, Available at:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/hr_director_guide_employee_engagement.pdf. Accessed on

10 July 2011

CIPD (2010) Creating and Engaged Workforce Research Report, January 2010, Available at:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DD66E557-DB90-4F07-8198-87C3876F3371/0/

Creating_engaged_workforce.pdf. Accessed: January 2011

CIPD (2011a) Sustainable Organisation Performance: What really makes the difference?

Shaping the Future Research Report for CIPD, Available at:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/5287STFfinalreportWEB.pdf Accessed on 10 March 2011

CIPD (2011b) Locus of Engagement: Understanding what employees connect with at work,

Research Insight, May 2011, Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/Locus%20of

%20Engagement.pdf, Accessed on 17 September 2012

CIPD (2012a) Employee Outlook, Summer 2012, Available at:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/5923%20Employee%20Outlook%20SR%20(WEB).pdf,

Accessed on 30 August, 2012

CIPD (2012b) Achieving sustainable organisation performance through HR in SMEs,

Research Insight Paper June, 2012, Available at:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/5827%20SOP%20SMEs%20RI%20(WEB).pdf, Accessed on

30 August 2012

CIPD/ Hays (2012c) Resourcing and Talent Planning: Annual Survey Report 2012, Available

at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/5874%20RTP%20SR%20(WEB).pdf, Accessed on 30

August 2012

CIPD (2013) Employee Outlook, Spring, 2013, Available at:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/6205-EmpOutlook-spring-2013-(WEB).pdf, Accessed on 7

July 2013

43

Clarke N. (2011) The MacLeod review: One year on, Employee Engagement, Organisational

Performance and Individual Wellbeing: Exploring the Evidence, Developing the Theory,

ESRC-Funded Seminar Series 2011-2012, Available at:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/webteamtest/kbs-medway/video-clarke.html. Accessed on 17 June

2011

Corporate Executive Board (2010) Executive Guidance for 2010, Annual Edition:

Confronting Six Enemies of Post-Recession Performance, Available at:

http://www.executiveboard.com/exbd-resources/pdf/executive-guidance/archive/2010-ANN-

EG-Six-Enemies.pdf, Accessed on 6 September 2012

Coyle-Shapiro J.A.M and Shore L. (2007) The employee-organisation relationship: Where do

we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, Vol.17, pp.166-179

Coyle-Shapiro J.A.M (2002) A psychological contract perspective on organizational

citizenship behaviour, Journal of Organisational Behaviour Vol.23 No.8, p927

Crawford, E.R., Rich B.L., Buckman B. and Bergeron J. (2014) The antecedents and drivers

of employee engagement, chapter 3 in Truss C., Delbridge R., Alfes K., Shantz A. and Soane

E. (2014) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, London, Routledge

Cropanzano R. and Mitchell M.S. (2005) Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary

Review, Journal of Management Vol.31, No.6, pp.874-900

Danford A, Durbin S, Richardson M, Tailby S. and Stewart P. (2009) ‘Everybody’s talking at

me’: the dynamics of information disclosure and consultation in high-skill workplaces in the

UK, Human Resource Management Journal Vol.19 No.4, pp.337-354

De Mello e Souza Wildermuth and Pauken P.D. (2008) A perfect match: decoding employee

engagement – Part1: Engaging cultures and leaders, Industrial and Commercial Training

Vol.40 No.3, pp.122-128

44

Demerouti E. and Cropanzano R. (2010) From thought to action: Employee work

engagement and job performance, chapter 11 in Bakker A.B. and Leiter M.P. (Eds.) (2010)

Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, UK

Donnelly R. (2010) The coalescence between synergies and conflicts of interest in a top

consultancy firm: an analysis of the implications for consultants' attitudes and behaviours,

Human Resource Management Journal Vol.21 No.1, pp.60-73

Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R. And Jackson R. (2008) Management Research, 3rd Ed, Sage,

UK

Edwards M.R. (2009) HR, perceived organisational support and organisational identification:

an analysis after organisational formation, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.19

No.1, pp.91-115

ESRC (2011) Employee Engagement, Organisational Performance and Individual Wellbeing:

Exploring the Evidence, Developing the Theory, ESRC-Funded Seminar Series 2011-2012,

Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/kbs/ecg/news-events/esrc-employee-engagement.html?

tab=background

Accessed on 17 June 2011

Fairlie P. (2011) Management tools: The meaning of work, HR Magazine, Vol.56 No.1, pp,

doi: 10.1177/1523422311431679

Farndale E, Kelliher C, Hope-Hailey V. and Van Veldhoven M. (2011a) Employee

engagement in multinational companies operating in Europe, India and China: a comparison

of antecedents and definitions, Employee Engagement, Organisational Performance and

Individual Wellbeing: Exploring the Evidence, Developing the Theory, ESRC-Funded

Seminar Series 2011-2012, Available at:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/webteamtest/kbs-medway/video-kelliher.html, Accessed on 17 June

2011

45

Farndale E, Van Ruiten J., Kelliher C. and Hope-Hailey V. (2011a) The Influence of

Perceived Employee Voice on Organisational Commitment: An Exchange Perspective,

Human Resource Management, Vol.50 No.1, pp.113-129

Fleck S. and Inceoglu I. (2010) A comprehensive framework for understanding and

predicting engagement, chapter 3 in Albrecht S.L. (ed.) (2010) Handbook of Employee

Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, US

Fleetwood S. and Hesketh A. (2010) Explaining the Performance of Human Resource

Management, Cambridge University Press, UK

Fletcher L. and Robinson D. (2014) Measuring and understanding employee engagement,

chapter 15 in Truss C., Delbridge R., Alfes K., Shantz A. and Soane E. (2014) Employee

Engagement in Theory and Practice, London, Routledge

Forth J, Bewley H. and Bryson A. (2006) Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Findings

from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, Available at:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file31580.pdf. Accessed on 2 March 2011

Freeney Y. and Tiernan J. (2006) Employee engagement: An overview of the literature on the

proposed antithesis to burnout, The Irish Journal of Psychology, Vol.27 No.3-4, pp.130-141

Frenkel S, Restubog S.L. and Bednall T. (2012) How employee perceptions of HR policy and

practice influence discretionary work effort and co-worker assistance: evidence from two

organisations, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.23 No.20,

pp.4193- 4210

Gallup (2013) Five Ways to Improve Employee Engagement Now, Available at:

http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/166667/five-ways-improve-employee-

engagement.aspx?utm_source=WWW&utm_medium=csm&utm_campaign=syndication#1,

Accessed January 12 2014

46

Gelade G.A. and Young S. (2005) Test of a service profit chain model in the retail banking

sector, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol.78 No.1, pp.1-22

George J.M. (2011) The wider context, costs, and benefits of work engagement, European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol.20 No.1, pp.53-59

Georgiadis A. and Pitelis C.N (2012) Human resources and SME performance in services:

empirical evidence from the UK, International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol.23 No.4, pp.808-825

Gilman, M.W. and Edwards, P.K. (2008) 'Testing a framework of the organization of small

firms -Fast-growth, high-tech SMEs', International Small Business Journal, Vol.26 No.5, p.

531

Gilman, M.W. and Raby, S.O. (2012) National Context as a Predictor of High Performance

Work Systems in SMEs: A British-French Comparative Analysis , International Journal of

Human Resource Management, ISSN 0958-5192

Gruman J.A. and Saks A.M. (2011) Performance management and employee engagement,

Human Resource Management Review, Vol.21 No.2, pp.123-136

Guest D. (2014) Employee Engagement: Fashionable fad or long-term fixture? Chapter 12 in

Truss C., Delbridge R., Alfes K., Shantz A. and Soane E. (2014) Employee Engagement in

Theory and Practice, London, Routledge

Guest D. (2011a) Human Resource management and performance: still searching for some

answers, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.21 No.1, pp.3-13

Guest D. and Michie J. (2000) Employment Relations, HRM and business performance: an

analysis of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, CIPD, UK

Holbeche L. and Matthews G. (2012) Engaged: Unleashing your organisation’s potential

through employee engagement, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons, UK

47

Horwitz F.M, Chan, H.T. and Quasi H.A. (2003) Finders, Keepers? Attracting, Motivating &

Retaining Knowledge Workers, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp

23-44

Huselid M.A. and Becker B.E. (2010) Bridging Micro and Macro Domains: Workforce

Differentiation and Strategic Human Resource Management, Journal of Management, Vol.

37 No.2, pp.421-428

IES (2014) Corporate Home Page, Available at: http://www.iesve.com/, Accessed on 12

April 2014

Inceoglu I. and Fleck S. (2010) Engagement as a motivational construct, chapter 6 in

Albrecht S.L. (ed.) (2010) Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues,

Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, US

IRS Employment Review (2011) Employee engagement survey 2011: increased awareness,

but falling levels, 28 November 2011, IRS, UK

Isik O., Mertens W. and Van den Bergh J. (2013) Practices of knowledge-intensive process

management: quantitative insights, Business Process Management Vol.19 No.3, pp.515-534

Iyer S. and Israel D. (2012) Structural Equation Modeling for Testing the Impact of

Organisation Communication Satisfaction on Employee Engagement, South Asia Journal of

Management, Vol.19 No.1, pp.51-81

Jacob J.I., Bond J.T, Galinsky E. and Hill E.J (2008) Six critical ingredients in creating an

effective workplace, The Psychology-Manager Journal, Vol.11, pp.141-161

Jaidi Y. and Thevenet M. (2012) Managers during crisis: the case of the major French car

manufacturer, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.23 No.16,

pp.3397-3413

Kahn W.A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.33, No.4, pp.692-724

48

Kahn, W. A. (1992) To Be Fully There: Psychological Presence at Work, Human Relations,

Vol. 45 No.4, pp.321–349.

Kahn W.A. and Heaphy E.D. (2014) Relational contexts of personal engagement at work,

chapter 4 in Truss C., Delbridge R., Alfes K., Shantz A. and Soane E. (2014) Employee

Engagement in Theory and Practice, London, Routledge

Keenoy T. (2014) Engagement: A murmuration of objects?, chapter 11 in Truss C., Delbridge

R., Alfes K., Shantz A. and Soane E. (2014) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice,

London, Routledge

Kim W., Kolb J.A. and Kim T. (2012) The Relationship Between Work Engagement and

Performance: A Review of Empirical Literature and Proposed Research Agenda, Human

Resource Development Review, Vol.12 No.3, pp.248-276

Kinnie N., Hutchison S., Purcell J., Rayton B. and Swart J. (2005) Satisfaction with HR

practices and commitment to the organisation: why one size does not fit all, Human Resource

Management Journal, Vol.15 No.4, pp.9-29

Kollewe J. (2011) Construction sector insolvencies jump by nearly a fifth, The Guardian,

Tuesday 31 May 2011

Kular S, Gatenby M, Rees C, Soane E. and Truss K. (2008) Employee Engagement: A

Literature Review, Kingston Business School Working Paper Series No. 19, Available at:

http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/4192/1/19wempen.pdf, Accessed on 7 July 2013

Lehner B.S. and Jung J., Stiler-Lorenz B., Nitzsche A. and Driller E., Wasem J. and Pfaff H.

(2013) Psychosocial factors in the information and communication technology sector,

Management Decision, Vol.51 No.9, pp.1878-1892

Leiter M.P. and Bakker A.B. (2010) Work Engagement: Introduction, chapter 1 in Bakker

A.B. and Leiter M.P. (Eds.) (2010) Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and

Research, Psychology Press, UK

49

Little B. and Little P. (2006) Employee Engagement: Conceptual Issues, Journal of

Organisational Culture, Communication and Conflict, Vol.10 No.1, p111-120

Lockwood N.R. (2007) Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s

strategic role, HRMagazine Vol.52 No.3, p1-12

Macey W.H, Schneider B, Barbera K.M. and Young S.A. (2009) Employee Engagement:

Tools for Analysis, Practice and Competitive Advantage, Wiley-Blackwell, UK

MacLeod D. and Clarke N. (2009) Engaging for Success: Enhancing performance through

employee engagement, Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdf. Accessed 20

Sept. 2009

Majeed Z. (2009) A review of HR practices in knowledge-intensive firms and MNEs: 2000-

2006, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.33 No.5, pp.439-456

Mason C. and Brown R. (2012) Technology-based firms in Scotland: A Report for Scottish

Enterprise, June 2012

Maxwell G., Findlay L. and McLean M. (2008) Developing Human Resource Management

through Human Capital Culture ‘One Team, Infinite Solutions’ in IES Ltd, European Case

Clearing House, Case Study Reference 408-073-1

May D.R., Gilson R.L. and Harter L.M. (2004) The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work,

Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol.77, pp.11-37

McLean M. (2008) Testing the Employee Engagement Model at Scotmid: Developing a

Human Capital Measurement Framework, DBA Document 2, September 2008

McLean M. (2009) A Qualitative Report on Developing the Employee Engagement Model at

Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES): A Piece of Case Study Research, DBA Document

3, July 2009

50

McLean M. (2011) A Quantitative Report: Exploring Employee Engagement at Integrated

Environmental Solutions (IES): A Piece of Case Study Research, DBA Document 4, March

2011

Medlin B. and Green K. (2009) Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement,

and optimism, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 109, no.7, pp.943-956

Menard S. (ed.) (2008) Handbook of longitudinal research: design, measurement and

analysis, Burlington MA, US

Metz I, Kulik C.T, Brown M. and Cregan C. (2012) Changes in psychological contracts

during the global financial crisis: the manager’s perspective, International Journal of Human

Resource Management, Vol.23 No.20, pp.4359-4379

Miles M. W. and Huberman M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook,

Sage Publications, U.S.

Minbaeva D.B.,  Mäkelä K. and Rabbiosi L. (2012) Linking HRM and Knowledge Transfer

via Individual Level Mechanisms, Human Resource Management, Vol.51 No.3, pp.387-405

Muse L., Harris S.G., Giles W.F. and Field H.S. (2008) Work-Life benefits and positive

organisational behaviour: is there a connection?, Journal of Organisational Behaviour

Vol.29, pp.171-192

Ng T.W.H. and Feldman D.C. (2010) The Relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta –

analysis, Personnel Psychology Vol.63 No.3, pp.677-718

Nijssen M. and Paauwe J. (2012) HRM in turbulent times: how to achieve organisational

agility? International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.23 No.16, pp.3315-3335

Nishii L.H, Lepak D.P. and Schneider B. (2008) Employee attributions of the ‘why’ of HR

practices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviours and customer satisfaction,

Personnel Psychology Vol.61 No.3, pp.503-545

51

Page R., Jagger N., Tamkin P. And Henwood N. (2006) The Measurement of Organisational

Performance, IES Report, UK

Pallant J. (2010) SPSS Survival Manual, 4th Ed, Open University Press, UK

Parker S.K. and Griffin M.A. (2011) Understanding active psychological states: Embedding

engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance, European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology Vol.20 No.1, pp.60-67

Pereira C.M.M. and Gomes J.F.S. (2012) The strength of human resource practices and

transformational leadership: impact on organisational performance, International Journal of

Human Resource Management, Vol.23 No.20, pp.4301-4318

Purcell J, Kinnie N, Swart J, Rayton B. and Hutchison S. (2009) People Management and

Performance, Routledge, London

Purcell J. (2014) Employee voice and engagement, chapter 13 in Truss C., Delbridge R.,

Alfes K., Shantz A. and Soane E. (2014) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice,

London, Routledge

Rajulton F. (2001) The fundamentals of longitudinal research: An overview, Canadian

Studies in Population, Vol.28 No.2, pp.169-185

Rayton B.A. and Yalabik Z.Y. (2014) Work engagement, psychological contract breach and

job satisfaction, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI:

10.1080/09585192.2013.876440, Accessed 26 February 2014

Rees C., Alfes K. and Gatenby M. (2013) Employee voice and engagement: connections and

consequences, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.24 No.14,

pp.2780-2798

Rich B.L, Lepine J.A. and Crawford E.R. (2010) Job Engagement: Antecedents and effects

on job performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.53 No.3, pp.617-635

52

Risler H. (2000) Compensating Today’s Technical Professional, Research Technology

Management, Vol.43 No.1

Robertson-Smith G. And Marwick C. (2009) Employee Engagement: A review of current

thinking, Institute of Employment Studies Report 469, June 2009

Robinson D, Perryman S. And Hayday S. (2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement, IES

Report 408

Robinson D. (2007) Employee Engagement, Opinion Paper OP11, Institute for Employment

Studies, December 2007, pp. 4 Available at:

http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/op11.pdf. Accessed on 17 June 2011

Robson C. (1993) Real World Research, UK, Blackwell

Rodrigues N. (2008) Insight into harnessing the X Factor, Sunday Times Supplement, March

9, 2008, p12

Rothmann S. and Welsh C. (2013) Employee engagement: The role of psychological

conditions, Management Dynamics, Vol.22 No.1, pp.14-25

Saks A.M. (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of

Managerial Psychology Vol.21 No.7, pp.600-619

Schaufeli W. B. (2011) Keynote address: Work engagement: a Unique Construct? ESRC

Seminar Series Employee engagement, Organisational Performance and Individual

Wellbeing: Exploring the Evidence, Developing the Theory, Available at:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/webteamtest/kbs-medway/video-wilmar.html, Accessed 17 June 2011

Schaufeli W.B. and Salanova M. (2011) Work engagement: On how better to catch a slippery

concept, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol.20 No.1, pp.39-46

Scholarios D. and Marks A. (2004) Work-Life Balance and the Software Worker, Human

Resource Management Journal Vol. 14 No.2, pp.54-75.

53

Sengupta S. And Whitfield K. (2011) Ask not what HRM can do for performance but what

HRM has done to performance, chapter 5 in Blyton P, Heery E. and Turnball P. (Eds.)

Reassessing the Employment Relationship, Palgrave Macmillan, UK

Serrano S.A. and Reichard R.J. (2011) Leadership Strategies for an engaged workforce,

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol.63 No.3, pp.176-189

Shirom A. (2010) Feeling energetic at work: On vigour’s antecedents, chapter 6 in Bakker

A.B. and Leiter M.P. (Eds.) (2010) Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and

Research, Psychology Press, UK

Shuck B. and Rose K. (2013) Reframing Employee Engagement Within the Context of

Meaning and Purpose: Implications for HRD, Advances in Developing Human Resources,

Vol.15 No.4, pp.341-355

Shuck B, Ghosh R, Zigarmi D. and Nimon K. (2012) The Jingle Jangle of Employee

Engagement: Further Exploration of the Emerging Construct and Implications for Workplace

Learning and Performance, Human Resource Development Review, Vol.12 No.1, pp.11-35

Shuck B. and Wollard K. (2010) Employee Engagement and HRD: A seminal Review of the

Foundations, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No.1, pp.89-110

Shuck, M.B., Rocco, T.S. and Albornoz, C.A. (2011) ‘Exploring employee engagement from

the employee perspective: implications for HRD’, Journal of European Industrial Training,

Vol. 35, No.4, pp.300-325

Sparrow P. (2014) Strategic HRM and employee engagement, chapter 5 in Truss C.,

Delbridge R., Alfes K., Shantz A. and Soane E. (2014) Employee Engagement in Theory and

Practice, London, Routledge

Sunday Times (2010) The Sunday Times Best 100 Companies, Available at:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/career_and_jobs/best_100_companies/

best_100_tables/Accessed on October 22, 2010

54

Swart J., Kinnie N. and Purcell J. (2003) People and Performance in Knowledge-Intensive

Firms, CIPD Research report, CIPD, UK

Tabachnick B.G. and Fidell L.S. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th edit, MA, Pearson

Education

Taris Toon W. (2000) A Primer in Longitudinal Data Analysis, SAGE Publications, UK

Tower Perrins (2008) Closing the Engagement Gap: A Road Map for Driving Superior

Business Performance, Global Workforce Study 2007-2008. Available at:

http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/GBR/2008/200803/

UK_report_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on 26 March 2008

Towers Watson (2010) Perspectives: Professional Service firms – Re-engaging and retaining

employees, Available at: http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/4183/TowersWatson-

AUSPerspectives-March2011.pdf, Accessed on 6 June 2011

Towers Watson (2012) Global Workforce Study: Engagement at Risk: Driving Strong

Performance in a Volatile Global Environment, Available at:

http://www.towerswatson.com/research/7177, Accessed on 12 September 2012

Van Veldhoven M. (2005) Financial performance and the long-term link with HR practices,

work climate and job stress, Human Resource Management Journal Vol15 No.4, pp.30-53

Van Wanrooy, B., Bewley, H., Bryson, A., Forth, J., Freeth, S., Stokes, L. and Wood S.

(2013)

The 2011Workplace Employment Relations Study – First Findings, London: BIS.

Viljevac A, Cooper-Thomas H.D. and Saks A.M. (2012) An investigation into the validity of

two measures of work engagement, International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol.23 No.17, pp.3692-3709

Wang H, Tsui A.S. and Xin K.R. (2011) CEO Leadership behaviours, organisational

performance, and employees’ attitudes, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.22 No.1, pp.92-105

55

Wefald A.J, Mills M.J, Smith M.R. and Downey R.G. (2012) A Comparison of Three Job

Engagement Measures: Examining their Factorial and Criterion-related Validity, Applied

Psychology: Health and Well-Being, Vol.4 No.1, pp.67-90

Welch M. (2011) The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication

implications, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol.16 No.4, pp.328-

346

WERS (2004) First Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey,

authored by Barbara Kersley, Carmen Alpin, John Forth, Alex Bryson, Helen Bewley, Gill

Dix and Sarah Oxenbridge. Available from: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11423.pdf.

Accessed 1 May 2010

Wollard K.K. and Shuck B. (2011) Antecedents to Employee Engagement: A Structured

Review of the Literature, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol.13 No.4, pp.429-

446

Wright P., Gardner T., Moynihan L., Park H., Gerhart B. and Delery J. (2001) Measurement

error in research on human resources and firm performance: additional data and suggestions

for future research, Personnel Psychology, Vol.54 No.4, pp.875-902

Xanthopoulou D, Bakker A.B, Demerouti E. and Schaufeli W.B. (2009) Reciprocal

relationships job resources, personal resources and work engagement, Journal of Vocational

Behaviour, Vol.74, pp.235-244

Xu J. and Thomas H.C. (2011) How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?

Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, Vol.32 No.4, pp.399-416

Zikmund W.G, Babin B.J, Carr J.C. and Griffin M. (2010) Business Research Methods, 8th

edit, South-Western Centage Learning, Canada

Appendix 1

THE 12 ANTECEDENTS (A) OF EE

56

A1: Clear long-term Strategic Direction and Alignment

A2: Strong People-Centric Culture (internally & externally)

A3: Rewards and Recognition

A4: Job Satisfaction

A5: Interest in Employee Health & Well-Being

A6: Team Leader/ Line Manager Support

A7: Opportunities for Personal Growth

A8: Communication

A9: Employee Involvement/ Voice

A10: Belonging to a Team/IES

A11: Resources (mental and physical) to Perform the Job

A12: Knowledge-Sharing

57