To enhance job satisfaction in an organization, it is important to understand how workplace properties influence job satisfaction. Factorial structure models assume that job satisfaction is based on multiple underlying (latent) factors that are not directly measurable. An alternative concept assumes that satisfaction with different job facets adds up to overall job satisfaction. As job satisfaction is dependent on culture, this study examined how the importance of job facets varies across cultural areas and countries within a global organization. An attempt was made to estimate the influence of an overarching company corporate culture on job satisfaction in different national cultures.
The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was used in eight countries in Europe, East Asia, Latin America, and North America. Five MSQ-items were conceptually attributed to the overarching corporate culture of Roche, a global pharmaceutical company. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine latent factors. Also, stepwise regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of job satisfaction based on statistical significance.
The average levels of job satisfaction were high. Within an overall picture of high variability in factor solutions, there were ten MSQ-items loading relatively consistently on the first two latent factors across cultures. Amongst them, social services was the only job facet attributable to corporate culture. The other ten MSQ-items loaded variably on higher factors. Stepwise regression analysis partially confirmed the interpretation of factor solutions. Ability utilization and achievement were suggested to be universal predictors of job satisfaction.
Table of Contents
Declaration
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background to the Study
Introduction
Background
Motivation for the Study, Research Question, and Objectives
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Historical Overview
Definitions and Concepts of Job Satisfaction
Measuring Instruments of Job Satisfaction
Influence of Culture
Cultural Area
National Culture
Organizational Culture
Gap of Information in the Literature
Chapter 3: Research Method
Study Design
Participants
Test Sites
Method
Data Collection and Materials
Sample Size
Research Instrument
Definition of Terms
Factor Analysis
Testing Model and Hypotheses
Strategy of Data Analysis
Missing Values
Ethics
Chapter 4: Results
Demographic Data
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability, and Validity
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Stepwise Regression Analysis
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions
Characteristics and Quality of Data
Considerations on Factor Analysis
Considerations on Regression Analysis
Comparison Between Cultural Areas
Comparison Between Test Sites
Influence of Corporate Culture
Conclusion and Recommendations
References
Appendix A: Abbreviations and Glossary
Appendix B: Initial Study Proposal
Appendix C: Deviations from the Initial Study Proposal
Appendix D: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents from Cultural Areas
Appendix E: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents from Individual Sites
Appendix F: Summary and Reliability Statistics of Cultural Areas
Appendix G: Summary and Reliability Statistics of Sites
Appendix H: Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis of Sites
Appendix I: Communalities for Job Facets at Individual Sites
Appendix J: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Sites
Appendix K: Invite Letter
English Version
German Version
Chinese Version
Japanese Version
Portuguese Version
Spanish Version
Appendix L: Participant Information Sheet
English Version
German Version
Chinese Version
Japanese Version
Portuguese Version
Spanish Version
Appendix M: Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
English Version
German Version
Chinese Version
Japanese Version
Portuguese Version
Spanish Version
Appendix N: Corporate Culture of Roche
Appendix O: National Cultures According to Hofstede
Appendix P: Cultural Dimensions Defined by the GLOBE Project
Appendix Q: Translation of Morita (2006)
List of Tables
Table 1: Literature on Factor Analysis of MSQ
Table 2: Modified Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)
Table 3 Job facets related to the overarching corporate culture
Table 4: Chi-square test for differences in demographics between cultural areas
Table 5: Number of responses and response rates of sites
Table 6a: Results of exploratory factor analysis of cultural areas – Europe
Table 6b: Results of exploratory factor analysis of cultural areas – East Asia
Table 6c: Results of exploratory factor analysis of cultural areas –Latin America
Table 7a: Results of stepwise multiple regressions of cultural areas – Europe
Table 7b: Results of stepwise multiple regressions of cultural areas – East Asia
Table 7c: Results of stepwise multiple regressions of cultural areas – Latin America
Table 8 Ratios between mean correlation coefficients
Table 9 Factor loading pattern of ‘stable’ items (job facets) for cultural areas
Table 10 Factor loading pattern of ‘variable’ items (job facets) for cultural areas
Table 11 Factor loading pattern of ’stable’ items (job facets) for Europe
Table 12 Factor loading pattern of ‘stable’ items (job facets) for Latin America
Declaration
No portion of this work has been submitted in support of an application for degree or qualification of this or any other University or institute of learning.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Thomas Pfister
Abstract
Background : To enhance job satisfaction in an organization, it is important to understand how workplace properties influence job satisfaction. Factorial structure models assume that job satisfaction is based on multiple underlying (latent) factors that are not directly measurable. An alternative concept assumes that satisfaction with different job facets adds up to overall job satisfaction. As job satisfaction is dependent on culture, this study examined how the importance of job facets varies across cultural areas and countries within a global organization. An attempt was made to estimate the influence of an overarching company corporate culture on job satisfaction in different national cultures.
Aim : To what extent is the factorial structure of job satisfaction dependent on national culture and the corporate culture of a global company?
Methods : The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was used in eight countries in Europe, East Asia, Latin America, and North America. Five MSQ-items were conceptually attributed to the overarching corporate culture of Roche, a global pharmaceutical company. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine latent factors. Also, stepwise regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of job satisfaction based on statistical significance.
Results : The average levels of job satisfaction were high. Within an overall picture of high variability in factor solutions, there were ten MSQ-items loading relatively consistently on the first two latent factors across cultures. Amongst them, social services was the only job facet attributable to corporate culture. The other ten MSQ-items loaded variably on higher factors. Stepwise regression analysis partially confirmed the interpretation of factor solutions. Ability utilization and achievement were suggested to be universal predictors of job satisfaction.
Conclusions : The factorial structure of job satisfaction varies across cultures. The predictors of job satisfaction amongst the MSQ-items are partially dependent on culture. The estimated influence of corporate culture appears moderate.
Keywords: Job satisfaction, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, culture, exploratory factor analysis, stepwise regression analysis
Abstract word count: 297
Overall word count: 10477
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors Peter Schnurrenberger and Andreas Flückiger for giving me a chance for doing these studies at the University of Liverpool. Without their sponsoring and support my lateral entry into the area industrial and organizational psychology would not have been possible. Also, I wish to express my thanks to my peers Silke Weber and Dana Hoffmann who took over a lot of my work in times when I was busy with these studies.
I would like to thank all instructors of the University of Liverpool for their constructive criticisms and valuable discussions over the course of the online program. In particular, I thank Dr. Karen Ethridge for her supervision of my first experimental study.
I want to recognize the following general managers for their allowance running the survey at their site: Juerg Erismann (Basel/Kaiseraugst), Ursula Redeker (Mannheim), Richard Erwin (Welwyn), Hong Chow (Shanghai Pharma), Fett-Heng Wong (Shanghai Diagnostics), Makoto Ogasawara (Tokyo), Carlos Estrada (Bogotá), Christian Paetzke (São Paulo Diagnostics), Osvaldo De La Fuente (Buenos Aires), Paul Brown (Pleasanton).
A special thank deserve all local contact persons who distributed the questionnaire at their sites, namely Karin Wernli-Peter (Kaiseraugst), Andreas Schlottmann (Mannheim), Eileen Doyle (Welwyn), Billy Li (Shanghai Pharma), Kate Qian (Shanghai Diagnostics), Kazuo Kawamura (Tokyo), Enrique Vailati and Mauro Elster (São Paulo Diagnostics), Lusi Cresta and Gabriella Florencia Serra (Buenos Aires), Juan Quitian (Bogotá), Linda Tsuchiyama (Pleasanton), and Hugh Tole (Little Falls).
I thank my family and close friends for their understanding, their help in checking the numerous tables, and their emotional support when needed during stressful times.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background to the Study
Introduction
Job satisfaction is one of the main concepts in occupational psychology and organizational behavior (Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller & Ilies, 2001; Robbins, 2003; Spector, 1997). Apart from the traditional objectives to increase job performance and reduce job turnover, there is evidence that job satisfaction is correlated with physical and also mental health of workers (Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, 2005; Nadinloyi, Sadeghi, & Hajloo, 2013; Ogresta, J., Rusac, S., & Zorec, 2008; Piko, 2006). When assuming a causal relationship sustained job dissatisfaction can be considered a predictor of mental health risk at the workplace. Consequently, the promotion of job satisfaction may serve as a target for preventive mental health interventions. However, job satisfaction is a complex construct interacting with personal, organizational, social and cultural factors (Spector, 1985). Numerous models of job satisfaction have been suggested, but none of them was generalizable and reliably useful across cultures, countries, job tasks, and organizational structures (Barrett & Bass, 1983; Locke, 1983). The objective of this study is to examine how the workplace factors of job satisfaction vary across cultures in a global company with strong overarching corporate culture.
Background
A screening instrument for the risks of mental health problems has to comprise all dimensions of workplace factors which contribute to job satisfaction. Unfortunately, a valid underlying conceptual construct applicable to the general working population across professions, nationalities, and cultures does not exist. For example, studies from different cultural areas of the world showed an inconsistent number of underlying dimensions of job satisfaction ranging from four to seven (Hauff, Richter, & Tressin, 2015; García-Almeida, Fernández-Monroy, & De Saá-Pérez, 2015; Munir & Rahman, 2016; Özpehlivan & Acar, 2015; Rutherford, Boles, Hamwi, Madupalli, & Rutherford, 2009; Strydom & van Eeden, 2013). Inconsistency even occurs with the identical methodology. For example, factor analysis showed inconsistent factorial structures of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Table 1).
Similarly, occupation-specific instruments for measuring job satisfaction in nurses and other human service staff differ in the number of dimensions or subscales, respectively (van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, & Frings-Dresen, 2003). Various instruments had inconsistent factorial structures when validated in different cultural areas (North America, New Zealand, and Europe) and also in different types of organizations (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989; Rentsch & Steel, 1992; Mueller & McCloskey, 1990; Lloyd, Streiner, Hahn, & Shannon, 1994; Ng, 1993; Spector, 1985; Traynor & Wade, 1993). Also, there is some evidence that organizational culture has an impact on job satisfaction (Danut, 2016; El Din & El Ghetany, 2016). It appears safe to assume that both national and organizational cultures contribute to the observed variability in job satisfaction factors. Consequently, any instrument intended to be used for assessing the factors of job satisfaction has to be validated for every specific work situation.
A global company maintains sites in numerous countries and employs people from different national cultures. The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which the driving workplace factors for job satisfaction vary between national cultures and, also, to estimate how far a centrally propagated corporate culture can influence the job facet and overall job satisfaction in different national cultures.
Motivation for the Study, Research Question, and Objectives
Mental health disorders such as burnout, anxiety, and depression are a widespread issue in many workforces. The idea behind this study was the assumption that employees who enjoy their jobs are healthier and at lower risk of developing mental health problems. Therefore, enhancing job satisfaction may serve as a target for mental health protection in an organization. For health professionals in charge of protecting health on the job, several questions arise: How to influence the level of job satisfaction? What specific measures are appropriate at sites in different cultures? Which job aspects can be influenced centrally, and which job aspects require local approaches? What instruments are suitable for measuring both job facet and overall job satisfaction? For the purpose of planning and implementing preventive measures, it is also important to understand how satisfaction and dissatisfaction with individual job aspects cause a general level of job satisfaction.
This study was designed to address some of these aspects in an exploratory manner using as an example F. Hoffmann-La Roche (hereafter referred to as “Roche”). Roche is a global pharmaceutical company divided into three organizationally largely independent divisions: pharmaceutical, diagnostics, and diabetes care. The Roche Group, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, employs more than 94’000 people in over 100 countries worldwide. The workforces in the headquarters and larger branches (hereafter referred to as “sites”) are multicultural in nature. Although overall job satisfaction is measurable, it is a highly complex construct with multiple underlying, latent factors that are not directly measurable. Exploratory factor analysis is an instrument that can identify and partially characterize these factors. The research question was: To what extent is the factorial structure of job satisfaction dependent on national culture and the corporate culture of a global company? Thus, the two objectives of the study were:
(1) To analyze the factorial structure of job satisfaction in sites of a global company in Europe, East Asia, Latin America, and North America.
(2) To estimate the influence of an overarching company culture on the job facet and overall job satisfaction in different national cultures.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Historical Overview
Already in the middle of the 19th century, Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) and Karl Marx (1818-1883) realized that workers felt unhappy if they have to compete, have no control over their productive activity, and do not own the products of their work (Barling & Griffiths, 2011; Gasper, 2010; O’Donohue & Nelson, 2014). In the early 20th century, the interest in employees’ well-being was driven by the management philosophy of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915). Measures to motivate the staff aimed primarily towards maximizing efficiency and profitability of production processes (‘Taylorism’); the interest in satisfied workers was hardly motivated by social responsibility or charity (Locke, 1983). In the late 1920ies and early 1930ies, the Western Electric Company explored, under the supervision of Elton Mayo (1880-1948), the effects of working conditions (i.e. illumination levels, breaks) on the productivity at the Hawthorne factory. The surprising outcome was that, apart from rest pauses, any change in lighting had a positive effect. The researchers identified, by chance, the influence of psychosocial factors on workers’ performance (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939/1964). In the 50ies, a retrospective analysis of the Hawthorne Studies by Harry A. Landsberger (1908-1976) showed that the presence of the researchers alone and their interest in the work were the motivators for workers and caused an increase in productivity (Landsberger, 1958). Despite reasonable doubts about the so-called ‘Hawthorne effect,' the conclusions drawn from these studies were groundbreaking and regarded as the origin of ‘organizational behavior’ and the so-called ‘Human Relations Movement’ (Darf & Marcic, 2009; Rotemberg, 1994). At about the same time, Robert Hoppock (1901-1995) pioneered in examining the nature of job satisfaction directly by using semi-structured interviews and, later on, the first versions of job satisfaction questionnaires (Bowling & Cucina, 2015). Frederick Herzberg (1923-2000) was one of the most famous names in motivational research. He conceptualized job satisfaction in a two-factor theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Bloch Snyderman, 1959/2010) which was a milestone in this area of investigation. Despite various methodical and conceptual criticisms, Herzberg’s work influences job satisfaction theorists till today.
The purpose of exploring job satisfaction changed from the middle of the 20ies century. Constantly increasing automatization made industrial production less dependent on workers’ performance. Instead, with the booming of the service sector in Western industrial countries, job satisfaction became increasingly important for the management of human resources. In many countries exists a lack of qualified specialists, particularly in social and health service professions. A serious problem for decades is the global shortage of nurses (Kingma, 2001; Oulten, 2006). Programs to counteract the high turnover rate of nurses by improving their working conditions led to a vast number of theories, concepts, and instruments regarding job satisfaction of nurses worldwide. As a result, job satisfaction has been by far most extensively studied in nurses and other medical helping professions (Ahmad, Oranye, & Danilov, 2017; Caers et al., 2008; Lu, While, & Barriball, 2005; van Saane et al. 2003).
In highly developed countries, the economic and social structures continue to change towards knowledge societies. The digital revolution and globalization of the economy are associated with new challenges in the workplace, e.g. job insecurity, virtual teams, or high demands/low control jobs. A widespread issue of such modern workplaces are occupational distress and, as a consequence, work-related mental health problems (Maslach & Leiter, 1997; Leiter, Bakker, & Maslach, 2014; Maslach, 1983/2015). Also, job dissatisfaction is regarded as a result of occupational distress (Blegen, 1993; Flanagan & Flanagan, 2002; Maslach & Leiter, 1997). However, there is also some plausibility for the opposite causal direction: long-lasting, low job satisfaction translates into emotional distress in the workplace which increases the risk of developing mental health problems. This view is supported by the direct inverse correlation between the level of job satisfaction and the occurrence of mental health problems (Faragher et al., 2005; Lee, Lee, Liao, & Chiang, 2009; Maclean, Webber, & French, 2015). However, there is no evidence of bidirectional causality in the literature.
Definitions and Concepts of Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a perennial topic in occupational psychology. Despite the wide use of the term ‘job satisfaction’, there is no universally accepted definition of job satisfaction (Aziri, 2011). Commonly cited definitions are for example “A pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience“ (Locke, 1983, p. 1300) or “the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs" (Spector, 1997, p. 2). Other definitions define job satisfaction as an attitude rather than a purely emotional response (Weiss, 2002).
From a practical point of view, it is important to understand the different causes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Numerous concepts of job satisfaction have been proposed. The underlying theories may be divided into three basic approaches: 1) deterministic approaches 2) cognitive approaches, and 3) affective approaches. Deterministic concepts explain job satisfaction by the factors determining or influencing the employees’ perception of their jobs. An example of this category is the motivator-hygiene theory by Herzberg et al. (1959/2010). The “motivators” are determinants of satisfaction, including “achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement.” The “hygienes” are determinants of dissatisfaction such as “policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, and working conditions” (Castillo & Cano, 2004). Cognitive concepts assume that employees construct job satisfaction based on judgments. An example of this category is the effort-reward imbalance model originally established to explain work-related stress (Siegrist, 1996). An example of the third category, i.e. affective approaches, is the definition proposed by Spector (1997) who simply equals job satisfaction with “the degree to which people like their jobs.” It should be noted that in reality, the distinction between these three categories is not strict as there are many theories and models sharing components with two or all three categories or adding additional factors, e.g. personality traits (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).
Measuring Instruments of Job Satisfaction
Numerous instruments for measuring job satisfaction exist (Fields, 2002). One can distinguish between instruments measuring job satisfaction as a whole, also called global, general, or overall job satisfaction, and instruments differentiating the satisfaction with specific aspects of the job also called job facet satisfaction. The underlying models of job satisfaction are not necessarily contradictory. They may just differ in their scope of interest.
Job facet satisfaction measuring instruments are based on the concept that every job comprises some unidimensional components which do not correlate significantly with each other. The number of facets regarded as independent from others varies between the established models of job facet satisfaction. For example, Vroom (1964/1995) reported seven job facets based on literature review, and Locke (1983) concluded that nine basic facets predict overall job satisfaction. A model developed by Conway and coworkers comprises 17 facets (Conway, William, & Green, 1987). The level of satisfaction with each job facet is typically rated on a five or seven-point Likert scale. The way how these facet ratings translate into overall job satisfaction also differs between models.
An archetype of a job facet satisfaction measuring instrument is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), developed by Weiss and coworkers in the early 1960s (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). The MSQ addresses twenty job facets labelled as ability utilization, achievement, activity, advancement, authority, company policies and practices, compensation, co-worker, creativity, independence, moral values, recognition, responsibility, security, social service, social status, supervision – human relations, supervision – technical, variety, and working conditions. The MSQ is available as a long version consisting of five questions per job facet, and a short version containing only one question per job facet. MSQ measures the overall job satisfaction by summing up the scores of all facets. MSQ is one of the most widely used job satisfaction questionnaire with a Likert-scale format. It has been translated into various languages and validated for many countries (Table 1).
Another widely used instrument is the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) introduced in 1969 (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969). The JDI measures people’s satisfaction with five differentiable aspects of the job: the work itself, pay, the opportunity for promotion, supervision, and coworkers. For each aspect, the test person has to select from a list of descriptive words and phrases which one fits or does not fit to the respective job facet. For the evaluation of the responses, normative scores from a respective reference group are used (Gillespie et al., 2016). The overall job satisfaction is measured with a separate instrument, the Job in General (JIG) scale.
Influence of Culture
There is evidence that job satisfaction is dependent on culture. Culture is a complex term which has, depending on the context, numerous different meanings, and definitions (Haidle & Conard, 2011; Keesing, 1974; Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). Irrespective of definitions, the aim of the present study is to examine how different cultures influence job satisfaction. This influence may be exerted for example by culture-specific norms, values, needs, perceptions, attributions, and belief systems (Schein, 2010). There are three different types of cultures to be considered: (1) greater cultural area, (2) national culture, and (3) organizational culture.
Cultural Area
The term ‘cultural area’ can mean different things. In this study, it refers to a greater area of the world comprising countries with similar national cultures. Kolb (1962) divided the earth into ten “Kulturerdteile” (Eng.: Cultural continents) based on cultural similarities instead of geographic properties. This concept takes into account that countries’ frontiers are political constructs rather than ethnical, racial, or cultural borders. The countries of the test sites selected for this study belong to the following areas: China and Japan belong to East Asia, Switzerland, Germany, and the UK to Europe (Occident), Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia to Latin America, and the USA and Canada to North America (Anglo-America).
A similar approach is the clustering of countries based on similarities of attitudes (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985) or cultural value profiles (Schwartz, 1999). Based on this approach, the GLOBE study, a global cross-cultural project that examined the relationship between societal culture and leadership, established a concept of ten country clusters (Gupta & Hanges, 2004). According to this concept, UK belongs together with the USA and Canada to the Anglo cluster. The other countries selected for this study are in clusters identical to the above cultural continents.
Studies comparing the driving factors for job satisfaction between cultural areas were not found in the literature. However, some studies compared the predictors of job satisfaction between ethnical or racial groups in multicultural countries. For example, Tuch and Martin (1991) found significantly higher mean job satisfaction in white Americans than in black Americans. Regression analysis showed that this fact is essentially explainable by differences in socio-demographic status, job and industry characteristics, and job values rather than a race-specific determination process. By contrast, O’Reilly and Roberts (1973) concluded that race-specific differences between black American and white American result from differences in the way how both ethnical groups assess the level of their job satisfaction. Katzell, Ewen, and Korman (1974) found small racial differences in the satisfaction with specific job facets between black and white blue-collar workers in the USA, but the differences varied across companies. Another approach to examining cultural differences in job satisfaction unlimited by national boundaries is the correlation with data from the direct psychometric measurement of cultural characteristics, e.g. by use of the Culture Orientation Scale (White, 2006).
National Culture
National culture refers to the culture of a society within national borders. Hofstede (1980/1984) defined culture as „collective programming of the mind” (p. 13). His extensive work on cultural differences between work-related values among over 50 countries and regions showed consistently four dimensions of national cultures: “power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity” (p. 60). About a decade later, Hofstede added a new dimension to his original model of national culture, the long-term orientation = the way how the society maintains some links with its past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future (Hofstede, 1994; Minkov & Hofstede, 2011), and another decade later a sixth dimension, labeled as indulgence = the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses (Hofstede, 2011). For definitions of these dimensions and index scores for countries see Appendix O.
The GLOBE project studied nine dimensions of societal culture. Six of them refer to those of Hofstede; three additional dimensions are based on other concepts: future orientation, performance orientation, and humane orientation (House, Mansour, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).
Another concept for characterizing national culture is the individualism-collectivism framework established by Triandis and coworkers (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995). The model consists of four dimensions as a combination of the opposite directions individualism versus collectivism with the orthogonal axes system horizontal versus vertical. The corresponding individualism-collectivism scale has been used to measure cultural orientation independent of national borders (White, 2006).
There are a few studies comparing national differences in job satisfaction of nurses. When controlled for profession and type of occupation, the influence of national culture was inconsistent between studies (e.g. Ahmad & Oranye, 2010; Ahmad et at., 2017; Ahmad, Oranye, & Danilov, 2017; Hwang et al., 2009).
Organizational Culture
The culture of a company is an organizational culture in nature. There are numerous concepts, models, and definitions of organizational culture. Rosauer (2015) concluded, “that the words 'organizational culture' can't be perfectly defined.” (p. 4). While occupational culture can be approached from different angles (Schein, 1990), there is broad consensus that the term describes something that organizational members have in common while non-members are different. Therefore, one may define organizational culture as a “system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations” (Robbins, 2003, p.525). Several typologies have been developed to characterize organizational culture. One widely used typology is the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) (Marchand, Haines III, & Dextras-Gauthier, 2013). The original work of O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) distinguished the following eight dimensions of organizational culture: innovation/risk taking, attention to detail, outcome/result orientation, aggressiveness/competitiveness, supportiveness, emphasis on growths and rewards, collaborative/team orientation, and decisiveness.
In a later study, when Chatman & Jehn (1994) used OCP comparatively across industries, they confirmed only 6 of the original dimensions but added stability as a new dimension to the typology. Their work implied a “link between industry characteristics and organizational culture” (p. 547).
Another established instrument for measuring organizational culture is the Organizational Culture Assesment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron & Quinn (2006). This instrument is based on the Competing Value Framework (CVF) which distinguishes four competing values as constituents of organizational culture. These four core values represent the poles of two main dimensions: internal focus and integration vs. external focus and differentiation and stability and control vs. flexibility and discretion (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). These competing values correspond to four archetypes of culture: hierarchy culture, market culture, clan culture, and adhocracy culture (Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Another nomenclature named them hierarchical culture, rational culture, group culture, and developmental culture (Denison & Spreitzer 1991). There is some evidence that adhocracy culture and clan culture may be associated with higher job satisfaction than market and hierarchy cultures (Lund, 2003; Marchand et al., 2013).
Gap of Information in the Literature
Job satisfaction and culture are two very complex constructs. The literature about both topics appears innumerable, diverse, and to a large extent useless from a practical point of view: many studies refer to a specific instrument, a particular professional group, and one country; as job satisfaction is dependent on culture and profession, most results are not directly transferable to all occupational situations.
A largely underexplored area is the interplay between national and corporate culture and its impact on job satisfaction. Global companies typically result from mergers between large enterprises or takeovers of smaller firms each with its history and culture. While multiculturalism can serve as a resource for innovation and business advantage, a global company won’t be successful if it consists only of a patchwork of national cultures. There is a need for a unique identity, a sense of belonging, and pursuing shared goals embedded into an overarching corporate culture (Schein, 2010). The latter may root in the home culture of the headquarters but should better be developed strategically as an intentional act in line with the company’s mission and values. However, strong overarching corporate culture may lead to conflicts with national cultures (Naor, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2010) and affect job satisfaction locally.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 1: Literature on Factor Analysis of MSQ
1 All studies used the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue ≥ 1.0) for extraction of factors
2 Cumulative variance explained by all extracted factors
Chapter 3: Research Method
Study Design
The design of the study was a cross-sectional quantitative survey, comparing groups of employees from eleven sites in nine different countries in four different cultural areas of the world (East Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America). This design was considered most appropriate as the study examines the influence of culture on workplace factors causing job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. While the level of job satisfaction may change over time, the cultural influence on causation is unlikely to change over short time periods as culture is rather a timeless construct. A comparative study within one company controls for differences in corporate cultures. A cross-sectional design also controls for long-term global political of economic trends which may influence the importance of specific job facets. However, it cannot be excluded that any contemporaneous local event may have interfered with the currently perceived job satisfaction of employees.
Participants
Participants were employees from the headquarters and selected foreign branches, in the following called ‘test sites,' of Roche. The inclusion criteria for participants were: (1) at least 18 years old, (2) doing a desk job, and (3) good knowledge in one of the following languages: English, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, and Chinese. The exclusion criteria were: (1) less than six months employed in the current job, (2) affected by a recent reorganization or downsizing in the last six months, (3) currently receiving psychotherapeutic therapy due to work-related mental problems, and (4) working on a site which belongs less than 10 years to the parent group.
Test Sites
The following test sites accepted the invitation to participate in this study: Basel / Kaiseraugst (Switzerland) (hereafter referred to as “Basel/KAU”), Mannheim (Germany), Welwyn (UK), Tokyo (Japan), Shangai (Dia) (China), Shanghai (Pharma) (China), São-Paulo (Dia) (Brasil), Buenos Aires (Argentina), (Colombia), Pleasanton (USA), Little Falls (USA). The abbreviations ‘(Dia)’ and ‘(Pharma)’ indicate that in Shanghai there are two organizationally independent sites for diagnostics and pharmaceuticals.
Method
Data Collection and Materials
An online questionnaire was constructed using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics LCC, 2017). After an announcement letter by the student investigator, an invite letter (see Appendix K) with embedded links to the Participant Information Sheet (PIS) (see Appendix L), and the online questionnaire (see Appendix M) were sent electronically with appropriate instructions to the local contact person in each site. These contact persons further distributed the invite letter with the embedded links to selected employees meeting the inclusion criteria. The completed questionnaires were online available to the investigator for analysis; the access was protected by a password. For anonymization, the participants were not asked for their names, employee numbers, departments, or details of their position.
For technical reasons, the identical questionnaire had to be constructed with google forms (https://docs.google.com/forms/u/0/) for the Tokyo site. The contact person collected the responses, exported them to an Excel-file for transmission to the investigator for analysis.
For legal and organizational reasons, the identical questionnaire was distributed as a paper copy in Mannheim. The responses were manually transferred into an Excel-file, double-checked by a third person, and then sent to the investigator for analysis.
Sample Size
The targeted sample size was calculated based on the ratio between sample size N and the number of items p to be analyzed. To achieve stable factor loadings N/p ratios ranging from three to at least ten were recommended depending on the level of communalities (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, S., & Hong, 1999). As communalities were expected to range from low to high, an N/p ratio of 10 was considered appropriate. As the number of items p was 20, the resulting sample size N was 200 (N/p = 200/20 = 10). Other literature regarded a sample size of N = 300 as good for factor analysis methodology (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Therefore, the targeted sample size per cultural area was at least 200, and per site 100. Convenience sampling was applied.
Research Instrument
The short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was used to explore cultural differences in job satisfaction. The short form MSQ contains 20 items in a 5-point Likert scale format corresponding to 20 job facets. In this study, items 1-10 and 12-21 are identical with the original MSQ scale (Weiss et al., 1967). Also, a question of the same format about the overall job satisfaction was included as item 11 (Table 2). General job satisfaction was calculated by summing up the scores of items 1-10 and 12-21. While both overall job satisfaction and general job satisfaction refer to the job as a whole, differentiating between them denotes that they measured it in different ways.
In line with published experience, the internal consistency of MSQ was high across cultural areas and test sites based on Cronbach’s alpha test statistics. The alpha coefficient ranged from .88 to .96. The item-total statistics showed consistently a moderate to high correlation between each item (job facet) of the original MSQ scale (hereafter referred to as ‘MSQ item’) and the combination of the respective residual items. Similarly, the inter-item matrix showed a positive correlation between each MSQ item and the extra item 11 (overall job satisfaction) proving that MSQ measures, in fact, the level of job satisfaction (Appendices F and G). Also, the statistically significant correlations between the directly measured overall job satisfaction (item 11) and the general job satisfaction (i.e. the sum of individual job facets) further support the construct validity of MSQ. Thus, it can be concluded that MSQ was an appropriate instrument for use across all test sites in this study (Appendices F and G).
All questions have a positive wording direction. The respondents were asked to select one of the following response choices:
- Very dissatisfied (score 1), if this job facet is much poorer than he/she would like it to be or if this facet gives him/her much less than expected.
- Dissatisfied (score 2), if this job facet is poorer than he/she would like it to be or if this facet gives him/her less than expected.
- Indifferent (score 3), if he/she cannot make his/her mind whether or not this job facet meets his/her expectations.
- Satisfied (score 4), if this job facet is what he/she would like it to be or gives him/her what he/she expected.
- Very satisfied (score 5), if this job facet is even better than he/she would like it to be or gives him/her more than expected.
In addition, the participants were asked about some demographic data including gender, age, education, job tenure, the number of previous jobs, and ethnicity. The only ethnicity included a neutral response option. To facilitate the use of the questionnaire in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, the questionnaire was translated into German, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, and Chinese by the Language Services of Roche. The correctness has been verified by back translation by a second translator (see Appendix M).
Table 2: Modified Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
While the short form MSQ has been widely used and validated, factor analyses revealed inconsistent factorial structures between different occupational groups and countries (e.g. Buitendach & Rothmann, 2009; Hancer & George, 2003; Martins & Proenҫa, 2012). The reliability of the short form MSQ is generally high; the reported reliability coefficients (Hoyt’s or Cronbach’s alpha) are typically in the range of about 0.8 – 0.95 (e.g. Martins & Proenҫa, 2012; Weiss et al. 1967). Weiss et al. (1967) also provided evidence of the robust validity of the MSQ by comparatively analyzing the data from 25 different occupational groups.
Definition of Terms
The operational definitions are as follows:
- Job Satisfaction: “A pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience“(Locke, 1983, p. 1300) or “the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs" (Spector, 1997, p. 2).
- Job facet: A clearly definable aspect of a job that is qualitatively distinguishable from other aspects of the job. In the context of the MSQ factors analysis, one item corresponds to one job facet. In the context of stepwise regression analysis, job facets are the independent variables, also called indicators. When statistically significant, they are called predictors.
- Factor (of job satisfaction): A job facet or a group of correlated job facets that influence job satisfaction without significant correlation with other job facets. The term factor is typically used in context with the results of a factor analysis, but factor and dimension are often used synonymously.
- Dimension (of job satisfaction): A job facet or a group of correlated job facets that influence job satisfaction without significant correlation with other job facets. The term dimension is typically used in the context with the results of a principal component analysis, but dimension and factor are often used synonymously.
- Factorial structure: The number and characteristics of all job factors/dimensions.
Factor Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using the IBM software SPSS, version 21. After an empirical principle component analysis (PCA) without factor rotation eigenvalues greater than one were extracted and retained according to the Kaiser criterion (Kaiser, 1960). After that, a factor analysis was performed by applying the principal axis factoring (PAF) method based on a model with the determined fixed number of factors. Despite some correlation between the factors, the varimax method was applied for the rotation of factors as it resulted in the simplest factor solutions. Varimax is the most widely used rotation method in factor analyses of MSQ (Table 1). PAF was given preference to the widely used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) because of the exploratory nature of the study: The aim was not to reduce dimensions but to analyze the dimensional structures.
Testing Model and Hypotheses
The MSQ is based on a model of twenty job facets that do not correlate significantly with each other. The underlying structure is two-dimensional corresponding to the subscales ‘intrinsic job satisfaction’ and ‘extrinsic job satisfaction.' According to the original theory, the overall job satisfaction is measured by summing up the scores of all 20 facets and, this way, constituting a third scale, called general satisfaction scale (Weiss et al., 1967). However, this structure has not been consistently confirmed in other studies (Martins & Proenҫa, 2012). This may be due to differences in facet importance: job facets that are unimportant to an employee were found to contribute weakly to the overall job satisfaction (McFarlin & Rice, 1991). The inverse view suggests that a job facet with high impact on overall job satisfaction is important to the employee (Ewen, 1967). This interpretation leads to the working hypothesis that the impact of a job facet on the overall job satisfaction indicates its importance to the employee.
If job facets have different weights, it appears questionable to use the linear sum of all facet scores as a reliable measure of overall job satisfaction. Therefore, to get a separate measure, a single-item question on overall job satisfaction (question 11) was added to the questionnaire.
Strategy of Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed with combined data from Europe, East Asia, and Latin America. For North America, only a stepwise regression analysis was performed. The data from each test site were also analyzed separately. The results of the PAF analyses were compared between the different cultural areas and between test sites. The comparison was made on the number of latent factors and the items loading on them.
Roche is basically a centralized organization. The MSQ contains five items on job facets that are mainly or exclusively managed and controlled in a centralized manner by Group functions. In the following, they are referred to as ‘corporate culture’ items. The concerned aspects and justifications for regarding them centralized in nature are listed in Table 3. The extent to which the characteristics and quality of these job facets were similar across cultures was used to estimate the influence of the overarching corporate culture (for details see Appendix N).
Table 3: Job facets related to the overarching corporate culture
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Factor analysis was performed with the original twenty items of the short version of MSQ only, i.e. excluding the overall job satisfaction item (item 11). This allowed comparing the results with results from the literature. In the application of the working hypothesis (see p. 36), the factor loadings of the five job facets of interest (items 7, 9, 13, 14, 18) on the latent factors underlying the data were used as an estimate of the relative importance of the corporate culture in different national cultures.
For exploratory purposes, stepwise linear multiple regression analysis was performed using the overall job satisfaction (item 11) as the dependent variable and all indicators (MSQ-items) as independent variables. For the models’ F-statistic, the probability of F for entering an item into the calculation was set at 0.5, and for removing an item at 0.1.
The sample sizes did not allow sub-analyses by profession, education level, or other potential demographic covariates.
Missing Values
In the online version (Qualtrics), the responses to all questions were enforced. Missing values occurred at low incidences only in the datasets of Mannheim (0.1%) and Tokyo (0.45%) because these sites did not use the Qualtics version. For statistical evaluations, missing values were replaced by the mean score of the corresponding item.
Ethics
The initial proposal (see Appendix B) was reviewed and approved by the Committee on Research Ethics of the University of Liverpool in advance of the commencement of the study.
Chapter 4: Results
Demographic Data
Eleven of seventeen invited sites agreed to participate in this study. Demographic characteristics varied across both cultural areas and sites. For example, in Europe over 40 percent of the participants were 46-55 years old while more than half of the participants in East Asia were in the category 26-35 years (see Appendix D). The gender ratio was 1:2.3 in Mannheim and Tokyo but 0.25:1 in Welwyn and Shanghai (Pharma) (see Appendix E). While differences were less striking for education, job tenure, and previous job, chi-square analysis showed statistical significances for all characteristics (Table 4).
Table 4: Chi-square test for differences in demographics between cultural areas
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Asymptotic significance (2-sided)
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability, and Validity
The internal consistency of the scale was high across cultural areas and test sites. Cronbach’s alphas were in the range of 0.81 – 0.96 (see Appendices F and G). Also, the inter-item correlations were mostly between .20 and .40 as recommended by Piedmont (2014) for appropriate consistency. Only the correlation between supervision – human relations and supervision – technical was consistently in the range between .70 and .80 suggesting some redundancy between both items1. Correlations between the mean scores for overall job satisfaction (item 11) and the mean scores for general job satisfaction (sum of items 1-10 and 12-21) were always statistically significant indicating appropriate test validity across test sites. On average, participants were satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs. For all items, the response mean scores were between 3.0 and 4.5 across test sites (see Appendices F and G). The response rates ranged from 24% in Shanghai (Dia) to nearly 100 % in Basel/KAU (Table 5).
Table 5: Number of responses and response rates of sites
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 The individual inter-item correlation matrices from the SPSS output data are not reported to avoid inflation of the report volume.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
EFA resulted in four-factor solutions for Europe, East Asia, and Latin America. The factor solution for Europe comprised fifteen of the twenty items of the scale (Table 6a). For East Asia, eighteen items loaded on these four factors (Table 6b). For Latin America, the factor solution comprised all twenty items (Table 6c). About 40-45% of the items loaded on the first factor, 30% on the second factor, and 10 – 20% each on the third and fourth factor. The cumulative variance explained by the four-factor model was about 60% in all three cultural areas. The variation in single items explained by the four-factor model was in most cases lower than 60%, as indicated by communalities below 0.6. The only items with consistently higher values across cultural areas were supervision – technical and supervision – human relations (Table 6a-c). The factor solutions did not separate intrinsic from extrinsic items according to the original MSQ scale (Weiss et al., 1967).
There were larger differences between individual sites. EFA resulted in a two-factor solution for Shanghai (Pharma) and a three-factor solution for Buenos Aires. Four-factor solutions emerged for Mannheim and São Paulo, and five-factor solutions for Basel/KAU, Welwyn, and Tokyo. The cumulative variances explained by the different factor solutions were 60-65%. None of the factor solutions separated intrinsic items from extrinsic items according to the original MSQ scale (Weiss et al., 1967). Communalities ranged mostly between 0.4 and 0.7 with lowest values for Basel/KAU and highest values for Shanghai (Pharma) (see Appendix H).
Table 6a: Results of exploratory factor analysis of cultural areas – Europe
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Table 6b: Results of exploratory factor analysis of cultural areas – East Asia
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Table 6c: Results of exploratory factor analysis of cultural areas –Latin America
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Stepwise Regression Analysis
The maximum number of predictors resulting from stepwise linear regression analysis was inconsistent between the three cultural areas: there were seven predictors for Europe (Table 7a). The models for East Asia and Latin America comprised six and ten predictors, respectively (Tables 7b and 7c). Collinearity statistics showed tolerance values ranging from .387 to .809 and variance inflation factors (VIF) between 1.2 and 2.7 indicating no concern regarding multicollinearity, i.e. tolerance > 0.1 and VIF < 10 (van den Berg, 2016). The Durbin-Watson test resulted in values between 1.5 and 2.5 indicating no autocorrelation (Field, 2014). The R-squared and adjusted R-squared values were similar (Table 7a – 7c). They indicated that the portions of the total variability of job satisfaction explained by the regression models were about 55% in Europe, 74% in East Asia, and 65% in Latin America (Frost, 2013). Most standardized regression coefficients were between 0.1 and 0.2 suggesting that individual job facets contribute weakly to the overall job satisfaction. The only items with coefficients > 0.2 are ability utilization and achievement in Europe and East Asia, and working conditions in Latin America.
For individual sites, the results of collinearity statistics, Durbin-Watson test, and model fit were comparable to those for the cultural areas (see Appendix J). The number of predictors per model varies across sites between two (Shanghai (Dia), Tokyo) and seven (São Paulo, Pleasanton). In contrast to cultural areas, the majority of standardized regression coefficients were > 0.2. Especially in models with a low number of predictors, some coefficients reached values between .400 and up to .677 suggesting a moderate to strong contribution to the overall job satisfaction.
Table 7a: Results of stepwise multiple regressions of cultural areas – Europe
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 7b: Results of stepwise multiple regressions of cultural areas – East Asia
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Constant of the regression model not listed
Table 7c: Results of stepwise multiple regressions of cultural areas – Latin America
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Constant of the regression model not listed
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions
Characteristics and Quality of Data
At all test sites, the level of overall or general job satisfaction was high. The mean values for overall job satisfaction (item 11) ranged from 3.5 – 4.2 on the 5-point Likert scale. The average general job satisfaction ranged from 75 – 85 on a scale from 20 – 100 (see Appendices F and G). The distributions of data were left-skewed suggesting limitation by the upper bound of the scoring system. To overcome this “ceiling effect,” Weiss et al. (1967) proposed to shift the response options towards the positive direction by adding “extremely satisfied” at the expense of the “neutral point” (p. 27). However, this revision did not prevail in practice. If one assumes, following Herzberg’s theory, that the job aspects causing satisfaction are different from those causing dissatisfaction, the collected data would only be useful for exploring the positive direction of the job satisfaction.
Another limitation of the data was the low sample size at some test sites. The targeted number of 100 evaluable responses per site was only achieved in five of eleven test sites. The number of at least 200 responses per cultural area was only achieved in Europe, East Asia, and Latin America. The fifty responses collected from two US sites did not allow meaningful statistical evaluations. Samples sizes as low as 70 passed the mathematical conditions for conducting exploratory factor analyses, but the resulting simple structure solutions were not robust. Therefore, the observed factor solutions per site reported in Appendix H are not representative. They require an interpretation based on plausibility and in comparison with the results from cultural areas (Table 6a-c).
Chi-square analysis showed significant differences between test sites for all demographic characteristics (Table 4). There is evidence that job satisfaction is dependent on e. g. gender, age, and level of education (Bellou, 2010; Kalleberg & Loscocco, 1983; Flanagan & Flanagan, 2002). The potential interference with demographic data weakens the interpretation of the differences between cultures, as the low sample sizes did not allow such subgroup analyses.
Considerations on Factor Analysis
The MSQ is available in many other languages and has been applied to a large variety of vocational purposes worldwide (Table 1). However, it is not an all-purpose ready-to-use instrument. The questionnaire requires validation for every specific situation e.g. regarding profession, work context, and culture. Already the inventors of the MSQ found variability in the factorial structure between different occupational groups on the number of latent factors and the loading pattern (Weiss et al., 1967). For example, in four out of twelve occupational groups, they found a three-factor structure instead of the original two-factor structure. Variability occurred even within the same profession: when comparing three subgroups of nurses (supervisor, full-time, part-time) seven of the twenty items loaded inconsistently on two latent factors (Weiss et al., 1967, pp. 101-108). Other validation studies confirmed this type of variability (Table 1). This variability in the factor structure suggests that the instrument does not always measure the same items the same way. One may hypothesize that MSQ works properly, despite all variability because there is some functional redundancy in the method. The questionnaire covers all main job aspects and, dependent on the situation, some aspects are relevant and become predictive of overall job satisfaction while other aspects remain less relevant. This way, one could explain the relationship between culture and job satisfaction: if a job aspect is particularly important for one population but less relevant for another, the corresponding item in MSQ contributed to the measurement of overall job satisfaction in the first but not in the second case. According to the theory of factor analysis, one can assume that items with a similar relationship to overall satisfaction group together into underlying latent factors or dimensions. The more important an item, the higher the factor loading; the better the fit to the chosen factor solution, the lower the likelihood of cross-loadings.
Factor analysis is in the first place a mathematical and statistical technique to identify latent, i.e. not directly observable, factors or dimensions in a dataset. These are meaningless without an appropriate interpretation in a conceptual context (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). Typically, the retained factors get descriptive surnames covering the shared meaning of all items their loading on them. In this study, the retained factors were only numbered but not named because of the high variability in numerous factor solutions.
Considerations on Regression Analysis
MSQ is an instrument that measures the level of satisfaction with twenty job facets; the level of overall job satisfaction is a linear combination thereof, i.e. overall job satisfaction is the sum of its parts. Consequently, multiple regression analysis appeared to be the method of choice to identify the driving indicators for overall job satisfaction. Accordingly, it has been an initial assumption of this study that individual job facets (MSQ items) correlate differently strong with overall job satisfaction (item 11), and that this variety is attributable to cultural differences. However, in most cases, all job facets contributed more or less to the level of overall job satisfaction. The moderate to high communalities between items support this interpretation (Tables 6a-c and Appendix I). The correlation of individual items with overall job satisfaction was essentially of the same magnitude. Correlation coefficients ranged, with very few exceptions, between .300 and .700 (Appendices F and G). Setting a cut-off value for correlation coefficients would have been arbitrary. In particular, the ratio between the mean correlation coefficients of all items and the five corporate culture items were nearly identical (Table 8). Therefore, comparing correlation coefficients was not a meaningful approach to explore cultural influences.
Table 8: Ratios between mean correlation coefficients
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Datasets from Pleasanton and Little Falls were excluded due to low sample sizes
2 B total = Mean correlation coefficient of all MSQ items
3 B corporate culture = Mean correlation coefficient of the item moral values, social services, company’s policies and practices, compensation system, and working conditions.
4 B total / B corporate culture
Stepwise regression analysis was chosen as an alternative method. This method searches for statistically significant regression models by stepwise adding or eliminating items from the calculation. The resulting models with the highest number of predictors are presented in Tables 7a-c and Appendix J. Comparing the coefficients of the item-overall job satisfaction correlation (Appendices F and G) with the results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that the value of the correlation coefficient is not predictive of statistical significance. Both methods provided complementary information.
Comparison Between Cultural Areas
Europe, East Asia, and Latin America are multi-faceted cultures. From an exploratory cross-cultural study with non-representative sample sizes, one can only expect to find effects of the major, essential cultural differences. Factor analysis of these three cultural areas resulted consistently in four-factor solutions with a predominant first factor accounting for about 40 – 45% of the common variance. The second factor accounted for about 6 – 7% and the other factors for 5 – 6% of the common variance (Table 6a-c).
There are differences in the pattern of items loading on these four factors. The items responsibility and creativity loaded consistently on factor I, ability utilization and social status on factor II. Six other items loaded either on factor I or II as shown in Table 9. According to the original theory, intrinsic job facets should load on the first factor and extrinsic job facets on the second factor. However, there is, in fact, no such preference for these items to load on the one or the other factor. It rather seems to reflect a kind of study-by-study variability, which might be inherent in the model. This view is supported by the fact that, for example, the item social status, which loaded on factor II in the Latin America dataset (Table 6c), loaded on factor I in the São Paulo and Buenos Aires datasets (Appendix H), although both countries made up three-fourth of the total sample size. This observation is also in line with literature challenging the original intrinsic-extrinsic model (Hirschfeld, 2000; Martins & Proenҫa, 2012). This variability is unlikely to result from cultural difference. Instead, when taking factors I and II together, the ten items listed in Table 9 are characterized by stable loading on the first two factors. In the following, they are therefore referred to as ‘stable’ items to distinguish them from the other items, named ‘variable’ items because they show higher loading variability across factors particularly between test sites (see chapter ‘Comparison between sites,' p. 58).
Table 9: Factor loading pattern of ‘stable’ items (job facets) for cultural areas
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
I and II denote the first and second factor of the exploratory factor analysis
= factor loading ≥ 0.4
= secondary loading ≥ 0.4
However, the factor loading patterns of the ‘variable’ items seem not to result from an arbitrary process. Some items cluster more often than others. Factors III and IV are built up either by a combination of two or all three items working conditions, co-worker, and company policies and practices, or the two supervision items (Table 10). Again, it appears interchangeable on which of the two factors they load. This aspect will be further discussed in chapter ‘Comparison between sites’.
Table 10: Factor loading pattern of ‘variable’ items (job facets) for cultural areas
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
III and IV denote the third and fourth factor of the exploratory factor analysis
= factor loading ≥ 0.4
1 - = no meaningful loading
2 * = loading on factor I
The major differences suggesting cultural influences were the following:
Independence: this item did not load on any factor in Europe. In Latin America, the two loadings on factors I and IV were equally weak and close to the cut-off (.400). Also, the communality of .385 was rather low. For these reasons, one would eliminate this item for the purpose of deriving a simpler structure. By contrast, independence was one of the main indicators of job satisfaction in East Asia. The item loaded with the third highest value on factor I.
At first sight, it seems paradoxical that independence was of high importance for the collectivistic Asian culture. However, independence is a bell-shaped variable with total dependence and total isolation as negative extremes. As Asians are particularly sensitive to the social context (Wynne, 2011), it is plausible to assume that for Asians the right balance between dependence and independence at work is particularly relevant.
Compensation: this is another job facet that distinguishes East Asia from the two other areas. This item loaded moderately on factor I in Europe (.528) and on factor II in Latin America (.572) but not in East Asia. On the surface, it seems that wages and benefits matter in Europe and Latin America but not in East Asia. An alternative explanation may be related to the wording of the item which refers to the balance between workload and payment. This view is probably less relevant for Asians as they value the compensation in the context of their family’s well-being (Andreassi, Lawter, Brockerhoff, & Rutigliano, 2014). Moreover, individually high salaries may put the employee at risk of becoming an outsider in the group. Therefore, fringe benefits are very popular in Asia (Ang, 2015). As Roche pays above average, it also appears plausible that this job facet attains little importance.
Authority: although loading consistently on factor I or II in all three areas, the item authority loaded with the highest value on factor I in Latin America. By contrast, authority loaded only weakly on factor II in Europe (.494) and twice on factors I (.490) and II (.528) in East Asia. The suggested high importance of authority for job satisfaction seems to be unique to Latin America however, without any evident relationship to the cultural characteristics.
Company policies and practices: this is another item that did not load on any factor in Europe but in the other areas. The factor loading was fairly high in East Asia (.695 on factor III) but low in Latin America (.439 on factor IV). The low importance of this job facet for Europe may be explained by the low index scores for power distance in Germany, Switzerland, and UK (Appendix O). By contrast, cultures with high index scores for this cultural dimension prefer centralized organizations (Hofstede, 1980/1984; Hofstede 2011). In two other studies using MSQ in Taiwan (Wang, 2010) and Japan (Morita, 2006) this item loaded highest on the first factor (for the translation of the results of Morita, 2006, see Appendix Q) suggesting a fundamental difference between Asian and Western culture.
Other loading differences: A few items loaded weakly on a factor only in one or two areas. For example, in Europe, the item moral values did not load on any factor whilst it loaded weakly on factor I in Latin America (.499) and factor II in East Asia (.432). Similarly, the factor loadings of security were low in East Asia (.476 on factor II) and Latin America (.441 on factor I). Activity had to be removed from the results in Europe and East Asia due to low communalities but loaded weakly in Latin America (.470).
The relevance of these differences is unclear. When present, the factor loadings of these items were low. The absence of a factor loading in one or two areas may just be due to missing of the cut-off value of 0.4 as a result of study by study variability. Influences other than culture may also modulate the importance of a job facet, e.g. demographic characteristics or the economic situation.
From the ‘stable’ items, stepwise regression analysis confirmed ability utilization and achievement as universal predictors of job satisfaction across cultural areas. Social status, recognition, authority, advancement, creativity, and variety were significant in one area only. From the ‘variable’ items, all but supervision – human resources and co-worker attained statistical significance in at least one cultural area (Tables 7a-c).
Comparison Between Test Sites
The factorial structures and factor loadings of individual test sites showed only partial similarities with the factor solutions of their respective cultural areas. In Europe, the majority of ‘stable’ items in cultural areas also loaded consistently on factors I and II at the test site (Table 11). Unique to Mannheim was the loading of social services, social status, and authority on factor III while, reversely, working conditions, co-worker, and company policies and practices loaded on factor II (Appendix H).
Unlike the European result, EFA resulted in a five-factor solution for Basel/KAU and Welwyn (Appendix H). In both cases, there was only one constituent item each loading on these additional factors: independence in Basel/KAU (loading: 0.747) and security in Welwyn (loading: .727). While isolated factor loadings may be regarded as statistical artifacts and eliminated from the analysis, it should be noted that both items loaded weakly on factor I (independence:.482) and factor III (security:.404) in the factor solution for Mannheim. Interestingly, this inconsistency seems to have a neutralizing effect: when combining the datasets neither item loaded in the European factor solution (Table 6a).
Table 11: Factor loading pattern of ’stable’ items (job facets) for Europe
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
I and II denote the first and second factor of the exploratory factor analysis
= factor loading ≥ 0.4
= secondary loading ≥ 0.4
- = no meaningful loading
* = loading on factor III
Similarly, the item company policies and practices was absent in the European result but loaded in Mannheim (factor II: .487) and Welwyn (factor I: .462) (Appendix H).
In East Asia, Shanghai (Pharma) had the simplest factor solution: in line with the original model, all twenty items loaded on two factors, six of them loaded double, i.e. on both factors. When compared with the East Asian result, only four items made the difference: company policies and practices and co-worker moved from factor III to factor I, and the two supervision items moved from factor IV to factor II (Table 6b and Appendix H). By contrast, EFA resulted in a five-factor solution for Tokyo differing from the combined East Asia factor solution by six factors: Independence built together with activity and compensation factor IV while co-worker disappeared. Moral values from factor II and company policies and practices constituted the additional factor V. As Shanghai (Pharma), and Tokyo made up three-quarters of the combined dataset, the East Asia factor solution appears to be essentially an integration of the data properties of these two sites.
In Latin America, a four-factor solution was found for São Paulo and a three-factor solution for Buenos Aires. The ten ‘stable’ items that loaded consistently on factors I or II across cultural areas (Table 9) did so in both test sites (Appendix H). The only inconsistencies were responsibility and creativity in São Paulo and variety in Buenos Aires. Both items loaded on factor III.
Table 12: Factor loading pattern of ‘stable’ items (job facets) for Latin America
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
I and II denote the first and second factor of the exploratory factor analysis
= factor loading ≥ 0.4
= secondary loading ≥ 0.4
* = main loading on factor III
In the São Paulo data, also factor III and IV were similar to the combined Latin America structure solution: The highest loadings on factor III came from the two supervision items. The items working conditions, co-worker, and company policies and practices loaded together with independence and compensation on factor IV (Appendix H). In Buenos Aires, by contrast, four of these five items loaded on one of the three factors (Appendix H).
These similarity considerations across test sites support the observation made above for the cultural areas: Half of the 20 MSQ items are ‘stable’ items (Tables 9, 11, and 12), as they show a relatively consistent loading pattern across national cultures and consequently also across cultural areas. They may be regarded as ‘culture-resistant’ job facets. Another relatively stable structure in all factor solutions of this study was the joint loading of the items supervision – human relations and supervision – technical. The inter-item correlations between the two items were in all cases above the appropriate range of 0.2 and 0.4 (see pp. 39-40) suggesting redundancy (Piedmont, 2014; Dawis, 2004). All other items were found to be more variable.
Among ten test sites, stepwise regression analysis showed statistical significance for the ‘stable’ items ability utilization at seven sites, achievement and authority at five sites, and advancement and responsibility at two sites. From the ‘variable’ items, working conditions was a predictor at five sites, and independence, activity, and compensation at three sites, and company policies and practices at two sites. All other items were significant at one site or none (Appendix J).
Influence of Corporate Culture
Four of the five ‘corporate culture’ items belong to the group of ‘variable’ items showing highly diverse loading patterns across cultural areas and test sites: moral values, company’s policies and practices, compensation, and working conditions. This variability could reflect interference between national cultures and corporate culture for the respective job facets. It seems that the meaning and relevance of these job aspects vary between cultures despite the common standards of the Roche culture. For example, the Western pay-for-performance compensation is less appropriate for collectivistic societies, such as China and Japan, than for individualistic European countries (Shao & Sturman, 2006). In China, the experience of being a member of the organization is as least as important as the salary (Chiang, 2005; Merriman, 2010). Apart from culture, “contextual factors (e.g. economic conditions)” may also play a role (Chiang, 2005, p. 1559).
By contrast, the job facet social services was consistently in the other group of ‘stable’ items that always loaded on factor I or II. The chance to do things for other people may evolve from the social environment of the workplace. However, doing a desk job in a pharmaceutical company is not per se a kind of social work. Therefore, the observed association between job satisfaction and the chance to do things for other people appears remarkable, particularly as it exists across cultural areas, countries, and sites. This result suggests that Roche employees worldwide perceive and engage in the social elements of the overarching corporate culture, and this aspect contributes to their job satisfaction. The assumption that corporate social responsibility affects job satisfaction is supported by literature (Asrar-ul-Haq et al., 2014).
Another plausible explanation may be derived from Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Herzberg et al., 1959/2010). The items company’s policies and practices, compensation, and working conditions are ‘hygiene factors.' When not satisfied, they cause job dissatisfaction but contribute little to job satisfaction even when in excess. Also, moral values can be regarded as a hygiene factor in nature as it represents a value conflict: “displeasure or unhappiness proceeds from the (perceived) negation or destruction of own values” (Locke, 1969, p.316). Conversely, the item social services is a typical motivator as it gives meaning to work. In populations where people have on average a high level of job satisfaction, as results from this study, the four hygiene factors become unimportant while the motivator social services gains in importance.
By contrast, with stepwise regression analysis working conditions was statistically significant in half of the test sites and compensation in three test sites. The other three job facets related to the corporate culture were only in one or two sites predictors of job satisfaction (Appendix J).
Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion. As the study is exploratory in nature and given the complexity of the constructs ‘culture’ and ‘job satisfaction,' one could not expect that the results allow drawing indisputable conclusions about the influence of different cultures on job satisfaction. Nevertheless, the study shows clearly that job satisfaction is a construct resulting from a combination of many job facets. This combination was to some extent dependent on culture. Some job facets were rather stable across culture. They may also be named “culture-resistant.” They include advancement, responsibility, creativity, achievement, recognition, social services, ability utilization, social status, variety, and authority. Among these, social services was logically attributable to the corporate culture of Roche. Other job facets were highly variable across culture and may also be named “culture-sensitive.” They include working conditions, company policies and practices, compensation, moral values, security, supervision – technical, supervision – human relations, activity, independence, and co-worker. Among these, the first four items were logically attributable to the corporate culture of Roche. However, it must be taken into account that the populations had a high level of job satisfaction. The results may change when studying a poorly satisfied population.
The stepwise regression results indicate that the ‘stable’ items ability utilization and achievement are universal and strong predictors of job satisfaction. However, the ‘variable’ or ‘culture-sensitive’ items also contribute to the overall job satisfaction as they amount to 43% of the predictors (19 of 44) in the ten test sites (Appendix J).
Limitations. The study has several limitations. The sample size was sufficient to demonstrate similarities in factorial structures between cultures. However, the observed differences were not clearly attributable to cultural influences because the insufficient sample sizes did not allow any reliable sub-analysis for confounding factors among demographic data. Moreover, the cultural orientation of participants was only based on ethnicity and nationality of the test site. The attribution of the five MSQ-items to corporate culture was based on logical assumptions. Therefore, the interpretation of the results in terms of cultural differences is speculative.
Another limitation of the study was the high level of average job satisfaction in the populations. Low scores were underrepresented in the responses at all test sites. If the employees are rather dissatisfied with their jobs, the results of the factor analysis and stepwise regression would be different. A sub-analysis of the low scores was not feasible because of low sample sizes.
Convenience sampling procedure was not exactly defined. The test sites applied different local strategies in order to achieve the targeted sample sizes in a short time. Random sampling would have been a better procedure to gather representative data. The risk of confounding influences would have been lower.
Stepwise regression analysis failed to facilitate the interpretation of the EFA results. The significant items (predictors) did only partially confirm the items regarded as drivers of job satisfaction based on factor analyses. These inconsistencies contest the conclusions of the EFA. The interrelationship between both methods needs further investigation.
Neither factor analysis nor stepwise regression prove any causality. However, to enhance job satisfaction, common sense suggests employing interventions which aim at job facets highly correlated with high levels of overall job satisfaction. This view assumes that the causal relationship flows from job facet items (indicator) to the factor (latent construct). Also, the motivator-hygiene model and MSQ, which builds on this model (Weiss et al. 1967), share this view: the observable items cause job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Recommendations. Future studies should include higher sample sizes, random sampling procedure, and more employees with low job satisfaction. Psychometric instruments should measure the participants’ cultural orientation and their perception of the overarching corporate culture. Including external workers in similar business may prove the link between social services and Roche culture.
References
Ahmad, N., & Oranye, N. O. (2010). Empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: a comparative analysis of nurses working in Malaysia and England. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 582-591.
Ahmad, N., Oranye, N. O., & Danilov, A. (2017). Rasch analysis of Stamps' Index of Work Satisfaction in nursing population. Nursing Open, 4, 32-40. doi:10.1002/nop2.61
Andreassi, J. K., Lawter, L., Brockerhoff, M. Rutigliano, P. J. (2014). Cultural impact of human resource practices on job satisfaction. A global study across 48 countries. Cross Cultural Management, 21 (1), 55-77. doi:10.1108/CCM-05-2012-0044
Ang, J. (April 24, 2015). Top compensation and benefits trends in Asia. Retrieved from http://www.humanresourcesonline.net/top-trends-compensation-benefits-asia/
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., Kuchinke, K. P., & Iqbal, A. (2017). The relationship between corporate social responsibility, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Case of Pakistani higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2352-2363.
Aziri, B. (2011). Job satisfaction: A literature review. Management Research and Practice, 3 (4), 77-86.
Barling, J., & Griffith, A. (2011). A history of occupational health psychology. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 21-34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Barrett, G. V., & Bass, B. M. (1983). Cross-cultural issues in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1639-1686). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Bellou, V. (2010). Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: the role of gender and age. Career Development International, 15 (1), 4-19. doi:10.1108/13620431011020862
Blegen, M. A. (1993). Nurses’ job satisfaction: a meta-analysis of related variables. Nursing Research, 42(1), 36-41.
Bowling, N., & Cucina, J. M. (2015). Robert Hoppock: early job satisfaction and vocational guidance pioneer. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 53 (2), 109-116.
Buitendach, J. H., & Rothmann, S. (2009). The validation of the Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire in selected organisations in South Africa. Journal of Human Resource Management/SA Tydskrifvir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 7(1), Art 183. doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v7i1.183
Caers, R., Du Bois, C., Jegers, M., De Gieter, S., De Cooman, R., & Pepermans, R. (2008). Measuring community nurses’ job satisfaction: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (5), 521-529. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04620.x
Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 23-58.
Chiang, F. (2005). A critical examination of Hofstede’s thesis and its application to international reward management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (9), 1545-1563. doi:10.1080/09585190500239044
Chatman, J., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: how different can you be? Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 522-553.
Castillo, J. X., & Cano, J. (2004). Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45 (3), 65-74.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conway, P. G., Williams, M. S., & Green, J. L. (1987). A model of job facet satisfaction. Journal of Social Work Education, 23(1), 48-57.
Danut, I. (2016). Components analysis of organizational culture on work and job satisfaction in a public institution. Annals of the Constantin Brâncuşi University of Târgu Jiu, Economy Series, 1, 158-168.
Darf. R. L., &, Marcic, D. (2009). Understanding management (7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Dawis, R. V. (2004). Job satisfaction. In M. Mersen, & J. C. Thomas (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 4, industrial and organizational assessment (pp. 470 – 481). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development. A competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 1-21.
El Din, H. F., & El Ghetany, H. (2016). The Relationship between organisational culture and job satisfaction: an international perspective. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance, 101-109.
Ewen, R. B. 1967. Weighting components of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51 (1), 68–73.
Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105-112. doi:10.1136/oem.2002.006734
Field, A. (2014). Regression. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed., pp. 293-356). London, UK: Sage.
Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the measure of work : a guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Flanagan, N. A., & Flanagan, T. J. (2002). An analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and job stress in correctional nurses. Research in Nursing & Health, 25, 282-294.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291-314
Frost, J. (2013, May 30). Regression analysis: how do I interpret R-squared and assess the goodness-of-fit? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics-2/how-high-should-r-squared-be-in-regression-analysis
García-Almeida, D. J., Fernández-Monroy, M., & Petra De Saá-Pérez (2015). Dimensions of employee satisfaction as determinants of organizational commitment in the hotel industry. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 25 (2) 153–165. doi:10.1002/hfm.20539
Gasper, P. (November 19, 2010). Capitalism and alienation. Retrieved from http://irishgreeneyes-welcometomyworld.blogspot.ch/2010/11/capitalism-and-alienation.html
Gillespie, M. A., William K Balzer, W. K., Brodke, M. H., Garza, M., Erin N Gerbec, E. N., … Yugo, J. E. (2016). Normative measurement of job satisfaction in the US. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 516-536.
Gupta, V., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 178-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haidle, M., & Conard, N. J. (2011). The nature of culture. Synthesis of an interdisciplinary symposium held in Tübingen, Germany, 15-18 June 2011. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte, 20, 65-78.
Hancer, M., & George, R. T. (2003). Job satisfaction of restaurant employees: an empirical investigation using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27 (1), 85-100. doi:10.1177/1096348002238882
Hauff, S., Richter, N. F., & Tressin, T. (2015). Situational job characteristics and job satisfaction: The moderating role of national culture. International Business Review, 24, 710-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.01.003
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Bloch Snyderman, B. (2010). The motivation to work. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1959)
Hirschfeld, R. R. (2000). Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 (2), 255-270.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. (Abridged Edition), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. (Original work published 1980)
Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, UK: Harper Collins.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Rev. 3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
House, R., Mansour, J., Hanges, P. & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3-10.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.), (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hwang, J.-I., F. Lou, F., Han, S. S., Cao, F., Kim, W. O., & Li, P. (2006). Professionalism: the major factor influencing job satisfaction among Korean and Chinese nurses. International Nursing Review, 56, 313–318.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200.
Itim International (n.d.). Geert Hofstede. National Culture. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
Joulain, M. (2003). Le travail et les activités hors-travail. In C. Vandenberghe, N. Delobbe, & G. Karnas, Dimensions individuelles et sociales de l` investissement professionnel (pp. 21-28). Louvin-la-Neuve, Belgique : Presses Universitaire Louvin.
Judge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction: a cross-cultural review. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, Sinangil, H. K., & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology, Volume 2: Organizational Psychology (pp. 25-52). London, UK: Sage.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.530
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Loscocco, K. A. (1983). Aging, values, and rewards: explaining age differences in job satisfaction. Sociological Review, 48(1), 78-90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095146
Katzell, R. A., Ewen, E., & Korman, A. K. (1974). Job attitudes of black and white workers: Male blue-collar workers in six companies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4, 365-376.
Keesing, R. M. (1974). Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73-97. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.03.100174.000445
Kingma, M. (2001). Nursing migration: global treasure hunt or disaster-in-the-making? Nursing Inquiry, 8 (4), 205–212.
Kolb, A. (1962): Die Geographie und die Kulturerdteile. In: A. Leidlmair (Ed.), Hermann von Wissmann-Festschrift. Geographisches Institut der Universität Tübingen (p. 46).
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Lee, M. S., Lee, M. B., Liao, S. C., & Chiang, F. T. (2009). Relationship between mental health and job satisfaction among employees in a medical center department of laboratory medicine. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 108 (2), 146–154. doi:10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60045-0.
Leiter, M. P., Bakker, A. B., & Maslach, C. (2014). Burnout at work. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Lloyd, S., Streiner, D., Hahn, E., & Shannon, S. (1994). Development of the emergency physician job satisfaction measurement instrument. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 12 (1), 1-10.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336.
Locke, E. A. (1983). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Lu, H., While, A. E., & Barriball, K. L. (2005). Job satisfaction among nurses: a literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42, 211-227. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.09.003
Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18 (3), 219-236. doi:10.1108/0885862031047313
Maclean, J. C., Webber, D., & French, M. T. (2015). Workplace problems, mental health and substance use. Applied Economics, 47 (9), 883-905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.982856
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4 (1) , 84-99.
Marchand, A., Haines III, V. Y., & Dextras-Gauthier, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of organizational culture in occupational health research: a theory-based validation in 30 workplaces of the organizational culture profile instrument. BMC Public Health, 13, 443. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/443
Martins, H., & Proenҫa, T. (2012). Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire - Psychometric properties and validation in a population of Portuguese hospital workers. Faculdade de Economia do Porto (FEP) Working Papers, 471. http://wps.fep.up.pt/wps/wp471.pdf
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C. (2015). Burnout. The cost of caring. Los Altos, CA: Malor Books. (Original work published 1982)
McFarlin, D. B., & Rice, R. W. (1991). Determinants of satisfaction with specific job facets: A test of Locke’s model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6 (1), 25-38.
Merriman, K. K. (2010). Lost in translation: cultural interpretations of performance pay. Compensation & Benefits Review, 42 (5) 403-410. doi:10.1177/0886368710379831
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18 (1), 10-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104269
Morita, S. (2006). Intention to serve the same company for long years and job satisfaction in Japanese workers. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 76 (6), 534-539.
Mueller, C. W., & McCloskey, J. C. (1990). Nurses’ job satisfaction: a proposed measure. Nursing Research, 39 (2), 113-117.
Munir, R. I. S., & Rahman, R. A. (2016). Determining dimensions of job satisfaction using factor analysis. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 488-496.
Nadinloyi, K. B., Sadeghi, H., & Hajloo, N. (2013). Relationship between job satisfaction and employees mental health. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 293-297.
Naor, M., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. (2010). The globalization of operations in Eastern and Western countries: Unpacking the relationship between national and organizational culture and its impact on manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 194-205. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.11.001
Ng, S. H. (1993). A job satisfaction scale for nurses. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 22, 46-53.
O’Donohue, W., & Nelson, L. (2014). Alienation: An old concept with contemporary relevance for human resource management. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 22 (3), 301-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2012-0541
Ogresta, J., Rusac, S., & Zorec, L. (2008). Relation between burnout syndrome and job satisfaction among mental health workers. Croatian Medical Journal, 49, 364-374.
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1973). Job satisfaction among whites and non-whites: a cross-cultural approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (3), 295-299.
O'Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487-516.
Oulton, J. A. (2006). Nursing succeeds in influencing global health policy. International Nursing Review, 53(3), 170. doi:10.1111/j.1466-7657.2006.00523.x
Özpehlivan, M., & Acar, A. Z. (2015). Assessment of a multidimensional job satisfaction instrument. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 283-290.
Piedmont, R. L. (2014). Inter-item Correlations. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 3303-3304). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1493
Piko, B- F. (2006). Burnout, role conflict, job satisfaction and psychosocial health among Hungarian health care staff: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43, 311-318.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29 (3), 363-377.
Quinn, R., & Spreitzer, G. (1991). The psychometric of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. In R. Woodman & W. Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 115-142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1992). Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 357-367.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Rosauer, B. L. (March 18, 2015). Business culture decoded. Retrieved from http://www.scoop.it/t/corporate-culture-and-od/p/4039401345/2015/03/18/three-bell-curves-business-culture-decoded
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J., (1964). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MASS: Havard University Press. (Original work published 1939)
Rotemberg, J. J. (1994). Human relations in the workplace. Journal of Political Economy, 102 (4), 684-717.
Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10 (3), 435-454.
Rutherford, B., Boles, J., Hamwi, G. A., Madupalli, R., & Rutherford, L. (2009). The role of the seven dimensions of job satisfaction in salesperson's attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1146-1151.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey type instruments. Journal of Management, 19 (2), 385-417.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48 (1), 23-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x
Shao, L., & Sturman, M. C. (2006). Exploring the effect of culture on how pay-for-performance affects turnover: a multi-level longitudinal study on 24 countries. [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management Association, 432-438.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1 (1), 27-41.
Singelis, T., Triandis, H., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross Cultural Research, 29 (3), 240–275.
Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13 (6), 693-713.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strydom, S. C., & van Eeden, R. (2013). Dimensions of job satisfaction identified among South African black middle-level managers: a qualitative investigation. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23 (4), 579-584.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Toker, B. (2011). Job satisfaction of academic staff: an empirical study on Turkey. Quality Assurance in Education, 19(2), 156-169. doi:10.1108/09684881111125050
Traynor, M.,& Wade, B. (1993). The development of a measure of job satisfaction for use in monitoring the morale of community nurses in four trusts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 127-136.
Tuch, S. A. & Martin, J. K. (1991). race in the workplace: black/white differences in the sources of job satisfaction. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(1), 103-116. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121443
van den Berg, R. G. (2016, May 31). Stepwise regression in SPSS – example. Retrieved from https://www.spss-tutorials.com/stepwise-regression-in-spss-example/
van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H. A.M., & Frings-Dresen, M. H.W. (2003). Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction - a systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 53, 191-200. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqg038
Vroom, V. H. (1995). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Original work published 1964)
Wang, J., Tolson, H., Chiang, T. L., & Huang, T. Y. (2010). An exploratory factor analysis of workplace learning, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in small to midsize enterprises in Taiwan. Human Resource Development International, 13 (2), 147–163.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V. England, G. W. and Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 1-120. Retrieved from http://vpr.psych.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua2236/f/monograph_xxii_-_manual_for_the_mn_satisfaction_questionnaire.pdf
Weiss H.M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194.
White, C. (2006). Towards an understanding of the relationship between work values and cultural orientations. Hospitality Management, 25, 699-715.
Wynne P. (April 13, 2011). Culture influences judgment of others. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/13700-personality-traits-culture-independence-social-context.html
Appendix A: Abbreviations and Glossary
CHRIS: Common HR Information Solution
Cultural area: Greater cultural area comprising countries with similar national cultures, e.g. Western Europe, East Asia, Latin America (study specific definition).
Corporate culture: Overarching company culture characterized by guiding principles, key values, and high ethical standards which are valid worldwide (study specific definition).
Corporate culture item Item considered to be related to corporate culture
Dia: Diagnostics
EFA: Exploratory factor analysis
GLOBE: Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research project. A global cross-cultural project that examined the relationship between societal culture and leadership.
HR Human resources
Item: Independent variable of correlating data. In the context of psychometric scales, an item is a synonym for a question in a questionnaire. In the short form of MSQ, an item means a job facet.
JS: Job satisfaction
KAU: Kaiseraugst (village near Basel). The company site located in Kaiseraugst belongs to the site Basel
MSQ: Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
MSQ item: Item of the original MSQ instrument
N or n: Number or sample size in statistics
OTC: Over the counter. OTC products are available over the counter
PAF: Principal axis factoring
PCA: Principal component analysis
Roche F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Roche Group Headquarters and all branches and subsidiaries of Roche
SD: Standard deviation
Stable item Item showing consistent factor loading pattern across sites
UK: United Kingdom, Great Britain
US: United States
USA: United States of America
Variable item: Item showing highly variable factor loading pattern across sites
VIF: Variance inflation factor
Appendix B: Initial Study Proposal
DISSERTATION PROPOSAL PRO FORMA
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION/APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAMMES
Student Name: Thomas Pfister
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Karen Ethridge
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Appendix C: Deviations from the Initial Study Proposal
1) In the test site Tokyo, the software Google Forms instead of Qualtrics was used for distributing the questionnaire. The contact person at Tokyo collected the responses, exported them to an Excel-file for transmission to the investigator for analysis. Justification: technical reasons.
2) In the test site Mannheim, the questionnaire was distributed as hardcopy. The responses were manually transferred into an Excel-file, double-checked by a third person, and then sent to the investigator for analysis. Justification: legal and organizational reasons.
3) The varimax rotation instead of the oblimin rotation was used. Justification: the varimax rotation gave simpler factor solutions than oblimin rotation. Moreover, varimax is the most common rotation method in factor analyses of MSQ. Its use allowed a better comparison with literature results.
4) For reporting the correlation between job facets (items 1-10 and 12-21) and overall job satisfaction (item 11), the coefficients from the inter-item correlation matrix of the Cronbach’s alpha statistics were used instead of the Pearson correlation coefficients. Justification: Although nearly identical, the coefficients from Cronbach’s alpha statistics are formally more correct as Pearson statistics requires normal distribution. The data were found to be left skewed.
5) A stepwise multiple regression analysis instead of Pearson correlation statistics was used to identify the job facets driving the overall job satisfaction. Justification: Nearly all job facets (items 1-10 and 12-21) correlated well with overall job satisfaction (item 11). Pearson correlation failed to identify meaningful differences between test sites.
Appendix D: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents from Cultural Areas
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Years of higher education following compulsory schooling
2 The sum of frequencies may be lower than the number of participants due to missing values
Appendix E: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents from Individual Sites
European Sites
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Years of higher education following compulsory schooling
2 The sum of frequencies may be lower than the number of participants due to missing values
European Sites (continued)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 The sum of frequencies may be lower than the number of participants due to missing values
East Asian Sites
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Years of higher education following compulsory schooling
East Asian Sites (continued)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Latin American Sites
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Years of higher education (e.g. college, higher vocational or academic schools, university) following compulsory schooling
Latin American Sites (continued)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
United States Sites
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Years of higher education following compulsory schooling
United States Sites (continued)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Appendix F: Summary and Reliability Statistics of Cultural Areas
Europe
N = 362
Cronbach’s alpha: .922
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
East Asia
N = 241
Cronbach’s alpha: .936
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Latin America
N = 301
Cronbach’s alpha: .940
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Appendix G: Summary and Reliability Statistics of Sites
Basel / Kaiseraugst
N = 126
Cronbach’s alpha: .904
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Mannheim
N = 166
Cronbach’s alpha: .934
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Welwyn
N = 70
Cronbach’s alpha: .911
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Shanghai (Pharma)
N = 111
Cronbach’s alpha: .959
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Shanghai (Dia)
N = 57
Cronbach’s alpha: .965
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Tokyo
N = 73
Cronbach’s alpha: .873
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
São Paulo
N = 116
Cronbach’s alpha: .918
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Buenos Aires
N = 129
Cronbach’s alpha: .948
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Bogotá
N = 57
Cronbach’s alpha: .956
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Pleasanton
N = 36
Cronbach’s alpha: .928
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Little Falls
N = 14
Cronbach’s alpha: .814
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Correlation between the item (job facet) and overall JS (item 11) 2 Correlation between item (job facet) and a combined scale of all the other items 3 Spearman’s correlation coefficient ** = Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) SD = Standard deviation JS = Job satisfaction
Appendix H: Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis of Sites
Basel / Kaiseraugst
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Mannheim
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Welwyn
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Shanghai (Pharma)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Tokyo
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
São Paulo
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Buenos Aires
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 E = extrinsic item, I = intrinsic item, G = general item according to the original scale (Weiss et al., 1967)
Appendix I: Communalities for Job Facets at Individual Sites
The following tables show the communalities for job facets using PAF for the extraction of factors. A bracketed value indicates that the PAF algorithm excluded the respective job facet from the factor solution for the site. Values ≥ .600 are in bold.
European Sites
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
East Asian Sites
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Latin American Sites
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Appendix J: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Sites
Basel / Kaiseraugst
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Mannheim
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Constant of the regression model not listed
Welwyn
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Shanghai (Pharma)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Constant of the regression model not listed
Shanghai (Dia)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Tokyo
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Constant of the regression model not listed
São Paulo
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Buenos Aires
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Constant of the regression model not listed
Bogotá
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Pleasanton
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Constant of the regression model not listed
Appendix K: Invite Letter
English Version
Research Study Invite
Dear Colleague,
You are being invited to voluntarily participate in a research study that will examine the factors at your workplace that are driving your job satisfaction. The level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the job is a known to predict the risk of work-related mental health problems. As the factors influencing job satisfaction are dependent on culture, participants from 12 Roche-sites in 10 countries have been invited to participate. Through this research project, I plan to investigate the cultural differences in job satisfaction across cultures within Roche as a global player. The study is part of my master theses in the study program Mental Health Psychology at the University of Liverpool.
Before you decide whether to participate, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. I would like to stress that you do not have to accept this invitation and should only agree to take part if you want to.
Please click here to access the patient information sheet
To protect your privacy, no consent signature is requested. Instead, you may simply click on the link below, read the first page of the survey, and check the box if you choose to volunteer.
Please click here to access the questionnaire
Yours faithfully
Thomas
Thomas Pfister Thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
German Version
Einladung zu einer Studie
Liebe Kollegin, lieber Kollege,
Ich möchte Sie zur freiwilligen Teilnahme an einer Studie einladen. Es geht um die Frage, welche Faktoren für Ihre Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz am wichtigsten sind. Es ist bekannt, dass die Zufriedenheit bzw. Unzufriedenheit mit der Arbeit ein guter Gradmesser für das Risiko psychischer Probleme am Arbeitsplatz ist. Da diese Faktoren kulturabhängig sind, wurden Mitarbeitende aus 12 Roche-Standorten in 10 Ländern zur Teilnahme eingeladen. Mit dieser Arbeit möchte ich die kulturellen Unterschiede bezüglich Arbeitszufriedenheit innerhalb der Roche als einer globalen Firma untersuchen. Die Studie ist Teil meiner Abschlussarbeit im Studiengang „Mental Health Psychology“ an der Universität Liverpool.
Die Teilnahme ist freiwillig. Bevor Sie sich entscheiden, ob Sie teilnehmen wollen oder nicht, lesen Sie bitte sorgfältig, welchen Zweck die Studie verfolgt und was eine Teilnahme für Sie bedeutet.
Bitte hier klicken zur Information für Teilnehmer
Um Ihre Privatsphäre zu schützen, wird zwecks Bestätigung Ihrer Kenntnisnahme keine Unterschrift verlangt. Stattdessen klicken Sie einfach auf den untenstehenden Link, lesen Sie die erste Seite und bestätigen Sie mit einem weiteren Klick auf das Feld am Ende der Seite, dass Sie teilnehmen möchten. Vielen Dank.
Bitte hier klicken zum Fragebogen
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Thomas Pfister
Thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Chinese Version
调查邀请
各位同事：
本人现诚邀您自愿参加一项调查，以了解有助于提升您的工作场所中的工作满意度的因素。众所周知，工作满意度或失望度可用于预测与工作相关的心理健康问题。由于影响工作满意度的因素取决于员工的文化背景，我向 10 个国家/地区的 12 个罗氏运营站点的多位员工发出了参与邀请。我希望通过这个调查项目，对罗氏这个全球企业中不同文化地区的工作满意度所涉及的文化差异做一番调查。该调查将纳入我在利物浦大学修读的心理健康心理学课程的硕士论文中。
在您决定是否参加之前，请务必了解本次调查的来龙去脉以及所涉内容。请抽空认真阅读以下信息。我想强调的是，您并非必须接受本邀请，请根据您自己的意愿决定是否参加。
请点击此处访问患者信息表
为了保护您的隐私，您无需签名表示同意参加。您只要点击以下链接，阅读调查问卷第一页的内容并勾选表示您自愿参加的复选框即可。
请点击此处访问调查问卷
祝工作顺利
Thomas
Thomas Pfister Thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Japanese Version
調査への招待
同僚のみなさん、
あなたは、ジョブ満足度を高める職場要因を調べる調査に自発的に参加するように招待されています。ジョブに対する満足度または不満のレベルは、ジョブ関連のメンタルヘルス問題のリスクを予測するものとして知られています。ジョブ満足度に影響する要因は文化に依存するため、10カ国の12のRocheの拠点からの参加者が参加の招待を受けています。この調査プロジェクトを通じて、私は、グローバルプレイヤーとしてのRoche内の各文化におけるジョブ満足度の文化的な違いを調査する予定です。この調査は、リバプール大学の精神保健心理学調査プログラムの修士論文の一部です。
参加するかどうかを決める前に、この調査の実施目的と調査内容について理解することが重要です。以下の情報を注意深くお読みください。この招待状の受け入れは必須ではなく、あなたが望む場合にのみ参加への同意を行うようにしてください。
患者情報シートにアクセスするにはここをクリックしてください
プライバシー保護のために、同意署名は必要ありません。代わりに、下のリンクをクリックして、アンケートの最初のページをお読みになり、自発的な参加を選択する場合はチェックボックスをオンにしてください。
アンケートにアクセスするにはここをクリックしてください
敬具
Thomas
Thomas Pfister Thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Portuguese Version
Convite para o estudo de pesquisa
Prezado(a) colega,
Você está sendo convidado para participar voluntariamente de um estudo de pesquisa que irá examinar os fatores em seu local de trabalho que influenciam a sua satisfação no emprego. É sabido que o nível de satisfação ou insatisfação com o emprego pode ajudar a prever o risco de problemas de saúde mental relacionados a trabalho. Uma vez que os fatores que afetam a satisfação no trabalho dependem da cultura, participantes de 12 unidades da Roche em 10 países foram convidados para o projeto. Através deste projeto de pesquisa, pretendo investigar as diferenças culturais em termos de satisfação no emprego nas culturas dentro da Roche, como empresa de atuação global. O estudo faz parte da minha tese de mestrado, no programa de estudos de Psicologia de Saúde Mental, na Universidade de Liverpool.
Antes de decidir participar ou não, é importante que você compreenda o motivo da realização da pesquisa e o que a mesma envolverá. Dedique algum tempo à leitura cuidadosa das informações a seguir. Obviamente, você não precisa aceitar este convite e só deve concordar em participar se quiser.
Clique aqui para acessar a ficha informativa para participantes
Visando proteger sua privacidade, não é necessária assinatura de consentimento. Basta clicar no link abaixo, ler a primeira página da pesquisa e marcar a caixa, caso decida participar.
Clique aqui para acessar o questionário
Atenciosamente,
Thomas
Thomas Pfister Thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Spanish Version
Invitación a participar en un estudio
Estimado/a colega:
Le invito a participar voluntariamente en un estudio sobre los factores de su puesto de trabajo que condicionan su satisfacción laboral. Se sabe que el grado de satisfacción o insatisfacción en el empleo está relacionado con el riesgo de problemas de salud mental asociados al trabajo. Dado que los factores que influyen en la satisfacción laboral dependen de la cultura, se ha invitado a participar a empleados de 12 centros de Roche situados en 10 países diferentes. Mediante este proyecto de investigación pretendo estudiar las diferencias interculturales en la satisfacción laboral en el seno de una empresa multinacional como Roche. El estudio se enmarca en mi tesis para el máster de Psicología de la Salud Mental por la Universidad de Liverpool.
Antes de decidir si participa o no, es importante que entienda usted por qué se lleva a cabo el estudio y qué implicará. Le ruego que se tome el tiempo necesario para leer atentamente la siguiente información. Quiero subrayar que no tiene usted por qué aceptar esta invitación, y que solo debe participar si así lo desea.
Haga clic aquí para acceder a la hoja de información para los participantes
A fin de proteger su privacidad no se solicita su firma para el consentimiento. Basta con que haga usted clic en el siguiente enlace, lea la primera página de la encuesta y marque la casilla si decide participar voluntariamente.
Haga clic aquí para acceder al cuestionario
Cordialmente,
Thomas
Thomas Pfister Thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Appendix L: Participant Information Sheet
English Version
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Title of the study:
Differences in factorial structures of job satisfaction between national cultures and their interaction with the corporate culture of a global company 31st January, 2016
Dear Participant,
You are being invited to participate in a research study. Before you decide whether to participate, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully and feel free to ask us if you would like more information or if there is anything that you do not understand. As the conduct of the study is not a secret, please feel free to discuss it with others if you wish. Of course, you do not have to accept this invitation and should only agree to take part if you want to.
Thank you for reading this. As you may not recall the full information of this sheet at a later point in time, we recommend using an electronic copy of a hard copy of this sheet in your file for convenience.
What are the aim and purpose of the study?
There is evidence that employees who are satisfied with their jobs perform better, quit their jobs less likely, and are at lower risk of becoming ill due to occupational stress. From a company’s view and the perspective of mental health protection, the level of job satisfaction may serve as a measure for the healthiness of the workplace provided. However, the factors influencing job satisfaction are known to be highly dependent upon national and ethnic cultures. These cultural differences are of particular interest for Roche as a global player valuing cultural diversity. On the other hand, Roche has a strong overarching corporate culture characterized by guiding principles, key values, and high ethical standards valid worldwide. The purpose of the research is to develop culture-specific instruments for measuring job satisfaction at Roche sites located in different cultural areas.
Health Protection (LSH) belongs to the services of Group Safety, Security, Health & Environmental Protection (Group SHE). For using job satisfaction for workplace assessments in the above context, LSH is going to examine how far national cultures are influencing the workplace factors of job satisfaction and to what extent the corporate Roche culture interacts with them. The planned study is part of a master thesis under the supervision of the University of Liverpool. An ethical board of this University has reviewed and approved the study plan.
The purpose of the research is to develop culture-specific instruments for measuring job satisfaction at Roche sites located in different cultural areas.
Why have I been chosen to take part?
As a Roche employee on a large site located in one of the four cultural areas of interest (Asia, Europe, North America, and Latin America) you can provide useful information to the relevance of workplace factors on job satisfaction in your cultural area. Other inclusion criteria you meet are having a desk job and speaking English or one of the languages in which the questionnaire has been translated.
You have been invited to this survey because your job description meets these inclusion criteria. If you have been invited but not your colleague, this may be because there are more potential participants at your site than needed and you have been selected by chance.
Do I have to take part?
Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you are free to withdraw at any time as long as the questionnaire is open for data entry without explanation and without incurring any disadvantage.
What will happen if I take part?
If you participate, you will have to complete an online questionnaire with a few demographic questions and 21 questions on your feelings, judgments, and attitudes towards job facets. Answering all questions should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. The collection of data will occur automatically and anonymously. The investigator will be available to answer any questions you may have or clarify any issues with the questionnaire by email (see below). The study will neither assess your health status nor your job or workplace in any respect.
Are there any expenses or payments?
There will be no payments made or any expenses to be incurred by you.
What are the risks in taking part?
Given the nature of this research, there is no anticipated health risk or negative effects in consequence of your participation in this study.
What are the benefits of taking part?
There are no immediate benefits in taking part in this study. However, the results of the study should provide useful information on cultural influences on job satisfaction. This information should enable LSH to develop culture-specific instruments for measuring and increasing job satisfaction, and thus lowering the risk of workplace-related mental health problems.
What if I am unhappy or there is a problem?
In the unlikely case that you have any problem due to participating in this study, please feel free to let us know by contacting Thomas Pfister [thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk] and we will try to help. If you remain unhappy or have a complaint which you feel you cannot come to us with then you should contact the Research Participant Advocate (USA number 001-612-312-1210) or email address liverpoolethics@ohecampus.com). When contacting the Research Participant Advocate, please provide details of the name or description of the study (so that it can be identified), the researcher(s) involved, and the details of the complaint you wish to make.
Will my participation be kept confidential?
All information provided will be strictly confidential. To keep the survey anonymous, you will not be asked for your name, employee number, department, or details of your position. Identification numbers will be used instead of names when collecting and analyzing the data.
What will happen to the results of the study?
The outcome of the study is the identification of workplace factors. Results are expected to be available in July 2017. They will be published internally in the 4th quarter 2017, and externally early 2018.
What will happen if I want to stop taking part?
You can stop participating any time as long as the questionnaire is open for data entry without explanation and without incurring any disadvantage. However, once the questionnaire is completed, the data will be irreversibly and effectively anonymized. Consequently, the information you provided will not be any longer be relatable to you. Therefore, it will not be possible for you to access to the information you provided or to request the destruction of that information if you wished.
We would like to emphasize that you are free to turn down the invitation if you wish to do so, however, should you chose to participate, please keep/print a copy of this participation information sheet.
Whom should I contact if I have any questions?
Thomas Pfister
F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Grenzacherstrasse 124
CH-4070 Basel
E-mail: thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Phone: +41-61-688-1359
German Version
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Titel der Studie:
Faktorielle Unterschiede der Arbeitszufriedenheit zwischen nationalen Kulturen und deren Zusammenspiel mit der Unternehmenskultur eine globalen Firma 31. Januar 2017
Liebe/r Teilnehmer/in,
Sie wurden zur freiwilligen Teilnahme an einer Studie eingeladen. Bevor Sie sich entscheiden, ob Sie teilnehmen wollen oder nicht, sollten Sie verstanden haben, welchen Zweck die Studie verfolgt und was eine Teilnahme für Sie bedeutet. Bitte lesen Sie die folgende Information sorgfältig durch. Sie können gerne Fragen stellen, wenn Sie zusätzlich Information möchten oder falls Sie etwas nicht verstehen sollten. Da die Durchführung dieser Studie kein Geheimnis ist, können Sie gerne auch mit anderen darüber diskutieren. Natürlich können Sie diese Einladung auch ablehnen. Sie sollten nur teilnehmen wenn Sie es wollen.
Danke, dass Sie das alles lesen. Da Sie sich später vielleicht nicht mehr an alle Informationen erinnern, empfehlen wir Ihnen, sich am besten eine elektronische Kopie oder einen Ausdruck dieses Informationsblatts zu machen.
Was sind Ziel und Zweck dieser Studie?
Es ist bekannt, dass Mitarbeitende, die mit ihrer Arbeit zufrieden sind, leistungsfähiger sind, weniger häufig die Stelle wechseln, und ein geringeres Risiko haben, durch Arbeitsstress krank zu werden. Aus Sicht der Firma und im Hinblick auf den Schutz der psychischen Gesundheit könnte die Arbeitszufriedenheit als Mass dienen, wie gesundheitsförderlich ein Arbeitsplatz ist. Allerdings sind die Faktoren, welche dieses Gefühl der Zufriedenheit beeinflussen, stark von der nationalen und ethnischen Kultur abhängig. Diese kulturellen Unterschiede sind für Roche als eine globale Firma von besonderem Interesse. Andererseits hat Roche eine stark ausgeprägte, standortübergreifende Firmenkultur, die sich auf Leitlinien, Grundwerte, und hohe ethische Standards stützt. Diese Untersuchung soll dazu dienen, kulturspezifische Werkzeuge zu entwickeln, mit denen man die Zufriedenheit mit dem Arbeitsplatz an Roche-Standorten in unterschiedlichen Kulturen messen kann.
Der Gesundheitsschutz (LSH) gehört zu den strategischen Zielen des Konzerns und ist eine Kernaufgabe der Abteilung Group SHE. Um die Arbeitszufriedenheit im Kontext einer Risikobewertung von Arbeitsplätzen anwenden zu können, untersucht LSH inwiefern die nationale Kultur die Faktoren beeinflusst, welche zur Zufriedenheit bzw. Unzufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz führen. Die Studie ist Teil einer Masterarbeit an der Universität Liverpool. Der Studienplan wurde vom Ethikkomitee der Universität begutachtet und genehmigt.
Weshalb wurde Ich ausgewählt an der Studie teilzunehmen?
Als Mitarbeiter/in eines grossen Roche-Standortes in einem der vier interessierenden Kontinenten (Asien, Europa, Nordamerika, Lateinamerika) können Sie nützliche Informationen darüber geben, welche Arbeitsplatzfaktoren in Ihrem Kulturkreis besonders wichtig sind. Weitere Auswahlkriterien sind, dass Sie eine Schreibtischarbeit haben und Englisch oder eine der Sprachen sprechen, in welche der Fragebogen übersetzt wurde.
Sie wurden ausgewählt an der Umfrage teilzunehmen, weil Ihre Stellenbeschreibung den Auswahlkriterien entspricht. Falls Ihr/e Kollege/in nicht eingeladen wurden, kann das daran liegen, dass es mehr potenzielle Kandidaten gab und Sie zufällig ausgewählt wurden.
Muss ich teilnehmen?
Die Teilnahme ist freiwillig. Sie können Ihre Teilnahme jederzeit zurückziehen, solange der Fragebogen noch nicht abgeschlossen wurde. Es entstehen dadurch keinerlei Nachteile für Sie.
Was passiert, wenn ich teilnehme?
Wenn Sie teilnehmen, werden Sie geben, einen Online-Frageboden auszufüllen. Es handelt sich um ein paar demographische Fragen und 21 Fragen über Ihre Gefühle, Bewertungen und Einstellungen zu Ihrer aktuellen Arbeit. Das Beantworten aller Fragen dauert nur 10 – 15 Minuten. Die Datenerhebung erfolgt elektronisch und anonym. Der Verantwortliche für die Studie beantwortet jederzeit Fragen oder klärt Unklarheiten betreffend des Fragebogens per E-Mail (siehe unten). Die Studie bewertet weder Ihren Gesundheitszustand, noch Ihre Arbeit oder Ihren Arbeitsplatz in irgendeiner Weise.
Gibt es irgendwelche Kosten oder Entschädigungen?
Es wird weder irgendetwas bezahlt, noch entstehen irgendwelche Unkosten für Sie.
Welche Risiken gibt es, wenn ichteilnehme?
Mit der Teilnahme an dieser Art von Studien sind keine Gesundheitsrisiken verbunden oder irgendwelche negativen Auswirkungen zu erwarten.
Welche Vorteile habe ich, wenn ich teilnehme?
Einen unmittelbaren Nutzen gibt es nicht. Das Ergebnis der Studie soll aber wertvolle Informationen über den kulturellen Einfluss auf die Arbeitszufriedenheit liefern. Mit dieser Information kann LSH kulturspezifische Werkzeuge entwickeln, um die Zufriedenheit am Arbeitsplatz zu messen und so das Risiko arbeitsbedingter psychischer Probleme verringern.
Was kann ich tun, falls ich unzufrieden bin oder ein Problem habe?
Im unwahrscheinlichen Fall, dass die Teilnahme Ihnen irgendwelche Probleme bereitet, können Sie uns kontaktieren unter Thomas Pfister [thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk] und wir werden versuchen Ihnen zu helfen. Wenn Sie sich weiterhin unwohl fühlen oder sich beschweren wollen ohne mit uns Kontakt aufzunehmen, kontaktieren Sie bitte den Research Participant Advocate (USA number 001-612-312-1210) oder benutzen Sie die E-Mail Adresse liverpoolethics@ohecampus.com. Falls Sie den Research Participant Advocate kontaktieren sollten, teilen Sie bitte die Details dieser Studie mit, wie Name oder Beschreibung, so dass sie identifiziert werden kann, den Verantwortlichen für die Studie und die Einzelheiten Ihrer Beschwerde.
Bleibt meine Teilnahme vertraulich?
Alle gelieferten Informationen sind streng vertraulich. Um die Umfrage anonym zu halten, wird man Sie weder nach dem Namen, noch nach der Mitarbeiternummer, Abteilung oder Einzelheiten Ihrer Stelle fragen. Bei der Datenerhebung werden Identifikationsnummern statt Namen verwendet.
Was passiert mit den Ergebnissen der Studie?
Das Ergebnis der Studie ist die Identifikation von Arbeitsplatzfaktoren. Resultate werden im Juli 2017 erwartet. Sie werden voraussichtlich intern im 4. Quartal 2017 publiziert, und extern Anfang 2018.
Kann ich meine Teilnahme zurückziehen?
Sie können Ihre Teilnahme ohne Angabe von Gründen zurückziehen, solange der Fragebogen noch zur Beantwortung offen ist. Es werden Ihnen dadurch keine Nachteile entstehen. Ist der Fragenboden aber abgeschlossen, werden die Daten irreversibel und vollständig anonymisiert. Der Link zwischen Ihnen und den von Ihnen eingegebenen Daten besteht nicht mehr. Daher ist es nicht möglich, Ihnen nachträglich Zugang zu Ihren Daten zu gewähren oder diese zu vernichten, falls Sie es wünschten.
Es sei nochmals darauf hingewiesen, dass Sie diese Einladung ablehnen können. Falls Sie sich aber zur Teilnahme entscheiden sichern Sie sich bitte eine elektronische Kopie oder einen Ausdruck dieses Informationsblatts.
Wen kann ich kontaktieren, wenn ich Fragen haben sollte?
Thomas Pfister
F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Grenzacherstrasse 124
CH-4070 Basel
E-mail: thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Phone: +41-61-688-1359
Chinese Version
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
调查标题：
不同国家/地区文化之间的工作满意度因素结构差异及其与全球企业公司文化的相互作用
2017 年 1 月 31 日
各位参与者：
我们现诚邀您参与一项调查。在您决定是否参加之前，请务必了解本次调查的来龙去脉以及所涉内容。请抽空认真阅读以下信息。如果您需要了解更多信息或者不理解其中的某些信息，请直接联系我们。本次调查并非机密活动，您可以随意与他人讨论。当然，您并非必须接受本邀请，您只需根据自己的意愿决定是否参加。
感谢您阅读这些信息。为防止您日后遗忘本信息表中的某些内容，我们建议您将本信息表保存一份电子版以便参考。
本次调查的主要目的是什么？
有证据显示，当员工对自己的工作满意时，他们的绩效更好、离职的可能性更低，且因工作压力患病的风险更小。从公司角度以及心理健康保护视角来看，工作满意度是工作场所提供的健康水平的一种度量指标。然而众所周知的是，影响工作满意度的因素严重取决于国家/地区及民族文化。这些文化差异对于罗氏这个重视文化多样性的全球企业而言有着特别重要的意义。另一方面，罗氏培养了强势的整体公司文化，在全球践行统一的指导原则、核心价值和极高的道德标准。本次调查的目的是针对不同文化背景开发评估工具，以帮助衡量位于不同文化地区中的罗氏运营站点的工作满意度。
Health Protection（健康保护，LSH）是 Group Safety, Security, Health & Environmental Protection（集团安全、安保、健康及环保保护，集团 SHE）的下属服务机构。为了在上述背景下使用工作满意度来衡量工作场所，LSH 准备调查国家/地区文化对工作满意度中的工作场所因素的影响程度，以及其与罗氏公司文化的相互作用范围。拟订的调查将纳入接受利物浦大学指导的一份硕士论文中。该大学的伦理委员会已审核并批准本次调查计划。
本次调查的目的是针对不同文化背景开发评估工具，以帮助衡量位于不同文化地区中的罗氏运营站点的工作满意度。
为什么选择邀请我参加？
本次调查主要关注亚洲、欧洲、北美洲或拉丁美洲这四大文化地区，而您正好是这些地区中某个大型罗氏运营站点的员工。您提供的信息将有助于我们了解工作场所因素对您所在文化地区的工作满意度的影响。本次调查的其他入选标准还包括从事办公室工作，以及会说英语或者某种调查问卷的翻译语言。
我们之所以邀请您参与本次调查，是因为您的工作说明符合这些标准。至于为什么您收到了邀请而您的同事却没有以，这是因为您所在运营站点有许多符合条件的潜在参与者，我们只是随机选择了您。
我必须参加吗？
您参加本次调查活动纯属自愿，您可以于调查问卷尚在接受数据录入期间随时退出本次调查而不必做任何说明，且退出调查不会给您带来任何不利影响。
如果我选择参加，将需要做什么？
如果选择参加，您需要填写一份在线调查问卷，其中包括若干人口统计学问题，以及 21 个有关您对各工作方面的感受、判断和态度的问题。回答所有问题大约需要占用您 10-15 分钟时间。所有数据收集工作都是通过自动、匿名方式进行。您可以通过以下电子邮件向调查员询问有关本次调查问卷的任何问题，或者要求其对相关问题做进一步说明。本次调查不会从任何方面评估您的健康状况或者您的工作或工作场所。
会不会产生费用或者收到报酬？
参与本次调查没有任何报酬，也不会产生任何费用。
参与的风险是什么？
根据这种调查的性质，参与本次调查不存在任何预期的健康风险，也不会因此产生任何负面效应。
参与的益处是什么？
参与本次调查不会给您带来任何直接好处。然而，调查结果中的相关信息将有助于我们了解文化对工作满意度的影响。LSH 可根据这一信息针对不同的文化开发特定工具，以衡量和提高工作满意度，从而降低发生与工作场所相关的心理问题的风险。
如果我因此遇到不愉快的事情或者问题，应该怎么办？
虽然这种可能性很小，但是如果您因为参与本次调查而遇到任何问题，请随时联系 Thomas Pfister [thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk] ，我们将尽力提供帮助。如果您还是心存不满或者想要避开我们提出投诉，那么您可以联系 Research Participant Advocate（调查参与者支持组织）（在美国可拨打电话 001-612-312-1210，或者发送电子邮件至 liverpoolethics@ohecampus.com）。联系 Research Participant Advocate 时，请提供详细的调查名称或说明（以便识别本次调查）、相关调查员以及您想投诉的详细内容。
我参与本调查时提供的信息将会得到保密吗？
所有信息都会严格保密处理。为了确保以匿名方式进行调查，我们不会询问您的姓名、员工编号、所在部门或者详细职位。我们将使用身份识别号而不是姓名来收集和分析所有数据。
调查结果将会如何处理？
调查结果即为识别各种工作场所因素。调查结果预计将于 2017 年 7 月得出。这些结果将在 2017 年第 4 季度在罗氏内部发布，并于 2018 年上半年向外公布。
如果我选择停止参加，将会怎样？
您可以于调查问卷尚在接受数据录入期间随时退出本次调查而不必做任何说明，且退出调查不会给您带来任何不利影响。然而，一旦调查完成，所有数据将有效地进行无法逆转的匿名处理。此后，您提供的信息也将无法再与您进行关联。因此，您将无法要求访问您提供的信息或者请求调查方将那些信息销毁。
我们想强调的是，您有权根据自己的意愿拒绝此邀请，然而如果您选择参加，请保存/打印本参与信息表供日后参考。
如果我有任何问题，应该与谁联系？
Thomas Pfister
F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Grenzacherstrasse 124
CH-4070 Basel
电子邮件：thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
电话：+41-61-688-1359
Japanese Version
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
調査のタイトル：
国民文化と、グローバル企業の企業文化と国民文化の連携の間にある、ジョブ満足度の要因構造の違い
2017年1月31日
参加者のみなさん、
あなたはこの調査への参加に招待されています。参加するかどうかを決める前に、この調査の実施目的と調査内容について理解することが重要です。下記の情報をよくお読みになり、より詳細な情報を希望する場合、または理解できない点がある場合はお気軽にお問い合わせください。この調査の実施は秘匿ではないため、希望する場合は調査について第三者と自由に話し合ってもかまいません。当然のことながら、この招待状の受け入れは必須ではなく、あなたが望む場合にのみ参加への同意を行ってください。
お読みいただきありがとうございます。後になってこのシートの全情報を思い出せないことも考えられますので、このシートの電子上のコピーを便宜上ファイルに保存することをお勧めします。
この調査の狙いと目的は何ですか？
ジョブに満足している社員の業績は優れており、ジョブを辞める可能性が低く、また、職業上のストレスにより病気になるリスクが低いということが証明されています。企業の視点とメンタルヘルス保護の観点から、ジョブ満足度は、提供される職場の健全性の指標となる可能性があります。しかし、ジョブ満足度に影響を与える要因は、国家や民族の文化に大きく依存することが知られています。これらの文化的な違いは、文化的多様性を重視しているグローバルプレイヤーであるRocheにとって特に重要です。一方、Rocheは、世界中で有効な原則、重要な価値、高い倫理基準を指導することにより特徴付けられた強力な全体的な企業文化を持っています。この調査の目的は、異なる文化圏にあるRocheの拠点でジョブ満足度を測定するための文化固有の手段を開発することです。
健康保護（LSH）は、グループ安全、セキュリティ、健康＆環境保護（グループSHE）のサービスに属します。LSHは、上記の文脈で職場評価に対してジョブ満足度を使用するために、国民文化がジョブ満足度の職場要因にどれだけ影響を及ぼしているのか、また、企業のRoche文化がどの程度それらと相互作用しているのかについて調べる予定です。計画された調査は、リバプール大学の監督下にある修士論文の一部です。この大学の倫理委員会は、調査計画を見直し、承認しました。
この調査の目的は、異なる文化圏にあるRocheの拠点でジョブ満足度を測定するための文化固有の手段を開発することです。
私がアンケート参加の招待を受けた理由は何ですか？
4つの文化圏（アジア、ヨーロッパ、北米、ラテンアメリカ）のいずれかにある大規模な拠点にいるRocheの社員は、職場要因とあなたの文化圏のジョブ満足度との関連性に関する有益な情報を提供することができます。あなたが満たすその他の基準は、ジョブが内勤であり、英語、またはこのアンケートが翻訳された言語の1つを話すということです。
あなたの職務内容がこれらの選択基準を満たしているため、このアンケートに招待されることになりました。あなたが招待されて、同僚が招待されていない場合、それは必要以上にその拠点に潜在的な参加者が多く、あなたが偶然に選出されたためです。
参加は必須ですか？
あなたの参加は完全に自主的なものであり、どのような説明も示すことなく、また、不利益を被ることもなく、データ入力に対してアンケートがオープンな状態にある限り、いつでも辞退することができます。
参加するとどうなりますか？
参加する場合は、いくつかの人口統計的な質問と、ジョブ面に対するあなたの気持ち、判断、態度に関する21の質問を含んだオンラインアンケートを完了する必要があります。すべての質問の回答に要する時間は約10～15分です。データの収集は自動的かつ匿名で行われます。調査者は、あなたが抱えている質問に答えたり、または、アンケートに関する問題を電子メールで明確に示すことができます（下記参照）。この調査では、あなたの健康状態、あなたの職場または作業場について評価することは一切ありません。
費用や支払いはありますか？
あなたが被る支払いまたは費用は一切ありません。
参加する際のリスクは何ですか？
この調査の趣旨を考えた場合、この調査に参加した結果、予期しない健康リスクまたは悪影響が生じることはありません。
参加のメリットは何ですか？
この調査の参加による直接のメリットはありません。しかし、調査の結果は、ジョブ満足度に対する文化的影響に関する有益な情報を提供することになります。この情報により、LSHは、ジョブ満足度の測定および向上のための文化特有の手段を開発することが可能になり、この結果、職場に関連するメンタルヘルス問題のリスクを低下させることができます。
私が不満を感じたり、問題がある場合はどうなりますか？
万が一、本調査に参加したことで問題が発生した場合は、 Thomas Pfister [thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk] に連絡してお気軽にお問い合わせください。私たちがサポートいたします。それでもなお不満を感じたり、苦情をお持ちの場合は、 Research Participant Advocate (USA番号001-612-312-1210)または電子メールアドレス（liverpoolethics@ohecampus.com）までご連絡ください。Research Participant Advocateに連絡する際には、調査の名前または説明（識別できるように）、関与する調査者、および苦情の詳細を提供してください。
私の参加は秘匿にされますか？
提供されるすべての情報は厳密に機密（秘匿）扱いとなります。アンケートの匿名性を維持するために、あなたの氏名、社員番号（CHRIS ID）、部署、またはあなたの役職（ポジション）の詳細を尋ねることはありません。データを収集して分析する際には、名前の代わりに識別番号が使用されます。
この調査の結果はどうなるでしょうか？
調査の結果は、職場要因の識別になります。結果は2017年7月に利用可能になる予定です。結果は、2017年第4四半期には内部に、そして2018年には外部に公開されます。
参加 を中止したい場合はどうなりますか？
どのような説明も示すことなく、また、不利益を被ることもなく、データ入力に対してアンケートがオープンな状態にある限り、いつでも参加を中止することができます。ただし、アンケートへの記入が完了すると、データは不可逆的かつ効率的に匿名化されることになります。その結果、あなたが提供した情報とあなた自身との関連性はなくなります。したがって、あなたは、自分が提供した情報にアクセスしたり、その情報の破棄を要求することはできません。
ご希望の場合はこの招待状は自由に却下できますが、参加することに決めた場合は、この参加情報シートのコピーを保管/印刷してください。
質問がある場合は誰に連絡すればよいですか？
Thomas Pfister
F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Grenzacherstrasse 124
CH-4070 Basel
電子メール：thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
電話：+41-61-688-1359
Portuguese Version
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Título do estudo:
Diferenças entre as estruturas fatoriais de satisfação no emprego entre culturas nacionais e interações das mesmas com a cultura corporativa de uma empresa global 31 de janeiro de 2017
Caro(a) participante,
Você está sendo convidado para participar de um estudo de pesquisa. Antes de decidir participar ou não, é importante que você compreenda o motivo da realização da pesquisa e o que a mesma envolverá. Dedique algum tempo à leitura cuidadosa das informações a seguir e sinta-se à vontade para perguntar, caso deseje mais informações ou se não compreender alguma coisa. Uma vez que a realização do estudo não é secreta, sinta-se à vontade para discutir o mesmo com outras pessoas, se desejar. Obviamente, você não precisa aceitar este convite e só deve concordar em participar se quiser.
Obrigado por ler isto. Visto que talvez você não se lembre das informações desta ficha no futuro, recomendamos utilizar uma cópia eletrônica desta ficha em seus arquivos para fins de conveniência.
Quais são o objetivo e o propósito deste estudo?
Existem evidências de que funcionários que estão satisfeitos com seus empregos atuam melhor, têm menor probabilidade de deixar o emprego e correm menos risco de ficar doentes devido a estresse de trabalho. Do ponto de vista da empresa e da perspectiva da proteção à saúde mental, o nível de satisfação no trabalho pode servir como medida do quão saudável um local de trabalho é. Não obstante, os fatores que influenciam a satisfação no emprego são fortemente dependentes de culturas nacionais e étnicas. Essas diferenças culturais são de particular interesse para a Roche, como empresa de atuação mundial que valoriza a diversidade cultural. Por outro lado, a Roche possui uma forte cultura corporativa global, caracterizada por princípios-guia, valores centrais e altos padrões éticos válidos em todo o mundo. O propósito desta pesquisa é desenvolver instrumentos específicos conforme a cultura para medir a satisfação no emprego em unidades da Roche localizadas em diferentes regiões culturais.
O departamento de Proteção à Saúde (LSH) está dentre os serviços do setor de Proteção à Saúde, Segurança e Meio Ambiente do Grupo (SHE do Grupo). Para utilizar a satisfação no emprego para avaliações do local de trabalho no contexto acima, o LSH irá examinar o grau de influência das culturas nacionais sobre os fatores de satisfação com o emprego no local de trabalho e em que medida a cultura corporativa da Roche interage com eles. O estudo planejado faz parte de uma tese de mestrado realizada na Universidade de Liverpool. O plano de estudo foi avaliado e aprovado por um comitê ético dessa universidade.
O propósito desta pesquisa é desenvolver instrumentos específicos conforme a cultura para medir a satisfação no emprego em unidades da Roche localizadas em diferentes regiões culturais.
Por que fui escolhido para participar?
Como colaborador(a) da Roche numa grande unidade, localizada numa das quatro áreas culturais de interesse (Ásia, Europa, América do Norte e América Latina), você pode fornecer informações importantes sobre a relevância dos fatores do local de trabalho para a satisfação no emprego em sua área cultural. Outros critérios de inclusão cumpridos por você são ter um cargo de escritório e falar inglês ou um dos idiomas para os quais o questionário foi traduzido.
Você foi convidado para a pesquisa uma vez que a sua descrição de emprego atende aos critérios de inclusão. Se você tiver sido convidado e o seu colega não, isso pode se dever ao fato de que o número de potenciais participantes em sua unidade é maior que o necessário e você foi escolhido aleatoriamente.
Sou obrigado a participar?
Sua participação é completamente voluntária, e você pode abandonar a pesquisa a qualquer momento, desde que o questionário esteja aberto para a entrada de dados, sem fornecer explicações ou sofrer qualquer desvantagem.
O que irá acontecer se eu participar?
Se você participar, terá que responder a um questionário online com algumas perguntas demográficas e 21 perguntas sobre seus sentimentos, julgamentos e atitudes em relação a aspectos do seu emprego. O tempo necessário para responder todas as perguntas é de aprox. 10-15 minutos. Os dados serão coletados de forma automática e anônima. O investigador estará disponível para responder a quaisquer perguntas que você possa ter ou esclarecer quaisquer questões relacionadas ao questionário (veja abaixo). O estudo não irá avaliar nenhum aspecto do seu estado de saúde, do seu emprego ou do seu local de trabalho.
Existem despesas ou pagamentos?
Não será feito nenhum tipo de pagamento e você também não terá quaisquer despesas.
Quais são os riscos ao participar?
Devido à natureza desta pesquisa, não há previsão de quaisquer riscos de saúde ou efeitos negativos como consequência da sua participação neste estudo.
Quais são os benefícios de participar?
Não existem benefícios imediatos decorrentes da participação no estudo. Todavia, os resultados do estudo fornecerão informações úteis relativas às influências culturais sobre a satisfação no emprego. Essas informações permitirão ao LSH desenvolver instrumentos específicos conforme a cultura para mensurar e elevar a satisfação no emprego, reduzindo assim o risco de problemas de saúde mental relacionados ao local de trabalho.
E se eu estiver descontente ou houver um problema?
É bastante improvável que você venha a ter algum problema resultante da participação neste estudo. No entanto, se isso ocorrer, sinta-se à vontade para nos informar, entrando em contato com Thomas Pfister [thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk]. Iremos fazer o possível para ajudá-lo. Se permanecer descontente ou tiver uma reclamação que não deseje compartilhar conosco, entre em contato com a Defensoria de Participantes da Pesquisa (número nos EUA 001-612-312-1210) ou por e-mail liverpoolethics@ohecampus.com). Ao entrar em contato com a Defensoria de Participantes da Pesquisa, forneça o nome e a descrição do estudo (para que o mesmo possa ser identificado), o(s) pesquisador(es) envolvido(s) e as informações sobre a reclamação que você deseja fazer.
Minha participação será mantida em sigilo?
Todas as informações fornecidas serão estritamente confidenciais. Para manter a pesquisa anônima, você não terá que informar o seu nome, número de funcionário, departamento ou detalhes sobre o seu cargo. Ao coletar e analisar os dados, serão utilizados números de identificação ao invés de nomes.
O que vai acontecer com os resultados do estudo?
O resultado do estudo é a identificação de fatores de local de trabalho. Os resultados devem estar disponíveis em julho de 2017. Eles serão publicados internamente no 4º trimestre de 2017 e, externamente, no início de 2018.
O que irá acontecer se eu quiser interromper minha participação?
Você pode interromper a sua participação a qualquer momento, desde que o questionário esteja aberto para entrada de dados, sem fornecer explicações ou sofrer qualquer desvantagem. Todavia, uma vez concluído o questionário, os dados serão anonimizados de forma efetiva e irreversível. Assim, as informações que você forneceu não poderão mais ser associadas à sua pessoa. Sendo assim, você não poderá acessar as informações fornecidas ou solicitar a destruição dessas informações, caso desejado.
Enfatizamos que você tem toda a liberdade para recusar o convite, se desejar. Se decidir, mantenha uma cópia dessa ficha de informações sobre a participação.
Com quem eu entro em contato em caso de dúvidas?
Thomas Pfister
F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Grenzacherstrasse 124
CH-4070 Basileia
E-mail: thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Telefone: +41-61-688-1359
Spanish Version
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Título del estudio:
Diferencias en las estructuras de los factores de satisfacción laboral según la cultura nacional e interacción de estas con la cultura de empresa de una multinacional 31 de enero de 2017
Estimado/a participante:
Se le ha invitado a participar en un estudio. Antes de decidir si participa usted o no es importante que entienda por qué se lleva a cabo el estudio y qué implicará. Tómese el tiempo de leer detenidamente la siguiente información y no dude en preguntarnos si desea más información o si hay algo que no entienda. Puesto que la realización del estudio no es ningún secreto, puede hablar de ello con otras personas si lo desea. Naturalmente, no tiene por qué aceptar esta invitación y solo debe participar en el estudio si así lo desea.
Muchas gracias por leer esta hoja informativa. Dado que es posible que más adelante no recuerde toda la información que figura en la hoja, le recomendamos que conserve una copia electrónica o física para poder consultarla en cualquier momento.
¿Cuál es el propósito y objetivo del estudio?
Los datos demuestran que los empleados satisfechos con su trabajo rinden más, presentan una menor probabilidad de dejar su empleo y corren menos riesgo de sufrir estrés laboral. Desde el punto de vista de la empresa y la perspectiva de la protección de la salud mental, el grado de satisfacción laboral puede servir como indicador de lo saludable que es el puesto de trabajo. Sin embargo, es sabido que los factores que influyen en la satisfacción laboral dependen mucho de las culturas nacionales y étnicas. Estas diferencias culturales revisten especial interés para Roche, una multinacional que valora mucho la diversidad cultural. Por otra parte, Roche posee una sólida cultura global de empresa, caracterizada por una serie de principios rectores, valores clave y exigentes criterios éticos que se aplican en todo el mundo. El propósito de este estudio es desarrollar instrumentos culturalmente específicos para medir la satisfacción laboral en centros de Roche situados en distintas zonas culturales.
El departamento de protección de la salud (LSH) forma parte de los servicios de Seguridad, Salud y Medio Ambiente del Grupo. A fin de emplear la satisfacción laboral en la evaluación de los puestos de trabajo en el contexto citado, LSH quiere estudiar hasta qué punto afectan las culturas nacionales a los factores de satisfacción laboral relacionados con el puesto de trabajo y en qué medida interactúa con ellos la cultura empresarial de Roche. El presente estudio forma parte de una tesis de máster supervisada por la Universidad de Liverpool. Un comité ético de dicha universidad ha evaluado y aprobado el plan del estudio.
El propósito del estudio es desarrollar instrumentos culturalmente específicos para medir la satisfacción laboral en centros de Roche situados en distintas zonas culturales.
¿Por qué me han seleccionado para participar?
Como empleado/a de Roche en un centro de gran tamaño situado en una de las cuatro zonas culturales de interés (Asia, Europa, EE. UU./Canadá y Latinoamérica) puede usted aportar información útil sobre la relevancia que tienen en su zona cultural determinados factores de satisfacción laboral relativos al puesto de trabajo. Además, satisface usted otros criterios de inclusión, como tener un trabajo de oficina y hablar español, uno de los idiomas a los que se ha traducido el cuestionario original en inglés.
Se le ha invitado a participar en esta encuesta porque la descripción de su puesto de trabajo se ajusta a estos criterios de inclusión. Si se le ha invitado a usted y no a otros colegas de su mismo centro, puede que en su centro haya más posibles participantes de los necesarios y se le haya seleccionado a usted aleatoriamente de entre todos ellos.
¿Es obligatorio participar?
Su participación es totalmente voluntaria y es usted libre de cancelarla en cualquier momento mientras el cuestionario esté abierto para la introducción de datos, sin necesidad de justificar el motivo y sin que ello le suponga perjuicio alguno.
¿Qué sucederá si decido participar?
Si decide participar, deberá rellenar un cuestionario electrónico con unas pocas preguntas sobre datos demográficos y 21 preguntas sobre su percepción y valoración de distintos aspectos del puesto de trabajo. Contestar a todas las preguntas le llevará previsiblemente entre 10 y 15 minutos. Los datos se recopilarán de forma automática y anónima. El investigador estará a su disposición por correo electrónico (en la dirección que se indica abajo) para contestar a cualquier pregunta o aclarar cualquier duda sobre el cuestionario. El estudio no valorará en modo alguno su estado de salud ni su empleo o puesto de trabajo.
¿Implica la participación algún gasto o pago?
La participación no implicará gasto ni pago alguno para usted.
¿Qué riesgos supone participar?
Dada la naturaleza de este estudio no se prevé que su participación en él pueda suponer ningún riesgo para la salud ni ningún otro efecto negativo.
¿Qué beneficios supone participar?
Participar en este estudio no implica ningún beneficio inmediato. Sin embargo, se espera que los resultados del estudio proporcionen información útil sobre las influencias culturales en la satisfacción laboral. Esta información podrá permitir a LSH desarrollar instrumentos culturalmente específicos para medir e incrementar la satisfacción laboral y reducir así el riesgo de problemas de salud mental de origen laboral.
¿Qué hacer en caso de descontento o problema?
En el caso improbable de que experimente algún problema derivado de su participación en el estudio, háganoslo saber poniéndose en contacto con Thomas Pfister [thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk] y haremos todo lo posible por solucionarlo. Si siguiera estando descontento/a, o si tuviera alguna queja que prefiera no plantearnos directamente, póngase en contacto con el Defensor de los Participantes en Estudios de la Universidad de Liverpool en el teléfono estadounidense 001-612-312-1210 o la dirección electrónica liverpoolethics@ohecampus.com. Si se pone en contacto con el Defensor de los Participantes en Estudios deberá facilitarle el nombre o descripción del estudio (a fin de permitir la identificación de este), el nombre del investigador o investigadores implicados y los detalles de su queja.
¿Será confidencial mi participación?
Toda la información proporcionada será estrictamente confidencial. Para mantener el anonimato de la encuesta no se le preguntará su nombre, su número de empleado ni su departamento, ni tampoco ningún detalle de su puesto de trabajo. A la hora de recoger y analizar los datos se utilizarán códigos identificativos en lugar de nombres.
¿Qué sucederá con los resultados del estudio?
El estudio desembocará en la identificación de factores asociados al puesto de trabajo. Se prevé que los resultados estén disponibles en julio de 2017. Se publicarán internamente en el cuarto trimestre de 2017 y externamente a principios de 2018.
¿Qué sucederá si decido dejar de participar?
Podrá cancelar su participación en cualquier momento mientras el cuestionario esté abierto para la introducción de datos, sin necesidad de justificar el motivo y sin sufrir ningún perjuicio por ello. Sin embargo, una vez completado el cuestionario, los datos serán anonimizados de forma eficaz e irreversible, por lo que los datos facilitados ya no podrán relacionarse con usted y, por consiguiente, tampoco tendrá la opción de solicitar el acceso a dichos datos ni su destrucción.
Deseamos insistir en que es usted perfectamente libre de declinar la invitación; si, por el contrario, decide participar, le rogamos conserve una copia electrónica o física de esta hoja informativa para los participantes.
¿Con quién debo ponerme en contacto en caso de preguntas?
Thomas Pfister
F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Grenzacherstrasse 124
CH-4070 Basel (Suiza)
Dirección electrónica: thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Teléfono: +41-61-688-1359
Appendix M: Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
English Version
Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
Welcome to this survey. The purpose of this questionnaire is to analyze the aspects of your job that are most important for your satisfaction at work. Based on the analysis of all answers we want to better understanding of the things employees like and dislike about their jobs in different cultures. To make this study successful, it is important that all participants answer every question as possible. Many thanks.
ONLINE FORM FOR IMPLIED CONSENT IN ANONYMOUS SURVEY SETTING
Title of Research Project: Differences in factorial structures of job satisfaction between national cultures and their interaction with the corporate culture of a global company
Researcher: Thomas Pfister
By ticking the box "YES" below, I am confirming that
1. I have read and have understood the participant information sheet dated 31 January 2017 for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and have had these answered satisfactorily.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time as long as the questionnaire is open for data entry without giving any reason, without my rights being affected.
3. I understand that, once I will have completed the questionnaire, the data will be irreversibly and effectively anonymized. Therefore, I will not have the option to ask for access to the information I provided or to request the destruction of that information if I wished.
4. I am at least 18 years old
5. I agree to take part in the above study.
The contact details of Lead Researcher (Principal Investigator) are Thomas Pfister F. Hoffmann-La Roche Grenzacherstrasse 124CH-4070 Basel E-mail: thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk Phone: +41-61-688-1359
To protect your privacy, no consent signature is requested. Instead, you may indicate your consent by ticking the box "YES" below.
Yes q
The first seven questions collect some demographic data. This information is required for the analysis and interpretation of your answers to the subsequent questions on job satisfaction.
Gender: What is your gender?
Male
Female
Age: What is your age?
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66 and over
Education: How many years of higher education (e.g. college, higher vocational or academic schools, university) did you obtain following compulsory schooling?
Less than 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 or more years
Tenure in present occupation: How long have you doing your present job.
1 year or less
2 to 5 years
6 to 10
11 to 20
21 to 30
31 years and over
Number of previous jobs: How many jobs did you have before your present job?
1 or 2
3 to 5
6 to 10
11 and over
Location: At which Roche site are you currently working?
Basel/Kaiseraugst
Mannheim
Welwyn
Indianapolis
Pleasanton
Mississauga
São Paulo (Diagnostics)
Bogotá
Buenos Aires
Shanghai (Pharmaceuticals)
Shanghai (Diagnostics)
Tokyo
Ethnicity: What is your ethnic origin?
White / Caucasian
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American
Native American
Asian / Pacific Islander
Other / I do not want to say
Questions on Satisfaction with the Job:
The purpose of this questionnaire is to analyse the aspects of you job that are most important for your overall job satisfaction. On the basis of your answers and those of people like you, we hope to get a better understanding of the things employees like and dislike about their jobs.
Below, you will find 21 statements about your present job.
Please read the statements carefully.
Decide how satisfied you feel about the aspect of your job described by the statement.
Check very dissatisfied, if this aspect of the job is much poorer than you would like it to be. It gives you much less than you expected.
Check dissatisfied, if this aspect of the job is poorer than you would like it to be. It gives you less than you expected.
Check neither, if you cannot make your mind whether or not this aspect of the job gives you what you expected.
Check satisfied, if this aspect of the job is what you would like it to be. It gives you what you expected.
Check very satisfied, if this aspect of the job is even better than you would like it to be. It gives you more than you expected.
Keeping the statements in mind when deciding how satisfied you feel about that aspect of your job.
Do this for all statements. Please answer every item.
Be frank and honest. Give a true picture of your feeling about your present job.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
German Version
Umfrage zur Arbeitszufriedenheit
Herzlich Willkommen zu dieser Umfrage! Mit diesem Fragebogen wollen wir untersuchen, welche Aspekte der Arbeit für Sie am wichtigsten sind, um sich am Arbeitsplatz wohlzufühlen. Die Umfrage wird in 12 Roche-Standorten in 10 verschiedenen Ländern durchgeführt. Die Antworten helfen uns, besser zu verstehen, was in unterschiedlichen Kulturen am Arbeitsplatz für das Wohlbefinden wichtig ist. Um aus dieser Studie einen Nutzen ziehen zu können, ist es erforderlich, dass alle Teilnehmer den Fragebogen vollständig ausfüllen. Vielen Dank.
EINVERSTÄNDNISERKLÄRUNG
Titel der Studie:
Faktorielle Unterschiede der Arbeitszufriedenheit zwischen nationalen Kulturen und deren Zusammenspiel mit der Unternehmenskultur einer globalen Firma.
Verantwortlich für die Studie: Thomas Pfister Durch Ankreuzen des untenstehenden Kästchens "JA" bestätige ich, dass
1. ich das Informationsblatt für Teilnehmer (vom 31. Januar 2017) zur oben genannten Studie gelesen und verstanden habe, Fragen stellen konnte und diese zu meiner Zufriedenheit beantwortet wurden,
2. ich verstanden habe, dass meine Teilnahme freiwillig ist und ich diese jederzeit widerrufen kann, solange der Frageboden noch nicht abgeschlossen wurde, ohne Angabe eines Grundes und ohne rechtliche Folgen,
3. ich verstanden habe, dass nach Abschluss des Fragebogens alle Daten vollständig und unwiderruflich anonymisiert werden. Ich habe somit nicht mehr die Möglichkeit, meine Antworten zu verändern oder zu löschen,
4. ich älter als 18 Jahre bin,
5. ich einverstanden bin, an dieser Studie teilzunehmen.
Die Kontaktangaben für den Hauptverantwortlichen der Studie sind:
Thomas Pfister
F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Grenzacherstrasse 124
CH-4070 Basel
E-mail: thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk
Tel.: +41-61-688-1359
Zum Schutz Ihrer Privatsphäre ist keine Bestätigungsunterschrift notwendig. Stattdessen können Sie einfach das untenstehende "JA" Kästchen ankreuzen.
JA q
DEMOGRAPHISCHE FRAGEN:
Zunächst werden 7 demographische Fragen gestellt. Diese Daten sind für die Analyse der Arbeitszufriedenheit notwendig.
Was ist Ihr Geschlecht?
Männlich m
Weiblich m
Wie alt sind Sie?
18-25 Jahre m
26-35 Jahre m
36-45 Jahre m
46-55 Jahre m
56-65 Jahre m
66 Jahre oder älter m
Wie lange hat Ihre Ausbildung nach Ende der Schulpflicht gedauert (Fachmittelschule, Gymnasium, Berufsschule, Fachhochschule, Universität)?
Weniger als 5 Jahre m
5 bis 9 Jahre m
10 bis 14 Jahre m
15 oder mehr Jahre m
Wie lange arbeiten Sie schon an Ihrer jetzigen Stelle?
1 Jahr oder kürzer m
2 bis 5 Jahre m
6 bis 10 Jahre m
11 bis 20 Jahre m
21 bis 30 Jahre m
31 Jahre oder länger m
Wie viele Stellen hatten Sie vor Ihrer jetzigen Stelle?
keine m
1 bis 2 m
3 bis 5 m
6 bis 10 m
11 oder mehr m
An welchem Roche-Standort arbeiten Sie zurzeit?
Basel/Kaiseraugst m
Mannheim m
Welwyn m
Indianapolis m
Pleasanton m
Mississauga m
São Paulo (Dia) m
Bogotá m
Buenos Aires m
Shanghai (Pharma) m
Shanghai (Dia) m
Tokyo m
Welcher ethnischen Gruppe gehören Sie an?
Weißer / Kaukasier m
Spanier oder Latino m
Afrikaner/Afroamerikaner m
Ureinwohner Amerikas m
Asiate / Pazifikinsulaner m
Andere / Keine Angabe m
FRAGEN ZUR ZUFRIEDENHEIT MIT DER ARBEIT:
Nachfolgend finden Sie 21 Aussagen zur Ihrer jetzigen Stelle.
Bitte lesen Sie diese Aussagen aufmerksam.
Überlegen Sie sich, wie zufrieden Sie mit dem Aspekt Ihrer Arbeit sind, auf die sich die jeweilige Aussage bezieht.
Wählen Sie sehr unzufrieden, wenn dieser Aspekt Ihrer Arbeit viel schlechter ist, als Sie es sich vorgestellt haben.
Wählen Sie unzufrieden, wenn dieser Aspekt Ihrer Arbeit nicht ganz dem entspricht, was Sie sich vorstellen.
Wählen Sie weder noch, wenn Sie sich nicht entscheiden können, ob dieser Aspekt Ihrer Arbeit dem entspricht, was sich vorstellen, oder nicht.
Wählen Sie zufrieden, wenn dieser Aspekt Ihrer Arbeit dem entspricht, was Sie sich vorstellen.
Wählen Sie sehr zufrieden, wenn dieser Aspekt Ihrer Arbeit viel besser ist, als Sie es sich vorgestellt haben.
Behalten Sie diese Aussagen im Kopf, wenn Sie sich jetzt entscheiden, wie zufrieden Sie mit dem entsprechenden Aspekt Ihrer Arbeit sind.
Bitte beantworten Sie alle Fragen in entsprechender Weise.
Seien Sie offen und ehrlich. Zeichnen Sie ein wahres Bild Ihrer Gefühle über Ihre derzeitige Arbeitsstelle.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Chinese Version
工作满意度调查
欢迎参加本次调查。本次调查问卷的目的在于分析您工作的方方面面，并了解哪些方面会对您的工作满意度产生重大影响。我们希望根据所有收到的回答，更好地理解来自不同文化背景的员工喜欢和不喜欢他们工作的哪些方面。为了确保调查获得成功，请所有参与者尽可能回答每个问题。非常感谢。
参与同意匿名调查的在线表格 调查项目标题：不同国家/地区文化之间的工作满意度因素结构差异及其与全球企业公司文化的相互作用 调查员：Thomas Pfister
勾选以下“是”复选框，即表示我确认：
1.我已阅读并理解于 2017 年 1 月 31 日签发的有关上述调查项目的参与者信息表。我已获得机会考虑信息内容、提出问题且我所提出的问题均已得到满意答复。
2.我理解我参与本次调查纯属自愿，我可以于调查问卷尚在接受数据录入期间随时退出本次调查而不必给出任何原因，且我的选择不会对我本该享有的权利带来任何影响。
3.我理解在完成调查问卷之后，我提供的所有数据都将有效进行无法逆转的匿名处理。因此，我无法要求访问我提供的信息或者请求调查方将那些信息销毁。
4.我已年满 18 岁
5.我同意参加以上调查。
首席调查人员（主调查员）的详细联系信息为：Thomas Pfister，F.Hoffmann-La Roche，Grenzacherstrasse 124 CH-4070 Basel，电子邮件：thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk 电话：+41-61-688-1359
为了保护您的隐私，您无需签名表示同意参加。您可以勾选以下“是”复选框表示您同意参加。
m 是
前面七个问题用于收集相关的人口统计学数据。该信息用于帮助分析和解读您对后面的工作满意度问题的回答。
您的性别是
男性
女性
您的年龄属于以下哪个范围？
18-25 岁
26-35 岁
36-45 岁
46-55 岁
56-65 岁
66 岁及以上
您在义务教育阶段接受过多少年的高等教育（例如大专、高等职业或学术学校、大学）？
少于 5 年
5 到 9 年
10 到 14 年
15 年或以上
您已在当前岗位上工作多少年？
1 年或以下
2 到 5 年
6 到 10 年
11 到 20 年
21 到 30 年
31 年及以上
在获得当前工作之前，您干过多少份工作？
0 份
1 或 2 份
3 到 5 份
6 到 10 份
11 份及以上
您目前在罗氏的哪个运营站点工作？
巴塞尔/凯泽劳斯特
曼海姆
韦林
印第安纳波利斯
普莱森顿
米西索加
上海（制药）
上海（诊断）
东京
圣保罗（诊断）
布宜诺斯艾利斯
波哥大
您的原籍裔系是？
白色人种/高加索人
西班牙裔或拉丁裔
黑色人种或非裔美籍
美洲原住民
亚洲/太平洋岛民
其他/我不想透露
以下是 21 个有关您的当前工作的陈述。
请认真阅读这些陈述。
思考您对每个陈述所描绘的工作方面是否满意。
如果您认为某个工作方面比您的设想要糟糕得多，远远低于您的预期，那么请勾选 非常失望 。
如果您认为某个工作方面比您的设想要糟糕一些，低于您的预期，那么请勾选 失望 。
如果您不确定某个工作方面与您的预期是否有差距，那么请勾选 不 满意也不失望 。
如果您认为某个工作方面与您的设想差不多，能够达到您的预期，那么请勾选 满意 。
如果您认为某个工作方面比您的设想要好得多，远远超出了您的预期，那么请勾选 非常 满意 。
在思考您对各陈述所描绘的工作方面的感受时，请记住相应陈述。
请根据这一原则阅读所有陈述。
请针对每个陈述作答。请坦率而真诚地作答，以便描述您对当前工作的真实感受。
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Japanese Version
ジョブ満足度調査
この調査へようこそ。このアンケートの目的は、ジョブで満足するために最も重要となるジョブの側面を分析することです。当社では、すべての回答を分析して、異文化でのジョブに関して社員の好みや嫌いなことをよりよく理解したいと考えています。この調査を成功させるためには、すべての参加者がすべての質問に可能な限り回答することが重要です。ご協力よろしくお願いいたします。
匿名調査設定の暗黙的な同意のためのオンラインフォーム 調査プロジェクトの名称：国民文化と、グローバル企業の企業文化と国民文化の連携の間にある、ジョブ満足度の要因構造の違い 調査者：Thomas Pfister
下の 「はい」欄にチェックを入れることで以下の事項を確認したことになります。
1.私は、上記の調査について2017年1月31日付の参加者情報シートを読み、理解しました。私は、その情報を検討し、質問する機会を得て、納得いく回答を行いました。
2.私は、自主的に参加しているのであり、私の権利がどのような影響も受けることもなく、どのような理由も示すことなく、データ入力に対してアンケートがオープンな状態にある限り、いつでも辞退できるということを理解しました。
3.アンケートへの記入が終わると、データは不可逆的かつ効率的に匿名化されるということを理解しました。したがって、私が提供した情報へのアクセスを求めたり、その情報の破棄を要求する選択肢は私にはありません。
4.私は18歳以上です。
5.私は上記の調査に参加することに同意します。
リード調査員（主任調査員）の連絡先は以下のとおりです。 Thomas Pfister F.Hoffmann-La Roche Grenzacherstrasse 124 CH-4070 Basel 電子メール：thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk 電話：+41-61-688-1359
プライバシーを保護するため、同意署名は必要ありません。代わりに、あなたは以下の「はい」のボックスにチェックを入れて同意を示すことができます。
m はい
最初の7つの質問では人口統計データを収集します。この情報は、ジョブの満足度に関する以下の質問に対する回答の分析と解釈に必要です。
あなたの性別は？
男性
女性
あなたの年齢は？
18～25 歳
26～35 歳
36～45 歳
46～55 歳
56～65 歳
66 歳以上
義務教育を受けた後、何年以上高等教育（例えば、カレッジ、高等職業学校またはアカデミックスクール、大学）を受けましたか？
5年未満
5～9年
10～14年
15年以上
現在の勤続年数はどれくらいですか？
1年以内
2～5年
6～10年
11～20年
21～30年
31年以上
現在のジョブに就く前にいくつのジョブを経験しましたか？
1または2
3～5
6～10
11以上
現在のRocheの勤務地はどこですか？
バーゼル/カイセラウグスト
マンハイム
ウェルウィン
インディアナポリス
プレザントン
ミシソーガ
上海（Pharma）
上海（Dia）
東京
サンパウロ（Dia）
ブエノスアイレス
ボゴタ
あなたの民族起源は何ですか？
ホワイト/白人
ヒスパニックまたはラテン系
黒人またはアフリカ系アメリカ人
ネイティブアメリカン
アジア太平洋諸島系
その他/回答を控える
以下に、あなたの現在のジョブに関する21のステートメントがあります。
ステートメントをよくお読みください。
このステートメントで説明されているあなたのジョブの側面についてどれくらい満足しているかを決めてください。
ジョブの該当の側面があなたが望むものよりもはるかに貧弱であるか、またはあなたが期待したものよりもはるかに少ない場合、 非常に不満 にチェックを入れてください。
ジョブの該当の側面があなたが望むものよりも貧弱であるか、またはあなたが期待したものよりも少ない場合、 不満 にチェックを入れてください。
ジョブの該当の側面があなたが期待していたものを提供しているかどうか判断が付かない場合は、 どちらでもない にチェックを入れてください。
ジョブの該当の側面があなたが望むものであるか、またはあなたが期待したものを提供している場合、 満足 にチェックを入れてください。
ジョブの該当の側面があなたが望むものよりもはるかに良いか、またはあなたが期待している以上のものを提供している場合、 非常に満足 にチェックを入れてください。
ジョブの該当の側面についてどれだけ満足しているかを決めるときは、ステートメントに留意してください。
すべてのステートメントについてこれを行います。すべての項目にお答えください。
率直に正直にお答えください。現在のジョブについてのあなたの感想をお聞かせください。
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Portuguese Version
Pesquisa de satisfação no emprego
Bem-vindo à pesquisa. O objetivo deste questionário é analisar os aspectos do seu emprego que são mais importantes para a sua satisfação no trabalho. Com base na análise de todas as respostas, queremos compreender melhor o que os colaboradores de diferentes culturas gostam e não gostam em seus empregos. Para que este estudo seja bem-sucedido, é importante que cada participante responda tantas perguntas quanto possível. Obrigado.
FORMULÁRIO ONLINE DE CONSENTIMENTO IMPLÍCITO EM PESQUISA ANÔNIMA Título do projeto de pesquisa: Diferenças entre as estruturas fatoriais de satisfação no emprego entre culturas nacionais e interações das mesmas com a cultura corporativa de uma empresa global
Pesquisador: Thomas Pfister
Ao marcar a caixa "SIM" abaixo, confirmo que
1. Li e compreendi a ficha informativa para participantes, datada de 31 de janeiro de 2017, para o estudo acima. Tive a oportunidade de refletir sobre as informações, fazer perguntas e receber respostas satisfatórias para as mesmas.
2. Estou ciente de que minha participação é voluntária e de que tenho a liberdade de abandonar a pesquisa a qualquer momento, desde que o questionário esteja aberto para a entrada de dados, sem que meus direitos sejam afetados.
3. Estou ciente de que, tão logo eu tenha respondido ao questionário, os dados serão anonimizados de maneira eficaz e irreversível. Sendo assim, não terei a opção de solicitar acesso às informações fornecidas por mim ou de solicitar a destruição dessas informações, caso desejado.
4. Tenho pelo menos 18 anos
5. Concordo em participar do estudo acima.
As informações de contato do Pesquisador Chefe (Investigador Principal) são Thomas Pfister F. Hoffmann-La Roche Grenzacherstrasse 124CH-4070 Basileia E-mail: thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.ukTelefone: +41-61-688-1359
Visando proteger sua privacidade, não é necessária assinatura de consentimento. Você pode indicar seu consentimento marcando a caixa “SIM” abaixo.
m SIM
As primeiras sete perguntas buscam coletar dados geográficos. Essas informações são necessárias para a análise e interpretação das suas respostas às perguntas seguintes sobre satisfação no trabalho.
Qual é o seu sexo?
Masculino
Feminino
Qual é a sua idade?
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66 ou mais
Quantos anos de educação superior (ex. faculdade, ensino técnico ou acadêmico, universidade) você obteve seguindo a escolaridade obrigatória?
Menos de 5 anos
De 5 a 9 anos
De 10 a 14 anos
15 ou mais anos
Há quanto tempo está no emprego atual?
1 ano ou menos
2 a 5 anos
6 a 10 anos
11 a 20 anos
21 a 30 anos
31 anos ou mais
Quantos empregos você teve antes do atual?
1 ou 2
3 a 5
6 a 10
11 ou mais
Em que unidade da Roche você trabalha atualmente?
Basileia/Kaiseraugst
Mannheim
Welwyn
Indianopolis
Pleasanton
Mississauga
São Paulo (Dia)
Bogotá
Buenos Aires
Xangai (Pharmaceuticals)
Xangai (Diagnostics)
Tóquio
Qual a sua origem étnica?
Branco / caucasiano
Hispânico ou latino
Negro ou afroamericano
Nativo americano
Asiático / das ilhas do Pacífico
Outro / Não quero responder
Abaixo você encontrará 21 afirmações sobre o seu emprego atual.
Leia cuidadosamente as afirmações.
Reflita sobre o seu grau de satisfação em relação ao aspecto do seu emprego descrito na afirmação.
Marque a opção muito insatisfeito se esse aspecto do trabalho ficar muito aquém do que você gostaria ou lhe der muito menos do que você esperava.
Marque a opção insatisfeito se esse aspecto do trabalho ficar aquém do que você gostaria ou lhe der menos do que você esperava.
Marque a opção “nenhum dos dois” se não souber ao certo se esse aspecto do trabalho lhe dá aquilo que você esperava.
Marque a opção satisfeito se esse aspecto do trabalho for como você gostaria ou lhe der o que você esperava.
Marque a opção muito satisfeito se esse aspecto do trabalho for ainda melhor do que o que você gostaria ou lhe der muito mais do que você esperava.
Mantenha as afirmações em mente ao avaliar o seu nível de satisfação sobre o aspecto do seu trabalho.
Faça isso para todas as afirmações. Responda todos os itens.
Seja franco e honesto. Forneça uma boa imagem sobre como você se sente em relação ao seu emprego atual.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Spanish Version
Encuesta sobre satisfacción en el puesto de trabajo
Bienvenido/a a esta encuesta. La finalidad del presente cuestionario es analizar los aspectos de su trabajo que son más importantes para su satisfacción laboral. A partir del análisis de todas las respuestas, queremos comprender mejor los aspectos del puesto de trabajo que agradan o desagradan a los empleados según las diferentes culturas. Para que este estudio tenga éxito, es importante que los participantes contesten a todas las preguntas en la medida de lo posible. Muchas gracias.
FORMULARIO ELECTRÓNICO DE CONSENTIMIENTO EXPRESO EN EL CONTEXTO DE UNA ENCUESTA ANÓNIMA
Título del proyecto de investigación: Diferencias en las estructuras de los factores de satisfacción laboral según la cultura nacional e interacción de estas con la cultura de empresa de una multinacional
Investigador: Thomas Pfister
Al marcar la casilla «SÍ» que figura más abajo confirmo que:
1. He leído y comprendido la hoja informativa para los participantes fechada el 31 de enero de 2017 y correspondiente al estudio citado. He tenido la oportunidad de analizar la información y plantear preguntas y he recibido respuestas satisfactorias al respecto.
2. Entiendo que mi participación es voluntaria y que soy libre de cancelarla en cualquier momento mientras el cuestionario permanezca abierto para la introducción de datos, sin necesidad de justificar el motivo y sin que mis derechos se vean afectados por ello.
3. Entiendo que, una vez que haya completado el cuestionario, los datos serán anonimizados de forma eficaz e irreversible, por lo que no tendré la opción de solicitar el acceso a los datos facilitados ni la destrucción de estos.
4. Soy mayor de 18 años.
5. Acepto participar en el estudio citado.
Los datos de contacto del investigador principal son los siguientes: Thomas Pfister F. Hoffmann-La Roche Grenzacherstrasse 124 CH-4070 Basel (Suiza) Dirección electrónica: thomas.pfister@online.liverpool.ac.uk Teléfono: +41-61-688-1359
A fin de proteger su privacidad no se solicita una firma de consentimiento. En lugar de ello, debe indicar su consentimiento marcando la casilla «SÍ» que figura a continuación.
m SÍ
A continuación figuran 21 enunciados relativos a su empleo actual.
Léalos con atención
y piense cuál es su grado de satisfacción con el aspecto del empleo definido en cada enunciado.
Marque muy insatisfecho/a si ese aspecto es mucho peor de lo que le gustaría o le da mucho menos de lo que esperaba.
Marque insatisfecho/a si ese aspecto es peor de lo que le gustaría o le da menos de lo que esperaba.
Marque ni satisfecho/a ni insatisfecho/a si no sabe exactamente si este aspecto le da lo que esperaba.
Marque satisfecho/a si ese aspecto es tal como le gustaría o le da lo que esperaba.
Marque muy satisfecho/a si ese aspecto es incluso mejor de lo que le gustaría o le da más de lo que esperaba.
Recuerde bien el enunciado correspondiente a la hora de determinar su grado de satisfacción con ese aspecto de su empleo.
Realice este proceso para todos los enunciados. Conteste todos los puntos.
Sea franco y sincero. Transmita fielmente lo que siente sobre su empleo actual.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Appendix N: Corporate Culture of Roche
History. F. Hoffmann-La Roche (short: Roche) is one of the biggest pharmaceutical company in the world. Roche was founded in 1896 by Fritz Hoffmann in Basel, Switzerland. Over 120 years later, the headquarters is still located in Basel and the company owned by the descendants of the founder, the family Hoffmann and Oeri. With André Hoffmann and Andreas Oeri, two members of the founding family are members of the Board of Directors. This way, the owner family is involved in managing the company’s fortunes and destinies until today.
Sustainability. Particularly, the owner family’s convictions, values, and attitudes are reflected in a strong, centrally implemented and controlled corporate culture. A distinctive feature of the Roche culture is the persuasion of ambitious company goals that strive for sustainable business development instead of short-term profit maximization. Sustainability is that important for Roche that the company integrated the principle into its “corporate vision, values, operating standards and guidelines” as described in the Corporate Sustainability Committee Charter. While the Corporate Sustainability Committee (CSC) is responsible for the global strategies, guidelines, and activities at the top management level, the spirit should spread via corporate culture to all employees and encourage them working in compliance with the principles of sustainability.
The principle of sustainability is based on three pillars: the economic, social, and environmental sustainability. The Roche culture regards all three pillars as interconnected and is committed to paying equal attention to them: “we will not be successful in the long term without meeting our environmental and social responsibilities. Equally, we cannot contribute to society and environmental protection without economic success” is quoted on the company website (http://www.roche.com/sustainability/how_we_work/approach.htm).
Roche Group Mission. Roche wants to be perceived as an organization that helps patients, particularly those who are severely ill, living a better life by translating innovations into new medicines. The mission statement of Roche Group (i.e. headquarter and all branches and subsidiaries) reads:
Our aim as a leading healthcare company is to create, produce and market innovative solutions of high quality for unmet medical needs. Our products and services help to prevent, diagnose and treat diseases, thus enhancing people's health and quality of life. We do this in a responsible and ethical manner and with a commitment to sustainable development respecting the needs of the individual, the society, and the environment.
To ensure that the mission is lived in the company, central Group functions disseminate the spirit of the mission actively at every opportunity. For example, in the internal employee newsletter “My Roche” the predominant themes are success stories from the perspective of patients. The company website is full of video-podcasts with patients telling their story of the diseases and how Roche products changed their life. As a strong signal for taking it seriously, Roche divested all business units which did not fit into this Group mission (vitamins, OTC products, fine chemicals, fragrances, and flavors).
Elements of Centralized Organization. Roche is to a large extent a centralized organization. The key elements of the central management are the follows:
- Group Directives: Roche has many guidelines and directives in force dealing with all aspects of work, such as business practice, competition/antitrust, non-compliance, healthcare, communication, and intellectual properties. While guidelines give recommendations and behavioral expectations, the Group directives are compulsory. Roche employees have to comply with them worldwide.
- CHRIS: The Common HR Information Solution provides for globally aligned and simplified HR processes that run on one common platform. CHRIS sets the foundation for a more efficient and effective HR organization ensures consistency across national and affiliate boundaries and streamlines the underlying system landscape.
- E-Learning programs: For online training, CHRIS provides numerous e-learning programs on many aspects of work. E-learning programs on Group directives are compulsory.
- Auditing system: Roche has a central auditing group. Auditors visit the bigger Roche sites regularly to ensure compliance with Roche directives. Non-compliance can be penalized.
Compensation systems. Roche has a global remuneration policy which is based on rewarding individual and team contributions through the system of compensation for achieving objectives (what) and demonstrating the essential competencies (how) that contribute to the achievement of the business results.
Seven guiding principles are supporting Roche’s remuneration policy:
- Focus on value creation
- Performance driven
- Enabling employees to share in the company’s success
- Fairness and transparency in remuneration decisions
- Balancing long —and short—term remuneration components
- Affordability
- Market competitiveness
The global remuneration policy is the basis for all compensation systems locally implemented at the Roche sites worldwide. Typically, a part of the compensation is base pay, another part variable pay. The latter is designed to reward individual performance. Performance management uses CHRIS as a tool. Also, there are many forms of fringe benefits, e.g. subsidized meals, employee discounts, or employee stock options.
Working Conditions. Roche has a Group directive on occupational health. Herein, Roche is committed to providing a healthy working environment to its employees and to corrective action where the need to improve employee health is detected.
Appendix O: National Cultures According to Hofstede
The model of national culture according to Geert Hofstede (2011) consists of six dimensions. The following definitions are cited from the website “Geert Hofstede, National Culture” (Itim International, n.d.):
Power Distance. This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal – it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
Individualism/collectivism. The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We.” In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies, people belong to ‘in groups’ that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.
Masculinity/femininity. A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement, and success, with success being defined by the winner / best in field – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organizational life. A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A Feminine society is one where the quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. The fundamental issue here is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (Masculine) or liking what you do (Feminine).
Uncertainty avoidance. The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learned to deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance.
Long term/short term orientation. This dimension describes how every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future, and societies prioritize these two existential goals differently. Normative societies, which score low on this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain time-honored traditions and norms while viewing societal change with suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on the other hand, take a more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future.
Indulgence/restraint. One challenge that confronts humanity, now and in the past, is the degree to which small children are socialized. Without socialization, we do not become “human.” This dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, based on the way they were raised. Relatively weak control is called “Indulgence, ” and relatively strong control is called “Restraint.” Cultures can, therefore, be described as Indulgent or Restrained.
Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov (2010) assigned the following index scores (from 1 – 100) to the countries of the test sites:
Table: Index scores for cultural dimensions by country
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Appendix P: Cultural Dimensions Defined by the GLOBE Project
The GLOBE project defined the following nine dimensions of culture (House et al. 2002):
Power distance: The degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an organization or government.
Institutional collectivism: The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.
In-group collectivism: The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.
Future orientation: The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification.
Performance orientation: The degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence.
Gender egalitarianism: The degree to which an organization or society minimizes gender role differences while promoting gender equality.
Assertiveness: The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in social relationships.
Uncertainty avoidance: The extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by relying on established social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices.
Humane orientation: The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others.
Appendix Q: Translation of Morita (2006)
Table 3 of the article
Results of "MSQ Satisfaction" Factor Analysis (Major Factor Method, Promax Rotation)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
[...]
- Quote paper
- Thomas Pfister (Author), 2017, Differences in factorial structures of job satisfaction between national cultures and their interaction with the corporate culture of a global company, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/385570
-
-
-
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.