ࡱ> q`bjbjqPqP 4::9JB "   48&8&8&8p& '4C2(^B)B)B)B)*+4C+LCNCNCNCNCNCNC$/EhGrCE e0}**e0e0rCB)B);C555e08B) B)LC5e0LC55V5;w  <B)( x-8&O2; (=$C0C;TH94 H <H  <_+H,5-M._+_+_+rCrCE5^_+_+_+Ce0e0e0e0444!8&4448&444 Anton Vukeli, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Department of Sociology, I. Lu ia 3, Zagreb, Croatia Nedeljko `tefani, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Department of Industrial Engineering, I. Lu ia 3, Zagreb, Croatia Single aspects of job satisfaction among engineers Summary: In a socio-professional group of engineers by means of a survey based research the relationship between the job satisfaction as a whole (global satisfaction) and the single aspects of satisfaction, i.e. their attitudes towards the company and work, has been analyzed. The results show that alongside with satisfaction with ones own status, with the immediate superiors and with the personal income, a crucial role in the global satisfaction is played by the degree of attachment to the company and by the impression that the most significant functions are allocated to the really most capable individuals. Key words: overall job satisfaction, facet aspects of satisfaction, engineers, satisfaction management, human resource management Satisfaction with one's work place or with work is generally considered as a set of attitudes and feelings of the employed which are based on their work experience (HYPERLINK \l "bookmark30"Locke, 1976; HYPERLINK \l "bookmark42"Price, 2001) and is composed of emotional states and cognitive assessments. There are two basic approaches to satisfaction: the global and the facet one. According to the first approach, job satisfaction is seen as a general attitude towards work and assumes that job satisfaction is more than the just the sum of satisfaction with single job aspects and that the employee can be dissatisfied with a particular aspect but be further on generally satisfied with their job. This attitude is conducive for comparing satisfaction in different socio-professional groups and professions. The second, facet approach includes the examination of relevant aspects of work that contribute towards the overall job satisfaction. In its additional form it presumes that the general job satisfaction is the sum of satisfaction with single job aspects, whereas in the multiplicative form it represents the sum of satisfaction with single job aspects weighted with their importance. In this way a more detailed insight into work dis\satisfaction can be achieved. Crucial divergences among authors dealing with this topic emerge when they try to define the relevant aspects of satisfaction (Petty and Associates 1984; HYPERLINK \l "bookmark47"Seashore and Taber, 1975;) since satisfaction with communication, with colleagues, with working conditions, income etc. is differently emphasized (more detailed in: HYPERLINK \l "bookmark24"Jackson and Corr, 2002HYPERLINK \l "bookmark31"). There is a series of attempts to group these satisfaction aspects. Relatively simple dichotomous divisions make a distinction between personal and organizational aspects. Personal aspects of satisfaction are based on interests, attitudes and needs of employees (income, promotion, recognition and similar), whereas organizational aspects are considered e.g. quality of communication with colleagues and superiors, autonomy and freedom in performing work tasks, the degree of work routinization, conditions guaranteed by collective agreements and similar. Organizational aspects are connected with the company structure and its immediate environment. In this area its level of formalization, centralization and specialization but also the degree of organizational hierarchy are particularly emphasized. Somewhat more complex taxonomies (Porter and Miles 1974; according to Jaman, 1985) single out personal characteristics, features of work such as independence, task complexity, feedback on achievement in the end, features of the work situation among which the most important are the immediate work environment (position and leadership) and organizational activities (rewarding practice and organizational culture). An additional complexity is conveyed to this topic by the fact that relevant dimensions of work satisfaction differ significantly depending on the kind of profession, work place and the related level of education. Work satisfaction is certainly not the same for unqualified workers, nurses or top managers. It is exactly from their socio-economic and professional status, different attitudes and requirements of a particular work place that different views and requirements concerning desired conditions, the characteristics of the organization and the objectives contributing towards job satisfaction are originated. In the research and operationalization of satisfaction a five scale Job Description Index is commonly used (Job Description lndex JDI, Smith and Associates, 1969), a Work Satisfaction Index (Stamps and Piedmont,1986) and among the more recent instruments is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) which tests satisfaction with twenty different facets. Purpose of the paper In the definition of the purpose of this paper the starting point was the fact that satisfaction and its single aspects depends on professional qualifications and education and on the kind of work. It is exactly because of this that it seemed totally plausible for the paper to be focused only on one narrowly specialized socio-professional group with the identical level of education. The conclusions in this way would be of a more narrow scope, but more authentic. In this sense the research was limited to engineers and the factors that are in correlation with their dis/satisfaction with their work place. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the relations between satisfaction of engineers and the factors mentioned in the introductory section, that is: I) identify which aspects of satisfaction contribute towards global satisfaction among engineers. In other words the aim of the paper is to examine the relation between global satisfaction and the single aspects of the facet attitude towards work satisfaction; II) analyze the relation between satisfaction and single relevant attitudes of engineers which refer to the organization and to the perception of one s own status within the organization; III) analyze satisfaction and single socio-demographic characteristics of the population of engineers. Sample and methodology The sample consisted of 153 engineers with VI degrees of education (electro-technical, mechanical and construction engineers) from app. fifty different organizations. The survey carried out alongside with the usual socio-demographic characteristics contains also those characteristics relevant for this topic such as the years of service, the number of subordinates, being part of the management and similar. In the other part of the survey through app. thirty items ( ESTICA) (a five-point Likert scale) the attitudes and opinions were questioned as well as the levels of satisfaction. The examinees defined their perception of their own status in the company and the connected behavioral intentions to leave the company in question, and at the same time the subjective attachment of employees to the organization was questioned.. Further analyses included the attitude of the person towards the organization and this particularly with respect to the following: the perception of the management, the perception of meritocracy and hierarchy of the organization and the perception of the degree of social and professional mobility in the organization in question. Finally, the attitude of the person towards the job and work in general was questioned. Results I Satisfaction was examined in the survey as the degree of satisfaction with one' s work place in general but also it was divided into a series of aspects, which in one part refer both to the perception of one's own position and to the perception of one's immediate working environment. The first part of the research attempts to answer the question on which features and to what extent they contribute towards the global perception of dis/satisfaction among employees. Whether the key factor is the personal income and/or the position within the organization, the perception of ones own professional vertical mobility or the perception of the immediate associates and one' s superior. Further on, the question is raised whether satisfaction aspects function as one factor or are basically independent. In ranking satisfaction aspects the different importance of single satisfaction aspects can be identified immediately at first sight. Aspect of satisfaction with xASSOCIATES3,62IMMEDIATE SUPERIORS 3,56ONES OWN PROMOTION3,36ONES OWN POSITION3,32PERSONAL INCOME3,19CORPORATE POLICY2,94Table No. 1: ranking of facet satisfaction aspects Engineers are most satisfied with their associates and the immediate superiors. In this sense, interpersonal relations are the less problematic. Engineers are somewhat less satisfied with their own position and promotion so that there is no statistical significant difference. If the utterly subjective (and thus often object of discussion among employees) satisfaction with the corporate policy is excluded, the satisfaction with the personal income is at the bottom of the questioned aspects. It can be inferred that engineers accept and are therefore more satisfied with those aspects of satisfaction which they perceive as matter of facts or as status quo of the existing structure, and are less satisfied with those aspects for which they believe they can be changed. The second question is how these aspects correlate with each other and whether only one or more dimensions of satisfaction are involved here. If the given items are used as one satisfaction scale, its internal consistency is extremely emphasized (cronbach (=0,81) and the correlation of satisfaction aspects with each other varies and is relatively high and significant (Pearsonov r = from 0,23 to 0,64). The key question is which aspects of satisfaction contribute the most towards the overall satisfaction. BStd. Error.BetatSig.(Constant)-,273,279-,978,330Satisfaction with personal income,181,067,1722,71,008Satisfaction with one's position ,378,093,3374,04,000Satisfaction with associates /peers,086,075,0761,13,257Satisfaction with superiors,230,065,2513,54,001Satisfaction with promotion,092,087,0861,05,292Satisfaction with corporate policy,115,066,1151,75,082 Table No. 2: global satisfaction and aspects of satisfaction The analysis shows (R2=0,61) that for global satisfaction the most pronounced predictor is satisfaction with ones own position ((=0,33) and only then with the immediate superior ((=0,25) and at the bottom satisfaction with ones personal income ((=0,17). Associates, promotion and corporate policy have no significant contribution according to the data from this research. In other words, the level of dis/satisfaction is predominantly affected by satisfaction with ones own position, ones income and the superior. II The second part of the paper is focused on the relationship between the global satisfaction and the single subjective views and attitudes of engineers, which mainly refer to the company they work for. Therefore, by means of the research the following scales have been operationalized: the attachment scale (cronbach (=0,76) consists of attitudes that denote cognitive and emotional attachment to and the intention of (not) leaving the company; the scale of the meritocracy of the company and the capability of the management ((=0,78) which denotes to which extent employees perceive the company as organization in which functions are allocated justly and based on capabilities in the sense that the most capable individuals perform the most important functions (but also the other way round); the scale of hierarchy ((=0,32) denotes to which degree the examinees perceive their company as an organization with accentuated differences and prominent hierarchy; the scale of dissatisfaction with ones own position ((=0,73) in the sense that the person is not in the right job or he/she is underpaid, and in the end the scale of attitudes towards work in general ((=0,20). The score in the overall scale is expressed as the average result at the items of a single scale. If the degree of the statistic connection between satisfaction with ones work place in general then there is primarily a strong connection with the scale of meritocracy and capacity of the organization (r=0,68). In other words, a higher degree of satisfaction is expressed by those employees who perceive the organization as being just in the sense of a just allocation of functions (the more capable perform higher positions and vice versa; the amount of income matches the effort invested etc.) and those who have defined the management as competent and having clear visions. Satisfaction is statistically connected also with the feeling of attachment to the company (r=0,63). More satisfied employees (in this case engineers) perceive that the organization they work for offers them perspectives, they state that they are attached to the company and do not intend to leave the company even if they were offered a better-paid job. In the end, satisfaction is connected with the perception of ones own position (r=-0,61) in the sense that they are adequately paid for their effort and that they are in positions that are in line with their capacities and competencies. On the other hand, attitudes towards work and the perception of its hierarchical nature are not significantly correlated to satisfaction. A sound common sense expectation that those who have a negative attitude towards work and work in general will be at the same time less satisfied (but also vice versa) did not prove to be correct. The table below shows to what extent previously tested attitudes and perceptions are predictors of satisfaction. BStd. ErrorBetatSig.(Constant)2,030,4304,717,000Attachment,346,059,3645,822,000Meritocracy ,308,058,3755,336,000Status dissatisfaction -,213,065-,232-3,274,001Hierarchical nature ,043,052,045,816,416Attitudes towards work -,018,047-,020-,377,706 Table No. 3: Global satisfaction and attitudes The attachment to the organization and the perception of its meritocracy statistically determine satisfaction to an equal extent ((=0,36 i (=0,37), whereas this to a smaller extent refers to dissatisfaction with ones personal status ((=(0,23). Again it is shown that the remaining predictors do not contribute towards satisfaction. III In the last section of the paper the intention was to single out according to socio-demographic characteristics those employees who express respectively satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In this sense we analyzed the gender, assets, age, years of service within the organization in which the person is currently employed, and in the end, the position within the organization. The HI2 test shows that there are no significant differences between genders (HI2=0,44, p=0,8) and the identical situation applies to income (HI2=6,26; p=0,18). Data did not confirm the theses that older employees and those who have been employed for a longer period of time would express more pronounced dissatisfaction. A significant but weak connection (r=(0,28, p=0,01) appears between satisfaction and the status within the organization. BStd. Error.BetatSig.(Constant)3,1741,0912,910,004Gender,035,324,009,108,914Age-,024,034-,163-,693,490Income-,020,026-,063-,748,456Years of service,028,035,210,793,429Duration of employment-,037,026-,218-1,405,163Status,265,085,2663,132,002 Table No. 3: Global satisfaction and single socio-demographic characteristics Identical relationships are offered by the regression analysis. The only significant predictor of satisfaction is the hierarchical position (status) within the company ((=0,26, p=0,00). Conclusion The intention of the paper was to single out those aspects of satisfaction, attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics, which are statistically connected with satisfaction in general (i.e. global satisfaction) in the population of engineers. Although they are most satisfied with their immediate associates, this certainly does not mean that those factors determine global satisfaction also statistically to the most significant extent. In fact, satisfaction with ones own status, with the immediate superiors and satisfaction with ones income play the major role. The same major role is played by the degree of attachment to the company and the impression that the most significant functions are performed by the actually most capable individuals and that the management is capable and professional enough. We point out that the connections shown are statistical, and can therefore not be understood as unilateral. By means of the research no significant socio-demographic subgroup of engineers could be singled out, except for the indication that high positioned engineers show a more pronounced satisfaction. The results are limited to engineers and can be used as indicators in the frame of HRM as a kind of satisfaction management. It is only by means of further research that we can confirm to what extent these conclusions are valid for other socio-professional groups. Bibliography Davies, D.R. & Shackletone (1975). Psychology and Work. London: Methuen. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B.B., (1959). The Motivation to Work. Wiley, New York. Jackson, C.J., Corr, P.J., (2002). Global job satisfaction and facet description: The moderating role of facet importance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 18 (1), pp. 1-8. Jaman, K. (1985). Valence models and job satisfaction. Bachelor's Thesis. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb, Department of Psychology. Locke, E., 1976. The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 1297-1349. Petty, M.M., McGee, G.VV. & Cavander, J.W. (1984). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Individual Job Satisfaction and Individual Performance. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 712-721. Porter, L.VV., Crampon, W.J. & Smith, F.J. (1976). Organizational Commitment and Managerial Turnover: A Longitudinal Study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, No. 15, pp. 87 - 98. Price, J.L. (1997). Handbook of Organizational Measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 18 (4/5/6), pp. 342 - 538. Seashore, S.E., Taber, T.D., (1975). Job satisfaction indicators and their correlates. American behavioral scientist 18 (3), pp. 333368 Smith, P., Kendall, L.M., C.L., H., (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Rand McNally, Skokie. Stamps, P.L., Piedmont, E.B., (1986). Nurses and Work Satisfaction. Health Administration Press, Michigan.  It is necessary to divide the aspects of job satisfaction from the theoretical explanations in which way dis/satisfaction is caused. In this sense we differentiate situational theories (e.g.: the two-factor theory by Herzberg; the theory of processing social information; the model of work characteristics), dispositional theories (originating from a series of direct and indirect studies, self-evaluation studies, studies of positive and negative effects and similar) and interaction theories (the interactive theory by Cornelli, the value perception theory by Lock and similar).  Key factors by means of which two jobs are differentiated are the content of the work, the level of independence, responsibility and the diversity of work tasks (Davies i Shackleton, 1975).  Subsequently, the examinees, who are owners or co-owners of the company, were excluded  9 B E O P Q R { | G Q Z h l % / C F   " # 2 ǿǷǷǿǷǷǷǷٷy hIhI h 6 hh6hIh6hPhb&5hIhb&6B*phhIhQ"6hIhI6hIhb&6hIhP6 hP6hPhP6 hP5hIhb&5hIhI5CJaJhIhb&5CJaJ hIhb&.  D E P 3 4 |} X!!!!(((+++ $$Ifa$gdb&$-DM a$gdb&$a$gdb&T  +,KS?JY`ĺĺĭĢ}s}ejhIhb&UhI@B*phhIhb&@B*phjhIhb&0JUhIhIB*phhIhb&B*phhIhI@B*phhI@B*phhIhb&@B*phjxhIhb&UjhIhb&U hIhb&jhIhb&U'*z"09HM +goǼ}}uh@B*phhIhb&5@B*ph hIh@h@hIh@5hIhb&@B*phhIhb&5hIB*phhIhIB*phhIhb&B*phjhIhb&UjhIhb&UjhhIhb&U hIhb&(MW]kbi|~&43;~1>z{|}rhIhb&@B*phhIhb&@B*phhIh@@B*ph h?'hb& h?'h?'h?' hIh hIh@ hIh"r hIhb&hIh"rB*phhIhB*phhIh@B*phhIhb&B*phhIhb&5B*ph,}0VWXY`w|+17P[dgh"IR  ۽۶ hIhl6 hIhVghj kh hIh hIh9rjhIhb&0JU hIhb&hIh9rB*phh B*phhIhfB*phhIhb&B*phhIhb&5B*phhIhf5B*ph4 !!/!1!I!U!]!d!e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#"$"+"-"K"T"p"}"~""""s#t##$$$%%1&>&I&K&P&\&&&&'F'R'''((Ǻ򨤯 h5h5 hIh;2hpC hIhaf hIhW"Fh5jhIhb&0JU hIh5hIhb&5hIhb&5B*ph hIh9rhj khl6 hIhb& hIhl6;((((0(8(m(o((((())))@*L*c*d*w********++++++++,,1,2,,,,,,-----:-I-------ѻ hIhBhBhS hIhShSCJaJhIh)CJaJhIhb&CJaJhb& hwhw hIhwhw hIh;2 hIhW"FhIhb&5 hIhb& hIh59+++++w|kdX$$IfTl008 t0644 laT $$Ifa$gdb&++,,ww $$Ifa$gdb&|kd$$IfTl008 t0644 laT,,(,-,ww $$Ifa$gdb&|kdz$$IfTl008 t0644 laT-,.,A,F,ww $$Ifa$gdb&|kd $$IfTl008 t0644 laTF,G,W,\,ww $$Ifa$gdb&|kd$$IfTl008 t0644 laT\,],n,s,ww $$Ifa$gdb&|kd-$$IfTl008 t0644 laTs,t,,,/1111111{ssssbbbbb$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&$a$gdb&$a$gdb&|kd$$IfTl008 t0644 laT --f.l.../ ///J0P00000000001111111111111 2(272H2d222222303K3˼hB*CJaJphhIh`4B*CJaJphh0B*CJaJphhIh0B*CJaJphhIhb&B*CJaJph hIhhb& jahIhb&hf^ hIhf^ hIhb&jhIhb&0JU.11$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&11kdO$$If]4ֈ@ dz@                    8     <4 ]a]f4p<1111111$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&11kd$$If]4ֈ@ dz@        8   <4 ]a]f4p<12222"2'2$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&'2(2kd $$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<(2J2O2T2Y2^2c2$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&c2d2kdU $$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<d2222222$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&22kd $$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<2222222$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&22kd$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<222233 3$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb& 33kd$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<31363;3@3E3J3$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&J3K3kde$$If]4ֈ@ dz@        8   <4 ]a]f4p<K33355?@@@@@@@@$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&$a$gdb& $7$8$H$a$gdb& K33333333 4 4?4@44444555 5!5-5`5a5q5v55555"6+6,66666666677Q7U7u7|777777777777^8q888ֵֽhIhf^5 hIhQ" jahIhb&hIhb&5hIhQ"5 hNThb& jbhIhb&hf^ hIhf^hIhb&H* hIhb&hIhb&B*CJaJph=8888888888899U9Y9z9{9999999:: :q:v:::::: ;(;H;T;V;`;a;;;==2=6=Y=b=v====%>&>_>i>p>q>>>? ?w?z?ȺȳȺh hIh hIhQ" hwhQ" hwh hwhw hwhb& hf^5 hIhf^ jahIhb&hf^hb&5hIhb&5hf^ hIhb&?z?'@,@Y@^@n@o@~@@@@@@@@@@@AAA A)A*ADAEAFAKAQARAlAmAAAAAAAAAAAʾʾʣʅʅʅvjhB*CJaJphhIhB*CJaJphhIh)B*CJaJphhIhQ"B*CJaJphhIh B*CJaJphhNTB*CJaJphh>B*CJaJphhIhb&B*CJaJph)hIhb&B*CJOJQJ^JaJph hIhh hIhb&)@@kd7$$If]4ֈ@ dz@                    8     <4 ]a]f4p<@A AAAAA$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&AAkd$$If]4ֈ@ dz@        8   <4 ]a]f4p<A*A/A4A9A?ADA$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&DAEAkdy$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<EARAWA\AaAgAlA$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&lAmAkd=$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<mAAAAAAA$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&AAkd$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<AAAAAAA$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&AAkd$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<AAABBBB7B8BB*CJaJphhIh>B*CJaJphhIhb&B*CJaJph j-hIhb&B*phhIhb&B*H*phhIhjB*phhjB*phhIhb&B*ph,FFkd[ $$If]4ֈ@ dz@                    8     <4 ]a]f4p<FFFFFFG$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb& $7$8$H$Ifgdb&GGkd!$$If]4ֈ@ dz@        8   <4 ]a]f4p<G GGGGG"G$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&"G#Gkd#$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<#G'G-G2G8G>GCG$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&CGDGkda%$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<DGKGQGVG\GbGgG$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&gGhGkd%'$$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<hGyG~GGGGG$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdb&GGkd($$If]4ֈ@ dz@   8  <4 ]a]f4p<GGGGGGGGGG%H'H:HMKMUMMMMMNNqNrNNNNNNNNyjh6*hb&5@B*ph h6*hb&h6*hb&6@B*]phh6*hb&@B*phh6*hb&5@B*phhIhb&5B*ph hIhb&hOhb&B*phhIh_B*phhIhjB*phhIhQ"B*phhjB*phhIhb&B*ph)NOOOOO2O3OKONOOOSOTOOOOOOP%P'P8P:PGPHPOPQPePgPPPPPQQ QǼǼttǼeh6*hb&5@B*phh6*hb&@B*phh6*h>G@B*phh6*hT^B*phh5|.B*phh6*h>GB*phhB*phh6*B*phh6*hb&B*phh6*hb&5B*ph h6*hb&h6*hb&@B*phh6*@B*phh6*hb&@B*ph# Q*QKQ\QQQQQQQQQQQQNR}RRRRRRRRRRR S S&S)S~ses]sseRes]ssh6B*]phhB*phh6*hb&6B*]phh6*hb&B*phhz^5B*phh6*hb&5B*ph h6*hb&h@B*phh6*hb&@B*phhY96@B*]phh6*hb&6@B*]phh6*hb&@B*phhY9@B*phh6*hb&@B*phhz^5@B*phQR SSTTVWK$a$gdb& -DM gdb&-DM ^gdb&$-DM ]^a$gdb&$-DM ^a$gdb&)S*S.S/S}S~SSSSSSSSSThhP hhPjhhP0JUhPh@CJaJhPCJaJh: hPCJaJ!jh: hP0JCJUaJ -DM gdb&21h:pb&. A!"#$% xDyK  bookmark30xDyK  bookmark42xDyK  bookmark47xDyK  bookmark24xDyK  bookmark31$$If!vh5058#v0#v8:V l t065058T$$If!vh5058#v0#v8:V l t065058T$$If!vh5058#v0#v8:V l t065058T$$If!vh5058#v0#v8:V l t065058T$$If!vh5058#v0#v8:V l t065058T$$If!vh5058#v0#v8:V l t065058T$$If!vh5058#v0#v8:V l t065058Tn$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / /  /  / / 44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  /  44 ]a]f4p<n$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / /  /  / / 44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  /  44 ]a]f4p<n$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / /  /  / / 44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  44 ]a]f4p<$$If]!vh5@ 555558#v@ #v#v#v#v#v8:V ]4 <,5@ 555558/  /  /  / / / /  /  44 ]a]f4p<@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tHDA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List jj N Table Grid7:V0>@> D Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ D Footnote ReferenceH* W~h#OI _ADOPPODEP34|}Xr!s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""""""S"T"Z%W'X'Y'['g'l'n's't''''''''''''''''''( (((3(8(=(B(G(L(M(i(n(s(x(}(((((((((((((((((5)6)<+=+466666666666666666666666677 77770767;7A7H7M7N7c7h7m7r7w7|7}77777777771929:l<m<n<p<|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<== ===$=)=.=3=8===>=U=[=`=f=m=r=s=z==========>>>CDD*DsDDE,FF}G=HH@II9JLCMMNNzO{O}O~OOOOOOOOOO0000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@0@000A@0I00@0I00@0I00@0I00I00<0|X   } (-K38z?ADGIN Q)SK,/01234<NOP\`lrstvy++,-,F,\,s,11111'2(2c2d22222 33J3K3@@AADAEAlAmAAAAABBFFGG"G#GCGDGgGhGGGGGGGQ-56789:;=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMQRSTUVWXYZ[]^_abcdefghijkmnopquz.+  OXXXXX/X$"$UemS**Ѕpx @+ @0(  B S  ?O _Hlt76708787 bookmark25 bookmark31 bookmark48 bookmark52 bookmark54 \EF3IIJO@ ^EF9IIJO$̙,䟍QptzCP4pD ѝD\F7DʝoowbDjDjDDDDDEEEE FCGCGNGKIII.J.JO     u~~hDqDqDDDDDEEFFFJGXGXGRIII6J6JO  = *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStateB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace 4A    ek  OT&8|Q&Y&&&**L,[,s,{,l8m89DDDsD{DDDDDDDEEFF9JJJKKELML.M/M0M:MaNnN{O{O}O}O~O~OOOOOOOOO  ]df l ]&`&N)Q)220434h8k8;;<<>>MDaDsDDDDDD0E?EEEEEE+FFFG GGGQHxHHHH IIIIIIIIJ9JM'MMM{O{O}O}O~O~OOOOOOOOO333333333333333333333333333333333s!"Y'(66718n<=D]EEE,FFCGHHIIIJ8J9JCM{O{O}O}O~O~OOOOOOOOO9J{O{O}O}O~O~OOOOOOOOOo1*m%**$ $ ^$ `OJPJQJ^Jo(-  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHdd^d`OJQJ^Jo(hHo44^4`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.m%1*GI$NONTlT~Vf^z^`afVghj kwy6zT^YBf{9r7_?'Q:Pr@"rPjwS>Nbb?- `4@ 0Y9s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"""""""X'Y'['g'l'n's't''''''''''''''''''( (((3(8(=(B(G(L(M(i(n(s(x(}(((((((((((((((((66666666666666666666666677 77770767;7A7H7M7N7c7h7m7r7w7|7}77777777m<n<p<|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<== ===$=)=.=3=8===>=U=[=`=f=m=r=s=z=======9JzO{O}OOOOO@<+<+ (<+<+@MO``@`$`L@`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1udž:&{dž$ &?% &?%!4dJJ@2QHX ?"2!osnovna tema rada je zadovoljstvotoni411-01   Oh+'0 $0 P \ h t$osnovna tema rada je zadovoljstvotoni Normal.dot411-016Microsoft Office Word@u@Z-@Vh$@ &?՜.+,D՜.+,L hp|  fsb%J "osnovna tema rada je zadovoljstvo Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA!? R bookmark31 : R bookmark24&9R bookmark47&<R bookmark42!>R bookmark30  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~Root Entry F3-Data |C.1Table/HWordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q