Questionnaire structure: Parts and scales.
The stages of formation of the research instrument and the corrections carried out after the expert evaluation, and the exploratory research are described. The purified research instrument consisting of two parts is presented. The part of the management culture of the questionnaire consists of four scales (culture of managerial staff, culture of organization of the management processes, management culture of working conditions, and culture of the documentation system); the part of the social responsibility of the questionnaire consists of two scales (behavior of the socially responsible organization and behavior of the socially responsible employee). At the start, the provision that the management culture and social responsibility are universal categories, including organizations in terms of size and classification of economic activities, is reasoned. The principles of evaluation of the level of management culture are introduced.
- corporate social responsibility
- level of management culture
- research instrument
1.1. Relevance of the research
The main thing for research is to choose the best way to achieve the formulated aim and consider the mistakes which appeared because of some reasons and must be corrected. In this case, systematic and critical approach to the evaluation of all steps of the research is important. In social research, in planning questionnaire research, the explanatory limitations must be recognized, the aims must be linked directly to the measures, other methods should be considered as checks, and, most importantly, professional advice should be sought during the planning . In addition, it is natural that after a series of check procedures the final research instrument may be changed quite significantly . Therefore, after the expert assessment of the developed research questionnaire and having checked psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire during the exploratory research, the next step requires the analysis of knowledge obtained, which would allow developing a reliable questionnaire for determination of the level of development of management culture in order to implement corporate social responsibility. In the case of our research, the changes are not notably significant.
1.2. Problem of the research
The problem of the research is raised by the question: How to prepare a questionnaire for the main research based on the results of the expert evaluation and the exploratory research?
1.3. Object of the research
The object of the research is correction of the research instrument.
1.4. Purpose of the research
1.5. Objectives of the research
1.6. Methods of the research
After the expert assessment and exploratory research, the results were examined and compared. On the basis of the results, the adjustment of the questionnaire was carried out.
2. The results of the expert assessment and the exploratory research
When forming the instrument, two provisions were followed. First, management culture and social responsibility: universal categories, without distinction of organizations by sector and/or economic activity classification, size, and so on. That means that the work with people is organized in accordance with the humanistic attitude. Second, the provision is defined saying that the object of the research is
|First part: Management culture||MC*||Second part: Corporate social responsibility||CSR*|
|1. Management staff culture||MSC||1. Behavior of a socially responsible organization||BSRO|
|2. Managerial processes organization culture||COMP||2. Behavior of a socially responsible employee||BSRE|
|3. Management working conditions culture||MWCC|
|4. Documentation system culture||DSC|
|Total||4 scales||Total:||2 scales|
|Total amount of scales:||6 scales|
Table 2 lists the sequential distribution of the scales belonging to the parts and subscales assigned to the scales in order of precedence.
|Management staff culture||MSCs||Management staff general culture level|
Management science knowledge level
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics
The level of the ability to manage
|Managerial processes organization culture||COMPs||Optimal managerial processes regulation|
Rational organization of management work
Modern computerization level of managerial processes
Culture of visitors’ reception, conducting meetings, phone calls
|Management working conditions culture||MWCCs||Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)|
Level of organizing working places
Work and rest regime, relaxation options
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate
|Documentation system culture||DSCs||Culture of official registration of documentation|
Optimal document search and access system
Rational use of modern information technologies
Rational storage system of archival documents
|Behavior of a socially responsible organization||BSROs||Market responsibility (services and their quality)|
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||BSREs||Intentions to leave work|
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
Having done the analysis of the expert assessment and exploratory research results, three subscales of corporate social responsibility part were transformed by combining them in two. Market responsibility subscale was conditionally divided into two subscales: services and their quality; consumer information, health, and security. It was found that it was unreasonable to have such a detailed presentation and analyze individually (Figure 1).
Before the expert assessment and the exploratory research, the scale of behavior of socially responsible employee was sectioned off not into six (as it is now), but into the eight, subscales. Having analyzed and expert assessment and exploratory research results, it was decided to leave the six subscales, not abandoning the rest (in the results of exploratory research there are presented already corrected subscales). Figure 2 visualizes the transformation of four subscales into two subscales.
Having combined social responsibility part subscales, it was inevitably necessary to give up statements that were identified as surplus after the expert assessment and exploratory research results analysis, but when the subscales merged into larger subscales according to the theme, the number of statements rose to 10 in one or another case. Thus, the corporate social responsibility part subscales and the unevenness of statements with respect to the management culture part are the outcomes of expert assessment and analysis of the results of the exploratory research.
Table 3 indicates the length of the subscale by the test steps, that is, how many statements a specific subscale consists of. Management culture subscales in this part of the instrument comprise 104 statements (MCi 104). Corporate social responsibility subscale includes 73 statements (CSRi 73). The minimal number of statements in the subscale is 5. Throughout the questionnaire, there are six 5-step test length subscales. The maximal number of the statements in the subscale is 9–11. There are five subscales of such a length in the questionnaire. When the number of test steps in the subscale is too high, the Cronbach alpha coefficient is always quite high, so, as it has already been mentioned in the presentation of the results of the exploratory research, it is necessary to calculate the Spearman Brown (hypersensitivity) ratio. In this case, the optimal number of statements was foreseen in the subscale. As can be seen, the number of statements in the subscales is spread fairly evenly. The average of management culture part statements in the subscale is 26 (min = MCi 24, max = MCi 28 statements). Two scales forming corporate social responsibility part include 31 (=CSRi 31) and 42 (=CSRi 42) statements. Analyzing the volume of scales and subscales with respect to the parts, their unevenness is based on the fact that social responsibility part inevitably had to include two most important scales of socially responsible behavior: the employee and the organization.
In management culture part, all scales statements were formulated positively, with the exception of nine statements through all scales and subscales in order to ensure the honesty of the respondents completing the questionnaire.
In the corporate social responsibility part in the “Behavior of socially responsible employee” scale, all the statements were formed negatively, with the exception of two positive statements (number 136 “With people outside the organization I always speak only positively about the workplace” and 137 “While communicating with strangers, I always talk about my workplace as a reliable one”) Table 4.
|Groups of statements by subscales||→||Subscales||Number of statements in a subscale|
|MSC1.1–MSC1.7||Management staff general culture level||7|
|MSC2.8–MSC2.12||Management science knowledge level||5 (|
|MSC3.13–MSC3.19||Managers’ personal and professional characteristics||7 (|
|MSC4.20–MSC4.28||The level of the ability to manage||9|
|COMP1.29–COMP1.35||Optimal managerial processes regulation||7 (|
|COMP2.36–COMP2.40||Rational organization of management work||5|
|COMP3.41–COMP3.45||Modern computerization level of managerial processes||5 (|
|COMP4.46–COMP4.52||Culture of visitors’ reception, conducting meetings, phone calls||7 (|
|MWCC1.53–MWCC1.61||Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)||9|
|MWCC2.62–MWCC2.67||Level of organizing working places||6 (|
|MWCC3.68–MWCC3.73||Work and rest regime, relaxation options||6|
|MWCC4.74–MWCC4.79||Work security, sociopsychological microclimate||6|
|DSC1.80–DSC1.85||Culture of official registration of documentation||6|
|DSC2.86–DSC2.90||Optimal document search and access system||5|
|DSC3.91–DSC3.98||Rational use of modern information technologies||8|
|DSC4.98–DSC4.104||Rational storage system of archival documents||6 (|
|BSRO3.116–BSRO3.122||Environment protection responsibility||7|
|BSRO4.123–BSRO4.129||Responsibility in relations with employees||7|
|BSRO5.130–BSRO5.135||Responsibility in relations with society||6|
|BSRE1.136 – BSRE1.141||Intentions to leave work||6 (|
|BSRE2.142: BSRE2.147||Uncertainty and lack of information at work||6|
|BSRE3.148 – BSRE3.152||General physical and psychological condition of the employee||5|
|BSRE4.153 – BSRE4.157||The employee‘s opinion about the organization||5|
|BSRE5.158 – BSRE5.167||Corruption, nepotism, favoritism||10|
|BSRE6.168 – BSRE6.177||Social responsibility, criticism, staff attitude||10|
At the stage of management culture determination, the following questions are asked: What should the level of management culture development be in order to implement corporate social responsibility? Are the organizations participating in the research ready to become socially responsible? If the organizations are not ready to become socially responsible or corporate social responsibility is not accepted by values, they will only be able to simulate socially responsible activities, but it will not become an organic part of the management culture. In this case, naturally there should be lack of consistency in actions and forcefulness with respect of both the staff and the public (customers, partners, communities). This type of simulation can enhance the employee dissatisfaction and internal conflict.
Management culture development level is determined by using a Likert  scale. According to Likert, scale 1 and 2 points indicate a very low and low level of management culture, 3 points indicate medium level, and 4 and 5 points indicate high and very high management culture development level in the organization (Table 5). Organizations with a high and very high management culture are ready to become socially responsible organizations. These organizations can only maintain this level of culture which exists at the moment and develop it further. The medium-level management culture organizations are proposed management culture-level determination, in order to implement corporate social responsibility, managerial decisions model (presented in 6 part of the monograph), helping to strengthen the culture, establishing its problematic fields, and solving specific tasks. Organizations having very low and low management culture development level are proposed to review and reshape the management culture, because in this case, there will be too many changes, and they can cause even more confusion to the already misbalanced or unbalanced management culture.
Table 6 shows that the current subscales “Market responsibility (services and their quality)” and “Market responsibility (consumer information, health and safety)” consisted of three subscales before expert evaluation and exploratory study. The drawback of previous subscales that was revealed by analysis of the results is that “Consumer information” subscale included only two statements and “Health and Safety” included three statements. Shaping the instrument’s original version, this was not taken into account. According to the nature of the content of statements, it was decided that all three previously concluded scales can be combined into two.
|Behavior of socially responsible organization ||In my workplace, much attention is paid to the quality of services (production)||Services and their quality|
|In my workplace, there are attempts to fulfill the promises made to customers|
|In the organization, the quality of declared services does not differ from reality|
|In my workplace, there is product quality control system|
|Consumer complaints are examined and the conclusions made improve the quality|
|My workplace in the relationships with clients is guided not only by legislation but also by universally accepted principles of morality|
|I willingly use (would use) services and production provided by my organization||Consumer information|
|My organization is not manipulating the confidence of the consumer|
|The organization provides detailed information about the products||Health and safety|
|My organization, providing services and products takes care of the health of consumers|
|There were no cases when the services (production) provided by my workplace would endanger the consumer welfare|
Table 7 presents subscales and their statements which, following the expert evaluation and analysis of exploratory research results, were combined into one subscale “Corruption, nepotism, favoritism.”
|Behavior of socially responsible employee ||The coming of employees to our organization is always subject to the availability of close ties, acquaintances||Nepotism, favoritism|
|I think over every word when it comes to communicating with colleagues who are relatives or friends of administration|
|The employee will never get a place to which the relative or acquaintance of the head claims|
|In my workplace, the salary or career depends on how managers are sweetened|
|In my workplace, the salary and career are not determined by competence|
|It is better not to argue, quarrel with people close to the manager|
|We can obtain work only through an acquaintance|
|Politicians and political events affect the decision-making in the organization||Corruption|
|Changes of political leaders, political parties always cause confusion within the organization|
|Political changes influence changes in personalities in the organization|
Table 8 details the structure of previous subscales “Transparency of activities and relations” and “Simulation of social responsibility” before the connection point. Regardless the fact that the number of statements in the subscales was sufficient, it was decided to move them to an all-encompassing subscale, calling it “Social responsibility criticism: staff attitude.”
|Behavior of socially responsible employee ||We have complete operational transparency impossible||Transparency of activities and relations|
|In any organization, fully transparent activities are impossible|
|We get salaries in “envelopes,” too|
|Implementation of corporate social responsibility does not guarantee employee loyalty|
|I do not use my organization’s production (services) and advise my friends to do the same|
|Corporate social responsibility, as well as an ISO installation, is just “skulduggery”||Simulation of social responsibility|
|Publicly declared values are meant only for the public opinion, image formation|
|The statements that the organization takes care of employees and their well-being—“the brainwash”|
|The statements that the organization takes care of clients and customers: untrue|
|Implementation of corporate social responsibility in organizations is a matter of fashion (prestige)|
Having formed the diagnostic statements, two blocks of sociodemographic questions were made. In the first block of sociodemographic questions, there were presented four questions after expert evaluate, the aim of which is to obtain information about the organization in which the respondent is employed. While already forming the instrument, it was decided to interview the employees of different types of organizations that is why it is extremely important to distinguish organizations according to their legal status, sector, capital nature, and size. Different organizations were selected to highlight the possible differences and common management-cultural environment trends that affect the manager’s approach to their activities object. The aim of the second block of sociodemographic questions is to define the characteristics of the study participant. For this purpose, there were formed five questions for the identification of responsibilities, the years of service in the target organization, education, age, and sex. In other words, there are distinguished variables in order to determine their relation with the management culture. The research data aims to be processed at different socio-demographic sections, and to compare the results.
After exploratory research, it was decided to measure management culture development not by three but five levels. Measuring by three levels, the difficulties arose in the interpretation of results (Figure 3).
After the second expert evaluation, the interview questions were adjusted. Having done the instrument adjustments and prepared a final version of the questionnaire, the model of management development determination level in order to implement corporate social responsibility was formed.