Identification of the reliability of methodological characteristics of quality in the diagnostic instrument for mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve

J. Vveinhardt ISSN 1648 - 4460ORGANISATIONAL APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATIONAL STUDIES

Vveinhardt, J. (2012), Identification of the Reliability ofMethodological Characteristics of Quality in the Diagnostic Instrumentfor Mobbing as Discrimination in Employee Relations on Purpose toImprove the Climate in Lithuanian Organisations, Transformations inBusiness & Economics, Vol. 11, No 2 (26), pp.218-232.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF METHODOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF QUALITY IN THE DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENT FOR MOBBING AS DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ON PURPOSE TO IMPROVE THE CLIMATE IN LITHUANIAN ORGANISATIONS

1Jolita VveinhardtFaculty of Economics and ManagementVytautas Magnus UniversityLT-44246 Kaunas, LithuaniaTel: +370 37 327850Fax: +370 37 327857E-Mail: [email protected]

1Jolita Vveinhardt, PhD of Social sciences (Management andAdministration), Associate Professor at the Department of Management,the Faculty of Economics and Management, Vytautas Magnus University.J. Vveinhardt has obtained the Bachelor of Management and BusinessAdministration degree in the Faculty of Social Sciences, iauliaiUniversity, where she has prolonged her further studies and obtained theMaster of Management degree. She lectures the subjects of Management,Knowledge Management, Modern Theories of Organizations,Organizational Behaviour, Mobbing in Personnel Relationships, and TheMethodology of Social Research in Bachelor, Professional Bachelor andMaster Studies. She (after the obtaining the doctors degree) is the authorand co-author of 30 articles; the author of one educational book. J.Vveinhardts scientific research trends are: Mobbing as the discriminationin employees relations, Organizational climate.

Received: February, 20111st Revision: May, 20112nd Revision: December, 2011Accepted: May, 2012

ABSTRACT. In analysing the influence of dysfunctional relations ofindividuals such as mobbing upon organization climate, thediscrimination aspect emerges. Mobbing and discrimination has a lot ofcontact points as mobbing is named as the relationship of discriminationcharacter the work environment.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 2 (26), 2012

218

---------TRANSFORMATIONS IN --------BUSINESS & ECONOMICS Vilnius University, 2002-2012 Brno University of Technology, 2002-2012 University of Latvia, 2002-2012

J. Vveinhardt ISSN 1648 - 4460ORGANISATIONAL APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATIONAL STUDIES

This article does not pursue to elaborate the criteria of mobbing anddiscrimination, the correlation to climate factors; however, severalaccents should be mentioned a person experiencing mobbingexperience discrimination as well, and in highlighting thediscrimination character the conception of mobbing enlarges. Bothmobbing and discrimination negatively influence organization climate;however, discriminating relations not necessarily can be mobbing. Thearticle compares the methodological quality of the subscales of the pilotand basic research instrument according to the meanings of theCronbach alpha reliability. It presents the instrument reliability inrespect of repeated actions by measuring with the SpearmanBrowncoefficient; it discusses the correlation of unit entity by more detailedpresentation of the indicator suitability and / or incongruity to thedistinguished scale. During the primary factorisation the entity ofcriteria is calculated, during the second the criteria are incorporatedin scales. In order to identify whether mobbing is the factor influencingthe state of organization climate, the regression model was applied.

KEYWORDS: mobbing, discrimination, interpersonal relations,organization climate, diagnostics, instrument, methodologicalcharacteristics, Lithuania.

JEL classification: M12, M14, M19, P2.

Introduction

In general terms mobbing can be named as discriminating attack within anorganization in the area of social, office relations. The classical definition of mobbing, whichemphasises the attacks that are not more infrequent as once per week and taking place not lessthan half a year, points out the strong long-term impact. Thus mobbing as social stressorviolates the functionality of the systems of an individual organism and organization systems isthe reason of personal, organization and national damages.

During the design of the diagnostic instrument, the content of characteristics andcriteria was determined by theoretical knowledge about employee relationship, mobbing asdiscrimination in employee relations and organisational climate, accumulated in the science ofhuman resource management and organisational behaviour. On the basis of theoreticalanalysis and insights of the authors, working hypotheses were formulated that the followingcharacteristics and criteria are attributable to mobbing as discrimination in employee relations:discrimination in employee relations (based on physical features, based on cultural-socialfeatures, based on psychological features, based on superstitions and stereotypes),discriminatory actions (by possibilities to attack, acting through social relations, attackingsocial attitudes of an employee, attacking in everyday professional sphere, attacking in socialsphere) and organisational climate (feeling of safety and certainty, creativity and initiative,values and traditions, entering and leaving the organisation, communication, dissemination ofinformation, relations with the leadership, control, employee relationship, openness andtolerance, informal groupings, conflicts in organisations) (Zukauskas and Vveinhardt, 2011).

Scientific literature pays great attention to the research of: problems of employeesinterrelationship (Zukauskas and Vveinhardt 2009a, 2009b; Tafel-Viia and Alas, 2009;Zukauskas and Vveinhardt, 2010, 2011 etc.), corporate social responsibility (Alas et al., 2011;Valackiene and Miceviciene, 2011 etc.), employees identification at an organization, crisis

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 2 (26), 2012

219

J. Vveinhardt 220 ISSN1648-446t

ORGANISATlONAl APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATlONAl STU.

situations,crisismanagement(Valackiene,2009,2011etc.),career(ZuperkieneandZilins~2008;ZakareviciusandZukauskas,2008;CiutieneandAdamoniene,2009;Chreptavicieneand Starkute,2010 etc.), developmentof competences(Grundeyand Varnas,2006:Savanevicieneet al., 2008;ZakareviciusandZuperkiene,2008;KersieneandSavaneviciene..2009etc.),as well as guaranteeof employees'long-termrelationwith an organizatioc(BuciunieneandSkudiene,2009etc.).

Differentissuesof mobbinganddiscriminationareanalysedby foreign(Leymann.1990,1993;Zapfet al., 1996;Niedl, 1996;Vartia-Vaananen,1996;EinarsenandRaknes..1997;RaynerandHoel, 1997;O'Mooreet al., 1998;Sheehanet al., 1999;Quine,1999:Einarsen,2000;Cortinaet al., 2001;Zapf,2002;Salin,2001,2003;Vartia-Vaananen,2003:Stebbingetal., 2004;Tracyetal., 2006;Salin,2009etc.)andLithuanian(Matiusaityte,1999:Matiusaityteand Ciegis, 2002; Malinauskiene,2004; Malinauskieneet al., 2005:Vasiljeviene,2006;Malinauskieneetal., 2007;Salygaet al., 2008;VasiljevasandPucetaite..2005;ZukauskasandVveinhardt,2009a,2009b,2010,2011,etc.)authors.

Evenif thephenomenonof mobbingis analyzedin Lithuanianotfor a longtime,bmthebasisof it is theresearchof negativeemployeerelationsandpsychologicalterrorwhichisperformedfor severaldecadesalready.It is possibleto pointoutseveraldirectionsof suchresearcheswhile analyzingtheseproblems:psychologicalterror;theeffecton thehealth:ethics.The researcheswhichhelp to statethe connectionbetweenpsychologicalterroLphysicalandpsychicalhealthconditionstandoutamongtherestof theresearches.Butatthesametimeit ispossibletoseethedrawbacksandthelackof theinstrumentswhichareusedinLithuania,andwhichcouldbe removedby theadaptationof theinstrumentswhichwouldtaketoconsiderationtheculturalandsocialspecificsofLithuanianorganizations(Vveinhardt.2009,2010).

The diagnosticinstrumentof mobbingas discriminationin employees'relationsdesignedby consideringdiscriminatingaspectsof mobbingfactorsin theorganizations,inwhichmobbingwasnotidentifiedallowsidentifyingtherelationsof discriminatingcharacter.In otherwords,theinstrumentwouldallowdiagnosingbothmobbinganddiscrimination.Theinstrumentreliabilityshouldbe emphasisedin thesamplesof thedifferentsize.Thusthemethodologicalqualitycharacteristiesof twodifferentsampleresearchinstrumentsubscaleswerecomparedaccordingtotheCronbachalphareliabilitymeanings.

Theresearchproblemis raisedbythequestionwhatthereliabilityof methodologica1characteristiesof theinstrumentof mobbingdiagnosticsandhowit changesin respectof thesample.

Theobjectof thearticle:Relevanceof theresearchinstrument.The aim of the article:To substantiatethe reliabilityof the instrumentfor the

diagnosisofmobbingasdiscriminationinemployeerelations.The objectivesof thearticleaimat: to comparemethodologicalcharacteristiesof

qualityof thesubscalesof thepilotandthemainresearch;To identifythereliabilityof theinstrumentofthemainresearchandthereliabilityof characteristies

Researchmethods:literatureanalysis,factorization,regressionanalysis.

1. The Comparisonof MethodologicalQuality Characteristicsof the InstrumentSubscales

The constructionof the instrumentfor diagnosisof mobbingas discriminationinemployeerelationscoversfive stages:(1) Theoreticalanalysisof discrimination,mobbing.conceptsof organisationalclimatewas carriedout; the researchesof the scientistswho

TRAI\lSFORlV1ATIONSIN BUSnVESS&ECONOMICS, Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012

J. Vveinhardt 221 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATlONAl APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATIONAl STUDIES

analysedthephenomenawerestudied;preliminarycharacteristicsof thefutureinstrumentweredistinguished;(2) Themodelof diagnosisof mobbingasdiscriminationin employeerelationswasconstructed;preliminarycriteriaweredistinguished,thequestionnairefor thefirstexpertassessmentwasprepared;questionnairesweredistributedtoexpertswhoagreedtoparticipatein theassessment;theresultsof expertassessmentswerebroughttogether,theweightedaveragesof thecriteriawerederived;(3)Preliminaryindicatorsweredistinguished,thequestionnairefor thesecondexpertassessmentwaspreparedin orderto derivethemorepreciseweightedaverageof thecriteria,fiveresponsecategorieswereintroduced;(4)Beforetheexploratoryresearchtheexpertsurveywasconductedbythemethodof interviewin orderto verifywhethermobbingphenomenonexistsandthereis a needfor suchstudies,if thephenomenonis widespreadin Lithuanianorganisations,howit manifestsitselfin employeerelations;it was alsoaimedat findingwhethermobbingvictimscanreceiveprofessionalemergencyassistancein Lithuania.At this stage,the characteristicsand criteriaweredistinguished,thequestionnairefor exploratoryresearchwas constructed;theexploratoryresearch(interviewing351respondents)wascarriedout,highre1iabilityof theinstrumentwasfound; (5) The diagnosticinstrumentwas improved(by eliminatingdefectsandsupplementingit), themainsurveywascarriedoutwith 1379respondents(ZukauskasandVveinhardt,2011).

When comparingthe methodologicalcharacteristicsof the instrurnentsubscalesidentifiedduringthepilotresearch(ZukauskasandVveinhardt,2009a)tothecharacteristicsidentifiedduringthebasicresearch(ZukauskasandVveinhardt,2009b),it is evidentthattheCronbach alpha meaningspracticallydo notchangeindependentof thesamplesize.Themethodo1ogicalqualitycharacteristicsof boththefeaturesof mobbingasdiscriminationinemployees'relationsandtheactionsofmobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relations,aswell as the featuresof mobbingas discriminationin employees'relationswithin theorganizationmatchor theirdifferencesareminimalwhencomparingthedifferentsamples.This showsthattheinstrurnentreliabilitywasidentifiedin thesmallsampleof theresearchbecauseevenwhenhavingthesmallsampleof theresearchtheindicatorsbeingobtainedarehigh enough(Tables 1-3). Perhapsthetargetsamplewould distortthe Cronbach alphaindicators;however,thishasnotdistinguishedinrandomselection.

Table 1.The comparisonof methodologicalqualitycharacteristicsof theinstrumentsubscale'Mobbingfeatures'accordingto Cronbachalphareliabilitymeanings

Source:createdbyauthor.

TRAL'\SFORAL4TJOXJ IX BCSII\ESS r6~ECOXOMICS, Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012

1.V veinhardt 222 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATIONAL APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATIONAL STUDIES

Table2.The comparisonof methodologicalqualitycharacteristicsof theinstrumentsubscale'Mobbingactions'accordingto Cronbachalphareliabilitymeanings

Subscales Basic

of mobbingN=1340)

0.920.910.960.890.88

Table3. The comparisonof methodologicalqualitycharacteristicsofthe instrumentsubscale'Additionalmobbingfeatures'accordingto Cronbachalphareliabilitymeanings

, po I allThe methodologicalquality characteristicsof additional feature subscalesof

N=llli-0.960.690.910.72

When designingthe instrument,the mobbingcriteria distinguishedby H. Leymann(1990, 1993) were used. However, in pursuing for wider possibilities of the instrumentapplication,theaspectof discriminationin mobbingactionswas highlighted.The instrumentpresentsfive subscalesof discriminationactions:actions accordingto attackpossibilities:actingthroughsocialrelations;attackfor employee'ssocialviewpoints;attackingin everydayprofessionalactivity;attackingin healthfield. Thesefive subscalesof discriminationactionscontain36 statements.The above-mentionedsubscalesandpsychometriccharacteristicswereobtainedafter having analysed1730employees(351 respondentsparticipatedin the pilotresearch,1379respondents- in thebasicresearch),who represented22 fields of theactivity(construction,transport,wood manufacturing,metalwork,light industry,chemistryindustry.trade,agriculture,education,etc.).In thesubscalesof the discriminationactionsthe smallestdispersion- is 61.55percent(Actionsaccording to attackpossibilities); the largest- 80.22percent(Attackingin everydayhealthfield). A very similar situationreflectsin theresultsofthepilot research:thesmallest- 61.28percent(Actionsaccordingto attackpossibilities),thelargest- 81.09percent(Attackingin everydayhealtharea).During theresearchthereliabilityof the factors was very high (the Cronbach alpha fluctuatesfrom 0.88 to 0.96). If theCronbach alpha is less than 0.5 - this shows that in the subscale there are such teststatements,which do notmeetthebasicconditionsof appropriateness(validity).Neverthelessthe absolutevalidity is impossible to achieve.The researchesare carried by people withpeople.Thus eachresearchdoesnot avoid drawbacks,which determinethe limitation of theobtainedresultsof the research.The obtainedhigh Cronbachalpha meaningsal10wstating

TRA1\JSl'ORlvIATIONSIN BUSINESS &ECONOMICS, Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012

1.Vveinhardt 223 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATlONAl APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATIONAl STUDIES

that the statementsof the characteristicsof the discriminationactions, inc1udedinto theinstrument,arec10selyrelatedandsuitableto surveytheactionsof mobbingasdiscriminationin employees' relations within organizations.The Cronbachalpha reliability meaningcalculatedfor eachfactorchangedfrom 0

J. Vveinhardt 224 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATIONAL APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATlONAL STUDIES

dominate.Thefactorweightsareconsideredtobehighin thecaseif theirvaluedoesnotdroplowerthan0.6.Thelowestminimaivalueofthefactorweightis 0.72.

Table4.The methodologica1qualitycharacteristicsof theactionsubscalesof mobbingasdiscriminationinemployees'relationswithin an organization

(N =1340)

Facto"'f'ri8JurLjFnutfntiry

VExplllimdCronhachSP

1.Vveinhardt 225 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATlONAl APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATlONAl STUDIES

factorchangedfrom oc = 0.79 (Discriminationfor psychologicalfeatures)to oc(Discriminationfor physicalfeatures).

0.90

Table5.The resultsof thesecondaryfactorisationof mobbingactionsasdiscriminationin employees'relationswithin an organization

N =1340

0.96

Attackingemployees'socialviewpoints0.97

0.91

Actingthroughsocialrelations 0.88

0.89

Actionsaccordingto attackpossibilities0.86

0.87

Attackingin everydayprofessionalactivity0.83

0.86

Attackingin everydayhealthfield0.81

80.59%

Explained dispersion 76.02%

Attackingemployees'socialviewpoints

Actingthroughsocialrelations

Actionsaccordingto attackpossibilities

Attackingin everydayprofessionalactivity

Attackingin everydayhealthfield

Explained dispersion

Source:createdby author.

Table6.The methodologicalqualitycharacteristicsof theactionsubscalesof mobbingasdiscriminationinemployee'srelationswithin an organization(N =1340)

iVbp1a.inedVQnoo:ch5p~nrZ!l:J!-FIrC/Drtt">l'.qktt1.jeM-~lUilyrorTdg,tXm

S-ftbJalkz

Smmnt'1W" (n-uuiu~ 4iJp$'lWII%.1>'"

.Brotl'nm"'~

min~'"""min""'"::;~:;7~.~:::~=:~-~~~::~yoomg mat"~;y-tt> eT,x;!'..cl:lY= ?~k i;r.;.:;~.abi11'/is"::DI:.3ttntl-;:mocl.:,ed a.I:InCOU:l: O:rgar:iz..:!follit~be1tamt W aqJBSiS yourpoliti::-3l.;:~~iz:.ts ~..AIlJi-!:!:"'u,,,"illobta~~,2!:lli* 'till}"o1J[d.ea1h"'Dhcrim.inafvr.t forlJ:. orot orgJlIiizll.ti..:r~-t.t -\; bstt~ no!t:ro.ud1:'-::CPf~;your!slI~o'.ls,75.63 O.S:[r.32D:90 /", ,,~~il:lu sW;.~n ~4ID-=it';:;3'l.;gribildly OJi4,),"5300.73

I;E OW: c.>qan.iz:a:tiont1m-::is. the=mpto:~ee-.""toEp()litt:a1or:re1i.zioussi3ndpoirJ:sa....~=1Bnuy Thz,x.lli?a:Il;a;~,h ar-e-'lDociili.g~:t,v.'Ozk-!l:l.iO"'erlimeM;:::..ali.:a-9d45w-u:h:ing m mg:rnu.-e">,-'i'h't:i!aI.lfuo:rit:,;'.iL our~=-ization~ Sl!liJIDy.~-:

1.Vveinhardt 226 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATlONAL APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATlONAL STUDIES

unitcorrelationin thesubscalesof thediscriminationfeaturesis from0.19(Discriminationforphysicalfeatures)to 0.57(Discriminationforviewpoints)(Table6).

Theresultsof thesecondaryfactorisationof bothmethodsshowhighfactorweights(PrincipaI componentsfrom 0.78 to 0.92;Alphafactoring from 0.72 to 0.91),strongexplainedfactordispersion75.27percentand70.55percent.Theessentialdifferencesamongthesamecriteriaof theinstrumentsubscaleaccordingto PrincipaIcomponentsandAlphafactoringdidnotbecomeevident(Table7).

Table7.The resultsof secondaryfactorisationof mobbingactionsasdiscriminationin employees'relationswithin an organization

Pri1J/{ipQlcomponell(s(Jfactor 11Io{[ellF1 41nl",Ii'1Instrumentsubscales

N =1340Instrumentsubscales N= 1340

Discriminationfordemographicfeatures

0.92Discriminationfordemographic0.91featuresDiscriminationforphysica1features

0.91Discriminationforphysica1features0.90

Discriminationforviewpoints

0.88Discriminationforviewpoints0.85

Discriminationforhealth

0.87Discriminationforhealth 0.83

Discriminationforworkingfeatures

0.85Discriminationforworkingfeatures0.82

Discrimination

forpsycho1ogical0,78Discriminationforpsychological0.72features

features

Explaineddispersion

75.27%Exp1aineddispersion 70.55%

Source:createdbyauthor.

Four additionalsubscalesweredistinguishedin orderto identifydiscriminationinemployees'relations:manager'sinfluenceupon employees'relations;unidentifieddiscriminationin employees'relations;employeeswho seediscriminationbut havenotexperiencedit;intoleranceagainstdifferentpeople.

36statementsmakethefouradditionaldiscriminationactionsubscales.ThesubscaleManager's injluenceuponemployees'relationsconsistsof 16statements.In thisdimensiontheCronbachalphacoefficientis thehighest(0.96)in comparingit to otheradditionaldimensionsfor theidentificationof discriminationin employees'relations.The subscaleUnidentifieddiscriminationin employees'relationsconsistsof 3 statements,thusit isimpossibleto caIculatetheSpearmanBrowncoefficient.Beforethequestionnairewasfortheexpertsto evaluatethisdimensionscontained5 statements;however,consideringtheexperts'adviceonly 3 of themwereleft. The Cronbachalphacoefficientis 0.69.Thesubscaletheemployeesseethediscriminationbuthavenotexperienceit consistsof 12statements.The Cronbachalphacoefficientis againveryhigh, i.e. 0.91.The subscalelntolerancetodifferentpeoplecontains4 statements;thustheSpearmanBrowncoefficientwasnotcaIculated.TheCronbachalphacoefficientis 0.72.TheCronbachalphareliabilitymeaningscaIculatedfor eachfactorchangedfromoc =0.69(Unidentifieddiscriminationinemployees'relations)to oc = 0.96 (Manager's impactuponemployees'relations);themeaningsareverysimilarto theonesof thepilotresearch,in whichtheCronbachalphareliabilitymeaningschangedfrom oc = 0.64(Unidentifieddiscriminationin employees'relations)to oc = 0.97 (Manager'simpactupon employees'relations).The smallestexplainedfactordispersionwasequalto 50.68percent(Theemployeesseediscriminationbuthaveneverexperiencedit), thelargest- 62.13percent(Unidentifieddiscriminationinemployees'relations).Whereas in thepilot researchthe smallestdispersionwas 49.25percent(Theemployeesseethediscriminationbuthavenotexperiencedit), thelargest-

TRANSFOR1v1ATIONSIN BUSINESS &ECONOMICS, Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012

J. Vveinhardt 227 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATlONAl APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATIONAl STUDIES

72.12percent(Manager'sinfluenceuponemployees'relations).The Spearman-Browncoefficientfailedto calculatein the subscaleUnidentifieddiscriminationin employees'relationsandlntoleranceagainstdifJerentpeople.Theminimalfactorweightis 0.60(Theemployeesseediscriminationbuthavenotexperiencedit),thehighestminimalfactorweight- 0.77 (Unidentifieddiscriminationin employees'relations).In thepilot researchtheminimalfactorweightis 0.32(lntoleranceagainstdifJerentpeople),thehighestminimalfactorweightis 0.74(Unidentifieddiscriminationin employees'relations).The Unitentitycorrelation- is theminimalunit correlationfrom0.31to 0.39in thesubscalesof theadditionaldiscriminationfactors.This showsthatthe testquestionscorrelatewith thedistinguishedsubscales(inthepilotresearch:from0.21to0.43)(Table8).

Table 8.The methodologicalqualitycharacteristicsofthe additionalfeaturesubscalesofmobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationswithin theorganization(N =1343)

NExp!JI.in.ed

CronbiIchSpe.a.nna:n-Factoy weighx (L}

URit6n:Jity

S.ubs.ca.l.u

St.tllenu1t!sitemsdispur'fiolt

u1ph!IBr()n'1!

cqmde.tiot{ (di.tt)

%meanmmmaxm~anminmax

It \:iftenhappen5that one {)fthe employ-eeo:\vas n-eedl.-es framedUJ:!Manager';; dis.trust.of rub-ordinate-5311ddispo~ition to OVeI-l\1ana:ge-r's:

cC!ntrol.rirrmlvdenreSB

jnnu~nceup.on

In purruing egoirtic amu. rnamgers:m..arripulatetheir1662.070.9.0.950.790.61D.S30590380:73

-emplo)'eoe:s'-2mplove-e:s

t'-el.ati-ons

The:manager know;. abDul the c-cmfiicto;takingplaJ:e butdoes net take artymearu.to pre",:ertthanManager;; of OUI department'.orgal::l..izationS"'

J. Vveinhardt 228 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATIONAl APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATlONAl STUDIES

Thehighfactorweightsandtheexplaineddispersionshowthatinstrumentscalesandsubscalesarereliablewhenanalysingthe resu1tsof the secondaryfactorisationof theadditionalfeaturecharacteristicsof themobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationswithintheorganization.The explaineddispersionby thePrincipaI componentsis 76.99percent,andtheAlphafactoring -70.68percent(Table9).

It is possibleto statethatthediagnosticinstrumentof mobbingasdiscriminationinemployees'relationsin improvingtheclimateof Lithuanianorganizationsis qualitative.Thestatisticalcohesionsbetweendiscriminationin employees'relationsandtheorganization'sclimatewerecheckedby applyingthemultidimensionalregression,whichhelpedto provethatmobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationsis thefactorstronglyinfluencingtheorganization'sclimate.In ordertoidentifywhethermobbingis thefactorinfluencingthestateof the organization'sclimate,the regressionmodel was applied. 18 subscalesofdiscriminationin employees'relationsaretreatedasindependentvariablesin theregressionmodel,andtheparticularsubscaleof theorganization'sclimateis definedas dependentvariable.Theintegratedindexof theorganization'sclimateshowsresilientrelationsbetweenthe organization'sclimateandthe featuresof mobbingas discriminationin employees'relationswithin the organization(the set correlationcoefficientis equalto 0.887,thecumulativeprecisioncoefficient- 0.787,andtheobservedFisherstatisticssignificance-841.388).Respectively,thecloserelationswereidentifiedbetweentheorganization'sclimateandtheactionsof mobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationswithintheorganization.Theintegratedindexof theorganization'sclimateis asfollows:thesetcorrelationcoefficientis equalto 0.792,thecumulativeprecisioncoefficient- 0.628,andtheobservedFisherstatisticssignificance- 457.991.

ThelargertheFisherstatisticssignificance,thelargertheinstrumentreliabilityis. It isevidentthatthereliabilityis veryhigh,i.e. pLO.OOO.The meaningsof thedeterminationcoefficientr2 showthatmobbing,accordingto thefeatures,influencestheefficiencyof theorganization'sclimateontheaverageby 60percent;accordingtotheactions,influencestheefficiencyof the organization'sclimateon the averageby 48 percent;accordingto theadditionaldiscriminationsubscalesinfluencesby74percent.Havingsurveyedthecoherencesbetweentheorganization'sclimateandmobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relations,theintegratedindexof theadditionalfeaturesof theorganization'sclimateshowsthatthesetcorrelationcoefficientis equalto0.973,thecumulativeprecisioncoefficient- 0.946,andtheobservedFisher statisticssignificanceis equalto 6001.221.The high meaningsof thedeterminationcoefficientshowthata lot of aspectsof employees'relationsinfluencetheorganization'sclimate.Thetotalcomparativeinfluenceweight(60percent),fallingonlytomobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relations,isverynoticeable.

Conclusions

Duringtheresearchit hasbeenidentifiedthatevenwiththesmallsampietheobtainedresu1tsarehighenough.In comparingtwodifferentsamplesit is evidentthattheCronbachalphameaningshardlychange.Thiswouldmeanthesampiesizedidnotplayacrucialrole.Itis notpossibleto denythatthetargetsampiewouldperhapsperverttheCronbach alphaindicators;however,thisdidnotdistinguishin therandomsampling.Whenconstructingtheresearchinstrument,mobbingwas consideredthroughdiscriminationprism; thus thepossibilitiesof theimpactuponavictimshouldbeevaluatedbroader.Havingperformedthecalculations,it mightbe statedthatthestatementsof thecharacteristicsof discriminationactionsin theinstrumentarecloselyrelatedas well as suitableto surveytheactionsof

TRANSFORivL4TIONSIN BUSINESS &ECONOJ'vIICS,Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012

J. Vveinhardt 229 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATIONAL APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATIONAL STUDIES

mobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationswithinorganizations.TheobtainedhighCronbachalpha meaningsshow this: the Cronbachalpha reliabilitymeaningswerecalculatedfor eachfactor;theychangedfrom= =0.87(attackingin everydayprofessionalactivity)to==0.96(attackingforemployee'ssocialviewpoints).

Havingperformedthecomparisonof themethodologicalqualitycharacteristicsof thesubscalesin diagnosingmobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationsin respectof thesmallandlargesampie,theCronbachalphaandSpearmanBrowncoefficientspracticallydidnot change;this showsthat the instrumentquestionscorrelatewith the distinguishedsubscales.In thediscriminationactionsubscalestheminimaicorrelationof theunit- is from0.38to 0.66,and in the pilot researchit was from 0.29to 0.63.This meansthatthecorrelationsstrengthened.Whenspeakingaboutthemethodologicalqualitycharacteristicsofactionsubscalesof mobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relations,it shouldbenotedthattheinnerconsistenceof all subscalesis practicallyhigh;especiallyhighfactorweightsof theindicatorsdominate.Havingperformedthesecondaryfactorisation,it is identifiedthatthefactorweightsareespeciallyhigh;thusthe obtainedresultsarereliable,theconstructedresearchinstrumentis suitableto measuremobbing.Thehighexplaineddispersion(80.59percentand76.02percent)showsthattherespondentsapprovethedistinguishedcriteria.

Theresultsof thesecondaryfactorisationof theactionsof mobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationswithinan organizationshowthatthe smallestdispersionof theexplainedfactordoesnotessentiallydifferin thepilotandbasicresearch.In all distinguishedadditionalsubscalesfor identificationof discriminationin employees'relations(manager'simpactuponemployees'relations;unidentifieddiscriminationin employees'relations;thepeopleseediscriminationbuthaveneverexperiencedit; intoleranceagainstdifferentpeople)the Cronbachalphacoefficientshowsthe instrumentreliability.Suchconclusioncanbedrawnbecausethereliabilitymeaningscalculatedforeachfactorarehighenough;theyhardlydifferedin thebasicandpilotresearch:respectivelyfromthesmallest.Thecorrelationof theadditionaldiscriminationfactorsubscalesshowsthat the statementscorrelatewith thedistinguishedsubscales.

When discussingthe methodologicalqualitycharacteristicsof the subscalesofdiscriminationactions(N = 1340),discriminationfeatures(N = 1340)and additionaldiscriminationactionswithintheorganization(N = 1343),it is evidenttheCronbachalphacoefficientareveryhigh;this showsthatseparatestatementsof theinstrumentfulfi1thegeneralaim of the instrumentas the entityby diagnosingmobbingas discriminationinemployees'relations.In thecasesofbothfactorisationstheobtainedhighindicatorsshowthatmobbingis thesolidcharacteristic.Themultidimensionalregressionprovedthatmobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationscan be treatedas malignanttumourof theorganization's climate(excessphenomenon).The regressionmodelis statisticallyreliable.High meaningsof thecoefficientof determination(totaI comparativeimpactweight- 60percent)show that mobbingas discriminationin employees'relationsinfluencetheorganization'sclimate.This is identifiedby comparingaccordingto features,actionsandadditionalmobbingfeatures.Thusit is possibleto statethatin orderto improveLithuanianorganizations'climatethatappliedinstrumentis qualitativeandsuitablefor diagnosingthemobbingasdiscriminationinemployees'relations.

TRAT',SFORNL4nONSIN BUSINESS &ECONOi\;IICS,Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012

J. Vveinhardt

References

230 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATIONAl APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATlONAl STUDIES

Alas,R., Papalexandris,N., Niglas,K., Galanaki,E. (2011),"ManageriaiValuesandEmployeeCommitmentinaCulturaiContext",TransformationsinBusiness&Economics,Vol. 10,No 2(23),pp.42-59.

Buciuniene,1.,Skudiene,V. (2009),"FactorsInfluencingSalespeopleMotivationandRelationshipwith theOrganizationin b2bSector",IninerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 4,No 64,pp.78-85.

Chreptaviciene,V., Starkute,J. (2010),"TheModel of CohesionsbetweenCareerandCompetence",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 21,No 5,pp.537-549.

Ciutiene,R., Adamoniene,R. (2009),"InteractionbetweenEmployee'sInterestsandAttitudeTowardsWork asWell asInfluenceWhenFormingCareer",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 5,No 65,pp.48-55.

Cortina,L.M., Magley,V.J., Williams,J.R., Langhout,R.D. (2001),"Incivility in theworkplace:Incidenceandimpact",Journal of OccupationalHealthPsychology,Vol. 6,No I, pp.64-80.

Einarsen,S. (2000),"Harassmentandbullyingatwork:areviewof theScandinavianapproach",AggressionandViolentBehavior,Vol. 5,No 4,pp.379--401.

Einarsen,S., Raknes,B. (1997),"Harassmentin theworkplaceandthevictimisationof men",ViolenceandViltims,No 12,pp.247-263.

Grundey,D., Varnas,D. (2006),"Humancapitalcreation,accumulationandmanagementin Lithuania:Thecaseofnationalandforeigncapitalenterprises",Transformationsin Business& Economics,Vol. 5,No 2(10),pp.81-105.

Kersiene,K., Savaneviciene,A. (2009),"TheFormationandManagementof OrganizationalCompetenceBasedonCross-CulturalPerspective",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 5,No 65,pp.56-66.

Leymann,H. (1990),"MobbingandPsychologicalTerroratworkplaces",Violenceand Viltims,Vol. 5,No 2,pp.119-126.

Leymann,H. (1993),"Mobbing:Psychoterroram Arbeitsplatzund wie mansich dagegenwehrenkann",ReinbekbeiHamburg,RowohltTaschenbuchVerlag.

Malinauskiene,V. (2004),"Bullying amongteachersin Kaunas", The Fourth internationalconferenceonbullyingandharassmentin theworkplace,Norway,Bergen.

Malinauskiene,V., Obelenis,V., Sopagiene,D. (2005),"Psychologicalterror at work and cardiovasculardiseasesamongteachers",ActaMedicaLituanika,Vol. 12,No 2,pp.20-25.

Malinauskiene,V., Obelenis,V., Sopagiene,D., Macionyte,V. (2007),"Mokytoju patiriamopriekabiavimodarbesasajossusubjektyviusveikatosvertinimu",Sveikatosmokslai-HealthSciences,No 3,pp.908-911,[Theassociationsbetweenworkplaceharassmentandself-ratedhealthamongteachers,In Lithuanian].

Matiusaityte,R. (1999), "Lage der Frauen auf dem Arbeitsmarkt",Inzinerine ekonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. I, pp.20-28.

Matiusaityte,R., Ciegis,R. (2002),"StatistischeDiskriminierungaufdemArbeitsmarktin Litauen",Inzinerineekonomika-EngineeringEconomics,No 5,pp.88-93.

Niedl, K. (1996),"Mobbing and wellbeing:economicand personneIdevelopmentimplication",EuropeanJournal of WorkandOrganizationalPsychology,Vol. 5,No 2,pp.203-214.

O'Moore,M., Seigne,E., McGuire,L., Smith,M. (1998),"Victimsofbullying atwork in Ireland",TheJournalof OccupationalHealthandSafety- AustraliaandNewZealand,Vol. 14,No 6,pp.569-574.

Quine,L. (1999),"WorkplaceBullyingin NRS CommunityTrust:StaffQuestionnaireSurvey",BritishMedicalJournal, Vol. 318,No 7178,pp.228-232.

Rayner,C., Hoel, H. (1997),"A SummaryReviewof LiteratureRelatingto WorkplaceBullying",Journal ofCommunityandAppliedSocialPsychology,No 7,pp.181-191.

Salin, D. (2001),"Prevalenceand forms of bullying amongbusinessprofessionals:A comparisonof twodifferentstrategiesfor measuringbullying",EuropeanJournal of WorkandOrganizational Psychology,Vol. 10,No 4,pp.425-441.

Salin,D. (2003),"Waysof explainingworkplacebullying:A reviewof enabling,motivatingandprecipitatingstructuresandprocessesin theworkenvironment",HumanRelations,Vol. 56,No 10,pp.1213-1232.

Salin,D. (2009),"Organisationalresponsesto workplaceharassment:anexploratorystudy",PersonneiReviewVol. 38,No I, pp.26-44.

Salyga,J., Malakauskiene,R., Jonutyte,1.(2008),"Lietuvosjurininkupatiriamopsichologinioteroroir fizinessveikatosryys",Sveikatosmokslai-HealthSciences,Vol. 2,No 56,pp.1613-1616,[Therelationbetweenoccupationalrelatedpsichologicalterrorandphysicalhealthof lithuanianseamen,In Lithuanian].

Savaneviciene,A., Stukaite,D., Silingiene,V. (2008),"Developmentof StrategicIndividualCompetences",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 3,No 58,pp.81-88.

Sheehan,M., Barker,M., Rayner,Ch. (1999),"Applying strategiesfor dealingwith workplacebullying",

TRAT'{SFORJ'v1ATIONSIN BUSINESS &ECONOMICS, Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012

J. Vveinhardt 231 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATlONAL APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATlONAL STUDIES

InternationalJournal ofManpower,Vol. 20,No 1/2,pp.50-57.Stebbing,J., Mandalia,S., Portsmouth,S., Leonard,P., Crane,J., Bower,M., Earl, H., QuineL. (2004),"A

questionnairesurveyof stressand bullying in doctorsundertakingresearch",PostgraduateMedicalJournal,Vol. 80,No 940,pp.93-96.

Tafel-Viia,K., Alas,R. (2009),"DifferencesandConf1ictsbetweenOwnersandtopManagersin theContextofSocialResponsibility",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 4,No 64,pp.86-94.

Tracy,S.J., Lutgen-Sandvik,P., Alberts,J.K. (2006),"Nightmares,Demons,andSlaves:ExploringthePainfulMetaphorsofWorkplaceBullying",ManagementCommunicationQuaterly,Vol. 20,No 2,pp.148-185.

Valackiene,A. (2009),"TheoreticalModel of EmployeeSocialIdentificationin OrganizationManagingCrisisSituations",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 4,No 64,pp.95-102.

Valackiene,A. (2011),"TheoreticalSubstationof theModelforCrisisManagementin Organization",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 22,No 1,pp.78-90.

Valackiene,A., Miceviciene,D. (2011), "MethodologicalFrameworkAnalysing a Social phenomenon:StakeholderOrientationImplementingBalancedCorporateSocialResponsibility",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 22,No 3,pp.300-308.

Vartia-Vaananen,M. (1996),"The sourcesof bullying- psychologicalwork: enviromentandorganizationalclimate",EuropeanJournal of WorkandOrganizationalPsychology:Mobbingandvictimizationatwork,No 5,pp.203-214.

Vartia-Vaananen,M. (2003),"Workplacebullying-astudyon thework environment,wellbeingandhealth",AcademicDissertation,Peopleand WorkResearchReports,No 56,Finnish Instituteof OccupationalHealth-Universityof Helsinki.RetrievedFebruary7,2009,availableat,http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/,referredon 16/06/2011.

Vasiljevas,A., Pucetaite,R. (2005),"Socialinesimoniuatsakomybesir efektyvausmogikujuitekliuvaldymoigyvendinimasdalykinesetikospriemonemis",Organizacijuvadyba:sisteminiaityrimai-ManagementofOrganizations:SystematicResearch,No 36,pp.193-212,[Realizationof corporatesocialresponsibilityandeffectivehumanresourcemanagementbyethicstools,In Lithuanian].

Vasiljeviene,N. (2006).Organizacijuetika:institucinesetikosvadybossistemos,Vilnius,VilniausUniversitetas,[Organisationalethics:sistemosofinstitutionalbusinessethics,Monograph,In Lithuanian].

Vveinhardt,J. (2009),"Mobingokaipdiskriminacijosdarbuotojusantykiuosepoveikisorganizacijosklimatui",Verslas:teorijair praktika-Business:theoryandpractice,Vol. 10,No 4, pp.285-297,[Theinf1uenceofmobbingasdiscriminationin employeerelationsontheorganizationalclimate,In Lithuanian].

Vveinhardt,J. (2010),"MobingasLietuvoje:padalinioir organizacijossituacijapavieniuteiginiulygmenimis",Verslas:teorija ir praktika-Business:theoryandpractice,Vol. 11,No 3, pp.238-247,[MobbinginLithuania:situationof the division and the organisationon the levels of individualstatements,InLithuanian].

Zakarevicius,P., Zukauskas,P. (2008),"A comparativestudyof managers'careerfactorsin selectedEUcountries",TransformationsinBusiness&Economics,Vol. 7,No 2(14),pp.84-97.

Zakarevicius,P., Zuperkiene,E. (2008),"ImprovingtheDevelopmentof ManagersPersonalandProfessionalSkills",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 5,No 60,pp.l04-113.

Zapf,D. (2002),"EmotionWork andPsychologicalWellbeing.A Reviewof theLiteratureandsomeConceptualConsiderations",HumanResourceManagementReview,Vol. 12,No 2,pp.237-268.

Zapf,D., Knorz, C., Kulla, M. (1996),"On therelationshipbetweenMobbingFactorsandJob Content,SocialWork environmentandHealthOutcomes",in: Zapf & Leymann(eds.):Mobbingand VictimizationatWork.A SpecialIssueof theEuropeanJournal of WorkandOrganizationalPsychology,Vol. 5,No 2,pp.215-237.

Zukauskas,P. Vveinhardt,J. (2009a),"Diagnosisofmobbingasdiscriminationin employeerelation",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 4,No 64,pp.l03-113.

Zukauskas,P. Vveinhardt,J. (2009b),"Socio-demographiccharacteristicsof mobbinganddiscriminationinemployeerelations",Transformationsin Business& Economics,Vol. 8, No 3(18), SupplementA,pp.l28-147.

Zukauskas,P., Vveinhardt,J. (2010), "The model of manageriaiinterventiondecisionsof mobbingasdiscriminationin employees'relationsin seekingtoimproveorganizationclimate",IninerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 21,No 3,pp.306-3l4.

Zukauskas,P., Vveinhardt,J. (2011),"MobbingDiagnosisInstrument:Stagesof Construction,StructureandConnectednessof Criteria",Journal of BusinessEconomicsandManagement,Vol. 12,No 2, pp.400-416.

Zuperkiene,E., Zilinskas,V.J. (2008),"Analysis of FactorsMotivatingthe ManagersCareer",InzinerineEkonomika-EngineeringEconomics,Vol. 2,No 57,pp.85-91.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS &ECONOMICS,Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012

J. Vveinhardt 232 ISSN 1648- 4460

ORGANISATlONAl APPLICATIONS IN CSR AND COMMUNICATlONAl STUDIES

MOBINGO, KAIP DISKRIMINACIJOS DARBUOTOJU SANTYKIUOSE SIEKIANT GERINTILIETUVOS ORGANIZACIJU KLIMATA DIAGNOZAVIMO INSTRUMENTO, METODOLOGIN~KOKYBES CHARAKTERISTIKU PATIKIMUMO NUSTATYMAS

Jo1itaVveinhardt

SANTRAUKA

Analizuojantdisfunkcikusindividu santykiu,tokiu kaip mobingas,poveiki organiacijosklimatuiirykejadiskriminacinisaspektas.Mobingasir diskriminacijaturi daugybesalyciotaku,kadangimobinguivardijamasdiskriminuojanciopobudiosantykisdarboaplinkoje.iamestraipsnyjenesiekiamadetalizuotimobingoir diskriminacijoskriteriju,koreliacijossu klimatoveiksniais,taciaupaminetinakeletasakcentu-mobingapatiriantisasmuopatiriair diskriminacija,0, irykinantdiskriminaciniaspekta,prasipleciamobingosamprata.Organizacijosklimataneigiamaiveikia ir mobingas,ir diskriminacija,taciaudiskriminuojantyssantykiainebutinaigalibutimobingas.

Straipsnyjelyginamosvalgomojoir pagrindiniotyrimoinstrumentosubskaliumetodologineskokybescharakteristikospagalCronbachalphapatikimumoreikmes.Pristatomasinstrumentopatikimumaspakartotiniuvykdymuatvilgiu,matuojantSpearman-Brownkoeficientu,aptariamavienetovisumoskoreliacijadetaliaupristatantindikatoriaustinkamumair/arbanetinkamumaiskirtai subskalei.Pirmines faktorizacijosmetuiskaiciuotakriterijuvisuma,antrines- kriterijaisujungtii skales.Siekiantnustatyti,armobingasyraveiksnyspaveikiantisorganizacijosklimatobukle,taikytasregresijosmodelis.

REIKMINIAI ODIAI: mobingas,tarpusaviosantykiai,organizacijosklimatas,diagnostika,instrumentas,metodologinescharakteristikos,Lietuva.

TRA1\ISFORI'v1ATIONSIN BUSINESS &ECONOlVIICS,Vol. 11,No 2 (26),2012