Assessment of Work Conditions in a Production Enterprise—A Case Study

Abstract

A commonly used strategy in production enterprises is the idea of sustainable development. For an idea to be effectively implemented, it is essential to have competent and well-informed staff. This condition is necessary, but not sufficient. Still, the introduction of changes in the enterprise—including rational management of resources, as well as fair distribution of benefits and social development—requires acceptance on the part of employees. The implementation of this idea entails the need to introduce organizational changes, new technologies and innovative products. Currently, this direction in development is gradually beginning to determine the competitiveness of an enterprise. The present article discusses the results of a questionnaire survey in one production enterprise; the survey aimed at assessing work conditions. The research results were to show how the current changes related to the idea of sustainable development being implemented in this enterprise are assessed by the employees in the production sector. The obtained results are also to serve as a basis for developing a strategy for introducing further changes in this enterprise. The quantitative research included an evaluation of 24 research variables, which were divided into nine thematic groups relevant to work conditions in the enterprise. The research covered three basic groups of factors: work characteristics, human resource management policies and the social context of work. A global assessment of the enterprise’s performance was also undertaken. The research therefore focused on the practical aspects of the activity carried out by the enterprise. The results obtained should provide a basis for assessing the potential for introducing innovative solutions in line with the idea of sustainable development as well as improvements in human resource management. This basis is also particularly important for implementing such solutions in the enterprise which are in line with changes related to the concept of Industry 4.0.

1. Introduction

1.1. Preliminaries, Objectives and Outline of the Study

The concept of sustainable business development emerged in the 1970s. At its core lies a conviction that economic activity must not lead to the deterioration of the standard and quality of the lives of future generations [1,2,3,4,5]. This assumption renders the concept crucial for further operation and development of production enterprises—regardless of their size. Should companies adopt this concept quickly and, in the long run, implement it, they should, as a result, gain a competitive advantage [6,7,8]. Thanks to the improvement of energy efficiency, better management of raw materials and implementation of circular economy solutions, the activity of enterprises can be more effective and can generate greater added value.

The sustainable development of an enterprise entails ensuring compliance with environmental standards, improving the financial and economic situation of the company, taking into account how to enhance the conditions and quality of work for its employees [9]. Particularly in the area of social responsibility, the implementation of the concept of sustainability should help companies to set more than solely financial objectives [10,11]. One such objective is to protect the environment and care for its people [12].

There are a number of factors that can facilitate companies in achieving their goals connected with the concept of sustainable development. The main factor here is the company’s resources, and in particular the competence and awareness of employees and managers. They allow to gain an advantage over other actors in the same sector or related industries. Thus, what constitutes the basis for success is the multidimensionality of the company, resulting from its internal characteristics as well as the ability to adapt to changes in the environment [13].

Human resources and the management of these resources are a key factor in achieving the objectives dictated by the concept of sustainable business development. At a time when increasing attention is paid to the development of social capital, the principles of responsibility towards employees are a key factor. Good work conditions and a friendly atmosphere between employees directly affect their creativity and efficiency. It also constitutes the basis for building loyalty and making the employees identify with the enterprise. It also affects employees’ willingness to accept implemented changes. Therefore, it is reasonable to undertake research to obtain information on the assessment of employees’ work conditions in the context of introduced technical changes and sustainable development policy. Consequently, assessing the three basic areas of operation of a production enterprise in the area of human resource management—i.e., the characteristics of the work, the human resource management policies and the social context of the work—seems fully justified. The more so because the growing competition forces a new approach to human resource management. The creation of work systems based on high efficiency depends on these resources, which also requires greater innovation and greater employee involvement in achieving the organization’s goals. The role and importance of human resources is crucial for enterprises. Employees’ potential and competences should be used to their best. However, this also requires investing in their development, motivating them to be more efficient and building friendly relations between employees and managing staff.

The sustainability of a company is therefore cantered around human factors and concerns the relationship between people and their technical facilities and environment (Figure 1) [14]. This relationship covers mutual interactions between a human being, technical objects (machinery and equipment) used in the work process and the working environment. This relationship is also highly affected by the proper organization of the whole production process. It should also be emphasized that human relations with all those elements are most often dynamic in nature (changing in time), which additionally generates stress. For this reason, the analysis of work conditions, the atmosphere at work, its organization and many other factors are of great importance for creating an effective policy in the field of human resource management.

Naturally, this means that a human being plays an essential role in the concept of sustainable development. Actions in this area comprise and connect three fundamental fields: people (society), the workplace (technical resources) and the environment.

Taking into account the significance of human factor and human resource management in the context of sustainable development of an enterprise, the work conditions in production enterprises must be assessed by employees (who constitute the so-called human factor of an organization), especially in the era of implementation and development of Industry 4.0.

Therefore, the authors decided to conduct research aimed at assessing the functioning of the company in the area of human resource management by employees. The research concerned work characteristics, policy of human resources (HR) management and the social context of work. These fields, characterized by 24 variables, were analyzed in terms of their importance for shaping work efficiency, employee creativity, job satisfaction and the stress they experience at work. In addition, a global assessment of the functioning of the organization was carried out by employees participating in the study.

The choice of these variables resulted from the fact that they enable a wide range of assessment of the most important issues related to the functioning of the organization in the field of human resource management. They cover all areas that are crucial for the organization in the field of human resource management (including work time issues, work–home balance, physical work conditions, employment security, development opportunities, work atmosphere or stress at work). These factors make it possible to assess the work conditions in the organization from the point of view of employees who are the internal stakeholders of the company, create relationships with external stakeholders and create the company image.

The adoption of these variables is also of practical significance. The company wants to use the obtained results in the process of improving its business.

The assessment of work conditions is aimed at identifying those areas of the enterprise operation that the employees believe need to be changed. Structured interview research was based on a set of survey questions for the three groups of factors already mentioned, i.e., work characteristics, human resource management policy and the social context of work. Acquiring objective knowledge from employees is undoubtedly a valuable contribution to building the strategy and vision of the company. This is especially true as in the analyzed case the company has already made many technological changes and is planning further ones. The objective assessment of employees as one of the most important stakeholder groups of the company has both scientific and utilitarian values. This is a result of a complex approach to assessing the three basic areas of operation of a production enterprise in the area of human resource management, i.e., the characteristics of the work, the human resource management policies, the social context of the work.

The article presents the methodology of the conducted research, analysis of the results obtained and the conclusions resulting from them.

The research was carried out in a food industry enterprise, in which the level of automation of the production process is as much as 67%, which significantly affects work conditions, as demonstrated in [15,16]. It is important to note that in Poland there is no other such enterprise operating in the food industry with such a high degree of automation of the production process in which it is possible to carry out research on the assessment of work conditions by employees.

To sum up, it can be stated that the organization was analyzed to assess its functioning after implementation of the changes related to the automation of the production process. On this basis, it will be possible to evaluate the implemented changes, identify any problems and develop strategies for further development of the company. It can therefore be assumed that the research is a classic employee opinion survey as one of the functions of human resource management.

Therefore, the research was conducted in the form of a structured interview based on a set of survey questions. A comprehensive diagnostic tool was prepared based on theoretical models and partly on the existing tools.

1.2. Brief Literature Review

Research on the relationship between sustainability and humans is of great interest to researchers [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72]. This is a consequence of the increase in social awareness and the introduced legal conditions, which to some extent make it necessary to take such actions.

The paper [17] presents results of the research concerning relationship between work satisfaction, work conditions, motivation and work efficiency among teachers. The results of the research on the assessment of work satisfaction among the national guard members are presented in study [18].

On the other hand, Saurin and Ferreira [19] conducted a case study of work conditions among employees of a harvester assembly line in one of the enterprises in Brazil. The work conditions study related to four groups of factors: work content; work organization; continuous improvement and health and safety. Kim et al. [20] on the other hand, carried out an assessment of the work conditions related to involvement in work, procedural fairness of the organization, sharing knowledge and innovative behavior at work.

Nagaraj et al. [21] conducted research on the assessment of ergonomic work conditions among the sewing machine operators working in standing position in Sri Lanka. The research area concerned demographic factors related to work and Cornell’s musculoskeletal failure (CMDQ). In addition, the paper [22] concerned assessment of ergonomic work conditions. The purpose of the survey was to identify the occurrence of symptoms in the musculoskeletal system of employees. In turn, in the works [23,24,25,26,27] results are presented of the research concerning the impact of the physical and ergonomic threats affecting the employees of a poultry processing plant.

Many papers also address a particularly important issue, which is maintaining a balance between work and home, as one of the key areas of human resource management in a sustainable organization. This balance is primarily intended to help employees achieve well-being that allows them to set new goals/tasks and successfully achieve them at work, community and home [28]. The paper [29] presents results of study on the status of the practice with regard to the balance between work and private life in the United Arab Emirates. Similar study was performed by Wilkinson [30], who examined the work–life balance in the vocation of a surveyor in Australia and New Zealand. On the other hand, the paper [31] presents results of research verifying the hypothesis which assumed that the balance between work and personal life is important for the employees’ commitment and for retaining them in the context of other aspects of the organizational climate.

An especially important factor of work affecting the well-being of employees is work under stress [32,33,34,35,36,37,38].

The research results presented in these papers indicate that stress has a detrimental impact on employees. Work in long-term exposure to stress can lead to depression and anxiety disorders as well as disorders in the physical health condition. Stress is a risk factor for the development of cardiovascular diseases or musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., lower back pain); it aggravates allergic symptoms and causes a decrease in the body’s overall immunity [36,37,38].

An extremely important factor affecting the efficiency of work is the issue of the conditions in which this work is performed (including existing threats) [39,40,41]. The research results presented in the article [39] clearly show that work conditions have a significant impact on employees’ productivity. Furthermore, in the work [40]—on the basis of their research results—the authors found that the work conditions determined by the number of hazards, affect work efficiency: the bigger the number of the hazards, the lower the work efficiency. The authors of the paper [41] arrived at similar conclusions and showed that there is a relationship between work conditions and employee productivity.

Employee safety is also a very important factor affecting the perception of an organization [69,70,71,72,73]. The work [69] presents the results of research aimed at identifying relationships between a sense of security in the work environment, proactive behaviour at work, job satisfaction, work skills, team performance and health risk indicators. Based on the results obtained, it was found that the employees’ heart rate and body mass index (BMI) had a negative impact on the sense of security and proactive behaviour at work among older employees, but did not show a significant relationship in young employees. However, regardless of the age of the employees, it was clear that a sense of security affects job satisfaction, and professional skills as well as proactive professional behaviour affect the perception of team performance. In turn, the paper [70] presents the results of research on the impact of employee age and psychological factors on safety perception on construction sites. Research results have shown that workload and job satisfaction are the significantly dominant factors in the perception of safety by older workers, while organizational relationships, mental stress and work safety are the dominant factors for younger construction workers. On the other hand, elaboration [71] demonstrates the results of studies on the impact of stress on hazardous employee behaviour. Research results indicate that there is a negative correlation between stress at work and employee safety behaviour. Similar results are presented in [72,73].

Salary is also one of the major factors affecting employee performance [42,43,44]. The research results presented in these papers indicate that there is a positive relationship between remuneration and work efficiency: the higher the salary, the greater the employees’ efficiency.

An important factor that has a positive impact on the well-being of employees is also the autonomy of work [45,46,47]. On the basis of research carried out in 15 European Union states, the authors of the work [47] stated that work autonomy is associated with self-esteem and a possibility of personal development.

All these works are focused on the broadly understood idea of sustainable development of enterprises in the social area related to work conditions. In the presented papers, however, only individual groups of factors related to the assessment of work conditions were examined, e.g., ergonomic conditions or those related to work safety and work organization.

According to the authors, the assessment of only individual groups of factors is insufficient in the context of sustainable human resource management.

In order to comprehensively assess the organization’s functioning in the field of sustainable human resource management, it is therefore necessary to examine all the basic factors present in the organization (H). These factors are as follows: sociodemographic factors, working time, work–home balance, physical work conditions, work requirements, autonomy, feedback from work, management functions, the possibility of acquiring resources, remuneration, additional bonuses, employment security, development opportunities, work atmosphere, supervisor support, colleague support, feedback from a supervisor, feedback from colleagues, work efficiency, creativity, external and global work satisfaction, internal work satisfaction, stress at work, global assessment. The review of the literature has unambiguously shown that so far no studies have been carried out that would take into account all of the factors related to the assessment of the work conditions relevant for the area of human resource management. Therefore, a research gap has arisen, which can be partly filled by the research presented in the elaboration and its results. The problem of assessing the work conditions in the enterprise by employees in the context of the sustainable development policy seems to be currently valid, important and significant from the point of view of changes that are currently taking place in the economic life.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Area of Research—Production Enterprise

The survey was conducted among production workers in one of the large food industry enterprises located in the southern part of Poland (Figure 2).

The company has been operating on the food production market for over 25 years and its products are immensely popular and positively evaluated by consumers. The company is also an example of an automated factory, implementing technologies associated with Industry 4.0.

The implementation of the company’s mission in the rapidly changing and currently very demanding economic conditions requires the company to focus on strategic actions that help build its competitive advantage and allow it to achieve its goals. The strategic areas from the company’s point of view include health credibility, sustainable development, dialog with the consumer, wide availability of products, production efficiency and finally building a strong and consciously engaged team of employees.

The key issues in the supply chain of the company in which the research was conducted are shown in Figure 3.

In terms of human resource management, the company in question is focused on diversity, openness and responsibility. The company policy in this context focuses on continuous development and improvement of its employee. All conducted activities in the company are guided by the idea of One Planet, One Health. According to it, working with a sense of mission is the most valuable.

The company assumes that its employees are its greatest value and only their full commitment can guarantee the company’s market success. For this reason, the company undertakes various types of activities for the widest possible involvement of its employees in achieving business and social goals. With their experience, competences and skills, it is the employees who create the company’s value, work out the results and serve as a driving force for the development of the entire organization. The company takes care of friendly work conditions and development opportunities, builds an organizational culture based on common values, efficient communication and dialog based on mutual respect and trust.

2.2. Research Objective and Methodology

Given the importance of the human factor and human resource management in the context of sustainable development of the enterprise, it was reasonable to assess its work conditions in the surveyed enterprise.

The survey carried out among the company’s production workers was to assess three basic groups of factors:

-

the characteristics of the work;

-

the human resource management policies;

-

the social context of the work.

To assess these factors as reliably as possible, 24 variables were selected as the basis for the formulation of survey questions (Appendix A,

Table A1. Working time and work-life balance.

No.	Question
1	How many hours a day do you work (professionally)?
	☐ up to 6 h
	☐ 7–8 h
	☐ 9–10 h
	☐ 11–12 h
	☐ 13–14 h
	☐ more than 14 h (how many?)
2	Do you ever happen to work on Saturday?
	☐ I work nearly every Saturday
	☐ I work every other Saturday
	☐ ca. once a month
	☐ ca. once in a quarter or even less often
	☐ I never work on Saturday
3	Do you ever happen to work on Sunday?
	☐ I work nearly every Sunday
	☐ I work every other Sunday
	☐ ca. once a month
	☐ ca. once in a quarter or even less often
	☐ I never work on Sunday
4	Do you have time for leisure and relaxation?
	☐ I always have enough time for this
	☐ I usually have the time
	☐ I am sometimes short of time
	☐ I am often short of time
	☐ I generally do not have the time
5	Do you feel your career adversely affects you private life?
	☐ definitely yes
	☐ generally yes
	☐ to some extent
	☐ no
	☐ definitely not

,

Table A2. Physical conditions—workplace.

No	Question	Response
1	Do you Have Poor Work Conditions as Regards:	Definitely Not	Not Really	Moderately	Considerably	Definitely
1.1	noise	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.2	temperature	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.3	lighting	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
1.4	insufficient space	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
2	Does your workplace have any of the elements that would be deemed repulsive or unpleasant by most people: dirt, dampness, objectionable smell?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

,

Table A3. Requirements.

No	Question	Response
		Definitely	Generally Yes	To Some Extent	No	Definitely Not
1	Do you have to work at a fast pace?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
2	Does your job require intense effort?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
3	Are you overloaded with work?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
4	Does your work require lots of attention and focus?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
5	Does your work require good memory?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
6	Does your work require solving complex problems?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
7	Does your work require making quick and/or risky decisions?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

,

Table A4. Autonomy.

No	Question	Response
		Hardly 1	To Some Extent 2	Moderately 3		Considerably 4		Definitely 5
1	My work… Allows me to make my own decisions on how to plan it	1	2	3		4		5
2	My work… Gives me a chance to draw upon my own initiative or opinion	1	2	3		4		5
3	My work… Allows me to choose methods used to complete my tasks	1	2	3		4		5
4	My work… Provides me with clear, unambiguous information on my effectiveness (e.g. quality and quantity of my work)	1	2	3		4		5
5	My work… Provides me with information about my efficiency.	1	2	3		4		5
6	My work… Provides me with feedback on the work I have done	1	2	3		4		5

,

Table A5. Managerial functions.

No	Question	Response
		Definitely Not	Not Really	Moderately	Considerably	Definitely
1	My work…Requires planning activities well in advance	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
2	My work…Requires making difficult organisational decisions	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
3	My work…Requires motivating others to achieve organisational objectives	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
4	My work…Requires supervising others	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
5	My work…Requires conforming to conflicting requirements	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

,

Table A6. Ability to obtain resources.

No	Question	Response
		N/A	Definitely Not	Hardly Ever	Moderately	Considerably	Definitely
1	Do you have a chance to choose employees in the number and with the qualifications as required for the job?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
2	Do you have appropriate equipment in order to do your job?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
3	Do you have easy access to the information necessary to perform your job?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
4	Do you have the opportunity to obtain sufficient funds to perform the tasks assigned to you?	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

,

Table A7. Management policy.

No	Question	Response
		It Does Not Offer This Element at All 1	Hardly 2	Moderately 3	Considerably 4	It Definitely Offers This Element 5
1	Competitive salary	1	2	3	4	5
2	Salary that reflects the results of my work	1	2	3	4	5
3	Remuneration system and social package are related to the results	1	2	3	4	5
4	Bonuses are linked to the economic result of the whole organisation	1	2	3	4	5
5	Fair system of extra perks and bonuses	1	2	3	4	5
6	Employment agreement that guarantees secure employment	1	2	3	4	5
7	Guarantee of keeping my job	1	2	3	4	5
8	Ability to participate in courses, trainings and workshops	1	2	3	4	5
9	Support in planning my future professional development	1	2	3	4	5
10	Ability to develop new skills and knowledge, which can be useful for my current work or in the future	1	2	3	4	5

,

Table A8. Psychosocial context of work.

No	Question	Response
		I Hardly Agree 1	I Slightly Agree 2	I Somewhat Agree 3	I Largely Agree 4	I Definitely Agree 5
1	The people I work with are friendly.	1	2	3	4	5
2	The people I work with show me their interest.	1	2	3	4	5
3	There are people at work who can understand and comfort me when times are tough.	1	2	3	4	5
4	My superior shares information about my work with me.	1	2	3	4	5
5	My colleagues inform me of my efficiency.	1	2	3	4	5
6	Other people in the organisation inform me about my efficiency.	1	2	3	4	5
7	I can rely on my superiors to share the information I need to complete my work.	1	2	3	4	5
8	I can rely on my colleagues to share the information I need to complete my work.	1	2	3	4	5
9	I can rely on my superior to collaborate with me on the tasks I am supposed to complete.	1	2	3	4	5
10	I can rely on my colleagues to collaborate with me on the tasks I am supposed to complete.	1	2	3	4	5
11	I can assume that my superiors will make an effort to help me in a specific way.	1	2	3	4	5
12	I can assume that my colleagues will make an effort to help me in a specific way.	1	2	3	4	5
13	I believe that my superiors consider me trustworthy and competent	1	2	3	4	5
14	I believe that my colleagues consider me trustworthy and competent	1	2	3	4	5

,

Table A9. Efficiency and creativity.

No	Question	Response
		I Hardly Agree 1	I Slightly Agree 2	I Somewhat Agree 3	I Largely Agree 4	I Definitely Agree 5
1	I properly complete the tasks assigned to me	1	2	3	4	5
2	I fulfil the obligations defined in my job description	1	2	3	4	5
3	I complete the tasks that are expected of me	1	2	3	4	5
4	At work I am practical: I suggest ideas that are useful for the organisation	1	2	3	4	5
5	At work I am flexible: I try to adapt to the available resources in a creative way	1	2	3	4	5
6	At work I am creative: I come up with original ideas for my organisation.	1	2	3	4	5

,

Table A10. Satisfaction with work.

No	Question	Response
		Hardly 1	To Some Extent 2	Moderately 3	Considerably 4	Definitely 5
1	Freedom to choose methods of work	1	2	3	4	5
2	Recognition I receive for a well done job	1	2	3	4	5
3	Scope of responsibility assigned to me	1	2	3	4	5
4	Opportunity to use my skills	1	2	3	4	5
5	Variety of tasks	1	2	3	4	5
6	Physical conditions at workplace	1	2	3	4	5
7	My colleagues	1	2	3	4	5
8	My remuneration	1	2	3	4	5
9	My working hours	1	2	3	4	5

,

Table A11. Stress at work.

No	Question	Response
		Never 1	Hardly Ever 2	Sometimes 3	Quite Often 4	Very Often 5
1	Over the past month, how often did you feel nervous, because something unexpected happened at work?	1	2	3	4	5
2	Over the past month, how often did you feel you do not control some important aspects of your life?	1	2	3	4	5
3	Over the past month, how often did you feel stressed or anxious because of work?	1	2	3	4	5
4	Over the past month, how often were you convinced that you could cope with difficulties at work?	1	2	3	4	5
5	Over the past month, how often did you feel that everything was going as it should at work?	1	2	3	4	5
6	Over the past month, how often did you conclude that you cannot cope with all of your tasks at work?	1	2	3	4	5
7	Over the past month, how often were you able to contain the irritation related to your work?	1	2	3	4	5
8	Over the past month, how often did you feel that the progress of tasks at work is just as you had assumed?	1	2	3	4	5
9	Over the past month, how often were you angry because something that happened at work was beyond your control?	1	2	3	4	5
10	Over the past month, how often did you feel that there were so many problems at work that you simply could not cope?	1	2	3	4	5
11	Generally speaking, I have the opportunity to share my opinion about my work with my superiors, as well as to report any defects or proposed improvements without fear of ridicule or criticism	1	2	3	4	5
12	Generally speaking, the equipment and place where I work are appropriate and suitable for me to perform by tasks	1	2	3	4	5
13	Generally speaking, the way my superiors organise work makes it possible for me to perform my tasks properly	1	2	3	4	5
14	Generally speaking, I feel my superior treats me fairly and evaluates my work properly.	1	2	3	4	5
15	Generally speaking, I am fine with the atmosphere among my colleagues at work.	1	2	3	4	5
16	Generally speaking, I feel that my work is noticed, recognised and appreciated by my superiors.	1	2	3	4	5
17	Generally speaking, I feel I am overloaded with work and taken advantage of by my superiors	1	2	3	4	5
18	Generally speaking, I can count on my colleagues’ help and support at work.	1	2	3	4	5
19	Generally speaking, I can count on my superiors’ help and support at work.	1	2	3	4	5
20	Generally speaking, U am satisfied with my remuneration.	1	2	3	4	5
21	Generally speaking, my weekly and weekend roster is good for me	1	2	3	4	5
22	Generally speaking, the company gives me opportunity for personal development	1	2	3	4	5

and

Table A12. Demographics.

Varible	Response
Sex	☐ 1. Male      ☐ 2. Female
Age	☐ 30 or younger ☐ 31–40 ☐ 41–50 ☐ 51–60 ☐ 61 or more
Education	☐ primary ☐ junior high school ☐ secondary ☐ vocational ☐ higher/university
Professional category	☐ production worker ☐ administration/office employee ☐ foreman ☐ managerial job ☐ Other. Please specify………………………………………………
Form of employment (you can choose a few options)	☐ indefinite employment agreement ☐ fixed-term employment agreement ☐ part-time employment agreement ☐ contract of mandate, contract of specific work ☐ self-employment/running one’s own business ☐ remote work ☐ replacement employment agreement ☐ temporary work/employment under a temporary work agency ☐ seasonal job
Duration of the current agreement	…………………………………………………. Please enter the duration of the current agreement in years and months
How much time you have been working on this job	☐ less than 5 years ☐ 6–10 years ☐ 11–15 years ☐ more than 16 years
Do you hold a managerial position: ☐ yes ☐ no? If yes, how many people are there in your team? ………………..

). The variables include: sociodemographic factors, working time, work–home balance, physical work conditions, work requirements, autonomy, feedback from work, management functions, the possibility of acquiring resources, remuneration, additional bonuses, employment security, development opportunities, work atmosphere, supervisor support, colleague support, feedback from a supervisor, feedback from colleagues, work efficiency, creativity, external and global work satisfaction, internal work satisfaction, stress at work, global assessment.

The first part of the survey contained information about the purpose of the study and the anonymity of participants, further parts included detailed questions related to the research model and the factors highlighted in it. The last part of the survey was the statistics information containing questions about sociodemographic variables: gender, age, education, professional category, form of employment, duration of the contract and years of service. The survey was anonymous.

The respondents’ task was to choose one answer from the provided options or to evaluate a given variable on a five-point scale. All survey questionnaires were completed correctly, so there was no need to eliminate incorrect questionnaires.

After conducting the survey, the results were analyzed in terms of their importance for shaping work efficiency, employees’ creativity, work satisfaction and stress they feel at work. Additionally, a global evaluation of how the organization functioned was also carried out.

In the course of developing the research model and subsequent analysis and interpretation of the data collected, the definitions describing the tested constructs were adopted and presented in Appendix B.

The list of variables adopted for the survey along with their division (operationalization) into nine thematic groups taking into account the variable index and source measurement tools is presented in

Table 1. Summary of variables accepted for the survey along with their operationalization.

No.	Variable	Variable Indicator	Source Measuring Tool
1	Sociodemographic factors: age, gender, level of education, professional category, form of employment, duration of contract, length of service in the current position, managerial position held, scope of management	Responses given in the PI form	Personal information form—self-devised
2	Work characteristics: working time, work–home balance, physical work conditions, work requirements, autonomy, feedback from work, management functions, possibility of obtaining resources	Result on the measuring scale	Questionnaire on psychosocial work conditions [57]
3	Management policy: remuneration, additional bonuses, employment security, development opportunities	Result on the measuring scale	Questionnaire on perceived HR practices [57]
4	Psychosocial work context: work atmosphere, support from the supervisor, support from colleagues, feedback from the supervisor, feedback from colleagues	Result on the measuring scale	Questionnaire on psychosocial work conditions [58,59]
5	Performance (work efficiency)	Result on the measuring scale	Performance scale [60]
6	Creativity	Result on the measuring scale	Creative performance scale [61]
7	Satisfaction with work: internal, external and global	Result on the measuring scale	Work satisfaction scale [61]
8	Stress at work	Result on the measuring scale	Questionnaire on stress at work [62]
9	Global assessment	Result on the measuring scale	Questionnaire—own elaboration

below.

As already mentioned, the survey was carried out among the production staff of the company undergoing the research. The questionnaire consisted of 81 questions. All the survey questions were closed-type ones.

2.3. Demographic Characteristics of the Surveyed Group of Employees

The survey was carried out for 40 people from the group of production workers, which constituted 98% of the total number of production workers in this company. The group of production workers consisted predominantly of women (87.5%).

As regards age, the most numerous group of production workers were people between the ages of 31% and 40%–45%. People under 30 years of age and over 50 years of age constituted the least numerous groups of the respondents from the group of production workers, respectively 4% and 6% of the group of production workers (

Table 2. Age distribution in the study group and distribution of education level in the study group (N = 40).

Age	N	%
Up to 30 years old	4	10
31–40 years old	18	45
41–50 years old	12	30
51–60 years old	6	15
Education Level	N	%
Middle school (junior high)	1	2.5
High school	21	52.5
Vocational	13	32.5
University	4	10
Incomplete data	1	2.5

). In terms of education, the highest number of people graduated from high school, namely as much as 52.5%. Of employees from the surveyed group, 32.5% have vocational education. Marginal percentages are people with middle school education level (2.5%) and higher education level (10%).

All participants in the study were employed based on an employment contract. Some of them had a permanent employment contract (70%) and others a temporary one (30%). Most of these people were employed as production workers (80%). Only three persons from the surveyed group were employed as a specialist/coordinator not managing the team, one person was employed in logistics, two did not indicate their responses.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of the Correlation Coefficient Between Selected Variables

To determine the relationships between selected variables describing the work conditions in the enterprise, a correlation coefficient analysis was performed. The analysis of correlation between variables was carried out for the level of statistical significance of p < 0.05; the values of the Pearson correlation coefficient are summarized in

Table 3. Linear correlations of the variables.

Variable	Age	Physical Work Conditions —Noise	Requirement —Fast Pace	Autonomy	Management Policy —Salary	Psychosocial Context of Work	Productivity	Satisfaction	Stress	Global Assessment
Age	1.000	−0.2324	0.107	−0.0556	−0.0560	−0.3485	0.166	0.022	−0.0142	0.070
	p = ---	p = 0.144	p = 0.507	p = 0.730	p = 0.728	p = 0.026	p = 0.301	p = 0.891	p = 0.930	p = 0.664
Physical work conditions —noise	−0.2324	1.000	−0.5677	0.063	−0.3696	−0.1181	0.0453	−0.0472	0.120	0.062
	p = 0.144	p = ---	p = 0.000	p = 0.698	p = 0.017	p = 0.462	p = 0.779	p = 0.770	p = 0.455	p = 0.702
Requirement —fast pace	0.107	−0.5677	1.000	0.286	0.626	0.461	−0.3194	0.414	0.4610	0.118
	p = 0.507	p = 0.000	p = ---	p = 0.070	p = 0.000	p = 0.002	p = 0.042	p = 0.007	p = 0.002	p = 0.463
Autonomy	−0.0556	0.063	0.286	1.000	0.352	0.149	0.127	0.339	−0.2095	0.037
	p = 0.730	p = 0.698	p = 0.070	p = ---	p = 0.024	p = 0.352	p = 0.428	p = 0.030	p = 0.189	p = 0.821
Management policy —salary	−0.0560	−0.3696	0.626	0.352	1.000	0.414	−0.3862	0.441	−0.5360	0.176
	p = 0.728	p = 0.017	p = 0.000	p = 0.024	p = ---	p = 0.007	p = 0.013	p = 0.004	p = 0.000	p = 0.272
Psychosocial context of work	−0.3485	−0.1181	0.461	0.149	0.414	1.000	−0.464	0.305	−0.4490	0.070
	p = 0.026	p = 0.462	p = 0.002	p = 0.352	p = 0.007	p = ---	p = 0.002	p = 0.053	p = 0.003	p = 0.666
Productivity	0.166	−0.0453	−0.3194	0.127	−0.3862	−0.4642	1.000	−0.1045	0.441	0.144
	p = 0.301	p = 0.779	p = 0.042	p = 0.428	p = 0.013	p = 0.002	p = ---	p = 0.515	p = 0.004	p = 0.369
Satisfaction	0.022	−0.0472	0.414	0.339	0.441	0.305	−0.105	1.000	−0.4264	0.407
	p = 0.891	p = 0.770	p = 0.007	p = 0.030	p = 0.004	p = 0.053	p = 0.515	p = ---	p = 0.005	p = 0.008
Stress	−0.0142	0.120	−0.4610	0.2095	−0.5360	−0.4490	0.441	−0.4264	1.000	0.021
	p = 0.930	p = 0.455	p = 0.002	p = 0.189	p = 0.000	p = 0.003	p = 0.004	p = 0.005	p = ---	p = 0.896
Global assessment	0.070	0.062	0.118	0.037	0.176	0.070	0.144	0.407	0.021	1.000
	p = 0.664	p = 0.702	p = 0.463	p = 0.821	p = 0.272	p = 0.666	p = 0.369	p = 0.008	p = 0.896	p = ---

. Statistically significant relationships between variables are marked in red. The analysis showed that there is a statistically significant relationship, e.g., between the age of the employee and the psychosocial work context characterized by bonds (relationships) in the workplace. The older the employee, the lower their sense of bond in the workplace.

Significant statistical dependencies also exist between physical work conditions and the intensity (pace) of work performance and the remuneration. Negative assessment of work conditions entails a negative assessment of the intensity (pace) of work performance and remuneration for work in inappropriate conditions of exposure to noise or temperature. In turn, the intensity of work performance affects work efficiency and satisfaction with the tasks performed. Work efficiency is also associated with stress levels. The higher the productivity, the higher the employee’s sense of stress. In turn, the higher the level of stress, the lower the satisfaction with the work performed. At the same time, the greater the job satisfaction, the higher the employees’ assessment of the overall work conditions in the enterprise (global assessment).

3.2. Descriptive Statistics

Results of the questionnaire surveys with the use of 5-point scale. The value adopted as the threshold of recognition of the employees’ opinion was 50%. This means that if answers 4 (“satisfies to a high degree”) and 5 (“satisfies to a very high degree”) were jointly provided by more than 50% of the surveyed, the opinion is included in the category of favorable indications. The sum of answers with the value 1 (“does not satisfy”) and 2 (“satisfies to a low degree”) is an indicator of unfavorable opinions. The reply with the value 3 (“satisfies to an average degree”) is a neutral opinion.

Further in this study, results of questionnaire surveys for particular thematic groups of questions included in Table 1 are presented.

3.3. Characteristics of Work and Physical Work Conditions

The group of factors referring to the characteristic features of work included the time of work and work–life balance, physical conditions of work, physical and cognitive requirements of work, employee autonomy and feedback from work.

While preparing questions to assess these factors, the questionnaire of psychosocial work conditions [43] was used to some degree. The format of answers appropriate with the method of functioning of the given enterprise was adjusted to these questions.

The analysis of results indicates that 63.4% among them remain at work for a standard number of hours, i.e., 7–8 h, whereas 2.4% of employees indicate that the time of their work is shorter and amounts to six hours daily. The group of 22% of employees indicates that they remain at work between 9–10 h daily, and for 12.2% of employees this time amounts to between 11 and 12 h. None of the production employees participating in the survey provided the answer they remain at work longer than 13 h. As little as 2.4% of employees work fewer than six hours.

A meaningful group of production employees (87.8%) replied they work almost every Saturday. Only 7.3% come to work every other Saturday. Persons indicating that they work rarely on Saturdays constitute the total of 4.8%, because 2.4% each of respondents marked the replies: once per quarter or more rarely, and I never work on Saturdays.

Similar to Saturdays, a meaningful group of production employees (82.9%) replied they work almost every Sunday. Only 12.2% come to work every other Sunday. The group of 4.9% of the surveyed does not come to work on Sundays.

The responses provided by the surveyed employees to the question if they have time to rest indicate that only 17.1% of persons from this group usually have time to recover. The remaining group of 58.5% usually does not have time to wind down, 9.8% of them often do not have time and 4.6% generally do not have time to rest.

The question “Do you feel your professional work has a negative impact on your private life?” was answered negatively by 7.3% of the surveyed. As many as 43.9% of employees assessed that the work they perform has a negative impact on their private life to some degree. The response “rather yes” was provided by 17.1% of the surveyed, while 31.7% replied “definitely yes”.

Another question concerning physical conditions of work was as follows: “In your workstation, are there negative physical conditions regarding: (1) noise, (2) temperature, (3) lighting, (4) inadequate amount of place, (4) dirt, humidity and unpleasant smell?”

The adopted scale of assessment of particular factors was from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“to a very high degree”), with the middle of the scale of 3 (to an average degree).

Employees subjected to questionnaire surveys favorably assessed the lack of dirt, humidity and unpleasant smell (65.85% in total of replies “not at all” or “to an insignificant degree”) and small amount of place at a workstation (55.00% in total of answers “not at all” or “to an insignificant degree”). The presence of dirt, humidity and unpleasant smell was assessed as average by 21.95% (the response in the middle of the scale) and unfavorably by 12.20% (joint replies “to a high degree” and to “a very high degree”) of the surveyed. Small amount of space was assessed as average by 25% (the response in the middle of the scale) and unfavorably by 20% (joint replies “to a high degree” and “to a very high degree”) of the surveyed.

Lighting in the workstation was assessed as favorable by 46.34 of respondents (joint response “not at all” or “to an insignificant degree”), 41.46 pointed at a neutral mark (“to an average degree”), 12.20% of the surveyed assessed the lighting as unfavorable (joint replies “to a high degree” and “to a very high degree”).

As regards noise and temperature, more than a half of the surveyed claimed that work conditions are unfavorable (joint replies “to a high degree” and “to a very high degree”). In terms of noise assessment, this amounted to 51.22% of respondents and temperature 68.30%, respectively. The replies indicating an average level of physical conditions (reply “to an average degree”) were pointed at by 31.71% (regarding to noise) and 17.07% (regarding temperature). The noise and temperature present at work were positively assessed by 17.07% and 14.63% of the surveyed, respectively.

The results as well as results of the statistical analysis are presented in

Table 4. Descriptive statistics with the assessment of work conditions.

Physical Work Conditions	Descriptive Statistics				Points in the Questionnaire
					5–4	3	1–2
	Min	Max	Average	Standard Deviation	Unfavorable Result	Average Result	Favorable Result
Noise	1	5	3.39	1.14	51.22%	31.71%	17.07%
Temperature	1	5	3.68	1.13	68.30%	17.07%	14.63%
Lighting	1	5	2.58	0.98	12.20%	41.46%	46.34%
Small amount of space	1	5	2.50	1.13	20.00%	25.00%	55.00%
Dirt, humidity, unpleasant smell	1	5	2.32	1.11	12.20%	21.95%	65.85%

.

Analyzing the results, a conclusion may be drawn that among all the surveyed physical work conditions the lack of dirt, humidity and unpleasant smell was assessed as the highest, as well as the amount of place at the workstation. Noise and temperature at the workplace were assessed as the worst. The assessment of lighting did not exceed the threshold of 50% of positive responses adopted in the survey, however majority of the respondents assessed lighting as favorable.

The question regarding physical requirements at work was worded as follows: “Do you have to work at a very high pace? Does your job require very intensive work? Do you have too much work?”

The adopted scale of responses amounted from 1 (definitely yes) to 5 (definitely not), with the middle of the scale at 3 (to some degree).

In most cases (56.10%), respondents provided negative responses (the total of “definitely yes” or “rather yes”). At the same time, 36.59% of the surveyed assess the physical requirements as average (response “to some degree”) and 7.32 as favorable (the total of responses “Not” or “Definitely not”) (

Table 5. Descriptive statistics with the assessment concerning physical requirements at work.

Factor	Descriptive Statistics				Points in the Questionnaire
					3–6	7–10	11–15
	Min	Max	Average	Standard Deviation	Unfavorable Result	Average Result	Favorable Result
Physical requirements at work	3	12	6.49	2.58	56.10%	36.59%	7.32%

). It means that for most production employees who participated in the survey, their work is at a very high pace, their job requires intensive work and there are situations in which, according to respondents, they work too much.

Another question considered cognitive requirements at work and it was worded as follows: “Does your job require major attention? Does your job require good memory?”

The adopted scale of responses amounted from 1 (definitely yes) to 5 (definitely not), with the middle of the scale at 3 (to some degree).

Additionally, in this scope the surveyed were asked two questions, worded as follows: “Is your job monotonous or diversified? Is it necessary to learn new things constantly in your job?”

The adopted scale of responses amounted from 1 (“very diversified/it is almost constantly necessary to improve qualifications”) to 5 (“very monotonous/it is not necessary to learn new things”), with the middle of the scale of 3 (“average diversity/learning is necessary from time-to-time”).

Almost half (46.34%) of respondents assessed the cognitive requirements of work as unfavorable (the total of responses “definitely yes,” “rather yes,” “work is very diversified, it is almost constantly necessary to improve qualifications”). The same number of respondents (46.34%) assessed cognitive requirements at an average level (responses “to a certain degree,” “average diversity/learning is necessary from time-to-time”). The fewest respondents (7.32%) indicated that cognitive requirements at work are favorable in their opinion (the total of responses “not” and “definitely not”, “work is monotonous/it is not necessary to learn new things at all”) (

Table 6. Descriptive statistics with the assessment concerning cognitive requirements at work.

Factor	Descriptive Statistics				Points in the Questionnaire
					4–8	9–13	14–20
	Min	Max	Average	Standard Deviation	Unfavorable Result	Average Result	Favorable Result
Cognitive requirements	4	16	8.66	2.89	46.34%	46.34%	7.32%

).

The distribution of replies of production employees did not allow to recognize the assessment as favorable, average or unfavorable (no group of responses exceeded the adopted threshold of 50%). Simultaneously, it needs to be indicated that for almost a half of surveyed production employees, work definitely or to some degree requires attention, good memory, is very diversified and requires constant improvement of qualifications.

Further full questions concerning employee anatomy were worded as follows: “Does your job: (1) allow taking your own decisions concerning its planning? (2) offer an opportunity to use your own initiative or express your own opinion while performing it? (3) allow you to take decisions concerning methods used while performing tasks?”

The adopted scale of response amounted from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“to a very high degree”), with the middle of the scale of 3 (“to an average degree”).

In the response to the question, 34.15% of the surveyed referred to the level of autonomy in their work as positive (the total of responses “to a high degree” and “to a very high degree”), 39.02% assessed their autonomy as average (answers in the middle of the scale), and 26.83% as negative (the total of answers “to a low degree” or “to a very low degree”) (

Table 7. Descriptive statistics with the assessment of employee autonomy.

Factor	Descriptive Statistics				Points in the Questionnaire
					3–6	7–10	11–15
	Min	Max	Average	Standard Deviation	Unfavorable Result	Average Result	Favorable Result
Autonomy	3	14	8.56	3.38	26.83%	39.02%	34.15%

). The distribution of replies of production employees did not allow to recognize the assessment as favorable, average or unfavorable (no group of responses exceeded the adopted threshold of 50%).

Full questions about the feedback from work were worded as follows: Does your job: (1) provide direct and clear information about your efficiency? (2) provide information about your capacity? (3) provide feedback about the way you perform work?

The adopted scale of response, similarly to the cases before, amounted from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“to a very high degree”), with the middle of the scale of 3 (“to an average degree”).

Most employees assessed the feedback from work as average (51.22% of total replies on the average level). This factor was assessed positively by 29.27% (the total number of answers “to a high degree” and “to a very high degree”) and negatively by 19.51% (total number of responses “to a low degree” and “to a very low degree”).

The results prove that for most employees, work provides direct information about their efficiency on an average level. Moreover, the information about their work and capacity is provided only to an average degree or only in some situations.

3.4. Management Policy

The group of factors regarding human resource management policy comprised the assessment of received remuneration, gained bonus, employment safety and development possibility.

The measurement of the mentioned factors was performed using the perceived practices of HR questionnaire [57]. The full questionnaire is enclosed to this study.

A 5-degree scale of answers, from one (does not offer at all) to 5 (offers to a very large degree), with 3 in the middle (offers at an average degree), was assumed to all questions in this scope.

The answers of the examined persons in the scope of assessment of the received remuneration did not exceed 50% for positive, neutral or negative results and thus the general assessment of remuneration cannot be considered as advantageous, moderate or unfavorable. However, only 10% of employees assessed the aspects connected with remuneration as advantageous (the total of answers offers to a large degree and offers to a very large degree).

A similar situation can be found in the case of the conditions of granting bonus. The assessments of the examined persons did not exceed 50% for positive, neutral or negative results and for this reason one cannot consider the general assessment of granting bonus as advantageous, moderate or unfavorable. Just as in the case of remuneration, a small proportion of the examined persons (7.69%) assessed the aspects connected with granting bonus as advantageous (the total of answer offers to a large degree and offers to a very large degree).

The neutral answer as to employment safety (offers to an average degree) was selected by 56.41% of the examined persons. Every fourth of the examined persons (25.64%) believes that the organization offers it to a large degree and to a very large degree, whereas 17.95% among the examined persons assesses that the organization does not offer it or offers it to a small degree.

The answers of the examined persons also did not exceed 50% for positive, neutral or negative results in the part regarding the forms of the human resource management policy, which means offering of development possibilities. The results are significantly different, each of the categories is acknowledged by the examined persons (30.77% of the examined persons assesses the offer of the organization in this scope unfavorably, 43.59% neutrally, whereas 25.64% favorably).

All the results of the tests regarding human resource management policy are presented in

Table 8. Results of the tests in the area of human resource management in the enterprise.

Human Resource Management Policy	Descriptive Statistics				Scoring in the Questionnaire
					3–6	7–10	11–15
	Min	Max	Average	Standard Deviation	Unfavorable Result	Average Result	Advantageous Result
Remuneration	3	13	6.71	2.81	45.00%	45.00%	10.00%
Bonus	2	10	4.76	2.05	48.72%	43.59%	7.69%
Employment safety	2	10	6.02	2.14	17.95%	56.41%	25.64%
Development	3	13	8.02	3.15	30.77%	43.59%	25.64%

.

3.5. Psychosocial Work Context

In the scope of factors that influence the psychosocial work context, the tests comprised: work atmosphere, social support of the supervisor and coworkers and feedback from the supervisor and coworkers.

During elaboration of questions for the assessment of these factors some parts of the psychosocial work conditions questionnaire [58] and work features questionnaire [63] were used.

The assumed scale of answers as in the previous questions was from 1 (I agree to a small degree) to 5 (I agree to a large degree), with 3 in the middle (I agree to an average degree).

In the case of assessment of the atmosphere at work, support granted by the supervisor and support from the coworkers as well as information received from the supervisor regarding the performed actions, the answers of the examined persons did not exceed 50% for the positive, neutral or negative results and therefore one cannot consider the general assessment of these aspects of psychosocial work conditions as advantageous, moderate or disadvantageous.

As for receiving support from the supervisor 43.90% of the examined persons decided that they experienced it to a small or to a very small degree. The opposite result can be found in the assessment of support granted by the coworkers with 48.78% of the examined persons that believe to experience it to a large and a very large degree. Most of the disadvantageous assessments refer to whether an employee can count on being given necessary information from the supervisor (48.78%). More than half of the examined persons (58.54%) assesses that on average they can count on receiving information necessary to perform tasks from coworkers, whereas 31.71% of the examined persons believes that they can expect it to a very low or low degree. Only 9.76% of the respondents assesses positively the opportunity to receive clarifying information from coworkers (

Table 9. Results of the psychosocial work context tests.

Factor	Descriptive Statistics				Scoring in the Questionnaire
					3–6	7–10	11–15
	Min	Max	Average	Standard Deviation	Unfavorable Result	Average Result	Advantageous Result
Atmosphere	3	13	7.44	2.84	41,.46%	41.46%	17.07%
Supervisor’s support	3	14	7.51	3.49	43.90%	29.27%	26.83%
Coworkers’ support	3	13	8.76	3.11	14.63%	36.59%	48.78%
Information from the supervisor	2	10	5.17	2.25	48.78%	31.71%	19.51%
Information from coworkers	2	8	5.32	1.75	31.71%	58.54%	9.76%

).

3.6. Efficiency and Creativity

In the scope of assessment of efficiency and creativity the tests were performed using the Efficiency Scale [59] and the Creative Efficiency Scale [60]. The complete questionnaires can be found in the Appendix A.

The assumed scale of answers was from 1 (I agree to a small degree) to 5 (I agree to a very high degree), with 3 in the middle (I agree to an average degree).

Vast majority of the respondents specified that they are characterized by a high level of both efficiency (90% of both I agree to a large degree and I agree to a very large degree) and creativity (70% of both I agree to a large degree and I agree to a very large degree). In the case of efficiency 2.5% of the examined persons declared that they achieve average results (the answer I agree to an average degree) and 7.5% indicated that their efficiency is low (both the answers I agree to a little degree and I agree to a very small degree). When describing their creativity 17.5% of the employees decided that they are characterized by a moderate level (the answer I agree to an average degree) and 12.5% specified the level as low (both the answers I agree to a small degree and I agree to a very small degree) (

Table 10. Results of the employees’ efficiency and creativity.

Factor	Descriptive Statistics				Scoring in the Questionnaire
					3–6	7–10	11–15
	Min	Max	Average	Standard Deviation	Unfavorable Result	Average Result	Advantageous Result
Efficiency	4	15	12.37	2.74	7.50%	2.50%	90.00%
Creativity	3	15	11.10	3.18	12.50%	17.50%	70.00%

).

The obtained results indicate the advantageous situation where vast majority of employees considers that they perform the tasks stipulated in the description of the work position in a correct manner and that they perform it to the end. Moreover, majority of the examined persons defined themselves as practical, flexible and creative employees.

3.7. Work Satisfaction

The measurement of internal, external and general satisfaction was performed using the Work Satisfaction Scale [61,64]. The complete questionnaire can be found in the Appendix A.

The assumed scale of answers was from 1 (to a very low degree) to 5 (to a very high degree), with 3 in the middle (to an average degree).

The answers of the respondents to questions regarding the internal, external and general dimension of work satisfaction were similar. Majority of the examined persons assessed their satisfaction as moderate (the answer to an average degree). It was 52.5% of the examined persons for the internal dimension, 65% for the internal dimension and 70% for general satisfaction. Of employees, 32.5% assessed their internal satisfaction disadvantageously, 20% assessed so internal satisfaction and 25% assessed this way general satisfaction (both the answers to a small degree and to a very low degree). The positive assessment (both the answers to a large degree and to a very high degree) was expressed by 15% of the examined persons in the case of internal and external satisfaction, whereas general satisfaction was assessed advantageously by 5% of the respondents (

Table 11. Work satisfaction test results.

Satisfaction	Descriptive Statistics				Scoring in the Questionnaire
					9–20	21–32	33–45
	Min	Max	Average	Standard Deviation	Unfavorable Result	Average Result	Advantageous Result
Internal	5	20	14	4.22	32.50%	52.50%	15.00%
External	4	17	10.73	3.03	20.00%	65.00%	15.00%
General	9	36	24.73	6.25	25.00%	70.00%	5.00%

).

3.8. Stress at Work

The measurement of stress at work was performed using the stress perceived at work questionnaire [62]. The test aims to specify the level of stress connected with work experienced by the examined persons within the last month. The complete questionnaire can be found in the Appendix A.

The assumed scale of answers was from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently) with 3 in the middle (sometimes).

70% of the respondents assessed the symptoms of stress at work experienced by them within the last month as average. The remaining persons, i.e., approximately 30% of the personnel, indicated a larger intensity of the experienced stress signs, which disadvantageously influenced their mood. None of the examined persons assessed that they did not experience any stress within the last month.

3.9. Global Assessment

The measurement of global assessment was made using a set of questions referring to the selected aspects of professional functioning, i.e., expressing opinion about work, quality of equipment at work, method of work organization, sense of fair treatment, atmosphere at work, recognition for results achieved at work, work overload, receiving support from coworkers, satisfaction from obtained remuneration, optimum planning of weekly schedule, offered opportunities of professional development. The indications of the examined persons as to particulars aspects were added providing a general result of the assessment of enterprise functioning.

The assumed scale of replies was from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently), with 3 in the middle (sometimes). A significant part of production employees (70.73%) assesses the conditions and the method of working in the company neutrally. A total of 21.95% provided a negative assessment, whereas 7.32% was positive with regard to the examined issues.

4. Discussion

The study presents the results of survey research regarding the assessment of work conditions in a production enterprise. The research concerned groups of factors relating to the work characteristics, policy of human resource management and the social context of work.

The research assumed that the threshold for recognizing respondents’ opinions on a given topic would be at least 50%. It was assumed that only the support of a given question from above half of the respondents gives grounds for its acceptance. It means that if the questions of the value of 4 (satisfies to a high degree) and 5 (satisfies to a very high degree) were jointly provided by the respondents in more than 50% cases - the opinion is counted in the category of favorable indications. The sum of answers valued at 1 (does not satisfy) and 2 (satisfies to a low degree) is an indicator of unfavorable opinions. The value 3 answers (satisfies to an average degree) stands for a neutral opinion. In this case a classic method of class distribution analysis was applied, according to the 1–5 scale, where the results below half are regarded negative.

Two parts of the study were interpreted in a slightly modified manner due to the nature of the issues addressed and a different format of the answers. Those sections refer to the time for work and leisure time, as well as impact of work on private life.

In relation to working time, the answers given indicate that most of the participants in the survey do not exceed the adopted norm of working time, at the same time performing their duties ceaselessly during the week (as much as 87.8% works every Saturday and 82.9% on every Sunday). This is expressed in the answers to the question relating to the time for rest, where a large part (58.5%) of the respondents indicated that they often have no time to relax. Probably this very aspect is the reason difficulties are mentioned in reconciling the work and family life. This is in particular voiced by women (female participants in the survey, aged 31 to 50). Socially and culturally, they are usually designated as responsible for the performance of social commitments, i.e., taking care of children, the elderly or organizing social gatherings. The conflict they go through between being a reliable and effective employee and an active and cheerful parent will in time lead to the decreased satisfaction with work as well as with their personal life.

Therefore, nowadays increasing attention is paid to the nature of relationships between work and personal life [65,66].

Based on the obtained results, a diagnosis has also been established of the areas that were identified as favorable, unfavorable or moderate/neutral. This information was also supplemented with the elements whose assessment was not explicit.

The production workers considered the working space at their working place as favorable in the area of working characteristics (55% of favorable assessments), together with lack of dirt, dampness and unpleasant odor (65.85% of favorable assessments). The subjects also considered their effectiveness (90% of favorable assessments) and creativity (70% of favorable assessments) at a high level, which was reflected in a favorable assessment.

The fields that the respondents assessed mostly as moderate, are the feedback as the work characteristics (51.22% of moderate assessments), job security (56.41% of moderate assessments), being the element of the human resources policy, as well as the feedback from colleagues (58.54% of moderate assessments), which is the component of the psycho-social work context.

In the context of these results, a moderate assessment of the sense of security of employment may raise concern. This is one of the basic human needs [67]. A sense of insecurity of employment or a moderate sense of job security is one of the main sources of work-related stress and a global phenomenon [73,74]. A moderate sense of job security may arise from concerns about increasing the process of production automation at the facility. These concerns can arise from the belief that production automation and robotization will deprive employees of their jobs [75,76].

In addition, the production workers considered their work satisfaction moderate (52.5% of favorable assessments for internal satisfaction, 65% for external satisfaction and 70% for general satisfaction), with the same result for the stress taken at work (70% of moderate assessments). A moderate level of assessment is also appropriate for the global assessment of the organization (70.73% of moderate assessments), which the respondents made during the study.

The negative assessment by the production workers concerns only selected features of work, which include noise (51.22% of negative assessments), temperature (68.3% of negative assessments) and physical requirements of work conditions (56.1% of negative assessments).

As regards the negative assessment of physical work conditions in exposure to noise, the company’s management should undertake serious corrective action. Noise is a harmful factor in the work environment. Prolonged exposure to the noise and its high levels (above 80–85 dB) can pose a significant threat to the hearing organ and health of the employees. Noise is often a nuisance factor, hindering work and causing stress and consequently various health conditions and thus having a significant impact on employees’ health. In the European Union, about 80 million employees (1/3 of total employment) complain about intense noise [77]. The results of the presented research indicate that in the analyzed enterprise this problem concerns more than half of the production employees. Still a bigger number of employees negatively rated the physical work conditions related to temperature—nearly 2/3 of employees. This is concerning because long-term work in an environment of an inappropriate temperature can cause heat stress and fatigue, but also disorders in the functioning of the circulatory system, resulting in occupational diseases [78]. The results of the research presented in the study indicate that the number of hazardous behaviors and accidents at workplaces grows with the increase in the temperature of the working environment and the intensity of work [79].

In addition, more than half of the employees participating in the survey negatively assessed the work conditions related to physical and mental effort. In this context, measures should be taken to improve the organization of work in terms of physical and mental burden.

In the case of a number of assessment factors presented by the respondents, they could not be assigned to any category, due to the fact that they did not exceed the 50% threshold of favorable, unfavorable or moderate assessment. Those factors were: workplace lighting, cognitive requirements and autonomy, as work characteristics. In the case of human resource management policy, the elements assessed ambiguously include remuneration, additional bonuses and development opportunities. With regard to the psychosocial context these are: atmosphere at work, support received from the manager and colleagues as well as feedback from the manager. However, even in these areas, management should take measures to participate in training supporting personal development, including in terms of organization of work and management of own time as well as trainings improving the quality of coping with stress. Occupational stress, due to its negative health and socioeconomic consequences, is a serious problem occurring in virtually every organization [80].

5. Conclusions

Indisputably, implementation of a sustainable development in an enterprise is associated with a number of diversified problems. In addition to technological, organizational and economic problems, the attitudes towards, awareness and acceptance of the changes implemented by the crew are fundamental. Therefore, it is fully justifiable to learn about the employees’ opinions on their work conditions. The assessments should be analyzed from two points of view. Namely, as an assessment of the already implemented changes and the diagnosis of the current conditions in general and as a point of departure for further actions related to the planned actions. This is especially important in the case of the company covered by the study, as in addition to the implementation of the idea of the sustainable development, it also implements new solutions connected with the idea of Industry 4.0. They cover introduction of production line automation, vertical and horizontal integration within the company as well as application of autonomic robots. In addition, increased application of the industrial automation occurs for monitoring of the condition of the machinery and plant as well as to analyzing their effectiveness. Further plans also cover implementation of an integrated production supervision and management system, as well as introduction of an extended reality into the maintenance system. All these technical changes must be adapted to the increasing environmental requirements and be adequate to the level of awareness of the employees. For these reasons, the research carried out is of great importance to enterprises. The study appreciates the importance of the human factor and discerns the importance of human resource management in the context of sustainable development of the enterprise.

The research, which was aimed at assessing the work conditions in the enterprise with the implemented policy of sustainable development in the area of the human factor, showed that the production workers covered by the study negatively assessed three work characteristics, i.e., noise, temperature and physical requirements. In psychology, it is noted that in most professional situations, the fact whether job features are perceived as unfavorable is primarily determined by their individual interpretation and the possessed personal resources [81]. Therefore, to counteract possible negative effects of the unfavorable work features, it is necessary to implement actions for the improvement of the working atmosphere in the form of showing interest in the situation of the employees. It is also important to seek and respond to manifestations of behavior that indicate the difficulties of employees in the work environment, which they assess as difficult. In the case of a negative assessment of work conditions, the consequences may take the form of chronic stress hindering the maintenance of positive and satisfying relationships with other people, reduction of work efficiency, and may lead to a large fluctuation of staff, downtime and losses caused by sickness absence [82].

The obtained results indicate that there are several areas in the enterprise that require improvement (corrective measures) for the proper implementation of the idea of a sustainable development of the enterprise in the field of human resources management. This applies to, among others, increasing rest time (by reducing the frequency of work on Saturdays/Sundays), improving work conditions and reducing exposure to noise, inadequate temperature and humidity, as well as physical exertion during work.

It is obvious that an enterprise implementing the principle of sustainable economy must treat employees as an important stakeholder of the entire production process. It is therefore justified to examine the needs of employees, create safe work conditions, shape harmonious interpersonal relations, and develop programs that facilitate the work–life–balance, etc.

In the opinion of the authors, the developed methodology, conducted research and the obtained results allow to assess in a very precise and multi-level manner, the potential of the employees of the enterprise. Identification of their needs, problems, concerns and other factors can become the basis for the introduction of changes. In the case of introducing new technologies of Industry 4.0., the process of automation and robotization should take into account supporting the manual work accounting for the severe conditions for the employees, such as noise and physical work overloads. Generally, according to the authors, the assessment of work conditions should be carried out before and after the implementation of automation of the production process. However, it is not always possible to carry out longitudinal studies. Such possibility was not available in the case of the research whose results were presented in the study.

Undoubtedly, the developed methodology, conducted research, obtained results and formulation of the conclusions drawn from them, constitute a new approach to the analysis of conditions that must be met in an enterprise so that it can successfully introduce the idea of sustainable development.

The obtained results indicate that, in spite of the advanced processes of automation and digitization of the production process in the analyzed enterprise, the human factor is still of enormous significance. The indisputable contribution of the presented work is the developed methodology, which includes the analysis of many factors important from the point of view of human resource management. The obtained results of the assessment are a valuable source of information and should be used by the company’s executives to optimize its management.

The results also indicate that in order to achieve sustainable development, the human resource management should be based on:

-

maintaining a work–life balance;

-

good work atmosphere in which the employee feels appreciated;

-

sense of job security (lack of uncertainty if the employee will be dismissed);

-

avoiding work in stress;

-

improving physical work conditions that are harmful and lead to sickness and absence of the employee, which generates additional costs;

-

preventing pay gaps.

Achieving the goal of sustainable business development requires very thoughtful, sound and methodical human resource management. This process must take into account job security, ensuring adequate working conditions, suitable salary, good communication within the enterprise and work in conditions of lowest possible stress exposure. Such human resource management is also an element of building the image of the organization and bonds with the enterprise. Employees must be treated subjectively with clearly defined duties and privileges. As internal stakeholders, they create relationships with external stakeholders and create the company image. Creating the right work and development conditions for employees is in the company’s interest because they translate into higher motivation and efficiency, which allows for the return of expenditure on personnel activities. Human resource management is also designed to prepare employees for changes. In this respect, it is necessary to provide them with honest information about the purpose and consequences of the changes implemented. The use of an appropriate incentive system is also particularly important in this case.