Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Sociodemographic Indicators: Employee Attitude

By Pranas Žukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitienė

Submitted: August 17th 2017Reviewed: August 21st 2017Published: April 18th 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70635

Downloaded: 188

Abstract

By presenting the respondents’ sociodemographic data (age, sex, education, etc.) and based on them, multilayer sections of the management culture and corporate social responsibility are carried out. The results of the research show that both social and demographic indicators, as well as respondents’ positions in various companies have a significant impact on the evaluations of both the management culture and corporate social responsibility. In addition, the trends of evaluation of the respondents working in different divisions of companies were highlighted, related to the psychological climate and weak feedback in the management policy. This emphasizes especially the wide range of factors, which the companies implementing corporate social responsibility should pay attention to.

Keywords

  • management culture
  • corporate social responsibility
  • sociodemographic indicators
  • groups of companies
  • divisions of companies
  • psychological climate

1. Introduction

1.1. Relevance of the research and the level of problem exploration

Research shows that various sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, education, length of service, etc., have a significant influence on processes within companies. For companies all over the world, it is difficult to avoid the prevailing sociocultural traditions; thus, the diversity in the workplace and its attitudes often occur as a multilayered implicit factor despite equivalency and other principles, which tend to be declared by the modern organizations [1, 2]. Research shows that social and demographic criteria strongly affect both the employees’ conflicts and the quality of relationships [3] and job satisfaction [1], as well as they are of service to the research of corporate social responsibility level in caring for the well-being of employees [4], the individual factors that promote involvement in different corporate social responsibility activities [5]. On the other hand, results of the research by Kukanja et al. [6] showed that the main reason for the responsible behavior was related to the age, experience, and level of education of managers. The most obvious conclusion of this research is that all demographic variables included in the research had a statistically significant influence when explaining socially responsible behavior. It shows that the age, education, work experience, status in the organization, etc. may have an influence on employees’ perceptions. These and other examples confirm the need to distinguish significant social and demographic variables when investigating a variety of corporate social responsibility factors. Of course, large companies and their groups are characterized by greater diversity of the characteristics of employees, the perceptions of which are quite difficult to analyze, and the more so to derive common denominators; however, the variables we analyze allow us to better understand the state of both the management culture and of corporate social responsibility from different approaches. Finally, the employees in the context of corporate social responsibility are equal stakeholders, whose reactions cannot be ignored to avoid a negative practice, especially when the reasonless focus is on the final consumer of the product.

1.2. Problem of the research

The problem of the research is raised by the question: What influence sociodemographic characteristics of employees have on evaluations of management culture and corporate social responsibility and which criteria are the most significant?

1.3. Object of the research

The object of the research is sociodemographic characteristics of employees.

1.4. Purpose of the research

The purpose of the research is, having determined socio-demographic characteristics of employees of companies' groups under research, to assess their influence on assessments of management culture and corporate social responsibility.

1.5. Objectives of the research

The objectives of the research are (1) to determine sociodemographic characteristics of the objects of research; (2) to evaluate the influence of sociodemographic characteristics of employees on evaluations of the management culture; and (3) to evaluate the influence of sociodemographic characteristics of employees on evaluations of corporate social responsibility.

1.6. Methods of the research

The statistical analysis and interpretation of the quantitative research results has been carried out. The analysis and comparison methods were used.

1.7. Sociodemographic indicators

In various research cases, the respondents usually give their sociodemographic data: age, sex, education, etc. On the one hand, it shows the structure of the respondents, but quite often, these data are used as sort of “inertia,” without giving greater importance, though multiple social and demographic sections could be a very significant, even a separate, research object, giving valuable information about factors that affect respondents’ reactions or attitude to the researched object.

Considering the complexity and versatility of social and demographic context and its impact on the management culture and corporate social responsibility, a separate publication could be allocated for that. However, this section distinguishes the criteria that summarize the researched population most in order to be able to assess what impact the respondents’ sociodemographic structure elements have on the research results. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the social/historical factors that influenced the respondents’ views. For example, the older workers’ attitudes (both managers and ordinary employees) and values were affected by the Soviet era as well as the dramatic transformation period, in Lithuania metaphorically identified as “savage capitalism,” the education received at that time, and the formed values, the acquired work/management experience, etc.

The sociodemographic criteria of the respondents making the sample reflect the great diversity of the positions as well as the age, work experience, and other respects. Before carrying out the research analysis with respect to the sociodemographic aspect, it is important to give the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents who participated in the research. The respondents were classified according to subdivisions of the groups of companies, current positions at work, work experience, age, sex, and education. The results of sociodemographic characteristics of employees of both groups of companies are presented in Table 1, both in general and individually by groups of companies.

CharacteristicsGeneralFirst groupSecond group
FrequencyPercentFrequencyPercentFrequencyPercent
Subdivision
 Administration33919.7%27530.2%647.9%
 Production137880.3%63669.8%74292.1%
Total1717100%91153.1%80646.9%
Position
 Ordinary employee126873.8%62168.1%64780.3%
 Administration employee29817.4%18620.4%11213.9%
 Lowest level manager633.7%374.1%263.2%
 Middle-level manager663.8%505.5%162.0%
 Highest level manager221.3%171.9%50.6%
Total1717100%91153.1%80646.9%
Work experience
 Up to 1 year42224.5%899.8%33341.2%
 2–5 years72242.1%39643.4%32640.5%
 6–10 years40323.5%27930.6%12415.4%
 11–15 years1116.5%909.9%232.9%
 More than 16 years593.4%576.3%
Age (years)
 18–2325815.0%11612.7%14217.6%
 24–2952330.5%34738.1%17621.8%
 30–3946427.0%27430.1%19023.6%
 40–4932018.6%12613.8%19424.1%
 50—up to retirement age1498.7%465.0%10312.8%
 Retirement age30.2%20.3%10.1%
Total1717100%91153.1%80646.9%
Sex
 Male72342.1%46050.5%26332.6%
 Female99457.9%45149.5%54367.4%
Total1717100%91153.1%80646.9%
Education of employees
 University26415.4%15016.5%11414.1%
 Nonuniversity26115.2%17018.7%9111.3%
 Higher (postsecondary)27215.8%13815.1%13416.6%
 Vocational41424.1%20522.5%20925.9%
 Secondary39322.9%16117.7%23228.8%
 Primary1136.6%879.5%263.3%
Total1717100%91153.1%80646.9%

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of employees.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

The analysis of the distribution of respondents by subdivisions shows that the majority of respondents represent the production unit, that is, the majority of survey respondents have the position of ordinary employees. When comparing both groups of companies by employees’ work experience, it was revealed that the largest number of employees includes those respondents who work in the organization from 2 to 5 years, although in the first group of companies it is clearly seen that there are many more long-standing employees. Of course, this is influenced by different time of the organizations’ establishment (the first (1) group of companies was established in 1992, the second (2) group of companies - in 1998). The employees’ characteristics according to their age do not show significant differences neither in one nor in another group of companies, i.e., in both groups of companies the respondents were divided fairly evenly. With respect to sex, there were no significant differences in the first (1) group of companies, that is, the number of males and females is almost equal; in the second (2) group of companies, females dominate, which indicates that the activities of this group of companies are more likely to meet the provisions of traditionally established “more acceptable for women” work. The education level of employees in both analyzed groups is distributed more or less equally. The employees who do not have higher education make the majority in the organizations, which is not always a necessary part of the production work. Later on, the results of the research are presented comparing sociodemographic indicators of the management culture indicators in the analyzed groups of companies.

1.8. Management culture with respect to sociodemographic attitude

The research results compare the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics and their opinion with respect to the management culture. Since all the questionnaire statements (both positive and negative) were coded positively, z-estimate minus sign indicates a negative situation in the analyzed question and plus sign indicates positive situation. Table 2 presents the research results that show the management culture situation with respect to subdivisions of the two groups of companies.

SubscalesAdministrationProductionANOVA
N = 339N = 1378Fp
Management staff general culture level0.37−0.1223.9610.000**
Management science knowledge level0.38−0.1122.8030.000**
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics0.28−0.0812.7120.000**
Level of the ability to manage0.29−0.0814.6300.000**
Optimal regulation of managerial processes0.21−0.0811.2000.000**
Rational organization of management work0.15−0.0810.9810.000**
Modern computerization level of managerial processes0.02−0.045.8170.001**
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls0.25−0.0810.8180.000**
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)0.38−0.1126.1140.000**
Workplace organization level0.26−0.0316.9390.000**
Work and rest regime, relaxation options0.31−0.1016.7120.000**
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate0.17−0.068.5990.000**
Culture of official registration of documentation0.27−0.0711.9750.000**
Optimal document search and access system0.29−0.1015.8730.000**
Rational use of modern information technologies0.42−0.1232.1530.000**
Rational archival documents storage system0.29−0.1014.8870.000**

Table 2.

Management culture with respect to subdivisions.

Level of statistical significance α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

*Level of statistical significance α = 0.05.

Taking into consideration the level of statistical significance, it is obvious that the results are statistically reliable and significant. Management culture assessment aspects differ depending on the type of organization subdivision where the employees work. The results warn that there is a strong gap between management culture assessments at the levels of different subdivisions. Physical and psychological labor safety, as well as workplace organization, and conduct with employees are the key components aiming for corporate social responsibility. The above-mentioned components indicate the need for changes when the organization quality of the companies’ activities can have a strong impact in the process of aiming for corporate social responsibility and the implementation. The more so that organization of managerial processes, machinery provision, management knowledge, and leadership qualities are evaluated with very low scores even by administrative staff themselves.

In both corporate groups (Table 3), differences between the way the management culture expression is assessed by the production and administration departments were highlighted, that is, the two groups of employees, one of which is directly related to management activities, such as subordinates, and the second—different levels of management staff and administrative staff are not involved in the production. In the first group of companies, reliable, statistically significant differences in all categories characterizing the management culture were found, while statistical significance is distinguished in management working conditions culture and documentation system culture positions. However, absolute assurance that the estimate trends of the respondents from the administration cannot be made and production departments coincide in both groups of companies. In this case, the estimates of management organization culture stand out: the negative z-estimate in the first group of companies was established among the production department staff and the positive among administration, whereas in the second group of companies, we see the opposite results. Here, the negative z-estimate was found among administrative staff and the positive among production staff. The z-estimates provided by the production unit are negative according to the rest of the categories. In other words, although the negative z-estimate is not significant, the results show the critical position of the management staff of the second group of companies with regard to the organization of managerial processes. A more detailed distribution of estimates, showing problem areas, could be seen having divided the staff of companies into much smaller groups according to their functions (Table 5).

Scales and subscales
Groups of companies
First groupT test resultsSecond groupT test results
SubdivisionsAdministrationProductionAdministrationProduction
SampleN = 275N = 636N = 64N = 742
Management staff culture
Management staff general culture level0.450.01t = 6.325
P = 0.000
0.12−0.19t = 2.382
p = 0.017
Management science knowledge level
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics
The level of the ability to manage
Managerial processes organization culture
Optimal regulation of managerial processes0.25−0.17t = 4.830
p = 0.000
−0.140.06t = −2.296
p = 0.022
Rational organization of management work
Modern computerization level of managerial processes
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls
Management working conditions culture
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)0.310.00t = 4.203
p = 0.000
0.61−0.17t = 6.334
p = 0.000
Workplace organization level
Work and rest regime, relaxation options
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate
Documentation system culture
Culture of official registration of documentation0.400.07t = 4.163
p = 0.000
0.27−0.23t = 4.539
p = 0.000
Optimal document search and access system
Rational use of modern information technologies
Rational archival documents storage system

Table 3.

Management culture with respect to subdivisions: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Detailed assessment of management culture decomposed according to the ranks of employees is presented in Table 4.

SubscalesOrdinary employeeAdministration employeeLowest level managerMiddle-level managerTop level managerANOVA
N = 1268N = 298N = 63N = 66N = 22Fp
Management staff general culture level−0.110.360.230.190.2715.7920.000**
Management science knowledge level−0.110.320.090.380.3214.9330.000**
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics−0.090.220.380.280.2210.1370.000**
The level of the ability to manage−0.080.200.140.270.498.0070.000**
Optimal regulation of managerial processes−0.070.180.260.230.055.8040.0001**
Rational organization of management work−0.070.130.390.370.207.8840.000**
Modern computerization level of managerial processes0.00−0.050.110.15−0.231.0480.381
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls−0.080.230.320.23−0.078.5030.000**
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)−0.140.450.190.360.1224.7150.000**
Workplace organization level−0.110.380.190.240.1917.3150.000**
Work and rest regime, relaxation options−0.070.140.210.330.426.3710.000**
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate−0.030.040.140.220.011.4890.203
Culture of official registration of documentation−0.080.230.250.180.037.4290.000**
Optimal document search and access system−0.080.210.310.200.268.1420.000**
Rational use of modern information technologies−0.140.450.290.44−0.0528.0170.000**
Rational archival documents storage system−0.100.270.250.320.2011.5420.000**

Table 4.

Management culture with respect to position.

Level of statistical significance α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

*Level of statistical significance α = 0.05.

According to Tukey’s HSD test, statistically significant differences were found among ordinary workers and other position employees’ z-estimates. The differences in relation to position were not found in two subscales: modern computerization level of managerial processes and work security and sociopsychological microclimate. Estimates of management culture aspects in most cases differ depending on the employees’ position. Almost in all subscales, ordinary production employees evaluated management culture negatively. The answer estimates of administrative staff and managers of all ranks are positive. Although the differences between the subscales z-estimates are not always significant, they are meaningful in several aspects. Routine administrative staff and the lowest level managers evaluated management culture in a similar way. Top-level managers evaluate the factors representing the management culture in a critical way, and computerization of managerial processes, use of information technologies, the culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, and phone calls were evaluated negatively, which is close to ordinary employees’ answers estimates. The results are fairly controversial: first, they show that top-level managers raise high demands on the organization’s managerial processes; second, top-level managers are responsible for this policy strategic decisions and their implementation. This demonstrates the need to find deep reasons of the situation, especially considering the tendency that people working in production are opposed to the current managerial situation, and the estimates of their answers are statistically significant. This means that the organization’s management state is in a difficult situation, does not satisfy the subordinates, and is critically evaluated by the managerial staff themselves; besides, employees with different ranking have unfair working conditions.

The employees under the current position and the nature of work are divided into five groups: two groups of ordinary employees and three groups of managerial staff. For laconic reasons (Table 5), ordinary employees are those working directly in the production, and administrative staff are those who do not have managerial duties and are not directly connected to production. In the first group of companies there are determined statistically significant differences in assessment of answers to the statements in all management culture categories, and in the second group - only in three categories out of four. Z-estimates also distributed significantly, both positive and negative.

Scales and subscales
Groups of companies
First groupANOVA verification resultsSecond groupANOVA verification results
PositionOrdinary employeeAdministration employeeLowest level managerMiddle level managerTop level managerOrdinary employeeAdministration employeeLowest level managerMiddle level managerTop level manager
SampleN = 621N = 186N = 37N = 50N = 17N = 647N = 112N = 26N = 16N = 5
Management staff culture
Management staff general culture level0.010.490.480.38−0.14F = 11.323
p = 0.000
−0.230.06−0.050.182.14F = 9.803
p = 0.000
Management science knowledge level
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics
The level of the ability to manage
Managerial processes organization culture
Optimal regulation of managerial processes−0.180.220.390.38−0.24F = 7.063
p = 0.000
0.05−0.010.19−0.020.78F = 1.992
p = 0.094
Rational organization of management work
Modern computerization level of managerial processes
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls
Management working conditions culture
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)0.000.340.330.28−0.19F = 5.409
p = 0,0003
−0.220.320.100.641.73F = 15.866
p = 0.000
Workplace organization level
Work and rest regime, relaxation options
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate
Documentation system culture
Culture of official registration of documentation0.070.450.530.23−0.36F = 6.582
p = 0.000
−0.300.160.030.661.77F = 20.106
p = 0.000
Optimal document search and access system
Rational use of modern information technologies
Rational archival documents storage system

Table 5.

Management culture with respect to position: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

In the first group, negative z-estimates among the top positions as managers range from −0.14 (culture of management staff) to −0.36 (documentation system culture). Negative estimates include those areas where top managers are directly responsible for the regulation of the situation but, at the same time, depend on the decisions of shareholders in the group of companies. In other managerial staff chains, exclusively positive z-estimates received were distributed from 0.23 to 0.38 among middle-level managers and among the lowest level managers—from 0.33 to 0.53. The latter group of managerial staff stands out from others by relatively higher ratings. The lowest estimates, although in many cases positive (−0.18 management processes organization culture), are among ordinary employees working in production. The estimates of this group are relatively closest to top-level managers.

Significantly, higher variance of z-estimates (both positive and negative) is observed in the second group of companies where the same and clear trends are less. Unlike the first group of companies, the z-estimates of top-level managers’ responses are distributed between 0.78 and 2.14. Significantly, lower z-estimates are between the lowest- (from −0.05 to 0.19) and middle-level managers (−0.02 to 0.66). The lowest estimates (from −0.30 to 0.05) are among ordinary employees working in production. The biggest differences of z-estimates while comparing the first and second groups of companies were revealed in the categories of management staff and organization of managerial processes culture (first group) and the management working conditions and documentation system culture categories (second group).

Employees’ work experience provides an opportunity to assess the situation described above in the aspect of the working experience at the organization. Details are given in Table 6.

SubscalesUp to 1 year2–5 years6–10 years11–15 yearsMore than 16 yearsANOVA
N = 422N = 722N = 403N = 111N = 59Fp
Management staff general culture level0.010.03−0.050.04−0.100.5740.681
Management science knowledge level−0.160.050.060.18−0.195.0410.0005**
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics0.020.00−0.070.200.001.7200.143
The level of the ability to manage−0.15−0.020.110.300.056.4750.000**
Optimal regulation of managerial processes0.060.02--0.160.160.154.0770.003**
Rational organization of management work0.090.00−0.150.170.053.9350.003**
Modern computerization level of managerial processes0.090.06−0.190.01−0.115.1330.0004**
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls−0.030.04−0.120.180.203.2840.011*
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)−0.070.020.040.09−0.211.5250.192
Workplace organization level0.02−0.020.040.01−0.140.5750.681
Work and rest regime, relaxation options−0.24−0.030.190.330.1814.1270.000**
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate−0.260.030.130.260.0711.1740.000**
Culture of official registration of documentation−0.130.010.090.18−0.133.7650.005**
Optimal document search and access system−0.160.020.080.130.053.9390.003**
Rational use of modern information technologies−0.140.040.080.08−0.203.7730.005**
Rational archival documents storage system−0.230.030.160.21−0.109.9610.000**

Table 6.

Management culture with respect to employees’ work experience in the company.

Level of statistical significance α = 0.05.


Level of statistical significance α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

Only four aspects should be mentioned where statistically significant differences were not set: management staff general culture; managers’ personal and professional characteristics; work environment; workplace organization. The received estimates show that the most critical are the beginners and employees having the biggest work experience, as well as employees who finished lower level training institutions, mainly representing the production.

Thus, the research distinguished two groups: employees with the least work experience and those with work experience of 16 years and more. Employees having 11–15 years’ work experience give the most favorable management culture evaluation, whose answers’ z- estimates are positive. Since the evaluation varies depending on the work experience, the adaptation and socialization problems can be seen, experienced at the beginning of work. This could be justified by mobbing and sociopsychological climate research carried out in Lithuanian organizations. The research results showed a hostile working environment experienced by novice employees [7, 8]. However, the speeches expressed by the oldest employees can mark the fact that they by declaring a negative position are guided by great work experience in the organization, although they do not feel safe and happy with working environment. This indicates that management culture in groups of companies is not clearly and adequately communicated, because it takes time to assimilate it.

The results of management culture analysis according to the respondents’ work experience in years in the groups of companies (Table 7) are statistically significant, although their significance rates are not high and smooth. First of all, attention should be paid to the structure of employees by work experience in years in the groups of companies: most of the first group respondents have work experience from 2 to 10 years, whereas in the second group—from 1 to 5 years. In other words, even though both groups of companies have similar amount of years of existence, most of the first group employees have a longer work experience in years.

Scales and subscales
Groups of companies
First groupANOVAverification resultsSecond groupANOVA verification results
Work experience (in years)Up to 1 year2–5 years6–10 years11–15 yearsMore than 16 yearsUp to 1 year2–5 years6–10 years11–15 yearsMore
than 16 years
SampleN = 89N = 396N = 279N = 90N = 57N = 333N = 326N = 124N = 21N = 2
Management staff culture
Management staff general culture level0.110.180.140.20−0.12F = 1.265
p = 0.282
−0.13−0.19−0.300.281.42F = 3.085
p = 0.016
Management science knowledge level
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics
The level of the ability to manage
Managerial processes organization culture
Optimal regulation of managerial processes0.100.000.060.16−0.24F = 3.020
p = 0.017
0.050.07−0.040.080.74F = 1.139
p = 0.337
Rational organization of management work
Modern computerization level of managerial processes
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls
Management working conditions culture
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)−0.030.060.200.15−0.07F = 1.568
p = 0.181
−0.21−0.08−0.030.500.93F = 3.828
p = 0.004
Workplace organization level
Work and rest regime, relaxation options
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate
Documentation system culture
Culture of official registration of documentation0.170.180.230.17−0.14F = 1.348
p = 0.250
−0.29−0.15−0.130.180.62F = 2.919
p = 0.021
Optimal document search and access system
Rational use of modern information technologies
Rational archival documents storage system

Table 7.

Management culture with respect to employees’ work experience in the company: results of different companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Z-estimates, while comparing the two groups, do not show common trends for those groups, although there are certain regularities when considered in isolation. For example, in the first group of companies, exclusively negative z-estimates according to all management culture categories represent the answers of respondents having more than 16 years of work experience (from −0.7 to −0.24), whereas in the second group of companies, negative z-estimates stand out in the group of respondents having 6–10 years of work experience (from −0.03 to −0.30). On the other hand, in the latter group of companies in the three employee groups, covering a range from 1 to 10 years, the negative z-estimates denote such management culture categories as management staff culture, management working conditions culture and documentation system culture. These trends could indicate the existence of formed stable organization cultures in groups of companies, the assessments of which little (if we consider an exception of the first group of respondents with more than 16 years of work experience) depend on the type of work experience employees have in those companies.

Management culture absolutely in all aspects varies with respect to the age of employees (Table 8) as well as when comparing the results with respect to subdivisions. According to the Tukey’s HSD test, statistically significant differences were found among the youngest, 18–23 years of age, and among the oldest, 50 years–up to retirement age of employees and the middle age of employees’ z-estimates. The results show that the most positive management culture evaluation in the workplace is given by 30–39 years age group representatives, which is one of the largest with regard to the number of respondents who participated in the research. The most critical is the third group of respondents concerning the size: 18–23 years. Discussing of the management culture components assessment by age groups revealed that one of the most favorably evaluated indicators is optimality of managerial processes regulation. There is visible a tendency that the worst management culture assessment is given by the youngest age group, the respondents having the least work experience, and the oldest group representatives. Summarizing this research part, it can be assumed that management culture is the least advantageous to these two groups; besides, it reflects the region’s common cultural attitudes that are inclined to discriminate employees based on age, as employers are typical of stereotypical attitudes, as shown, for example, in the research carried out in Lithuania [9].

Subscales18–23 years24–29 years30–39 years40–49 years50 to up to retirementANOVA verification results
N = 258N = 523N = 464N = 320N = 149Fp
Management staff general culture level−0.160.090.07−0.05−0.154.3390.002**
Management science knowledge level−0.090.110.07−0.09−0.235.3200.0003**
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics−0.140.110.04−0.07−0.154.3370.002**
The level of the ability to manage−0.200.080.08−0.02−0.124.9140.001**
Optimal regulation of managerial processes0.07−0.150.000.130.135.0830.0005**
Rational organization of management work0.01−0.160.010.170.126.3040.000**
Modern computerization level of managerial processes0.22−0.12−0.020.08−0.075.7970.0001**
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls−0.04−0.100.040.100.082.5290.039*
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)−0.220.050.050.020.033.9240.004**
Workplace organization level−0.330.030.050.050.198.9940.000**
Work and rest regime, relaxation options−0.060.090.07−0.10−0.214.1520.002**
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate−0.210.000.110.010.014.2090.002**
Culture of official registration of documentation−0.260.090.05−0.020.025.7960.0001**
Optimal document search and access system−0.120.140.03−0.06−0.235.8490.0001**
Rational use of modern information technologies−0.180.160.03−0.08−0.156.8330.000**
Rational archival documents storage system−0.230.180.02−0.05−0.199.2580.000**

Table 8.

Management culture with respect to employees’ age.

Level of statistical significance α = 0.05.


Level of statistical significance α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

The respondents who participated the research were divided into five groups according to their age, i.e. from the youngest to the oldest employees. Considering the distinguished age groups, the research results show significant differences in evaluation. Comparing to the results discussed above, there emerge certain trends of evaluation dependence on the age of respondents. Z-estimates of all management culture categories of the first group in the cohort of 50 years, and older respondents are negative (from −0.06 to −0.16). In the cohort of 18–23 years, negative z-estimates represent three of four categories of management culture (positive is only management processes organization culture, i.e., 0.16). Similarly in this age group there were divided the estimates of management culture categories in the second group of companies. It is significant that in the latter group of companies essential evaluations’ connection with the respondents’ age was not found even in two management culture categories which are represented by the negative z-estimates, although the statistical significance differs. These are management staff culture (from −0.09 to −0.22) and documentation system culture (from −0.11 to −0.40). Therefore, judging by the highlighted evaluation trends and statistical differences among the estimates, the age factor in assessing management culture can be significant, but cannot be given prominence and absolute not paying attention to other sociodemographic factors. Moreover, as we see in the example of the second group of companies, the differences among generations while assessing separate management culture aspects may be insignificant (Table 9).

Scales and
subscales
Groups of
companies
First groupANOVA verification resultsSecond groupANOVA verification results
Employees’ age18–23 years24–29 years30–39 years40–49 years50 y.-up to retirement age18–23 years24–29 years30–39 years40–49 years50 y.-up to retirement age
SampleN = 116N = 347N = 274N = 126N = 48N = 142N = 176N = 190N = 194N = 104
Management staff culture
Management staff general culture level−0.010.250.20−0.01−0.13F = 3.624
p = 0.006
−0.31−0.15−0.09−0.11−0.22F = 1.265
p = 0.282
Management science knowledge level
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics
The level of the ability to manage
Managerial processes organization culture
Optimal regulation of managerial processes0.16−0.20−0.020.17−0.06F = 3.256
p = 0.012
0.01−0.050.050.120.13F = 1.995
p = 0.093
Rational organization of management work
Modern computerization level of managerial processes
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls
Management working conditions culture
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)−0.080.180.16−0.04−0.11F = 2.772
p = 0.026
−0.41−0.19−0.010.010.06F = 5.812
p = 0.000
Workplace organization level
Work and rest regime, relaxation options
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate
Documentation system culture
Culture of official registration of documentation−0.020.310.200.01−0.16F = 4.354
p = 0.002
−0.40−0.13−0.20−0.11−0.16F = 2.920
p = 0.020*
Optimal document search and access system
Rational use of modern information technologies
Rational archival documents storage system

Table 9.

Management culture with respect to employees’ age: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Estimates of management culture aspects vary depending on the employee’s education (Table 10). A trend is obvious that in most cases the employees having lower level of education, which is represented by manufacturing, in all cases gave negative assessments. According to the Tukey’s HSD test, statistically significant differences were found between the groups’ z-estimates (with higher, postsecondary, vocational, and secondary/primary education). Estimates in the subscales of work and rest regime and relaxation options are not statistically significant. When assessing the results, it can be said that the management culture estimates are directly dependent on the level of education of the respondents. Management culture in all subscales was positively assessed by employees with higher (university) education. The worst assessment, i.e. assessment of almost all constituents, is negative between the employees having vocational training. Assessment of all analysed constituents is negative between employees having secondary and primary education.

SubscalesUniversityPostsecondary
(higher)
VocationalSecondary, primaryANOVA
N = 525N = 272N = 414N = 506Fp
Management staff general culture level0.260.13−0.10−0.2627.2510.000**
Management science knowledge level0.240.12−0.17−0.1821.5780.000**
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics0.200.07−0.14−0.1312.7000.000**
The level of the ability to manage0.120.12−0.09−0.127.6020.000**
Optimal regulation of managerial processes0.180.21−0.07−0.2521.6550.000**
Rational organization of management work0.180.28−0.08−0.2626.2870.000**
Modern computerization level of managerial processes0.010.29−0.09−0.0910.2250.000**
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls0.220.17−0.11−0.2221.5710.000**
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)0.330.04−0.13−0.2634.1440.000**
Workplace organization level0.240.08−0.15−0.1720.1440.000**
Work and rest regime, relaxation options0.06−0.060.02−0.041.2740.282
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate0.050.08−0.10−0.022.3990.046*
Culture of official registration of documentation0.140.15−0.03−0.2012.2680.000**
Optimal document search and access system0.190.05−0.10−0.1311.0670.000**
Rational use of modern information technologies0.310.13−0.16−0.2634.5400.000**
Rational archival documents storage system0.160.14−0.16−0.1112.2330.000**

Table 10.

Management culture with respect to employees’ education.

Level of statistical significance α = 0.05.


Level of statistical significance α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

Analyzing management culture by respondents’ education section (see Table 11), reliable and statistically significant differences were determined in most cases. In the case of the first group, these differences show up in the aspects of management staff culture and management processes organization culture. Meanwhile, in the case of the second group, attention should be paid to the opposition between the respondents having higher (z-estimates are from 0.05 to 0.21) and secondary and/or primary education (z-estimates ranging from −0.06 to −0.41). Previously reported results have shown a much more complicated situation of management culture than in the first group, which draws attention to how the reactions are determined by a general corporate policy, and how it is understood by company employees having different education (Table 11).

Scales and
subscales
Groups of
companies
First groupANOVA verification resultsSecond groupANOVA verification results
Employees’ educationHigher (university)PostsecondaryVocationalSecondary/
Primary
Higher (university)PostsecondaryVocationalSecondary/
Primary
SampleN = 320N = 138N = 205N = 248N = 205N = 134N = 209N = 258
Management staff culture
Management staff general culture level0.350.340.00−0.10F = 14.126
p = 0.000
0.07−0.09−0.28−0.30F = 6.949
p = 0.0001
Management science knowledge level
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics
The level of the ability to manage
Managerial processes organization culture
Optimal regulation of managerial processes0.240.39−0.32−0.42F = 25.103
p = 0.000
0.050.150.11−0.06F = 3.904
p = 0.009
Rational organization of management work
Modern computerization level of managerial processes
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls
Management working conditions culture
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)0.230.19−0.120.03F = 5.671
p = 0.001
0.21−0.11−0.11−0.35F = 13.192
p = 0.000
Workplace organization level
Work and rest regime, relaxation options
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate
Documentation system culture
Culture of official registration of documentation0.340.33−0.010.01F = 7.540
p = 0.000
0.06−0.06−0.25−0.41F = 13.968
p = 0.000
Optimal document search and access system
Rational use of modern information technologies
Rational archival documents storage system

Table 11.

Management culture with respect to employees’ education: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Tables 12 and 14 present research results that were verified by Student criterion (t test).

SubscalesMaleFemaleT test verification results
N = 723N = 994tp
Management staff general culture level0.02−0.020.7320.464
Management science knowledge level0.07−0.052.3890.017*
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics0.03−0.021.1630.245
The level of the ability to manage0.07−0.052.3810.017*
Optimal regulation of managerial processes−0.080.06−2.9620.003**
Rational organization of management work−0.080.06−2.7860.005**
Modern computerization level of managerial processes−0.090.06−3.1040.002**
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls−0.060.05−2.2930.022*
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)0.04−0.031.2640.207
Level of organizing working places0.000.000.1230.902
Work and rest regime, relaxation options0.10−0.073.4180.001**
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate0.02−0.020.7830.434
Culture of official registration of documentation0.06−0.052.2840.022*
Optimal document search and access system0.04−0.031.3100.190
Rational use of modern information technologies0.03−0.021.1270.260
Rational archival documents storage system0.08−0.062.7680.006**

Table 12.

Management culture with respect to employees’ sex.

Level of statistical significance α = 0.05.


Level of statistical significance α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

Management culture assessment in some respects differs depending on employees’ sex (Table 12). The analysis of the management culture with respect to employees’ sex showed the least statistically significant differences than comparing with other sociodemographic criteria. Here, there are no significant differences even in seven subscales. However, males’ and females’ attitudes in these subscales (management staff general culture, managers’ personal and professional characteristics, working environment, work security and sociopsychological microclimate, optimal document search and access system, and rational use of modern information technologies) are quite different—the females assess all these aspects negatively and the males in an affirmative way. Workplace organization with respect to both sexes is positive. It is clear that females were more critical to human relations, working environment, and internal climate of the organization.

Except the highlighted cases of the organization, culture of management processes in the first group of companies and registration of documents in the second group, with respect to sexuality, statistical significance does not differ substantially. However, in the second group, negative z-estimates, regardless of the gender of the respondents, are distinguished by two categories of management culture: management staff culture (from −0.09 to −0.20) and documentation system culture (from −0.07 to −0.25). This, again, indicates already highlighted trends that are given additional tones, which we understand as unresolved problematic aspects, by male and female respondents’ evaluations. The culture of the latter group of companies can be seen as more differentiated and less balanced with respect to sexual aspect (Table 13).

Scales and subscales
Groups of
companies
First groupT test resultsSecond groupT test results
SexMalesFemalesMalesFemales
SampleN = 460N = 451N = 263N = 543
Management staff culture
Management staff general culture level0.130.16t = −0.372
p = 0.710
−0.09−0.20t = 1.559
p = 0.119
Management science knowledge level
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics
The level of the ability to manage
Managerial processes organization culture
Optimal managerial processes regulation−0.180.10t = −3.565
p = 0.0004
0.070.04t = 0.659
p = 0.510
Rational organization of management work
Modern computerization level of managerial processes
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls
Management working conditions culture
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)0.080.10t = −0.314
p = 0.754
0.00−0.16t = 2.080
p = 0.038
Level of organizing working places
Work and rest regime, relaxation options
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate
Documentation system culture
Culture of official registration of documentation0.140.20t = −0.882
p = 0.378
−0.07−0.25t = 2.774
p = 0.006
Optimal document search and access system
Rational use of modern information technologies
Rational archival documents storage system

Table 13.

Management culture with respect to employees’ sex: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Management culture differences comparing both groups of companies (Table 14) statistically do not have significant differences in these subscales: optimal regulation of managerial processes; modern computerization of managerial processes; and culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, and phone calls. However, there were statistically significant differences in the remaining parameters. Based on the results of comparative analysis, it can be said that management culture is not common to companies belonging to the same area of economic activities. Attention should be paid to management science knowledge and the related aspects of management staff general culture and management level.

SubscalesFirst groupSecond groupT test verification results
N = 911N = 806tp
Management staff general culture level0.06−0.072.7870.005**
Management science knowledge level0.17−0.197.6530.000**
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics0.10−0.114.3740.000**
The level of the ability to manage0.18−0.207.8450.000**
Optimal managerial processes regulation−0.020.02−0.6660.506
Rational organization of management work−0.110.12−4.8350.000**
Modern computerization level of managerial processes−0.030.03−1.2580.209
Culture of visitor reception, conducting meetings, phone calls0.01−0.010.5400.589
Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)−0.020.03−0.9900.322
Level of organizing working places−0.130.15−5.8750.000**
Work and rest regime, relaxation options0.29−0.3313.5870.000**
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate0.16−0.197.3530.000**
Culture of official registration of documentation0.09−0.103.8640.0001**
Optimal document search and access system0.19−0.218.5010.000**
Rational use of modern information technologies0.11−0.124.6720.000**
Rational storage system of archival documents0.20−0.239.1340.000**

Table 14.

Common management culture comparison between two groups of companies.

Level of statistical significance α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

*Level of statistical significance α = 0.05.

Management culture development is one of the main conditions for the company’s aim to become socially responsible and for the success of this process. When successfully managing the preparation to implement social responsibility strategy, the process is carried out in four directions: personal management staff culture, culture of organization of managerial processes, working conditions culture, and documentation system culture. Conclusions of the research carried out in other countries proved that organizations assess not all aspects of corporate social responsibility, and this is influenced by lack of a strong institutional capacity of employees as one part of stakeholders. Having evaluated the results of the research, it can be concluded that the administration of both groups of companies assesses corporate social responsibility activities inadequately, there is no guarantee feedback, lack of concern for the relationship with the employees who are one part of the stakeholders, their physical environment, and psychological condition. There is no effective internal social responsibility audit system which should be developed to ensure feedback, and corporate social responsibility has not become the management culture self. Psychologically insecure environment can affect that males are reluctant to detailed critical approach to corporate social responsibility activities of groups of companies, but in future research the influence of sociocultural stereotypes should be checked.

The research results of this part summarize and extend the theoretical research and practically emphasize the role of management culture as an integral part of organizational culture. An increased investment in strengthening the management culture expression is one of the key tasks for post-Soviet states organizations. Employee, as one part of stakeholders, is a kind of litmus showing the management culture expression and direction of changes.

1.9. Corporate social responsibility with respect to sociodemographic attitude

Even in the groups of companies functioning in the same socio-cultural environment, individual companies are not homogeneous. Finally, individuals’ education may vary, as well as experiences of different age groups (generations), values, views, and reactions. This is especially true in our case, since the population consists of two generations in the space of different views (planned and market economies) and formed in their transformation. On the one hand, the analysis of views of separate groups making up companies and individuals’ reactions to the ongoing processes permits to deconstruct, to know, and to evaluate these processes. On the other hand, having deconstructed and reflected the processes, preconditions are created for more accurate design of solutions, considering different factors. It is like a mosaic, where if viewed from a different distance, new, unique details are revealed. Therefore, in this section, by using statistical analysis, we will present corporate social responsibility situation in few different sections. First, there are presented summarized results of the research, and further presentation—by dividing and detailing in separate aspects.

Since all the questionnaire statements (both positive and negative) were coded positively, z-estimate minus sign indicates the negative situation of the analyzed issue and a plus sign indicates positive. The differences are evident when the z-estimate indicators sum among compared objects is 0.5. In order to get a clearer picture, the general results of both groups of companies with respect to sociodemographic criteria and separately by groups of companies are presented in the tables of this section. Table 15 gives the general research results showing the situation of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee behavior with respect to subdivisions of both groups of companies.

Scales
Subscales
AdministrationN = 339Production N = 1378ANOVA verification results
Fp
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (Services and their quality)0.20−0.038.6270.000**
Market responsibility (Consumer information, health, and safety)0.24−0.068.6440.000**
Environment protection responsibility0.10−0.012.5770.050*
Responsibility in relations with employees0.30−0.1118.0000.000**
Responsibility in relations with society0.25−0.0313.9080.000**
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work0.28−0.0711.4320.000**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work0.35−0.0917.5880.000**
General physical and psychological condition of the employee0.21−0.038.2300.000**
The employee’s opinion about the organization0.000.010.7760.507
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism0.24−0.0812.5510.000**
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude0.12−0.014.6910.003**

Table 15.

Behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee with respect to subdivisions: general results.

Level of statistical significance α = 0.05.


Level of statistical significance α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

In this case, we distinguish two subdivisions, which are conditionally identified as “production” and “administration.” The administration includes the respondents performing managerial and administrative work. The production subdivision consists of ordinary employees performing the direct production work (physical, with equipment, etc.) in the workshops of companies.

By using the dispersion indicator (F) (ANOVA single-factor dispersion analysis), it is determined which method was used. Statistical significance (p) (results are in bold) shows that the differences between the z-estimates are statistically significant, i.e., sufficient to be able to draw conclusions in the analyzed case. Both behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee are different depending on in which relatively isolated company subdivision the employee works in case of this research. In production subdivisions, there is greater disapproval of subscales’ statements.

These data were verified by using single-factor dispersive analysis one-way ANOVA. Though the research results do not show a statistically significant gap, however, they signal that administration's position on all analysed questions is positive. It is contrary in manufacturing subdivisions, i.e. employees' position on analysed questions is negative, except the sub-scale "My responses about organization," where z-estimate is positive.

Although this method does not cover direct reasons why such differences emerged, however, it draws attention to the problem areas of the companies that should be analyzed in detail, by using different methods and angles.

Then, following the macro aspect, research results received in “administration” and “production” subdivisions by different groups of companies are presented in Table 16.

Scales and subscales
Groups of
companies
First groupT test resultsSecond groupT test results
SubdivisionsAdministrationProductionAdministrationProduction
SampleN = 275N = 636N = 64N = 742
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)0.23−0.11t = 4.586
p = 0.000
0.46−0.03t = 3.955
p = 0.000
Market responsibility (consumer information, health, and safety)
Environment protection responsibility
Responsibility in relations with employees
Responsibility in relations with society
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work0.16−0.22t = 5.357
p = 0.000
0.780.06t = 5.730
p = 0.000
Uncertainty and lack of information at work
General physical and psychological condition of the employee
The employee‘s opinion about the organization
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude

Table 16.

Behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee with respect to subdivisions: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

*Statistical significance level α = 0.05.

**Statistical significance level α = 0.01.

Separately analyzing the groups of companies, the features characterizing the groups begin to emerge. Research results presented by separate groups of companies show that both socially responsible organizations and socially responsible employee behavior results differ statistically significantly in favor of the administrative staff (p < 0.001), i.e., the results of socially responsible behavior of the production employees are significantly worse than those of the administration subdivision staff. This is confirmed by significantly lower z-estimates, in most cases even negative. Z-estimates of the first group of companies respondents employed in the production are negative while comparing according to the scales of behavior of socially responsible organization, as well as behavior of socially responsible employee, which shows very unfavorable provisions differing significantly from administration assessments. Such gap may indicate that the administration does not assess the situation adequately enough. While on the other hand, low estimates in this group of companies generally signal a bad situation according to both corporate social responsibility scales. It can be assumed that behavior of a socially responsible organization according to separate subscales has a negative impact on employees’ (both in production and administrative subdivisions) reactions, behavior, and critical attitude to company’s policy. When comparing with the second group of companies’ z-estimates, it is revealed that in the latter the assessments are significantly more favorable, all the more that z-estimates of respondents employed in production in the scale of behavior of socially responsible employee are positive, although low. In this case, in this group of companies when initiating changes in corporate social responsibility area, significantly less resources could be required.

Table 17 presents the research results according to the employees’ position and their approval of components of behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee.

Scales
Subscales
Ordinary employee
N = 1268
Administration
N = 298
Lowest level manager
N = 63
Middle-level manager
N = 66
Top-level manager
N = 22
ANOVA verification results
Fp
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)−0.100.360.160.170.0814.6380.000**
Market responsibility (consumer information, health, and safety)−0.090.280.280.250.0910.9970.000**
Environment protection responsibility−0.02−0.010.030.310.141.8320.120
Responsibility in relations with employees−0.050.120.110.260.313.7810.005**
Responsibility in relations with society−0.080.260.130.340.059.4760.000**
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work−0.110.320.290.350.1015.4660.000**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work−0.110.240.330.510.5816.7530.000**
General physical and psychological condition of the employee−0.080.190.320.310.298.4460.000**
The employee’s opinion about the organization−0.050.270.09−0.27−0.277.8760.000**
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism−0.080.220.140.310.549.3520.000**
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude−0.080.290.110.030.088.4880.000**

Table 17.

Behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee with respect to position: general results.

Statistical significance level α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

*Statistical significance level α = 0.05.

Employees who have no possibility to manage are identified as an ordinary employee—working in the field of production, and administrative staff—an ordinary employee, but not working in production. Managing staff is divided into three groups: the lowest level manager, middle-level manager, and top-level manager, that is, the leaders of groups of companies and their deputies.

According to the Tukey’s HSD test, statistically significant differences were found among z-estimates of ordinary employees and other employees. Z-estimates of ordinary employees’ opinion are all negative, indicating a negative attitude when marking the statements in the distinguished subscales. Again, the managers’ provisions of social responsibility issues are positive, with the exception of the personal comments about the organization.

Looking in more detail, according to how subscales statements were evaluated, negative environment protection responsibility z-estimate was set between ordinary production and administrative employees. It is important that the highest positive estimates were revealed among medium-level managers. These estimates are much higher in other subscales of behavior of socially responsible organization scale, while comparing with the lowest- and top-level managers’ responses estimates. It can be assumed that middle-level managers may have less information about the actual situation in companies than ordinary employees and lowest level managers who face it directly. Also, the information available to top-level managers encouraged to assess the results of the survey more critically. Of course, one factor should also be taken into account that top-level managers were prone to assess the situation (which depends on themselves) more favorably, and many factors that could not be affected by ordinary employees, influenced a less favorable assessment. In any case, the results of the survey indicate strong tension between managerial staff and ordinary employees.

Employees of the first and second groups of companies who participated in the research, as well as in Table 18, were divided into five conditional groups according to the work they do and their rank. Out of them, the lowest rank employees were split into two groups according to the type of work. Relatively named “Ordinary employees group” consists of employees engaged in production, whereas “Administrative staff” group consists of the lowest rank administration subdivision employees carrying out technical work. Such distribution is selected according to the type of work in order to distinguish between manual and nonmanual work. Managerial staff is divided into three groups: the “lowest level manager,” “middle level manager,” and “top level manager.”

Scales and subscales
Groups of companies
First groupANOVA verification resultsSecond groupANOVA verification results
PositionOrdinary employeeAdministrationLowest level managerMiddle level managerTop level managerOrdinary employeeAdministrationLowest level managerMiddle level managerTop level manager
SampleN = 621N = 186N = 37N = 50N = 17N = 647N = 112N = 26N = 16N = 5
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)−0.110.240.320.25−0.43F = 6.816
p = 0.000**
−0.060.26−0.030.572.21F = 11.342
p = 0.000**
Market responsibility (consumer information, health, and safety)
Environment protection responsibility
Responsibility in relations with employees
Responsibility in relations with society
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work−0.230.200.350.11−0.25F = 9.851
p = 0.000**
−0.010.600.250.912.18F = 19.382
p = 0.000**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work
General physical and psychological condition of the employee
The employee‘s opinion about the organization
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude

Table 18.

Behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee with respect to position: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

The results presented according to separate groups of companies show that the results of behavior of socially responsible organization, as well as socially responsible employee differ statistically significantly in the first and the second group (p < 0.001). Performing the following analysis of the results, one can notice certain trends. First, it is symptomatic that in the second group of companies middle-level and top-level managers and administrative staff distinguish themselves by much better results in socially responsible behavior, whereas the lowest ratings in these areas are given by ordinary employees. Second, it is natural that ordinary employees distinguish themselves by the worst results in the first group of companies. However, attention is drawn to the fact that even lower assessment is given by top-level managers.

Discussing the summarized results above, we pointed out that employees of the first group of companies in general are less satisfied with the situation in the context of corporate social responsibility. Probably, the fact that the respondents represent not only single independent companies but also their groups should be taken into account. Analyzing the qualitative research results, it was identified that the companies’ possibilities to pursue an independent policy (let’s say in corporate social responsibility area) are limited. Therefore, it can be assumed that z-estimates of the first group of companies (including managerial staff) could be influenced by general policy of companies’ group directors (shareholders), which is fairly critically assessed by the top-level managers, and natural reactions are provided by the lowest production level employees feeling a direct impact (z-estimates are negative for both scales). In the case of the second group of companies, z-estimates of ordinary employees employed in production, though negative, are more generous than those in the first group of companies.

Table 19 presents the staff opinion distribution with respect to work experience in the analyzed groups of companies.

Scales
Subscales
Up to 1 year
N = 422
2–5 years
N = 722
6–10 years
N = 403
11–15 years
N = 111
More than 16 years
N = 59
ANOVA verification results
Fp
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)0.050.06−0.07−0.10−0.454.8850.001**
Market responsibility (consumer information, health and safety)−0.020.06−0.01−0.05−0.403.1860.013*
Environment protection responsibility−0.080.010.060.14−0.212.1830.049
Responsibility in relations with employees−0.170.050.030.150.084.6160.001**
Responsibility in relations with society−0.040.02−0.020.19−0.181.7460.137
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work−0.010.020.00−0.110.010.4620.764
Uncertainty and lack of information at work−0.130.030.020.080.293.2330.012*
General physical and psychological condition of the employee0.01−0.010.000.04−0.080.1600.959
The employee‘s opinion about the organization0.25−0.04−0.10−0.20−0.2610.3880.000**
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism0.000.05−0.130.050.142.4490.044*
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude0.210.03−0.17−0.29−0.1210.4820.000**

Table 19.

Behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee with respect to work experience: general results.

Statistical significance level α = 0.05.


Statistical significance level α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

Without distinction of groups of companies, summarized research results in a number of cases show that results of behavior of a socially responsible organization as well as a socially responsible employee differ statistically significant by employee’s work experience (p < 0.001). Several most significant trends could be distinguished.

According to the Tukey’s HSD test, statistically significant differences were found among employees with the most, more than 16 years, work experience, and employees with less work experience z-estimates. Among the respondents with the biggest work experience (the experience of the group’s relations with the organization is the highest in comparison with others), negative z-estimates indicate highly critical reactions to corporate social responsibility, with the exception of responsibility in relations with employees (z-estimate is positive). Also, the approval of subscales summarizing individual steps in the test was highlighted, such as the intentions to leave work, uncertainty and lack of information at work, and so on.

Though not high but positive z-estimates in socially responsible organization behaviour scale were recorded in the group of respondents having work experience of 2-5 years. Negative z-estimates (except for the aforementioned group of employees) were highlighted in the remaining groups of respondents in the subscale of market responsibility, which includes consumer information, health, and safety, as well as in the subscales of intentions to leave work. The dynamics of estimates shows that work experience could encourage more critical approach to company’s actions. On the other hand, the results are significantly different, while comparing the survey results of the first and second groups of companies.

The research results presented according to separate groups of companies (Table 20) show that the differences are statistically significant in the first and second groups, i.e., they differ (p < 0.001) in the behavior of socially responsible organization scale. Both positive and negative z-estimates of the first group had impact on the general results discussed above. In this group of companies, negative z-estimates (in behavior of socially responsible organization scale) emerged between the employees with the shortest and the longest work experience (with the exception of behavior of socially responsible employee scale, where in the group of employees having up to 1 year work experience, z-estimate is positive). It should be emphasized that z-estimates in the two group of companies (based on results of behavior of socially responsible employee scale) are positive. So, in spite of the work experience in this group of companies, employees’ assessments are more consistent. Comparing the two scales z-estimates according to different length of service both in the first as well as in the second groups of companies some consistency could be seen. In addition, some kind of dependence of the results is revealed with respect to employees’ age (see below).

Scales and subscales
Groups of companies
First groupANOVA verification resultsSecond groupANOVA verification results
Work experience (in years)Up to 1 year2–5 years6–10 years11–15 yearsMore
than 16 years
Up to 1 year2–5 years6–10 years11–15 yearsMore
than 16 years
SampleN = 89N = 396N = 279N = 90N = 57N = 333N = 326N = 124N = 21N = 2
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)−0.160.050.03−0.05−0.33F = 2.350
p = 0.050*
−0.040.05−0.080.630.93F = 3.299
p = 0.011*
Market responsibility (consumer information, health, and safety)
Environment protection responsibility
Responsibility in relations with employees
Responsibility in relations with society
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work0.09−0.09−0.15−0.25−0.05F = 1.563
p = 0.182
0.060.140.090.561.26F = 2.115
p = 0.077
Uncertainty and lack of information at work
General physical and psychological condition of the employee
The employee‘s opinion about the organization
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude

Table 20.

Behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee with respect to work experience: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Table 21 shows the distribution of employees’ opinions on the analyzed issue according to their age.

Scales
Subscales
18–23 years
N = 258
24–29 years
N = 523
30–39 years
N = 464
40–49 years
N = 320
50 years to up to retirement age
N = 149
ANOVA verification results
Fp
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)−0.250.050.000.070.105.1940.000**
Market responsibility (consumer information, health, and safety)−0.270.080.07−0.020.016.2100.000**
Environment protection responsibility−0.09−0.050.020.110.061.9620.098
Responsibility in relations with employees−0.080.160.05−0.12−0.298.5120.000**
Responsibility in relations with society−0.14−0.020.060.010.092.0190.089
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work−0.30−0.050.070.170.119.4690.000**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work−0.23−0.060.090.150.006.9340.000**
General physical and psychological condition of the employee−0.21−0.080.080.19−0.027.2850.000**
The employee’s opinion about the organization−0.120.01−0.020.010.212.5390.038*
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism0.00−0.090.030.09−0.011.8120.124
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude−0.02−0.080.000.080.142.1170.076

Table 21.

Behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee with respect to employees’ age: general results.

Statistical significance level α = 0.05.


Statistical significance level α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

Scales and subscales
Groups of companies
First groupANOVA verification resultsSecond groupANOVA verification results
Employees’ age18–23 years24–29 years30–39 years40–49 years50 y.-up to retirement age18–23 years24–29 years30–39 years40–49 years50 y.-up to retirement age
SampleN = 116N = 347N = 274N = 126N = 48N = 142N = 176N = 190N = 194N = 104
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)−0.170.110.02−0.15−0.28F = 3.430
p = 0.009**
−0.24−0.050.090.110.11F = 3.651
p = 0.006**
Market responsibility (consumer information, health and safety)
Environment protection responsibility
Responsibility in relations with employees
Responsibility in relations with society
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work−0.25−0.20−0.080.130.21F = 4.194
p = 0.002**
−0.190.150.280.190.04F = 5.367
p = 0.000**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work
General physical and psychological condition of the employee
The employees’ opinion about the organization
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude

Table 22.

Behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee with respect to employees’ age: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Scales
Subscales
University
N = 525
Postsecondary (higher)
N = 272
Vocational
N = 414
Secondary/primary N = 506ANOVA verification results
Fp
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)0.190.11−0.11−0.1714.4970.000**
Market responsibility (consumer information, health and safety)0.170.15−0.02−0.2417.7630.000**
Environment protection responsibility0.030.15−0.08−0.053.5520.014*
Responsibility in relations with employees0.090.06−0.09−0.053.2200.022*
Responsibility in relations with society0.170.08−0.10−0.1410.6100.000**
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work0.220.18−0.09−0.2523.6060.000**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work0.210.10−0.01−0.2621.1800.000**
General physical and psychological condition of the employee0.140.21−0.01−0.2619.2550.000**
The employee‘s opinion about the organization0.170.02−0.08−0.118.1720.000**
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism0.200.12−0.08−0.2116.7140.000**
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude0.230.07−0.08−0.2118.0950.000**

Table 23.

Behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee with respect to employees’ education: general results.

Statistical significance level α = 0.05.


Statistical significance level α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

Scales and subscales
Groups of
Companies
First groupANOVA verification resultsSecond groupANOVA verification results
Employees’ educationUniversityPostsecondary (higher)VocationalSecondary/
Primary
UniversityPostsecondary (higher)VocationalSecondary/
Primary
SampleN = 320N = 138N = 205N = 248N = 205N = 134N = 209N = 258
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)0.130.17−0.21−0.12F = 7.205
p = 0.000**
0.210.100.00−0.19F = 7.298
p = 0.000**
Market responsibility (consumer information, health, and safety)
Environment protection responsibility
Responsibility in relations with employees
Responsibility in relations with society
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work0.110.10−0.14−0.46F = 17.960
p = 0.000**
0..510.24−0.01−0.16F = 21.424
p = 0.000**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work
General physical and psychological condition of the employee
The employee’s opinion about the organization
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude

Table 24.

Behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee with respect to employees’ education: results of different groups of companies.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Scales
Subscales
Males
N = 723
Females
N = 994
T test verification results
tp
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)−0.050.03−1.6010.110
Market responsibility (consumer information, health, and safety)−0.010.01−0.4070.684
Environment protection responsibility0.03−0.021.1950.232
Responsibility in relations with employees0.09−0.063.1080.002**
Responsibility in relations with society0.03−0.031.2200.223
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work−0.010.01−0.5300.596
Uncertainty and lack of information at work0.05−0.041.8600.063
General physical and psychological condition of the employee0.06−0.042.1520.032*
The employee‘s opinion about the organization−0.070.05−2.5590.011*
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism0.01−0.010.2820.778
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude−0.070.05−2.3700.018*

Table 25.

Behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee with respect to employees’ sex: general results.

Statistical significance level α = 0.05.


Statistical significance level α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

Scales and subscales
Groups of companies
First groupT test resultsSecond groupT test results
SexMalesFemalesMalesFemales
SampleN = 460N = 451N = 263N = 543
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)−0.010.00t = −0.118
p = 0.906
0.09−0.03t = 1.646
p = 0.100
Market responsibility (consumer information, health, and safety)
Environment protection responsibility
Responsibility in relations with employees
Responsibility in relations with society
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work−0.16−0.04t = −1.793
p = 0.073
0.270.04t = 3.185
p = 0.002**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work
General physical and psychological condition of the employee
The employee‘s opinion about the organization
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude

Table 26.

Behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee with respect to employees’ sex: results of different groups of companies.

Statistical significance level α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

*Statistical significance level α = 0.05.

According to the Tukey’s HSD test, statistically significant differences were found among z-estimates of the youngest employees, 18–23 years of age, and older employees. Both in the subscales of behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee, the survey results of the employees of this age group are significantly worse than of other age groups. In addition, positive estimates are given in the behavior of socially responsible employee scale in the group of the respondents of 40–49 years old. According to separate subscales, services and their quality assessment improves depending on the age of respondents, when, for example, in the subscale of consumer information, health, and safety, as well as responsibility in relations with employees subscale trends of more favorable assessment are noticed in the groups of 24–29 and 30–39 years of age. More notable assessment trends that could help make broader generalizations by age groups were not revealed. However, significant differences in terms of age groups allow the description of the first and second group of companies characteristically.

The results of both behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee differ statistically significant in the first and second groups (p < 0.001). The results show that respondent’s age according to this sociodemographic aspect has significant influence. Among the youngest respondents (18–23 years old), z-estimates are negative in the first and second group of companies. This part of population consists of respondents who recently completed education (the level of education will be detailed below) and naturally have the minimum work experience. One could assume that this is influenced by the formed provisions clash with practice during the learning period, but statistically significant and reliable differences identified between groups of companies mean different environments with different corporate social responsibility policies where the employees work. Interestingly, z-estimates in the first group of companies among older employees (from 40 years old) are exceptionally negative on the scale of behavior of socially responsible organization, and the positive ones are revealed only on the scale of behavior of socially responsible employee. In other words, the youngest and older respondents were critical of the activities of companies in which they work in the context of social responsibility; the age affects the “adaptation” to the current situation. In addition, some may also be affected by the company’s management attitude to different ages of employees, which is reflected in their assessments.

A different situation is highlighted in the second group of companies where z-estimates, though not high but positive, are found among employees who have reached the age of 30 years and more. This suggests that employees of different ages treat the expression of corporate social responsibility in practice rather alike.

Table 23, including both groups of companies, shows the results of estimates distribution by education.

According to the Tukey’s HSD test, statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) are identified among the groups (with university, postsecondary (higher), vocational, and secondary/primary education) z-estimates. Though not high, but positive z-estimates are distinguished among university and postsecondary (higher) education. In many cases according to the subscales of behavior of socially responsible organization and socially responsible employee scales, the highest positive z-estimates are among the employees with university education; these estimates are becoming worse when “the education becomes lower.” The most significant negative z-estimates are seen among employees with secondary and primary education. In other words, among the employees whose education determines the lowest rank in the organizations. These results are partly related to the negative z-estimates between the employees employed in production and the youngest by age. Since education has an impact on the employee’s position in companies, these factors together may show the signs of different behavior with different rank employees. This is a sensitive area of corporate social responsibility, occurring in relations with employees as stakeholders, and generally having an impact on their attitude to the workplace.

Trends, showing a different situation in the area of corporate social responsibility, remain when comparing the first and second group of companies according to the respondents’ education. Reliable, statistically significant differences are identified between the two groups of companies. Z-estimates values, both positive and negative, differ significantly depending on the employees’ education. For example, in both groups of companies between university-educated respondents z-estimates are positive in both scales, but in the second group of companies their expression is higher. On the other hand, in the first group of companies, negative z-estimates are revealed among employees with vocational, secondary and primary education, and the biggest negative z-estimates in the second group of companies are among the employees with only secondary and primary education. However, even the negative expressions of z-estimates in the second group of companies are more favorable than in the first group of respondents having the same education. For example, according to the scale of behavior of a socially responsible employee, z-estimate is −0.46, which is the worst. Attention should be paid to z-estimates showing the reactions of employees in the second group of companies. Significant differences of estimates among the employees with the highest and lowest education are symptomatic and show a different position of employees in companies.

Behavior of socially responsible organization, as well as socially responsible employee in some respects differs depending on the employees’ sex. Table 25 presents the research results that were verified by the Student‘s criterion (t test).

With respect to sex, statistically significant differences were found in these subscales: responsibility in relations with employees—this indicator is negative for females, whereas for males it is positive; the employee’s physical and psychological general condition—females feel much worse both physically and psychologically than males in the organization. With the help of the statements in the subscale The employee’s opinion about the organization, it was determined that males have a negative opinion about the organization, whereas the females have positive opinion. The employees’ attitude to negative aspects of social responsibility (subscale Social responsibility criticism) again stood out in terms of sex: males demonstrate a critical attitude towards social responsibility, in the choices of their answers negativity dominates; females: on the contrary, assess it more positively.

Research results presented according to separate groups of companies (Table 26) indicate that statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) are only on the scale of behavior of a socially responsible employee. In this case, again, z-estimates of the answers of employees of the first and second groups of companies stand out, which in the case of the first group of companies (both males and females) are purely negative, and in the second group of companies are positive. Assessing in the context of these and previous results, it can be said that social responsibility policy differences of both groups of companies could have higher values than the respondents’ sexuality.

Table 27 presents general comparison of both groups of companies with respect to behavior of organization and employee.

Scales
Subscales
First group
N = 911
Second group
N = 806
T test verification results
tp
Behavior of a socially responsible organization
Market responsibility (services and their quality)−0.210.23−9.3250.000**
Market responsibility (consumer information, health and safety)−0.100.11−4.4120.000**
Environment protection responsibility−0.010.01−0.2740.784
Responsibility in relations with employees0.29−0.3313.4940.000**
Responsibility in relations with society−0.030.03−1.1110.267
Behavior of a socially responsible employee
Intentions to leave work−0.070.08−3.0330.002**
Uncertainty and lack of information at work0.10−0.114.4800.000**
General physical and psychological condition of the employee−0.030.04−1.5390.124
The employee‘s opinion about the organization−0.240.27−10.9540.000**
Corruption, nepotism, favoritism0.02−0.020.9560.339
Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude−0.240.27−11.0770.000**

Table 27.

Comparison of common behavior of a socially responsible organization and a socially responsible employee between two groups of companies.

Statistical significance level α = 0.01.


Source: Compiled by the authors.

*Statistical significance level α = 0.05.

Reliable and statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) are set in seven subscales, but the values of z-estimates, either positive or negative, are not significant. Comparing the two groups of companies, it is observed that in the first group of companies according to 11 subscales of social responsibility, 8 z-estimates are negative. The positive z-estimates are determined only in the scales of responsibility in relations with employees, uncertainty and lack of information at work (the respondents confirm that there is no such lack) and the corruption, nepotism, and favoritism. In the second group of companies, while comparing with the first, the indicators are much better, which is confirmed by the number of positive z-estimates in the subscales, i.e., of 11 criteria only 3 are with a minus sign: responsibility in relations with employees, uncertainty and lack of information at work, as well as the corruption, nepotism, and favoritism. It is these criteria in the first group of companies that are positive, although in the case of the latter subscale, the differences are not statistically significant. On the other hand, the subscale such as social responsibility criticism, expressing the views of employees’ attitude to corporate social responsibility, could be influenced by statistically significant differences found on the scale of behavior of socially responsible organization.

In conclusion, it could be stated that statistically significant differences between the two groups of companies emerged on a number of sociodemographic criteria. Besides, more detailed analysis indicated that situation of the respondents who are working in manufacturing, are younger and have lower education, is significantly worse, which might have influence on negative assessments as well.

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction for non-commercial purposes, provided the original is properly cited.

How to cite and reference

Link to this chapter Copy to clipboard

Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Pranas Žukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitienė (April 18th 2018). Sociodemographic Indicators: Employee Attitude, Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility, Pranas ?ukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitien?, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70635. Available from:

chapter statistics

188total chapter downloads

More statistics for editors and authors

Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications.

Access personal reporting

Related Content

This Book

Next chapter

Determining the Level of Management Culture Development

By Pranas Žukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitienė

Related Book

First chapter

World Society: An Ice-Breaker for a Global Shift in Sociology?

By Veronika Wittmann

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

More About Us