ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 41 (Issue 15) Year 2020. Page 9

Labor satisfaction in regional industry: the priority of personal factors

Satisfacción laboral en la industria regional: la prioridad de los factores personales

KARPOV, Valeriy V. 1; FRIK, Olga V. 2; IVASHKEVICH, Tatiana V. 3; SHEREMET, Anna A. 4; CHUPIN, Roman I. 5; DUBOVENKO, Polina A. 6

Received: 21/10/2019 • Approved: 27/03/2020 • Published 30/04/2020

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Bibliographic references

1. Introduction

Labor is an essential feature of man. For most of his lifetime, the individual works. This determines the fact that the quality of work (along with other factors) directly affects the quality of life of a person and his psycho-physical state (Argyle, 2003). Accordingly, job satisfaction correlates with satisfaction with life in general. The importance of this aspect is beyond doubt. That is why modern research strategies shift the focus of the analysis of job satisfaction to understanding the priority of personal, individualized factors that seriously affect the fruitfulness of the organization as a whole (Sypniewska, 2014; Ashton, 2018; Furnham, Eracleous & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009).

From the point of view of the authors the qualitative changes taking place in the modern world not only of economic, political, social, but also existential realities dictate the need for constant adaptation of management systems. So, increasing the labor efficiency of workers in order to maximize the activities of the enterprise seems almost impossible without taking into account the personal component (Wang, Yang & Wang, 2012). The authors claim that ignoring this humanistically oriented paradigm in Russian reality basically remains a fact. A particularly striking example in this regard is industry.

At the moment, extreme instability of the industrial sector, including its personnel component, is revealed (Kazanceva, 2010; Baleevskih, 2016). Authors consider that the difficulties of functioning of an industrial enterprise are determined by system-wide crisis phenomena, but are also associated with particular factors, which can be successfully overcome with adequate adjustment of management processes, reducing the level of outflow of personnel, increasing the efficiency of employees and the overall performance of the organization. It is obvious that monitoring of the internal environment, in particular, the study of the level of satisfaction with work by employees helps to improve the activities of the enterprise. The authors suppose that organizations that do not take into account the factors of job satisfaction with their own employees cannot currently have a “strong position” in the broadest sense of this concept.

The purpose of this study is to determine the level of satisfaction with the work of workers in the petrochemical industry, to analyze the causes of dissatisfaction and make practical recommendations. The study was conducted at a typical enterprise in the petrochemical industry in the city of Omsk. The results can be extended to all enterprises in this industry.

The work is, on the one hand, of a scientific research character: it establishes the deep foundations of dissatisfaction with work by a modern person, regardless of his position in the hierarchy of the organization, on the other hand, contains a significant practical result, the provisions of which can be used to improve the management system in the enterprise under study, so and to develop measures to increase job satisfaction in such organizations.

The concept of this work on identifying factors and determining the level of satisfaction with work is based on the theoretical and methodological approaches of foreign and Russian researchers such as K. Zamfir (1982), R. Stolberg (1982), М. Armstrong (2006), A. Maslow (2019), M. Argyle (2003), T.A. Judge & R. Klinger (2007), H. M. Weiss & K. L. Merlo (2015), A. Furnham, A. Eracleous & T. Chamorro-Premuzic (2009), N. Van Saane, J.K. Sluiter, J.H.A.M. Verbeek & M.H.W. Frings-Dresen (2003), O. C. Hee, L. H. Yan, A. Rizal, T.O. Kowang & G.C. Fei (2018), B. A. Sypniewska (2014), M. C. Ashton (2018), P. C. Smith, L. Kendall, C. L. Hulin (1969), A.G. Zdravomyslov, V.A. Yadov & V.P. Rozhin (1967), N.F. Naumova (1970), A.D. Ostapenko (2012), I.A. Shlyapnikova & A.S. Tymoshenko (2017).

Analysis of the grounds for dissatisfaction with the work of various categories of personnel is based on the worldview positions of personalism, in particular, Mounier (2017). The general position of this philosophical trend is to understand the absolute priority of the value of the individual, his activities, self-realization and experience (Mounier, 2017). Based on the concept of personalism, the authors argue: the idea that a person resists the fact that he is “suppressed”, starting from adverse working conditions in a separate enterprise and ending with civilization as a whole, is extremely important for studying the characteristics of modern management and the organization of individual labor.

The empirical part of the study is based on the methods of sociological research, computer analysis, and mathematical and statistical operations. Sociological methods: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative methods - anonymous sociological survey (questionnaire) involves identifying the opinions, assessments and attitudes of respondents on various problems by correlating answers to given sets of options. Qualitative techniques are applied to the analysis of respondents' free answers to open questions. Information processing is carried out using computer analysis with the construction of tables in the program SPSS Statistics 17.0. Mathematical and statistical operations (data analysis was carried out using frequency analysis methods and contingency tables) (Rostovcev & Kovaleva, 2001).

 Let us describe each step in more detail from the key definitions used to the consideration of the developed and applied operational scheme of research.

At the moment, there is no single vision of what to mean by job satisfaction (Naumova, 1970; Ostapenko, 2012; Stolberg, 1982; Zamfir, 1982; Zdravomyslov, Yadov, Rozhin, 1967; Maslow, 2019), therefore it is advisable to consider this phenomenon through a combination of the following aspects, which, in turn, do not seem exhaustive, but allow to outline the boundaries of the subject:

• Satisfaction associated with the correspondence of the work to the expectations of the individual;
• Satisfaction, expressed in the possibility of a person meeting his most important needs, including in labor itself;
• Psycho-emotional satisfaction;
• Satisfaction with the functional content of the activity;
• Satisfaction as a combination of factors of labor motivation: place and conditions of work, position in the division of labor, leadership style, wages and social guarantees, respect, recognition, prestige, awareness of the meaning of labor, self-actualization, unlocking professional potential, self-development, the ability to take initiative and take responsibility, career growth, etc.

In addition, it should be noted that there is no universal system of factors of job satisfaction (Hee, Yan, Rizal, Kowang & Fei, 2018; Shlyapnikova & Timoshchenko, 2017; Weiss & Merlo, 2015). From our point of view, the following factors are key and criteria in determining the level of job satisfaction:

1. Remuneration

2. Psychological climate

3. Management style of the immediate supervisor

4. Career growth

5. Working conditions (including safety, workplace equipment, specialized tools, equipment, etc.)

This is generally consistent with the vision of the criteria of labor satisfaction by the social psychologist M. Argyle who consider the following factors: 1. salary, 2. relations with employees, 3. relations with management, 4. career opportunities, 5. other satisfaction factors: satisfaction with working conditions; organization ; redistribution of time; provision of status and personal identity; perspective life goals; sense of community of activity shared with other people; forced activity (Argyle, 2003). Also the authors’ position is mainly correlates with the parameters that are taken into account in the Cornell labor descriptive index  officially  introduced  in  1969 as Job Description Index (JDI) and included: 1. Salaries, 2. Career 3. Coworkers, 4. Relations with the leader (supervisor) and 5. Work itself (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969).

Authors believe that the selected five key components of job satisfaction (1. salary, 2. psychological climate, 3. management style of the immediate supervisor, 4. career growth and 5. working conditions) are necessary, but insufficient in analyzing the situation at the enterprise. To do this, we introduce “other factors” of satisfaction that are more situational and personal in nature:

6. Other factors included are: satisfaction with the volume and content of the work, the level of independence of decision-making and responsibility for the result, as well as the possibility of self-realization, self-development, creativity, recognition, justice and others.

Responsibility, achievement and recognition as factors of job satisfaction are theorized by M. Armstrong (Armstrong, 2006). The importance of measurement of personal factors is discussed by N. van Saane, J. K. Sluiter, J. H. A. M. Verbeek and M. H. W. Frings-Dresen. The main individualized factors and psychometric quality characteristics are:  work content, autonomy (individual responsibility for work, control over job decisions), self-development (personal growth and development, training, or education), promotion (possibility of career advancement, or job level), supervision (support of supervisor, recognition of supervisor, or being treated with fairness), meaning-fulness (Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, & Frings-Dresen, 2003, p. 194). Subjective well-being at work  is conceptualized by Judge and Klinger (Judge & Klinger, 2007).

This study was carried out of staff satisfaction at a typical enterprise in the petrochemical industry in the city of Omsk.

Basic factors of satisfaction (proposed in the framework of this work (1-5) were taken as the basis for analysis based on the questionnaire method using closed questions. “Other factors” (6) were investigated based on the answers of the enterprise employees to open questions.

An operational scheme for researching job satisfaction at the enterprise was developed (see Table 1).

Table 1
The operational scheme of
the study of job satisfaction

Source: developed by the authors

On the basis of the operational scheme a questionnaire was developed and an anonymous survey of enterprise personnel was conducted. The sample is made up of 3,014 people (total number of employees of the investigated enterprise) from various departments. Using quota multistage sampling, 341 respondents from various departments of the enterprise were selected and 300 questionnaires were returned; its structure is shown in Table 2.  The study involved male and female workers, occupying the positions of supervisors, specialists and workers.

Table 2
General and sample structure by the subdivisions

Source: compiled  by the authors

The questionnaire, along with the closed ones, contained open questions for establishing more complete feedback, individualizing the study, discovering a more private subjective, situational vision of the problem of job satisfaction, as well as taking into account the opinions of respondents when making recommendations to the management of the enterprise.

 Information processing is carried out using computer analysis with the construction of tables in the program SPSS Statistics 17.0.

Let us describe our analysis algorithm. The sequence of problem solving for data analysis:

• Breakdown into blocks and groups by calculating a variable and transcoding into other variables.
•  Calculating satisfaction levels using contingency tables.
• Determining the level of satisfaction with work by various categories of personnel according to the proposed satisfaction factors.
• Development of recommendations.

Let us describe the steps we have taken to implement the algorithm.

Step 1: With the function “recode to other variables” we introduce new variables q1_1, q1_2, q1_3, q2_1, q2_2, q2_3, …, q5_1, q5_2, q5_3, which include the transition of the “I am at a loss to answer” option to the “no” option, because this answer option characterizes itself to a greater extent as negative due to the fact that the respondent most likely did not encounter such practice or doubts the anonymity of the questionnaire.

Step 2: The answer “No” was encoded as 1 point; the answer “Yes” ‑ 3 points. Now we can calculate the number of points. Variables characterizing factor blocks were created this way (questions and their corresponding blocks were described in Table 1 ).

Executive Management Style (EMS) = q1_1+q1_2+q1_3

Psychological Climate (PC) = q2_1+q2_2+q2_3

Working conditions (WC) =  q3_1+q3_2+q3_3

Salary (S) =  q4_1+q4_2+q4_3

Career growth (CG) =  q5_1+q5_2+q5_3

Step 3: Creation of combinatorial tables by means of contingency tables, where we carry out the relationship between the category of personnel and factor blocks separately.

Step 4: To evaluate and consider the relationship between the category of personnel and all factors, we create a new variable by calculating the variable.

Aggregated satisfaction estimation =  EMS + PC+ WC + S + CG

Step 5: Recode into another variable (aggregated satisfaction estimation), while doing this, break into groups according to the average answers in the ranges:

21-29 = 1 (low satisfaction)

30-38 = 2 (average satisfaction)

39-45 = 3 (high satisfaction)

Step 6: Creation of combinatorial tables by contingency tables, where the relationship is made between the category of personnel and all factors in general.

Step 7: Review open-ended questions to identify recommendations.

A quantitative analysis was carried out using the conversion of variables and the method of contingency tables of data on satisfaction with work of the enterprise employees and their evaluation and interpretation were carried out.

3.1. General satisfaction with work

Let us start with general satisfaction with work; the results are shown in Table 3, where the following notation is introduced: “1” - low satisfaction; “2” - average satisfaction; “3” - high satisfaction. The аmounts (converted to percent) in the table indicate the number of relevant answers to these questions among employees belonging to a certain category (described in more detail above in steps 1-5). Results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3
General satisfaction at the enterprise

Source: calculated by the authors

From Table 3 it is seen that for all categories of personnel and for all factors of satisfaction at the enterprise, there is an average satisfaction with work (42.6%). At the same time, workers are most satisfied in all blocks (43.4%), and leaders are least of all. Specialists for all factors show average values. The indicator relating to a greater aggregate satisfaction with work by workers than by managers is consistent with the principle known in the sociology of labor: the degree of satisfaction with work depends on the level of a person’s claims. A person with a higher level of claims is more critical of the elements of the work situation, and satisfaction will be less the higher the level of claims. Further analysis allows a deeper study of the problem.

3.2. The level of satisfaction with the work of various categories of personnel on the proposed factors

3.2.1. Management style

Results for this block are shown in Table 4, where the following notation is introduced:

• “3” means that the respondent is completely dissatisfied (the respondent answered “No” (dissatisfied) to all three questions from this block: “No” (1 point) + “No” (1 point) + “No” (1 point) = 3 points);
• “9” means that the respondent is completely satisfied (the respondent answered “Yes” (satisfied) to all three questions from this block: “Yes” (3 points) + “Yes” (3 points) + “Yes” (3 points) = 9 points);
• “5” means that the respondent is rather dissatisfied (the respondent answered “No” (dissatisfied) to two out of three questions;
• “7” means that the respondent is rather satisfied (the respondent answered “No” (dissatisfied) to one out of three questions.

The аmounts (converted to percent) in the table indicate the number of relevant answers to this question block among employees belonging to a certain category.

Table 4
Indicators of satisfaction with the management
style of the immediate supervisor

Source: calculated by the authors

Table 4 shows the satisfaction with the management style of the immediate supervisor. In general, satisfaction with this indicator at the enterprise is high (74.1%). Workers are most satisfied with management, and managers are least of all satisfied. Specialists demonstrate an average level of satisfaction with this criterion.

According to answers to open questions about satisfaction with the leadership style, managers note that in this category of personnel, direct management has limited opportunities for independent decision-making, not fully provided conditions for the manifestation of creative initiative, the disclosure of individual potential. The level of respect for opinions and assessment of professionalism on the part of the higher authorities is perceived by the surveyed managers as insufficient. Direct and higher-level management does not convey general goals that determine the direction of the enterprise as a whole.

Thus, despite sufficient satisfaction with working conditions, the psychological climate, career opportunities, and partly wages (as will be shown below), personal factors are internal satisfaction factors related to respect and recognition of a person’s personality, his achievements, competence, respect and opportunity to show their abilities as best as possible, a joint determination of the goals and directions of development of activity - turn out to be significant and ultimately reflected on the comparative but a low overall level of satisfaction with work by the category of managers.

It should be noted that in answers to open questions workers (according to the data most satisfied with the immediate supervisor) also indicated nuances that showed a reference to the “infringement” of the personal component: “workers are people, not robots,” “a person is not a tool of labor, he is alive: the bosses should not tighten the deadlines, especially with a violation of technology, ”in one of the questionnaires a certain rule was formulated:“ treat as you want to be treated. It is necessary to issue special equipment on time! ” The level of the above statements shows that the degree of claims and satisfaction of needs varies: in the case of the leader - it is, rather, the need for recognition and self-actualization of the person, and the worker - the requirement that they be perceived as a person, and not as a “tool” however, nevertheless, there is a connection between satisfaction with work and a sense of value of the employee’s personality, regardless of status and category.

3.2.2. The psychological climate

Results for this block are shown in Table 5, where the accepted notation is similar to the previous table.

Table 5
Indicators of satisfaction with
the psychological climate

Source: calculated by the authors

The data in Table 5 indicate that the highest and lowest indicators for the psychological climate show workers. In different shops and divisions of the enterprise, the working atmosphere and psychological climate are different. Answers to open questions made it possible to identify factors that influence low satisfaction with the psychological situation: insufficient joint activities, gossip, calculation of other people's salaries, lack of culture, violation of labor discipline, culture of behavior and communication, profanity. From the above average answers, it can be seen that the psychological climate is defined as uncomfortable not so much in relations with the leader as in horizontal interaction. At the same time, the fact of changing the priorities and needs of lower-level employees of the organization is obvious, shifting also to the desire to develop their own personality and improve the level of culture at the enterprise.

3.2.3. Working conditions

Results for this block are shown in Table 6, where the accepted notation is similar to the previous table.

Table 6
Indicators of satisfaction
with working conditions.

Source: calculated by the authors

From Table 6 it is seen that the working conditions at the enterprise as a whole satisfied a smaller number of respondents (35.3%). The least satisfaction is shown by the category of specialists, which is associated with the difficulty in solving professional problems in the absence of appropriate conditions. In general, all categories of personnel note: living conditions are in unsatisfactory condition (there is no repair since the 1970s), lack of equipment, inventory, tools, work clothes, auxiliary equipment; the company does not provide affordable food and does not organize measures to restore and maintain health. This, of course, affects the overall level of satisfaction with work, which, nevertheless, is not very high (42.6%).

3.2.4. Salary

Assessment of satisfaction with salary is presented in Table 7; accepted notation is similar.

Table 7
Indicators of satisfaction
with wages.

Source: calculated by the authors

Table 7 reflects that a factor such as wages shows the lowest level of satisfaction among all factors. Only 7.2% of respondents are satisfied with their salaries. The lowest level is among workers, which is associated with low pay for physical labor, and the highest is among managers.

3.2.5. Career growth

Assessment of satisfaction with career growth is presented in Table 8; accepted notation is similar.

Table 8
Career satisfaction rates.

Source: calculated by the authors

Table 8 shows that on the whole, career growth is possible and fairly well developed (51.3%). The highest rates are among managers, the lowest are among workers. Workers are less able to climb the career ladder, usually due to the narrow specialization and lack of higher education.

Based on the study, recommendations were made in the following aspects:

• Remuneration: to increase job satisfaction with employees of the enterprise, it is necessary to index wages, increase tariffs, increase hourly wages, make allowances for work experience, make payments no later than the 10th day, allow paid part-time jobs, and also return the thirteenth salary.
• Psychological climate: employees demonstrate the need to improve the atmosphere by holding joint events, creating a common culture at the enterprise - improving the culture of behavior, a culture of communication, a culture of work.
• Management style of the immediate supervisor: it is necessary to improve vertical communication, establish benevolent, respectful relations between the supervisor and subordinates, care for the personality of subordinates, including their health and the ability to receive high-quality free or affordable food, it is necessary to exclude the degrading procedure of checking workers' bags for checkpoints. It is necessary to pay attention to the special level of personal needs of the personnel category of managers in connection with their claims to recognize professionalism, competence, take their opinions into account when making decisions, expand freedom of decision-making, provide an opportunity for a clear understanding of the goals and ways of enterprise development, opportunities to show one’s potential, develop and take a direct part in the development of the enterprise.
• Career growth: it is necessary to debug the communication channel from the human resources department and the higher authorities regarding the provision of information to the employee about the conditions and opportunities for promotion on the career ladder. At the enterprise, it is necessary to debug the process of advanced training and provide employees with the opportunity to receive higher and additional education with the aim of further career development.
• Working conditions: to improve the level of job satisfaction, workers need to: repair depots, improve living and sanitary conditions, repair and update furniture of the 1970s, improve equipment, fully equipped with materials, tools, more modern work clothes and shoes, install air conditioners, change of computers.

This is the practical level of problem solving.

The study showed that along with the key factors (which form the basis of almost any study to determine the level of job satisfaction): remuneration, the psychological climate, management style of the immediate supervisor, career growth, working conditions, other components that are more situational, personalized are important , subjective, personal character. Moreover, it was found that the component associated with the value of the individual, in a hidden, implicit manner, is the deep foundation of dissatisfaction with all the above satisfaction factors. For example, the level of wages, working conditions: are they commensurate with the physical and mental efforts that a person puts into his activity, does the remuneration and such working conditions correspond to the dignity of his personality? A more obvious example is with the category of leaders, where the interests and needs of the individual are explicitly articulated, the claim to recognize the value of experience and professionalism, opinion and competence, the right to self-actualization and self-realization of the individual.

But the worker declares that he is not a “tool”, he asks that the manager and his colleagues appreciate and respect his work, that his work is adequately paid, that favorable conditions are created not only for activities, but also for leisure and health food at the enterprise, he wants to be spared from the degrading procedure of personal things at the end of the day. These are also the needs of the individual, determined only by the difference in the level of claims of managers and workers, but it is impossible to ignore this fact, because it is directly related to the satisfaction of workers with work, which affects their attitude to work, the quality of work, and, consequently, the efficiency and success of the enterprise as a whole.

Thus, according to the results of the study, it is advisable for modern enterprises to make changes in the management system in terms of personnel management, labor organization, motivating employees towards a promising humanistically oriented paradigm, in which the priority is personality, regardless of the position of a person in the organization hierarchy. In our understanding, this is a conceptual level of problem solving.

The study identified and analyzed factors affecting the labor satisfaction of employees of a typical petrochemical industry enterprise, established a general level of satisfaction with labor, as well as for each criterion individually by different categories of personnel: workers, specialists and managers. The underlying reasons for dissatisfaction associated with the underestimation of the personal component in the organizational management model were identified. The study crystallized the need to take into account the needs and claims of the individual (more broadly: the value of the individual) in the organization of labor in the enterprise. Accordingly, the authors proposed two levels of solution to the problem:

1. Conceptual - this is a system-wide recommendations relevant at the national level, dictated by the modern stage of development, associated with the improvement of management processes within the framework of the humanistic paradigm.

2. Practical - a number of recommendations have been developed to increase job satisfaction at the enterprise.

In general, this study has heuristic and pragmatic value, the result can be useful in planning and organizing labor, in developing measures to increase job satisfaction in such organizations. Also, the results of the work can be used in management, sociology of labor and management psychology.

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out on the state order of the Omsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (project registration number AAAA-A17-117041210229-2).

ARGYLE, M. (2003) Psihologija schast'ja [Psychology of happiness]. St. Petersburg, Peter.

ASHTON, M.C. (2018) Individual Differences and Personality (Third Edition), Academic Press.

ARMSTRONG, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human resource Management Practice, Tenth Edition, London, Kogan Page Publishing.

BALEEVSKIH, A.S. (2016) Upravlenie promyshlennym predprijatiem v uslovijah jekonomicheskoj nestabil'nosti [Industrial enterprise management in the conditions of economic instability], Problemy sovremennoj jekonomiki, 1 (57), 68-71.

FURNHAM, A., ERACLEOUS, A. & CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC T. (2009) Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 8, 765.

HEE, O.C., YAN, L.H., RIZAL, A.M., KOWANG, T.O., & FEI, G. C. (2018). Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction: A Conceptual Analysis. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(6), 331–340.

JUDGE, T.A. & KLINGER, R. (2007) Job Satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work, In M. Eid & R. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective wellbeing, New York, Guildford Publication, 393-413.

KAZANCEVA, E. N. (2010) SUB#EKTIVNYE I OB#EKTIVNYE POKAZATELI UDOVLETVORENNOSTI TRUDOM [SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION INDICATORS] Vestnik NGU, Serija: Social'no-jekonomicheskie nauki, 10 (1), 63-68.

MASLOW, A. (2019) Motivacija i lichnost' [Motivation and personality]. St. Petersburg, Peter.

MOUNIER, E. (2017) Manifest personalizma [Manifesto of personalism]. Moscow, Republic.

NAUMOVA, N.F. (1970) Udovletvorennost' trudom kak social'naja harakteristika [Labor satisfaction as a social characteristic]. Moscow, Nauka.

OSTAPENKO, A.D. (2012) Motivacija i udovletvorennost' trudom [Motivation and job satisfaction]. Moscow, Laboratory books.

ROSTOVCEV, P.S., KOVALEVA, G.D. (2001) Analiz sociologicheskih dannyh s ispol'zovaniem statisticheskogo paketa SPSS [Analysis of sociological data using the statistical package SPSS]. Teaching Aid. Novosibirsk, NGU

SHLYAPNIKOVA, I.A., TIMOSHCHENKO, A.S. (2017) Issledovanie urovnja udovletvorennosti trudom rabotnikov jelektrosetevoj organizacii [Study of the level of satisfaction with work of employees of the electric grid organization], Innovations in Science: Scientific Journal, 9 (70), Novosibirsk, SibAK, 43-46.

SMITH, P.C., KENDALL, L., & HULIN, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago, Rand McNally.

STOLBERG, R. (1982) Sociologija truda [Sociology of labor]. Moscow, Progress.

SYPNIEWSKA, B.A. (2014) Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction. Contemporary economics, 8 (1), 57-72.

VAN SAANE, N., SLUITER, J.K., VERBEEK, J.H.A.M. & Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. (2003) Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction- a systematic review, Occupational Medicine, 53, 2003, 191-200.

WANG, Y., YANG, C., WANG, K. (2012). Comparing Public and Private Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Turnover. Public Personnel Management, 41 (3), 557-573.

WEISS, H.M. & MERLO, K.L. (2015) Job Satisfaction. In J.D. Wright (Ed.) International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Oxford, UK, 12, 833-838.

ZAMFIR, K. (1982) Udovletvorennost' trudom: mnenie sociologa [Labor satisfaction: opinion of a sociologist]. Moscow, Politizdat.

ZDRAVOMYSLOV, A.G., YADOV, V.A., ROZHIN, V.P. (1967) Chelovek i ego rabota. Sociologicheskoe issledovanie [Man and his work. Sociological research]. Moscow, Mysl.

1. Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, Omsk scientific center of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Omsk; Russian Federation, E-mail: karpov-v51@yandex.ru

2. Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Siberian Institute of Business and Information Technology; Omsk; Russian Federation, E-mail: ofrik@mail.ru

3. Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Management and Economy, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation; Omsk Branch; Russian Federation, E-mail: TIvashkevich@fa.ru

4. Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Dostoevsky Omsk State University; Omsk; Russian Federation, E-mail: SheremetAA@omsu.ru

5. Candidate of Sociologic Sciences, Researcher, Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Omsk; Russian Federation, E-mail: roman-chupin@ya.ru

6. Bachelor of Sociology, Sociologist, Dostoevsky Omsk State University; Omsk; Russian Federation, E-mail: polina.dubovenko11@gmail.com