SRC Winter Symposium Socio-Cultural Dimensions of the Changes in the Slavic-Eurasian World ( English / Japanese )

The Pattern of Employees' Attitudes towards Their Working Life in Post-Socialist Russia

Akihiro Ishikawa (Chuo University)

Copyright (c) 1996 by the Slavic Research Center( English / Japanese ) All rights reserved.

In processes of marketization of the economy and privatization of ownership, many Russian firms have fallen into a critical situation of management, leading to the deterioration of working life at firms and plants. However, no collective protest of workers has emerged, with some exceptions in coal mining and a few other branches. Why are workers silent in the workplace, and what factors mediate the economic deterioration of life and social stability at work? In this context, let us raise the question in a more specific way: How do Russian workers perceive their present situation and to what extent are they satisfied/dissatisfied with general and particular aspects of their working life? The aim of this paper is to illustrate certain aspects of workers' attitudes in Russian plants today, by attempting to find some answer to the question above.

The materials for this analysis was obtained by means of an attitude survey in four firms belonging to machine industry*1. The survey was conducted by a research group headed by Rihito Yamamura from the Slavic Research Center in Sapporo *2. Four firms were selected in Nizhnii Novgorod, Moscow, Voronezh and Khabarovsk. The field survey was carried out first in September-October 1995 (in N. Novgorod, Moscow and Voronezh) and then in February 1996 (in Khabarovsk). Survey standardized questionnaires were distributed in each firm to around 300 employees (below the level of general director), who were sampled in a random way. The number of responses usable for analysis was 305 from N. Novgorod, 299 from Moscow, 301 from Voronezh and 272 from Khabarovsk, or 1,177 in total.

(1) Distribution of Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Its Determinants

Satisfaction/dissatisfaction with working life in general was measured by means of the five-point scale: "Very satisfied" is point 5 and "very dissatisfied" is point 1. As illustrated in Table 1, the average point of the whole Russian samples is recorded 2.64, namely below 3.00, which means that the satisfied are less than the dissatisfied. This seems to reflect the deteriorating situation of working life in contemporary Russia. There are some differences between Russian firms surveyed, but the highest point which is found in N. Novgorod is still below 3.00. For a reference, the average point of Japanese employees in four electric and electronic machine producing firms*3 was 3.16, exceeding that of Russian cases.

[Table 1]

Next, let us examine which particular aspects of working life are connected with overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction at work. Fourteen aspects are raised for examination.

Before entering into this issue, let us have a look at the ranking of those aspects in terms of an average point of satisfaction on the five-point scale. The order of each aspect as related to the degree of satisfaction is shown in Table 2. This reveals that Russian workers are largely satisfied with their relationship with their bosses and co-workers, working time, and interest in their job, whereas largely dissatisfied with wage, allowance and in-house welfare provisions. In other words, they are rather satisfied with human relations at work and the job in itself, but dissatisfied with remuneration or the means of living. For a reference, Japanese workers are also satisfied with human relations at work and the job in itself, and dissatisfied with wage and allowance. It is common with Russian cases. However, Japanese workers are different from Russian workers in that the former are satisfied with employment security and welfare provision, while Russian workers are dissatisfied on both counts. Presumably this reflects the critical situation in employment and welfare which Russian workers face today.

[Table 2]

Now we are examining the relations between satisfaction/dissatisfaction with working life in general and satisfaction/dissatisfaction with particular aspects of work. For this purpose let us use multiple regression analysis, by setting the former as the dependent valuable and the latter as independent valuables. Results are shown in Table 3.

Relationship between General Satisfaction and Satisfaction in Particular Items (Regression analysis)

	Russia		Japan
	Beta	Sig T	Beta	Sig T
Working　environment	.006148	.8835	.027175	.2959
Trust in MGT	.102061	.0249*	.142491	.0000**
Work load	.065152	.0969	.094619	.0020**
Working time	- .075936	.0355*	.010539	.7097
Allowances (Japan: Pay)	- .085423	.0674	.022563	.4106
Competence of MGT	.152999	.0006**	.013528	.6648
Promotion opportunities	- .094858	.0264*	- .004851	.8639
Training & re-training	- .009235	.8239	.020414	.4544
Security of employment	.077036	.0633	.085545	.0017**
Welfare provisions	.037133	.3343	.026714	.3048
Relationship with the both	.033463	.4334	.172692	.0000**
Relationship with co-workers	- .099865	.0120*	.111366	.0001**
Interests in job	.120505	.0016**	.297130	.0000**
Wage	.004163	.9273

This points to the fact that satisfaction/dissatisfaction with working life in general does not have a significant relationship to satisfaction/dissatisfaction with wages, welfare provisions, or working environment. Instead, most significantly related to working life satisfaction is firstly, satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the competence of management, and secondly, whether or not the job is interesting. It means that, although many Russian workers are dissatisfied with wage and welfare provisions, this dissatisfaction does not necessarily lead to dissatisfaction with overall working life. For a reference, satisfaction/dissatisfaction with working life in general is closely related to satisfaction with the relationship with bosses and co-workers, the trustfulness of management, the security of employment, and the workload, namely the factors connected with human relations, employment and work intensity, rather than the competence of management.

Who then is satisfied/dissatisfied with the working life in general? In order to seek an answer, let us use multiple regression analysis again, setting the following personal attributes of respondents as independent valuables: gender, age, length of service in the present firm, frequency of turnover, education level, job stratum, amount of wage, whether they have somebody to consult with at work, and in which firm/plant they are working. The outcome is displayed in Table 4.

Relationship between General Satisfaction and Personal & Workplace Characteristics (Regression analysis)

An interesting fact is noticeable in this Table. Satisfaction/dissatisfaction with working life in general is not differentiated by gender, age, length of service, frequency of turnover, education level, nor amount of wage. This means that young workers, or female workers, or workers of lower education level, or workers of lower wage, are not necessarily dissatisfied more than other categories of workers. On the other hand, the main factors that differentiate the degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction are the presence of reliable colleagues at work and the conditions in a firm/plant, namely the human- relation-related factor and the organization-related factor, but not the individual factor related to gender, age, qualification or wage level. For a reference, the degree of having reliable colleagues is the lowest in Khabarovsk and the highest in N. Novgorod, as illustrated in Table 5, which implies a probability of interconnection of the human- relation-related factor and the organization-related factor in a given firm/plant.

[Table 5]

Existence of Friendly Workmates as Advisors at the Workplace

Pearson's R: Value=.17667, Approximate S.=.00000

Summarizingly, the determinants of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with working life in general in Russian firms are assumed to be workers' estimation of the competence of management, the degree of interest in the job, and human-relational and organizational conditions in the workplace. Wage- or welfare-related or working-condition-related issues do not seem to affect the degree of satisfaction. If this is true, a deterioration in material aspects of working life would not undermine satisfaction with working life in general, which would maintain social stability in the workplace.

(2) Types of Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and their Distribution among Workers

In the questionnaire, fourteen items are raised for investigation into workers' satisfaction/dissatisfaction with different aspects of their working life (cf. Table 2). Our next step of analysis is to examine interrelations between these items to find out what types of satisfaction/dissatisfaction exist among Russian workers. For this purpose factor analysis was adopted and two main factors were found (by Cum Pct 51.0), the points of which are shown in Table 6.

[Table 6]

Factor Analysis of Particular Items of Satisfaction (VARIMAX rotation)

Factor 1 are represented by wage, allowances, trust in management, working environment, promotion opportunities, welfare provisions, competence of management, employment security and training/re-training, while Factor 2 are by relationship with the boss and co-workers, interest in job, working time and workload.

In the psychology of Russian workers, satisfaction/dissatisfaction in wage, allowances, welfare provisions, working environment and employment security, is associated with the reputation for competence and the trustfulness of management, while satisfaction/dissatisfaction in workload and working time is connected with feeling about human relations with their boss and co-workers as well as job interest. In other words, in the case where workers are dissatisfied with their wages, welfare provisions or working environment, they regard management as incompetent. On the other hand, satisfaction/dissatisfaction in workload and working time is associated with human relations at the shopfloor level. From this viewpoint, Factor 1 can be called a treatment-related factor (T-factor), while Factor 2 can be called a relation-connected one (R-factor).

Calculation of the average point of each factor on the five-point scale produces the following outcome: T-factor is 2.40, namely below 3.00, and R-factor is 3.71, namely above 3.00, which means that Russian workers are rather dissatisfied in T-factor, but fairly satisfied in R-factor.

The next step of analysis is to look into relations between those two factors on one hand and the personal attributes of respondents on the other, in order to know is satisfied or dissatisfied in terms of T- and R-factors. Table 7 illustrates those relations revealed by multiple regression analysis and Pierson's correlation analysis.

[Table 7]

Relations between Satisfaction Factors and Personal & Workplace Characteristics (Regression analysis)

	Factor 1			Factor 2
	Beta	Sig T	Pearson R	Beta	Sig T	Pearson R
Gender	- .045190	.2186	- .0107	.023379	.5532	.0031
Age	- .039235	.2550	- .0605	3.698E-04	.9920	- .0813
Length of Service	- .007657	.8229	- .0301	- .046859	.1992	- .0350
FrequencyofTurnover	.037668	.2713	.0022	- .063364	.0830	- .0385
Education evel	- .036063	.3901	.0530	.066239	.1425	.0603
Job Stratum	.030989	.4639	.0437	.040501	.3718	.0650
Wage Level	.170504	.0000**	.1371	.059075	.1234	.0450
Existenceof Advisors	.436243	.0000**	.5318	.310843	.0000**	.2775
Plant	- .117939	.0007**	.1928	.019136	.6026	.0997

R Square:.25416 .11633

Signif F:.0000 .0000

Residual: 665 692

With regards to the T-factor, the degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction is not differentiated by gender, age, length of service, frequency of turnover, education level or job stratum. The differentiation stems from wage level, presence of reliable colleagues, and firms where workers are working. Dissatisfaction is found mostly among workers whose monthly wage is below 3,000 rubles, who do not have reliable colleagues at work, and who are employed in the firm in Khabarovsk, as seen in Table 8.

[Table 8]

Distribution of Factor 1 (Range of Mean: 1-5)

As for R-factor, what differentiates the degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction is whether or not workers have reliable colleagues at work. Nothing else, including the level of wage or the characteristics of a given firm has an effect. It is assumed that the deterioration of economic conditions in workers' life might decrease the level of satisfaction in T-factor, but would not negatively affect R-factor. For R-factor, the presence of reliable colleagues in the workplace is significant.

In the end, an analysis of the relationship between satisfaction/dissatisfaction in T- and R-factors on one hand and workers' identity with their workplace on the other, as displayed in Table 9, reveals significant correlation between these two factors. Both factors are positively correlated with the valuables indicating workplace identity, such as workers' perception of whether or not their interests are similar to those of their immediate bosses and plant managers, the feeling that their views are reflected in the decision-making of their plant, willingness to do their best for the development of their firm, and satisfaction with their working life in general.

[Table 9]

Relationship between Satisfaction Factors and Identity with the Workplace

The above fact implies that, although satisfaction in T-factor would be erroded by the decline of real wage and welfare provisions, the latter would not harm F-factor, which sustains a certain level of workplace identity among workers even in critical economic circumstances. Dissatisfaction seems to resulted from the isolation of individual workers and lack of reliability in human relations at work.

3. Concluding Remarks

From the results above, the following attitudes among Russian workers can be discerned.

First, under the critical economic circumstances workers' satisfaction with their working life in general is rather low. Those who are dissatisfied outnumber those satisfied. This relationship is just the opposite to the Japanese case.

Second, satisfaction/dissatisfaction in the working life in general is not related to satisfaction with wage, allowances, welfare provisions or working environment, but is significantly related to whether or not workers trust the competence of management and whether or not they find their job interesting.

Third, concerning particular aspects of working life, there are many workers who are dissatisfied with material remuneration such as wage, allowances and welfare provisions, and dissatisfaction in those aspects is associated with dissatisfaction in the competence and the trustworthiness of management to shape one type of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Type 1).

Fourth, concerning some other aspects such as workload, working time and job interests, satisfied workers outnumber dissatisfied. Satisfaction with those aspects is significantly related to satisfaction with their relationship to immediate bosses and co-workers at the shop level. Those aspects intervene with each other to shape another type of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Type 2).

Fifth, personal attributes of workers such as gender, age, length of service, education level or job stratum do not differentiate the degree of satisfaction in any type raised above. Differentiating factors in both types include whether or not workers have reliable colleagues at work, as well as, particularly in Type 1, the amount of wage and the firm in which they are employed.

Sixth, both types are significantly related to the degree of workers' identity with their workplace, which presumably maintains social stability to prevent conflict in the plant.

It may be concluded that the deterioration of workers' living conditions would lead to dissatisfaction with wage, allowances and welfare provisions in particular, but not to dissatisfaction with working life in general. The satisfaction/dissatisfaction with working life in general is assumed not to be determined directly by material remuneration, but by the human relations in the workplace and the organizational conditions of the firm and plant. Concerning human relations at work, the most significant factor connected with dissatisfaction is isolating conditions among workers at work. With a climate of solidarity in the workplace, the resulting degree of satisfaction at work would stabilize social relations in the firm and plant. Therefore, if any restructuring or rationalizing measures were to be taken to destroy such relations in the workplace, conflictual situations might emerge to hamper the development managerial practises.

1. 
   
Firms for survey are as follows.
1. A compressor and diesel engine producing firm, located in Nizhnii Novgorod, with ca.3800 employees in 1996 (ca.5700 in 1992). Business achievement is not bad.
2. A cooling equipment producing firm, located in Moscow, with ca.1500 employees in 1995 (ca.2000 in 1992). Business achievement is rather stagnant.
3. A packing machine producing firm, located in Voronezh, with ca.1400 employees (ca.2000 in 1992). Economic conditions are very serious.
4. A turbine and compressor producing firm, located in Khabarovsk, with 1250 employees. It is under restructuring in organization and personnel affairs.
2. 
   
Members in this group are Yamamura (head), Sadayoshi Otsu, Takashi Murakami, Masahiko Yoshii and myself.
3. 
   
Cf. Denki Rengo, "Chosa Jiho" (Survey Report), No.277, June 1995.

SRC Winter Symposium Socio-Cultural Dimensions of the Changes in the Slavic-Eurasian World ( English / Japanese )

Copyright (c) 1996 by the Slavic Research Center( English / Japanese ) All rights reserved.