Satisfaction of Employees of Social Service Institutions with the Supervision of the Organization and Supervision in the Organization

The quality of social services provided depends on several factors, including how they are measured, the time frame, and employee satisfaction with their work and their perception of it as a mission. Supervision, as one of several factors, can contribute to employee satisfaction through focused care for them and as part of the organization’s care for its employees. In professional sources, we see relatively little space devoted to the connections between employee satisfaction and satisfaction with supervision, and therefore we consider the attention paid to the interdependencies of individual factors to be justified. The starting points for the issue under investigation are based on the theoretical views of various authors focusing on organizations and the organization of processes within an organization, which, according to Maya, emphasize interpersonal relationships with the essence of functionality in social and psychological contexts. Vaska [1] considers the social system in organizations to be correlated with systemic trends focused on a vision-a goal ensuring the existence of organizations, which employees transfer to the services they provide by identifying with the vision and goals, including through supervision.

The main objective is to identify selected factors of organizational supervision, describe factors of employee satisfaction with supervision in the organization, focusing on the employee as a mediator of the quality of social services. The objects of the study, employees of public and non-public social service providers, work procedures for data collection and processing, and the methods used to evaluate and interpret the results are described. We compare the statistical methods used and the results of testing selected factors of employee satisfaction in the research with the results of Šuteková [2], who considers the most important factors of employee motivation to be salary, opportunity for career advancement, and the attitude of superiors. According to Prigla, the factors of motivation are security for the fulfilment of the employee’s own needs, opportunities for professional growth, and an organizational culture associated with prestige. Maximov and Lechner compared the results of research conducted among Slovak and Spanish social workers with research conducted by García et al. [3], whose respondents were particularly satisfied with the nature of the work, values, and relationships with colleagues. We tested the hypotheses using mathematical statistics methods, namely Pearson’s correlation, and the impact of satisfaction with the provision of services in facilities depending on employee satisfaction with supervision was verified using Levene’s test for equality of variances and the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test via the JAMOVI statistical program.

The defined theoretical basis of employee satisfaction with supervision correlates with research findings, where employees of non-public social service providers perceive the organization’s care for employees through supervision to a greater extent than employees of public providers. The theoretical and methodological basis for the issue of employee satisfaction in social service provision is the assumption that every organisation provides its employees with working conditions in accordance with applicable legislation [L1-L10], just as it strives to provide quality social services to support the daily lives of social service recipients. In every organization, people, the employees of the organization, are the most important resource. We divide the employees of public and non-public providers into three types: “micro” organizations providing social services with up to 10 employees, “small” organizations providing services with up to 49 employees, and “large” organizations providing services with up to 250 employees. Based on the size of enterprises according to the classification recommended by the European Commission No. 2003/361/EC, a micro enterprise has 1-9 employees, a small enterprise has 10-49 employees, and a medium-sized enterprise has 50-249 employees. Each organization has its own specific, publicly stated goal, a hierarchical structure, established authority, and precisely defined relationships with both the external and internal environments in which it operates. It has a declared purpose, each fulfils certain tasks and functions, each brings certain benefits: from the point of view of society, mission, therefore the second direction, which is oriented with an emphasis on interpersonal relationships, is justified in social services. Every interaction takes place within relationships. According to Kotler & Armstrong [4], we understand public and non-public provider organizations as: “a social phenomenon or entity based on the planned coordination of group activities aimed at achieving a common goal,” It can also be perceived as an entity that leads its employees to organize deliberate activities by determining the structure of management activities and, through supervision, allowing processes to be viewed from an impartial “outside” perspective.

The organization is influenced by the environment in which it operates, the size of the city or municipality, the concentration of people, and employment in cities and municipalities. The local patriotism of employees who praise “their” city or municipality where they live and work and find it difficult to accept employees with different views from other cities or municipalities carries over the relationships of everyday life in the municipality or city into the organization. We are thinking here, for example, of caring for a former neighbour or uncle. The selection of employees and their ability to adapt to the workplace falls into several areas. It is related to the culture of the organization, mentoring, and the induction of new employees. An open approach to standards, teamwork, and the ability to accept new employees, the selection of employees with similar personality traits suitable for a specific job position, clearly defined competencies, and the need for regular training or the transfer of organizational culture values to new employees. Schavel and Kadus in present the dependence of the supervision functions used for employees in social services on the formulated order and concept of the overall functioning of the social entity and the degree of involvement of the organization’s management and its support for the use of supervision. Similarly, supervision in an organization depends on the ability of the organization and its employees to reflect the latest practical and scientific knowledge in the services they provide. Employee self-reflection is related to the ability to look at their actions and adapt their methods to the needs of social service recipients.

The research was conducted using a quantitative design, with a self-designed questionnaire used for data collection. Research ethics preserve anonymity, in accordance with Act No. 18/2018 Coll. on the protection of personal data and on amendments to certain acts, organizations are listed by number in order and marked with the abbreviation of the district in which they are located. The research sample consisted of a total of 552 respondents who were employees of social service facilities, divided according to the size of the organization into groups of public and non-public social service providers. We classify the types of facilities according to the services provided: Facilities for seniors, Specialized facilities, social service homes.

Main research question: To what extent is employee satisfaction with supervision in the facility related to the organization’s care for its employees?

i. Research question 1: What is the relationship between employee satisfaction with supervision and satisfaction with the organization’s approach to employees (importance of people, individual approach to employees, meeting standards)?
ii. Hypothesis 1: There is a statistically significant correlation between employee satisfaction with supervision and satisfaction with the employer’s approach.
iii. Research question 2: What is the relationship between communication in supervision and relationships between employees in the facility? (system and processes)
iv. Hypothesis 2: There is a statistically significant correlation between employee satisfaction with communication in supervision and relationships in the facility.
v. Research question 3: What is the relationship between employee satisfaction and care for them through supervision? (opportunity to learn and develop)
vi. Hypothesis 3: There is a statistically significant correlation between employee satisfaction and care for them through supervision.

Table 1: Designation of organizations. Source: Author of the work.

Table 1 shows the designation of organizations, the order of brands, and an explanation of symbols. Organizations are listed in alphabetical order by district brand and provider as follows Or. 1 BJ - VP, Or. 2 GL-NP, Or. 3 KE-VP, Or. 4 KE-NP, Or. 5 KE-NP, Or. 6 KENP, Or. 7 KE-NP, OR. 8 PO-NP, Or. 9 PO-NP, Or. 10 PD-VP, Or. 11 RS-VP, Or. 12 RS-VP, Or. 13 RS-VP, Or. 14 RV-VP, Or. 15 RV-VP, Or. 16 SNV-NP, Or. 17 SV-NP, Or. 18 -NP, Or. 19 ZV-NP. Table 2 there is more nonpublic social service providers involved in the research, as three micro-organizations, seven small organizations, and one large organization also participated in the research. In total, non-public social service providers make up a sample of 11 organizations, with a balanced number of employees. Table 3 clearly shows the number of employees from individual organizations who participated in the survey and submitted a questionnaire that was properly completed and included in the survey. A total of 552 employees providing social services, of which 54.89% are employees of public providers and 45.11% are employees of non-public providers. Participation in the research was voluntary for employees, but they were asked to participate so that the results would benefit the organization as well as the research itself. We managed to achieve employee participation in the research ranging from 43.3% to 100% of employees in the organizations. The research includes 303 questionnaires from public providers and 249 questionnaires from non-public providers.

Table 2: Distribution of organizations by size. Source: Author of the work.

Table 3: Number of employees participating in the survey from individual organizations. Source: Author of the work.

Based on the variables examined and the results of employee satisfaction, we state at the outset that the measurement of subjective employee satisfaction may not necessarily correlate with the perception of the organization, but the consent of the organizations that provided space for the research is also beneficial for human resource management. In the individual tables and graphs, the data obtained are processed and evaluated for individual public providers (in the tables: VP) and non-public providers (in the tables: NP).

Results of measuring employee satisfaction at public and non-public social service providers

Hypothesis 1

a. H1: There is a statistically significant correlation between employee satisfaction with supervision and satisfaction with the employer’s approach between VP and NP.
b. H0: In social service facilities of non-public providers, there is no statistically significant difference in the overall level of employee satisfaction compared to public social service providers.

To measure the significance of the difference in the level of satisfaction of employees of public and non-public providers, we use a two-sample t-test with equal variances (Table 4).

Table 4: Comparison of the level of satisfaction of employees of public and non-public providers. Group statistics. Source: Author of the work.

The average VP score (marked as “1”) (n=303-number of VPs) was 5.75, SD=1.06, and for NP (n=249) the average was 5.83 points, and the standard deviation was 1.07. When comparing these numbers, we see that the difference is small. However, we were interested in whether the difference was systematic and not just caused by chance (Table 5).

Table 5: Results of the two-sample Levene’s test for equality of variances. Source: Author of the work.

The Levene test measures the normality of data distribution. If the Sigma value (p value) is less than 0.05, then we must use a different type of test (the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test). In our case, the value is higher (p=0.676), so we can use the results we obtained in the columns, and thus the test could be used. In the following tables, we therefore use a significance level of 0.001 to verify the validity of the data more closely and define the differences in values more precisely. We set hypothesis H1 so that there would be a difference between the groups, i.e., we assume equal variances (Equal variances assumed) in the overall satisfaction of public and non-public providers. This is shown in the first row. We were interested in the significance level p for the two-tailed hypothesis-here marked as Sig. (2-tailed). In our case, it was p=0.359. Interpretation of the result public providers (M=5.75, SD=1.06) do not differ statistically significantly from NP (M=5.83 and SD=1.07) in the overall satisfaction score achieved (t=-0.92, p=0.359).

In Hypothesis No. 1, we assumed that employees of non-public providers would report a higher level of overall satisfaction in their subjective assessment than employees working in public social service providers. We therefore accept HO; the level of satisfaction is not statistically significant and there is no difference between the satisfaction of employees of public and non-public social service providers. In the graph, the blue and orange boxes represent the Interquartile Range (IQR), the difference between Q3 and Q1. The lines in the box indicate the median, the middle value of the data. The whiskers extend from Q1 downwards and from Q3 upwards (Graph 1).

Graph 1: Comparison of overall satisfaction. Source: Author of the work.

Outliers are points that lie outside the range defined by the whiskers. In a box plot, the second quartile (Q2) is exactly the same value as the median, so Q2 is shown as a line in the middle of the box. The lower boundary of the box represents the value below which 25% of the data lies (Q1), and the third quartile represents the value below which 75% of the data lies. The median is therefore Q2, because the quartiles divide the data into four equal parts and the median is exactly in the middle, i.e. the 50th percentile, which corresponds to the second quartile.

Results of measuring the impact of communication on supervision and relationships in the facility

For Hypothesis No. 2: we compare the results of a group of 4 questions. We will use correlation analysis. The result of the correlation analysis is the coefficient r, which takes values in the range from -1 to +1. Minus 1 means absolute indirect linear dependence, 0 means no dependence, and 1 means absolute direct linear dependence. The closer the correlation coefficient is to 0, the weaker or non-existent the relationship between the variables under investigation is. Conversely, the closer it is to 1 or -1, the stronger the relationship between the variables is. Correlation coefficient values between 0.8 and 1 (-0.8 and -1) are considered particularly strong, meaning that there is a very strong mutual dependence between the variables. Values between 0.4 and 0.8 (-0.4 and -0.8) are moderately strong, and values between 0 and 0.4 (-0.4 and 0) are considered weak.

Hypothesis 2: There is a statistically significant dependence between employee satisfaction with communication during supervision and relationships in the facility (Table 6 & 7). As we can see in the table, the individual scales of the questionnaire correlate only weakly r=0.347, p<0.001, which is just below 0.4, so it is close to a moderately strong influence of employee satisfaction with communication on supervision and relationships in the facility.

Table 6: Dependence between communication during supervision and relationships in the facility VP. Source: Author of the work.

Table 7: Dependence between communication in supervision and relationships in the facility non-public provider. Source: Author of the work.

Presentation of results: The results shown in the table can be presented as follows: employee communication in supervision correlates r=0.347 with the scale and satisfaction with relationships at a significance level of p<0.001. The degree of influence of employees of public social service providers is higher on the degree of satisfaction with relationships than that of employees of nonpublic providers. In other words, there is a greater dependence of communication on supervision and employee satisfaction with relationships in public providers than in non-public providers. We therefore confirm hypothesis no. 2: there is a statistically significant dependence between employee satisfaction with communication in supervision and relationships in the facility, with more employees of public social service providers than employees of non-public social service providers.

Results of measuring employee satisfaction with the care provided by the organization through supervision

Hypothesis 3: What is the relationship between employee satisfaction and the care provided to them through supervision? (opportunity to learn and develop). We compare the results of questions 13, 14, 15, and 16 with questions 17, 18, 19, and 20.

(Table 8) In the table, the individual scales of the questionnaire correlate only moderately strongly r=0.480, p<0.001. When analyzing individual responses, we learn that employees of public social service providers are more likely to believe that supervision can influence workplace relationships, than employees themselves, and their expectations are primarily in the communication of superiors towards employees, rather than in the communication of supervision itself or communication between employees.

Table 8: Dependence between the organization’s care through supervision. Source: Author of the work.

(Table 9) The individual scales of the questionnaire correlate only moderately strongly r=0.628, p<0.001. Presentation of results: The scale of employee satisfaction with the care provided by the organization correlates r=0.628 with supervision at a significance level of p<0.001. If we compare the correlation coefficients r=0.628 and r=0.480, we can see that the value 0.628 is higher than 0.480. This means that the correlation with a value of 0.628 for employees of non-public social service providers shows a stronger linear dependence than for employees of public social service providers. Employees of non-public social service providers perceive the effectiveness of supervision more intensely at both the horizontal and vertical levels in terms of relationships. We accept hypothesis No. 3; there is a statistically significant dependence between employee satisfaction and care for them through supervision.

Table 9: Dependence between the care of the organization through supervision. Source: Author of the work.

We see the contribution of the research in a comprehensive view of the provision of social services through the expressed satisfaction/dissatisfaction of employees with supervision and perceived satisfaction with the organization’s care for employees. Several databases, such as PubMed, PsycINFO, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and the Journal of Behavioural Science, contain a number of sources and studies on employee satisfaction in social services that confirm the research results.

a. In Hypothesis No. 1: we assume that employees of nonpublic providers will report a higher level of overall satisfaction in their subjective assessment than employees working in public social service providers. We accepted the null hypothesis. The level of satisfaction is not statistically significant and there is no difference between the satisfaction of employees of public and non-public social service providers. We also link the subjective satisfaction of employees with supervision to the concept of well-being, which has been studied in psychology by several authors: Pomaki et al. [5-8] and others, who represent mixed models of subjective satisfaction and well-being and include factors that influence it: external-situational and internal-based on the processes and personality of the individual. People have the ability to present the same situation in both positive and negative terms and to reflect on it in supervision, regardless of whether they are employees of public or non-public social service providers.

We consider the observance of human rights as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and other documents to be among the basic factors of subjective satisfaction in social services. Employees of service providers are obliged to maintain confidentiality about the facts they learn about recipients in connection with their work, and the dilemmas they address in supervision provide an opportunity to look at new directions and procedural solutions and to take preventive action.

The creation of conditions for compliance with the obligations of social service providers under Section 10 of the Social Services Act, means of physical and non-physical restraint, can also be considered a factor of satisfaction; non-compliance can lead to an administrative offense. The aforementioned factors of satisfaction resulting from the rules set out in the standards of each organization should be understandable, published in a visible place, and their compliance is a prerequisite for decent behaviour and the prevention of conflicts and crisis situations, which are a separate category as part of regulations and internal standards.

According to several studies by authors of the anthology Scientific Answers to Current Questions of Supervision in Social Work, job satisfaction is partly related to personal satisfaction. The study, published at https://vedanadosah.cvtisr.sk/, which the authors say began in 1938 and has followed three generations and over 1,300 research participants, who are the descendants of the original 724 research participants, Harvard students, boys who did not come from wealthy families. Over the course of 85 years, they monitored the group every two years through information about their lives, problems, joys, and health, and also monitored the results from DNA samples taken. Research focused on “happiness” and living a good life clearly confirms with its results that in order to feel happy and satisfied with life, a person needs to take care of their health first and foremost, and the second most important area confirmed is taking care of their relationships. Having good relationships and maintaining them. According to the American authors of the research, it can be assumed that the basis of satisfaction depends on the quality of relationships. Therefore, job satisfaction depends on the quality of relationships in organizations and teams. A large questionnaire study among social workers (N≈831) examining factors of employee retention: work quality, psychosocial conditions, organizational support, found that work quality (meaningfulness, autonomy, work processes) was strongly associated with satisfaction and intention to remain in employment; organizational support also contributes significantly to retention [9].

b. Hypothesis No. 2: measured the relationship between communication in supervision and relationships between employees in the facility (system and processes). The result of the measurement of public service employees was recorded in a moderately strong correlation r=0.454, p<0.001. The level of satisfaction with communication in supervision correlates r=0.454 with the level of employee relationships at a significance level of p<0.001. In non-public providers’ facilities, the results of the employee evaluation showed a weak correlation r=0.347, p<0.001, which is just below 0.4, so it is close to a medium-strong influence. However, employees of public providers reported results based on which a higher correlation was calculated, with satisfaction correlating at a medium-strong level of significance r=0.454, p<0.001, with a relationship scale at a significance level of p<0.001. External stimuli are more important for employees of public providers than for employees of non-public providers.

The interaction between internal motivation and external stimuli can be inferred from the results that external stimuli can support internal motivation, for example when support in supervision confirms the perception of the value of the activity. On the other hand, if employees rely too much on external incentives, it can reduce their internal ability to reflect in supervision, which is known as the “substitution effect.” In our research, there were six non-public providers who state in their visions and values: “doing good” through God, as five of them are church organizations and one is the Red Cross, whose goal is to protect lives, health, dignity, and reduce human suffering. The values of employees to do good in the sense of love for God and those in need come from internal sources of motivation and incentives for action.

In her study, “Analysis of Employee Motivational Preferences in a Selected Company,” Šuteková [2] concludes that there is no comprehensive theory of work motivation, nor is there a universal guide that would give managers a methodology for creating a motivating work environment. The research on a sample of 202 respondents (61% men and 39% women) can be compared with our research in the area of factors that are important to respondents. The combination of work factors was ranked as follows: salary, supervisor, job stability, career advancement, working hours, with the aim of “analyzing the motivational structure and motivational preferences of employees in a selected company.”

An international comparative study examining employee experiences (stress, anxiety) and internal/external organizational support in elderly care (care homes/home care) in several European countries found differences in the perception of support between countries-where there was stronger internal support (supervision, leadership, access to psychological support), there was higher job satisfaction and lower stress symptoms. It also showed that systemic factors (workload, funding) play a key role (Lethin et al., 2021).

A study from Portugal examining the impact of social support (supervisors, colleagues) on job satisfaction, with an analysis of the mediator role ambiguity, found that social support from superiors and colleagues was positively correlated with satisfaction; the role of ambiguity (unclear tasks) reduced this positive link. This suggests that leadership alone is not enough-clear job responsibilities are also necessary (Orgambídez et al.,). Comparative studies between different professions in health care and social services show that team processes (team communication, support, leadership) explain a significant part of the variability in job satisfaction between professions [10].

c. In Hypothesis No. 3: we examined the relationship between employee satisfaction and care for them through supervision. Employees of both providers show a moderately strong correlation between supervision and the organization’s care for them, with employees of public providers scoring r=0.480, p<0.001, and employees of non-public providers showing an even higher correlation at r=0.628, p<0.001. Danišová’s research [11] also shows relationships and cooperation as the second highest correlation at 4.40 after job evaluation as such (at 4.90) on a scale of 1-6, where 6 is the highest level of satisfaction. On the other hand, however, the results from supervision show that the professionalism of communication decreases with increased workload, which makes communication routine. Employees report, and the research results confirm, the dependence of good teamwork, communication, and management style on interpersonal relationships, which is ultimately also a motivational factor.

In Maximova & Lichner’s [12] research, the overall level of satisfaction with communication is reported at r=0.2; p=0.049, which is a weak correlation, especially with dependence on the length of service in the organization. They report a strong correlation between satisfaction with communication and relationships in the workplace. In our research, the individual scales of the questionnaire correlate moderately strongly at r=0.628, p<0.001. The scale of employee satisfaction with communication correlates at r=0.628 with relationships in the facility at a significance level of p<0.001. The correlation of 0.628 for employees of non-public social service providers shows a stronger linear dependence than for employees of public social service providers. Employees of non-public social service providers perceive the effectiveness of communication at both the horizontal and vertical levels more intensely in relation to relationships, which is also confirmed by the aforementioned research. the factor of satisfaction with communication correlates statistically significantly with factors of satisfaction in relation to superiors and relationships in the workplace, especially among social workers r=0.589, p<0.001 and workers in direct contact with PSS in values r=0.544, p<0.001, with other employees in last place r=0.324, p<0.001. The factor of satisfaction with communication also correlates statistically significantly with the factors of satisfaction in relation to superiors and workplace relationships, with values of r=0.57, p<0.001.

It follows from the above that employees of both public and non-public providers perceive supervision in terms of its functions and use it individually according to their relationship to it and their relationship to the supervisor. The correlation between satisfaction with supervision and loyalty to the organization in our research can also be linked to the research by Lešková & Mičková [13], who examined the implementation of supervision in a selected social services facility and its significance in the work of social workers. They reported a moderate to high level of existential well-being in supervision, which is a safe place for them to resolve processes within the team. Compared to our results, this may mean that employees of non-public (church) providers consider a high level of satisfaction with supervision as a form of care for them.

The educational function of supervision increases the level of knowledge and skills of each employee, which should be transferred into competencies. According to Act No. 568/2009 Coll. on lifelong learning, further education of employees follows on from the level of education and determines the conditions for educational institutions. In services, it is represented by the research of Mátel et al. [14], who confirmed in their research the need for, but also the motivation of employees for education and supervision. The process of education and personal growth has its rules defined in an internal directive: “Evaluation of continuing education of social workers performing independent practice,” issued by the Chamber of Social Workers in 2016. The evaluation has a credit system, with credits awarded in four evaluation categories: 1. educational activities; 2. teaching activities; 3. scientific and research activities; 4. other professional activities. According to Schavel et al. [15,16], supervision in social work has been based on the outset on the primary need to increase the professionalism of social workers in entities providing social services and social and legal protection.

Kuzyšin [17] states in his study that supervision should be a natural part of the working life of a social worker in the field of social work. “It can generally increase the social skills of the supervisee, as it is developmental, educational, and empowering in nature,” and its use should be for the reflection of one’s own responsibility, because if the work is too controlled, reflection may not occur. Halušková [18] also agrees with this position in her scientific study, stating that supervision should be: “an essential part of improving the performance of professionals in a given field.” She states, as does Scherpner [19], that a detailed supervision program aims to increase professional competencies, improve relationships between colleagues, and also protect recipients from: “incompetent interventions by professional staff and seek ways to work with recipients in their best interests.”

O’Donoghue (2021) In: Kuzyšin conducted an analysis of research on supervision in social work and other helping professions and drew 115 contributions on supervision, which also included Slovak authors Kuzyšin et al. [20] were also represented, with the finding that supervision was described as a safe space for the process of accompanying the helping professional and a space for learning and group leadership by professionals.

d. Differences between countries/types of providers: Some studies compare countries (Lethin et al.), others compare sectors (public vs. private)-results vary depending on remuneration systems, workload, and legislation. Comparisons are from peer-reviewed journals (BMC, PubMed Central, Wiley, Routledge, 2025).

As general recommendations for institutions, we consider the use of innovative models of care for employees in social services.

i. Supporting Social Workers in 2021-An intervention program to improve job satisfaction and overall well-being of workers in the social sector.

Justification- As Matulayová’s research (2013) shows, and as can be seen in the current situation, the emergence of competition between social service facilities due to new legislation, standards, and inspections in social matters in social service facilities is perceived by social service employees, although they perceive its intensity as weak. The results of our research showed that two so-called “hotel” type facilities reported the highest levels of satisfaction with the organization’s care for employees through supervision.

ii. Focus on process management in terms of community services. From employee care to ensuring conditions for the application of community principles.

We base this on General Comment No. 5 of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on independent living and inclusion in society and in accordance with the definition of community services by the European Network for Independent Living. The National Priorities for the Development of Social Services for 2021-2030 on page 14 define community social services as: “interconnected and coordinated social services that are provided in a natural environment directly in the community, respond to the needs of community members and do not show signs of institutional care, enable people to live a full social life and provide them with access to a full range of support for independent living in the community regardless of their health disadvantage.” The means of providing them already exist in the current conditions, or they are significantly closer, as confirmed by research results. The same applies to differences in social service facilities.

a. Strengthen human resource management in facilities in terms of valuing and recognizing the work of employees and their efforts to provide quality services. The rationale for the recommendation can also be confirmed by the results of research by Maximova & Lichner [21], which found a moderately strong correlation in the scales of the questionnaire on recognition of work, with r=0.53 p<0.001, depending on employee satisfaction [22-38].

According to Vladimír Rys, who in his published “Comparative Study in the Field of Social Policy,” examined social institutions and the social environment, concludes that when comparing the dependencies of the influences of individual factors on job satisfaction, it is necessary to understand the functions of social institutions in a given social environment. It should be taken into account that every analysis must undergo comparison and that we must always treat the usual comparison of data with a certain degree of caution. When reading “Studies and Essays,” we reflect on the author’s reference, who, when selecting methods and methodological approaches, evaluates the connections with several social factors. We therefore perceive the limitations of the work primarily in terms of the time period for data collection, processing, and evaluation, and the informative value for social service facilities. Organizations are living organisms with dynamic changes that affect employee satisfaction.

If we consider the “Performance and Change” model (Small [L5]) as a tool used to understand the individual parts of an organization and their interrelationships in times of change, we acknowledge that we find connections in the organization’s processes that may correspond to the current situation of employees, and thus their level of satisfaction is influenced by satisfaction or dissatisfaction in their personal lives and experiences. The implemented changes do not take into account all areas of the organization or the ability of the employees affected by the change to accept it. The model also shows the hierarchy of factors within the organization, and thus the flow of influence from one factor to another, meaning that the connections we have chosen may also depend on factors other than the areas we have examined.

In social service facilities, employees encounter various situations that pose risk factors, workplace conflicts resolved through supervision, or conflicts of interest that can contribute to reduced subjective employee satisfaction. Within the scope of the services provided, situations may arise which, if the needs of employees are not met, can lead to a conflict of interest between the interests of the organization/employee and the possibilities of supervision. A risk factor may arise in situations where the legitimate interest of the social service provider conflicts with the legitimate interest of employees, which may lead to reduced satisfaction.

In conclusion, we rely on the idea of competent management at various levels of power. The lowest social level was known not only to Aristotle but also to St. Thomas Aquinas, who introduced the concept of subsidiarity, which appears in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical entitled “Quadragesimo Anno.” The principle of subsidiarity recommends that higher society should not interfere in the internal life of lower society and deprive it of its own competence in solving its own problems. The principle of subsidiarity recommends that higher society should not interfere in the internal life of lower society and deprive it of its own competence in solving its own problems.

1. European Commission.
2. Internal Guideline No. OCK / 2-2016 Independent practice of social workers. Slovak Chamber of Social Workers and Social Work Assistants.
3. Slovak Red Cross, 2025.
4. DECREE No. 99/2016 of the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic on Details of Health Protection Against Heat and Cold Stress at Work.
5. Act No. 448/2008 Coll. On Social Services and on Amendments to Act No. 455/1991 Coll. On small business (Small Business Act), as amended.
6. Act No. 568/2009 Coll. On lifelong learning and amending and supplementing certain acts.
7. Act No. 219/2014 Coll. On Social Work and Conditions for the Performance of Certain Professional Activities in the Field of Social Affairs and Family and Amending and Supplementing Certain Acts.
8. Act No. 369/1990 Coll. On Municipal Administration.
9. Act No. 18/2018 Coll. On Personal Data Protection and on Amendments to Certain Acts.
10. Act No. 553/2003 Coll. On the Remuneration of Certain Employees Performing Work in the Public Interest.

1. Ladislav V (2021) Supervision of the organization. Matej Bel University Press in Banska Bystrica, Belianum, Slovakia.
2. Henrieta Š (2015) Analysis of motivational tools in a selected company. Acta Academica Karviniensia 12(3) :151-160.
3. García RG, Sangregorio MA, Sánchez MLL (2018) Evaluation of job satisfaction in a sample of Spanish social workers through the ‘Job Satisfaction Survey’ scale. European Journal of Social Work 21(1): 140-154.
4. Philip KT, Gary A (2014) Principles of marketing. (17^th edn), Pearson.
5. Pomaki G, Karoly P, Maes S (2009) Linking goal progress to subjective well-being at work: The moderating role of goal-related self-efficacy and attainability. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14(2): 206-218.
6. Anton G, Bettina S, Chadly S, Peter MG, John AB (2017) Up and down regulation of highly automatic process: Implementation intentions can both increase and decrease social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 70: 21-27.
7. Carsten W, Michael FS, Gregory EM (2013) Goal adjustment abilities, subjective well-being, and physical health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7(12): 847-860.
8. Vaska L, Vrtova J (2020) Scientific answers to current questions of supervision in social work. Collection of scientific studies. Matej Bel University Press in Banska Bystrica, Belianum, Slovakia.
9. Martin G, Hanne B, Tuija M (2019) Retaining social workers: The role of quality of work and psychosocial safety climate for work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance 43(1): 1-15.
10. Fleury (2017) Comparative/cross-professional studies.
11. Michael RS, Greg WM, Elnora WS (2015) Instructor's resource manual for marketing.
12. Dominik M, Vladimír L (2023) Factors influencing job satisfaction among social workers in the Slovak Republic.
13. Lýdia L, Katarína M (2020) Specifics of supervision in an organization established by a religious congregation. In: Scientific Answers to Current Questions of Supervision in the Social Sphere pp. 155-157.
14. Andrej M, Bohuslav K, Milan S (2018) Experiences and opinions on lifelong learning for social workers (Slovak-Czech perspective). Further Education of Social Workers and Employment of Young People. Proceedings of the international scientific conference Bratislava, Slovakia pp. 6-21.
15. Schavel M, Hunyadiová S, Kuzyšin B (2013) Supervision in Social Work, Bratislava.
16. Schavel M, Kuzyšin B, Hynyadiová S (2018) Forms of supervision and prevention of burnout syndrome. Proceedings From an International Scientific Conference, Bratislava p. 247.
17. Bohuslav K (2018) The impact of supervision on the prevention or mitigation of burnout syndrome among professional staff in social service facilities. In: Forms of Supervision and Prevention of Burnout Syndrome. Proceedings From an International Scientific Conference pp. 20-27.
18. Halušková E (2020) Supervision in the social services system. In: Collection of Scientific Studies: Scientific Answers to Current Questions of Supervision in the Social Sphere pp. 67-74.
19. Scherpner M (1999) Principles of agogic action. Frankfurt am Main, German Association for Private and Public Care.
20. Schavel M, Kuzyšin B, Pavelková J, Szabová E (2022) Overview study on the professionalization of supervision, initiatives in Slovakia. Prohuman pp. 1-13.
21. Bárta R, Zábavová S (2025) Integration, social and spiritual support for Roma in Eastern Slovakia. In: Collection of research papers. Multidisciplinary approach to prevention in the context of healthcare and management. Bački Petrovac: Pharm-advice plus.
22. Gabura J (2017) Theory of conflicts and strategies for their resolution for helping professions. UKF Nitra: Garmond p. 301.
23. Pablo G, Samuel FS, Ana IHG, Gabriela T (2023) Social support and its impact on job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ 13(12):2827-2840.
24. Halaj M, Jankura R (2019) Definitions and specifics of organizational safety culture. University of Žilina in Ž Crisis Management, Slovakia, pp. 27-32.
25. Hofreiter L, Halaj M (2020) Organizational culture and safety culture. Project report: IGP 201702 Starting points for examining the Safety Culture of Organizations and Ways of Measuring Its Impact on Organizational Safety.
26. Hunyadiová S (2019) Application reflections on supervision. Theoretical Foundations and Techniques. Nova Sandec, Poland.
27. Alfred P, Henrieta P, Bronislava J (2007) Motivation as realisation of needs and interests. Communications-Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina, Slovakia, 9(2): 34-39.
28. Alfred K, Daniel H (2014) Supervision in social work. Columbia University Press, USA, p. 432.
29. Kassay Š (2013) Management. Organisational Structures. Veda.
30. Lýdia L (2020) Intervention of a social worker of a social and legal protection authority of children and social guardianship in Slovakia. International Scientific Board of Catholic Researchers and Teachers in Ireland p. 90.
31. Monika H, Margita M, Jana N (2019) The level of self-care, perceived stress and overall job satisfaction, as well as the relationships between them in helping professionals providing social services. Psychology for Practice 1 pp. 9-18.
32. Františka P, Vladimír L, Eva Ž (2019) Self-care and its factors influencing social work among social workers in Slovakia. Journal of Sociotherapy 5(3): 78-82.
33. Majid E, Mohammad R (2018) Investigating the impact of commitment, satisfaction, and loyalty of employees on providing high-quality service to customers. Studies in Business and Economics 13(1): 41-57.
34. Kvetoslava R (2017) Social services. Supporting meaningful everyday life from a human rights perspective. Institute for Labor and Family Research, Bratislava.
35. Schavel M, Kuzyšin B (2023) Theory and practice of supervision: Summary-theoretical and system-analytical contexts of the Slovak application environment. University of Prešov in Prešov, Slovakia, p. 198.
36. Marta V, Michaela H (2018) Human resource management. Faculty of Health and Social Work, University of Trnavain Trnava, Slovakia, pp. 2-78.
37. Waldinger R, Schulz M (2023) The good life: Lessons from the world's longest study on happiness.
38. David JW, René VD (2016) Instrumentation for the theory of work adjustment. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis pp. 1-90.