Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Structure of Research Design: Expert Evaluation

By Pranas Žukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitienė

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

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70630

Downloaded: 166

Abstract

This chapter presents the research design/plan. Methodological choice of quantitative and qualitative research is substantiated, and principles of design and verification of the research instrument are described. Individual stages of the research are presented in detail by describing their consistency in respect of the main objective. Statistical calculations to substantiate the reliability of the research instrument are presented and key aspects of the organization of research are described.

Keywords

  • research design
  • research instrument
  • expert evaluation
  • research
  • organization of research
  • statistical analysis

1. Introduction

Relevance of the research: optimal formation of research design is a much larger problem than a simple choice from a broad spectrum of instruments, which every researcher solves in either the usual way, or by looking for the individual option of the solution. Buchanan and Bryman [1] believe that it is difficult to argue that the choice of methods depends only on relationships with the research purposes, as the choice involves a more complex, interdependent set of considerations. Each scientist, in addition to knowledge, has personal beliefs and ontological relation to the phenomenon because of the influence of which it is difficult to avoid subjectivity. There are a number of arguments for coordination of mixed methods in social research in order to enhance objectivity and evaluate the potential and limitations of each of the methods. In particular, in the cases where complex problems are discussed, the aim is to reveal the layers of the phenomena being researched and interactions of members of the organization. These processes are complex, but too often researchers simplify their research based on one method. Especially, while researchers and practitioners together solve organizational problems, methodological flexibility and diversity are necessary aiming at meaningful results [2]. Kozlowski et al. [3] argue that direct quantitative approaches, largely represented by computational modeling or agent-based simulation, have much to offer with respect to illuminating the mechanisms of emergence as a dynamic process. Of course, quantitative studies are quite precise and effective in the research of both management of organizations and corporate social responsibility. There are a number of instruments used to conduct such research independently. However, considering the novelty of the management culture construct and searching for its interaction with corporate social responsibility, there arises the need not only to carry out the analysis of studies conducted previously and the instruments used in them, but also to develop a new sensitive instrument intended to analyze the interactions, in which involvement of qualitative research also helps. In this case, one has to appeal to colleagues for help in the organization of expert assessment, together forming the criteria, based on which the reliability of selected experts is evaluated. This method is not very often used in the management culture and corporate social responsibility research, but it may be valuable in developing new research instruments to deal with problems in this area of research.

Problem of the research: the problem of the research is raised by the question, what should be the optimal management culture and corporate social responsibility research design and how to ensure the suitability of content of the qualitative research instrument with the assistance of experts?

Purpose of the research: having presented the structural elements of the research design and carried out expert assessments to substantiate the suitability of content of the qualitative research instrument on management culture and corporate social responsibility.

Objectives of the research: (1) to present structural elements of research design; and (2) by using expert assessment, to substantiate the suitability of content of the qualitative research instrument.

Methods of the research: this chapter is prepared by using the scientific literature analysis, synthesis, and generalization methods. Expert assessment method has been chosen to evaluate the suitability of content of the qualitative research instrument.

2. Structure of research design

According to Calfee [4], design is a research plan that in quantitative research context means testing of independent variables, qualitative research, situations, or the context research. According to William [5], a scientific research project structure consists of well-known components—beginning, middle, and end. The main phases of the research project are included into the research structure. Some important distinctions of scientific research are also presented: different questions that may be presented in the research project, research project key parts and components. Shavelson and Towne [6] noted that the researcher should raise questions that could be researched empirically, combine study with theory, use the methods that would allow a direct deal with the question raised, provide a consistent and clear motivation, repeat and summarize several studies, and disclose research in order to encourage professional examination and criticism. This should be reflected in the construction of the research plan for each individual case.

To study corporate social responsibility, a quantitative research method is generally employed, and questionnaires are prepared [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] for data processing using statistical methods. Šimanskienė and Paužuolienė [9] when exploring the organizational culture and corporate social responsibility connection performed a questionnaire survey and the analysis of statistical data. The organizational culture research is carried out with the help of various techniques, including questionnaires [14, 15, 16], etc. On the basis of Schein [17], Šimanskienė [18] notes that the use of questionnaires while studying organizational culture is debatable, because researchers use questionnaires before facing a particular culture, so they cannot represent the current culture. However, this method is the most commonly used because other methods would occupy a lot of time that the researcher should spend in the organization in order to feel orientated to some extent what is happening there, and to question. In addition, it is proposed to carry out the organization employees’ survey or expert interviews in order to know the opinion what is most important for the company, to compare the employees’ and managers’ responses [18, 19]. In this study (the employees of 12 company groups took part in the survey), the sample is large enough so a quantitative survey was selected. Besides, it was taken into consideration that the most tangible part of the organizational culture was researched and identified as a management culture. The choice of this study method was determined by the aim to set management culture and social responsibility correlation through models (this option extends the range of the study). However, it is recommended to combine several methods in such type of research that is why interview questions to interview managers of groups of companies were developed.

2.1. Quantitative research methodology

Considering the problematic issue at what level of development of management culture the organization can be considered ready to aim for corporate social responsibility implementation, on the basis of the problematic question, objectives and theory analysis of the following theoretical assumptions were formulated:

  1. Management culture is usually addressed by analyzing the staff work organization, management process optimization, and organizational design issues [20, 21, 22, 23], etc. Summarizing the management culture content that is treated quite differently, it can be stated that management culture elements are: management staff culture, managerial processes organization culture, culture of management working conditions, and culture of documentation management [24]. There are not many authors directly naming the concept of management culture in their studies, but management culture, as some part of formal and informal organizational culture, is analyzed quite often.

  2. The “iceberg” metaphor of organizational culture implies that quantitative research involves the aspects revealing the management culture. At the lower part of organizational culture “iceberg” closed or hidden aspects are identified, namely, informal aspects of organizational life which include general concepts, attitudes and feelings, a basic understanding of human nature, the nature of human relationships. The informal components of the organizational culture “iceberg” are value orientation, understanding of individual roles, power and influence interrelationship, satisfaction and efficiency of development, individual and group relations, standards; emotional mood, desires and requirements; trust, openness, risk-taking; effective relationships between managers and employees; personal approach to the organization and authorities [25].

On the basis of the aforementioned prerequisites, the following quantitative research categories were identified: management staff culture, managerial processes organization culture, management working conditions’ culture, and documentation system culture.

The following are the characteristics of the distinguished categories:

  1. Characteristics of the management staff culture: management staff general culture level; management science knowledge level; managers’ personal and professional characteristics; the level of the ability to manage.

  2. Characteristics of the managerial processes organization culture: optimal managerial processes regulation; rational organization of management work; modern computerization level of managerial processes; culture of visitors’ reception, conducting meetings, phone calls.

  3. Characteristics of the management working conditions’ culture: working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.); level of organizing working places; work and rest regime, relaxation options; work security and sociopsychological microclimate.

  4. Characteristics of the documentation system culture: culture of official registration of documentation; optimal document search and access system; rational use of modern information technologies; rational storage system of archival documents.

2.2. Qualitative research methodology

In one of the raised problematic issues, the cultural expression of management culture as formal part of organizational culture is highlighted aiming to implement corporate social responsibility in terms of top-level managers.

On the basis of the problematic question, objectives and theory analysis, the following theoretical assumptions providing the foundation for qualitative research instrument making were formulated:

  1. Some aspects of organizational culture are clear, however, others are less visible. On the surface of the organizational culture “iceberg” clear or, in other words, open aspects are highlighted [25].

  2. The formal components of the organizational culture “iceberg” include: organizational goals, technologies, organizational structures, skills and abilities, financial resources [25], the mission, hierarchical levels, efficiency indicators, work assignments and methods, and so on.

On the basis of formulated assumptions, qualitative research instrument categories were identified: strategies; structure of the organization, regulation, technologies, processes, information systems, control, and encouragement. The study plan was divided into four major sections, or, in other words, phases; some of them were divided into subphases, trying to achieve the set task for each phase. The study design structure is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Structure of research design: levels and phases. Source: compiled by the authors.

Corporate social responsibility is quite an extensively researched scientific and practical problem, however, it was not analyzed solely in the context of management culture, the empirical research of which in the national (i.e., Lithuanian) level was not performed. Therefore, solving the dual problem at the first stage, a goal was raised at the theoretical level, having evaluated the results of the research, to conceptualize management culture in the context of corporate social responsibility, by highlighting both management culture and corporate social responsibility components that would make the basis of the research instrument. In assessing the specificity and novelty of the study, the methodological access described below was chosen. In the first stage, analyzing scientific literature, no research instrument was found, using which the main objective could be achieved; therefore, in the second stage, a new instrument was developed and tested. To carry out the main research (third phase), seeking for diversified results, quantitative and qualitative research methods were chosen and the findings were presented in the fourth phase as recommendations and directions for future research.

There are three data collection and analysis techniques: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed [26, 27]. According to Guba and Lincoln [28], both qualitative and quantitative methods can be used properly with any research paradigm. According to the authors, the questions of the method are of minor importance after the paradigm questions which we distinguish as the basic belief system or worldview that the investigator guides, not only by choosing the method, but also ontologically and epistemologically. However, according to Žydžiūnaitė [29], a qualitative study is particularly useful in the cases where the subject has not yet been analyzed in a specific area. Therefore, experts have been asked to assess not only the newly created instrument’s individual test steps, but also for comments, that is, there were qualitative and quantitative methods selected. Taking into account the comments of experts, the survey instrument was corrected and an exploratory study was carried out. Having evaluated the psychometric characteristics, the instrument was corrected again and only then the major survey was carried out.

To conduct the basic study, two groups of companies were selected (the total number of respondents is 1717). The quantitative method y was chosen to collect the data. During the study management culture and corporate social responsibility diagnostics are carried out, the data are analyzed and compared. Analyzing the data, psychometric characteristics of the instrument are re-tested in order to confirm the reliability of the instrument with respect to a larger sample. According to Guba and Lincoln [28], the “perceived image” in science (positivism, having transformed over a century to postpositivism) is trying to confirm (positivism) or deny (postpositivism) a priori hypotheses, mainly created as mathematical (quantitative) statements or statements which may be easily converted into precise mathematical formulas expressing a functional relationship. In the case of this study, there is the aim to determine the relations of the components of management culture and corporate social responsibility where correlation is calculated to determine them, the strength of the relationship is determined, regression equations are made, revealing how interaction is organized and how having changed one component it responds to others. The model of determining management culture development level aiming to implement corporate social responsibility and its inspection is carried out. Only statistically reliable and strong relationships allow the model to be used in practice. Having done the calculation and evaluated the results, management decision-making process is described in a management decision structuregram.

At the fourth stage, as the result of previous stages, the conclusions of theoretical and empirical part are formulated and recommendations for corporate governance practice are presented. New aspects that were revealed in both theoretical and empirical studies, which were not the aim of this study, are presented as the object of new future studies.

3. First expert evaluation

The aim of the research is to check the suitability of the questionnaire content for the distinguished scales and subscales and to reach the research aim.

In order to achieve the aim, the following research objectives are formulated:

  1. To set the excess questionnaire statements.

  2. To assess the statements groups of scales and subscales in points.

  3. To obtain the means of the scales and subscales weight.

  4. To eliminate the statements with the lowest-scored values from the instrument.

3.1. Research and data-processing methods

To carry out the research, the expert individual evaluation method was selected—a survey in a written form.

3.1.1. The research sample

Expert sampling was carried out on the basis of theoretical principles of expert research, taking into account that experts should have management experience, have knowledge of the specifics of social responsibility and represent both the public and private sectors. It was planned to interview 10 expert practitioners, but having interviewed 6 experts, it was determined that because of information saturation a bigger number is no longer necessary. The study included six experts representing both the public and private sectors. Three experts represent the public sector and associations, and other three represent private companies, two of which are large manufacturing companies; one is a medium-sized company of services and trade. All experts have many years of management experience and participate in company/office activities with the intention to implement social responsibility principles or are experts in coordinating this process at the state level.

3.1.2. The research organization

The essence of opinion collection methodology is that the experts were given specifically developed questionnaires in which they expressed their opinion on the content of the statements presented in the instrument. The experts were asked to evaluate the statements on a five-point scale by indicating their remarks next to the lowest-scored statements. For questions in sociodemographic clusters, there were two versions of answers, that is, the experts had the opportunity to either accept or reject the formulated question. List of experts involved in the research, their assigned codes, and expert characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Expert codeExpert position and experience
E1Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Social Security and Labor of the Lithuanian Republic. Experience—organization of implementation of strategic objectives of the ministry.
E2Labor Department director of the Ministry of Social Security and Labor of the Lithuanian Republic. Experience—organization of the activities of the Labor department, coordination of social responsibility implementation and development activities.
E3The chairman of the Board of Production Companies Group. Experience—the establishment of the company, organization of activities, setting strategic directions, and development of activities.
E4Director of a medium-sized company (by number of employees). Experience—the establishment of the company, its organization, management of human resources and development of activities.
E5Director of regional Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Crafts. Experience—leadership experience, business, government and education partnership organization, project organization.
E6Deputy Director General of Production Companies Group. Experience—the organization of the company activities, setting strategic directions and development of activities.

Table 1.

Expert characteristics of the first expert evaluation.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

For information, questionnaire forms were sent to experts by e-mail; before that, their consent to participate in the research was received. Subsequently, at a time agreed upon and at a time convenient for the expert, a meeting was arranged with each expert in order to take the completed expert assessment questionnaire, approved by the expert’s signature. Before carrying out the expert evaluation, the experts were informed that their personal information presented on the expert evaluation sheet and approved by their signature will not be confidential. It was ensured that the expert evaluation questionnaires will never be published, but, if necessary, may be submitted for information to third parties.

3.2. Results of the research

Expert evaluation results are analyzed according to the usual procedure of expert evaluation. Expert evaluation results are presented by highlighting the collected amounts of points in the scales/subscales and weight means. The collected amount of points in the scales and subscales separately is also presented as well as the maximum amount of points that could be collected. In the group of statements of management staff culture subscale on management culture scale, the maximum possible amount of points is 990 points. Summarized results of the study show that there were 801 points collected; the result of this is that the number of statements in this subscale fell by four statements (from 32 to 28 statements) (Table 2).

Parts, scales, and subscalesAmount of points of scales/subscalesWeight mean* of scales/subscalesAmount of statements/questions before evaluationAmount of statements/questions after evaluation
I. Management culture
Management staff culture801/9904.143228
1.1. Management staff general culture level193/240**4.0187
1.2. Management science knowledge level147/2104.0865
1.3. Managers’ personal and professional characteristics193/2404.0187
1.4. The level of the ability to manage268/3004.46109

Table 2.

Expert evaluations of management staff culture scale.

Source: compiled by the authors.

Notes: *maximal weight mean of the scale 5; **193/240—the first number shows the collected amount of points and the second—maximal amount of points that could be collected.

In the group of statements on the subscale, Managerial processes organization culture the maximum amount of points that could be collected was 750, but the summarized results showed that there were 682 points collected. The difference of the collected and possible to collect points on this subscale scores low because the experts evaluated positively the majority of the statements as suitable for research instrument (Table 3).

Parts, scales, and subscalesAmount of points of scales/subscalesWeight mean* of scales/subscalesAmount of statements/questions before evaluationAmount of statements/questions after evaluation
I. Management culture
2. Managerial processes organization culture682/7504.572524
2.1. Optimal managerial processes regulation207/2404.3187
2.2. Rational organization of management work148/1504.8955
2.3. Modern computerization level of managerial processes138/1504.5955
2.4. Culture of visitors’ reception, conducting meetings, phone calls189/2104.4977

Table 3.

Expert evaluations of managerial processes organization culture scale.

Source: compiled by the authors.

Notes: *maximal weight mean of the scale 5; **193/240—the first number shows the collected amount of points, and the second—maximal amount of points that could be collected.

The same trend was established in the groups of statements on culture of management working conditions and documentation system subscales. In the group of statements on Management working conditions scale, it was possible to collect the maximum of 840 points and there were 761 points collected (Table 4). On the subscale of Documentation system culture, the maximum possible amount of points is 810, while the amount of points of evaluated statements is 742 (Table 5).

Parts, scales, and subscalesAmount of points of scales/subscalesWeight mean* of scales/subscalesAmount of statements/questions before evaluationAmount of statements/questions after evaluation
I. Management culture
3. Management working conditions’ culture761/8404.522827
3.1. Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)252/2704.6699
3.2. Level of organizing working places173/1804.8066
3.3. Work and rest regime, relaxation options165/1804.5866
3.4. Work security, sociopsychological microclimate171/2104.0676

Table 4.

Expert evaluations of management working conditions scale.

Source: compiled by the authors.

Notes: *maximal weight mean of the scale 5; **193/240—the first number shows the collected amount of points, and the second—maximal amount of points that could be collected.

Parts, scales and subscalesAmount of points of scales/subscalesWeight mean* of scales/subscalesAmount of statements/questions before evaluationAmount of statements/questions after evaluation
I. Management culture
4. Documentation system culture742/8104.592725
4.1. Culture of official registration of documentation181/2104.3076
4.2. Optimal document search and access system147/1504.9055
4.3. Rational use of modern information technologies230/2404.7988
4.4. Rational storage system of archival documents184/2104.3776

Table 5.

Expert evaluations of documentation system culture scale.

Source: compiled by the authors.

Notes: *maximal weight mean of the scale 5; **193/240—the first number shows the collected amount of points, and the second— maximal amount of points that could be collected.

In the group of statements of behavior of socially responsible organization on Social responsibility scale it was possible to collect the maximum of 1080 points, but after expert evaluation there were collected 959 points. The subscales of consumer information (rated 84 points out of 150 possible) and health and safety (rated 104 out of 150 possible points) were assessed as the least appropriate for research (Table 6).

Parts, scales, and subscalesAmount of points of scales/subscalesWeight mean* of scales/subscalesAmount of statements/questions before evaluationAmount of statements/questions after evaluation
II. Social responsibility
5. Behavior of a socially responsible organization959/10804.333631
5.1. Services and their quality178/1804.9466
5.2. Consumer information84/1502.8052
5.3. Health and safety104/1503.4653
5.4. Environment protection responsibility207/2104.9277
5.5. Responsibility in relations with employees207/2104.9277
5.6. Responsibility in relations with society179/1804.9766

Table 6.

Expert evaluations of behavior of a socially responsible organization scale.

Source: compiled by the authors.

Notes: *maximal weight mean of the scale 5; **193/240—the first number shows the collected amount of points and the second—maximal amount of points that could be collected.

The groups of statements of the subscale behavior of socially responsible employee on Social responsibility scale rated 1146 points out of possible 1470 points. It was observed that the groups of statements of such subscales as the intentions to leave work, transparency of activity and relation, social responsibility simulation were assessed with much lower scores than the maximum could be assessed. Analysis of the data shows that the management culture scales, subscales and groups of statements were assessed with higher points than the groups of statements on social responsibility scale, which resulted in higher changes in the number of statements of the mentioned subscale (Table 7).

Parts, scales, and subscalesAmount of points of scales/subscalesWeight mean* of scales/subscalesAmount of statements/questions before evaluationAmount of statements/questions after evaluation
II. Social responsibility
6. Behavior of a socially responsible employee1146/14704.004942
6.1. Intentions to leave work143/1803.9766
6.2. Uncertainty and lack of information at work157/1804.3566
6.3. General physical and psychological condition of the employee127/1504.2355
6.4. The employee’s opinion about the organization141/1504.6955
6.5. Nepotism, favoritism209/3003.48107
6.6. Corruption79/904.3833
6.7. Transparency of activity and relation158/2403.2985
6.8. Social responsibility simulation132/1803.6665

Table 7.

Expert evaluations of behavior of social responsible employee scale.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Notes: *maximal weight mean of the scale 5; **193/240: the first number shows the collected amount of points, the second: maximal amount of points that could be collected.

Analysis of the results in the above Tables shows that the average weight of the subscales ranges from 2.80 (the lowest) to 4.97 (the highest). Since the maximal weight mean is 5, it was decided to leave the indicators that are higher than 3 (i.e., more than half of them) in the instrument. The groups of statements on social responsibility subscales were estimated by lower scores, so the weight means on the scale are lower. Table 8 summarizes the expert evaluation results.

Parts, scales, and subscalesAmount of points of scales/subscalesWeight mean* of scales/subscalesAmount of statements/questions before evaluationAmount of statements/questions after evaluation
I. Management culture2986/33904.5112104
1. Management staff culture801/9904.143228
2. Managerial processes organization culture682/7504.572524
3. Management working conditions’ culture761/8404.522827
4. Documentation system culture742/8104.592725
II. Social responsibility2105/25504.168573
5. Behavior of a socially responsible organization959/10804.333631
6. Behavior of a socially responsible employee1146/14704.004942
III. Information about organization54
IV. Information about the employee75
Total average/amount4.30197 statements
12 questions
177 statements
9 questions

Table 8.

Generalized summary of the first expert evaluation results.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Notes: *maximal weight mean of the scale 5; **193/240—the first number shows the collected amount of points, the second: maximal amount of points that could be collected.

The experts provided not only formal evaluations, but also meaningful comments based on the arguments. The experts’ comments presented here are stylistically unadjusted for authentication and in order to avoid possible distortions in the context of their answers. The experts were chosen according to their competence in the area related to the research, and seeking the stylistic integrity and simplicity, they are presented by using grammatical masculine gender. Below only some fragments of the expert comments are presented. The formula of the statement “Managers are characterized by cultural literacy” has attracted quite numerous comments both in terms of content, as well as in the redundant sense.

E1, E2, E3, E5, E6:
E1 assesses this statement negatively, stating that: “In my opinion, this statement is very similar to statement number 3 in the questionnaire: managers are characterized by cultural literacy - I would recommend refusing it.
E2, quoting the first expert, as well as analyzing the statement, highlights that: “In this case the statement is debatable, as it comes to personal manager culture. Or the question should be clarified.
E3 gives the following comment for this statement: “Maybe it has an impact on general culture level, but perhaps there are too many questions about it?
E4 states that: “It is difficult to assess.
E5 states that “The employee could assess cultural education only just by communicating enough with the manager personally.
E6: “Unnecessary question, cultural education in management issues is not a crucial factor.

Taking into account the critical assessments of the experts, this part of the questionnaire is adjusted. While for example, E5 remark is debatable as there may be a wider circle of objective circumstances according to which employees have the potential to form an opinion, but this discussion is not the object of this part of the research.

Although the statements “Managers respect the requirements of the language culture,” “Managers strictly comply with the requirements of etiquette,” “Managers demonstrate respect for subordinates” have caused doubts only to one expert, however, below are his comments.

E3:
E3, assessing this statement, raises the question: “What outcome is expected to be achieved in this issue?”
E3, assessing another statement of the questionnaire, thinks that the situation is repeated in a similar way as with the previously presented:
Here is the same, will the clarification of the etiquette requirements give the result you expect?
In assessing the questionnaire statement “Managers demonstrate respect for subordinates,” E3 comments: “The worddemonstratesshows the negative aspect, is that what was intended.

The statements such as “In my workplace all managers have higher management education” and “In my workplace managers apparently lack management education,” were included in the questionnaire by the authors to assess what education the managers, managing companies, have. This can be considered at least as some theoretical management education criterion.

E1, E3, E4, E5, E6:
E1, having doubts about the statement “In my workplace all managers have higher management education,” marked it in a neutral position, “doubt.”
The expert stressed that:
It is doubtful whether management education particularly affects the overall level of management culture in the organization. I dare doubt.
This statement was also commented by E3: “What do you want to find out: that the employee has a special diploma, or is competent.” So, in this and other cases the correctness of the wording should be taken into account.
E2, assessing the statement “In my workplace managers apparently lack management education,” states that: “Question 11 is essentially the same as 9 (auth. Inf.: In my workplace all managers have higher management education), so it is unnecessary.
E3 expressed doubts: “Is not the statement too over-generalizing, will it help make an objective assessment of the situation?” E4 says that: this statement will make the management education situation clear in the company.
E5: “The question is a duplicate of the ninth where the level of education will be assessed.
E6: “There is lack of specificity, unless it could be changed into ‘managerial skills’ or something like that.”

The statement “Managers always explain the employees their decisions” shows not so much the dissemination of information, but employee involvement in organizational processes and creation of the atmosphere of trust.

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6:
E1, assessing the statement “Managers always explain their decisions to the staff” said that: “It is doubtful whether in all cases managers must explain their decisions. Then there will be no time for them to work. I have doubts about the suitability of this statement.”
E2 also commented on this statement: “The statement falls out of the general context, moreover, it is debatable whether it is physically possible and necessary to explain ALL the decisions.
E3, assessing the statement, considers: “Maybe we need one of the two statements, because if we takeI never have doubts about the manager decision,” do we need “The managers always explain their decisions to the staff?”
E4 raises the question: “How much is it necessary for real life? Perhaps these could be strategic decisions or decisions influencing changes.
E5: “Is it necessary for the manager to always explain why some or other decisions were made- the question is inappropriate.
E6: “I do not think that such question is necessary, it is not essential. Is it bad if not all questions are explained?”

E1 doubted when assessing the statement “Work orders are assigned respectfully,” saying that: “I do not quite understand, maybe the wording is not so good? Just maybe it could be that in any work situation there was respect?” E4 submits a proposal: “I suggest that you change the wording, for instance, ‘The communication is with respect, or not to use the statement at all’.” E1, assessing the statement marked number 21 in the questionnaire, “The managers have unhealthy competition with the subordinates,” could not decide on its suitability/unsuitability. The expert stated that: “It is difficult to say whether this makes sense, but maybe there are such leaders, so it is difficult to make a decision on this statement.

The statement “We follow the principle that “the leader is always right” has specific connotations, and was discussed by the authors and linked to the questionnaire in order to evaluate how the leader accepts the employees’ opinion.”

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6:
E1, analyzing the expediency of the statement “We follow the principle” the manager is always right,” noted that: “Somehow this statement falls out of the context, because the first statements in this section are positive, and this one has a negative connotation.
E2 also evaluated this statement, by noting that: “The statement is redundant, since the answer could be obtained by statement 31 (auth. Inf.: In my workplace the leaders always take responsibility for the results, whatever they are), which is considerably wider.
E3 expresses a slightly different opinion: “Is not this too confusing? Apparently, it is intended to determine whether the manager disclaims any responsibility, but it should be made clearer, since the rigid negative words can emotionally influence the respondent’s assessment. I leave it to the researchers to decide how to adjust the statement.
E4 believes that: “The ability to manage will be revealed over other questions that cover a broader meaning.
E5: “The question is not necessary, because the leadership level and the specifics are revealed through the following more detailed questions.
E6: “I suggest you correct the style of the statement or not use this statement at all.

E1 getting acquainted with the statement “In my workplace it is not clear who is responsible for what,” states that: “It is similar to statement No 34 (auth. inf.: All managers of the organization know exactly their roles and responsibilities), though it is not exactly the same, but seems to overlap.” E2, quoting E1, notes that: “In principle, the same as No 33 (auth. inf.: In my workplace managerial processes are defined in the documents) and 34 (auth. inf.: All managers of the organization know exactly their roles and responsibilities) questions, only they are redrafted. I believe that saving the time this question should be rejected.” E3 highlights: “If the goal is the assessment of regulation of managerial processes, is the statement specific enough? One can understand that it is about ordinary employees and their competencies.” E4, in assessing the statement, states that: “The statement is not necessary because the question of functions and responsibilities will be clarified with the help of the above-mentioned statements.” E5: “The statement is not necessary, responsibility regulation matter will be disclosed through other questions in this group.” E6: “It is enough to have the previously used statements to reveal the regulation of the processes and the situation in a particular company.

The statements such as “In my workplace, in terms of managers, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing,” “The computerized managerial processes system is used to the maximum,” “In my organization there is lack of computers and software,” “Interaction with partners is especially businesslike,” were commented by three experts. Some observations were made on routine over-sounding phrases, but the authors believe that the statements do not have to be complicated. On the contrary, it is important that ordinary workers could find easily recognizable words for themselves.

E1, E2, E3:
E1, assessing the statement “In my workplace, in terms of managers, ‘the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing,’” raises the question: “Is not the statement too much ‘vernacular’ for a research work?
E3 raises the question by suggesting: “Perhaps we should avoid rigid expressions because of their strong emotional suggestion?”
E6: “The wording should be corrected.” On the other hand, it should be taken into consideration that the questionnaire was designed for respondents of different levels of education and experience.
E1, analyzing the questionnaire statement “The computerized managerial processes system is used to the maximum,” expresses doubts: “Can any level employee know the answer to this question? I would doubt.” In fact, not any level employee can assess, however, the note is significant analyzing and interpreting the answers at different angles.
E1 assesses the questionnaire statement “In my organization there is lack of computers and software” as contradictory: “It contradicts other, above mentioned statements.
E3 thinks: “Would not it be better if the respondent could share his personal experience?” This note is valuable for further research, using qualitative research methods.
E1, discussing the statement “Interaction with partners is especially businesslike,” considers: “Is especially businesslike interaction good or bad? It’s hard to make a decision on this statement.

The statements such as “Answers to the claims from the outside are considered as an unpleasant obligation,” “Employees sometimes have to take care of the working tools themselves for their money” were commented by only one expert, however, the notes were discussed by the authors of the questionnaire.

E1:
E1 comments the questionnaire statement “Answers to the claims from the outside are considered as unpleasant obligation” in such a way: “Most likely it is natural, because any claims cause unpleasant feelings. I doubt about the need of this statement in the questionnaire.
Other experts did not assess this claim critically.
E1, assessing the statement “Employees sometimes have to take care of the working tools themselves for their money,” points out that: “If there are organizations where the employees have to take care of the working tools, will this statement do anything useful after you have answered the above ones?”

The statements related to the psychological comfort of employees received discussion for possible duplication and different possibilities for interpretation by the respondents.

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5:
E1 considers the statement “In my workplace there are people who are experiencing psychological pressure” as duplication: “A kind of overlap with statement No 81 (auth. Inf.: At work I feel well, I do not feel psychological discomfort).”
E2, agreeing with E1, comments his assessment with regard to this question as follows: “The issue is relevant, but I think that it would be better to assess by the opinion of people who are personally experiencing psychological pressure, that is, feel or do not feel psychological discomfort (see. 81: At work I feel well, I do not feel psychological discomfort).”
E3 offers a suggestion: “The psychological pressure is isolated (though repetitive), but maybe in this case we should speak about physical violence as well?”
E4 believes that: “Psychological pressure and discomfort issue can be clarified by question No 81 (auth. Inf. At work I feel well, I do not feel psychological discomfort).”
E5: “It would be more appropriate to find out the psychological climate assessment from the person himself, instead of outsiders’ opinion. Question No 81 will reveal the situation.

E1 considers the questionnaire statement “In my organization anecdotes about blondes, other nationality people are not tolerated, etc.,” as other previously rated statements, too “unscientific”: “I suggest that you should reconfigure, there is a similar situation with statement No 40 (auth. inf.: In my workplace, in terms of managers, ‘the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing’), that is, isn’t it too much ‘vernacular’ for a research work?”

Another statement “In my workplace the official registration of documentation does not meet the requirements” was also abundantly commented by experts:

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6:
In addition, E1, when analyzing statement No 91 “In my workplace official document registration does not meet the requirements” and the content relevance to the researched problem, in his comments expressed the doubt by this question: “It is doubtful whether an ordinary worker can know the answer to such a question,” and states that:In any case, this statement echoes the others.
E2 adds: “Basically it repeats what is already being clarified by other questions, such as No 86 (auth. Inf.: There are approved document preparation, official registration rules) and No 87 (auth. Inf.: There is strict compliance with the requirements of clerical work).
E3 is considering: “It is not clear what they want to determine: the current regime or how the staff follows it?”
E4, assessing this statement, emphasizes that: “The observance of document official registration rules will be clarified by question No 87, there is no need to duplicate (auth. Inf. There is strict compliance with the requirements of clerical work).”
E5: “The situation will be clarified by questions No 86–87 (86 auth. Inf.: There are approved document preparation, official registration rules; 87 - There is strict compliance with the requirements of clerical work).”
E6: “The essence of the question is the same as in the above mentioned statements.

The statement “When you need documents, you have to address the people/units that prepared them” has attracted a lot of criticism of experts and comparisons with the previously discussed statements.

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6:
E1, analyzing statement No 107 “When you need a document, you have to address the people/units that prepared them,” states: “So, if there is ‘a clear document storage system’ (auth. Inf.: There exists a clear document storage system is statement No 106), the statement seems to be not necessary.” The doubts about the appropriateness of this statement were expressed by E2: “I doubt whether it is appropriate to go into details? Especially, when other statements show the general presence or absence of the system and order.
E3 notes that: “The aim is not very clear, if there is a desire to check the honesty of the responses, the statement should be put in another place.
E4 thinks: “Document search technical issues are not an essential criterion for assessing the document storage system.
E5 pays attention that it is “Unnecessary question, because people who prepared documents do not necessarily, for example, still work in the company, and documents were prepared a long time ago.
E6 takes a similar approach: “Unnecessary statement, it will not describe the archiving features.

E3, analyzing statement No 110 “The archived documents are never lost.” states: “The same (see No 108: Archived documents can quickly be found).

The statement “My organization is guided by the principle ‘customer - is always right’ caused doubts. The experts gave the authors a number of valuable considerations.”

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5:
E1, analyzing the content of statement No 119, “My organization is guided by the principle “the customer is always right,” emphasizes that it: “Overlaps with other statements, although not literally, I do not go into details below.
E2 gives this statement the following comment: “The question is not entirely related, because there is particular examination how the consumers are informed.
E3 believes that: “It is not clear what aim is achieved and how this relates to consumer information…..”
E4 points out that: “Organization’s orientation toward the customer can be expressed in a more substantive argument, moreover, this is a question that does not disclose specific features of consumer information.
E5: “Unnecessary question, it does not really relate to the presentation of information.”
E6 suggests: “I propose to formulate the statement differently,” but does not present the recommendations how to do that.

E3, assessing statement No 122 in the questionnaire, “I willingly use (would use) services, production provided by my organization,” says that: “It is through a personal relationship with the product one can get a more accurate picture of the situation.”

According to the experts, it seems reasonable to combine the statement “My organization provides detailed information for consumers” with others and/or to quit it, suggesting that this should not be surveyed at all. However, the experts in their assessments, in all cases, leave the right to the authors to decide themselves on the necessity of the statements, as they say, the comments are of recommendation character.

E2, E4, E5, E6:
E2, assessing statement No 121 in the questionnaire “My organization provides detailed information about the products,” states the following: “Giving information is governed by laws and controlled by the responsible institutions. It is unlikely that all employees, not related to the subject, will have enough information. I think that statement No 122 reflects the assessment more accurately (auth. Inf.: I willingly use (would use) services, production provided by my organization). In general, I think that it would be reasonable to combine services and quality with consumer information, security.
E4 thinks: “Presentation of information is governed by corresponding laws, therefore the statement is used purposelessly.
E5 notes that “The organization itself is interested to provide the user the most accurate and complete information in order to attract the customer, so the question is not necessary.
The same position is shared by E6: “It is a matter of course, not required to be researched.

The statement “I do not recommend my acquaintances to use the services/products of my organization” was negatively evaluated for its relative overlap with another statement in the questionnaire:

E2, E3, E4, E5, E6:
E2, giving a negative assessment to statement No 123 in the questionnaire “I do not advise my acquaintances to use my organization’s services/products,” supports it by the following comment: In essence, it duplicates No 122 (auth. Inf.: I willingly use (would use) services, production provided by my organization)).
E3 notes: “What kind of information will be given by this position as the analogous one is presented above?
E4 agrees with the opinion expressed by other experts: “The expressed position on statement No 122 (auth. Inf.: I willingly use (would use) services, production provided by my organization) will overlap, so it is recommended not to use this statement.
The same as E5: “The usage of services or products is disclosed by the previously mentioned statement.
E6: “It is more appropriate to use statement No 122 (auth. Inf.: I willingly use (would use) services, production provided by my organization)) than this one.

The statement marked No 124 in the questionnaire, that is, “The organization provides detailed information about the products,” was assessed by E3 as follows: “It should be defined and clarified, because it is very similar to the above (see No121: My organization provides detailed information for consumers), almost the same.

Statement No 126, “Our products could not harm consumer safety” was evaluated by E2 (as well as other experts, see below) as duplicating the previously mentioned: “The statement overlaps the previous questions, so it would be reasonable to quit it.” Other experts repeat the ideas of E2 expert, providing such an opinion:

E3, E4, E5, E6:
E3 is considering: “Perhaps the idea was to say ‘for health’?”
E4 states that: “The answers to the statements would partly duplicate the information of statement No 123 (auth. Inf.: I do not advise my acquaintances to use my organization’s services/products), which has a broader meaning, and reveal the essence of both safety and the attitude to consumers’ health.”
E5 raises the question of redundancy: “The questions are very similar to the previous ones, overlap.
E6 notes: “Statements No 126 and 127 (127 auth. Inf.: Our products could not damage consumers’ health) are repeated, they should be modified or combined.

E2 submits a comment for statement No 127 “Our products could not damage consumers’ health”: “The same remark as for No 126.” E3 notes that: “Essentially the same as in the statement above….” E4 repeats his previous comment on the subject: “The answers to the statements would partly duplicate statement No 123 (auth. inf.: I do not advise my acquaintances to use my organization's services/products), which has a broader meaning, information, and reveals both safety and the essence of health of consumers attitude.” E5 also stresses: “The answers to the statements will partly duplicate answers to statement No 125 (auth. inf.: There were no cases when the services (production) provided by my workplace would endanger the consumer welfare).” E6 adds: “Statements No 126 and 127 (126 auth. inf.: Our products could not harm consumer safety) are repeated, they should be modified or combined - health, safety basically are the same things.” E1 assessed the questionnaire statements (121, 123, 126 and 127) negatively and stated in the comments “Overlap.

Questions for experts (as in the previous part of the study) were caused by statements expressing stereotypical attitudes, following concerns that emotions can affect the quality of the answers, in addition, note repeating statements that according to the logic of the study there was the aim to use as reference.

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6:
E1, analyzing statement No 171, “Employment of relatives in my workplace is the usual practice,” considers: “I wonder whether it is possible to receive a sincere response to this statement.
E2 comments with respect to this statement: “Question No 172 is echoed (auth. Inf.: The coming of employees to our organization is always subject to the availability of close ties, acquaintances), which is broader and includes not only nepotism.
E3 argues that: “What do you want to find out: non-transparent behavior in the public sector or the use of references?”
E3, analyzing the meaning of statement No 172 “For getting employed I had to take advantage of acquaintances,” notes that: “Maybe we should clarify: ‘in this company? On the other hand, who wants to confess?’
E4 emphasizes: “The answers to the statement will duplicate information that will be revealed in subsequent statements and in a broader sense.”
E5 offers: “It is more appropriate to use statement No 172 (auth. Inf.: The coming of employees to our organization is always subject to the availability of close ties, acquaintances), and honest answers will reveal the essence.
E6 believes that “Statement No 172 is more preferable for an interview, that is why you do not need to use it.”

E1, analyzing the need for statement No 174 “For getting employed I had to take advantage of acquaintances” emphasizes:

I would comment in the same way as statement No 171 (auth. inf.: Employment of relatives in my workplace is the usual practice), that is to say, it is hardly possible to get a sincere response to this statement.” E2, when assessing this statement negatively, sees repetition in it: “The question essentially repeats others, it is hardly possible to learn something significantly new.” E4 thinks that: “Abstract statement, the information will be repeated.” E5 pays attention: “Unnecessary, because the answer may be not open.” E6 doubts “The usefulness of the statement is questionable.

E1, analyzing the statement No 175 “The employee will never get a place to which the relative or acquaintance of the head claims,” doubts and cannot decide submitting the following comment: “Maybe there can be such a statement, but in this case it is difficult for me to decide.

The experts suggest that the statement “Salary depends on manager's attitude to the employee” should be detailed and they doubt whether such wording, as it is now, will give the desired result for the researchers:

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6:
E1, analyzing the content of statement No 179 “The salary depends on the manager’s attitude to the employee,” evaluates it negatively: “It duplicates, I propose to remove.
E2 assessment with respect to this statement is also negative, but he makes proposals: “I think that the situation could be explained by answers to other questions. Otherwise, there should be detailed all possible factors, and it is unlikely to be appropriate.
E3 proposes to adjust the statement, stating: “It would be more specific: ‘In my workplace.’
E4 states that: “The answer would disclose the payment system aspects, and is not appropriate to be used for the events under discussion.
E5 raises the question of wording: “What attitude? The generalized statement will not reveal the substance.
E6 suggests: “The statement should be clarified, specified.”

E1, assessing statement No 184 “High moral principles declared by the managers differ from their actions,” thinks of it quite skeptically: “Immediately very negatively predisposing statement.” E2 does not see a negative connotation, but notes that: “It has already been discussed:Management staff general culture level.”E3 says that: “Most of the employees can assume so because their, for example, salary is too low.” E4 and E5 do not see the need for this statement in the questionnaire: “Moral principles of leadership have already been assessed, that is why the statement is not necessary.” E6 complies with the same provision: “No need to use for a survey.”E1, analyzing the content of statement No 185 “In any organization completely transparent activity is impossible,” says that: “At once a very negatively predisposing statement”; the expert, analyzing statement No 186 “Information presented in advertising the product/service does not correspond to reality,” rejects its suitability, supporting by the same argument as assessing the previous statement: “Immediately very negatively predisposing statement.” E2 offers: “This question should be moved to quality of consumer information.” E3 notes: “Marketing and corporate social responsibility are related issues, it is not clear what you want to know?” E4 pays attention that “Presentation of information about a product/service has already been assessed, so the statement is not necessary.” Other experts assess this statement critically as well. E5: “Presentation of information question has already been assessed.” E6: “The question may be not answered frankly, and this is not a universal phenomenon.

Experts also doubted the openness and sincerity of the future responses to the statement “We are also paid salaries in “envelopes”:

E1:
E1, analyzing statement No 187 “We get salaries in ‘envelopes,’ too,” thinks that it should be considered: “Sincere answer is questionable. It is hard to make a decision on this statement.

E1, analyzing statement No 190 “The organization takes care only of income rather than quality,” thinks that this is: “Overlapping statement. I suggest refusing or adjusting to prevent recurrence of the idea.” E2 sees another problem in this statement: “Falls out of context. I doubt if the answers will help the assessment of transparency.” E6 proposes to change: “The statement does not fully reflect the transparency of activities, should be corrected.” E1, analyzing statement No 194 “The statements that the organization takes care of employees, their well-being—“the brainwash,” says that: “I suggest that you reconfigure, there is a similar situation with statements No 40” (auth. Inf.: “In my workplace, in terms of managers, ‘the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing’”) and No 85 (auth. Inf.: In my organization jokes about blondes and individuals of other nationality and so on are not tolerated). E5 also has doubts: “The domestic term. Is it worth using it?” E6 offers: “The statement style should be corrected.

According to the experts, the statement “Corporate social responsibility is only an advertisement,” is not necessary because there is the danger of repetition, duplication with other statements:

E:
E1, analyzing the relevance of statement No 195 to solving the arising problem “Corporate social responsibility is only advertisement,” makes the following proposal: “It is repeated, though not literally. I suggest refusing.
E2 in this case duplicates E1 declaring: “Echoes question No 192 (Corporate social responsibility, as well as an ISO installation, is just ‘skullduggery’). From 6.5 (nepotism, favoritism) to 6.8 (Social Responsibility imitation) inclusive, it would make sense to join, because all questions deal with transparency of activities.
E3 also has a question: “Is this just one of the nuances that may be reflected by other statements?”
E4 thinks: “The statement is not necessary, because with the help of statement No 193 (auth. Inf.: Publicly declared values are only for public opinion, image formation) it will be clarified if the company uses social responsibility for advertising.
E5 considers it pointless, because the assessment of the respondents could already be received: “A repetitive question.” Confirming the fact assessed by other experts, E6 suggests: “The wording should be adjusted, or the statement not used at all.

The part of sociodemographic questions was assessed by some experts in a very ambiguous way. E1, assessing the sociodemographic questions about the employee and questions about the organization, even positively marking the relevance of the questions for the research, submitted their comments which helped the authors to decide in shaping the final version of the instrument.

E1, E2, E3:
Next to the question “The organization I work for: does not intend to introduce corporate social responsibility; is starting to introduce corporate social responsibility; has implemented corporate social responsibility” E1, noting the question as suitable for research instrument, emphasizes that: “The question is whether the questionnaire is properly named. This is ‘aiming to implement’ or have already implemented. In this case, either you need to reconfigure the question or reject it.”
E2 proposes to eliminate this question, arguing that “The intentions or non-intentions to introduce CSR can only be known by part of the managerial staff, so there should occur ‘I do not know,’ or it could be possible to find out directly with the head of the company.”
E3 considers this question necessary, but gives a remark to instrument facilitators: “If it were possible to choose the third variant of the answer, I would note ‘I doubt it.’

Questions in sociodemographic questions block about the respondent’s work experience and family situation raised doubts only to one expert and were expressed in the comments.

E1:
Next to the question “Your general work experience” E1 provides the following comment:
And what does general work experience determine? Specifically in the current job, I agree, but the value of the question is questionable. If you are going to have any comparisons, then it fits. By the way, why not to number the demographic part questions?
The question “Your marital status” also raises doubts to E1, although it was evaluated positively by the expert: “I do not know if this gives anything in the context of this research. I have doubts about this question, but, apparently, the author is somehow planning to link the employee’s marital status and responsibility.
E3 assesses the marital status positioning question negatively: “What outcome is expected to be achieved by this question?”

Having performed a detailed analysis of the expert comments, it should be emphasized that some statements of the instrument, reducing mean, had the utmost importance on the common means of the subscales weight. After expert evaluation, they were abandoned due to extremely low ratings (Table 9). Experts had to write their comments/observations next to low-score statements. Having acquainted with the experts comments, 104 statements describing management culture and 73 describing corporate social responsibility were left in the questionnaire, reasoning that excess statements were identified during the survey. All in all 20 statements were eliminated.

No*Statements/questions1E2E3E4E5E6ESum of pointsWeight average
Management culture
4.Managers are characterized by cultural knowledge123121101.66
11.In my workplace the managers apparently lack management training11122181.33
19.Managers always explain their decisions to the staff21212191.50
26.We follow the principle “the leader is always right”214121111.83
37.In my workplace it is not clear who is responsible for what213222122.00
83.In my workplace there are people who suffer from psychological pressure21212191.50
91.In my workplace document official registration does not meet the requirements212221101.66
Total:691.64
Corporate social responsibility
107.When you need documents, you have to address the people/units that prepared them214321132.16
119.My organization is guided by the principle “the customer is always right”222221111.83
121.My organization provides comprehensive information for consumers215121122.00
123.I do not advise my acquaintances to use my organization’s services/products11222191.5
126.Our products could not harm consumer safety11121281.33
127.Our products could not damage consumers’ health11221291.50
171.Employment of relatives is a usual practice in my workplace122221101.66
174.To get employed I had to take advantage of acquaintances11112171.16
179.Salary depends on the manager’s attitude to employee11221291.50
184.High moral principles declared by the managers differ from their actions11111161.00
186.Advertising information of product/services does not correspond to reality112222101.66
190.The organization cares only of income rather than quality214321132.16
195.Corporate social responsibility is only an advertisement11221291.5
Total:1261.61
Organization where I work:
Does not intend to implement CSR; Is beginning to implement CSR; Has implemented CSR
+++24
Your general work experience:
Specify:……………..
++++33
Your marital status:
Married; Divorced; Single; Widower/widow
++15

Table 9.

Number of eliminated statements/questions, the sum of their assessment points and mean.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Notes: *statement number in the questionnaire.

In Table 9, statements are presented assessed by the experts in very low scores. In many cases, the experts’ opinion coincided, and these statements were assessed by 1–2 points, only a few assessments were of about 4 or 5 points. The highest rating average is 2.16 points and the lowest average assessment of the statements is 1 point. Assessing the sociodemographic data, the question on marital status was pointed out as unnecessary by most experts. Assessment of corporate social responsibility deployment situation, according to most of the experts, is unnecessary as well. Half of the experts believe that the question on work experience is not necessary, but the other half of the experts think that this question is appropriate.

After eliminating the statements that received the lowest scoring by the experts from the instrument, an exploratory study was carried out.

The main conclusion of the first expert assessment: the suitability of the questionnaire content was approved for identified scales and subscales and for achieving research purpose.

4. Second expert evaluation

Having formed the interview questions for company managers, expert evaluation was carried out.

The aim of the research: to ensure the research instrument content relevancy for the management culture expression as a formal part of organizational culture aiming to implement corporate social responsibility.

In order to achieve the aim the, following research objectives are formulated:

  1. To evaluate the compliance of the formulated questions for the distinguished components of the instrument.

  2. To evaluate the quality of the content of individual questions.

4.1. Research and data-processing methods

To carry out the research, the expert individual evaluation method was selected—survey in a written form. The data were processed with the Excel program. Open questions, comments, and suggestions were analyzed on the logical basis comparing with the theoretical insights of scientific papers.

4.1.1. The research sample

The study included nine experts. The main condition for the selection of experts was their scientific degree, area, and field. All scientists who participated in expert evaluation represent social sciences area, and two fields (03S and 04S). Economic field scientists were chosen due to the fact that corporate social responsibility includes broad aspects of social and economic activities of the company, so the opinion versatility is a significant condition in order to get objective results of expert evaluation. Other additional condition for the selection of experts was their workplace. In this case, the approach of representatives from different universities (i.e., different scientific schools) was particularly important to the analyzed problem. The range of expert scientific areas of interest includes the aim of this research, regardless of the fact that not everywhere themes of “organizational culture” and “corporate social responsibility” are specifically identified. More information about the experts is presented in Table 10.

Code*Research degree, academic titlePositionResearch fieldAreas of scientific interestsSubjects currently taught/were taught
E1Prof. Dr. Habil.Professor03 S, 04 SManagement, project managementStrategic Project Management, Project Administration, Project Management
E2Prof. Dr. Habil.Professor03 SStrategic management, theories of systemsStrategic Management Methods
E3Prof. Dr. Habil.Professor03 SManagement and administration studiesPersonnel Management, Project Administration, Business Ethics, Communication and Rhetoric
E4Dr. of Social Sciences, Assoc. Prof.Assoc. Prof.03 SHuman resources management, public administration, management of organizationsPlanning, Organization
E5Dr. of Social Sciences, Assoc. Prof.Assoc. Prof04 SMarketing, consumer behavior, marketing research, advertisingInternational Support Funds, Theory and Practice of Advertising, Integrated Marketing Communications, Market Theory and Practice, Marketing Research
E6Dr of Social Sciences, Assoc. Prof.Assoc. Prof03 SManagement of organizations, organizational management structures, network structures, organizational culture, human resources management, management of changesOrganizational Culture, Management
E7Dr. of Social Sciences, Assoc. Prof.Assoc. Prof04 SRural business and their infrastructure researchGeneral Quality Management, Business Organizations Management, Environment Protection Management, Agrotourism Management, Management of Agricultural Production Processes
E8Dr. of Social SciencesLecturer03 SOrganizational
culture and role of values in organizations
management, human resources management
Management, Team Work, Organizational Behavior, Scientific Research Methodology
E9Dr. of Social SciencesLecturer03 SBusiness, professional ethics, organization culture, organizational behavior, culture managementStrategic Planning, Harmonious Management, Intercultural Management, Strategic business Stability Management

Table 10.

Expert characteristics of the second expert evaluation.

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Note: *code given to the expert.

4.1.2. The research organization

Experts were sent requests by e-mail for agreement to carry out the evaluation. Eighteen requests were sent, nine experts agreed to participate in the evaluation. The experts who agreed to participate in the evaluation were sent questionnaires by e-mail. The experts were asked to approve or disapprove of the significance of the formulated questions for solving the analyzed problem, assessing them from 1 (the question is not acceptable) to 5 (the question is acceptable). The experts evaluated the interview questions and in the comments column identified the drawbacks, presented their proposals which could affect the quality of the content of the instrument.

4.2. Research results

Interview questions received controversial assessments from some experts; however, the overall estimate of questions was taken into account. Table 11 provides a summary of the results of expert evaluation and below there is the overview only of the most commented questions.

QuestionsE1E2E3E4E5E6E7E8E9SumMean
Strategies2604.1
What is your company’s vision?555315515353.9
How is the formed company’s vision, in your opinion, related to corporate social responsibility?555552555424.7
Which highlights formed in the vision, in your opinion, are implemented in the most complex way?555552455414.6
What is your company’s mission?555315515353.9
How does your company’s formed mission comply with the essential principles of corporate social responsibility?555552545414.6
What importance in your company’s strategy is dedicated to corporate social responsibility? How and where is this reflected?311412545262.9
What role do/did employees have in the stages of strategy formation?555515455404.4
Organization structure1814.0
What is your company’s organizational structure?511515534303.3
What criteria were used as the base forming the structure of the organization? What do you think are the most important criteria in its formulation?311315455283.1
How would your company’s organizational structure be successful aiming to implement corporate social responsibility?555552555424.7
What factors, in your opinion, could lead to the organization’s management structure changes?555555554444.9
How could your company’s organizational structure be improved?555542524374.1
Regulation1033.8
How much is regulation (regulatory policy and practice) in your company consistent with the principles of corporate social responsibility and the possibility to implement it?555551404343.8
What task assignment order dominates in your company (strictly regulated/unregulated)?533415534333.7
What are the factors and how does your company focus on management (organizational—technical and/or social psychological)?355451535364
Technologies1413.9
How do your company’s technologies meet/do not meet the criteria of corporate social responsibility?555555545444.9
How do you assess the level of technology usage in the organization?522312534273
What are the methods used in your company to set the need for technology updates?522513435303.3
How does your company’s technological supply condition the implementation of organization’s strategic objectives?555552445404.4
Processes1254.6
What standards are applied in your company’s process management?555555453424.7
What processes and how should be improved in your company aiming for corporate social responsibility?555555555455
How do your company’s management processes comply with corporate social responsibility criteria?545540555384.2
Information systems1144.2
What criteria would you use to describe the flow of information in your company (strictly regulated, information system created, easily accessible information, continuously published)?555515555414.6
What information systems are used in your company?514515444333.7
How do information systems created in your company meet or do not meet the processes that are necessary for the implementation of corporate social responsibility?544543555404.4
Control1864.2
In what ways can the control system existing in your company ensure the implementation of corporate social responsibility?555455555444.9
What improvements, in your opinion, are necessary for the current control system?555552554414.6
What kind of control is carried out (strict attention “from above” or emphasis on self-control)?511515555333.7
What are the methods of controlling the labor process?511515554323.6
What are the opportunities for the employee to control their own labor organization issues?555530535364
Incentive1754.9
How can your company incentive system of different levels of employees serve (not serve) aiming to implement corporate social responsibility?544545555424.7
What are the ways to encourage employees to improve, seek professional, business knowledge?555555555455
What measures of incentive are being taken to promote education/learning of a socially responsible employee?555555555455
What measures of incentive are being taken for saving of company resources?555553555434.8
General evaluation:12854.2
Possible maximum evaluation:15305

Table 11.

General summary of second expert evaluation results.

Source: compiled by the authors.

The question “What is your company’s vision?” was evaluated by experts E4, E5 and E8 as inappropriate: E4 “bad wording,” E5 “not a proper question for company managers,” E8 “the information is available from the company documents or Web page, why to ask the respondents?” Expert E5, commenting on the question “What order of giving assignments dominates in your company (strictly regulated/unregulated)?,” said that the issue “is not associated with social responsibility,” E6 notes that “in some organizations tasks are not assigned, the employees raise them themselves”; according to E8 opinion, “this question is more appropriate to the organization’s structure or process management,” and E9 expresses doubts: “I would doubt the appropriateness of the question (because of the excess information flow).” The question “How do you evaluate the technology application level at the organization?” was evaluated by the majority of experts (E3, E4, E5, E9) as not to be linked to corporate social responsibility, only E4 raises the question, “are the termshigh,’lowlevel assessments defined to the respondents, because it is difficult to measure.” When assessing the question, “How do your company's management processes comply with corporate social responsibility criteria?” the experts made the following comments: E3 submitted a proposal that “there should be given options for responses in the questionnaire,” E4—“maybe there could be formulatedhow much’? “E5 recommends that “during the interview each criterion should be discussed,” E6 claims that “it is duplicated to the previous,” according to E7, “there should be identified responses options in the questionnaire,” E8 says that “the question should be switched with the preceding one.” The question “What information systems are used in your company?” also led experts (E5, E7, E9) to doubts about its suitability for achieving the research aim.

The expert assessment averages are presented below. Questions, the evaluation average of which are less than 4 (or 4), were removed, some of them were adjusted according to experts proposals (Table 12).

Component parts of the interviewNumber of questions before expert assessmentSumMeanNumber of questions after expert assessment
Strategies72604.15
Organization structure51814.04
Regulation31033.82
Technologies41413.92
Processes31254.62
Information systems31144.22
Control51864.23
Incentive41754.94
Total:341285/*15304.2/*524

Table 12.

Interview structure before and after expert assessment.

Source: compiled by the authors.

The structure of the instrument is presented in Table 13 having corrected it according to expert remarks and fully prepared for research interview.

Component parts of the interviewQuestionsPursued aim
StrategiesHow is the formed company’s vision, in your opinion, related to corporate social responsibility??These issues have two aims. Firstly, they determine how corporate social responsibility is reflected in strategic aspects of companies represented by informants. Secondly, they assess how informants perceive corporate social responsibility in the strategy of companies.
Which highlights formed in the vision, in your opinion, are implemented in the most complex way? Why?
How does your company’s formed mission comply with the essential principles of corporate social responsibility?
What importance in your company’s strategy is dedicated to corporate social responsibility? How is this reflected?
What role do/did employees have in the stages of strategy formation?
Organization structureWhat is your company’s organizational structure?The aim is to identify the structural features of the organization that affect the management functionality, and is also important in implementing corporate social responsibility.
What criteria were used as the base forming the structure of the organization?
How would your company’s organizational structure be successful aiming to implement corporate social responsibility?
What factors, in your opinion, could lead to the organization’s management structure changes?
Rules/RegulationWhat task assignment order dominates in your company (strictly regulated/unregulated)?The aim is to assess the nature and the tasks assigned and employee participation in the processes of work organization.
What are the possibilities for the employees themselves to solve the issues of work organization?
TechnologiesHow do your company’s technologies meet/do not meet the criteria of corporate social responsibility?These issues have two interdependent aims—to evaluate how the company’s technology is combined with corporate social responsibility principles and how technological supply is associated with the company’s strategic aims. Considering how corporate social responsibility principles are reflected in the strategy.
How does your company’s technological supply condition the implementation of organization’s strategic objectives?
ProcessesWhat standards are applied in your company’s process management?The aim is to identify and distinguish the basic standards (as well as corporate social responsibility) which are used organizing and managing the shortcomings happening in the company, as well as to assess the existing shortcomings of the processes that can hinder the smooth implementation of corporate social responsibility. Together the answers will show which changes of approach are needed to the informants themselves.
What processes and how should be improved in your company aiming for corporate social responsibility?
Information systemsWhat criteria would you use to describe the flow of information in your company (strictly regulated, information system created, easily accessible information, continuously published)?These questions seek to assess the company’s information system features and the current situation, taking into account the aspects that can help, and can hinder a smoother installation of corporate social responsibility standards.
How do information systems created in your company meet or do not meet the processes that are necessary for the implementation of corporate social responsibility?
ControlIn what ways can the control system existing in your company ensure the implementation of corporate social responsibility?The questions are designed to assess the control state existing in the company, its functionality, as well as how the employees are trusted and how they are included in the control process.
What improvements, in your opinion, are necessary for the current control system?
What kind of control is carried out (strict attention “from above” or emphasis on self-control)?
IncentiveHow can your company incentive system of different levels of employees serve (not serve) aiming to implement corporate social responsibility?These questions seek to identify the key features of employee appraisal system, its influence on professional development, the pursuit of knowledge, the promotion of socially responsible behavior. In this case, the aim is to determine how companies understand and implement employee involvement in socially responsible activities.
What are the ways to encourage employees to improve, seek professional, business knowledge?
What measures of incentive are being taken to promote education/learning of a socially responsible employee?
What measures of incentive are being taken for saving of company resources?

Table 13.

Interview questions to company managers „the expression of management culture as formal part of organizational culture aiming to implement corporate social responsibility”.

Source: compiled by the authors.

The main conclusion of the second expert assessment: the suitability of management culture expression, as formal part of organizational culture, research instrument content was confirmed aiming to implement corporate social responsibility.

© 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). Structure of Research Design: Expert Evaluation, Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility, Pranas ?ukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitien?, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70630. Available from:

chapter statistics

166total 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

Exploratory Research

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