Aims And Objectives Of Empirical Research Commerce Essay
Main objective of empirical research is to analyze UAB Mars Lietuva (company) associates’ understanding and satisfaction about Mars, Incorporated global organizational policy as well as to define links between knowing and understanding organizational culture and employee satisfaction. Research aims include:
Define motivating factors for employees of the company.
Define differences between priorities of different level workers.
Define relationship between understanding organizational culture and job satisfaction of the company.
Define influence of time spent in the company on understanding company’s organizational culture.
Define level of associate satisfaction on their job.
Define associates’ attitude towards company’s organizational culture.
Define factors influencing associate satisfaction and motivation.
In order to reach objectives of the research, survey of 218 UAB Mars Lietuva associates was performed, so further study is based on a primary data of answers.
2.2. Methods of analysis
2.2.1. Questions of the survey
Survey of eleven questions was prepared (Annex No.2) to deliver to associates of UAB Mars Lietuva. Questions 3-10 were ranked in a range scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means bad evaluation or total disagreement with the statement, whereas 10 best evaluation or full agreement with the statement provided. There were no open questions in the survey.
Question 1 (How much time have you been working at the company?) was divided into a scale of 5 unequal periods, so to identify for what time respondents have been associates of UAB Mars Lietuva already. Question 2 (Which department do you work in?) shall divide people into two categories, for further analysis of possible differences between them in all aspects analyzed. As previously mentioned, most of the questions were provided with answers possible in a range scale, so third question (Are you acquainted with and understand MARS organizational culture?) was first to be in a scale of 10 and shall answer if associate fully knows and understands or is not acquainted with and knows nothing about company’s organizational culture. Another question, assessment of company’s organizational culture, provides associates’ evaluation of company’s actions towards its stakeholders from their point of view. Question five was one of the two questions measuring associates’ attitude towards company’s policy, in this case – associate treatment, in case of question six – assessment of company’s policy towards society. Question seven provides with information of how appliance of 5 MARS principles are used by UAB Mars Lietuva associates in their everyday work. Next question is one of the most important in this survey as it ask whether people are satisfied with their job at UAB Mars Lietuva, where scale of ten points provides level of satisfaction. By ninth question associates were asked if working for a well-known company, meaning that it is pretty well known at a regional level as well as in national and international levels, increases motivation (Are you motivated more by the fact that you work for a well-known company?). Question ten states “I am proud of my employer”. Answering this, associates were able to choose appropriate point in a range of full agreement or disagreement with the statement. Last, eleventh question asked what are three most important factors for people in their job, choosing from seven factors – job atmosphere, possibility of development, salary, additional benefits, job specifics, company’s policy, possibility to contribute to company’s production. This type of data collected is nominal and no correlation will be made analyzing these factors, question eleven only provides information on motivating factors for associates of the company.
2.2.2. Aspects of data collection techniques
As previously mentioned, survey of eleven standard questions for both groups of associates was made and delivered for associates of UAB Mars Lietuva in an electronic form as a link through internal company’s system. Due to company’s recommendation, survey was delivered in Lithuanian and later on translated into English for further analysis. Survey was not allowed to submit, until all the questions are answered, so all of 218 answered forms are full and can be treated as valid in further analysis.
2.2.3. Defining sample size
It was calculated, that 182 people must be questioned so that survey could reflect representative data. Having in mind that UAB Mars Lietuva has about 800 associates, 150 of whom are administration workers and 650 factory workers to calculate sample size of the survey formula for discrete variables when proportions are known was applied (Folz, 1996):
– sample size,
z2α/2 – standard normal distribution N(0,1) α level margin value (with 95% warranty),
zα/2 = 1,959, (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2000),
π – proportion of the parameter in population,
ε – sample error 0,05 (or ±5% margin of error).
In this case proportions are 0,1875 and 0,8125 representing amount of administration and factory workers correspondingly. So after primary calculations, sample size was the following:
However, due to fact, that calculated sample size is more than 5% of all population, sample size was recalculated according to sample size adjustment formula for limited samples (Remenyi, Williams, Money, Swartz, 1998):
- adjusted sample size for limited samples,
- primary sample size,
N - size of the population.
Although adjusted sample size is still bigger than 5% of all population, to determine sample size, adjustment formula for limited samples shall be used only once, so determined sample size
Having proportions of people working in administration and in production line, it should now be mentioned that it is enough to have answers of 35 people from UAB Mars Lietuva administration and 148 factory workers for survey to reflect on opinion of associates of UAB Mars Lietuva with 95% warranty and ±5% margin of error.
However, using predictive analytics software package SPSS® it was found out that from all surveyed people 67 are administrational workers and 151 are factory workers what makes up 30,7 and 69,3 percent from overall amount of surveyed respondents correspondingly. As we can see these proportions are different than defined by previous calculations, so proportion of respondents from administration should be decreased to meet proportions defined.
– number of respondents from administration department needed.
Due to calculations it is now known that 32 answer forms of associates working in administration shall be deleted randomly , so final sample size is
2.2.4. Reliability of the data
Having in mind that there were changes made in sample size after its primary calculations, margin of error should be calculated in order to find out if the data represents the overall opinion of the population:
, and , where
- sample size error,
- standard normal distribution α margin value ()
- standard deviation squared,
- population size,
- sample size used,
- margin of error.
Using SPSS® it was calculated that standard deviation , and mean . Having this information, it is now possible to calculate .
Due to fact that margin of error approximately equals to 1,6, and so does not exceed the maximum allowed error of 5% (1<1,6<5) we can claim that data obtained represents overall opinion of population analyzed with 95% warranty and ±1,6%
What is more, answers of the survey were provided in ordinal scale, so normality of data will not be discussed. However, two of questions (5th and 6th) were considered to measure company’s policy towards stakeholders overall, they were summed to make a group. For this particular case Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test was used and test results revealed Z<0,001, what shows that distribution is not normal.
Moreover, to define if both of the questions measure same attribute, meaning that if scale is integral, Cronbach’s Alpha for variables was calculated and its value 0,315 suggests that scale is not homogenous, as it is expected to be not less than 0,5. This may be a result of ordinal data summed, as well as because only two of the variables are used in the group. However, this group should be considered as not appropriate for further analysis.
2.3. Analysis of the data collected
Out of 186 respondents there were 18 who are working less than a year (12 and 6 from operations and administration department correspondingly), 41 working from 1 to 3 years time (OP  - 38; ADM  - 3), 53 associates who are working from 3 to 6 years (OP1 – 43; ADM2 – 10), 44 respondents are working from 6 to 9 years in the company (OP1 – 41; ADM2 – 3) and 30 of those who are working more than 9 years already (OP1 – 17; ADM2 – 13).
Table No.1: Distribution of respondents by time spent in UAB Mars Lietuva.
Time respondent has been working
Number of respondents from administration department
Number of respondents from operations department
Overall number of respondents
Less than a year
Over 9 years
The most popular answer among factors that are important for associates of UAB Mars Lietuva was salary, chosen by 148 people (OP – 126; ADM – 22), what makes up to almost 80% of all respondents (OP1 – 83,4%; ADM2 – 62,9%). Second most popular factor was possibility for development, which was chosen by 145 respondents, 119 from operations and 26 from administration departments correspondingly. Job atmosphere was indicated as also important factor for associates and can be ranked as number 3 with 118 choices, although it was most popular choice by associates working in administration department, even 80% indicated it in the list of TOP3 factors. Another factors were less popular among respondents as additional benefits were chosen by only 64 people as one of three most important factors at job. Table below overviews distribution of respondents’ answers in question on most important factors in their job.
Table No.2: Distribution of respondent’s answers on most important factors in their job.
Number of choices from administration department
Number of choices from operations department
Number of total choices
Possibility for development
Possibility to contribute to company’s production
N.B. Respondents had to choose 3 factors, so sum of total choices equals to number three times bigger than the sample size.
According to Newton’s binominal coefficient calculation formula in combinatorics, there are 35 different possible outcomes if choosing 3 factors out of 7 when sequence is not important, however, there were only 25 different sets of combinations in respondents’ answers. What is more, bundle of choices that particularly include salary, possibility for development and job atmosphere was most popular and was indicated by 62 people, 52 of whom are working in operations department.
Table No.3: Bundles of most important factors and times they were aggregated.
Bundle of factors
Number of times aggregated
Salary, Job specifics, Company's policy
Salary, Additional benefits, Job specifics
Salary, Additional benefits, Possibility to contribute to company's production
Salary, Additional benefits, Company's policy
Job atmosphere, Salary, Job specifics
Job atmosphere, Salary, Possibility to contribute to company's production
Job atmosphere, Salary, Company's policy
Job atmosphere, Salary, Additional benefits
Job atmosphere, Job specifics, Possibility to contribute to company's production
Job atmosphere, Job specifics, Company's policy
Job atmosphere, Possibility for development, Salary
Job atmosphere, Possibility for development, Job specifics
Job atmosphere, Possibility for development, Possibility to contribute to company's production
Job atmosphere, Possibility for development, Company's policy
Job atmosphere, Possibility for development, Additional benefits
Job atmosphere, Additional benefits, Job specifics
Job atmosphere, Additional benefits, Company's policy
Possibility for development, Salary, Job specifics
Possibility for development, Salary, Possibility to contribute to company's production
Possibility for development, Salary, Company's policy
Possibility for development, Salary, Additional benefits
Possibility for development, Job specifics, Possibility to contribute to company's production
Possibility for development, Company's policy, Possibility to contribute to company's production
Possibility for development, Additional benefits, Job specifics
Additional benefits, Job specifics, Company's policy
Representative of UAB Mars Lietuva Ramūnas Severinas says that such kind of results could have been expected and does not show any extraordinary phenomenon. This table also provides overall picture on differences in priorities of different level associates – although top most important factors are the same, administration based people tend to choose environment they work in and possibilities of personal development as important factors in their job more often, whereas associates from operations department in almost all cases mentioned salary. Moreover, these choices of associates are similiar to overall opinion of lithuanians as it was already mentioned that 26% of lithuanians identified salary as most important aspect in the work.
What is more, results of the survey shows overall positive associates’ approach towards company’s organizatioanl culture as their rankings are relevantly high.
Table No.4: Overview of results, questions 3 to 10.
Are you acquainted with and understand MARS organizational culture?
How would you assess company’s organizational culture?
How would you assess company’s policy towards its associates?
How would you assess company’s policy towards society?
Do you guide yourself by 5 MARS principles in your day-to-day work?
Are you satisfied with your job at this company?
Are you motivated more by the fact that you work for a well-known company?
I am proud of my employer
Note: Evaluations were provided in a range from 1 to 10.
As we can see, means of the answers are really high, especially for assessment of company’s policy towards society – associates provided best ranking answering this question, as based on standard deviation appliance rule ( of all answers) we can state that vast majority or almost 70% of all respondents ranks company’s policy towards society in the range of 8 to 10, what is a very high ranking. Moreover, associates expressed pretty high satisfaction on their job at the company with a mean result of 8,7, so applying rule of standard deviation ( of all answers) we find out that respondents express their satisfaction on their job at UAB Mars Lietuva positively, as 95% of answers would fall into a frame of 6 and 10 points. The lowest results obtained were in answers of question if working for a well-known company increases motivation. At this case mean result is lowest and standard deviation is relevantly high, what means that answers to this question were dispersed.
2.4. Relationships between factors analyzed
2.4.1. Time and understanding of organizational culture
First of all, using SPSS® analytics software package relationship between time that associates have been working in the company and how well do they know and understand it organizational culture will be measured. However, as main criteria for distinguishing differences in analysis was department that associates work in, it is necessary to check if differences in answers between responses of these departments are statistically significant. Having the null-hypothesis that distribution of answers in knowing and understanding organizational culture is the same across both departments, Mann-Whitney U Test was used and the significance level got was 0,04, what means that we must reject the null hypothesis and analyze previously mentioned relationship in two separate scenarios for administration and operations departments. In both cases Spearman’s correlation coefficient to determine relationship between two factors will be used.
Relationship between time spent in the company and knowing organizational culture for associates from administration department could be described as notable (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003) because of its coefficient 0,501. Significance level proves that statistically correlation is significant, so this kind of information allows to make an assumption that there is notable relationship in administration department between how much time associate have been working at the company and knowledge and understanding of company’s organizational culture.
When it comes to associates from operations department, using same methods correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0,387, what can be interpreted as a relationship of an average strength (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003), in this case , so relationship is significant. Due to that, presumption that longer the associate has been working for the company the better the knowledge and understanding it has about its organizational culture will be made.
Table No.5: Relationship between time and understanding organizational culture.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient
*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level.
Although differences obtained are minor and fact, that company invests more time of getting administration associates acquainted with company’s history and its principles of operations in already first days of their work than other associates appears to be irrelevant, such results may also be influenced by differences in respondents’ self-evaluation on knowing company’s organizational culture. However, people working in operations department may be less interested in such kind of information, because company provides every associate with amount of information related to company’s culture if only they want it themselves.
2.4.2. Understanding organizational culture and job satisfaction
Having in mind that there are number of reasons why multinationals have their particular organizational cultures and strive for implementing them in subsidiaries all over the world, it definitely brings direct or indirect benefits for companies. However, companies get biggest advantage when their employees are motivated and satisfied with what they do, so due to this, we can make an assumption, that organizational culture increases employees’ job satisfaction. Therefore, analysis of relationship between knowing and understanding organizational culture of UAB Mars Lietuva and job satisfaction of its associates will be made.
First, hypothesis that distribution of answers between departments and job satisfaction is the same will be raised, and so using Mann-Whitney U Test we get significance level equal to 0,02, what makes us to reject the hypothesis and accept that distribution of answers across departments differs.
Hypothesis that associates in administration department who have better knowledge and deeper understanding of organizational culture are more satisfied with their job can be accepted, having fact that Spearman’s correlation coefficient for this relationship is although weak (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003) and equaling to 0,365, but level of significance is acceptable, .
Same hypothesis and methods will be applied for operations department and so correlation coefficient got is 0,232 with significance level . As we can see, correlation in operations department between analyzed factors is very weak, although statistically significant.
Table No.6: Relationship between understanding organizational culture and job satisfaction.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient
*Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level.
**Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level.
Although relationships appear to be significant in both departments, strength of correlation differs. However, differences can be explained by different motivating factors at job between departments overviewed in Table No.2 as it results in different needs as well. What is more, relationship between these factors can be easily explained by opinion that people feel good when they are explained and know why specifically they should behave or do things in one or another way (Antoncic, Antoncic, 2011), so if associate knows organizational culture of the company, it means he knows why shall he behave in that way and if it is acceptable for him, it makes him fell alright.
2.4.3. Relationship between assessment of organizational culture and job satisfaction
Due to previously defined relationships and assumptions that arises it would be beneficial to define if there exists a relationship between how associates assess company’s organizational culture and level of job satisfaction, so we will make an assumption that better evaluation of organizational culture of UAB Mars Lietuva responds in higher job satisfaction of its associates.
Applying Mann-Whitney U Test to define if distribution of answers on how associates assess company’s organizational culture across departments is the same, we get significance level of 0,295, what means that we can retain the null-hypothesis (distribution across departments is the same) and treat both departments as one unit in this case. However, in previous analysis it was found out that distribution of answers in job satisfaction are different across departments, it is better to retain separate analysis of relationships for different units of departments.
Using Spearman’s correlation coefficient for relationship between administration department assessment of company’s organizational culture and job satisfaction of associates of same department we get coefficient 0,691 and , what shows a notable correlation (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003) between these factors as well as proves hypothesis made. However, in other literature, such degree of relationship would be interpreted as a strong correlation (Bitinas, 1999). Test with another, operations department, reveals different, but similar results, as correlation coefficient is lower and equals to 0,471, , and shows average (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003) correlation.
Table No.7: Relationship between assessment of organizational culture and job satisfaction.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient
*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level.
Although such result could have been predicted, having previously raised assumption confirmed we now see, that there is significantly stronger relationship between how associates assess company’s organizational culture and degree of job satisfaction than relationship between understanding organizational culture and being satisfied with the job. Differences in level of relationship between factors analyzed in administration and operations department once again shows differences in priorities and needs as administration based associates are more often aware of job atmosphere, whereas others most often mention salary as one of three important factors at their job.
2.4.4. Knowing and understanding organizational culture and its evaluation
As a result of previous findings and an objective to know associates’ opinion on organizational culture at UAB Mars Lietuva, analysis of relationship between level of associates’ knowledge and understanding about organizational culture and how do they evaluate it will be made. If people do know what culture is in the company they work in and understands it and provides high evaluation as a result, then we can make an assumption that organizational culture of that company is reasonable, suitable and relevant for its associates in analyzed country. Again, separate tests will be made for different departments, as due to results of Mann-Whitney U Test for differences in answer distribution among departments is not the same in knowing and understanding company’s organizational culture.
Test for Spearman’s correlation coefficient for administration department resulted in a coefficient of 0,542, , what stands for notable (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003) correlation. This allows thinking, that statement on relationship between analyzed factors can be perceived as correct in most cases. Test with data from operations department revealed a correlation coefficient of 0,439,, what is interpreted as an average strength of relationship (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003). However, correlation still exists and is noticeable in both departments. This leads to conclusion that organizational culture at UAB Mars Lietuva is gets higher rankings from people who are better acquainted with it and has deeper understanding of it. Previous conclusion also supports an assumption about suitability and relevance of organizational culture at UAB Mars Lietuva.
Table No.8: Relationship between knowing and understanding organizational culture and its evaluation.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient
*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level.
2.4.5. Influence of attitude towards company’s policy on assessment of organizational culture
Having relationships between assessment of organizational culture and other factors related to it defined, there still are some factors that could have influence on how people think of it. One of major factors in this case is company’s policy towards its stakeholders, as it defines how company treats its associates and members of society it operates in. Here, we can make an assumption that better evaluation of company’s policy leads to better assessment of organizational culture.
As already mentioned in previous chapter, questions about company’s policy were combined, but Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test revealed results of not a normal distribution in the group and Cronbach’s Alpha was too low as for integral group, it will be used only as an advisory tool in further analysis.
In next step we will use Mann-Whitney U Test to find out if the distribution across departments in group of answers about company’s policy is the same. As a result of , we can retain the hypothesis that distribution is the same. Having in mind, that distribution of answers across departments in company’s policy evaluation was also the same it is now possible to analyze answers of both departments as one unit.
Using same Spearman’s correlation coefficient to define relationship between evaluations of company’s policy and its organizational culture, notable (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003) level of correlation was discovered, as calculated coefficient is 0,645,. However, having these results does not allow stating that associates’ evaluation of company’s organizational culture directly correlates with their assessment of company’s policy towards its stakeholders, because of low scale’s internal reliability.
Although Mann-Whitney Test for distribution among departments in group of questions about company’s policy lets to treat both departments as one, Cronbach’s Alpha revealed that there are differences in scale measured, so now internal reliability analysis for separate departments will be made, in order to find out if it is applicable for both departments.
First of all, Cronbach’s Alpha will be calculated for two questions on policy only with answers from administration department, what provides a result . Although a relevantly low result, it is enough to consider group of these questions as homogenous (Pallant, 2007). Next, Spearman’s correlation coefficient is calculated for factors analyzed and result got is . This proves, that better ranking of company’s policy towards its stakeholders results in a better ranking of company’s organizational culture between associates in administration department.
Table No.9: Influence of attitude towards company’s policy on assessment of organizational culture.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient
*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level.
Taking answers of operations department for a group of questions on company’s policy results in calculating Cronbach’s Alfa equaling to 0,273. Having this it is possible to predict, that respondents from administration department perceived questions on company’s policy towards associates and society in different way than respondents from operations department.
2.4.6. Influence of pride in employer on job satisfaction
In many cases people are proud of something that is really important to them or something they like very much. This opinion leads to search of relationship between how satisfied associates are with their job and taking proud of their employer. Departments will be analyzed separately, as it was previously defined that distribution of answers across departments in question on job satisfaction is not the same.
In case of administration department Spearman’s correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0,707, , what is a strong correlation (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003), whereas in operations department this type of relationship is not that strong , what stands for notable correlation (Čekanavičius, Murauskas, 2003).
Table No.10: Influence of pride in employer on job satisfaction
Spearman’s correlation coefficient
*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level.
This type of relations between factors supports assumption that people who are proud of their employer are more satisfied with their job and vice versa. What is more, this finding should also suggest that pride of employer increases job satisfaction.
2.5. Analysis of results obtained
2.5.1. Different needs for different people
Due to analysis that was made, it is now seen, that diversification of associates at UAB Mars Lietuva to departments of operations and administration is proper, as differences in opinions, attitudes and needs are clearly seen.
First of all, when it comes to people’s choices in most important factors in their job (Table No.3) it seen that associates in operations department identify salary, what means money in other words, most frequently. This allows us to think, that there are different aspects for job satisfaction for people working in different departments. As for instance, associates in operations department, contrarily to administration associates, would probably be more happy by a salary raise than with some changes what would improve internal climate in their job. This also is seen in choosing additional benefits as an important aspect – there were only 6 people (17% of all department respondents) in administration department who identified as one of the most important aspects and 53 (35% of all department respondents) in operations department. Additional benefits in a context of UAB Mars Lietuva are most commonly described as life and health insurance, some of the bonuses (that do not depend on person’s performance – endowment in case of a wedding, child birth, spouse’s death), gifted company’s production and other presents, what again is closely related to monetary things. This supports assumption that associates in operations department are more aware about monetary things and benefits they get directly than overall company’s activities and position.
What is more, there is also a distinct difference between departments in choosing job specifics as an important aspect at their work as for respondents from administration department is more important what specifically are they doing than for respondents in operations department (Figure No.5). Having this information and conclusions made previously it is possible to make an assumption that associates in operations department are more interested in how much do they earn, despite the fact what do they have to do for that money.
Moreover, it is seen that policy company is approaching is also of different importance. As administration based associates are more aware of it, it could be that it is related to overall job atmosphere. In other words, it is likely that people choosing company’s policy as an important factor at work, were also choosing job atmosphere. If we look what factors did respondents from administration department identify as most important, we see that 7 times out of 8 when company’s policy was mentioned, it went along with job atmosphere. A bit different situation is in answers of operations department, where 9 times out 15 mentioned, company’s policy was picked up in the same bundle as job atmosphere. Although differences here are also seen, overall trend is that more than a half of those choosing company’s policy also considered job atmosphere.
Figure No.5: Percentage of choices of most important factors at work in departments.
Note: Percentages are calculated by dividing number of choices for particular factor by number of total possible choices and represents what percentage of respondents identified particular factor as one of three most important factors.
As we should probably accept fact that however there are different levels of associates in different departments, these and probably many more differences that may appear in needs and expectations of different level people could be illustrated by Maslow’s theory on hierarchy of needs. Abraham Maslow suggested a hierarchy of needs (1943) that motivates people (Figure No.6), and so when they fulfill the basic needs of existence, they further strive for upper levels. Needs identified by Maslow are as following (ascending order):
Physiological – food, water, rest, shelter, etc.
Safety – Security, stability, freedom from fear and psychological threats, etc.
Social – belonging, intimacy and affection provided by lover, family and friends.
Self-esteem – self-respect, respect of others, achievement, recognition, attention, appreciation.
Self-fulfillment – self-actualization, fulfilling a potential and creativity (O’Bryan, Pick, 1995); fully self-actualized person should demonstrate acceptance of self, others and nature, seek for justice, order, truth and beauty (Zastrow, Kirst-Ashman, 2010).
Maslow suggests that one level of needs can be only reached after lower needs are fulfilled, meaning that to strive for self-fulfillment one has to be fulfilled all of previous needs.
Figure No.6: Maslow’s pyramid of needs.
Findings of analysis in a way supports Maslow’s theory as associates form operations department are likely to seek for money, what does not necessarily bring self-esteem and in most cases would only provide basic needs of food, clothes, shelter and so on, whereas associates in administration department seems to be more concerned of what are they working (job specifics), what approaches they represent (company’s policy) and in what environment they are working (job atmosphere). We could assume that one’s in administration department have already fulfilled needs of lower levels and so are striving further on. If to think that positions in administration department are more valuable, it could also be that higher position is got only when basic needs are fulfilled and one starts pursuing self-esteem needs such as recognition, attention, etc. Of course, it is not possible to reject a vice versa scenario.
2.5.2. Job satisfaction
Analyzing relations between job satisfaction and factors by what it could be influenced there were some correlations defined. First of all, it was found out that there is a weak correlation between deeper associates’ knowledge about company’s organizational culture and job satisfaction. It could be said that how much people know about company’s organizational culture makes only a minor influence on their job satisfaction, but it should be mentioned, that mean result in question on knowing and understanding organizational culture was 8,8 with a standard deviation of 1,37, what means that more than 70% of respondents identified their knowledge and understanding of organizational culture in a range of 7 – 10. Such relevantly high numbers results in narrow range of rankings, what can be a reason for deviation in correlation coefficient. However, assumption that better understanding of organizational policy leads to higher job satisfaction can be accepted, but this relation is weak.
Second, an assumption was made that better ranking of company’s organizational culture leads to higher job satisfaction. And so analysis of relationship between these factors revealed, that there is a notable correlation in administration department and a correlation of an average strength in operations department. Having in mind that in both of the departments company’s policy was at the bottom of most important factors at work list, we can think that people identified organizational policy under the factor job atmosphere, what was the most popular choice for administration based associates, what would support such type of correlation obtained.
Most significant correlation was identified between associates’ pride in employer and their job satisfaction. Strong relation was obtained in administration department between these factors, as people who were more proud of their employer were also more satisfied with their job. However, this aspect should be treated carefully as this analysis does not provide what influences pride on employer or what specifically associates meant when answering this question. These results only prove that relation between these factors is strong in analyzed company.
2.5.3. Company’s opinion on the results obtained
As results of the survey maintained did not show any outstanding findings in associates’ attitude towards company’s organizational culture or company itself, Corporate Affairs Manager at UAB Mars Lietuva sais it is something that could have been expected with only minor deviations, except of time’s influence on understanding organizational culture. Although it is logical and normal, company would expect of lower correlation as it invests a lot of time to new associates to get them acquainted with the essence of company. “It is nice to see such results” – says company’s Corporate Affairs Manager while mean results were discussed. Although company admits that honesty should also be considered when interpreting these results.
However, UAB Mars Lietuva, as well as other subsidiaries of Mars, Incorporated, uses engagement survey to define level of associates satisfaction on their job. It also shows how company succeeds in putting organizational culture into action. Although it was not revealed what results exactly UAB Mars Lietuva shows in this survey, it was mentioned that company is in the top 5 list of European subsidiaries of Mars, Incorporated and is striving further on.
3. MANAGERIAL SOLUTIONS
3.1. Differentiation of remuneration package
Organizational culture in Mars, Incorporated is same across the world – whether you visit sales department in Riga or plant in Johannesburg. They don’t have fancy offices, strict dress code (except of special clothes for factory workers), everyone pushes clock when comes in and goes out, whoever comes first gets the best parking spot, everyone gets same insurance, open space offices and its everywhere the same. In other words, Mars, Incorporated treats all associates as equal in all aspects. However, we have to admit that there are different levels of associates and so it is not necessarily always the best act, as analysis shows that there are different needs and approaches for different levels of people.
Remuneration package is said to be one of most important agreements between an employer and employee (Chew, Chan, 2008) and in most cases its biggest component is salary. Although salary is not a variable to define person’s loyalty for the company, it is a major factor in person’s decision to join, stay or leave (Emerald Publishing Group, 2007). As it was identified, salary is very important aspect for people in Lithuania, as well as for associates of UAB Mars Lietuva. However, due to analysis made it was assumed, that salary is more important for factory working associates than for ones in administration, as they identified other aspects as of higher importance. Although company has a goal to pay salaries that are at least 25% higher than the area average, it should also be considered, what type of area is it, as most of the factories, including UAB Mars Lietuva, are not in the biggest cities that also have highest salaries, but somewhere near them. If taking case of UAB Mars Lietuva, which is located in a small city of Gargždai, approximately 25 kilometers away from third biggest Lithuania’s city Klaipėda. However, almost one third of employees are from Klaipėda, where average salaries are about 10% higher than in Gargždai, part of Klaipėda region (Figure No.7). Such situation is not a phenomenon and may appear in many cases, many countries, so company should reconsider its world-wide applied salary calculation formula and align it with company’s goals.
What is more, company could diversify remuneration packages for associates by zones or other appropriate levels, according to different benefits they seek. Major novelties could create inequalities between associates, what would initially oppose company’s policy, so only careful changes could bypass it and result in higher employee satisfaction, engagement and lower employee turnover. Such action would also increae complexity, but it is unavoidable if willing to maximize associate satisfaction. As for instance, developmental orientation towards administration associates should be strengthened by creating possibilities for personal, not only functional, development. Moreover, various social guarantees could also be point of discussion as it is not an aspect of highest importance for people in Lithuania. Due to this, company could diversify its portfolio of remuneration what would allow either savings for the company or higher satisfaction for its associates.
Figure No.7: Average gross earnings in Klaipėda and its region.
Source: Statistics Lithuania.
3.2. Associate satisfaction
Annex No.1: UAB Mars Lietuva Organizational Structure
Note: Graph does not include positions that are direct subordinates of General Manager of UAB Mars Lietuva. Some of the positions displayed in the graph have more than one manager, but includes General Manager of UAB Mars Lietuva.
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: