Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Corrections of Research Instrument

By Pranas Žukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitienė

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

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70632

Downloaded: 634


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
  • model
  • employees
  • organization

1. Introduction

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 [1]. In addition, it is natural that after a series of check procedures the final research instrument may be changed quite significantly [2]. 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

The purpose of the researchis to prepare the final version of the questionnaire after correction of the research instrument for the main research.

1.5. Objectives of the research

The objectives of the researchare (1) to examine the results of the expert assessment and the exploratory research and (2) to revise and prepare the questionnaire for conducting the main 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 management cultureand corporate social responsibilitypart in case of this research is a context. Using a research instrument and having set management culture development level, it is intended to diagnose the organization’s readiness to become socially responsible. The resulting data will provide the basis for modeling the management culture changes aiming for corporate social responsibility.

Management culturepart in the questionnaire consists of four scales: management staff culture, culture of organization of managerial processes, management working conditions culture, and documentation system culture. Social responsibilitypart in the questionnaire consists of two scales: behavior of a socially responsible organization and behavior of a socially responsible employee. Table 1 presents the first instrument-making phase, during which the management culture and social responsibility parts were assigned the scales and codes.

First part: Management cultureMC*Second part: Corporate social responsibilityCSR*
1. Management staff cultureMSC1. Behavior of a socially responsible organizationBSRO
2. Managerial processes organization cultureCOMP2. Behavior of a socially responsible employeeBSRE
3. Management working conditions cultureMWCC
4. Documentation system cultureDSC
Total4 scalesTotal:2 scales
Total amount of scales:6 scales

Table 1.

Questionnaire structure: Parts and scales.

Management culture in tables and diagrams is marked by code MC; social responsibility is marked by code CSR.

Management culture scales are marked MCs; corporate social responsibility scales are marked CSRs.

Source:Compiled by the authors.

Each management culturepart scale consists of four subscales (total 16 subscales), in the broad sense oriented towards leadership competencies, processes organization competence, the working environment formation, management of organization’s documents. Social responsibilityscale consists of 10 subscales involving the relationship with the organization’s external environment, relationships with employees, psycho-emotional responses of the members of the organization to managerial actions, assessments, and managerial anomalies. Management culture subscales are distributed evenly; the number of social responsibility subscales in the scales is not identical.

Table 2 lists the sequential distribution of the scales belonging to the parts and subscales assigned to the scales in order of precedence.


Management culture (MC)
Management staff cultureMSCsManagement staff general culture level
Management science knowledge level
Managers’ personal and professional characteristics
The level of the ability to manage
Managerial processes organization cultureCOMPsOptimal 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 cultureMWCCsWorking environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)
Level of organizing working places
Work and rest regime, relaxation options
Work security, sociopsychological microclimate

Documentation system cultureDSCsCulture of official registration of documentation
Optimal document search and access system
Rational use of modern information technologies
Rational storage system of archival documents
Corporate social responsibility (CSR)Behavior of a socially responsible organizationBSROsMarket 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 employeeBSREsIntentions 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

Table 2.

Questionnaire structure: Parts, scales, and subscales.

Management culture subscales are marked MCss; corporate social responsibility scales are marked CSRss.

Source:Compiled by the authors.

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).

Figure 1.

Scale of behavior of socially responsible organization: changes of subscales structure.Source:Compiled by the authors.Note:*BSROs code is used to mark the scale of behavior of socially responsible organization of corporate social responsibility part.

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.

Figure 2.

Scale of behavior of a socially responsible employee: changes of the subscales’ structure.Source:Compiled by the authors.Note:*BSREs code is used to mark the scale of behavior of socially responsible employee of corporate social responsibility part.

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.

Table 3.

Questionnaire structure: Balance of parts, scales, subscales, and statements range. Note: *MCi - management culture part statements; **CSRi - corporate social responsibility part statements.

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 scale of management staff culturein the management science knowledge subscale, one statement was formulated negatively (“In my workplace, one can become a manager without managerial education”); in the managers’ personal and professional characteristics subscale, two negative statements were formulated (“Managers have unhealthy competition with subordinates” and “Managers have unhealthy competition with heads of other units at our organization”).

In the scale of Managerial processes organization culturein the optimal managerial processes regulation subscale, one statement is negative (in the questionnaire marked by number 35 “In my workplace, in terms of managers, “the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing”); in the modern computerization of managerial processes subscale, there is also one negative statement (number 45 in the questionnaire “In my organization, there is lack of computers and software”); in the culture of visitors’ reception, conducting meetings, phone calls subscale, two negative statements were formulated (number 48 in the questionnaire “Interaction with partners is especially businesslike” and number 51 in the questionnaire “Answers to the claims from the outside are considered as unpleasant obligation”).

In the scale of management working conditions’ culturein the organizing working places subscale, one negative statement was formed (in the questionnaire marked by number 67 “Employees sometimes have to take care of the working tools themselves for their money”).

In the scale of documentation system culturein the rational storage system of archival documents subscale, one negative statement was formed (number 103 in the questionnaire “Sometimes finding previously created documents takes a long time”).

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 subscalesSubscalesNumber of statements in a subscale
Management staff culture (MSC)
MSC1.1–MSC1.7Management staff general culture level7
MSC2.8–MSC2.12Management science knowledge level5 (including 1 negative statement, No 11 in the questionnaire)
MSC3.13–MSC3.19Managers’ personal and professional characteristics7 (including 2 negative statements, No 18 and 19 in the questionnaire)
MSC4.20–MSC4.28The level of the ability to manage9
Managerial processes organization culture COMP
COMP1.29–COMP1.35Optimal managerial processes regulation7 (including 1 negative statement, No 35 in the questionnaire)
COMP2.36–COMP2.40Rational organization of management work5
COMP3.41–COMP3.45Modern computerization level of managerial processes5 (including 1 negative statement, No 45 in the questionnaire)
COMP4.46–COMP4.52Culture of visitors’ reception, conducting meetings, phone calls7 (including 2 negative statements, No 48 and 51 in the questionnaire)
Management working conditions culture(MWCC)
MWCC1.53–MWCC1.61Working environment level (interior, lighting, temperature, cleanness, etc.)9
MWCC2.62–MWCC2.67Level of organizing working places6 (including 1 negative statement, No 67 in the questionnaire)
MWCC3.68–MWCC3.73Work and rest regime, relaxation options6
MWCC4.74–MWCC4.79Work security, sociopsychological microclimate6
Documentation system culture(DSC)
DSC1.80–DSC1.85Culture of official registration of documentation6
DSC2.86–DSC2.90Optimal document search and access system5
DSC3.91–DSC3.98Rational use of modern information technologies8
DSC4.98–DSC4.104Rational storage system of archival documents6 (including 1 negative statement, No 103 in the questionnaire)
Behavior of a socially responsible organization(BSRO)
BSRO1.105–BSRO1.110Market responsibility6
BSRO2.111–BSRO1.115Market responsibility5
BSRO3.116–BSRO3.122Environment protection responsibility7
BSRO4.123–BSRO4.129Responsibility in relations with employees7
BSRO5.130–BSRO5.135Responsibility in relations with society6
Behavior of a socially responsible employee(BSRE)*
BSRE1.136 – BSRE1.141Intentions to leave work6 (including 2 positive statements, No 136 and 137 in the questionnaire)
BSRE2.142: BSRE2.147Uncertainty and lack of information at work6
BSRE3.148 – BSRE3.152General physical and psychological condition of the employee5
BSRE4.153 – BSRE4.157The employee‘s opinion about the organization5
BSRE5.158 – BSRE5.167Corruption, nepotism, favoritism10
BSRE6.168 – BSRE6.177Social responsibility, criticism, staff attitude10

Table 4.

Questionnaire structure: Detailed distribution of number of statements.

Subscales of behavior of socially responsible employee (all statements formulated negatively, except the ones mentioned in the table).

Source:Compiled by the authors.

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 [3] 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 5.

Management culture: methodology for determining three levels.

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.

Corporate socialresponsibility (CSR)CSRsCSRiCSRssCSRss
Behavior of socially responsible organization (BSROs)In my workplace, much attention is paid to the quality of services (production)Services and their qualityMarket responsibility(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 organizationConsumer informationMarket responsibility(consumer information, health and safety)
My organization is not manipulating the confidence of the consumer
The organization provides detailed information about the productsHealth 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 6.

Structural changes of the subscale “market responsibility.

Source:Compiled by the authors.

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.”

Corporate social responsibility(CSR)CSRsCSRiCSRssCSRss
Behavior of socially responsible employee BSREsThe coming of employees to our organization is always subject to the availability of close ties, acquaintancesNepotism, favoritismCorruption, 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 organizationCorruption
Changes of political leaders, political parties always cause confusion within the organization
Political changes influence changes in personalities in the organization

Table 7.

Structural changes of the subscale “corruption, nepotism, favoritism”.

Source:Compiled by the authors.

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.”

Corporate social responsibility(CSR)CSRsCSRiCSRssCSRss
Behavior of socially responsible employee BSREsWe have complete operational transparency impossibleTransparency of activities and relationsSocial responsibility criticism: staff attitude
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)

Table 8.

Structural changes of the subscale “social responsibility criticism: Staff attitude“.

Source:Compiled by the authors.

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).

Figure 3.

Management culture: methodology of determining five levels.Source:Compiled by the authors.

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.

© 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). Corrections of Research Instrument, Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility, Pranas ?ukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitien?, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70632. Available from:

chapter statistics

634total 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

Theoretical-Hypothetical Model of Management Culture Level Determination

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