Back to GESIS Homepage

Item List

Frage Thema Item Text Antwort Format Konstrukt Eingesetzte Kogn Techniken Ergebnis
Englische Version:
h) The collaboration and cooperation with colleagues or business partners

Deutsche Version:
h) Zusammenarbeit mit Kollegen oder Geschäftspartnern		 Nein
Englische Version:
i) The amount of irregular working hours (night, weekend, shift work)

Deutsche Version:
i) Die Höhe der unregelmäßigen Arbeitszeiten (Nacht-/ Wochenend-/ Schichtarbeit)		 Nein

In der Pretest-Studie wurde das letzte Item dieser Itembatterie detaillierter bewertet ("Die Höhe der unregelmäßigen Arbeitszeiten (Nacht-, Wochenend-, Schichtarbeit)"). Für dieses Item gaben die meisten Befragten an, dass die Nutzung von Computern, Laptops, Smartphones oder anderen computergestützten Geräten bei der Arbeit keine relevante Veränderung in Bezug auf die Unregelmäßigkeit der Arbeitszeiten mit sich bringt (britische Befragte: 72,22 Prozent, deutsche Befragte: 81,63 Prozent). Nur 11,11 Prozent der britischen und 12,24 Prozent der deutschen Befragten antworteten, dass die Zahl der unregelmäßigen Arbeitszeiten zunahm, und 16,67 der britischen und 6,12 der deutschen Befragten berichteten, dass die Zahl der unregelmäßigen Arbeitszeiten abnahm.

Alle Befragten, die bei Item 10i) die Antwortkategorie "Zunahme" oder "Abnahme" wählten, erhielten eine Category Selection Probe, die die Befragten ermutigte, ihre Antwort etwas weiter zu erläutern und Gründe für ihre Antwortauswahl anzugeben. Abhängig von der vorherigen Antwortauswahl wurde der Einleitungssatz der Probe an die Antwortauswahl für Item 10i) angepasst (z.B. erhielten Befragte, die bei Item 10i) die Antwortkategorie "Abnahme" wählten, den Einleitungssatz: "Sie antworteten, dass die Nutzung von Computern usw. den Betrag bei unregelmäßigen Arbeitszeiten verringert hat"). Angesichts der Filterbedingung in diesem Fragebogen und der Antwortauswahl der Befragten bei Punkt 10i) erhielt nur eine kleine Teilmenge aller Befragten diese Untersuchung (15 britische und 9 deutsche Befragte).

Insgesamt 12 Befragte (6 britische und 6 deutsche Befragte) wählten den Antwortwert "Zunahme" für Frage 10i) und damit die angefragte Probe nach dem Grund für die Zunahme unregelmäßiger Arbeitszeiten. Alle deutschen Befragten und ein britischer Befragter wiesen auf eine Zunahme ihrer Arbeitsbelastung hin. Zum Beispiel erklärte Befragter 91, dass es eine "höhere Arbeitsbelastung als Folge von mehr Aufgaben" gebe, und Befragter 340 stellte klar, dass "es in letzter Zeit viele Projekte gegeben hat, die mehr Überstunden als üblich erforderten, und dass aufgrund der schlechteren Personalausstattung weniger Mitarbeiter die anfallenden Aufgaben bewältigen mussten". Die Hälfte der britischen Befragten bemerkte, dass die Zahl der unregelmäßigen Arbeitszeiten zunahm, weil die Nutzung von Computern zu mehr Flexibilität der Arbeitszeiten und ständiger Erreichbarkeit führte, z.B. durch die Möglichkeit, "abends und am Wochenende von zu Hause aus zu arbeiten" (britischer Befragter, ID 162). Ein britischer Befragter (ID 108) wies auch auf den Druck hin, effizient zu arbeiten: "Wenn wir den Computer nicht richtig benutzen, werden die Arbeitszeiten zunehmen."

Neben den Befragten, die Gründe für eine Erhöhung der unregelmäßigen Arbeitszeiten angaben, wählten einige Befragte (9 britische Befragte, 3 deutsche Befragte) unter Item 10i) die Antwortoption "Abnahme". Infolgedessen wurden diese Befragten nach den Gründen für eine Verringerung der unregelmäßigen Arbeitszeiten aufgrund der Nutzung von Computern und ähnlichen Geräten gefragt. Zwei britische und drei deutsche Befragte nannten die Aspekte einer erhöhten Flexibilität und Unabhängigkeit aufgrund einer Automatisierung von Prozessen, die dazu beiträgt, von unregelmäßigen auf reguläre Arbeitszeiten umzustellen. Hier sind zwei Beispiele, die in diese Kategorie fallen:

  • "Mit der Möglichkeit, Dinge automatisch zu planen, ohne dass man geweckt werden muss, um sie auszulösen, wurden meine Arbeitszeiten normaler.“ (Britischer Befragter, ID 377)
  • "Weil ich genau weiß, wann ich beginne und wann ich aufhöre, und weil ich keine Überstunden machen muss, weil ich genau abschätzen kann, wann ich was abgeschlossen haben werde.“ (Deutscher Befragter, ID 328)

Zwei britische Befragte merkten auch an, dass der Einsatz von Computern zu einer erhöhten Produktivität führte. Die Befragte 368 erklärte zum Beispiel, dass sie "produktiver war, so dass [ich] nicht länger als nötig mit Arbeit verbringen musste.“ Weitere Gründe, die (von je einem Befragten) genannt wurden, waren der Wechsel zu Aufgaben, die nicht mit dem Computer zusammenhängen, und eine abnehmende Arbeitsbelastung. Eine Antwort war unbrauchbar, und ein britischer Befragter antwortete mit "Weiß nicht".

Für eine detailliertere Aufschlüsselung der Antworten der Befragten verweisen wir auf die Tabellen im beigefügten PDF-Dokument.
a.) that all citizens have an adequate standard of living [dass alle Bürger einen ausreichenden Lebensstandard haben] Nein A respondent claims not to be able to answer item a) ("Can't say") and justifies his answer by saying that it is unclear to him what is meant by a "sufficient" standard of living. Her answer would be different depending on whether a sufficient standard of living meant that one "receives Hartz IV" or that everyone "has their own apartment or house".
b.) that government authorities respect and protect the rights of minorities [dass Staat und Behörden die Rechte von Minderheiten achten und schützen] Nein
c.) that people be given more opportunities to participate in public decision-making [dass man den Menschen Möglichkeiten gibt, an politischen Entscheidungen teilzuhaben] Nein
d.) that citizens may engage in acts of civil disobedience when they oppose government actions [dass Bürger die Möglichkeit des zivilen Ungehorsams haben, um ihre deutliche Ablehnung gegenüber Regierungsentscheidungen zum Ausdruck zu bringen] Nein

This item is predominantly classified as important or very important (n=16). Three test persons give the average value and one test person classifies the item as "rather not important".

When answering statement d), four test persons spontaneously express difficulties in understanding the concept of civil disobedience:

  • "It's a bit complicated. What does that mean? You know what 'civil' and 'disobedient' is, but now in this context? What does it mean?" (TP 01)
  • "What is meant by 'civil disobedience'?" (TP 07)
  • "I would now understand that they will be allowed to demonstrate. Is that what you mean?" (TP 11)
  • "How is civil disobedience defined?" (TP 12)

The probing question of what the test subjects understand by the term 'civil disobedience' revealed that four other test subjects had difficulties in understanding the item. The main reason for this was that it was not clear to the test persons whether the term refers only to violent protest or also includes violent protests:

  • „It's really hard. I've been thinking about demonstrations or maybe collecting signatures in general. But I wonder if that's civil disobedience already? I wouldn't know if civil disobedience means that something is forbidden or if it's just a legal rebellion against a political decision.“ (TP 06)
  • „I've become attached to the term. I found it difficult to formulate, because I thought, what is hidden behind it or what would I understand by it? What I had in mind was the right of assembly, demonstrations. That one should demonstrate in a civilian setting, i.e. peacefully and without violence, for example.“ (TP 08)
  • „Civil disobedience ranges from destruction to house occupation. Destruction: no, squatting and protest rallies: yes. Maybe I am naive, but I would like it to be so that others are not harmed and that no property is destroyed. Randale is not one of them for me, so the answer is very difficult for me. Where is the border?“ (TP 12)

Test person 12 notes that your answer ("important", scale value 6) is only valid if the statement is about non-violent protest.

  • „I think of Stuttgart 21, of demonstrations. There are different kinds of 'civil disobedience'. For example, one can take part in non-violent demonstrations or in those where there is serious rioting. That's why I'm lying in the middle. I am already in favour of the citizens being able to, or should, exercise the right to demonstrate, which is a fundamental right. But I reject violent demonstrations on principle.“ (TP 15)

Two test persons clearly misinterpret the term:

  • „That you might be a criminal? Not doing your job?“ (TP 03)
  • „Sounds to me like this isn't about demonstration. Civil disobedience, that's something you do against the law. And I don't think that's so okay now. Smashing windows or something or demolishing cars, in anger or in protest.“ (TP 13)

Due to this misinterpretation, these two test persons state that this right is rather not important for people in a democracy (scale values 3 and 4). The remaining ten testpersons interpret the term civil disobedience mainly as non-violent protest and understand it to mean forms of protest such as strikes and demonstrations.

The difficulties that arise in answering statement d) due to the concept of "civil disobedience" are also illustrated by the fact that half of the test persons (n=10) state that they found it "rather difficult" or "very difficult" to answer the statement due to the concept of "rather difficult" or "very difficult".
a) I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to contribute to the success of my company/ organization. [Ich bin bereit, härter zu arbeiten als ich muss, um zum Erfolg meiner Firma/ Organisation beizutragen.] Nein Two thirds (n = 10) of the test persons agree or strongly agree with the statement.

Test person 05 spontaneously comments that it is unclear to her whether this item refers only to the company/organization she is currently working for or whether it is more a general attitude: "I ask myself, is this about my company where I am currently working? Or, if I were to work for another company tomorrow, that I could now name my future company? I am just thinking about whether this is a general question. Am I generally willing to do these things for my company or is it a snapshot of the current company?” (TP 05). This respondent states that an explicit reference to the "current" company, as in item c), would clarify the intention of the question and facilitate the answer.

The spontaneous comments of test subject 08 and test subject 12 make it clear that item a) may be difficult for civil servants or employees in non-profit organizations to answer because these companies/organizations are not geared to maximize profits and it is therefore unclear how the success of the companies/organizations can be measured:
  • “So now I'm thinking more about my second job, not my main job at the university. Because working at the university doesn't really help anyone because it's just not a company. It's just a different organisational structure. With the other job, where profit is made, I'm willing to do it.“ (TP 08)
  • “That's hard to answer because I'm a civil servant.“ (TP 12)
When asked whether the respondents thought about their company/organization, their job or their profession when answering the statement, nine respondents stated that they thought about their company/organization (as intended by the questionnaire developers). However, one of these nine test persons (TP 06, strongly agree) only referred "indirectly" to the success of the company/organization: "As a scientist I work more for myself, but of course I contribute to the success of the organization. But first and foremost I work for myself. I'm willing to work harder to get my habilitation as soon as possible.” (TP 06)

Test person 14 (strongly disagree) thought of their current job when answering the statement, and test person 02 (don’t know) - due to the misinterpretation of the term "organization" - thought of different activities in different companies.

The remaining four test subjects (TP 03, TP 04, TP 09, TP 13) ignored the subordinate clause "to contribute to the success of my company/organization" when answering the statement and only referred to whether they were generally willing or able to work harder than necessary (for whatever purpose) when answering the item:
  • “That always pays off once in a while. If I work a few overtime hours, that you can stay at home for a day.“ (TP 03)
  • “I have already worked as a meat cutter on the assembly line, sometimes 20 hour shifts. So I guess it can't get any worse than that. Well, I'm certainly willing to work harder.“ (TP 04)
  • “I can't work any harder. I'm in sales, there's a day and then there's a day. So I'm not under pressure to achieve certain goals. I don't have to generate mandatory sales.“ (TP 09)
  • “I am of the opinion that my work is of good quality and that I contribute enough. Therefore I would not want to work even harder. But I would not want to work less either. It's okay the way it is now.“ (TP 13)
b) I am proud to work for my company/organization. [Ich bin stolz darauf, für meine Firma/Organisation zu arbeiten.] Nein The majority of the test persons (n = 11) agree or strongly agree with this statement. Two test persons (TP 09, TP 15) answer with "neither nor" and two other test persons answer with "Don’t know" (TP 02, TP 14). Subject 02 justifies her "don’t know" answer with difficulties in understanding the term "organization" (see general findings on question 5) and subject 14 states that she has problems with the answer scale in this statement: She can only "rather agree" and since this category is not offered, she chooses "Don’t know.“

With the exception of test person 02, all test persons stated that they had thought of their company/organization when answering this statement. Four of these respondents (TP 09, TP 11, TP 13, TP 15) also note that the phrase "be proud" is too strong or somewhat exaggerated:
  • “I'm not really proud. I like the work, but pride is a bit over the top. I would just never leave there because I enjoy it. I like working there.“ (TP 09)
  • “The "pride" thing is always one of those things. We Germans have a problem with that. I like working for the company and I'm willing to do a bit more for it. That's why I "agree" and not "totally agree". That's too absolute for me.“ (TP 11)
  • “Sometimes one is a little afraid to express such opinions, with "proud to work for this company". It's maybe a little American-inspired. But I can't say that I don't value my company, so I rather agree with that. Although I personally would not make such a statement right now.“ (TP 13)
  • “There is no special "pride" in that for me." (TP 15)
c) I would refuse another, better paid job to stay with my current company/organization.[Ich würde eine andere, besser bezahlte Stelle ablehnen, um bei meiner jetzigen Firma/Organisation zu bleiben.] Nein Three test persons (TP 02, TP 11, TP 14) answered with "Don’t know" and justified their answer with the fact that it depends on the respective circumstances whether one would refuse such a position or not. Several factors (and not only payment) would play a role here: "The statement is formulated too generally. There are certainly 1,000 other reasons why you would turn something down, and not just because the current company is so great. It depends on the individual case, the situation. For example, whether the head of the other company is good." (TP 14)

The remaining test persons agree (n = 5) and disagree (n = 7) with the statement in approximately equal parts. However, the questions of the test leaders made it clear that in this second group a total of three test persons (TP 03, TP 04, TP 09) had ticked off a "wrong" answer because of the negatively formulated item and the associated difficulty in expressing with the answer scale that they wanted to stay with the current company or felt comfortable with it, and actually wanted to answer "agree" instead of "disagree”:
  • “I'm walking to work in five minutes. I enjoy my job. And then for 2 or 3 euros more a month, I wouldn't drive an hour or so." (TP 03, disagree)
  • “Well, actually, I don't agree with that (that I would switch). It's going well at the moment and a better paid job, that would be a new challenge again and why not keep something that's going well?" (TP 04, disagree)
  • “I don't know how I would like to work somewhere else, that's the problem. Maybe I would improve financially, but maybe not in terms of the way I interact with people at work. You have to consider that." (TP 09, disagree)
Two other test persons (TP 07, TP 08) stated that they had difficulties in answering the statement due to its negative formulation:
  • “No, I would stay with my company. "Reject"...? So I have to agree here, right? I agree to disagree? Yes, that's right.“ (TP 07)
  • “I had to read that statement twice. I would have simply formulated the statement differently. I would always phrase it positively, instead of "reject" then "accept". Like "I would accept another, better paid job to make more money or to have advantages over my current company.“ (TP 08)
With the exception of test person 02 and test person 04, all test persons state on request that they thought of their company or organization when answering the statement.
a) I am willing to work harder than I normally have to in order to meet the very highest demands of my profession. [Ich bin bereit, härter zu arbeiten als ich normalerweise muss, um die allerhöchsten Anforderungen an meinen Beruf zu erfüllen.] Nein In each case five test persons agree (or strongly agree) with the statement and disagree. Three test persons (TP 03, TP 04, TP 15) answer "neither nor" and two test persons "don’t know" (TP 05, TP 08).

Three of the test persons who answer "neither nor" or "don’t know" (TP 04, TP 05, TP 08) justify their answer by stating that it is unclear to them what the question is aimed at or what is meant by the "all-highest occupational requirements:
  • “I don't understand the question. What does that mean?" (TP 04)
  • “I'm already thinking about what that means. What exactly does that mean, "to meet the highest standards in my profession"? A pilot has to fly people or cargo from A to B and if he doesn't meet his highest requirements, he flies from Berlin to New York and then only to Madrid?“ (TP 05)
  • “I keep thinking about it because I don't really understand it. I'm just trying to combine "working harder than I normally have to." I should be able to meet the requirements anyway. I can't say that I do. I don't really understand the context.“ (TP 08)
Test person 02 misunderstands the question and misinterprets the term "requirements" as an "order" or "work instruction": "If I don't do this, it's a refusal to work. So I have to do it." (TP 02).

Three test persons (TP 07, TP 11, TP 12) state that the formulation "highest" requirements is a little exaggerated, which is why they tend to tone down their answer and indicate that they agree with the statement to a lesser extent:
  • „The "very highest"? (laughs). The "very highest" thing has a negative connotation for me here. It makes me think about the fact that you do that and then you drop dead because you have met the "very highest" requirements. I am definitely willing to work harder, but nobody can really meet the "highest" requirements.” (TP 07, disagree)
  • „I find it a bit excessive to meet the "very highest" requirements of my profession. I wouldn't do that. "Neither" or "don't agree" wouldn't fit either. So I'm willing to work harder than I normally have to in order to meet the demands of my profession. But for the "very highest" requirements, I would not agree.” (TP 11, agree)
  • „To meet the "very highest" requirements? So sometime is good, you can't do more than work." (TP 12, disagree)
When asked whether the respondents had thought about their job, profession or company/organization when answering the statement, four respondents (TP 02, TP 07, TP11, TP 12) stated that they had thought about their company/organization. The remaining 11 test persons referred to their current activity or their learned occupation corresponding to their current activity when answering the item (as intended by the questionnaire developers). Only respondent 10 refers (erroneously) to their learned occupation when answering this item, which however does not correspond to their current activity.