CC BY
26
Urbanova Eva,
psychologist, Assessment s.r.o., 10200, Prague, Sterboholskd, 102a, tel.: +420 777 022 543, e-mail: ed@worktest.cz
ORCID: 0000-0002-2909-7892 Урбанова €ва,
психолог Ассессмент ТзОВ, 10200, Praha, Sterboholskd, 102a, tel.: +420 777 022 543, e-mail: ed@worktest.cz
ORCID: 0000-0002-2909-7892 Урбанова Ева,
психолог Ассессмент ООО, 10200, Praha, Sterboholskd, 102a, tel.: +420 777 022 543, e-mail: ed@worktest.cz
ORCID: 0000-0002-2909-7892
Mayevskaya Petra,
psychologist, Assessment s.r.o., 10200, Prague, Sterboholskd 102a, tel.: +420 271 751 699, e-mail: pm@worktest.cz
ORCID: 0000-0002-2564-4674 Маевська Петра,
психолог Ассессмент ТзОВ, 10200, Praha, Sterboholskd, 102a, tel.: +420 2 71 751 699, e-mail: pm@worktest.cz
ORCID: 0000-0002-2564-4674 Маевская Петра,
психолог Ассессмент ООО, 10200, Praha, Sterboholskd, 102a, tel.: +420 2 71 751 699, e-mail: pm@worktest.cz
ORCID: 0000-0002-2564-4674
Pasnichenko Viktor,
psychologist, Assessment s.r.o., 10200, Prague, Sterboholskd, 102a, tel.: +420 776 675 774, e-mail: pasnichenko@ukr.net
ORCID: 0000-0001-9076-057X Пасшченко Вжтор, психолог Ассессмент ТзОВ, 10200, Praha, Sterboholskd, 102a, tel.: +420 776 675 774, e-mail: pasnichenko@ukr.net
ORCID: 0000-0001-9076-057X Пасниченко Виктор, психолог Ассессмент ООО, 10200, Praha, Sterboholskd, 102a, tel.: +420 776 675 774, e-mail: pasnichenko@ukr.net
ORCID: 0000-0001-9076-057X
LOYALTY, RELiABiLiTYAND RESiSTANCE TO coRRUPTION: PSYCHOLOGiCAL ASPECTS
OF DIAGNOSTIC OPTIONS (THE EXPERiENCE OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC)
Abstract. The article analyzed the loyalty and reliability of employees as factors that facilitate corruption resistance. Article pointed to weaker elaboration of these concepts in Czech literature in comparison to how they are presented in English-speaking resources. Furthermore, the names of the tests that are used in the Czech Republic for diagnosis loyalty and reliability and range of tests, significant for the analysis of this phenomenon.
This study describes the audit approach as used in the system WORKtest®. It presents the results of investigation of corruption resistance and risk behavior using methods WORKtest®, made in the Czech Republic in 2013-2014. Analysis showed that 18 % surveyed have signs of risky behavior. We describe the specific properties of corrupt behavior observed in the study. We provide benchmarking corruption resistance in relation to average indicators in the population.
Keywords: loyalty, psychodiagnostics, resistance to corruption, trustworthiness.
ЛОЯЛЬШСТЬ, БЛАГОНАДШШСТЬ ТА СПРОТИВ КОРУПЦП:
ПСИХОЛОГ1ЧН1 АСПЕКТИ Й МОЖЛИВОСТ1 Д1АГНОСТИКИ (З ДОСВ1ДУ ЧЕСЬКО'1 РЕСПУБЛ1КИ)
Анотащя. Аналiзуються лояльшсть та надшшсть персоналу як фактори, що забезпечують антикорупцшну стшюсть. Вказано на слабку розробку цих понять у чеськш лiтературi порiвняно з англомовними ресурсами. Розгля-даються тести, яю використовуються у Чеськш Республщ в дiагностицi ло-яльносп та благонадшносп.
Описуеться аудит як шдхщ, який використовуеться в fflereMi WORKtest® для аналiзу протидiï корупцiï i ризиковано'1' поведiнки. Наводяться результа-ти дослщження, проведеного в Чехи в 2013-2014 роках, з якого випливае, що 18 % опитаних мали ознаки ризиковано'1' поведшки. Описано особливосл корупцшно!' поведшки, виявлеш в дослщженш. Представлено бенчмаркiнг протидiï корупцiï по вщношенню до середнiх показникiв у чеськш популяци.
Ключовi слова: благонадшшсть, лояльнiсть, протидiя корупцiï, психодi-агностика.
ЛОЯЛЬНОСТЬ, БЛАГОНАДЕЖНОСТЬ И СОПРОТИВЛЕНИЕ КОРРУПЦИИ: ПСИХОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ АСПЕКТЫ И ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ ДИАГНОСТИКИ (ИЗ ОПЫТА ЧЕШСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ)
Аннотация. Анализируются лояльность и надежность персонала как факторы, которые обеспечивают антикоррупционную устойчивость. Указано на
слабую разработку этих понятий в чешской литературе по сравнению с англоязычными ресурсами. Рассматриваются тесты, которые используются в Чехии в диагностике лояльности и благонадежности.
Описывается аудит как подход, который используется в системе WORKtest® для анализа сопротивления коррупции и рискованного поведения. Приводятся результаты исследования, проведенного в Чехии в 20132014 годах, с которого следует, что 18 % опрошенных имели признаки рискованного поведения. Описаны особенности коррупционного поведения, выявленные в исследовании. Представлен бенчмаркинг сопротивления коррупции по отношению к средним показателям в чешской популяции.
Ключевые слова: благонадежность, лояльность, сопротивление коррупции, психодиагностика.
Target setting. We live in troubled times, which is full of change and innovation. At a time when the focus on productivity and success, efficiency and flexibility are of high importance [3; 8; 33]. In a period that is inherent in reducing time and space constraints and increasing opportunities for access to information. As a result, the attitude towards the world around us is oriented to short-term and temporary nature. R. Sennet (2006) notes that the requirement of today is to "stay in motion".
These changes are reflected in the corporate environment and threaten the company at macro and micro levels. The problem of loyalty and reliability of personnel in the context of changes in requirements and the nature of work that excludes the traditional control over personnel and increases the emphasis on voluntariness becomes urgent [5; 6; 11; 13; 22; 25; 26].
In the context of a dynamic society's expectations with respect to staff loyalty as rapidly changing. Loyalty becomes the important requirements
of organizations for personnel and a necessary condition for effective functioning. Otherwise, we see a decrease in resistance to corruption and, as a the political fraud, the deception and illegal actions (embezzlement, theft, etc.). The organization should be able to manage these trends. The introduction of fraud management is one of the options for managing the resilience to corrupt practices [9].
Analysis of the recent publications: The concept of loyalty and trustworthiness in the Czech literature is not sufficiently developed. As a rule, they are described in the study of satisfaction with work, commitment or dedication to the firm. The notion of loyalty and trustworthiness in Czech literature is not enough. Usually, they are described in the study of job satisfaction, engagement or of obligations in relation to the company [30-32].
In publications, loyalty is associated with fidelity, frankness and honesty [6; 12; 17]. Authors define loyalty as commintment and loyalty is indicated as an intention to show loyalty to the
organization and its voluntary support [4; 7; 10; 19; 34].
We think that this is not just a consonance [2; 18], but rather a conscious, positive attitude when a person is willing to invest and sacrifice himself [15; 26].
Harskiy K. (2003) examines in detail the features of the loyalty and reliability of employees. Trustworthiness is described as a willingness to comply with rules and regulations. The author describes 300 characterological signs and indicates methods for their diagnosis, when he is analyzing the psychological causes of unreliability
The analysis of the literature shows that the main indicators of loyalty include: 1) willingness to stay in the company [29]; 2) labor productivity, goes beyond the framework of conventional standards [20]; 3) trust in the organization and acceptance of its goals and values [21]; 4) altruistic behavior [16]; 5) willingness to make significant efforts in the interests of the organization [20; 34]; as well as confidentiality in working with information and not disclosing corporate secrets, compliance with rules and generating ideas [24].
According to the indicators described above, loyalty is associated with reliability and compliance with rules, commitment, loyalty and collegi-ality. This behavior is clearly in favor of the organization [34].
Our vision of loyalty corresponds to the theory of G. Van der Vegt (2003), E. Powerse (2000) and K. Harsky (2003). This interpretation differs from one-sided perception of the organization's devotion. We regard loyalty as a multi-level phenomenon [13]. An organization, colleagues, leader, department
in which a person works, a specialty, product or service can be an object of loyalty. The employee is thus involved in a wider range of loyalties. In this case, loyalty objects can provoke conflicting loyal behavior [9; 27].
In the view of the above-mentioned, we share loyalty into several categories, namely:a) the loyalty to the organization (loyalty to corporate views and goals, honesty, trustworthiness) b) the loyalty to the leader (recognition of authority) c) the loyalty to colleagues (collegiality, teamwork and goodwill) e) the loyalty when dealing with confidential information (Storage of the secrets of the organization, non-disclosure of know-how, etc.).
The purpose of this article is to describe the possibilities of diagnosing the loyalty and reliability of personnel as the bases that increase anti-corruption sustainability in the view of the realities of the Czech Republic.
The main material research: Cor-ruptive actions are intentional and purposeful actions of qualified specialists with a view to obtaining undeserved and illegal personal gain. In the narrow sense, corruption is translated as bribery (extortion and acceptance of bribes). In a broader sense, it can be manifested as intimidation and manipulation, gifts and influential support, information theft. The corruption leads to the disintegration of the public sector, the weakening of power, increased protectionism and nepotism, crime, mistrust, bankruptcy of companies. According to Transparency International's research in 2016, the Czech Republic ranked 47 out of a total of 170 countries under the Corruption Perceptions Index. Main manifestations — the insufficiency of
ethical standards and rules (in particular, for top management), limited access to information, confusion in public procurement.
It is known that illegal actions are always connected with the peculiarities of the human factor and its so-called resistance to corruption. From the above, the urgency of the method of identifying resistance to corruption and preventing illegal and counter productive actions from emerging.
The determination of the riskiness of a person already at the stage of recruitment and selection of workers is preventive measures in this direction. Our study, carried out in 2015, showed that in the Czech Republic such psychological questionnaires are used to identify features that can cause corrup-tive actions:
1. Hoganovy tests — HPI questionnaire (Scales Stability, Sociability, Cooperation, Organizationality), HDS questionnaire (11 scales reflect the risk assessment inadequate behavior strategies).
2. NEO-PI-R — The scales are used Neuroticism and Good Faith.
3. Squares (Cut-e) — Scales: the Discipline, the conscientiousness and the ethical consciousness.
4. ANBE — thequestionnaire aimed at identifying attitudes towards work, people and motivation that can lead to job disruptions.
5. The questionnaire of the person BIP — questionnaire contains 4 personal preconditions of danger, for which the indicators of Professional orientation (the Motivation), the Labor behavior (the Integrity), the mental constitution (the Emotional stability and the Sustainability) are used.
6. SPARO — scales: theMental stability, the intensity of inner life, the dynamism of interaction with the environment, the propensity to rely on the will of the case, the Social exhibitionism, the Conformity.
It should be taken into account that all these questionnaires are not designed to identify trends in corruption and do not exclude the possibility of distortion of the result towards social desirability. Thequestionnaires are adapted and standardized for the Czech population, the scales of these tests are based on the premise that a person who has certain psychological qualities is reduced (or increases) the likelihood of risky and counterproductive activities.
To a great extent these drawbacks deprived of the psychometric method WORKtest®. Fromothertestsystems,it isdistinguishedby the following features: 1) the test is of a projective nature, which makes it impossible to falsify the results; 2) Scales describe the features of the performance of activities; 3) 300 scales of the test system are designed in accordance with the request of the practice of working with personnel. The system is available in Czech, English and Russian.
The testing procedure is based on the selection of 9 geometric shapes from a common matrix with the image of 51 figures. The test is included in the computer system for diagnosing and analyzing the features of the activity and is used for assessments in the field of a person's professional activity in the form of an audit.Thus, the Corruption Resistance Audit assesses the specific risk factors and manifestations of employee behavior that directly threaten the organization. In this case, the be-
havior is estimated from the "dominant" (high level of risk) to "not risky". The audit allows you to answer the question of whether a person is corrupt, and if so, what featuresencourage to such behavior, or a loyal person and how much he acts consciously or under the influence of others, or psychologically stable and balanced, and so on.
The audit of corruption resistance includes 32 criteria, which are collected in four modules:
1. Security, counterproductive and corrupt behavior
• the Bribery (extortion of bribes)
• the Bribery (bribe offer)
• the Embezzlement — financial
• the Embezzlement — information
• the Embezzlement — know how
• the Falsification and forgery of documents
• the Corruption
• Clientelism (favoritism)
• Susceptibility to pressure from the environment (lability)
2. The Loyalty and the moral stability
• the Moral sustainability and maturity
• the balance, loyalty, trust
• theEthics
• the Loyalty to the organization
• the Observance of agreed agreements and conventions
• the Compliance with corporate rules and regulations
• the Collegiality, tactfulness
3. The Mental stability
• the Emotional stability
• Psychological endurance
• the Mental maturity
• the Emotional maturity
• the Restraint and self-regulation
• the Social maturity
• the Overcoming Adverse Events
4. The Motivation and volitional
qualities
• the Material remuneration
• the Power and commitment
• the Power to achieve the goals
• the Self-realization
• the Search for the impact and use of it
• the Diplomacy
• the Initiative and activity
• Target Orientation
When an Audit of Corruption Sus-tainabilityis conducted, the comparison with the working population of the Czech Republic is available to the user. The standardization of the test was carried out on the results collected in 2010-2015, a sample of 4500 respondents. The retest reliability of the technique in various modules is 0,75-0,92, expert validity is 0,87-0,97. An example of verification of loyalty, reliability of employees and their resistance to corruption can be a study carried out using the WORKtest® method in 2013-2014, commissioned by a Czech company. The goal of the study was to analyze the risk of corruption of individual workers. The display of a risky potential meant to find out:
• How many employees have a ten-dencyto corruption,
• in which corruptive actions tend to be the most and least,
• how the manifestations of illegal actions are connected with loyalty and trustworthiness.
278 employees were included by research in the top management (n = 69, 25 % of the sample) and middle level (n = 209, 75 % of the sample), of which 165 women (60 %) were men (40 %). The age range is 28-56 years. The em-
ployees were tested using the WORKtest® psychodiagnostic tool. Six months later, 89 employees participated in the 360° assessment.
Figure 1 indicates a general propensity for corruption in terms of different demographic features. From schedule we see that of 278 respondents 12 peo-
ple are at high risk and 38 are risky, accounting for 18 % of the total. The group of high risk of corruption includes both women and men at all levels of management. The risk group consists mainly of mid-level personnel.
Which corruption manifestations are more often reflected in Table 1.
Fig. 1. The risk of exposure to corrupt practices at various levels of management
Table 1
the manifestations of counterproductive (corrupt) actions
Elements of corruptions Manifestation
Favoritism (nepotism) 61,6 %
Theft of information 56,7 %
Imprudence 54,6 %
Bribery (bribe offer) 53,9 %
speculation 53,7 %
falsification and forgery of documents 51,9 %
Manipulation and pressure 51,8 %
theft of know-how 50,3 %
bribery (extortion of bribes) 49,7 %
Receiving tangible and intangible benefits 48,0 %
theft of financial 45,4 %
Unpredictability 42,1 %
presence, instability 33,9 %
Mostof them seek tofavoritism and nepotism (62 %). Large indicators also gain information theft (57 %). If we talk about bribery, the offer of a bribe is more represented (54 %) than extortion (50 %). The lowest indicators gain suggestive instability, is a legitimate evidence that the basis of corruption is a conscious and purposeful process.
Furtherconsideration points to the fact that women are more prone to protectionism (women 64 %, men 59 %) and information dissemination (women 58 %, men — 52 %), men in turn often offer bribes (men — 54 %, women 50 %) And are less exposed to the environment (men — 31 %, women 34 %) and are more manipulative (more than women by 5 %). What is a well-thought-out use of corruption. But women are more diplomatic (50 %) than men (45 %).
The degree of conformity of test results was determined by using the 360° method. The results in Table 2 indicate an equal agreement of experts compared to self-assessment (90,3). The general consensus is 94,2 %, which is an indicator that allows us to take the test results for reliable and to draw conclusions about individual qualities.
The overall result of the audit in comparison with the norm of the population
is reflected in Fig. 2. Benchmarking,an audit of corruption resistance (compared to the norm, see Red Line) indicates the reliability of the personnel of this organization.
Conclusions: Our analysis showed the absence of author theories of loyalty and trustworthiness in Czech literature and the absence of specialized psychological questionnaires to diagnose a tendency to corrupt practices.
Research using the WORKtest® psychodiagnostic system in the Czech organizationcrewed 18 % of personnel-whichhave a highrisk of corruption. At the same time, middle-level personnel are more risky than the top management. Among the forms of corruption, there is more representation of fiction (nepotism) and information theft. At the same time, the offer of a bribe is manifested more than its demand. The slightest manifestation is instable, it is a legitimate evidence that the basis of corruption is a conscious and purposeful process.
The simultaneous application of the 360° method with psychodiagnostics revealed the high consistency of test results according to expert estimates, which allowed the results of testing in the system of the WORKtest® system
Table 2
consistency of test results with 360 estimates
Self-assessment Manager evaluation Evaluation of subordinates evaluation by collega overall consistency
90,3 95,8 95,2 95,5 94,2
WORKtest3 D_NORMA POPULACE Number of people : 278
Items Undeveloped Sufficient Developed Dominant Result
0-5055 51-65% 65-75% 75-100%
AUDIT coruption 1 49.74%
Fig. 2. The resistance to corruption in the organization compared with the average
in thepopulation
to be taken as reliable and to draw conclusions about individual manifestations of corrupt practices.
Assuming that the diagnostic system is presented in three languages: Czech, English and Russian, further studies see a comparative analysis of loyalty, reliability and manifestations of corruption in other countries.
REFERENCES -
1. Harsky K. Reliability and loyalty of staff / K. Kharskii. — St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003. — 496 p.
2. Agle B. R, Hart D. W, Thompson J. A., Hendricks H. M. Research Companion to Ethical Behavior in Organizations. Constructs and Measures. — UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2014.
3. Bauman Z. Life in Fragments. Essays in Postmodern Morality. — Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1995.
4. Buchanan B. (1974). Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19 (4): 553-546.
5. Chudzikowski K. Fresh Perspectives on the New Career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2012. — № 89. — P. 298-306.
6. Durkin D. M. The Loyalty advantage: essential steps to energize your company, your customers, your brand. — NY: AMACOM, 2005.
7. Dyne L. V., GrahamJ. W, Dienesch R. M. (1994). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 37 (4): 765-802.
8. Giddens A. Unikající svet: jak global-izace mení nás zivot. — Praha: Socio-logické nakladatelství, 2000. — 135 p.
9. Gino F. If You're Loyal to a Group, Does it Compromise Your Ethics?
Harvard Business School Publishing-Corporation, 2016.
10. Graham J. W, Organ D. W. Commitment and the Covenantal Organization // Journal of Managerial. — Issues 5: 483-502, 1993.
11. Grosman B. (1989). Corporate Loyalty: Does It Have a Future? // Journal of Business Ethics 8: 565-68.
12. Hartl P., Hartlová H. Psychologicky slovník. — Praha: Portál, 2000.
13. Haughey J. C. (1993). Does Loyalty in the Workplace Have a Future? // Business Ethics Quarterly 3: 1-16.
14. Kocianová R. Personální cinnosti a metody personální práce. — Praha: Grada Publishing a.s., 2010.
15. Kumar D. N. S, Shekhar N. Journal of Management Research. 2012: 12 (2). — P. 100-112.
16. LaabsJ. J. (1996). Employee commitment // Personnel Journal, 58-66.
17. LinhartJ. Slovník cizích slov pro nové tisíciletí. — Litvínov: Dialog, 2005.
18. MeyerJ. P., Allen N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1. -P. 61-89.
19. Moorman R. H, Blakely G. L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an Individual Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior // Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2): 127.
20. Mowday R. T, Porter L. W. & Steers R. M. (1982). Employee-orig-anization linkages. — New York: Academic Press.
21. Pandey C, Khare R. Impact of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee loyalty. International Journal of Social Science and Interdisciplinary Research, 2012: 1. — P. 36-41.
22. Pfeiffer R. S. (1992). Owing Loyalty to One's Employer. Joumal of Business Ethics 11: 535-44.
23. Plaminek, J. Vedeni lidi, tymu a fi-rem. — Praha: Grada Publishing a.s., 2011.
24. Powers E. L. Employee Loyalty in the New Millennium // Academic Journal, 2000: 65 (3). — P. 4-8.
25. Reichheld F. F. The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits, and lasting value. — Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
26. Reichheld F. F. Loyalty rules!: How today's leaders build lasting relationships. — Harvard Business Press, 2001.
27. Schrag, B. Business Ethics Quarterly // Business Source Complete 2001: 11 (1). — P. 41-66.
28. Sennet R. The Culture of the New Capitalism. — London: Yale University Press, 2006.
29. Solomon C. M. The loyalty factor // Personnel Journal, 1992. — P. 52-62.
30. SubrtJ. A. KOL. Soudobá sociologie II. Teorie sociálního jednání a sociál-ní struktury. — Praha: UK Praha, 2008.
31. Subrt, J.a kol. Soudobá sociologie IV. Aktuální a kazdodenní. — Praha: UK Praha, 2010.
32. Subrt, J.a kol. Soudobá sociologie VI. Oblasti a specializace. — Praha: UK Praha, 2014.
33. Toffler A., Toffler H. Nová civilizace. Tretí vlna a její dùsledky. — Praha: Dokorán, 2001. — 126 s.
34. Van der Vegt G. S., Van de Vliert E., Oosterhof A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and OCB: The role of intrateam interdepedence and team identification. Academy of Management // Journal, 46: 715-727.
35. Wagnerová I. Rízení vykonnosti. -Brno: Marek Konecny, 2005.
