THE PRACTICE OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN...

THE PRACTICE OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN HUNGARY & SLOVAKIA

2015–2016(ZSUZSA KAROLINY – JÓZSEF POÓR, Eds.)

Research Report

2016

Gödöllő-Hungary

Editors (Študijné redaktori-Kiadó):

Prof. Dr.József Poór DSc., CMC

Dr. Mártonné Karoliny PhD.

Authors (Autori-Szerzők):

Ing. Jana Blštáková PhD.

Dr. Karoliny Mártonné PhD.

Ádám Gergő Kiss PhD. candidate

Prof. Dr. József Poór DSc, CMC

Reviewers (Recenzent-Lektorok):

Dr. Imola Papp Csehné PhD.

Dr. Erika Varga PhD.

Language editors:

Zsuzsanna Nagy and. C. S. Chadwick

Publishers (Vydavateľ-Kiadó):

Management and HR Research Centre

Szent István University

(Páter K. u. 1. 2100: Gödöllő, Hungary)

Universities taking part in the preparation of this monograph

(Vysoké školy, ktoré sa zúčastnili prípravy tejto monografii-résztvevő egyetemek)

Szent István University, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences (Gödöllő, Hungary)

University of Economics Bratislava, Faculty of Business Management (Bratislava, Slovakia)

University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics, (Pécs, Hungary),

Year of publication:

2016

ISBN 978-963-269-612-6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1 ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.1 SECTORAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2 LABOUR COSTS AND COMPANY PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.3 MARKETS SERVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.4 SIZE OF ORGANISATIONS AND HEADCOUNT CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.4.1 DISTRIBUTION BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES BY JOB CATEGORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.4.3 FLUCTUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.4.4 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES BY AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.4.5 ABSENTEEISM/SICK LEAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.4.6 EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.5 PERSONNEL/HUMAN RESOURCE FUNCTION/DEPARTMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.6 USE OF EXTERNAL HR SERVICE PROVIDERS/CONSULTANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.7 ORGANISATIONAL AND HR STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1.8 HR DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.9 HR DECISION-MAKING IN MAJOR ORGANISATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.10 HR INFORMATION SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.11 EVALUATION OF HR FUNCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2 RESOURCING PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.1 CHANGES IN HEADCOUNT AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.2 RECRUITMENT – SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.3 DIVERSITY PROGRAMMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.4 FORMS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK SCHEDULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3 PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.1 EVALUATING PERFORMANCE – MANAGING PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.2 TRAINING – DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.3 CAREER DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4 COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

4.1 PAY & COMPENSATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

4.2 BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

THE PR ACT ICE OF HUMA N RESOURCE MA N AGEMEN T I N HU NGARY & SLOVAK I A 2015 –2016 / / 2016 GÖDÖLLŐ - HU NGARY

4

5 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.1 ORGANISED WORKFORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.2 INFLUENCE OF TRADE UNIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.3 INTERNAL COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6 DATA OF THE RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.1 HR DEPARTMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.2 RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

7 HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

7.1 TYPES OF HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

7.2 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER HR STAFF MEMBER (H1A AND H1B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

7.3 EVALUATION OF HR DEPARTMENT’S PERFORMARNCE (H2A AND H2B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7.4 HEADCOUNT GROWTH (H3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.5 AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRAINING DAYS (H4A AND H4B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

7.6 PROPORTION OF TRADE UNION MEMBERS (H5A AND H5B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

8 CRANET RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

8.1 ABOUT CRANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68


5

INTRODUCTION

In Hungary and Slovakia the ongoing economic transformation has produced significant changes in the practice of Human

Resource Management (HRM) in both institutions and enterprises and also its evaluation. The organisation has become an

increasingly important factor in the strategic significance of the function itself and of HR departments in general, and this

survey details the personnel or human resources (HR) management policies and practices of 450 organisations or enterprises

in both the public and private sectors.

Our research is based on the Cranet international research questionnaire and comprises almost 70 questions (Read more in

the Appendix). This survey is descriptive in character and has been constructed entirely on the basis of objective data.

The questionnaire is divided into seven sections.

» The first examines the main characteristics of the Human Resource Management (HRM) department of the

organisations surveyed;

» The second examines sourcing or recruitment practices;

» The third deals with issues relating to employee development;

» The fourth surveys the methods used in compensation and benefits practices;

» The fifth seeks answers to questions of employee relations within the organisation and the existence and

forms of communication with employees;

» The sixth features general questions on organisational data;

» The seventh records personal information concerning the respondent.

The survey was carried out in Hungary and Slovakia in 2015 and 2016 (Q1 & Q2). Maps and significant socio-economic data

of both countries are shown below.


6

Exhibit One: Maps of Hungary and Slovakia

Exhibit Two: Socio-economic data of Hungary and Slovakia (2014)

Hungary Slovakia

Population 9,870,000 5,418,000

GDP growth 2014 (%) 3.9% 3.5%

Inflation (%) 1% -0.1%

Currency Forint Euro

EU membership 2004 2004

GDP per capita 2014 (PPP) $24,942 $28,175

Religion 70% Catholic 62% Catholic

More than five hundred (527) organisations took part in the survey, 51% from Hungary and 49% from Slovakia, and the

findings of the report are based on normal statistical methods (mean, frequency, distribution). Our analysis was carried out

with the help of SPSS software and supplemented by a hypothesis analysis.

Gödöllő, Pécs and Bratislava

December 2016

Prof. Dr. József Poór DSc, CMC, Ing. Jana Blštáková PhD. and Dr. Zsuzsa Karoliny PhD.


7

1. ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY

1.1. SECTORAL CHARACTERISTICS

Whilst more than half of the Hungarian organisations responding (63.8%) operate in the private sector, an even greater

majority of Slovakian respondents (90.1%) belong to this sector. (See table 1)

Table 1: Sectoral distribution of the sample

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Private sectorFrequency 169 236

% 63.8% 90.1%

Public sectorFrequency 87 23

% 32.8% 8.8%

Non-profitFrequency 8 0

% 3.0% 0.0%

Mix (Public- and Private sector)Frequency 1 3

% 0.4% 1.1%

All organisationsFrequency 265 262

% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 1: Sectoral distribution of the sample


8

According to the data in Table 2, of the responding organisations in Hungary, an average of some 12% operate in public

administration, telecommunications and IT services, finance and insurance as well as in health-care and social services.

Table 2: Sectoral distribution of the respondents

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Agriculture, hunting, forestry, fishing, mining and quarryingFrequency 4 10

% 1.9% 3.8%

Manufacture of food, beverages, textiles, wood and paper, coke and refined petroleum, and related products

Frequency 6 14

% 2.9% 5.3%

Manufacture of chemicals, pharmaceuticals and medicinal chemical products

Frequency 9 4

% 4,3% 1,5%

Manufacture of basic metals and metal products, plastic and other non-metallic products

Frequency 10 1

% 4.8% 0.4%

Manufacture of computer and electronic products, electrical equipment

Frequency 9 7

% 4.3% 2.7%

Manufacture of machinery and equipmentFrequency 4 26

% 1.9% 9.9%

Manufacture of transport equipmentFrequency 6 6

% 2.9% 2.3%

Other manufacturingFrequency 3 15

% 1.4% 5.7%

Electricity, gas, steam, and water supply, waste managementFrequency 4 14

% 1.9% 5.3%

ConstructionFrequency 0 8

% 0.0% 3.1%

Wholesale and retail tradeFrequency 19 13

% 9.1% 5.0%

Transportation and storageFrequency 6 10

% 2.9% 3.8%

Accommodation and catering activities, publishing, broadcasting activities

Frequency 2 1

% 1.0% 0.4%

Telecommunications, IT and other information servicesFrequency 29 34

% 13.9% 13.0%

Financial and insurance activitiesFrequency 23 34

% 11.0% 13.0%

Accounting, management, architecture, engineering, scientific research, and other administrative and support services

Frequency 16 7

% 7.7% 2.7%


9

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Public administration and compulsory social securityFrequency 32 7

% 15.3% 2.7%

EducationFrequency 10 2

% 4.8% 0.8%

Human health services, residential care and social work activitiesFrequency 17 7

% 8.1% 2.7%

Other industry or servicesFrequency 0 42

% 0.0% 16.0%

TotalFrequency 209 262

% 100.0% 100.0%

However, respondents from Slovakia are more frequently found in telecommunications and information technology services

and financial and insurance services (13%). Here, another important feature is the number of machinery and equipment

manufacturing companies (with a 10% share of the sample), and a further point of interest is that, in Slovakia, the number

of respondents who choose the “Others” category comprise a significant proportion.

1.2. LABOUR COSTS AND COMPANY PERFORMANCE

In terms of the average level of labour costs, no hugely significant differences are visible between the two countries,

although in Hungary labour costs amount to 44% of the operating costs of the organisations responding, whilst in Slovakia

the figure is 37%.

Respondents were asked to evaluate their own performance in relation to six indicators, with their assessments shown on a

simple scale. These appear in Tables 3 and 4 and offer comparisons with their competitors and with other organisations in

their sector.

Table 3: The distribution of respondents by organisational performance – Hungary

Factors of organisational performance

PoorBelow

averageAverage/ same as

competitorsAbove

averageExcellent

Quality of service 0% 2.9% 23.8% 36.8% 36.4%

Productivity level 0% 3.5% 29.8% 43.4% 23.2%

Profitability 1.5% 9.2% 40.3% 34.2% 14.8%

Innovation level 3.5% 9.5% 35.3% 31.3% 20.4%

Equity market performance 18.9% 6.8% 35.1% 24.3% 14.9%

Environmental issues 3.8% 7.0% 40.8% 28.7% 19.7%


10

According to the data in Table 3, one-third (36.8%) of the Hungarian respondents consider themselves superior or above

average in terms of quality of service. Regarding productivity, nearly half (43.4%) regard themselves above average, as do

one-third (31.3 – 34.2%) in relation to profitability and innovation, whereas, in respect of environmental issues, only 28.7 %

believe themselves to be above average.

Table 4: Distribution of respondents by organisational performance– Slovakia

Factors of organisational performance

PoorBelow

averageAverage/ same as

competitorsAbove

averageExcellent

Quality of service 0% 0.4% 31.2% 33.8% 34.6%

Productivity level 0% 2.6% 28.3% 39.1% 30.0%

Profitability 3.1% 7.4% 35.8% 34.5% 19.2%

Innovation level 2.2% 11.6% 31.2% 36.6% 18.3%

Equity market performance 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Environmental issues 1.5% 4.5% 36.2% 28.1% 29.6%

The self-assessment of respondents in Slovakia regarding their performance shows a trend similar to that in Hungary, since

the highest evaluations (above average or excellent) also applied to quality of services (68.5%) and productivity (69%),

followed (interestingly) by environmental affairs (58%) and, with slightly more than half of the respondents, innovation

(55%), and profitability (54%). It is, however, notable that the values of Slovakia are everywhere several percentage points

higher than in Hungary, with the one exception of quality of service.

The stock market performance of companies in Slovakia, however, could be evaluated, as the sample did not include

companies whose shares are listed on the stock exchange.


11

1.3. MARKETS SERVED

Most respondent organisations, of course, achieved their previous results on markets of a very different character.

Table 5: Size of main markets

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

LocalFrequency 29 5

% 11.3% 1.9%

RegionalFrequency 25 45

% 9.8% 17.3%

NationalFrequency 107 119

% 41.8% 45.8%

Continent-wide (Europe)Frequency 35 36

% 13.7% 13.8%

World-wideFrequency 60 55

% 23.4% 21.2%


% 100,0% 100,0%.

As shown in Table 5 and Figure 2, Hungarian respondents produce slightly weaker results competing in somewhat more

demanding markets. However, well over half (62.9%) of the Hungarian organisations also sell on the domestic market,

whilst the rate among the Slovakian respondents is slightly higher still (65%). The proportion of sales on the Continent, that

is, within Europe, is very similar (13.7 to 13.8%) in the two countries, although the level of Hungarian respondents who

compete on the world market is only a few percentage points higher.

Figure 2: Size of main markets


12

1.4. SIZE OF ORGANISATIONS AND HEADCOUNT CHARACTERISTICS

1.4.1. DISTRIBUTION BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

Table 6 shows that, among the responding organisations in Hungary, small and medium-sized companies form the highest

proportion (63.4%), whilst the lowest (23.3%) applies to institutions or companies which just qualify as large – with 250-

1000 employees. Very large organisations employing more than 1000 people comprise slightly more than 1/10 of the sample.

Table 6: Distribution of respondents by headcount

Total number of employeesCountries

Hungary Slovakia

below 100Frequency 26 8

% 10.1% 3.1%

100-249 Frequency 56 67

% 21.8% 25.6%

250-1000Frequency 81 131

% 31.5% 50.0%

1001-2000Frequency 60 39

% 23.3% 14.9%

2001-5000Frequency 29 16

% 11.3% 6.1%

over 5000Frequency 5 1

% 1.9% 0.4%


% 100.0% 100.0%

One half of the respondent organisations in Slovakia (50%) are enterprises in the medium-sized category – with 50-249

employees, whilst another significant proportion (28.7%) shows that small companies and organisations employing more

than 250 people participate much less frequently than in Hungary.


13

1.4.2. DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES BY JOB CATEGORY

Table 7: Distribution of employees by job category

Hungary Slovakia

Managers 11% 13%

Professionals (no managerial responsibility) 47% 66%

Clerical and/or Manual 42% 21%

Total 100% 100%

Figure 3: Distribution of employees by employment category

In the Hungarian respondent organisations the proportion of professional employees is the highest (47%), followed by

administrative staff (42%). Managers as a group recomprise 11% of the sample.

In respect of Slovakia, professional staff again make up the largest proportion (66%), followed by administrative staff (21%).

As in Hungary, the proportion of managers is the lowest (13%).

1.4.3. FLUCTUATION

From this perspective there is a difference between the respondent organisations of the two countries – and this is in favour of Slovakia. This means that the fluctuation rate is below 10% in Slovakia (8.7%), whilst almost reaching 12% (11.7%) in Hungary.


14

1.4.4. DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES BY AGE

Table 8: Distribution of employees by age – Hungary

Hungary

Age 0% 1-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total

25 & below 18 120 83 27 7 3 258

50 & above 12 109 71 44 15 6 257

The survey shows that young people – that is, under 25 years of age – are not even found in some respondent organisations

in Hungary, whilst in about half (46.5%) they comprise only a small proport/ion of employees (1-10% of the total). The older

age group – over 50 – is also missing from about half of these organisations, whilst their proportion is estimated between

1-10%.

Table 9: Distribution of employees by age – Slovakia

Slovakia

Age 0% 1-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total

25 & below 18 123 60 33 3 3 240

50 & above 14 98 60 47 19 0 238

Table 9 shows, a similar picture for Slovakia, in that those below 25 and above 50 age comprise less than 10-10% of the

respondents’ employees.

The majority of staff in a high proportion of organisations both countries is drawn from the middle age groups.

1.4.5. ABSENTEEISM/SICK LEAVE

In Hungary, participating organisations reported an annual average of 6.6 days absenteeism / sick leave per worker, whilst in

Slovakia the figure is almost twice as high at 12.3 days.


15

1.4.6. EDUCATION

Table 10: Level of education in Hungary

Hungary

Percentage of

employees with HE0% 1-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total

All organisations 2 27 56 47 52 73 257

In Hungary, nearly one third of the responding organisations (28.4%) employ a high proportion (76-100%) of staff with

tertiary education. At almost a further quarter (21.7% & 20.3% respectively) more than 1/10 (11-25%) or one half to two-

thirds (51-75%) of the employees have an HE degree.

Table 11: Education in Slovakia

Slovakia

Percentage of employees with HE

0% 1-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Total

All organisations 1 39 64 51 55 28 238

The percentage of those with a tertiary qualification in the respondent organisations in Slovakia is high (27%) in 11-25%,

whilst in 51-75% no fewer than 23% of employees have university degrees.


16

1.5. PERSONNEL/HUMAN RESOURCE FUNCTION/DEPARTMENT

Is there a Personnel/Human Resource Department at your organisation?

Table 12: Independent HR Department

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

YesFrequency 54 33

% 19.9% 12.6%

No Frequency 217 229

% 80.1% 87.4%


% 100.0% 100.0%

Whilst, in Hungary, about 80% of the companies investigated have their own HR departments, this figure is slightly higher in

Slovakia, as almost 90% of the companies and institutions examined have their own independent Personnel/HR Department.

How many people are employed by your organisation in the field of Personnel/HR?

Table 13: Number of employees in the field of HR

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

FemaleFrequency 3411 2878

% 72.9% 64..8%

MaleFrequency 1266 1563

% 27.1% 35.2%


% 100.0% 100.0%

In the respondent organisations in Hungary, the proportion of female employees in HR departments is almost three-quarters

of the total number of HR personnel (72.9%), whilst in Slovakia, the female strength is slightly lower (64.8%), but still almost

twice as many women work in HR departments as do men.

Table 14: Features of respondent organisations by total number of employees and HR staff

Total employees Number of HR staffNumber employed per

HR staff member

Hungary 337,433 5,030 67

Slovakia 255,081 4,436 57

In the respondent organisations in Hungary there are, on average, 67 employees for each HR employee, whilst in Slovakia the HR-effectiveness ratio is slightly lower with a total of 57 employees for every HR department employee.


17

Does the Head of the HR department have a seat on the Board of Directors or in an equivalent top management

committee?

Table 15: Membership of the Board of Directors

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

NoFrequency 103 108

% 42.7% 41.2%

YesFrequency 138 154

% 57.3% 58.8%


% 100.0% 100.0%

In Hungary and Slovakia more than half (57.3 & 58.8%), of appointed HRM managers are members of the Board of Directors

as well as of top management committees.

1.6. USE OF EXTERNAL HR SERVICE PROVIDERS/CONSULTANTS

Table 16: The role of external HR service providers in Hungary

Hungary0

No outsourcing

1 2 34

Total outsourcing

Total

Payroll 51,5% 1,1% 4,1% 5,3% 38% 100%

Pensions 61.8% 1.5% 3.5% 2.3% 30.9% 100%

Benefits 73.8% 4.9% 7.5% 2.6% 11.2% 100%

Training and development 50.9% 14.1% 22.7% 8.2% 4.1% 100%

Workforce reduction/outplacement 88.6% 3.0% 3.7% 1.8% 3.0% 100%

HR Information system 72.1% 8.7% 9.1% 3.8% 6.4% 100%

Recruitment 61.9% 15.2% 16.7% 4.1% 2.2% 100%

Selection 76.6% 12.6% 7.8% 1.5% 1.5% 100%

Handling routine requests by management/employees (HR call-centre)

90.3% 2.6% 3.0% 1.9% 2.2% 100%

In Hungary, more than one-third of the companies and institutions examined fully outsource their payroll and pension-

related functions. Least outsourced are benefits, workforce down-sizing, HR information systems, recruitment and selection,

whilst the level of outsourcing of information to managers, and employees is extremely low.


18

Table 17: The role of external HR service providers in Slovakia

Slovakia0

No outsourcing1 2 3

4Full-scale

outsourcingTotal

Payroll 84.7% 6.9% 4.6% 1.5% 2.3% 100%

Pensions 82.1% 8.4% 5.3% 1.5% 2.7% 100%

Benefits 72.1% 12.6% 9.9% 2.3% 3.1% 100%

Training and development 41.6% 13.7% 22.9% 11.1% 10.7% 100%

Workforce reduction/outplacement 89.7% 4.2% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 100%

HR Information system 62.5% 11.9% 12.3% 6.5% 6.9% 100%

Recruitment 60.3% 17.2% 16.8% 3.4% 2.3% 100%

Selection 72.1% 15.6% 9.5% 0.8% 1.9% 100%

Handling routine requests by management/

employees (HR call-centre) 81.9% 9.6% 4.6% 3.5% 0.4% 100%

In Slovakia one quarter of the companies surveyed employ external service providers in the fields of selection and benefits,

whilst one third do so in respect of HR information systems and recruiting. The highest proportion of total outsourcing is just

over 10% of the respondents (10.7%) and only affects the areas of training and development. On the other hand, at least

80% of the respondents do not outsource workforce reduction, payroll, pensions and the HR call centre areas to any extent.


19

1.7. ORGANISATIONAL AND HR STRATEGY

Table 18: Organisational and HR strategies in Hungary

Hungary Yes No Total

Mission statement 61.8% 38.2% 100%

Business / service strategy 65.7% 34.3% 100%

Personnel / HR strategy 55.1% 44.9% 100%

HR recruitment strategy 42.9% 57.1% 100%

HR training and development strategy 52.0% 48.0% 100%

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Statement 36.2% 63.8% 100%

Diversity statement 19.5% 80.5% 100%

The above table shows the proportion of respondents in Hungary who have internal formal and informal strategies, an

organisational creed/mission statement, communicated within the organisation. The most commonly found is a business

strategy, and the mission statement or creed, whose existence was claimed by more than 65%. More than half of the

participants have an HR training and development strategy and a personnel / HR strategy. The diversity statement, however,

is a document found in fewer than 20% of the organisations (19.5%).

Table 19: Organisational and HR strategies in Slovakia

Slovakia Yes No Total

Mission statement 79.0% 21.0% 100%

Business / service strategy 78.3% 20.9% 100%

Personnel / HR strategy 65.8% 34.2% 100%

HR recruitment strategy 64.3% 35.7% 100%

HR training and development strategy 69.3% 30.7% 100%

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Statement 52.6% 47.4% 100%

Diversity statement 28.4% 71.6% 100%

In Slovakia, the mission statement and business /service strategy are most common and their existence was claimed by a

higher proportion of organisations (79%) than in Hungary. Almost 70% of the participants (69.3%) confirmed the existence

of HR training and development strategies. A Company Diversity Statement, however, is only found in 28.4% of the

organisations, but even this is higher than the Hungarian equivalent.


20

If there is a business / service strategy at your organisation, at what stage in its development is the person in

charge of personnel / HR activity involved?

Table 20: Involvement of HR in the development of organisational strategy

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

From the beginningFrequency 18 54

% 8.0% 24.5%

At later stagesFrequency 42 89

% 18.7% 40.5%

During the implementationFrequency 99 52

% 44.0% 23.6%

No involvementFrequency 66 25

% 29.3% 11.4%


% 100,0% 100.0%

In Hungary, only 8% of organisations involved the person responsible for personnel affairs in the development of business

strategy from the beginning. Most respondent organisations (99 organisations, or 44%) stated that this person would be

involved in the implementation. A further 66 organisations (29.3%), or about one third of the respondents, stated that the

HR manager was never involved in the development of business strategy.

In Slovakia, in 40.5% of organisations the person in charge of personnel affairs was only involved in consultations on

development at a later stage, and in only 24.5% knew about business strategy matters from the beginning. A total of 25

organisations (11.4%), however confirmed that the HR manager was never involved in any development of business strategy.


21

1.8. HR DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITY

Who is primarily responsible for major policy decisions on the following HR topics?

Table 21: Decision-makers in the key areas of HR – Hungary

HR key areasLine

managementLine management

with HR dept.HR dept. with line

managementHR department

Pay and benefits 46.1% 37.6% 14.0% 2.2%

Recruitment and selection 22.6% 40.7% 29.6% 7.0%

Training and development 26.1% 31.6% 36.0% 6.2%

Industrial relations 24.7% 24.3% 25.8% 25.1%

Workforce expansion/ reduction 49.1% 37.5% 11.5% 1.9%

It is clear from the responses from Hungary that the leaders of almost half of the organisations and institutions make decisions

themselves – or in consultation with the HR department – on pay and benefits, and on workforce expansion / reduction.

Approximately one-third of the respondents make decisions in consultation with the HR department on issues relating to

recruitment and selection. The most autonomous decision-making capability and responsibility of the HR department is in

managing labour relations. This was indicated by 25.1% of the organisations.

Table 22: Decision-makers in the key areas of HR – Slovakia

HR key areas

Line management

Line management with HR dept.

HR dept. with line management

HR department

Pay and benefits 48,8% 25,0% 20,0% 6,2%





It is clear from the responses received from Slovakia that HR line management makes its own decisions in most areas. In

almost half of the organisations it is the senior members of the hierarchy who decide on pay and benefits, labour relations

and workforce expansion / reduction issues (in both cases above 40%). In almost one third of the organisations the HR

department decides on recruitment and selection, and on training and development, after consultation with management.

The autonomy of decision-making by HR professionals is – as in Hungary – in managing labour relations. This applies to

almost a quarter of the organisations (24.1%).


22

1.9. HR DECISION-MAKING IN MAJOR ORGANISATIONS

In the light of the responses from larger, national organisations, we studied the extent to which key HR functions were

centralised; whether the main elements of HR policy were decided at national or international level, or whether decentralisation

was more common This could concern whether HR policy decisions were made within a subsidiary, possibly at divisional or

even at a lower level, in individual institutions.

Table 23: HR policy decisions in large organisations – Hungary

HR key areasInternational

HQsIn HQ in Hungary

At subsidiaries/ divisions

Local offices

Pay and benefits 18.6% 38.3% 22.2% 21.0%





Management Development 31.3% 38.6% 12.7% 17.5%

As shown in Table 23, according to the responses from larger organisations, in Hungary the principle of centralisation at

national level is most characteristic. 35% of the decisions in the HR areas surveyed are made at national level. However,

decisions on workforce expansion and management training are typically (26.2-31.3%) made at international level.

Table 24: HR policy decisions in large organisations – Slovakia

HR key areasInternational

HQsIn HQ in Hungary

At subsidiaries/ divisions

Local offices

Pay and benefits 10.3% 21.0% 14.1% 54.6%





Management

Development11.5% 23.3% 14.5% 50.8%

Responses received from Slovakia show the opposite trend, as decentralised decision-making is more typical. At least half

of the respondents (50.8 to 59%) who are part of larger companies / institutions indicated that major HR decisions were

typically determined at local institutional / subsidiary / divisional level (14.1-21.4%). It is typical of only 1/5 of the respondents

that HR policy decisions are made in national centres. In the international centres also, issues of management training, as well

as of pay and benefits are dealt with.


23

1.10. HR INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Table 25: Access to HR information systems

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Computer-based / electronic HR information system

Frequency 181 143

% 67.0% 54.6%

Management self-service systemFrequency 75 76

% 27.9% 29.0%

Employee self-service systemFrequency 77 84

% 28.9% 35.6%


% 100.0% 100.0%

In Hungary, a computer-based HR information system can be found at 67% of respondents, whilst self-service facilities are

available for managers or employees at about 1/3.

Although, in Slovakia there is a computer-based HR information system in fewer than 60% of respondents (54.6%) and

self-service facilities are available for one third of the managers, the employee self- service option is higher than in Hungary,

since 35.6% of respondents can access this service.


24

1.11. EVALUATION OF HR FUNCTIONS

To what extent is the performance of the personnel / HR function / department evaluated?

Table 26: Evaluation of the HR performance

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Not at allFrequency 67 98

% 24.8% 37.5%

To a limited extentFrequency 25 25

% 9.3% 9.6%

ModeratelyFrequency 67 53

% 24.8% 20.3%

To a large extentFrequency 37 25

% 13.7% 9.6%

Very greatlyFrequency 74 60

% 27.4% 23.0%


% 100,0% 100,0%

One quarter of Hungarian respondents (24.8% of the total) do not evaluate the performance of the HR function, but almost

one third (27.4%) claim to do so fully (74 organisations).

In Slovakia, almost 40% of respondents replied that they did not evaluate the HR function (98 organisations), and only 23%

(60) indicated that they did.

Exhibit Three: Castle districts in both capitals

Budapest Bratislava


25

2. RESOURCING PRACTICE

2.1. CHANGES IN HEADCOUNT AND METHODS

How has the headcount changed in your organisation in the last three years?

Table 27: Headcount changes of the last three years

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Decreased greatlyFrequency 28 20

% 10.4% 7.7%

DecreasedFrequency 34 65

% 12.6% 24.9%

Unchanged

Frequency 84 76

% 31.1% 29.1%

IncreasedFrequency 67 65

% 24.8% 24.9%

Increased greatlyFrequency 57 35

% 21.1% 13.4%


% 100.0% 100.0%

In Hungary over the past three years, the total number of full-time workers has shown a tendency to increase according to

45.9% of the respondents, whilst in 31.1% it has remained unchanged and a decrease has been confirmed by only 23%.

In Slovakia, the growth trend of full-time workers in the total number was more moderate than in Hungary, with 38.3% of

the respondents indicating an increase, 29.1% experiencing no change, and 32.6% reporting a decline.


26

In the case of decrease of the headcount number to what extent were any of the following methods used?

Table 28: Methods of reducing the workforce – Hungary

MethodsHungary

Managers Professional Clerical / manual

Recruitment freeze 31.5% 35.9% 38.5%

Early retirement 8.8% 12.8% 14.3%

Internal transfer / redeployment 23.4% 54.6% 54.2%

Voluntary redundancies 16.5% 48.7% 53.5%

Non-renewal of fixed-term employment contracts 4.8% 15.8% 18.7%

Unpaid (study) leave/vacation 10.3% 25.6% 16.5%

Outsourcing 1.8% 12.8% 18.7%

Management salary cuts 12.5% 2.9% 1.1%

Overtime 12.8% 27.1% 35.9%

Wage freeze 21.6% 24.5% 28.2%

Reduced job responsibilities 6.2% 9.9% 7.3%

Job-sharing 9.9% 27.5% 20.9%

Reduced benefits 19.8% 20.9% 25.6%

Employee pay-cut 4.0% 7.0% 8.4%

Individual layoffs 12.5% 27.5% 30.8%

Concentrated layoffs 4.4% 9.9% 11.7%

Mass layoffs / compulsory redundancies 2.6% 3.7% 6.2%

In Hungary the most common managerial staff reduction methods were a hiring freeze (31.5%), internal relocation (23.4%)

and a wage freeze (21.6%). Among the clerical (professional) employees, the most common were internal redeployment

(54.6%) and natural wastage (48.7%). In addition, the introduction of a recruitment freeze, job-sharing, a wage freeze and

individual dismissals were used by approximately 30% of the respondent organisations. Among administrative and manual

employees the most common methods were internal redeployment (54.2%) and natural wastage (53.5%). In this area,

limiting overtime and benefit reductions were also frequent solutions.


27

Table 29: Methods of reducing the workforce – Slovakia

MethodsSlovakia

Managers Professional Clerical / manual

Recruitment freeze 18.3% 17.6% 14.9%

Early retirement 18.3% 15.6% 19.8%

Internal transfer / redeployment 26.0% 24.0% 25.2%

Voluntary redundancies 41.0% 48.1% 50.0%

Non-renewal of fixed-term employment contracts 23.3% 21.8% 39.7%

Unpaid (study) leave/vacation 3.1% 2.3% 2.7%

Outsourcing 11.1% 10.3% 12.6%

Management salary cuts 9.5% 7.3% 6.5%

Overtime 11.1% 8.4% 8.4%

Wage freeze 8.8% 6.9% 8.4%

Reduced job responsibilities 8.0% 5.0% 5.7%

Job-sharing 11.1% 9.9% 11.8%

Reduced benefits 11.8% 12.6% 13.4%

Employee pay-cut 10.3% 13.0% 11.1%

Individual layoffs 26.3% 27.1% 31.7%

Concentrated layoffs 7.3% 6.9% 9.2%

Mass layoffs / compulsory redundancies 5.0% 8.0% 3.4%

In Slovakia, in each category of employee, the most frequently used means of headcount reduction was natural wastage

or decrease, which is clearly a more passive solution. Recruitment freeze was used, but to a lesser extent compared to the

Hungarian respondents, although early retirement and the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts were more common.

Of the methods used in relation to managerial and professional staff, very similarly, natural wastage took first place; individual

dismissal and internal redeployment were widely used by the organisations surveyed. Among the administrative and manual

staff, the most common methods were natural wastage (50%) and, with almost 40%, the non-renewal of fixed-term

contracts, whilst individual layoffs reached over 30%.


28

2.2. RECRUITMENT – SELECTION

Please indicate which of the following recruitment methods are used in each staff category

Table 30: Recruitment methods – Hungary

Methods Managers Professional Clerical / manual

Internal recruitment 65.9% 67.4% 52.4%

Word of mouth 22.3% 56.0% 60.1%

Adverts in newspapers 13.9% 35.9% 43.6%

Vacancies on company website 39.9% 66.3% 60.8%

Vacancies on commercial job websites 24.5% 48.4% 39.2%

Social media 5.9% 23.8% 22.3%

Speculative application/walk-ins 17.6% 49.8% 54.6%

Job fairs 11.7% 35.5% 26.7%

Recruitment agencies/ consultancies/executive search 33.0% 28.9% 12.5%

Public job centres 2.9% 13.6% 32.2%

Trainee programme 3.7% 40.7% 37.0%

In Hungary, in the case of managers, 65.9% of the organisations use internal recruitment tools, but recruiting advertisements

on the corporate website are also common (39.9%). In relation to clerical workers, 66.3% advertise on the corporate website

and 64.7% of recruits are from within. Among administrative / manual workers recruiting ads on its own website also

plays a major role (60.8%), whilst the percentage of vacancies filled via word of mouth is no less than 60.1%. Spontaneous

(speculative) inquiries or also feature strongly in Hungary (54.6%).


29

Table 31: Recruitment methods – Slovakia


Internal recruitment 66.7% 62.6% 60.3%

Word of mouth 50.0% 56.9% 60.7%

Adverts in newspapers 12.6% 13.4% 27.6%

Vacancies on company website 38.5% 48.5% 49.2%

Vacancies on commercial job websites 38.2% 46.2% 48.9%

Social media 13.7% 17.6% 13.4%

Speculative application/walk-ins 3.1% 11.8% 11.1%

Job fairs 13.0% 17.2% 18.7%

Recruitment agencies/ consultancies/executive search 30.5% 30.5% 23.3%

Public job centres 8.4% 11.1% 34.0%

Trainee programmes 2.7% 11.5% 14.5%

In Slovakia, the traditional channels and methods for all employee groups prevail more strongly than with Hungarian

respondents.

In recruiting managers, 66.7% of the organisations use internal recruitment tools. When recruiting intellectual workers,

62.6% of the companies recruit from within, and 56.9% use word of mouth to select candidates. Among administrative

/ manual workers, job opportunities spread by word of mouth are a major factor (60.7%) and internal recruitment ads are

used by 60.3% of the companies. In respect of the use of Web search channels for employee groups there is no discernible

difference from Hungary.


30

Please select which of the following selection methods are used in each staff category!

Table 32: Selection methods – Hungary

Hungary Managers Professional Clerical / manual

Panel interviews 48,4% 42,9% 27,5%

One-to-one interviews 53.8% 70.7% 63.7%

Application forms 19.0% 37.0% 46.9%

Psychological tests 15.8% 12.8% 10.6%

Assessment centres 14.3% 17.6% 6.6%

Social media 8.8% 16.1% 11.0%

References 55.7% 54.6% 33.0%

Ability tests 8.8% 33.7% 39.6%

Professional tests 13.9% 44.0% 25.3%

Psychometric tests 4.8% 15.4% 9.5%

Online selection tests 8.8% 13.2% 8.1%

As shown in Table 32, of the methods for selecting managers in Hungary, respondents mostly use references (55.7%), a

process which includes double interviewing or interviewing before a committee. In the case of professional employees,

organisations basically use (70.7%) the face-to-face interview, and in many cases references are also used. The professional

and skill tests are most frequently used in this circle. In the case of administrative and manual workers, besides the face-to-

face interviews, application forms are a widespread practice. In addition, in this circle a variety of tests are used by many

organisations as selection tools.


31

Table 33: Selection methods – Slovakia


Panel interviews 45.0% 40.8% 34.7%

One-to-one interviews 58.4% 62.2% 62.2%

Application forms 19.1% 21.0% 20.2%

Psychological tests 16.8% 12.6% 6.5%

Assessment centres 21.4% 14.5% 6.5%

Social media 11.1% 8.0% 11.5%

References 50.0% 50.0% 44.7%

Ability tests 29.0% 38.2% 31.7%

Professional tests 17.9% 38.2% 20.2%

Psychometric tests 8.0% 11.8% 9.2%

Online selection tests 13.4% 11.9% 8.8%

In Slovakia the face-to-face interview is regarded the most important selection method for each employee category in the

surveyed organisations. Besides these, about half of the respondents also include reference checks in all categories.

The application form is also use as general practice by about a fifth of respondents.

The evaluation centre is in the case of managers very popular, whilst a variety of tests are used in the selection of professional

employees.


32

2.3. DIVERSITY PROGRAMMES

Is there a programme of action in your organisation, with aim to foster the greater labour force participation of

any of the following groups the?

Table 34: Action Programmes – Hungary

Methods Recruitment Training Career

development

Ethnic minorities 5,1% 4,0% 2,2%

Older workers (50-plus) 2,9% 5,5% 4,4%

People with disabilities 12,5% 4,8% 4,4%

Women 9,9% 8,1% 7,7%

Women returnees 9,2% 13,2% 13,2%

Low skilled 3,3% 16,5% 2,2%

Younger workers (under 25) 22,0% 23,4% 19,8%

In Hungary, a small proportion of the surveyed organisations have such action programmes for disadvantaged treatment.

Such action plans are focused mostly on young workers (from 19.8 to 23.4%), and on women by helping them to find work.

Workers aged over 50 and minorities are in the weakest situation in this respect.

Table 35: Action Programmes – Slovakia

Methods Recruitment Training Career

development

Ethnic minorities 1.9% 5.3% 8.8%

Older workers (50-plus) 29.4% 10.7% 3.8%

People with disabilities 10.3% 3.4% 5.0%

Women 11.8% 10.3% 24.0%

Women returnees 36.3% 14.1% 16.4%

Low skilled 9.2% 3.1% 1.9%

Younger workers (under 25) 43.1% 36.6% 28.6%

In Slovakia, as in Hungary, the organisations mostly focused these programmes on young workers in the treatment of the

disadvantaged and on women by helping them to return to work. In the worst situation we find low-skilled workers and

ethnic minorities.


33

2.4. FORMS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK SCHEDULES

Please indicate the approximate percentage of your employees who are affected by the following categories of

employment and work schedules!

Table 36: Forms of employment – work schedules – Hungary

Hungary No 5%> 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21-50% 50%< Total

Weekend work 31.5% 19.9% 7.5% 4.9% 5.6% 12.4% 18.7% 100%

Shift work 42.8% 6.7% 6.3% 3.3% 7.1% 14.5% 19.3% 100%

Overtime 12.7% 17.5% 13.8% 7.1% 16.0% 16.0% 16.8% 100%

Annual hours contract 83.8% 2.3% 3.0% 1.9% 1.1% 1.9% 6.0% 100%

Part-time work 22.6% 46.7% 16.3% 5.9% 3.7% 2.6% 2.2% 100%

Job Sharing 65.4% 17.7% 5.3% 2.6% 3.4% 3.8% 1.9% 100%

Flexi-time 30.6% 20.5% 10.1% 7.8% 7.1% 7.5% 16.4% 100%

Temporary/casual work 75.3% 15.7% 4.5% 0.7% 1.9% 1.1% 0.7% 100%

Fixed-term contracts 28.4% 33.2% 14.9% 9.7% 5.2% 3.7% 4.9% 100%

Home-based work 86.9% 6.3% 2.2% 3.0% 0% 0.4% 1.1% 100%

Teleworking 71.4% 16.5% 5.3% 2.3% 0.8% 1.9% 1.9% 100%

Compressed working week 92.6% 3.7% 1.1% 1.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 100%

In Hungary, traditional solutions are the most common, including overtime (working more hours per day than the norm), a

method unused by only 12.7% of the respondent companies. In addition, weekend work, and the use of shift work is also

proved popular. Of the atypical, flexible forms, part-time, fixed-term contracts and teleworking feature in practice, but –

typically – no more than 5% of a company’s employees are involved. Least common solutions are the compressed working

week, outworking and annual hours contracts.


34

Table 37: Forms of employment – work schedule – Slovakia

Methods No 5%> 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21-50% 50%< Total

Weekend work 37.0% 23.7% 9.5% 4.6% 6.1% 8.0% 11.1% 100%

Shift work 48.5% 5.7% 8.0% 4.2% 5.0% 10.7% 17.9% 100%

Overtime 22.1% 13.0% 16.8% 9.9% 8.4% 17.6% 12.2% 100%

Annual hours contract 62.6% 14.9% 5.7% 5.7% 4.6% 2.3% 4.2% 100%

Part-time work 37.0% 36.6% 6.1% 7.3% 6.1% 3.8% 3.1% 100%

Job Sharing 77.5% 11.1% 4.6% 1.5% 0.4% 4.2% 0.8% 100%

Flexi-time 33.2% 10.7% 6.9% 8.8% 7.6% 6.5% 26.3% 100%

Temporary/casual work 65.9% 13.8% 6.9% 5.7% 2.7% 4.2% 0.8% 100%

Fixed-term contracts 25.2% 26.3% 17.6% 9.5% 8.4% 5.3% 7.6% 100%

Home-based work 67.2% 14.1% 5.3% 3.1% 1.5% 4.6% 4.2% 100%

Teleworking 82.4% 8.0% 3.4% 1.5% 0.8% 1.9% 1.9% 100%

Compressed working week 90.4% 5.4% 1.1% 1.5% 0% 0.8% 0.8% 100%

In Slovakia also, the most common method used in companies is overtime, which is unused by only 22.1% of the companies

surveyed. In addition, the role played by some atypical solutions is greater than in Hungary. These are fixed-term contracts

and flexible working hours, which are used by a wider range of companies in Slovakia and by a higher proportion of staff

than in Hungary. On the other hand, teleworking failed to gain a more significant role. The least popular solutions are the

compressed workweek, telecommuting and job sharing.

Exhibit Four: Traditional people customs in both countries

Hungary Slovakia


35

3. PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT

3.1. EVALUATING PERFORMANCE – MANAGING PERFORMANCE

Is a formal performance evaluation system for employees used in your organisation in the following categories?

Table 38: Use of performance evaluation systems in Hungary

Job levels Yes No Total

Managers 70.3% 29.7% 100%

Professional staff 75.7% 24.3% 100%

Clerical / manual employees 68.9% 31.1% 100%

In Hungary, the responses show that performance evaluation is widespread in all the job categories examined, as its use for

all employees in the organisation is no less than 70%.

Table 39: Use of performance evaluation systems in Slovakia

Job levels Yes No Total

Managers 70.2% 29.8% 100%

Professional staff 72.1% 27.9% 100%

Clerical / manual employees 78.2% 21.8% 100%

In Slovakia, the responses indicate that, whilst we can talk about widespread practice, performance evaluation is applied

mainly to administrative / manual workers (78.25) – unlike the Hungarian situation.


36

If you have an evaluation system, who are the evaluators? Who is supposed to provide the input data for a

formal evaluation process?

Table 40: The person of the evaluator in Hungary

Evaluators Managers Professional staff Clerical / manual

Immediate superior 65.2% 59.7% 57.1%

Superior’s supervisor 32.6% 24.9% 17.6%

Employee 44.0% 44.0% 37.0%

Subordinates 17.2% 10.3% 6.2%

Colleagues 14.3% 8.8% 6.6%

In Hungary, in the performance evaluation system the role of evaluators for all employee categories is mainly filled by direct

superiors. Also, in more than a third of organisations workers in all categories undertake a self-evaluation exercise (37-44%),

although the superior’s supervisor most typically plays the role of evaluator in the case of managers.

Table 41: The person of the evaluator in Slovakia

Job levels Managers Professional staff Clerical / manual

Immediate superior 71,0% 73,3% 76,7%

Superior’s Supervisor 33.2% 31.3% 30.2%

Employee 19.5% 15.6% 17.6%

Subordinates 15.8% 5.7% 4.2%

Colleagues 13.5% 8.8% 8.4%

In Slovakia, in the performance evaluation system, most of the evaluators are the immediate superiors of all employees in about three-quarters of the organisations (71 to 76.7%). In almost a third of the organisations surveyed the second most commonly found evaluator is the superior’s supervisor. The occurrence of self-evaluation is much less common than in Hungarian practice.


37

Are the evaluation data used for communicating decisions in the following areas?

Table 42: The use of performance evaluation results

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Pay and compensationFrequency 186 192

% 77.2% 73.3%

Training and DevelopmentFrequency 132 172

% 55.2% 65.6%

Career movementsFrequency 156 169

% 65.3% 64.8%

HR planningFrequency 97 147

% 40.4% 56.3%


% 100.0% 100.0%

In Hungary, as well as in Slovakia, respondents mostly use the findings and results of performance evaluations to determine

pay and compensation (77.2% of the companies). However, as a secondary measure, Hungarian companies also use them

to support career-movement (653%) and in Slovakia for training and development (65.6%).

The Slovakian practice of the use of the results of performance evaluation is more diverse than it is in the Hungarian

companies, institutions, as it is clearly visible from Figure 4

Figure 4: The use of the results of performance evaluation


38

3.2. TRAINING – DEVELOPMENT

Proportion of training costs to the costs

Table 43: Distribution of training cost ratio at the respondents

Training cost ratioCountries

Hungary Slovakia

0%Frequency 18 9

% 6,7% 5,4%

1%Frequency 52 38

% 19,4% 22,9%

2%Frequency 140 16

% 52,2% 9,6%

3%Frequency 22 28

% 8,2% 16,9%

4%Frequency 6 1

% 2,2% 0,6%

5%Frequency 12 32

% 4,5% 19,3%

6%Frequency 5 7

% 1,9% 4,2%

7%Frequency 4 8

% 1,5% 4,8%

8%Frequency 9 1

% 3,4% 0,6%

9%Frequency 0 3

% 0,0% 1,8%

10%Frequency 0 17

% 0,0% 10,2%

>10%Frequency 0 6

% 0,0% 3,6%


% 100,0% 100,0%

In Hungary, in 52.2% of the surveyed organisations the ratio of the annual training costs compared to the wage costs is

2% on average. However, 1/5 of the organisations spend less (around 1%), whilst more than 15% spend more (3-5%). This

figure is 9.6% in respect of Slovakia.

Most of the latter (22.9% of the total) have indicated that the ratio of training costs to wage costs is 1% on average. However,

nearly1/5 of the Slovakian organisations – (19.3%) – reported a significantly higher (5%) ratio than that of the Hungarians. In

fact, 13.8% of organisations participating claim that the ratio of training to wage costs is at least 10% for them.


39

How many training days are given annually to employees in the following categories?

Table 44: Average annual training days

Average days

Hungary Slovakia

Managers 7.65 11.16

Professional staff 7.59 13.05

Clerical / manual employees 4.67 9.21

Figure 5: Annual training days on average

In Hungary, in the respondent organisations managers and clerical workers receive most formal training counted in days.

They take part in a training programme on 7.6 and 7.5 days annually on average.

In Slovakia, in the respondent organisations, professional employees followed by managers receive most formal training. The

gap between their training time and that of the clerical and / or manual staff is much smaller than in Hungary.

As is shown by Figure 5, Slovakian organisations devote more time to training programmes in all employee categories than

do their Hungarian counterparts. Also the time difference between the groups is more moderate, and the combined effect

is that the average annual training days of Slovakian administrative and / or manual workers are double as those of their

Hungarian colleagues (9.21 days p.a., instead of 4.67).


40

Table 45: Systematic evaluation of training effectiveness

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

NoFrequency 184 117

% 68.4% 44.7%

YesFrequency 85 145

% 31.6% 55.3%


% 100.0% 100.0%

In Hungary, the majority of respondents (68.4%) do not evaluate the effectiveness of training programmes.

In Slovakia, where higher average training cost ratio indicators and longer programmes are typical, compared to Hungary,

more organisations pay attention to the evaluation of this investment, as more than half of the respondents (55.3%) evaluate

the effectiveness of training programmes.

Regarding evaluation, which techniques are used by your organisation in evaluating training effectiveness?

Table 46: Methods of evaluating training effectiveness

Methods Hungary Slovakia

Number of training days per employee per year 50.0% 20.5%

Achieving the objectives of the training and development plan 88.1% 43.8%

Reaction evaluation immediately after training 85.1% 42.1%

Evaluation of job performance before and immediately after training 24.7% 11.9%

Evaluation of job performance before and several months after training 31.8% 18.1%

Feedback from line managers 83.9% 39.1%

Informal feedback from employees 79.5% 42.5%

Return on Investment 22.5% 14.0%

In Hungary ‘reaching the set targets of the development plan’ (88.1%), ‘direct reaction evaluation technique’ (85.1%) and

informal feedback from line managers and workers are the most common (83.9-79.5%), training evaluation methods.

In Slovakia the respondents use similar evaluation methods as the Hungarians; ‘reaching the set targets of the development

plan’ (43.8%), and the ‘direct reaction evaluation technique’ (42.1%) as well as the informal feedback from the employees

and managers (42.5 to 39.1%) are reportedly to be the most widespread.

However, the rates in Slovakia are about half of the Hungarian. This suggests that, although a larger proportion of organisations

evaluate training work, at the same time they use fewer methods. In Hungary, where both the practice and the evaluation

lag behind the Slovakian, there are significantly fewer evaluators, but they use multiple methods to carry out this work.


41

3.3. CAREER DEVELOPMENT

To what extent do you use the following methods for career development?

Table 47: Use of career development methods – Hungary

Methods1

2 3 45

not at all very much

Special tasks 34.9% 15.7% 21.5% 16.9% 11.1%

Project work for knowledge expansion 32.7% 16.7% 22.8% 18.6% 9.1%

On-the-job training 31.9% 14.1% 19.4% 16.0% 18.6%

Project team work 29.7% 11.8% 22.1% 19.0% 17.5%

Networking programme 54.5% 21.2% 13.3% 7.6% 3.4%

Formal career plans 54.1% 16.9% 13.2% 10.5% 5.3%

Development centres (DC) 73.0% 12.0% 7.1% 5.2% 2.6%

Succession plans 49.4% 18.7% 17.6% 9.0% 5.2%

Planned job rotation 55.4% 18.4% 15.7% 7.5% 3.0%

Talent programmes 63.7% 15.3% 8.0% 6.1% 6.9%

Secondments to other organisations (International work assignments)

4.9%

Coaching 4.9%

Mentoring 53.9%

E-learning 45.3% 17.6% 13.9% 10.5% 50.0%

38.9%

In Hungary, of the methods used for career development, ‘participation in project team work’ and the ‘expansion of

knowledge by project work’, as well as ‘on-the-job’ training seem to be the most widespread.


42

Table 48: Use of career development methods – Slovakia

Slovakia1

2 3 45

not at all very much

Special tasks 55.3% 20.6% 17.9% 3.8% 2.3%

Project work for knowledge expansion 66.0% 13.7% 14.9% 3.8% 1.5%

On-the-job training 26.0% 13.0% 22.9% 15.6% 22.5%

Project team work 29.0% 10.3% 23.7% 20.6% 16.4%

Networking programme 68.3% 15.3% 11.5% 2.3% 2.7%

Formal career plans 60.3% 15.6% 13.7% 8.4% 1.9%

Development centres (DC) 71.4% 14.1% 7.6% 5.0% 1.9%

Succession plans 71.8% 14.9% 8.4% 2.7% 2.3%

Planned job rotation 66.8% 15.8% 12.7% 4.6% 0%

Talent programmes 87.7% 7.3% 3.1% 0.4% 1.5%

Secondments to other organisations (International work assignments)

63.0% 16.4% 11.1% 7.3% 2.3%

Coaching 42.7% 14.9% 19.8% 14.5% 8.0%

Mentoring 43.5% 13.7% 20.2% 14.5% 8.0%

E-learning 44.3% 15.6% 16.4% 16.0% 7.6%

In Slovakia, of the career development methods, ‘on-the-job’ training and ‘participation in project team work’ are mostly

used; 70% of respondents use them.

The least used methods in both Hungary and Slovakia are career development, talent development programmes and

development centres.


43

Exhibit Five: Universities in both countries

Hungary Slovakia


44

4. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

4.1. PAY & COMPENSATION

At which level do you decide the basic salary?

Table 49: Deciding basic salaries – Hungary

Levels Managers Professionals Clerical / manual

National / industry-wide bargaining 23.1% 22.3% 23.1%

Regional collective bargaining 7.0% 5.5% 7.0%

Company / division level 35.5% 34.8% 32.6%

Establishment / site level 16.5% 22.3% 26.4%

Individual level 50.2% 36.3% 31.5%

In Hungary, decisions regarding salaries vary in each employee category. The figure for managers is largely set at individual

level (50.2%). In the case of clerical workers this also applies in 36.3% of cases, and in 34.8% at company /divisional les.

The salaries or wages of manual and administrative staff are decided in most cases (32.6%) at company / divisional level. The

high national level ratio – above 20% – is due to the high proportion of public sector workers in the sample and prevailing

practice here.

Table 50: Deciding basic salaries – Slovakia

Levels Managers Professionals Clerical / manual

National / industry-wide bargaining 9.3% 11.1% 12.6%

Regional collective bargaining 6.5% 12.2% 15.3%

Company / division level 37.0% 45.0% 42.4%

Establishment / site level 12.2% 17.9% 23.7%

Individual level 48.5% 31.7% 29.8%

In Slovakia, decisions on salaries are similarly made for each employee category as in the case of the of Hungary and vary

accordingly. Basic salaries are the product of individual bargaining in the case of managers (48.5%), whilst with 45% of

clerical workers it is decided at company / divisional level, and in 42.4% of cases, salaries of manual and administrative staff

are also fixed at company / divisional level. In this sample, the role of national bargaining is considerably smaller, as we saw

in the Hungarian organisations


45

Do you offer your employees any of the following pay features?

Table 51: Other compensation factors – Hungary

Compensation elements Managers Professionals Clerical / manual

Employee shares 12.8% 5.9% 4.0%

Profit sharing 12.5% 5.9% 3.7%

Stock options 8.8% 1.8% 0.4%

Flexible benefits 35.9% 35.2% 28.6%

Individual performance-related pay 25.3% 31.5% 27.1%

Bonus based on individual goals 47.3% 47.3% 31.5%

Bonus based on team goals 27.5% 28.6% 17.9%

Bonus based on organisational goals 41.4% 34.1% 26.0%

Non-monetary incentives 38.1% 44.7% 45.4%

The most common forms of ‘other compensation’ used in Hungary, in addition to a manager’s basic salary, is in 47.3 to

41.4% of organisations a bonus linked to individual and / or organisational goals / performance. In the case of professional

staff, a bonus linked to to individual targets / performance is used most of all – in fact, by 47.3% of the organisations. For

administrative and /or manual staff non-cash rewards are most common and used by 45.4% of organisations.

Stock options are rare and are mostly available to management as a form of incentive.


46

Table 52: Other compensation elements – Slovakia

Compensation elements Managers Professionals Clerical / manual

Employee shares 27.9% 23.7% 27.1%

Profit sharing 9% 9.5% 12.6%

Stock options 6.1% 6.5%17. 3.4%

Flexible benefits 32.8% 31.4% 27.5%

Individual performance related pay 31.7% 32.4% 36.6%

Bonus based on individual goals 48.1% 44.7% 46.2%

Bonus based on team goals 38.9% 34.4% 31.7%

Bonus based on organisational goals 57.6% 46.6% 40.1%

Non-monetary incentives 46.2% 41.8% 46.6%

Another very common incentive for managers in Slovakia is the bonus linked to organisational goals / performance, and its

use well exceeds Hungarian practice (57.6%). In addition, there is a significant number of individual, but also team bonus

targets in operation. In the case of clerical employees, bonuses linked to organisational goals / performance are more

commonly employed (46.6% of organisations), but the rate of individual goals and non-cash rewards is also high. For

administrative and / or manual employees the application of non-cash reward is most common in 46.6% of organisations,

and, in addition, in this sphere individual and organisational performance-based rewards are more frequently found than in

Hungary, as well as are performance-based pay. Stock options are quite rare and most available to management.


47

4.2. BENEFITS

Do you offer any of the following programmes beyond the legal requirement?

Table 53: Benefits programmes

Benefit items Hungary Slovakia

Childcare allowances (workplace) 6.1% 9.9%

Childcare allowances (home) 6.4% 6.9%

Career break schemes 7.1% 6.1%

Maternity leave 24.8% 42.7%

Paternity leave 46.0% 26.0%

Parental leave 39.5% 38.2%

Pension schemes 8.6% 38.9%

Education/training break 58.2% 24.8%

Private health care schemes 44.7% 26.7%

Flexible/cafeteria benefits 64.3% 19.1%

In Hungary, there are, in parallel, more types of benefit in use than in Slovakia. Of these the most frequently used are flexible

/ cafeteria benefits (64.3%), study leave (58.2%), and additional child’s birth leave for fathers (46%) In Slovakia, the most

frequently used types are child care benefit for mothers (42.7%), corporate pension plan (38.9%), and parental child care

leave (38.2%) programmes.

Exhibit Six: National dishes in both countries

Hungary Slovakia


48

5. EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND COMMUNICATION

5.1. ORGANISED WORKFORCE

What proportion of your total number of employees are trade union members?

Table 54: Proportion of trade union members

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Not knownFrequency 56 39

% 20.5% 14.9%

0%Frequency 109 124

% 39.9% 47.3%

1%- 10%Frequency 48 51

% 17.6% 19.5%

11%-25%Frequency 35 31

% 12.8% 11.8%

26%-50%Frequency 18 10

% 6.6% 3.8%

51-75%Frequency 5 6

% 1.8% 2.3%

76-100%Frequency 2 1

% 0.7% 0.4%


% 100.0% 100.0%

In Hungary, in about 40% of the respondent organisations no trade unions operate and only in 2.5% are the majority of

workers (51%) trade union members.

In Slovakia the proportion of organisations where there is no trade union at all is higher than in Hungary (47.3%) and in only

2.7% are the majority of staff members of unions.


49

5.2. INFLUENCE OF TRADE UNIONS

To what extent is your organisation influenced by the trade unions?

Table 55: Influence of trade unions

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

Not at allFrequency 176 157

% 66.4% 59.9%

To a small extentFrequency 48 44

% 18.1% 16.8%

SomewhatFrequency 27 38

% 10.2% 14.5%

To a great extentFrequency 9 5

% 3.4% 1.9%

To a very great extentFrequency 5 18

% 1.9% 6.9%


% 100,0% 100,0%

In Hungary, the influence of trade unions is quite low, and only in 15.5% of respondents do they have some effect. In 66.4%

of the surveyed organisations trade unions have absolutely no influence..

In Slovakia their influence of the trade unions is similar to those in Hungary. In 23.3% of the respondents they have some

influence, whilst in 59.9% they have no influence at all

Does your organisation recognize the trade unions for collective bargaining?

Table 56: Collective bargaining

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

NoFrequency 174 138

% 67.4% 52.9%

YesFrequency 84 123

% 32.6% 47.1%


% 100.0% 100.0%

As shown in Table 56, in Hungary, 67.4% of employers do not recognize trade unions as partners in collective bargaining.

In Slovakia, this ratio is slightly lower compared to Hungary as 52.9% of employers do not recognize trade unions in interest

reconciliation.


50

Is there in your organisation a works / public employee council?

Table 57: Consultative committees

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

NoFrequency 173 125

% 64.8% 47.7%

YesFrequency 94 137

% 35.2% 52.3%


% 100.0% 100.0%

In Hungary, slightly more than a third of the companies and institutions (35.2%) confirmed the existence of a joint consultative

committee or works council.

In Slovakia the figure is higher, as in 52.3% of companies there exists a joint consultative committee or works council.

5.3. INTERNAL COMMUNICATION

To what extent are the following methods used when employees are informed about major issues?

Table 58: Communication channels – Hungary

Channels1

not at all2 3 4

5 To a very great

extent

Direct to senior managers 9.7% 11.6% 20.5% 22.0% 36.2%

Through immediate superiors 3.7% 4.4% 8.1% 25.5% 58.3%

Through trade union representatives 71.9% 12.6% 7.0% 4.4% 4.1%

Through works councils 70.8% 12.4% 8.6% 4.9% 3.4%

Through regular workforce meetings 60.2% 8.9% 9.7% 8.9% 12.3%

Team briefings 17.9% 11.6% 19.8% 21.6% 29.1%

Electronic communication 8.5% 3.3% 10.3% 24.7% 53.1%

The responses in Table 58 indicate that in Hungary the typical solution is to inform the workers via their immediate superiors,

or via top management, as happens in 90.3% of the respondent organisations. In contrast, information via representative

bodies, e.g. trade unions, is merely 28.1% and communication through a works council is only 29.3% – which is due to the

fact that such organisations are rarely found in Hungary.


51

Table 59: Communication channels – Slovakia

Slovakia1

not at all2 3 4

5 To a very great

extent






Team briefings 32.1% 8.8% 13.4% 20.6% 25.2%

Electronic communication 17.9% 9.2% 10.3% 12.6% 50.0%

As the responses indicate, 96.6% of respondent organisations inform their workers directly through senior managers and

immediate superiors. Unlike Hungarian practice, in Slovakia regular workforce meetings also play a fairly important role in

informing workers.


52

Which category of workers is informed formally about the following issues?

Table 60: Subjects of official information – Hungary

Issues Managers Professional staff Clerical / manual

Business strategy 77.3% 39.9% 30.8%

Financial performance 77.7% 42.9% 29.3%

Organisation of work 77.7% 61.2% 52.4%

Figure 6: Subjects of official information – Hungary

In Hungary, business strategy, financial results and work organisation are the subjects of formal information given to

managers. Clerical and administrative / manual workers are usually informed only about the organisation of work issues.


53

Table 6l: Subjects of official information – Slovakia

Issues Managers Professional staff Clerical / manual

Business strategy 89.7% 57.3% 44.7%

Financial performance 84.7% 45.8% 37.0%

Organisation of work 82.4% 77.9% 83.6%

Figure 7: Subjects of official information – Slovakia

In Slovakia, the results are similar to the Hungarian. In respect of business strategy, financial results and work issues, most

formal information is given to managers. What differs is the fact that an even higher proportion of respondents gave this

answer than in Hungary. Clerical and administrative staff / manual workers are mostly informed of work organisational

issues, but other issues are more widely reported to these sectors than in Hungary.


54

To what extent are the following methods used in communicating workers’ opinions to management?

Table 62: Upward communication channels – Hungary

Channels1

not at all2 3 4

5 to a very great

extent






Through Team briefings 29.3% 11.7% 22.9% 21.8% 14.3%

Through Suggestion schemes 46.6% 14.9% 13.1% 11.6% 13.8%

Through Employee/ Attitude surveys 46.8% 14.2% 9.7% 11.6% 17.6%

Through Electronic communication 20.6% 12.7% 18.7% 15.0% 33.0%

In Hungary, the most important channel of employees’ communication towards management is via the immediate superior,

whilst workforce meetings, works councils and the trade union representatives have the smallest role.


55

Table 63: Upward communication channels – Slovakia

Slovakia1

not at all2 3 4

5 to a very great

extent






Through Team briefings 31.7% 9.2% 19.5% 17.6% 22.1%

Through Suggestion schemes 46.7% 17.6% 17.6% 8.4% 9.6%

Through Employee/ Attitude surveys 32.8% 17.2% 20.2% 13.0% 16.8%

Through Electronic communication 20.6% 9.2% 18.3% 18.7% 33.2%

In Slovakia the results are similar to those of Hungary. The most important channel of the employees’ communication

towards management is to inform their immediate superior, whilst trade union representatives and works councils have the

smallest role.

Exhibit Seven: National celebrations in both countries

Hungary Slovakia


56

6. DATA OF THE RESPONDENTS

6.1. HR DEPARTMENTS

Do you work in the personnel / HR department of your organisation?

Table 64: HR department

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

NoFrequency 106 80

% 39.6% 30.5%


% 60.4% 69.5%


% 100.0% 100.0%

Both in Hungary and Slovakia more than 60% of the respondents work in HR departments.

6.2. RESPONDENTS

Respondents’ gender:

Table 65: Gender of the respondents

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

FemaleFrequency 189 175

% 70.8% 66.8%

MaleFrequency 78 87

% 29.2% 33.2%


% 100.0% 100.0%

Both in Hungary and Slovakia there were twice as many female as male respondents in the organisations.


57

If you are a personnel / HR expert, how long have you been working in personnel / HR expertise or training job?

Table 66: Time spent in personnel /HR job

Year (average)

Hungary 8.87

Slovakia 7.82

Respondents in Hungary have been working on average for 8.8 years in that function – or one year longer than in Slovakia,

where the figure is 7.8 years in the personnel / HR field.

Do you have Higher Education?

Table 67: Higher Education

Countries

Hungary Slovakia

NoFrequency 15 66

% 5.6% 25.2%


% 94.4% 74.8%


% 100,0% 100.0%

In Hungary, nearly all the respondents (94.4%) have a university degree, mostly majoring in Economics. In Slovakia, three-

quarters of the participants have a university degree, also mostly in Economics.

Exhibit Eight: Symbols of national culture in both countries

Hungary Slovakia


58

7. HYPOTHESES

7.1. TYPES OF HYPOTHESES

The above descriptive statistical characteristics are now followed by an analysis of five hypotheses, which had been formulated

as follows:

» H1a: In Hungary, in the public sector, the number of employees per HR staff member is lower than in the

private sector, regardless of organisational size.

» H1b: In Slovakia, in the public sector, the number of employees per HR staff member is lower than in the

private sector, regardless of organisational size.

» H2a: In Hungary, in the public sector, the HR department’s performance is much less evaluated – or simply

to a lesser extent – than in the private sector, regardless of organisational size.

» H2b: In Slovakia, in the public sector, the HR department’s performance is much less evaluated – or simply

to a lesser extent – than in the private sector, regardless of organisational size.

» H3: In the private sector, over the past three years Slovakian companies’ headcount has grown more

strongly than Hungarian, regardless of whether the company is domestic- or foreign-owned.

» H4a: In Hungary, the average annual number of training days is higher in the public than in the private

sector, regardless of whether the competitive sector company, is domestic- or foreign-owned.

» H4b: In Slovakia, the annual average number of training days is higher in the public than in the private

sector, regardless of whether the competitive sector company is domestic- or foreign-owned.

» H5a: In Hungarian organisations the proportion of trade union members is lower in the private than in the

public sector, regardless of the number of employees.

» H5b: In Slovakian organisations the proportion of trade union members is lower in the private than in the

public sector, regardless of the number of employees.


59

7.2. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER HR STAFF MEMBER (H1A AND H1B)

Table 68: Total headcount and HR headcount data of the respondent organisations – Hungary

Hungary Total employees Number of HR staffNumber employed per

HR staff member

Public sector 185,554 2,659 70

Private sector 116,095 2,118 55

A T-test was performed for different sized organisations. With the Hungarian respondents, only with employee numbers

from 250-999 can we see that the number of employees per HR staff member is significantly lower in the public sector than

in the private sector. This part of the hypothesis has not been confirmed.

Table 69: T-test

Sector N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Number employed per

HR staff member

Private 38 85.8158 92.57338 15.01738

Public 18 40.3889 22.01106 5.18806

Levene’s Test

for Equality

of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t DfSig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Number

employed

per HR

staff

member

Equal

variances

assumed

5.585 .022 2.045 54 .046 45.42690 22.20877 .90100 89.95280

Equal

variances

not

assumed

2.859 44.965 .006 45.42690 15.88829 13.42555 77.42825


60

H1b: In Slovakia, in the public sector, the number of employees per HR staff member is fewer than in the private

sector regardless of organisational size.

Table 70: Total headcount and HR headcount data of the respondent organisations – Slovakia

Slovakia Total employees Number of HR staffNumber employed per

HR staff member

Public sector 13,444 170 79

Private sector 234,875 4,138 57

At the Slovakian respondents, after carrying out the T-test no significant difference can be observed in any headcount

number of employee groups between the public and private sector. We can see that that part of the hypothesis relating to

Slovakia has not been confirmed either.

7.3. EVALUATION OF HR DEPARTMENT’S PERFORMARNCE (H2A AND H2B)

H2a: In Hungary, in the public sector the HR department’s performance is much less evaluated – or merely not

a lesser extent – than in the private sector regardless of organisational size.

Table 71: Evaluation of HR performance by sector

Hungary Slovakia

Private sector Public sector Private sector Public sector

Not at all 24% 28% 37% 41%

1 8% 11% 10% 9%

2 23% 26% 20% 23%

3 17% 9% 10% 9%

to a very great extent 28% 27% 24% 18%

Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Based on the cross table it can be stated that in Hungary the HR department’s performance is less evaluated in the public

sector. However, based on the values of the Chi-square there is no significant difference between the public and private

sectors in this field. Performing T-test did not show any significant difference either, and so the part of the hypothesis in

relation to Hungary can be considered as confirmed.


61

Table 72: Chi-square test (Hungary)

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 2.977a 4 .562

Likelihood Ratio 3.126 4 .537

Linear-by-Linear Association .867 1 .352

N of Valid Cases 254

H2b: In Slovakia, in the public sector the HR department’s performance is much less evaluated – or merely to a

lesser extent – than in the private sector regardless of organisational size.

Table 73: Evaluation of HR performance by sector

Hungary Slovakia


Not at all 24% 28% 37% 41%

1 8% 11% 10% 9%

2 23% 26% 20% 23%

3 17% 9% 10% 9%

to a very great extent

28% 27% 24% 18%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Analysing the Slovakian responses, we found that in 47% of the private sector there was no evaluation of the HR performance

or merely a minimal one, whilst in the public sector 50% responded in this way. So, there is a difference between the two

sectors, even if it is minimal. In the case of the Slovakian respondents, neither the Chi-square test nor the T-test showed any

significant difference. Besides a lack of significance, we regard this part of the hypothesis as confirmed.

Table 74: Chi-square test (Slovakia)

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .461a 4 .977

Likelihood Ratio .475 4 .976

Linear-by-Linear Association .265 1 .607


a. 3 cells (30,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,13.


62

7.4. HEADCOUNT GROWTH (H3)

H3: In the private sector, in the past three years, Slovakian companies’ headcount growth has been stronger

than the Hungarian, regardless of whether the company is domestic- or foreign-owned.

Table 75: Trends in headcount change in the private sector

Headcount changesHungary Slovakia

Frequency % Frequency %

Decreased greatly 11 7% 17 7%

Decreased 17 10% 57 24%

Unchanged 46 28% 70 30%

Increased 50 30% 58 25%

Increased greatly 43 26% 33 14%

Total 167 100% 235 100%

In Hungary 56% of the organisations indicated an increase in the number of employees, whilst in Slovakia only 39% did

so. We can see that Hungary had a greater increase in employment in the private sector than in Slovakia. Carrying out

a -square test, we found that there was a significant difference between the two countries in the numbers involved in

corporate headcount growth. Thus, the hypothesis was not confirmed, although we achieved exactly the opposite result to

that assumed.

Table 76: Chi-square test (Hungary and Slovakia)

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 18.817a 4 ,001

Likelihood Ratio 19.473 4 ,001

Linear-by-Linear Association 13.658 1 ,000


a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.63.

Surveying the ownership there is in neither Hungary nor Slovakia a significant difference between the respondents whether

the organisations are domestic- or foreign-owned.


63

7.5. AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRAINING DAYS (H4A AND H4B)

H4a: In Hungary, the average annual number of training days is higher in the public sector than in the private


Table 77: Sectoral distribution of the annual amount of training days

Hungary Slovakia


Responses 169 87 235 23

Total days 2,987 2,110 7,937 739

Average days 17.7 24.3 33.8 32.1

As Table 77 clearly shows, the average number of training days in Hungary per employee is higher in the public than in the

private sector. This part of the hypothesis seems to be true despite the fact that, as shown in Table 78, in the public sector

there are fewer respondents.

Table 78: Distribution of respondents according to ownership

Hungary Slovakia


Domestic 78 74 142 21

Foreign owned 90 2 94 2

Total 168 76 234 23

H4b: In Slovakia, the annual average number of training days is higher in the public sector than in the private


Table 77 also shows that, in Slovakia there is a minimal difference between the two sectors concerning the average number

of training days. After completing the T-test we did not find any significant difference between the Hungarian and the

Slovakian data, in terms of the average number of training days.


64

7.6. PROPORTION OF TRADE UNION MEMBERS (H5A AND H5B)

H5a: In the Hungarian organisations the proportion of trade union members is lower in the private sector than

in the public sector, regardless of the number of employees.

Table 79: Distribution according to the proportion of trade union members – Hungary

Hungary

Private sector Puclic sector


0% 92 66.2% 13 20.3%

1%- 10% 23 16.5% 21 32.8%

11%-25% 13 9.4% 18 28.1%

26%-50% 8 5.8% 8 12.5%

51-75% 3 2.2% 2 3.1%

76-100% 0 0.0% 2 3.1%

Total 139 100% 64 100%

More than 80% (82.7%) of the organisations operating in the private sector in Hungary reported that there were no trade union members among their employees or their proportion was less than 10%. The Chi-square test also confirms that a significant difference can be observed between the private and public sector regarding trade union membership. Hence this part of the hypothesis can be considered as confirmed.

Table 80: Chi-square test (Hungary)

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 40.331a 5 .000

Likelihood Ratio 42.425 5 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 28.140 1 .000


a. 4 cells (33.3%) expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.63.


65

H5b: In Slovakian organisations the proportion of trade union members is lower in the private sector than in

the public sector, regardless of the number of employees.

Table 81: Distribution according to the proportion of trade union members – Slovakia

Slovakia

Private sector Public sector


0% 121 60.2% 2 10.5%

1%- 10% 46 22.9% 5 26.3%

11%-25% 27 13.4% 4 21.1%

26%-50% 2 1.0% 8 42.1%

51-75% 4 2.0% 0 0.0%

76-100% 1 0.5% 0 0.0%

Total 201 100% 19 100.00%

The Slovakian results are similar to those seen in Hungary. 83.1% of the Slovakian respondent organisations said that there

were no trade union members or that the proportion was under 10% in the private sector. The Chi-square test supported

the received significant difference. Therefore this part of the hypothesis can also be considered as confirmed.

Table 82: Chi-square test – Slovakia

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 73.480a 5 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 42.369 5 ,000

Linear-by-Linear Association 28.390 1 .000


a. 7 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.

Exhibit Nine: Natural beauty and tourist attractions in both countries

Hungary Slovakia


66

8. CRANET RESEARCH

8.1. ABOUT CRANET

The Cranfield Network (CRANET) (the European Human Resources Research Network founded and operated by the Cranfield

Business School in Great Britain) was established in 1988 on the initiative of the ILO in Cranfield (UK) (Lazarova et al., 2008).

Cranet research played a pioneer’s role in research into European – and, later, into other regions’ – HRM models. This

research then moved beyond the shores of the old continent and became global.

Initially only universities in West European countries were members of the research network, but today researchers from 42

countries are brought together by the world’s largest non-profit HR research network. Cranet’s research methodology has

not changed significantly since the beginning; it has, rather, expanded (Brewster et al., 1991 and Brewster, 1994). With the

help of the questionnaire comprising seven main sections and some sixty questions – to which we ask factual answers rather

than personal opinions – we aim for valid comparisons of both countries and regions – not only in terms of space but also of

time – so facilitating longitudinal analysis.

Table 83: Member countries of the Cranet network and research participants (1989-2009)

No. CountriesCranetsurveys

1989 1990/1991 1992/1993 1995/1996 1999/2000 2004/2005 2008/2009

1. Austria • • • •

2. Australia • • •

3. Belgium • • •

4. Bulgaria • • •

5. Canada •

6. Cyprus • • •

7. Czech Republic • • • •

8. Denmark • • • • • •

9. Estonia • •

10. Finland • • • • •

11. France • • • • • • •

12. Greece • • • •

13. Germany • • • • • • •

14. Holland • • • • • •

15. Hungary • •

16. Iceland • •

17. Ireland • • • •

18. Italy • • • •

19. Israel • • •

20. Japan • •

21. Lithuania •


67

No. CountriesCranetsurveys

1989 1990/1991 1992/1993 1995/1996 1999/2000 2004/2005 2008/2009

22. Nepal •

23. New Zealand •

24. Norway • • • • • •

25. Philippines • •

26. Portugal • • •

27. Russia •

28. Serbia •

29. Slovakia • •

30. Slovenia • •

31. South Africa •

32 Spain • • • • • •

33. Sweden • • • • • • •

34 Switzerland • • • • •

35 Taiwan •

36 Tunisia • •

37 Turkey • • • •

38. Turkish Cyprus • •

39 United Kingdom • • • • • • •

40 USA • •

Source: Cranet (2011): International Executive Report 2011, Cranet Survey on Comparative Human Resource Management.

Cranet-Cranfield University, Cranfield. p. 7.


68

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Brewster, C.- Hegewisch, A., – Lockhart, T. (1991), ‘Researching Human Resource Management: The Methodology

of the Price Waterhouse-Cranfield Project on European Trends,’ Personnel Review, (6): pp. 36–40.

2. Brewster, C. (1994): European HRM: reflection of, or challenge to, the American concept? In: Kirkbridge, P. (ed.):

Human Resource Management in Europe. Routledge, London.

3. Cranet (2006): International Executive Report 2005, Cranet Survey on Comparative Human Resource Management.

Cranet-Cranfield University, Cranfield.

4. Cranet (2011): International Executive Report 2011, Cranet Survey on Comparative Human Resource Management.

Cranet-Cranfield University, Cranfield.

5. Kachanakova, A.-Nactmanova, O.-Joniakova,Z..-Nactmannová, O.-Joniakova, Z. (2008): Personálny manažment.

Bratislave: Edícia Ekonómia, 2008,

6. Kachankova, A.- Nactmannová, O.-Joniakova, Z-Roby, Z.-Zubrikova,D.-BlstÁkova,J.(2008): Managing human

resources in Slovakia. In: Morley, M., J.-Heray,N. – Michailova,S. (eds.) Managing Human Resources in the Transition

Economies of Central and Eastern Europe. (1st edition) Global HRM Series, London: Routledge, pp.158-188.

7. Lazarova,M.–Morley,M.-Tyson, S. (2008): Introduction-International comparative studies in HRM and performance –

the Cranet data. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, (11): pp.1995–2003.

8. Mayrhofer, W. (1998). Between market, bureaucracy and clan: Coordination and control mechanisms in the

Cranfield Network on European Human Resource Management (Cranet-E). Journal of Managerial Psychology, (3):

pp. 241- 258.

THE PRACTICE OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN...

Documents

Transcript of THE PRACTICE OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN...