INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AT WORK PERCEIVED BY

CROATIAN AND WORLDWIDE EMPLOYEES AND BY

DIFFERENT AGE, GENDER, EDUCATION, HIERARCHICAL
AND COMPANY SIZE GROUPS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Nina Poloki Voki & Tomislav Hernaus
*
Received: 25. 6. 2004. Preliminary communication
Accepted: 20. 12. 2004. UDC: 658.
Workplaces benefit if workers have good relationships !n other words" in #ears
when people are said to be the onl# true competitive advantage" it is evident that
interpersonal relations in organi$ations and processes of nourishing them have
become essential for the organi$ational success The purpose of this article was to
concisel# e%plain the importance" t#pes and wa#s of improving interpersonal
relations at work" as well as to e%plore if" and to what e%tent" interpersonal
relations at work are influenced b# emplo#ees& backgrounds The demographic
characteristics of emplo#ees that were e%pected to influence their perceptions of
interpersonal relations were' the countr# of origin" age" gender" educational level"
hierarchical level" and the si$e of the compan# for which the# work The
correlation anal#sis showed that the (countr# of origin) does influence
interpersonal relations at work Precisel#" interpersonal relations in *roatia are"
according to the respondents& perceptions" not as good as in other countries
involved in the stud# +or e%ample" *roatian emplo#ees perceive the working
atmosphere around them as significantl# less positive in comparison with the
respondents from other countries" the# are significantl# less fre,uentl# consulted
b# their superiors and rarel# praised" and their superiors spend significantl# less
time with them However" the research revealed that other demographic
characteristics are not of significant influence" either on the overall perceptions of
interpersonal relations" or on the perceptions of superior - subordinate or peer
relations
!
"ina Polo#$i %o$i&' P(D.'' a))i)tant pro*e))or+ ,omi)lav -ernau)' ./c' a))i)tant+ Univer)ity o*
0a1re2' 3raduate /c(ool o* 4conomic) and .u)ine))' ,r1. 5. 6. 7ennedya 6' 10 000 0a1re2'
P(one: 8 85 1 289264' 49mail: npolo)$i:e*;1.(r+ t(ernau):e*;1.(r
2
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
1. INTRODUCTION
.s work becomes more
comple% and collaborative"
companies where people work together
best have a competitive edge
Daniel Goleman
<n t(e clo)in1 year) o* t(e 20t( century' mana1ement (a) come to accept
t(at people' and not ca)(' 2uildin1)' or e?uipment' are t(e critical di**erentiator)
o* a 2u)ine)) enterpri)e. A) =e move into t(e ne= millennium and *ind
our)elve) in a $no=led1e economy' it i) undenia2le t(at people are t(e pro*it
lever. All t(e a))et) o* an or1ani;ation' ot(er t(an people' are inert. ,(ey are
pa))ive re)ource) t(at re?uire (uman application) to 1enerate value @6it;9en;'
2000A.
Boreover' t(e rule) o* =or$ are c(an1in1. People are 2ein1 Cud1ed 2y a
ne= yard)tic$: not Cu)t 2y (o= )mart t(ey are' or 2y t(eir trainin1 and eDperti)e'
2ut al)o 2y (o= =ell t(ey (andle t(em)elve) and eac( ot(er @3oleman' 1EE8A.
<n addition to tec(nical )$ill)' t(e t(ree mo)t (i1(ly )ou1(t9a*ter )$ill) in ne=
employee) are increa)in1ly oral communication' interper)onal a2ilitie) and
team=or$ a2ilitie) @3oleman' 1EE8A. A )tudy o* =(at corporation) are )ee$in1
in t(e B.A) t(ey (ire yield) a )imilar li)t. ,(e t(ree mo)t de)ired capa2ilitie)
are communication )$ill)' interper)onal )$ill)' and initiative @3oleman' 1EE8A.
,(i) i) =(ere interper)onal relation) come to play. /ince =e can )ee
or1ani;ation) a) net=or$) o* connected people and a) compo)ition) o*
relation)(ip)' a lar1e portion o* =or$ per*ormance i) tied to t(e e)ta2li)(ment
and maintenance o* interper)onal connection). ,(e ?uality o* t(e)e connection)
(a) a 1reat impact on peopleF) a2ility to 1et =or$ accompli)(ed and on t(e
*unctionin1 o* t(e or1ani;ation a) a =(ole @Gorline et al. in Hord et al. @ed).A'
2002A. A) 44I ,ru)t /urvey @C(arted Accountant) 5ournal' 2004A *ound' 81J
o* re)pondent) t(in$ t(at t(ey are more productive at =or$ i* t(ey (ave 1ood
per)onal relation)(ip) 2ecau)e t(ey *eel 2etter. <n ot(er =ord)' =or$place)
2ene*it i* =or$er) (ave 1ood relation)(ip).
-o=ever' in reality =e *re?uently cope =it( t(e oppo)ite. At =or$' people
re1ularly deal =it( people t(ey di)li$e @Hinder' 1EE4A' =it( di**icult people
@Accountin1 Department Bana1ement Report' 200A )uc( a) a11re))ive or
con*lictin1 people' or =it( pro2lem people' *or in)tance overly )(y' introvert
24
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
and non9)ocia2le people. ,(e impact o* )uc( people on =or$in1 e**iciency and
e**ectivene)) i) enormou). ,o 2e eDact' emotion) are conta1iou). ,(e
tran)mi))ion o* mood i) remar$a2ly po=er*ul. Ge all ma$e eac( ot(er *eel a 2it
2etter @or a lot =or)eA a) part o* any contact =e (ave @3oleman' 1EE8A. 6or
in)tance' trou2le)ome collea1ue) in mana1ement can (ave a po=er*ul ne1ative
capa2ility and can ea)ily ma$e department (ead) loo$ ine**ective 2y
=it((oldin1 in*ormation or mi))in1 deadline) @Accountin1 Department
Bana1ement Report' 200A.
Con)e?uently' t(e purpo)e o* t(e t(eoretical part o* t(i) article =a) to
conci)ely eDplain t(e importance' type) and =ay) o* improvin1 interper)onal
relation) at =or$. ,(e purpo)e o* t(e empirical part o* t(e article =a) to eDplore
t(e additional a)pect o* t(e i))ue K to eDplore i* and to =(at eDtent t(e
employee)L 2ac$1round in*luence) interper)onal relation).
2. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AT WORK
A) Druc$er @1EEEA eDplain)' very *e= people =or$ 2y t(em)elve) and
ac(ieve re)ult) 2y t(em)elve) K a *e= 1reat arti)t)' a *e= 1reat )cienti)t)' a *e=
1reat at(lete). Bo)t people =or$ =it( ot(er people and are e**ective t(rou1(
ot(er people. ,o mana1e one)el*' t(ere*ore' re?uire) ta$in1 re)pon)i2ility *or
relation)(ip) =it( ot(er people.
/ome evolutionary t(in$er) )ee t(e $ey moment *or t(e emer1ence o*
interper)onal relation) and interper)onal )$ill) a) a point at =(ic( our ance)tor)
moved *rom treetop) to 2road )avanna) 9 =(en )ocial coordination in (untin1
and 1at(erin1 paid (u1e dividend) @3oleman' 1EE8A. Met' it =a) not 2e*ore t(e
1E20) and t(e )o9called -uman Re)ource approac(e) to mana1ement t(at
mana1ement t(eoretician) and practitioner) )tarted puttin1 an emp(a)i) on t(e
(uman )ide o* t(e =or$place. ,(e -a=t(orne )tudie)' conducted 2y Bayo and
(i) a))ociate)' =ere t(e *ir)t t(at (elped )(i*t t(e attention o* mana1er) and
mana1ement re)earc(er) a=ay *rom t(e tec(nical and )tructural concern) o* t(e
cla))ical approac( and to=ard )ocial and (uman concern) a) $ey) to
productivity. ,(ey )(o=ed t(at peopleL) *eelin1)' attitude)' and relation)(ip)
=it( co=or$er) )(ould 2e important to mana1ement and t(ey reco1ni;ed t(e
importance o* t(e =or$ 1roup.
,o conclude' t(e contemporary meltdo=n o* old or1ani;ational *orm) *rom
a (ierarc(ical =irin1 dia1ram into t(e mandala o* a =e2' alon1 =it( t(e
a)cendance o* team=or$' increa)ed t(e importance o* traditional people )$ill)
)uc( a) 2uildin1 2ond)' in*luence' and colla2oration @3oleman' 1EE8A.
25
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
A Dictionary o* -uman Re)ource) N Per)onnel Bana1ement @1EEOA
de*ine) interper)onal relation) a) relation)' communication) and dealin1 =it(
people. Accordin1 to ,oropov @1EEOA' t(ere are t(ree main type) o*
interper)onal relation) at =or$ or t(ree main area) o* dealin1 =it( co=or$er):
@1A dealin1 =it( )u2ordinate)' @2A dealin1 =it( peer)' and @A dealin1 =it(
)uperior).
Alt(ou1( a2ilitie) )uc( a) 1ood interper)onal )$ill)
1
' communication )$ill)'
empat(y' colla2oration and cooperation' and con*lict mana1ement are re?uired
*or 1ood interper)onal relation) at =or$ in t(e ca)e o* all t(ree 1roup) o*
co=or$er)' t(ere are )ome )peci*ic *eature) o* eac( o* t(em t(at re?uire *urt(er
eDplanation.
2.1 Dealing with subordinates
Davi) et al. @1EE6 in -unt N .aruc(' 200A propo)ed a *rame=or$ =it( *ive
1roupin1) o* mana1erial )$ill)' =(ic( t(ey ar1ue are e))ential *or a mana1er to
2e )ucce))*ul: @1A admini)trative' @2A communication' @A interper)onal' @4A
leader)(ip' and @5A motivation )$ill). A) many a) *our out o* t(e *ive 1roupin1)
o* mana1erial )$ill) are )$ill) needed *or dealin1 =it( )u2ordinate)' t(at i) )$ill)
re?uired *or 1ood interper)onal relation) =it( t(em.
Bint;2er1 @1EO5A de*ined t(ree 1roup) o* role) o* a mana1er
@interper)onal' in*ormational and deci)ionalA' amon1 =(ic( interper)onal role)
ran$ed *ir)t' i.e. t(ey =ere po)itioned a) a *oundation. -e eDplain) t(at )tatu)
come) *rom *ormal aut(ority' =(ic( involve) variou) interper)onal relation)
con)e?uently leadin1 to acce)) to in*ormation. <n*ormation' in turn' ena2le) t(e
mana1er to ma$e deci)ion) and )trate1ie) *or t(e unit. Bint;2er1 identi*ied
t(ree interper)onal role) t(at are t(e prere?ui)ite) *or t(e )ucce))*ul completion
o* a mana1erL) Co2: a *i1ure(ead role' a leader role' and a liai)on role.
Bany mana1ement t(eoretician) =or$ed on t(e identi*ication o*
mana1erial )$ill) and role)' and t(ey all a1ree t(at interper)onal )$ill) are
e))ential )$ill)' and t(at pro*iciency in t(o)e )$ill) i) =(at 1ood and 2ad
mana1er) are di)tin1ui)(ed 2y. <n ot(er =ord)' interper)onal ineptitude in
leader) lo=er) everyoneL) per*ormance: it =a)te) time' create) acrimony'
corrode) motivation and commitment' and 2uild) (o)tility and apat(y
@3oleman' 1EE8A.
1
Commonly' interper)onal )$ill) cover )even area) @6orre)t N 7na)el' 1E8E in Hu;io9Hoc$ett'
1EE5A: li)tenin1' under)tandin1' advi)in1' )upportin1' ma$in1 and 2rea$in1 a relation)(ip' )el*9
a=arene))' and con*rontin1 @a2ility to (elp collea1ue) con*ront t(eir per)onal pro2lem)A.
26
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
,(ere*ore' in order to )ucce))*ully deal =it( t(eir )u2ordinate)' mana1er)
)(ould po))e)) t(e *ollo=in1 interper)onal )$ill): @1A relation)(ip 2uildin1 K
a2ility to develop and maintain conver)ation and interaction' @2A li)tenin1 to
ot(er)' @A empat(y K under)tandin1 ot(er)L need) and *eelin1)' @4A encoura1in1
ot(er) to pre)ent t(eir idea)' eDpo)e *eelin1) and eDpre)) opinion)' and @5A
1ivin1 *eed2ac$. I* t(e li)ted )$ill)' li)tenin1 )$ill) are t(e 2e1innin1 o*
)ucce))*ul communication' and t(ey are e)pecially important *or 1ood
interper)onal relation) =it( )u2ordinate). "amely' =(en a mana1er li)ten)'
(eP)(e i) 2etter a2le to communicate =it( ot(er)' 1et alon1 =it( t(em' and
)upport t(em @.ro=nin1' 2002A. <n ot(er =ord)' active li)tenin1 i) a $ey to
empat(y. Boreover' a) Bar$ Hoe(r' a mana1in1 director at /alomon /mit(
.arney' o2)erved to 3oleman @1EE8A: QG(en you communicate openly' you
open t(e po))i2ility o* 1ettin1 t(e 2e)t out o* people K t(eir ener1y' creativity. <*
you donLt' t(en t(ey Cu)t *eel li$e co1) in a mac(ine' trapped and un(appy.R
,o1et(er =it( t(e *ive 1roup) o* interper)onal )$ill)' 1ood leader)(ip )$ill)
are crucial =(en dealin1 =it( )u2ordinate)' a) Bint;2er1 reco1ni;ed )ome 0
year) a1o. Contemporary mana1er) u)e and )(ould u)e t(e Q)o*tR approac( to
conductin1 2u)ine)) and leadin1 people. <n ot(er =ord)' t(ey )(ould u)e t(e
tran)*ormational leader)(ip )tyle @al)o called t(e interactive or emotional
leader)(ip )tyleA to 1uide and motivate t(eir people. ,(i) leader)(ip )tyle i)
c(aracteri;ed 2y cooperation' participation' team=or$' (i1(ly developed
interper)onal )$ill)' c(ari)matic po=er' )(arin1 o* po=er and in*ormation'
en(ancin1 )el*9=ort( o* ot(er)' ener1i;in1 ot(er)' and )ettin1 a po)itive
eDample @Polo#$i' 2001A.
Ha)tly' mana1er) )(ould 2e a=are o* 2e(avior) t(at dama1e t(eir
relation)(ip) =it( )u2ordinate)' )uc( a) =antin1 to 2e Qli$edR 2y every2ody'
)ociali;in1 =it( )ta** too muc( @out)ide =or$A' provin1 to 2e t(e 2e)t at
accompli)(in1 t(e ta)$' t(in$in1 to 2e t(e only one =(o can do )omet(in1' and
)imilar @7nippen N 3reen' 1EEE2A.
2.2 Dealing with peers
<t i) )aid t(at i* an or1ani;ation =ant) to improve t(e ?uality o* it)
product)P)ervice)' it )(ould (elp team mem2er) develop t(eir per)onal
relation)(ip)' and loo$ at eac( ot(er more a) people.
/everal competencie) are e)pecially valua2le =(en dealin1 =it( peer): @1A
2uildin1 2ond) K nurturin1 in)trumental relation)(ip)' @2A colla2oration and
cooperation K =or$in1 =it( ot(er) to=ard )(ared 1oal)' and @A team
2O
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
capa2ilitie) K creatin1 )yner1y in =or$in1 to=ard a 1roup @3oleman' 1EE8A.
People =(o are 1ood at 2uildin1 2ond) cultivate and maintain eDten)ive
in*ormal net=or$)' )ee$ out relation)(ip) t(at are mutually 2ene*icial' 2uild
rapport and $eep ot(er) in t(e loop' and ma$e and maintain per)onal *riend)(ip)
amon1 =or$ a))ociate). People 1ood in colla2oration and cooperation 2alance
t(e *ocu) on t(e ta)$ =it( attention 1iven to relation)(ip)' )(are plan)'
in*ormation and re)ource)+ t(ey promote a *riendly' cooperative climate+ and
t(ey )pot and nurture opportunitie) *or colla2oration. ,eam capa2ilitie)' in ot(er
=ord) creatin1 1roup )yner1y in pur)uin1 collective 1oal)' are al)o important
2ecau)e =(en team) =or$ =ell' turnover and a2)enteei)m decline' =(ile
productivity tend) to ri)e @Boreland et al. in 3oleman' 1EE8A.
<n dealin1 =it( peer)' calmne)) and patience are $ey i))ue) @Galter %.
Clar$e A))ociate)' 1EEO in 3oleman' 1EE8A. A) mentioned 2e*ore' t(e
emotional economy i) t(e )um total o* t(e eDc(an1e) o* *eelin1) amon1 u).
4very encounter can 2e =ei1(ted alon1 a )cale *rom emotionally toDic to
nouri)(in1. G(ile it) operation i) lar1ely invi)i2le' t(i) economy can (ave
immen)e 2ene*it) *or a 2u)ine)) or *or t(e tone o* t(e or1ani;ational li*e
@3oleman' 1EE8A. <n ot(er =ord)' 1ood *eelin1) )pread more po=er*ully t(an
2ad one)' and t(e e**ect) are eDtremely )alutary' 2oo)tin1 cooperation' *airne))'
colla2oration' and t(e overall 1roup per*ormance @3oleman' 1EE8A.
6inally' one o* t(e )$ill) t(at ena2le) 1ood interper)onal relation) amon1
collea1ue) at =or$ i) con*lict mana1ement. Alt(ou1( e))ential =(en dealin1
2ot( =it( )uperior) and )u2ordinate)' con*lict mana1ement i) particularly u)e*ul
*or ne1otiatin1 and re)olvin1 di)a1reement) amon1 peer). People =it( t(i)
competence (andle di**icult people and ten)e )ituation) =it( diplomacy and
tact' )pot potential con*lict' 2rin1 di)a1reement) into t(e open' encoura1e de2ate
and open di)cu))ion' and orc(e)trate =in9=in )olution) @3oleman' 1EE8A.
2.3. Dealing with superiors
<nteraction) =it( )uperior) pro2a2ly (ave a 1reater impact on t(e
employeeL) career )ucce)) t(an (i)P(er contact) =it( any ot(er individual =it(in
t(e or1ani;ation @,oropov' 1EEOA. ,(at i) =(y t(e area o* dealin1 =it( )uperior)
)(ould not 2e ne1lected' a) it u)ually i) in contemporary mana1ement literature.
,oropov @1EEOA 1ive) tip) *or e**ective day9to9day interaction) =it(
)uperior). -e advi)e) to $eep t(e appeal) =it( a 2o)) 2rie*' 1et ri1(t to t(e
point' and )tic$ =it( t(e *act) t(at can act a) a 2ac$up. -e al)o advi)e) to $no=
=(en to o**er (elp =it(out 2ein1 a)$ed *or it' to ta$e t(e 2lame and move on in
28
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
tou1( time)' and =(en in dou2t' a))ume per)onal re)pon)i2ility. G(en dealin1
=it( )uperior)' it i) =i)e to 1ive po)itive rein*orcement. ,(e employee )(ould
prai)e (i)P(er 2o)) *or meetin1' li)tenin1' under)tandin1' 2ein1 open9minded'
and 2ein1 =illin1 to =or$ =it( (imP(er @7nippen N 3reen' 1EEEaA.
Additionally' ,oropov @1EEOA =arn) never to pa)) alon1 =or$place 1o))ip t(at
include) t(e 2o))L) name' (e )u11e)t) to identi*y a )(ared non=or$9related
intere)t =it( a 2o))' and to ta$e note) =(en )pea$in1 =it( a )uperior 2ecau)e
t(at )end) a )erie) o* important me))a1e) )uc( a): Q<Lm li)tenin1R or QG(at
youLre )ayin1 i) important enou1( to record in a permanent medium.R
A) a *inal point' 2o))e) pre*er dealin1 =it( employee) =it( =(ic( t(ey can
e**ectively communicate' on =(ic( t(ey can rely' and =(ic( )upport t(em. <n
addition' t(ey pre*er dealin1 =it( employee) =(o are not overly a11re))ive =it(
t(em @Galter %. Clar$e A))ociate)' 1EEO in 3oleman' 1EE8A. <n ot(er =ord)'
t(ey pre*er dealin1 =it( employee) =(o are a2le to calm do=n t(e =or$in1
atmo)p(ere or (ave a tran?uili;in1 per)ona.
3. RESEARCH PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES
,(e re)earc( pro2lem o* t(e empirical part o* t(i) article =a)' a) already
mentioned' interdependence 2et=een interper)onal relation) at =or$ and
employee)L 2ac$1round). Bore preci)ely' t(e intention o* t(e empirical re)earc(
conducted =a) to *ind out i* t(ere are any di**erence) in employee)L perception)
o* interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) dependin1 on t(eir 2ac$1round)
@demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic)A.
Demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic) o* employee) t(at =ere eDpected to in*luence
employee)L perception) o* interper)onal relation) =ere: t(e country o* ori1in'
a1e' 1ender' educational level' (ierarc(ical level' and )i;e o* t(e company *or
=(ic( t(ey =or$ed. ,(e (ypot(e)e) em2odyin1 t(e demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic)
o* employee) =ere 1rouped in t=o )et). ,(e *ir)t )et con)i)ted o* one
(ypot(e)i)' t(e main (ypot(e)i) o* t(i) re)earc(' and eDplored t(e in*luence o*
nationalitie) @t(e employeeL) country o* ori1inA on interper)onal relation). ,(e
)econd )et eDplored t(e interdependence 2et=een t(e remainin1 demo1rap(ic
c(aracteri)tic) and perception) o* interper)onal relation) in an or1ani;ation.
,(e i))ue o* an employeeL) country o* ori1in =a) central in t(i) )tudy a)
t(e emp(a)i) =a) on t(e importance o* interper)onal relation) at =or$ *or
or1ani;ational per*ormance and )ucce)). ,o 2e preci)e' t(e 2elie* t(at prevail)
amon1 employee) and mana1ement t(eoretician) in Croatia i) t(at interper)onal
relation) in Croatian companie) are not 1iven t(e ri1(t attention. ,(i) =a)
2E
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
proved 2y a )urvey conducted 2y /i$avica and .a(tiCarevi&9Si2er @2004A' one o*
t(e rare )urvey) inve)ti1atin1 interper)onal relation) in Croatian companie).
Ine9t(ird o* t(e mana1er) )urveyed in t(e )tudy )tated t(at t(ey 2e(aved
de*en)ively =(en communicatin1 =it( t(eir )uperior). Con)e?uently' t(e *ir)t
(ypot(e)i) o* t(i) re)earc( =a):
H
/
0 .ccording to emplo#ees1 perceptions" interpersonal relations at
work in *roatia are not as good as in other countries
encompassed b# the stud#
,(e ori1in) o* t(e (ypot(e)e) dealin1 =it( t(e in*luence o* t(e remainin1
employee)L demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic) on t(eir perception) o* interper)onal
relation) in t(eir companie) =ere t(e *ollo=in1:
@1A Gender K Gomen are 1enerally 2etter t(an men in interper)onal )$ill)'
a) )tati)tically )i1ni*icant di**erence) 2et=een t(e 1roup) in many
)urvey) conducted all around t(e =orld )(o= @Ro)ener' 1EE0+ -eim N
3olant' 1EE+ -el1e)en' 1EE5+ GaCcman' 1EE6+ Polo#$i' 200A.
"amely' =omen 1enerally (ave (ad more practice at )ome
interper)onal )$ill) t(an men' at lea)t in culture) =(ere 1irl) are rai)ed
to 2e more attuned to *eelin1) and t(eir nuance) t(an 2oy) @3oleman'
1EE8A. <t can t(u) 2e a))umed t(at =omen are more )en)itive to
interper)onal relation) at =or$' and t(ere*ore perceive t(em a) 2ein1
not a) 1ood a) men do:
H
2/
0 Women perceive interpersonal relations at work as worse than
do men
@2A Age K <t i) 1enerally ac$no=led1ed t(at interper)onal )$ill) can
improve t(rou1(out li*e. <n t(e normal cour)e o* a li*etime' t(ey tend
to increa)e a) =e learn to 2e more a=are o* our mood)' to (andle
di)tre))in1 emotion) 2etter' to li)ten and empat(i;e K in )(ort' a) =e
2ecome more mature @3oleman' 1EE8A. ,o a lar1e eDtent' maturity
it)el* de)cri2e) t(i) proce)) o* 2ecomin1 more intelli1ent a2out our
relation)(ip). ,(ere*ore' =e pre)uppo)ed t(at older people are more
plea)ed =it( interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) 2ecau)e t(ey
are more 2enevolent:
H
22
0 3lder emplo#ees perceive interpersonal relations in their
companies as better than do the #ounger ones
0
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
@A Educational level K Durin1 t(e *ormal education proce))' pupil) and
)tudent) ac?uire di**erent type) o* $no=led1e and )$ill)' dependin1 on
t(e *ocu) and len1t( o* t(eir )tudie). G(en eDpo)ed to education
lon1er' t(ey develop variou) )$ill)' and ma)ter t(em 2etter. ,(e )ame
i) )aid to 2e true o* interper)onal )$ill). ,(e (i1(er t(e employeeL)
educational level' t(e 2etter (i)P(er interper)onal )$ill) or at lea)t
(i)P(er $no=led1e a2out =(at 1ood interper)onal )$ill) are. <t i) t(u)
a))umed t(at employee) =it( a (i1(er level o* *ormal education are
2i11er critic) o* t(e eDi)tin1 level o* interper)onal relation):
H
24
0 5mplo#ees with higher levels of education perceive
interpersonal relations in their companies as worse than do the
less educated ones
@4A Hierarchical level K 6or lo=er level po)ition)' t(ere i) a (i1(er
premium on tec(nical a2ilitie) t(an on interper)onal one). At (i1(er
level)' t(e interper)onal )$ill) are t(o)e t(at matter more t(an tec(nical
)$ill) in )ettin1 )tar per*ormer) apart. Con)e?uently' it can 2e a))umed
t(at employee) at upper (ierarc(ical level) are more a=are o* t(e
importance o* t(o)e )$ill) and' a) a re)ult' more critical a2out t(e level
o* interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie):
H
26
0 5mplo#ees at upper hierarchical levels perceive interpersonal
relations in their companies worse than do those at lower level
occupations
@5A Size of company K <t i) =idely ac$no=led1ed t(at )maller companie)
@mea)ured in num2er o* employee)A (ave a (i1(er rate o* *amily
atmo)p(ere. Due to t(e )maller num2er o* lin$) 2et=een people and
)maller num2er o* (ierarc(ical level)' communication) in t(o)e
companie) are le)) *ormal and more open' and interper)onal relation)
are )aid to 2e more *riendly and relaDed. Accordin1ly' t(e la)t
(ypot(e)i) o* our re)earc( =a):
H
27
0 5mplo#ees that work in smaller companies perceive
interpersonal relations in their companies better than do those
in bigger ones
1
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
4. METHODOLOGY
<n order to acceptPreCect t(e )tated (ypot(e)e)' =e developed a
?ue)tionnaire t(at con)i)ted o* *our )et) o* ?ue)tion). G(ile t(e *ir)t )et
con)i)ted o* *ive demo1rap(ic ?ue)tion) @1ender' a1e' educational level'
(ierarc(ical level' and )i;e o* companyA' t(e ot(er t(ree )et) con)i)ted o*
?ue)tion) concernin1 interper)onal relation): @1A overall perception) o*
interper)onal relation) in a company' @2A perception) o* )uperior K )u2ordinate
relation)' and @A perception) o* relation) amon1 peer).
,(e ?ue)tionnaire =a) di)tri2uted via e9mail in 200' =(ic( =a) t(e only
met(od availa2le to collect t(e data 2ot( *or Croatian employee) and employee)
=orld=ide. Di**erent )earc( en1ine) =ere u)ed to a))e)) t(e $no=led1e o* t(e
=or$in1 population in Croatia and a2road. /ince t(e )tratum =a) Q$no=led1e
=or$er)R t(at 9 almo)t =it(out eDception 9 (ad acce)) to t(e <nternet' t(e
ar1ument t(at e9mail )urvey) are re)tricted to )peci*ic population )e1ment) =a)
not o* relevance. 6or t(e )ame rea)on' t(e u)ual potential 2ia) re1ardin1
di**erence) in <nternet acce)) amon1 di**erent a1e 1roup)' education 1roup) or
re1ion) =a) not to 2e ta$en into con)ideration eit(er. Iut o* approDimately
16'000 e9mail addre)) o=ner) t(at =ere contacted to participate in t(e )tudy' t(e
re)pon)e rate =a) a2out 4.OJ
2
. /ince t(ere are con)idera2le variation) in t(e
rate) o* re)pon)e to e9mail )urvey) @Ippermann' 1EE5A' and it i) not rare to
conduct an e9mail )urvey and (ave a re)pon)e rate o* Cu)t around 5J @Ranc((od
N 0(ou' 2001A' t(e lo= re)pon)e rate in t(i) )tudy i) accepta2le.
,(e )ample con)i)ted o* a total o* O58 re)pondent) =(o participated in t(e
)tudy. I* t(i) num2er' 66 percent =ere Croatian)' and 4 percent *rom t(e re)t
o* t(e =orld @2y continent): 1.6J 4urope' E.0J "ort( America' 4.1J Central
and /out( America' 4.0J A)ia' 1.8J Au)tralia and "e= 0ealand' and 1.5J
A*rica+ 2y mana1ement )tyle 1roup): 20.J Ge)tern countrie)' .8J ,ran)ition
and eD9tran)ition countrie) @Croatia eDcludedA' 1.6J 6ar 4a)t' and 8.2J ot(erA.
A total o* 6E national culture) =ere repre)ented. ,(e amount o* male
participant) =a) 48.6J. ,(e mean a1e o* participant) =a) 6.6 year)' and t(e
a1e ran1e =a) 20 to 6E year). A total o* 1.J o* participant) *ini)(ed (i1(
)c(ool' 1.5J (ave a colle1e de1ree' 50.8J a univer)ity de1ree' and 22.4J
*ini)(ed a ma)ter or doctoral pro1ram. .y t(e (ierarc(ical level' 4.EJ did not
(old mana1erial po)ition)' 18.4J =ere *ir)t line mana1er)' 1.4J middle
2
Ge contacted a2out 6'000 Croatian employee) and 10'000 employee) =orld=ide. ,(e re)pon)e
rate *or Croatia =a) a2out 8.J' =(ile t(e re)pon)e rate *or t(e =orld =a) a2out 2.6J. Ge
2elieve t(at t(e di**erence 2et=een t(e re)pon)e rate) i) due to t(e *act t(at Croatian employee)
are )till not overloaded =it( di**erent e9mail )urvey) a) employee) around t(e =orld are.
2
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
mana1er)' and 15.J top mana1er). A total o* 5.6J =ere employed 2y lar1e
*irm) @=it( more t(an 400 employee)A' 1.2J 2y middle9)i;e *irm) @50 to 400
employee)A' and .2J 2y )mall *irm) @le)) t(an 50 employee)A.
<n order to acceptPreCect t(e )tated (ypot(e)e)' in addition to t(e de)criptive
)tati)tic)' t(e data =ere )u2Cect to t=o )ta1e) o* t(e )tati)tical analy)i): @1A
correlation analy)i) @/pearman r(o K TA' and @2A te)t analy)i) @t9te)t *or
independent )ample) *or dic(otomou) varia2le)' 7ru)$al9Galli) - te)t *or
ordinal varia2le)' and one9=ay A"I%A @69te)tA *or numerical varia2le)A. A)
t(e correlation and te)t analy)e) (ad t(e )ame outcome' only t(e re)ult) o* t(e
correlation analy)i) are pre)ented. ,(ere are t=o rea)on) *or )uc( a c(oice.
6ir)t' a) oppo)ed to t(e t9value' c(i9)?uare and 69ratio' =(ic( only provide
in*ormation on =(et(er t(ere i) a )i1ni*icant di**erence 2et=een one or more o*
t(e 1roup) =it(out pointin1 to =(ere t(i) di**erence lie)' correlation coe**icient)
provide t(e in*ormation 2ot( on t(e )tren1t( and direction o* relation)(ip)
@.ryman N Cramer' 1EEOA. /econdly' it i) more convenient to 1ive Cu)t one type
o* )tati)tical analy)i) t(rou1(out t(e paper =(en di**erent )tati)tical analy)e)
)(o= identical re)ult).
5. RESEARCH FINDINGS
Re)earc( *indin1) are pre)ented in t=o )ection): *ir)tly' t(e impact o* t(e
country o* ori1in on t(e employee)L perception) o* interper)onal relation) in
t(eir or1ani;ation)' and )econdly' t(e impact o* ot(er demo1rap(ic
c(aracteri)tic) on t(e re)pondent)L perception) o* relation)(ip) amon1
co=or$er). Al)o' *indin1) are divided into t(ree part) dependin1 on t(e type o*
interper)onal relation) t(ey deal =it(: @1A overall perception) o* interper)onal
relation) in a company' @2A perception) o* )uperior K )u2ordinate relation)' and
@A perception) o* peer relation).
5.1. The impact of the country of origin on interpersonal relations
,(ree cla))i*ication) o* independent c(aracteri)tic) o* Qcountry o* ori1inR
=ere u)ed =(en analy;in1 data. %aria2le QIri1in 1R cla))i*ied re)pondent) into
t(o)e *rom Croatia and t(o)e *rom a2road. %aria2le QIri1in 2R cla))i*ied
re)pondent) 2y continent). %aria2le QIri1in R cla))i*ied re)pondent) accordin1
to t(e mana1ement )tyle typical *or t(eir nationality

. -o=ever' a) it =ill 2e

<n addition to t(e Croatian re)pondent) t(at con)tituted a )eparate 1roup' t(ere =ere *our
mana1ement )tyle 1roup): @1A Ge)tern countrie)' c(aracteri;ed 2y t(e American mana1ement
)tyle' @2A 6ar 4a)t countrie)' c(aracteri;ed 2y t(e 5apane)e mana1ement )tyle' @A Countrie) in
tran)ition or eD9tran)ition countrie)' )till c(aracteri;ed 2y t(e mana1ement )tyle )ome=(ere
2et=een t(e capitali)tic =ay o* doin1 2u)ine)) and rudiment) o* )ociali)m' and @4A It(er' =it(out

Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49

". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
)(o=n' no matter =(ic( cla))i*ication o* t(e country o* ori1in =a) u)ed' t(e
re)ult) =ere )imilar.
7// The interdependence between the countr# of origin and overall
perceptions of interpersonal relations
<n order to a))e)) t(e overall perception) o* interper)onal relation) in oneL)
company' t(e re)pondent) =ere a)$ed t(ree ?ue)tion). 6ir)tly' t(ey =ere a)$ed
to evaluate (o= important *or t(em are 1ood interper)onal relation) at =or$. A)
it can 2e )een *rom 6i1ure 1' *or Croatian employee)' interper)onal relation) at
=or$ are con)idera2ly le)) important t(an t(ey are *or employee) around t(e
=orld. G(en compared =it( re)pondent) cla))i*ied 2y mana1ement )tyle)
typical *or t(eir nationality' le)) concerned a2out interper)onal relation) in t(eir
companie) t(an Croatian) =ere only employee) *rom t(e 6ar 4a)t. G(en
analy;ed 2y continent)' only re)pondent) *rom "ort( America perceive
interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) le)) important t(an Croatian
employee). Iverall' alt(ou1( all t(e re)pondent) a1ree t(at 1ood interper)onal
relation) at =or$ are important @on a )cale *rom 1 to 5' t(e mean value =a) 4.1
=it( t(e )tandard deviation o* 0.66A' Croatian) a))i1ned noticea2ly lo=er
importance to t(e )u2Cect matter.
4,09
4,21
3,92
4,14
4,18
4,37
4,06
4,21
4,23
4,24
4,27
4,39
1 2 3 4 5
Croatia
Transition and ex-transition countries
Other
North America
Asia
Af rica
+igure / The importance of good interpersonal relations at work"
*roatian emplo#ees and emplo#ees worldwide
di)tinctive mana1ement )tyle c(aracteri)tic).
4
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
/econdly' re)pondent) =ere a)$ed to evaluate' on a )cale *rom one to *ive
@1 U poor' 5 U eDcellentA' t(e =or$in1 atmo)p(ere around t(em. ,(e avera1e
value *or Croatian employee) =a) .12' Cu)t a2ove t(e 2rea$ point @value) le))
t(an t(ree )i1ni*y an unplea)ant =or$in1 atmo)p(ereA' =(ile t(e avera1e value
*or non9Croatian employee) =a) (i1(er' .5.
6inally' re)pondent) =ere a)$ed to identi*y =(ic( type o* communication
=a) t(e mo)t di**icult one *or t(em: communication =it( )u2ordinate)' peer) or
)uperior).
G(ile Croatian employee) *ind it mo)t di**icult to communicate =it( t(eir
)uperior)' employee) =orld=ide *ind t(at communication =it( all t(ree 1roup)
o* t(eir co=or$er) =a) e?ually di**icult @6i1ure 2A.
,(ere*ore' it can 2e deduced t(at Croatian employee) lac$ t(e )$ill) *or
communicatin1 =it( t(e )peci*ic 1roup o* co=or$er)' =(ile employee)
=orld=ide are e?ually )$illed in dealin1 =it( all t(ree 1roup) o* co=or$er).
World
30
32
38
Croatia
26
21
53
Communication with subordinates
Communication with peers
Communication with superiors
+igure 2 8ost difficult t#pe of communication" *roatian emplo#ees
and emplo#ees worldwide
-o=ever' t(e de)criptive )tati)tic) do not provide )u**icient in*ormation to
evaluate =(et(er interper)onal relation) at =or$ in Croatia are' accordin1 to
employee)F perception)' 2etter or =or)e t(an el)e=(ere in t(e =orld' and
=(et(er to acceptPreCect t(e *ir)t (ypot(e)i).
5
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
<t i) nece))ary to con)ider t(e correlation analy)i) *indin1) a) =ell
@,a2le 1A.
Table / *orrelations between the countr# of origin and
overall perceptions of interpersonal relations in a compan#
Questions about
interpersonal relations in a company
Origin 1
(Croatia or
abroad)
Origin 2
(Continent)
Origin 3
(Management
style)
1. -o= important are 1ood interper)onal
relation) at =or$ *or youV
T 0.107 0.108 0.114
W 0.00 0.00 0.002
. 4valuate t(e =or$in1 atmo)p(ere
around you.
T 0.096 0.092 0.089
W 0.008 0.012 0.014
5. G(ic( type o* communication i) t(e
mo)t di**icult one *or youV
T -0.125 -0.131 -0.129
W 0.001 0.001 0.001
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
,a2le 1 depict) t(at a re)pondentL) country o* ori1in )i1ni*icantly
correlate) =it( (i)P(er perception) o* interper)onal relation) in (i)P(er company.
All t(ree varia2le) o* ori1in are *ound to 2e )i1ni*icant *or t(e re)pondent)L
an)=er) to all t(ree ?ue)tion).
Accordin1ly' t(e percenta1e o* t(e an)=er) t(at )i1ni*icantly di**er
dependin1 on t(e re)pondent)L country o* ori1in i) 100J. Compared to t(eir
counterpart) around t(e =orld' Croatian employee) are )i1ni*icantly le))
intere)ted in 1ood interper)onal relation) at =or$' t(ey perceive t(e =or$in1
atmo)p(ere around t(em a) )i1ni*icantly le)) po)itive' and t(ey eDperience
)u2)tantial pro2lem) =(en dealin1 =it( a )peci*ic 1roup o* co=or$er)' namely'
t(eir )uperior).
7/2 The interdependence between the countr# of origin and superior -
subordinate relations
,o a))e)) t(e interdependence 2et=een t(e country o* ori1in and )uperior K
)u2ordinate relation)' re)pondent) =ere a)$ed to evaluate )even )tatement)
@6i1ure A on a )cale *rom one @t(e =or)t 1rade or )cenarioA to *ive @t(e 2e)t
1rade or )cenarioA.
6
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
'4O
'O8
'05
4'0O
'82
2'64
'48
2'E8
'62
'81
'2
4'15
4'06
2'EE
'58
'41
1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
How do you assess your relationship with
your superior?
Does you superior consult you before
making a decision?
Are you free to decide what to do on your job
rather then being told by your superior?
Does you superior treat all his/her
subordinates equally?
Croatia
World
+igure 4 Perceptions of superior - subordinate relations"
mean value for *roatian emplo#ees and emplo#ees worldwide
A) 6i1ure )(o=)' all t(e o2tained value)' eDcept *or t(e Croatian value in
t(e la)t ?ue)tion' )i1ni*y t(at t(e re)pondent) are po)itive a2out )uperior K
)u2ordinate relation) in t(eir companie) @all value) are 2i11er t(an t(ree =(ic(
i) t(e 2rea$ point 2et=een ne1ative and po)itive perceptionA.
<t could 2e ar1ued t(at employee)L perception) a2out t(eir relation) =it(
t(eir )uperior) )(ould 2e 2etter. <n ot(er =ord)' t(ey )(ould 2e evaluated a)
2ein1 2etter.
6urt(ermore' 6i1ure )(o=) t(at Croatian employee) are le)) )ati)*ied
=it( (o= t(eir 2o))e) treat t(em. ,(i) al)o con*irm) t(eir an)=er to t(e
?ue)tion QDo you t(in$ t(at your )uperior )pend) enou1( time =it( (i)P(er
)u2ordinate)VR.
Croatian employee) an)=ered po)itively to t(at ?ue)tion in 40.4J o* t(e
ca)e)' =(ile employee) *rom t(e re)t o* t(e =orld a1reed =it( t(e )tatement in
61.2J o* t(e ca)e). Nevertheless" in order to provide enough data for
accepting9re:ecting the first h#pothesis of this research" it is necessar# to take a
look at the correlations between the countr# of origin and the perceptions of
superior - subordinate relations
Table 2 *orrelations between the countr# of origin and
O
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
perceptions of superior - subordinate relations
Questions about
superior subordinate relations
Origin 1
(Croatia
or abroad)
Origin 2
(Continent)
Origin 3
(Management
style)
1. -o= i) your relation)(ip =it( your )uperiorV
T 0.062 0.06 0.061
W 0.0E1 0.086 0.0E5
. -o= o*ten doe) your )uperior allo= (i)P(er
)u2ordinate) to participate in deci)ion9ma$in1V
T 0.024 0.025 0.02E
W 0.512 0.4EE 0.44
5. Doe) your )uperior con)ult you 2e*ore ma$in1
a deci)ionV
T 0.126 0.126 0.142
W 0.001 0.001 0.000
O. Are you *ree to tell your opinion to your
)uperiorV
T 0.04E 0.0O 0.050
W 0.18O 0.10 0.1O2
E. Are you *ree to decide =(at to do on your Co2
rat(er t(an 2ein1 told 2y your )uperiorV
T 0.129 0.114 0.126
W 0.000 0.002 0.001
11. -o= o*ten do you oppo)e your )uperiorV
T 0.217 0.216 0.213
W 0.000 0.000 0.000
1. -o= o*ten doe) your )uperior 1ive prai)e) *or a
=or$ =ell doneV
T 0.192 0.190 0.190
W 0.000 0.000 0.000
15. Do you t(in$ t(at your )uperior )pend) enou1(
time =it( (i)P(er )u2ordinate)V
T 0.196 0.196 0.199
W 0.000 0.000 0.000
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
,a2le 2 )(o=) t(at 6J o* t(e an)=er) @5 out o* 8A )i1ni*icantly di**er
dependin1 on t(e country o* ori1in o* t(e re)pondent). Croatian employee) are
)i1ni*icantly le)) *re?uently con)ulted 2y t(eir )uperior)' t(ey are )i1ni*icantly
le)) *ree to decide (o= to per*orm t(eir Co2)' t(ey are )i1ni*icantly le))
*re?uently prai)ed 2y t(eir )uperior)' and t(eir )uperior) )pend )i1ni*icantly le))
time =it( t(em. In top o* t(at' t(ey oppo)e t(eir )uperior) )i1ni*icantly le))'
meanin1 t(at t(ey are le)) allo=ed to do t(at.
7/4 The interdependence between the countr# of origin and peer
relations
<n order to evaluate t(e interdependence 2et=een t(e country o* ori1in and
peer relation)' t(e re)pondent) =ere a)$ed *ive ?ue)tion). A *ive9point )cale =a)
u)ed' one 2ein1 t(e =or)t evaluation and *ive 2ein1 t(e 2e)t evaluation =(en
con)iderin1 interper)onal relation) at =or$.
,(e re)pondent) =ere a)$ed i* t(ey *eel li$e part o* a team' (o= o*ten t(ey
*ind t(em)elve) in con*lict )ituation) =it( t(eir peer)' (o= )tron1 competition
8
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
amon1 peer) i) in term) o* advancement' i* t(ey (an1 out =it( t(eir peer)
out)ide o* =or$' and (o= o*ten t(ey do t(at.
.ot( t(e Croatian employee) and employee) =orld=ide *eel li$e a part o* a
team @B
CRI
U .85+ B
GIRHD
U .E6A' t(ey rarely *ind t(em)elve) in con*lict
)ituation) =it( t(eir peer) @B
CRI
U 2.8+ B
GIRHD
U 2.EA' and t(ey perceive t(at
t(e competition amon1 peer) in t(eir companie) concernin1 advancement i)
=ea$ or moderate @B
CRI
U 2.8+ B
GIRHD
U 2.64A. G(ile 45.EJ o* Croatian)
)ociali;e =it( t(eir peer) out)ide o* =or$' employee) out)ide o* Croatia do t(at
in E.OJ o* t(e ca)e). In avera1e' Croatian) )ociali;e =it( t(eir peer) out)ide
o* =or$ more time) a =ee$ t(an employee) out)ide o* Croatia @6i1ure 4A.
74,5
67,3
13,1
15,6
6,5
5,9
5,9
11,2
0 20 40 60 80 100
World
Croatia
Once a week
Twice a weak
Three times a weak
Four and more times a weak
+igure 6 The fre,uenc# of sociali$ing with peers outside of work"
*roatian emplo#ees and emplo#ees worldwide
Alt(ou1( t(ere =ere )ome di**erence) in t(e an)=er) 2et=een t(e Croatian
employee) and employee) =orld=ide concernin1 peer relation)' t(o)e
di**erence) =ere not )i1ni*icant. ,o 2e preci)e' t(e correlation analy)i) did not
yield any )i1ni*icant di**erence) 2et=een t(e an)=er) o* t(e Croatian employee)
and employee) =orld=ide.
,o *acilitate t(e acceptancePreCection o* t(e *ir)t (ypot(e)i)' it i) nece))ary
once more to con)ider t(e percenta1e o* t(e an)=er) concernin1 interper)onal
relation) at =or$ t(at )i1ni*icantly di**er dependin1 on t(e country o* ori1in
@,a2le A' a) =ell a) t(e )i1n) o* correlation coe**icient) @,a2le) 1 and 2A.
A) it i) )(o=n in ,a2le ' overall perception) o* interper)onal relation)
di**er )i1ni*icantly dependin1 on t(e country o* ori1in in 100J o* t(e ca)e)'
perception) o* )uperior K )u2ordinate relation) in 6J o* t(e ca)e)' and t(ere
are no )i1ni*icant di**erence) in peer relation). -o=ever' =(en con)iderin1 t(e
total percenta1e o* t(e an)=er) t(at di**er' Croatian employee) perceive
interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) di**erently t(an t(e employee)
=orld=ide in 50J o* t(e ca)e).
E
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
Table 4 The percentage of answers that significantl# differ
depending on the countr# of origin of the respondents
Field of questions
Origin 1
(Croatia or
abroad)
Origin 2
(Continent)
Origin 3
(Management
style)
The ercentage
of ans!ers that
significantl"
differ deending
on the co#ntr"
of origin of the
resondents
<nterper)onal relation)
100J
@ out o* A
100J
@ out o* A
100J
@ out o* A
/uperior K )u2ordinate
relation)
6J
@5 out o* 8A
6J
@5 out o* 8A
6J
@5 out o* 8A
Peer relation)
0J
@0 out o* 5A
0J
@0 out o* 5A
0J
@0 out o* 5A
TOTAL
50
(8 out of 16)
50
(8 out of 16)
50
(8 out of 16)
6urt(ermore' =(en con)iderin1 t(e *re?uencie) o* t(e an)=er) and
)i1n) o* correlation coe**icient)' it i) noticed t(at Croatian employee) perceive
interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) a) alto1et(er le)) po)itive.
Alto1et(er' it can 2e concluded t(at t(e first hypothesis (H
1
) of this
research is accepted. <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ in Croatia are' accordin1
to t(e employee)F perception)' not a) 1ood a) t(o)e =orld=ide.
,(e cau)e) o* t(at di)crepancy =ere not t(e i))ue eDplored in t(i) article.
-o=ever' t(e aut(or) 2elieve t(at t(e di**erence lie) in t(e *act t(at
interper)onal relation) are )till at t(e end o* Croatian mana1er)L li)t o* ta)$) and
re)pon)i2ilitie). Croatian mana1er) not only lac$ *ormal trainin1 in
interper)onal )$ill)' 2ut al)o ne1lect t(e importance o* t(o)e )$ill) *or
or1ani;ational eDi)tence' 1ro=t( and development. ,(ere are many rea)on) *or
t(at' 2ot( o2Cective and )u2Cective.
6or in)tance' Croatian mana1er) )till )tru11le =it( tran)ition and
re)tructurin1 proce))e)' )trate1ic turnaround)' redundancie) and do=n)i;in1' )o
interper)onal relation) are )till not t(e *ocu) o* t(eir attention. 6urt(ermore'
t(eir mana1ement )tyle i) predominantly autocratic.
<n ot(er =ord)' t(ey are not people9oriented mana1er). 6inally' t(ey
ne1lect t(e (uman )ide o* t(eir enterpri)e) due to t(e *act t(at t(e Croatian
2u)ine)) culture i) )till predominantly a Qma)culine cultureR.
5.2. The impact of age, gender, education, hierarchical level and
company size on interpersonal relations
40
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
<n order to a))e)) t(e in*luence o* t(e re)pondent)L a1e' 1ender' education'
a) =ell a) t(eir (ierarc(ical level and t(e )i;e o* t(e companie) t(ey =or$ *or on
t(eir perception) o* interper)onal relation)' t(e correlation analy)i) 2et=een
t(o)e demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic) and t(e )ame ?ue)tion) mentioned in t(e
previou) c(apter =a) conducted.
A1ain' t(e re)pondent)L an)=er) =ere divided into t(ree )ection): overall
perception) o* interper)onal relation)' perception) o* )uperior K )u2ordinate
relation)' and perception) o* peer relation).
72/ The interdependence between age" gender" education" hierarchical
level and compan# si$e" and overall perceptions of interpersonal
relations
,a2le 4 )(o=) t(at overall re)pondent)L perception) o* interper)onal
relation) in t(eir companie) are not in*luenced eit(er 2y t(eir a1e or educational
level' yet' t(ere i) a )li1(t in*luence @J o* t(e ca)e)A o* t(eir 1ender'
(ierarc(ical level or )i;e o* t(e company *or =(ic( t(ey =or$.
Table 6 *orrelations between age" gender" education" hierarchical level and compan#
si$e" and overall perceptions of interpersonal relations in a compan#
Questions about
interpersonal relations
in a company
Age Gender
Educational
level
Hierarchical
level
Size of
company
1. -o= important *or
you are 1ood
interper)onal
relation) at =or$V
T 90.001 0.006 0.0 0.06O -0.09$
W 0.E82 0.861 0.6E 0.06O 0.011
. 4valuate t(e =or$in1
atmo)p(ere around
youX
T 90.005 0.000 0.045 0.064 90.050
W 0.885 0.EE6 0.212 0.081 0.1O0
5. G(ic( type o*
communication i) t(e
mo)t di**icult one to
youV
T 0.058 0.09% 90.0O2 -0.144 0.018
W 0.140 0.014 0.062 0.000 0.64
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
,o 2e preci)e' =omen *ind it )i1ni*icantly (arder to communicate =it(
t(eir )uperior)' and communication) 2et=een di**erent (ierarc(ical level) are
41
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
rever)e9proportional @t(e (i1(er in t(e (ierarc(y one i)' t(e more di**icult it i) to
communicate =it( lo=er level po)ition)' and vice ver)aA @6i1ure 5A.
Al)o' t(e 2i11er t(e company i)' t(e le)) important interper)onal relation)
are *or t(e re)pondent.
+igure 7 8ost difficult t#pe of communication"
b# gender and hierarchical level
34,3
29,3
29,7
20,4
31,0
23,0
34,3
22,3
25,0
23,0
25,0
25,0
31,4
48,4
45,3
56,6
44,0
52,0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Top managers
First-line managers
Women
Communication with
subordinates
Communication with peers
Communication with superiors
722 The interdependence of age" gender" education" hierarchical level
and compan# si$e" and superior - subordinate relations
,a2le 5 prove) t(at t(ere i) an o2viou) interdependence 2et=een )elected
demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic) o* re)pondent) and t(eir an)=er) concernin1
)uperior9)u2ordinate relation).
,(e older employee)L opinion i) t(at participation in deci)ion9ma$in1 i)
not very common' and t(at t(eir )uperior) do not )pend a )u**icient amount o*
time =it( t(eir )u2ordinate). -o=ever' t(ey t(in$ t(at t(eir )uperior) con)ult
t(em re1ularly' and t(at t(ey are *ree to de)i1n t(eir Co2 on t(eir o=n. <n
addition' t(ey oppo)e t(eir )uperior) more o*ten t(an youn1er employee).
Gomen al)o t(in$ t(at employee) are not allo=ed to participate in deci)ion9
ma$in1 a) muc( a) t(ey )(ould 2e' and particularly t(at =omen are t(o)e t(at
are not con)ulted o*ten' t(at t(ey are not *ree to tell t(eir opinion and not
permitted to oppo)e t(eir )uperior). Bore educated employee) 2elieve t(at t(ey
are a)$ed *or t(eir opinion more o*ten' and t(at t(ey are *ree to eDpre)) t(eir
opinion =(en t(ey t(in$ it i) needed. ,(ey 2elieve to 2e more independent
=(en de)i1nin1 t(eir o=n Co2)' t(ey oppo)e t(eir )uperior) on a re1ular 2a)i)'
and are more po)itive a2out t(eir )uperior)L a2ility to 1ive prai)e).
Table 7 *orrelations between age" gender" education" hierarchical level
and compan# si$e" and perceptions of superior - subordinate relations
42
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
Questions about
superior subordinate
relations
Age Gender
Educational
level
Hierarchical
level
Size of
company
1. -o= =ould you a))e))
your relation)(ip =it(
your )uperiorV
T 90.015 90.00 0.046 0.044 90.08
W 0.68O 0.E8 0.210 0.21 0.01
. -o= o*ten doe) your
)uperior allo= (i)P(er
)u2ordinate) to
participate in deci)ion9
ma$in1V
T -0.104 0.082 0.064 90.02 0.026
W 0.006 0.025 0.080 0.540 0.488
5. Doe) your )uperior
con)ult you 2e*ore
ma$in1 a deci)ionV
T 0.125 -0.08% 0.126 0.248 -0.09$
W 0.001 0.02 0.001 0.000 0.012
O. Are you *ree to tell
your opinion to your
)uperiorV
T 0.052 -0.144 0.130 0.156 90.012
W 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.O55
E. Are you *ree to decide
=(at to do on your Co2
rat(er t(an 2ein1 told
2y your )uperiorV
T 0.112 90.086 0.191 0.160 90.04O
W 0.00 0.01E 0.000 0.000 0.205
11. -o= o*ten do you
oppo)e your )uperiorV
T 0.126 -0.089 0.142 0.207 -0.0&9
W 0.001 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.02
1. -o= o*ten doe) your
)uperior 1ive prai)e)
*or =or$ =ell doneV
T 90.045 90.02 0.0&9 0.0 90.01O
W 0.26 0.52E 0.02 0.OO 0.642
15. Do you t(in$ t(at your
)uperior )pend)
enou1( time =it(
(i)P(er )u2ordinate)V
T -0.09' 90.064 0.01 0.000 0.00E
W 0.015 0.080 0.402 0.EE4 0.801
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4mployee) at upper (ierarc(ical level) are al)o more *re?uently con)ulted
2y t(eir )uperior)' *eel *reer to eDpre)) t(eir vie=) and de)i1n t(eir o=n Co2)'
and oppo)e t(eir )uperior) more o*ten. 6inally' employee) in lar1er
or1ani;ation) are le)) o*ten con)ulted 2y t(eir )uperior)' and are not )o ea1er to
oppo)e t(em.
Iverall' t(e re)pondent)L an)=er) concernin1 )uperior K )u2ordinate
relation) vary in 6J o* t(e ca)e) dependin1 on t(eir a1e and educational level'
4
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
in 50J o* t(e ca)e) dependin1 on t(eir 1ender and (ierarc(ical level' and in
25J o* t(e ca)e) dependin1 on t(e )i;e o* t(e company *or =(ic( t(ey =or$.
724 The interdependence between age" gender" education" hierarchical
level and compan# si$e" and peer relations
,a2le 6 depict) a rare and =ea$ interdependence 2et=een t(e )elected
demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic) and t(e re)pondent)L perception) o* peer relation).
/peci*ically' re)pondent)L an)=er) concernin1 peer relation) di**er in 16J
o* t(e ca)e) dependin1 on t(eir independent c(aracteri)tic) @4 out o* 25 ca)e)A.
,o 2e more preci)e' =omen perceive competition amon1 peer) to 2e )tron1er.
Table ; *orrelations between age" gender" education" hierarchical level
and compan# si$e" and perceptions of peer relations
Questions about
peer relations
Age Gender
Educational
level
Hierarchical
level
Size of
company
1. Do you *eel li$e part
o* a teamV
T 0.052 90.062 0.040 0.116 90.06O
W 0.164 0.08E 0.2OO 0.001 0.068
. -o= o*ten do you
*ind your)el* in a
con*lict )ituation =it(
your collea1ue)V
T 0.066 90.048 90.020 0.166 0.04O
W 0.0OO 0.1E1 0.5E1 0.000 0.202
5. -o= )tron1 i)
competition amon1
collea1ue) in your
company concernin1
advancementV
T 0.02 0.08' 90.01 90.004 0.225
W 0.52 0.028 0.O2 0.E15 0.000
O. Do you )ociali;e =it(
your collea1ue)
out)ide =or$V
T 90.010 90.068 0.058 0.109 90.054
W 0.O85 0.062 0.112 0.00 0.144
E. -o= o*ten do you
)ociali;e =it( your
collea1ue) out)ide
=or$V
T 90.022 90.046 90.028 90.022 0.006
W 0.65E 0.50 0.56O 0.650 0.E02
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4mployee) at upper (ierarc(ical level) *eel more li$e a part o* a team' 2ut
at t(e )ame time' t(ey *ind t(em)elve) more *re?uently in con*lict =it( t(eir
peer)' and are le)) prone to )ociali;e =it( t(eir peer) out)ide o* =or$ @6i1ure 6A.
44
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
Ha)tly' t(e 2i11er t(e company i)' t(e )tron1er t(e competition i) amon1 peer)
concernin1 advancement.
52,5
37,7
41,9
36,6
47,5
62,3
58,1
63,4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Nonmanagers
First-line managers
Middle managers
Top managers
YES
NO
+igure ; <ociali$ing with peers outside work" b# hierarchical level
"evert(ele))' =(en con)iderin1 t(e percenta1e o* an)=er) concernin1 peer
relation) t(at )i1ni*icantly di**er dependin1 on t(e demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic)
o* re)pondent)' =e come to t(e conclu)ion t(at t(e (ierarc(ical level i) t(e only
demo1rap(ic varia2le t(at con)idera2ly in*luence) re)pondent)L an)=er).
"amely' in out o* 5 ?ue)tion) @60JA' re)pondent)L an)=er) )i1ni*icantly vary
dependin1 on t(at attri2ute. <n order to acceptPreCect t(e *ive (ypot(e)e) related
to t(e re)pondent)L demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic) di)cu))ed in t(i) )ection' it i)
nece))ary to re*lect once more on t(e percenta1e) o* t(e re)pondent)L an)=er)
t(at )i1ni*icantly di**er dependin1 on t(o)e c(aracteri)tic) @,a2le OA.
Table = The percentage of answers that significantl# differ depending on
age" gender" education" hierarchical level and compan# si$e
Field of
questi
ons
Age Gender
Educational
level
Hierarchica
l level
Size of
company
(ercentage of
ans!ers that
significantl"
differ deending
on the
demograhic
characteristics of
resondents
<nterper)onal
relation)
0J
@0 out o* A
J
@1 out o* A
0J
@0 out o* A
J
@1 out o* A
J
@1 out o* A
/uperior K
)u2ordinate
relation)
6J
@5 out o* 8A
50J
@4 out o* 8A
6J
@5 out o* 8A
50J
@4 out o* 8A
25J
@2 out o* 8A
Peer relation)
0J
@0 out o* 5A
20J
@1 out o* 5A
0J
@0 out o* 5A
60J
@ out o* 5A
20J
@1 out o* 5A
TOTAL
31
(5 out of 16)
38
(6 out of 16)
31
(5 out of 16)
50
(8 out of 16)
25
(4 out of
16)
A) eD(i2ited in ,a2le O' eDcept *or t(e (ierarc(ical level o* re)pondent)'
=(ic( in*luence) t(e re)pondent)L an)=er) in 50J o* t(e ca)e)' ot(er
45
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic) are not o* maCor in*luence. <n ot(er =ord)' t(e
re)pondent)L perception) o* interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) are
)imilar re1ardle)) o* t(eir a1e' 1ender' educational level or company )i;e.
6or t(e acceptancePreCection o* t(e remainin1 (ypot(e)e) t(i) mean) t(e
*ollo=in1:
@1A ,(e (ypot(e)i) t(at =omen perceive interper)onal relation) at =or$ a)
=or)e t(an do men (H
21
) is not accepted.
@2A ,(e (ypot(e)i) t(at older employee) perceive interper)onal relation) in
t(eir companie) a) 2etter t(an do t(e youn1er one) (H
22
) is not
accepted.
@A ,(e (ypot(e)i) t(at employee) =it( (i1(er level) o* education perceive
interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) a) =or)e t(an do t(e le))
educated one) (H
23
) is not accepted.
@4A ,(e (ypot(e)i) t(at employee) t(at =or$ in )maller companie) perceive
interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) a) 2etter t(an do t(o)e at
2i11er one) (H
25
) is not accepted.
@5A ,(e (ypot(e)i) t(at employee) at upper (ierarc(ical level) perceive
interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie) a) =or)e t(an do t(o)e at
lo=er level po)ition) (H
24
) is not accepted. "amely' alt(ou1( re)earc(
*indin1) 1ive evidence t(at t(ere i) a )i1ni*icant di**erence in t(e
re)pondent)L perception) o* interper)onal relation) in t(eir companie)
dependin1 on t(eir (ierarc(ical level' t(ere i) not enou1( evidence to
conclude t(at employee) at upper level) perceive interper)onal relation)
to 2e =or)e @=(en loo$in1 at *re?uencie) and )i1n) o* t(e correlation
coe**icient) o* t(e re)pondent)L an)=er) dependin1 on t(eir (ierarc(ical
levelA.
6. CONCLUSION
,(e )ayin1 1oe)' Q<tL) all done =it( people.R <* t(e (uman in1redient i)
i1nored' not(in1 el)e =ill =or$ a) =ell a) it could. <n t(e year) to come'
companie) in =(ic( people colla2orate 2e)t =ill (ave a competitive ed1e
@3oleman' 1EE8A. <t (a) 2ecome o2viou) t(at t(e more t(e or1ani;ational
climate nouri)(e) interper)onal competencie)' t(e more e**ective and productive
it =ill 2e @3oleman' 1EE8A. In top o* t(at' t(e 1roupL) intelli1ence' t(e
)yner1i)tic interaction o* every per)onL) 2e)t talent)' i) t(en maDimi;ed.
,(i) re)earc( con*irmed t(at 1ood interper)onal relation) at =or$ are
important @t(e re)pondent) t(in$ t(at t(ey are rea)ona2ly to eDtremely
importantA. Boreover' t(e re)earc( revealed t(at )ome nation) or culture) pay
46
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
more attention to interper)onal relation) in t(e =or$in1 environment and
t(ere*ore' accordin1 to t(e re)pondent)L perception)' enCoy 2etter interper)onal
relation) at =or$. <n particular' t(e correlation analy)i) )(o=ed t(at t(e Croatian
employee) perceive interper)onal relation) at =or$ in Croatia a) )i1ni*icantly
=or)e t(an employee) =orld=ide.
<n addition to t(e in*luence o* t(e country o* ori1in on interper)onal
relation) in companie)' t(e )tudy al)o *ocu)ed on t(e interdependence 2et=een
demo1rap(ic c(aracteri)tic) o* employee) )uc( a) t(eir a1e' 1ender' educational
and (ierarc(ical level)' t(e )i;e o* t(eir companie)' and t(eir perception) o*
interper)onal relation). -o=ever' t(ere =a) no )i1ni*icant in*luence eit(er on
t(e overall perception) o* interper)onal relation)' or on t(e perception) o*
)uperior K )u2ordinate or peer relation).
6inally' )ince t(i) re)earc( )(o=ed t(at interper)onal relation) at =or$ in
Croatia are not a) 1ood a) t(o)e =orld=ide @Croatian employee) perceive t(e
=or$in1 atmo)p(ere around t(em a) )i1ni*icantly le)) po)itive' t(ey are
)i1ni*icantly le)) *re?uently con)ulted 2y t(eir )uperior)' )i1ni*icantly rarely
prai)ed' t(eir )uperior) )pend )i1ni*icantly le)) time =it( t(em' etc.A' it i)
)uita2le to *ini)( t(i) article =it( a couple o* )u11e)tion) a) (o= to improve
interper)onal relation) in Croatia. G(at Croatian employee) )(ould do'
irre)pective o* t(eir vertical or (ori;ontal po)ition)' i) to communicate =it(
eac( ot(er *re?uently and *ran$ly' to actively li)ten to eac( ot(er' and 2e
empat(etic. Bana1er) )(ould adopt t(e participative mana1ement )tyle' and
team=or$' colla2oration and cooperation )(ould c(aracteri;e companie) =(ile
ac(ievin1 )(ared 1oal).
REFERENCES:
1. .ro=nin1' 3.' -o= to )top 2e(avin1 2adly' People Bana1ement' %ol. 8'
"o. 5' 2002' pp. 114.
2. .ryman' A. N Cramer' D.' Yuantitative Data Analy)i)' Routled1e' Hondon'
1EEO.
. Druc$er, P. 6.' Bana1ement C(allen1e) *or t(e 21
)t
Century' -arper Collin)
Pu2li)(er)' "e= Mor$' 1EEE.
4. 6it;9en;' 5.' ,(e RI< o* -uman Capital K Bea)urin1 t(e 4conomic %alue
o* 4mployee Per*ormance' "e= Mor$' ABACIB' 2000.
5. 3oleman' D.' Gor$in1 =it( 4motional <ntelli1ence' .antam .oo$)' "e=
Mor$' 1EE8.
6. -eim' P. N 3olant' /. 7.' -ard2all *or Gomen: Ginnin1 at t(e 3ame o*
.u)ine))' A Plume .oo$' "e= Mor$' 1EE.
4O
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
O. -el1e)en' /.' ,(e 6emale Advanta1e' Currency Dou2leday' "e= Mor$'
1EE5.
8. -unt' 5. G. N .aruc(' M.' Developin1 top mana1er): t(e impact o*
interper)onal )$ill) trainin1' 5ournal o* Bana1ement Development' %ol. 22'
"o. 8' 200' pp. O2E9O52.
E. 7nippen' 5. ,. N 3reen' ,. ..' <) your 2o)) 2ypa))in1 youV' 5ournal o*
Gor$place Hearnin1' %ol. 11' "o. 2' 1EEE' pp. 689O2.
10. 7nippen' 5. ,. N 3reen' ,. ..' Bo)t common error) o* ne= mana1er)'
5ournal o* Gor$place Hearnin1' %ol. 11' "o. 6' 1EEE' pp. 2029208.
11. Hinder' 5. -.' DonLt let people you di)li$e ruin your day' /ecretary' %ol. 54'
"o. E' 1EE4' pp. .
12. Hu;io9Hoc$ett' A.' 4n(ancin1 relation)(ip) =it(in or1ani;ation): an
eDamination o* a proactive approac( to Q2ullyin1 at =or$R' 4mployee
Coun)elin1 ,oday' %ol. O' "o. 1' 1EE5' pp. 12922.
1. Bint;2er1' -.' ,(e Bana1erL) 5o2: 6ol$lore and 6act' -arvard .u)ine))
Revie=' %ol. 5' "o. 4' 1EO5.
14. Polo#$i' ".' .a)ic Re?uirement) *or t(e /ucce))*ul <mplementation o* t(e
Q6eminine Header)(ipR /tyle in Croatian 4nterpri)e)' Bana1ement' %ol. 6'
"o. 192' 2001' pp. 11E911.
15. Polo#$i' ".' 6eminine leader)(ip )tyle K 4mpirical re)earc( a2out t(e
primary (older) o* t(e *eminine leader)(ip )tyle in Croatian enterpri)e)'
4$onom)$i pre1led' %ol. 54' "o. 192' 200' pp. 8954.
16. Ippermann' B.' 49mail /urvey) K Potential) and Pit*all)' Bar$etin1
Re)earc(' %ol. O' "o. ' 1EE5' pp. 2E9.
1O. Ranc((od' A. N 0(ou' 6.' Comparin1 re)pondent) o* e9mail and mail
)urvey): under)tandin1 t(e implication) o* tec(nolo1y' %ol. 1E' "o. 4'
2001' pp. 2549262.
18. Ro)ener' 5. ..' Gay) Gomen Head' -arvard .u)ine)) Revie=' %ol. 68' "o.
11912' 1EE0' pp. 11E9125.
1E. /i$avica' P. N .a(tiCarevi&9Si2er' 6.' BenadZment K ,eoriCa menadZmenta
i veli$o empiriC)$o i)traZivanCe u -rvat)$oC' Ba)media' 0a1re2' 2004.
20. ,oropov' ..' ,(e Art N /$ill o* Dealin1 =it( People K -undred) o* /ure9
*ire ,ec(ni?ue) *or 3ettin1 Mour Gay Git( People at Gor$' Prentice -all'
"e= 5er)ey' 1EEO.
21. GaCcman' 5.' De)perately /ee$in1 Di**erence): <) Bana1ement /tyle
3enderedV' .riti)( 5ournal o* <ndu)trial Relation)' %ol. 4' "o. ' 1EE6' pp.
94E.
22. Gorline' B. C.' Gr;e)nie=)$i' A. N Ra*aeli' A.' Coura1e and Gor$ K
.rea$in1 Routine) to <mprove Per*ormance' in Hord' R. 3.' 7limo)$i' R. 5.
N 7an*er' R. @ed).A' 4motion) in t(e Gor$place' 5o))ey9.a))' A Giley
Company' /an 6ranci)co' 2002.
48
Management, Vol. 10, 2005, 1, pp. 23-49
". Polo#$i9%o$i&' ,. -ernau): <nterper)onal relation) at =or$ perceived 2y Croatian and>
2. DDD' Dealin1 Git( Di**icult /ta** K ,ip) on 4)ta2li)(in1 .etter
Relation)(ip) Git( Pro2lem Collea1ue)' Accountin1 Department
Bana1ement Report' 5une 200' pp. 596.
24. DDD' Dictionary o* -uman Re)ource) N Per)onnel Bana1ement' Peter
Collin Pu2li)(in1' ,eddin1ton' 1EEO.
25. DDD' ,(e Po=er o* 1ood =or$place relation)(ip)' C(arted Accountant)
5ournal' April 2004' pp. 5E.
MEDUL1UDSKI ODNOSI NA RADNOM M1ESTU PREMA PERCEPCI1AMA
HRVATSKIH I ZAPOSLENIKA U SVI1ETU TE ZAPOSLENIKA RAZLICITE
DOBI, SPOLA, OBRAZOVAN1A, HI1ERARHI1SKE RAZINE I VELICINE
ORGANIZACI1E EMPIRI1SKO ISTRAZIVAN1E
Sazetak
Ir1ani;aciCe imaCu $ori)ti od do2ri( me[ulCud)$i( odno)a me[u ;apo)lenima. "aime' u
do2a $ada )e lCudi )matraCu Cedinom )tvarnom $on$urent)$om predno#&u' Ca)no Ce da )u
do2ri me[ulCud)$i odno)i u or1ani;aciCama i proce)i $oCi i( poti\u po)tali $lCu\ni ;a
or1ani;aciC)$i u)pCe(. /vr(a ovo1 rada Ce )u)tavno o2Ca)niti vaZno)t' tipove i na\ine
po2olC#avanCa me[ulCud)$i( odno)a na radnom mCe)tu' ali i i)traZiti utCe\u li' i u $oCoC
mCeri' demo1ra*)$e $ara$teri)ti$e ;apo)leni( na me[ulCud)$e odno)e u or1ani;aciCama.
Demo1ra*)$e $ara$teri)ti$e ;apo)leni( \iCi Ce utCecaC i)traZivan 2ile )u: ;emlCa poriCe$la'
do2' )pol' ra;ina o2ra;ovanCa' (iCerar(iC)$a ra;ina i veli\ina $ompaniCe. 7orelaciC)$a
anali;a Ce po$a;ala da variCa2la ];emlCa poriCe$la^ utCe\e na me[ulCud)$e odno)e u
or1ani;aciCama. 7on$retno' me[ulCud)$i odno)i u or1ani;aciCama u -rvat)$oC )u'
prema mi#lCenCu i)pitani$a' lo#iCi ne1o u )viCetu. ,a$o )e' na primCer' po$a;alo da
(rvat)$i ;apo)lenici ;na\aCno lo#iCe ociCenCuCu radnu atmo)*eru o$o )e2e' ;na\aCno )u
rCe[e $on;ultirani i po(valCivani od )trane )voCi( nadre[eni( te nCi(ovi nadre[eni )
nCima provode ;na\aCno manCe vremena. I)tale demo1ra*)$e $ara$teri)ti$e i)pitani$a
ni)u )e po$a;ale ;na\aCnima ;a percepciCe u$upni( me[ulCud)$i( odno)a u nCi(ovim
or1ani;aciCama' niti ;a nCi(ove percepciCe odno)a i;me[u nadre[eni( i podre[eni( te
odno)a i;me[u $ole1a.
4E
50