Summary:
Through this work, the results of studies carried out in 33 Cuban entities are publicized, which demonstrate the degree of correlation between the possibilities of participation in decision-making and the participation of personnel.
The recognition that staff satisfaction is a competitive advantage for any company and that encouraging them to participate by contributing their wealth of ideas, knowledge and experiences is one of the best ways to achieve business excellence, is already a fairly recognized truth, although little applied This work aims to share some research results that show that the satisfaction and participation of workers are not only variables that lead to success but that both are highly linked, with the purpose of validating the above, surveys were applied to measure both variables in different entities.
To measure staff satisfaction, the following method was used, the respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5, considering the unit as a critical state and 5 as the manifestation of full satisfaction, various dimensions that influence their satisfaction. The evaluated dimensions were grouped into 5 groups as described below.
Key Words: Satisfaction, Participation, Direction, Human Resources Management.
• Work content: Everything related to work content is grouped, it includes:
• Autonomy: possibility of making decisions in the workplace.
• Variety: possibility of developing different skills in the position.
• Meaning: level of social recognition presented by the task.
• Identification: possibility of identifying which part represents the individual contribution within the whole.
• Feedback: ability of the job to provide the worker with information on progress in accomplishing the task.
• Group work: everything related to group work is included.
• Cohesion: degree to which group members feel united.
• Attractive: degree to which group members are attracted to belonging to the group.
• Climate: prevailing environment within the group.
• Distribution of Operations: degree to which each member of the group can perform in the other roles of the remaining members.
• Autonomy: possibility of making decisions within the group.
• Feedback: degree to which the group can know the results of their work and decisions to make new decisions on these.
• Identification: degree to which each member of the group can identify their contribution within the final result.
• Stimulation System: everything concerning the forms of stimulation used in the entity is included.
• Sufficiency: level at which the existing stimulation is capable of satisfying the needs of the workers.
• Correspondence: level of correspondence between what each worker is and what he receives.
• Link: level of correspondence between what each worker does and what he receives.
• Perception: level of understanding by everyone of the ways the stimulation system works.
• Fairness: level at which the stimulation is perceived as fair.
• Working Conditions: refers to everything related to the prevailing working conditions in the entity.
• Security: degree to which these are risk-free.
• Hygiene: degree to which they are perceived as hygienic.
• Aesthetics: degree to which they are attractive to the eye.
• Ergonomics: degree in which they are comfortable avoiding shocks and fatigue.
• Welfare Conditions: they cover another set of characteristics to be valued in the entity, and which have not been included in the previous ones because they vary from one entity to another depending on their needs, such as.
• Food:
• Working hours:
• Transportation:
Under a similar operation to that described for the satisfaction survey, a survey was applied to measure aspects related to the perception of the possibilities of participation in the entities to the criteria of the workers, which was valued using the following attributes.
• Setting objectives: possibility for workers to participate in the planning process and control of objectives.
• Autonomy in the position: possibility for workers to make decisions with a high degree of freedom.
• Level of Information: possibility for workers to have relevant information on the basis of which they can give their opinion, analyze or make decisions.
• Teamwork in the area: ability of the team within the area to perform teamwork.
• Teamwork within the area: existence of teams, inter - area to perform analysis of the problems that affect the entity.
• Autonomy in meetings: possibility for people to give their opinion, analyze, make decisions and implement them in meetings.
• Psychological climate in meetings: existence of a favorable and attractive work environment during the holding of meetings.
• Flexibility in the organization: the entity's ability to adapt and respond quickly to endogenous or exogenous changes.
• Variety of skills: possibility of workers to perform different roles in the entity.
• Feedback: degree to which workers have information about the level of application and the consequences of the suggestions made and the decisions made.
• Stimulation: degree to which the stimulation is carried out on the basis of the link between efforts and Benefits, profit sharing or any other similar system.
• Power of choice: ability of workers to influence the choice of the boss, other workers, suppliers, etc.
The results obtained through the application of surveys in 33 entities are shown in the following table.
| Nr Entity | Internal Customer Satisfaction | Level of participation. | Nr Entity | Internal Customer Satisfaction | Participation level. | Nr Entity | Internal Customer Satisfaction | Participation level. |
| one | 4.32 | 4.15 | 12 | 4.51 | 4.23 | 2. 3 | 3.89 | 3.51 |
| two | 3.97 | 4.01 | 13 | 2.91 | 3.00 | 24 | 3.82 | 4.12 |
| 3 | 3.99 | 3.88 | 14 | 3.82 | 3.45 | 25 | 4.63 | 4.21 |
| 4 | 4.56 | 4.32 | fifteen | 4.21 | 4.02 | 26 | 3.04 | 3.02 |
| 5 | 3.04 | 2.89 | 16 | 4.11 | 4.12 | 27 | 2.78 | 2.56 |
| 6 | 3.77 | 3.55 | 17 | 4.11 | 3.99 | 28 | 3.45 | 3.32 |
| 7 | 4.43 | 4.10 | 18 | 3.54 | 3.48 | 29 | 3.84 | 3.61 |
| 8 | 4.78 | 4.31 | 19 | 3.89 | 3.76 | 30 | 4.38 | 4.11 |
| 9 | 4.01 | 3.77 | twenty | 4.36 | 4.14 | 31 | 3.67 | 3.23 |
| 10 | 3.66 | 3.71 | twenty-one | 4.55 | 4.13 | 32 | 4.43 | 4.03 |
| eleven | 3.39 | 3.03 | 22 | 3.04 | 2.79 | 33 | 4.22 | 3.99 |
If the correlation coefficient R2 is calculated between both variables, it takes a value of 0.896, which is high enough taking into account the errors inherent to the design, application and interpretation of the questionnaires in addition to those assumed when deciding the size of the questionnaire. sample, it should also be considered that in reality these two variables even when they are correlated, being influenced by some similar factors, neither is an absolute cause of the other.
The degree of correlation between the two variables is not strange because, as can be seen in the dimensions evaluated, in many cases they coincide, such as, in the case of autonomy, group work, stimulation systems, information needs and / or feedback.
As a conclusion, it can be established that according to the degree of correlation found between both variables, it is not idle to affirm that to the extent that greater participation of workers is achieved, they will be more satisfied and vice versa that whenever there are more satisfied workers they will be more willing to participate and contribute all their cognitive wealth. In other words, participation and satisfaction are the two points of a number that touching everyone always leads to success.
Bibliography:
1. Customer satisfaction an indicator of productivity. Noda, Marcia. 1997, Holguín, Cuba
2. Implementation of a participatory management model in Agricultural entities. Pérez Campdesuñer, Reyner. 2000, Holguín. Cuba,
Download the original file
