Abstract

The aim of the article. The aim of the article is to develop the bases of methodology for determination the priority of social infrastructure of industrial enterprises in the system of employee motivation. It is based on two-tier employees’ survey. The results of the analysis. Firstly, the author analyzed methods that can be used at the initial stage of diagnostics. It is formed a primary selection of respondents. For its formation the author suggests to use special methodology which is based on the method of V.I. Herchikov. It enables to identificate those employees who can be interested in provision of social services of enterprise infrastructure. Then it is advisable to rank objects of social infrastructure by their popularity among enterprise personnel. This is possible due to using a modified «motivational ladder» of McKinsey. Within the article it is appropriate to analyze imaginary situation with typical industrial enterprise. Supposedly the company has seven social institutions: 1) medical-sanitary part; 2) sanatorium; 3) camp; 4) cultural center; 5) hotel; 6) workers catering; 7) sports club. For quantification of the priority of social infrastructure it is necessary to develop matrix with combination of two parameters – the list of infrastructure objects (from 1 to 7, respectively) vertically and their priority (from 1 to 7) across. During the survey respondents are asked to identify their own priorities among social institutions of enterprise. This is indicated by value numbers – from 1 to 7. The most significant institution for them is occupied the first place, the least significant – the seventh. The processed results of a written questionnaire are entered into the matrix. Each social object that occupies some space from the first to the seventh (blank or null value is not allowed), so the total number of columns vertically and horizontally is always the same and equal to the number of processed forms. If we have ratings of each object of infrastructure then we can make their ranking. This approach to prioritizing of social infrastructure services to the view of employees enables to identificate specific list of social institutions that have the highest motivational potential in percentage. Typically when the number of social objects is no more then 8, this list will include from three to four institutions. Conclusions and directions of further researches. Rejection of unpromising directions of social institutions activity enables efficient planning of policy for social objects management in dynamics, building separate development strategies of each institution. It is important for companies that have a lot of social objects. Under these conditions the company will provide social benefits and services to their employees through «balanced proposal», leveling weaknesses of social policy in favor of competitive types of social proposals. In further studies it is necessary on the base of submitted survey method to find out which social services are not included in the list of proposals but there is a need in them. Survey can also provide information on the feasibility of changing conditions of service provision. Then it is appropriate to calculate the economic impact from staff motivation system improving with a focus on their own social infrastructure.

Keywords: social infrastructure of industrial enterprise, employee motivation, method of motivation determining, poll, questioning, type of motivation

Cite as: Letunovska, N. (2014). Social infrastructure of industrial enterprise and its role in the system of employee motivation. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 259-269. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2014.1-25

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Motivatsiia personala [Personnel motivation]. (n.d). www.centeruspeh.com. Retrieved from http://www.centeruspeh. com/emotiv/1143740629 [in Russian].
2. Trapitsyn, S.Yu. (2007). Motivatsiia personala v sovremennoi orhanizatsii [Motivation of staff in the modern organization]. Saint Petersburg: OOO «Knizhnyi dom» [in Russian].
3. Metodiki izucheniia motivatsii personala [Methods of studying the staff motivation]. (n.d). www.hr-portal.ru. Retrieved from http://www.hr-portal.ru/motiv_tools [in Russian].
4. Butenko, T. (2010). Sovremennyie metody diahnostiki trudovoi motivatsii [Modern diagnostic methods of motivation]. Spravochnik po Upravleniiu Personalom – Directory of Personnel Management, 4, 37-45 [in Russian].
5. Tipolohicheskaia model motivatsii V.I. Herchikova [Typological motivation model of V.I Herchikov]. (n.d). www.delfy.biz. Retrieved from http://www.delfy.biz/whatwedo/methods/tmg/ [in Russian].
6. Shafranska, T.Yu. Teoretychni aspekty klasyfikatsii personalu pidpryiemstva [Theoretical aspects of the personnel classification]. (n.d). www.rusnauka.com. Retrieved from http://www.rusnauka.com/10_DN_2013/Economics/10_133267.doc.htm [in Ukrainian].
7. Ponomarenko, P.I., Boiko, V.V., & Yan Suhun. (2004). Kilkisna otsinka motyvatsii pratsi za dopomohoiu «motyvatsiinoi drabyny» MsKinsey [Quantitative assessment of work motivation through «motivational ladder» of McKinsey]. Ekonomichnyi visnyk NHU – Economic bulletin of NMU, 4, 106-113 [in Ukrainian].
8. Chub, A.A. (2003). Sovershenstvovanie upravleniia razvitiiem sotsialnoi infrastructury promyshlennoho kompleksa [Improving of development management of social infrastructure of industrial complex]. Candidate’s thesis. Moscow [in Russian].
9. Molchanova, D. (n.d). Sotsialnyi paket kak sposob motivatsii personala [Social package as a way to motivate staff]. www.tls-cons.ru. Retrieved from http://www.tls-cons.ru/news/aktualLetters/2012/up_0512.html [in Russian].
10. Shmyhol, N.M. (n.d). Systema upravlinnia motyvatsiieiu pratsivnykiv yak instrument formuvannia dokhodiv pidpryiemstva [The control system of employees motivation as a tool for business income]. catalog.uccu.org.ua. Retrieved from http://catalog.uccu.org.ua/opacunicode/index.php?url= /notices/index/IdNotice:181243/ [in Ukrainian].