WORKERS’ MOTIVATION: THE
ITALIAN CASE OF COOPERATIVE
CREDIT BANKS.
In September 2007, an International Monetary Fund survey showed
how cooperative banks have become important parts of many financial systems.
This situation is also present during the current economic crisis that is
affecting all of Europe. Despite the fact that local governments and central banks
are responding the crisis by adopting rigorous measures in the credit sector,
cooperative banks continue to confirm their role as reliable institutions rooted
in the local economy, having weathered this period of severe turbulence
relatively well ( EACB, 2010; Groeneveld, 2011). In Italy, Bccs have continued
to actively support their customers in an effort to contribute to ensuring access
to affordable financial services. This access is especially critical, given the
current economic crisis, for families and small firms. In the last three years,
Bccs have undertaken intense activity, particularly in relation to these types
of customers, with the aim of anticipating customers’ needs before the market
does. The role played by cooperative
banks has not received much attention from scholars. This lack of attention
stems from two factors: i) the lack of empirical data and ii) the
organizational structures and multiple goals of cooperative banks being
“generally more difficult to understand than the corporate governance of the
commercial banks with their more easily interpretable and single goal of profit
maximizing” (Groneveld, 2011). Thus, the first research aim of the present
paper is to
1 Dipartimento di
Scienze economiche e statistiche, Università degli studi di Salerno 2 Dipartimento
di Scienze economiche e statistiche, Università degli studi di Salerno
contribute to the understanding of Bccs’ activity in Italy by describing their
main characteristics and providing a comparison of different cooperative bank
models.
In Italy, despite the current crisis, this banking model is
working well by focusing on traditional banking services on a local basis and
trying not to weaken the trust relationship with their consumers, which is
fundamental for local institutions. In studies of banking services, trust is considered
a significant predictor of consumer loyalty (Delgrado-Ballester & Munuera-
Alemán, 2001; Lewis & Sourely, 2006). Trust involves the belief that “one
party’s behavior is guided by favorable intentions toward the best interests of
the others and the competence of a business to keep its promises” (Bejoo et
al., 1998). The trust relationship is strengthened with the unique aspects of corporate
governance in Bccs, particularly the ownership rights and the combination of
goals that Bccs pursue. However, trust is also conditioned by an element that has
been less often analyzed by scholars. A bank that serves communities and the
local economy becomes a local point of reference among the community as it
cultivates intangible assets that contribute to its competitive advantage. This
process involves human resources. Being locally rooted and close to the local
consumers increases customer contacts and allows the bank to develop a more
personalized knowledge of the consumers’ requirements. Thus, Bccs employees
should be considered an investment in human capital with crucial strategic
value and even, perhaps, as the most important contributor to the bank's value.
A number of studies show that there is a positive relationship among human
resource management (HRM) practices, quality of service, trust and consumer
loyalty (Reichhedl, 1996; Heskett & Sasser, 1997, Chi & Goursy, 2009).
Other studies have investigated the positive relationship between job
satisfaction and consumer loyalty, finding that the more employees are satisfied,
the more they will deliver quality service, which, in turn, results in consumer
loyalty ( Wangenheim et al., 2007; Bernhardt et al., 2000). A substantial body
of research also highlights several important issues associated with job satisfaction,
such as productivity and absenteeism (Clegg, 1983; Zhang & Zheng, 2009),
employee turnover (Hamermesh, 1977; Bockerman & Ilmakunnas, 2009), employee
happiness (Frey & Stutzer, 2002; Warr, 1999) and health (Stansfeld et al.,
1998; Faragher et al., 2005; Fisher & Sousa Poza, 2009) and decisions
related to retirement (Barangé et al., 2008). What are the main determinants of
job satisfaction? HRM research suggests the need to broaden the definition of
the value that employees assign to their work beyond simple monetary rewards:
the organizational environment (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), promotion likelihood
and reputation (Oswald, 1996), relationships with supervisors (Chen, 2001;
Griffin & Petterson, 2001), relationships with co-workers (Ducharme &
Martin, 2000; Sherony et al, 2002), organizational policies and procedures
(Dailey & Kirk, 1992; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992) and involvement with the
job and sense of competency (Sekaran, 1989) are all important job amenities
highlighted by the literature in this context. Finally, previous studies
underline the importance – both for the success of the organization and for
workers’ well-being – of achieving the alignment between employees’ interests
and actions and organizational goals (for example, Colvin & Boswell, 2007,
emphasize the role of intrinsic factors associated with the inherent value and
meaningfulness of the work to employees). Given these findings, the present
article investigates employee job satisfaction in Bccs under the assumption
that human resources are a critical component that, in connection with the Bccs peculiar elements, facilitate long-term relationships between
local communities and Bccs. Toward this aim, we conducted a survey of Bccs
located in Campania (an Italian region) reporting sociodemographic and job
characteristics of approximately 700 clerks; the survey was financed by the Bcc
national Federation. Our questionnaire
not only elicited individual preferences pertaining to the main aspects of
working conditions in Bccs, but it also investigated whether and to what extent
Bccs’ goals are shared by their employees. A theoretical argument in this
context is that when the outcome of a team is shared among the individual
participants, the individual goals are in line with the common purpose (Ouchi,
1979). To our knowledge, Sekaran (1989) is the only study on bank clerks’ satisfaction
that is comparable, in some respects, to our work. Some studies have addressed
cooperatives and focused on the position of the worker owner, arguing that
although workplace democracy may have a positive association with job
satisfaction in terms of the perception of the community where one works, certain
structural features of cooperatives may lead to a high level of stress that
negatively affect job satisfaction (Rothschild &Whitt, 1986). Focusing on
Italian social cooperatives, Borzaga and Tortia (2006) demonstrated that
intrinsic and relational attitudes toward work enhanced workers’ satisfaction. The structure of the present paper is as
follows: section 2 examines Bccs’ features, compares Italian Bccs with
different cooperative bank models and underlines the role of human resources;
section 3 describes our survey and contains main descriptive statistics;
section 4 reports empirical estimates of job satisfaction (and its
determinants); section 5 concludes with a discussion of the key findings.
2. Bccs and European cooperative banks
Italian Bccs fall into the general category of European
cooperative banks. However, they have their own characteristics and share some
elements with credit unions and with ethical banks. The sections below describe the main
differences and common features between Bccs and other cooperative banking
models and their implications for the role of human resources. Table 1 summarizes
these features.
[Table 1 here]
2.1 Cooperative credit banks and Bccs
In various reports before 2008, the European Association of
Cooperative Banks (EACB 2006, 2007) and the International Cooperative Banking
Association (ICBA) systematically highlighted the special nature of cooperative
banks in comparison with commercial banks, including the following aspects:
1) The ownership right that results from individual
membership rather than from the number of shares owned. This ownership right
involves the following:
a) the right to obtain credit at competitive rates,
profitable deposit conditions and, in general,
privileged access to financing;
b) the right to a democratic participation by exercising an
individual vote regardless of the number
of shares held (“one member, one vote”);
c) because profit distribution is often restricted, the
right to receive a limited compensation on the
capital held by the bank.
2) The presence of multiple goals: strictly linked to the
right of receiving a limited compensation for the capital held by the bank,
cooperative credit banks aim to pursue the specific interests of their members
rather than to maximize profits. Thus, part of the profit is used to establish
a reserve with which to pursue their objective targets. Usually, cooperative banks
are consumer cooperatives, aiming (in accordance with the mutuality principle)
to maximize their members’ consumer surplus:
“the difference between what a consumer is willing to pay
for a service and what he actually pays” (Cihak & Fonteyne, 2007). The
exact objectives can change depending on the European countries where the
cooperative credit banks are located, and they can strictly correspond to the
objective of mutuality or involve additional objectives. In either case, these
cooperative banks wholly express the owners’ interests.
3) Many cooperative banks are locally based and have a
particular focus and expertise that serves
the local community. Although
the cooperative sector is very heterogeneous, with significant differences
across countries, it is reasonable to argue that Bccs share the above-described
main features. In line with the European cooperative banking model, Bccs
guarantee privileged access to financial services; as a result, the majority of
a Bcc's members are also their consumers. In addition, Bccs exhibit the
following features:
1) As expression of ownership right, only the owners (or their relatives) can be
hired as employees (with the exception of the managers): this creates a hybrid
model of cooperative banks owned by both workers and consumers (and these two
descriptions might refer to the same person).
2) In pursuing a variety of goals, Bccs have to include
local development actions beyond access to financial facilities for their local
consumers. As we will see in more detail below(1), consumers can either be
owners or not, but they must be local. These rules affect the nature of the
objectives and the set of stakeholders. Local development must enumerate strict
objectives that include financial services for their local consumers and broad
objectives to aid the local community. In addition, the set of stakeholders has
to include i) local owners, who might be both consumers and workers, ii) local
consumers, who are not owners, and iii) local members of the community, or the
community in general, as the target of local development initiatives (beyond
the local consumers’ direct interests).
3) The definition of local banks in Italy, including Bccs,
is more strictly defined than the European model; the Bcc national statute
clearly states that it is compulsory to address the local community where Bccs
are located “using (by granting loans and advances) the resources where they
are gathered” (art. 2 National statute).
2.2 Credit unions and Bccs
Within the cooperative bank model, the credit union model
seems to most closely approximate that
of Bccs.
Credit unions have the following characteristics:
1) they are cooperative credit banks owned and controlled by
their members, with nonprofit goals
aimed at promoting thrift, offering advantages on credit and
deposit conditions and financing
services for their members; 2) they are typically small,
not-for-profit, local institutions serving a specific population that shares
a common bond;
3) they are aimed at serving a specific, local community.
For this reason, they restrict their service
area by pursuing local development or sustainable
international development at a local level.
In the Italian Bccs, the condition of being locally based
affects communities more positively than
the non-locally based regular banks.
The main difference between credit unions and Italian Bccs
is the stakeholders. The users,
management and benefactors of credit unions only include
members: “All transactions are effected
for members by members, no external party can transact with
the credit union” (Ward & Mac
Killop, 1997). In brief, all of the owners are local, all of
the consumers are local, and all of the
consumers are owners.
In contrast, the Italian Bccs can purchase from external
entities for their members or sell to external
entities on behalf of their members; specifically, i)
Italian Bccs have to recruit owners in the local
area where they are located; and ii) 50% of their financial
services must be delivered to their
owners, and 95% must be delivered to the defined reference
community(
2
). In short, all of the
owners are local, all of the consumers are local, but not
all of the consumers are owners.
This difference in corporate governance in the credit unions
leads to a stronger correspondence
between owners and stakeholders than in the Bccs, with some
implications for their institutional
objectives. Local development goals pursued by both types of
financial institution are two-fold: i)
strict objectives of local development pursued by offering
financial facilities to local owners and ii)
broad objectives of local development pursued by further
initiatives with a local impact, as defined
by the local owners.
As described above,
Bccs share with credit unions the two objectives of local development, but
they also serve local consumers who are not owners.
2.3 Ethical banks and Bccs Because the broad objective of
local development pursued by Bccs involves a series of actions in
support of the local area, we must consider whether this
feature moves Bccs close to the definition
of ethical banks.
In comparing the two types of financial institutions,
ethical banks are characterized by the following
aspects:
1) Social profitability, namely the funding of economic
activities with added social value and the
ability to invest in speculative projects (San Josè et al.,
2011).
2) The basic goal of economic sustainability, rather than
profit maximization, as the distribution of
benefits is strongly restricted.
3) Trust relationships with partners: consumers are fully
informed about the policies of the ethical
bank, which clearly describe the groups or individuals with
whom the bank will or will not do
business. “Consumers know where the money comes from and
what ethical banks do with it”
(Harvey, 1995), which favors organizations that benefit the
community and excludes organizations
involved in speculative activities.
4) Ethical commitment: this point deals with all aspects of
the bank and its activity and,
consequently, the actions of their stakeholders and
partners.
Bccs have similar characteristics:
1) Local profitability rather than social profitability.
Bccs place more of an emphasis on local
community development than ethical banks.
2) Bccs do not distribute benefits (or they distribute only
a residual fraction). However, because
they are financial institutions, as are ethical banks, they
need to ensure economic sustainability.
3) Relations of trust with consumers (we have highlighted
above how the customers of Bccs have
different requirements).
4) The ethical commitment in Bccs does not affect all of
their activities, but Bccs must ultimately
take certain actions to contribute to local
development. 2.4 The special role of
human resources
Some of the bank features outlined above can have
implications for human resources. Differences
or similarities with respect to the role of human resources
in Bccs are outlined compared with the
general cooperative banking model. We consider a typical
cooperative bank as one that is consumer
owned. The objective of maximizing members' consumer surplus
can be addressed on three levels:
1) by means of the nature and the conditions of the
financial services required by the owners; 2) by
means of the management’s ability to attract additional
consumer owners in the local area with the
aim of increasing the scale of the services and reducing
costs; 3) through employees’ effort – which
is the most critical – to build direct relationships with
consumers because employees are asked to
personalize the services offered based on their knowledge of
consumer needs. The Bcc's knowledge
of the needs of each consumer can strengthen the
relationship with consumers and, consequently,
the bank’s reputation for managing relationships with
consumers.
The nature of a local bank with the aim – both direct and
indirect – of fostering local development
should lead to a closer relationship between employees and
local consumers. Employees should
have a deep knowledge of the communities and of the area where
the bank is located, and
employees and consumers are likely to share the same
background and live in the same area.
The role of human resources in the Italian Bccs differs in
part from the role of human resources in
the European cooperative model. First, employees are usually
also owners with the right to vote and
to be involved in decision making. Second, employees (or
someone else in their family) are also
consumers. As a consequence, decision making is likely to be
characterized by more homogeneous
preferences than in other cooperative models. This
homogeneity may lead to a reduction in the costs
associated with democratic decision making, which, in
cooperative models, can lead to a fulfillment
of the majority’s needs at the expense of the minority’s
expectations of the right to a voice (Charny,
1999). The liberal paradox ( Sen, 1983), which affects
democracy in cooperative models by causing minorities to go along with
decisions that do not reflect their preferences, should be overcome by
the simple condition that employees and consumers are one
and the same and share common origins
with the owners (because they live in the same area).
The relationship between human resources and consumers is
closer than in the case of the European
cooperative model due to employees (or their relatives’)
status of being consumers and also because
they are locals with the advantage of having better
knowledge of the area and the ability to create
lasting relationships with other consumers. The development
of lasting relationships is an important
indicator of trust, which is a good predictor of loyalty. It
has been shown that consumers are more
likely to become loyal if they develop a personal
relationship with a contact employee (Barnes &
Howlett, 1998; Perrien et al., 1992)
Human resources can contribute significantly to creating a
competitive advantage in gaining the
loyalty of consumers because employees are not simply close
to the community; they are people
belonging to the same community where the Bccs are located.
This aspect of Bccs can be
considered similar to that of credit unions, for which it
has been argued (Hansmann, 1996) that a
group of individuals who work together and live in the same
community may have better
information regarding each other’s creditworthiness than
would employees of a joint stock firm.
In contrast, some important differences between Bccs and
ethical banks must be emphasized.
Studies of HR in cooperative models have outlined the importance
of a community network that can
bring together employees, general members, consumers and
stakeholders (Baldacchino et al., 2000;
Davis, 2006.) to pursue development objectives while
retaining their identity and mission. In
particular, the role of HR and, above all, of HR management,
in strengthening these network
connections is to establish a “work culture” that reflects
and unifies the cooperative culture, its
employees’ culture and its consumers’ culture.
In ethical banks, both the employee–bank relationship and
the consumer–bank relationship are
strengthened by the ethical commitment that pervades all
bank activities. Consumers and employees
are fully informed of the values that direct ethical banks’
business choices. This transparency is an important reason for choosing an
ethical bank both in terms of workplace and in terms of consumer
relations.
Conditions are different in the case of Bccs.
The status of “local owner”, which applies to half of the
consumers and to the majority of
employees, should mean that these groups share a common
culture – namely, a community culture
– that is able to guarantee a certain homogeneity in
decision making and the alignment of personal
objectives with the collective objectives. Bccs’ values and,
more generically, Bccs’ culture are
closely aligned with those of the local owners.
The perspective of the local non-owner, who account for 50%
of the consumers of a Bcc, can be
different. These non-owners may be interested not only in
competitive and personalized financial
services but also in having a consumer relationship with a
peculiar non-profit bank aimed at local
development. Additionally, they may not be interested and
may be focused on the personal
advantages of being a customer at a Bcc. It is up to HR to
fully interpret consumers’ preferences
because these preferences can serve as vital knowledge for
Bccs in terms of developing the local
business beyond their local owners. Through their
interactions with employees, local consumer nonowners share their preferences
with the Bccs, which can influence the business orientation or
general values in the service of the community network.
As we have attempted to demonstrate, it is up to HR in
cooperative model banks and, particularly in
Bccs, to meet customer needs by developing a clear
understanding of the different demands of
consumers. The conditions of being both local and fellow
consumers will help employees in this
regard. Furthermore, a satisfied and motivated employee
creates a positive impact on customers’
perception of the nature of the service, which strengthens
the Bcc's relationship with the consumers
and, as a result, the consumers' loyalty. Thus, one can
argue that employee satisfaction and
consumer loyalty are closely aligned (Schneider & Bowen,
1995).
3. The data3.1 The survey
Between October 2009 and March 2010, we conducted a survey
of all 23 Bccs located in the
Campania region. Bcc employees were interviewed about their
socio-demographic and job
characteristics.
A smaller number of Bccs was selected to elicit clerks’
opinions about the working conditions in the
Bccs, organizational issues and objectives. Specifically,
six Bccs were randomly chosen according
to their size: we selected three small Bccs, one large Bcc
and two Bccs of medium size. Bccs were
classified by size according to the following elements: i)
number of employees; ii) number of bank
branches(3); iii) age of the banks(4); iv) asset value on the balance sheet and v) territorial
attractiveness index measuring, which is the capacity of
attracting demand within each bank's area
for the financial services offered(5). Finally, we obtained a final sample (6) of approximately 700
Bcc clerks (managers are not included in our sample); this
paper deals with information drawn from
this subsample.
To develop the section of the questionnaire devoted to
individual opinions on working conditions in
each Bcc in January 2011, a focus group of approximately
20-25 people was held. Such focus
groups help develop an understanding of the most important
(non-monetary) aspects of working in a
Bcc. Thus, we identified 9 main job aspects that we included
in the final version of the
questionnaire along with a list of the main goals of the
Bccs(7). These job aspects were the
following: 1) accessibility to the workplace (i.e., travel
time); 2) relationships with colleagues (i.e.,
the availability of help, sharing of objectives and values);
3) the probability of advancement; 4)
clear management rules; 5) personal prestige (among
colleagues, seniors, customers, etc.); 6) the
possibility of learning on the job/training at the
workplace; 7) participation in decision-making
processes; 8) autonomy and responsibilities on the job; 9)
awareness of contributing, through one’s
own working activities, to social aims (i.e., local
development). Our sampled workers during the survey were asked to indicate the
importance they attributed to each job characteristic on a scale of
1-9 (where 9 indicated the most important features).
These characteristics represent many key non-monetary
attributes that the economic literature
considers as affecting worker well-being. For example, the
other study on bank employees
(Sekaran, 1989) found that participation in decision making,
skill variety, a sense of competence
and job involvement were the main determinants of job
satisfaction. According to Ghinetti (2007),
workers in both the private and the public sectors are, on
average, more satisfied in their jobs if they
have close relationships with colleagues, job interest and
job security. The ninth feature, concerning
the social usefulness of the job, is a novelty in this
context, with the exception of Borzaga and
Tortia (2006), who evaluated workers’ satisfaction in public
and nonprofit social services.
The employees also indicated their opinions about the most
important organizational goals (reported
in the Bccs’ statutes; additional details are provided in
Table 2).
Finally, we elicited information on workers’ ethical
profiles and individual attitudes toward work by
asking whether respondents agreed with certain statements on
social issues, such as how individual
effort, luck, family background, inequities and competitive
contexts affect individual destinies.
Table 2 provides a description of the main variables
elicited through our survey and used in the
empirical investigation.
[Table 2 here]
The main variable of interest is “job satisfaction”,
measured by the question “How satisfied do you
feel with your work (independently from monetary aspects)”;
responses on such questions vary on a
scale from 1 (extremely unsatisfied) to 10 (extremely
satisfied).
3.2 Descriptive statistics Table 3 contains main descriptive
statistics.
[Table 3 here]
The average value of workers’ satisfaction for non-monetary
job amenities is quite high (almost 7
on a scale of 1-10), similar to the result reported in
Ghinetti (2007) from the 1995 Bank of Italy
data(8). Regarding individual characteristics, approximately 35%
of the employees are females, and
more than the 68% are married. Over half of the respondents
have a secondary school diploma,
whereas approximately 40% are educated beyond high school.
The highest percentage of employees
is between 40 and 50 years old (38.19%), and approximately
26% are less than forty. When we
compare such features with the data drawn from the Istat
survey in 2010, concerning employees in
the economic services sector in the south of Italy, the most
notable differences are a lower
percentage of females in our sample (females represented 45%
of the Istat sample) and a higher
percentage of graduates (only 22% in the Istat data(9)).
Considering job characteristics, we observe that Bcc workers
attribute more importance to the
definition of management rules (for example, individual
tasks, advancement opportunities, etc.),
whereas the aim of pursuing efficiency and profitability is
considered the least important Bcc goal.
Finally, consistent with expectations, the majority of
workers believe that individual success is
largely determined by individual effort, even if luck,
family origins and gender discrimination are
also influential; at the same time, competitive contexts
determine higher productivity, but poverty is
not a result of laziness.
4. The results In Table 4, we report our empirical estimates
based on an ordered probit model; the dependent
variable measures job satisfaction on a scale of 1 – 10 (1
for individuals extremely unsatisfied, 10
for those extremely satisfied).
[Table 4 here]
In column (1), we first relate workers’ job satisfaction to
demographic variables (age, civil status,
sex, schooling), and then, we focus on job characteristics
(e.g., the number of coworkers in the same
Bcc and length of the job contract) and on individual
preferences for different job amenities.
In column (2), we add organizational goals (drawn from the
Bccs’ statutes) to the set of independent
variables to test whether (and to what extent) workers’ aims
are aligned with Bccs’ objectives.
Finally, in the third column, we control for individual
ethical profiles and attitudes toward work,
arguing that individuals less prone to commitment are less
likely to positively appraise their
working activity. Such an argument is not new in the
literature; Sekaran (1989), for example, found
that “work ethic” (e.g., a value orientation of an
individual toward disciplined work) significantly
affected job involvement and (indirectly, through job
involvement) job satisfaction.
The coefficients reported in Table 4 indicate the “signs” of
the changes determined by the
independent variables on the probability of being extremely
unsatisfied (prob. job satisfaction=1)
or, alternatively, on the probability of being completely
unsatisfied (prob. job satisfaction=10); i.e.,
if the coefficient estimated for a given explanatory
variable is positive, the probability of being
completely unsatisfied must decline. Symmetrically, the
change in the probability of being
extremely satisfied has the same sign as the estimated
coefficient.
Before discussing the relevance of working conditions for
Bcc employees, let us consider whether
individual characteristics affect job satisfaction. In the
following section, we compare our findings
with previous results in the literature; such comparisons,
however, must be considered with care given that most studies (with the
exception of Ghinetti, 2007) consider overall job satisfaction
(including monetary job aspects), and ii) our sample
concerns bank employees.
In contrast to previous studies reporting higher job
satisfaction among women (Clark, 1997; Nappo
& Fiorillo, 2011) or no significant gender difference
(Cabral Vieira, 2005; Ghinetti, 2007; Nese,
2011; Borzaga & Tortia, 2006), we find that females are
less satisfied than males (although the
relative coefficient is significant only at the 10% level).
On this point, however, it is important to
mention the evidence reported in Troisi (2011) demonstrating
that females working in Bccs have
less opportunity for career advancement; Ghinetti (2007)
also reports lower satisfaction with
particular job aspects among females (i.e., job interest)
and argues that some form of discrimination
(within the same occupational status and at similar wage
levels) is a likely explanation for this
phenomenon.
As far as age(10) is concerned, workers over age fifty are less satisfied
with their jobs. This result is
likely to reflect the circumstance that at the beginning of
one’s working life, one is happy working
(particularly in contexts characterized by a high
unemployment rate, such as in the south of Italy).
However, most employees continue working in a standardized
repetitive job position (with low skill
variation) for many years (in some cases, until they
retire), and this monotony depresses enthusiasm
for the job. A likely alternative explanation is a negative
correlation between seniority and effort.
Our result is only partly consistent with those of previous
studies. Most authors find a U-shaped
relationship with age (e.g., Clark et al. 1995, and, in
Italy, Fiorillo & Nappo, 2011), whereas others
find a positive correlation (e.g., Johnson & Johnson,
2000); finally, Ghinetti (2007) finds that job
interest is negatively correlated with age, whereas Nese
(2011) and Borzaga and Tortia (2006) do
not find any significant evidence.
With regard to education(11), we do not report significant results, in accordance with
another study
in Italy (Ghinetti, 2007). The findings on the relationship
between job satisfaction and education, however, are controversial in that some
authors indicate a negative correlation between the two
(Borzaga & Tortia, 2006), and others report the opposite
(Fiorillo & Nappo, 2011).
Finally, we identify a weak relationship (statistically
significant only at the ten percent level)
between household income and job satisfaction; this result
is not surprising given that we consider
(as a dependent variable) job satisfaction independently
from monetary aspects.
Let us now consider the variables concerning job attributes.
The coefficients estimated for
“Colleagues” and “Reputation” indicate that the workers who
consider the presence of good human
relations as an important aspect of the workplace are more
satisfied with working in a Bcc. A
similar finding was reported by Ghinetti (2007). At the same
time, the coefficient estimated for
“Rules” indicates that Bccs’ workers who are more interested
in clear and shared rules of work
organization (e.g., rules about promotions, task
assignments, etc.) are more likely to complain about
their job.
As in Sekaran (1989), the possibility of participating in
decision-making processes positively
affects employees’ satisfaction (even if the relative coefficient is
statistically significant only at
10% level); this is an interesting result in that it does
not support the argument that such a detail
negatively affects worker well-being through higher levels
of stress (Rothschild &Whitt,
1986).
The estimates in columns (2) and (3) of Table 4 show that
the awareness of contributing, through
one’s own work, to the obtainment of social aims (such as
local development) positively affects
worker well-being. Furthermore, “to enforce the principle of
mutuality by satisfying owners’ and
consumers’ requirements…” is an organizational aim largely
shared by Bcc employees. At the same
time, job satisfaction is lower when workers attach more
importance to profit maximization and
advantages for Bcc members as the main organizational goals
(see the coefficients estimated on the
variables “obj1” and “obj5”). As a consequence, Bcc workers
not only perceive the social aims as
important specific characteristics of Bccs, but they are
also perfectly consistent with such objectives. These arguments recall the
evidence reported in Borzaga and Tortia (2006) for the
nonprofit social service sector, in which intrinsic and
relational attitudes are crucial factors in
explaining worker satisfaction, whereas workers driven by
economic motivations appear less
satisfied.
5. Concluding remarks
The main research aims here were as follows: i) to
contribute to an understanding of Italian
cooperative credit banks and ii) to stress the strategic
role of human resources and labor relations in
such nonprofit organizations, with particular reference to
the goals of Bccs. This strategic role was
investigated by focusing on the detail that their employees
are usually also owners, consumers and
members of the local community.
First, as members of the local community, Bcc workers take
advantage of their knowledge of the
community and their closeness to the consumers, which
facilitate an understanding of problems and
the reduction of asymmetric information vis-à-vis the
consumers.
Second, as consumers, Bcc employees fall within Bccs’ target
household; thus, they are likely to be
better able to understand consumer requirements for
delivering a personalized service.
As both consumers themselves and members of the local
community, Bcc employees should be able
to establish lasting relationships with local consumers.
Lasting relationships are an important
indicator of trust, which is a good predictor of loyalty,
and consumer loyalty is important to
ensuring economic sustainability. Finally, as owners, Bcc employees directly
participate in decision-making processes, particularly toensure that the Bcc meets its defined goals. This
participation should guarantee employees'contribution to appropriate decision making.
This study also investigated employee satisfaction, and, in
this respect, the presence of good human
relations at work (with co-workers, consumers, etc.) and the
possibility of contributing one’s own
work to the obtainment of social aims (such as local
development) emerged as crucial variables. At
the same time, when we take into account the main Italian
Bccs’ features examined above, we find
that job satisfaction is lower when workers attach more
importance to profit maximization and
advantages for Bcc members as the main organizational goals.
These motivations support the
alignment between individual interests (and actions) and
organizational goals, leading to reciprocal
advantages for both the success of the organization’s
strategies and for workers’ happiness
Policy recommendations derived from our results are the
following: labor relations matter, and
paying more attention to workers’ motivations and matching
individual objectives and
organizational goals may be an important strategy for
increasing competitive potential.
