Employees’ individual values as a source of human capital

Figures & data

Table 1. Share of respondents by region/country by gender (n;%).

Country/region/gender/management		Gender (n; %)		Position in management			Total
		Male	Female	Top	Middle	Lower
Country/region	Croatia	67; 38.1	109; 61.9	9	56	111	176
	Italy	14; 46.7	16; 53.3	1	8	21	30
	Hungary	46; 29.5	110; 70.5	9	43	104	156
	Romania	51; 44.7	63; 55.3	8	22	84	114
	Slovenia	11; 26.2	31; 73.8	2	11	29	42
	Southern Serbia	169; 61.2	107; 38.8	12	39	225	276
	Northern Serbia	209; 56.2	163; 43.8	34	102	236	372
Total		567; 48.6	599; 51.4	75	281	810	1166

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 2. The significance of differences between subsamples of respondents in relation to their answers on individual values.

	p	Discr. coef.
Conformity	0.000	0.038
Benevolence	0.000	0.027
Universalism in relation to people	0.001	0.024
Universalism in relation to nature	0.001	0.020
Self-direction	0.006	0.031
Stimulation	0.000	0.069
Hedonism	0.000	0.053
Achievement	0.000	0.025
Power	0.000	0.045
Security	0.000	0.047
Tradition	0.000	0.057

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Figure 1. Characteristics of subsamples – companies. Source: Authors’ processing.

Table 3. Mahalanobis distance between subsamples of respondents.

	Croatia	Italy	Hungary	Romania	Southern Serbia	Northern Serbia
Croatia	0.00	1.48	1.56	1.82	0.90	0.64
Italy	1.48	.00	1.42	1.35	1.27	1.36
Hungary	1.56	1.42	.00	1.61	1.28	1.19
Romania	1.82	1.35	1.61	0.00	1.34	1.43
Southern Serbia	0.90	1.27	1.28	1.34	0.00	0.60
Northern Serbia	0.64	1.36	1.19	1.43	0.60	0.00

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 4. Grouping of subsamples from the country/region.

Level	Relation
Southern Serbia, northern Serbia	0.60
Croatia, southern Serbia	0.85
Italy, Romania	1.35
Italy, Hungary	1.54
Croatia, Italy	1.87

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Figure 2. Dendrogram – Grouping of value profiles (companies). Croatia (1); Italy; (2) Hungary (3); Romania (4); southern Serbia (5); northern Serbia (6). Source: Authors’ processing.

Table 5. The significance of differences between subsamples of respondents in relation to their answers on individual values.

	p	Discr. coef.
Conformity	0.013	0.027
Benevolence	0.005	0.020
Universalism in relation to people	0.000	0.032
Universalism in relation to nature	0.000	0.047
Self-direction	0.000	0.071
Stimulation	0.000	0.092
Hedonism	0.000	0.038
Achievement	0.000	0.032
Power	0.000	0.073
Security	0.000	0.154
Tradition	0.000	0.127

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Figure 3. Characteristics of subsamples – local government units. Source: Authors’ processing.

Table 6. Mahalanobis distance between subsamples of respondents.

	Croatia	Hungary	Romania	Slovenia	Southern Serbia	Northern Serbia
Croatia	0.00	1.94	1.72	1.42	1.35	0.94
Hungary	1.94	0.00	1.66	1.41	1.14	1.57
Romania	1.72	1.66	0.00	1.97	1.37	1.70
Slovenia	1.42	1.41	1.97	0.00	1.25	1.35
Southern Serbia	1.35	1.14	1.37	1.25	0.00	0.74
Northern Serbia	0.94	1.57	1.70	1.35	0.74	0.00

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 7. Grouping of subsamples from the country/region.

Level	Relation
Southern Serbia, northern Serbia	0.74
Croatia, southern Serbia	1.30
Hungary, Slovenia	1.41
Croatia, Hungary	1.76
Croatia, Romania	1.82

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Figure 4. Dendrogram – Grouping of value profiles (local government units). Croatia (1); Hungary (2); Romania (3); Slovenia (4); southern Serbia (5); northern Serbia (6). Source: Authors’ processing.

Table 8. The significance of differences between subsamples of respondents in relation to their answers on individual values.

	p	Discr. coef.
Conformity	0.045	0.003
Benevolence	0.007	0.005
Universalism in relation to people	0.018	0.007
Universalism in relation to nature	0.112	0.003
Self-direction	0.009	0.008
Stimulation	0.034	0.006
Hedonism	0.223	0.001
Achievement	0.237	0.003
Power	0.005	0.008
Security	0.080	0.004
Tradition	0.000	0.023

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Figure 5. Characteristics of subsamples – positions in management. Source: Authors’ processing.

Table 9. Mahalanobis distance between subsamples of respondents.

	Top management	Middle management	Lower management
Top management	0.00	0.83	0.82
Middle management	0.83	0.00	0.46
Lower management	0.82	0.46	0.00

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 10. Grouping of subsamples’ positions in relation to their responses.

Level	Relation
Middle management, lower management	0.46
Top management, middle management	0.92

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Figure 6. Dendrogram – Grouping of value profiles (positions in management). Top management (1); middle management (2); lower management (3). Source: Authors’ processing.