8/6/2019 JMZ

1/8

QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SATISFACTION GUARANTEED

M. Jamal Mohamed Zubair

INTRODUCTION:

Way back in 1902 Fredrick Taylor, father of Scientific Management proposed a

management model based on finding one best way to get the job done. It was a

continuation of the philosophy proposed by Adam Smith and Max weber. It

propagated a highly simplified routinized and monotonous job which requiredonly surface attention. It was based on the assumption that an average worker is

mechanical appendage to industrial machine and hence should respond as

dehumanized mechanical robot. What is more interesting, it emphasized the

economic motive as the only driving force and called worker as an EconomicAnimal. Taylor summarized the work environment and this philosophy in three

simple phrases Judo Christian Ethics, Social Darwinians and Economicincentive (Taylor, 1902).

This orientation got shattered 1almost 35 years later when Hawthorne

experiment conducted at Hawthorne plant of Western Elective Company, Cicere,

Illinois proved that social factors play a more dominant role in the life of a workerthan sheer economic incentive. It showed that workers only responded to the

norms setup by informal groups. They reported average production every day

despite fluctuates in output and ridiculed and punished those who did not adhere

to the standards set by the informal groups. This gave rise to what came to beknown as Human Relations School.

This School made organizations to realize that no matter how rationally a system

is designed human elements would still influence in one form or the other. It

pointed out that organizations are social system and productivity and efficiency

directly depends on the satisfaction of employs. Hence, number of design optionwere initiated to create conditions for motivation and commitment. Concern for

quality of work life was one such design option.

Quality of work life has been differentiated from the broader concept of quality oflife (Elizuran and Shye, 1990). Quality of life refers to enjoyment in personal

life. It is much more broad base and according to Dupuis et.al. (2000), Qualityof life at a given time, is a state that corresponded to the level attained by a person

in the pursuit of his/her hierarchically organized goals. Quality of work life is a

subset of quality of life. It refers to a set of principles that pronouns theemployees are the greatest asset as they can make valuable contribution to the

growth and survival of the organization if treated right. The specific elements that

contribute to the motivation are the nature of job, physical environment and socialenvironment within the organization. (Feuer,1989). Quality of work life however,

8/6/2019 JMZ

2/8

is a function of ones perception and may have different levels depending uponthe perception of individual employees. This description takes into account the

level attained. A number of researches have wondered at the concept of level.

According to Takezawa (1976), what constitute high level of QWL may vary

in relation to both the worker aspiration and the objective reality of his/her workand society. It is ultimately defined by the worker himself. Quality of work life it

is a subset of quality of life and is specifically related to the degree of happiness

and satisfaction a person derives from his/her career. It various from individual toindividual because each individual has different needs and perceptions and QWL

is determined on how well these needs and perceptions are satisfied by the job.

Hence QWL can be described as the extent to which employees can enhance theirpersonal life through their work and its environment. The approach is design to

motivate employees by satisfying not only their economic needs but also their

social and psychological needs.

A large number of factors have been included in the general definition of QWL.One set of factors have to do with the job related well being designed to create a

rewarding work experience. The second set of factors have to do with theworking conditions, such as management policies, relationship with other

employees, salary and benefits etc. Yet a third set of factors deal with such issues

that are of mutual benefit for employer and employees such as autonomous workgroup, job engagement, flextime and job rotation etc. All three consists of

interventions designed to create a reward structure, their effect on employees and

organization and involvement of employees in decision making process (Lawler,1982) the ultimate objective is to provide a satisfying work and work

arrangements that use the talents and skills of employees and provide them feeling

of involvement and pride in their work.

RESEARCH EVIDENCE

While quality of life is very well research, QWL remains relatively unexplored.

Interest in this area was stated way back in 70s by a few researchers. One of thefirst study was conducted by Walton, (1975), who proposed 8 conceptual

categories that together make up the quality of working life. These are, adequate

and fare compensation, safe and healthy working condition, immediateopportunity to use and develop human capacities, opportunities for continued

growth and security, social integration in work organization,

constitutionalaization in the work organization, work and the total life space andsocial relevance of work life.

Subsequent research studies have focused more on the determinants of quality ofwork life. For example, Hackman and Oldham (1975) identified five

psychological needs, the satisfaction of which contributed to the QWL. These

are, skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. Inanother study Mirvis and Laver (1984) suggested that QWL was mainly linked to

the wages. However, such factors as safe work environment, equal employment

opportunities and opportunities for advancement also contributed to the QWL.

8/6/2019 JMZ

3/8

More recently in a study on nurses in a hospital Ellis and Pampli (2002) foundeleven factors contributing to job dissatisfaction and QWL. They included such

things as poor working environments, workload (inability to deliver quality of

care), bnalance of work and family, resident aggression, lack of involvement in

decision making, shift work, lack of recognition, professional isolation, roleconflict, poor interpersonal relations with supervisors / peers and lack of

opportunity to learn new skills.

In a recent thesis on the quality of work life, at Ashok Leyland, Mohammed

(2011) conducted survey of the job factors and work environment. Data wascollected from randomly selected 100 employees. The results show that

employees were very satisfied (77% and above) with work environment facilities,

infrastructure, medical and first aid, transport and welfare activities. As far as jobrelated quality measure were concerned, more than 84% of the employees felt no

stress on job, satisfaction with the procedure, job rotation and use of their skills on

the job. These had direct effect on the satisfaction with the job (78%) and betterrelationship with immediate supervisor (83%)

A working paper by Royuela et.al. (2007) has concentrated on the European

Institutional approach to the concept of QWL. In 2000 the Lisbon European

Council decided to launch a 10 years strategy to achieve three objectives:

1. More and better jobs for Europe: Developing an active employment policy

2. Education and training for living and working in the knowledge society.

3. Promoting social inclusion.

To achieve these objectives the Commission proposed ten dimension of QWL.

These are: intrinsic job quality, skills lifelong learning and career development,gender equality, health and safety at work, flexibility and security, inclusion and

access to the labour market, work organization and work life balance, social

dialogue and worker involvement, diversity and non-discrimination and overallwork performance.

In the Indian context, with the encouragement of International Labour

Organization and active lead taken by National Institute of Labour, the QWL as a

movement has taken a different turn. This is based because of the followingfactors that have played a significant role in its initiations (Saiyadain, 2009)

1. The profile of India industrial worker has substantially changed over time.From an illiterate, rural, low caste individual to educated, urban and

essentially belonging to upper caste, the Indian workers has come a long way

(Sharma, 1978). He seems to have different hopes and aspirations and morecommitted to the factory way of life. Monga (1978b) believes that blue

collar workers today is a committed man who has moulded himself according

to the emergent social structure.

8/6/2019 JMZ

4/8

2. Of late growing emphasis is placed on the significance of human resources in

India. More and more people are beginning to realized that like finances and

machines, work force is an equally significant input in the survival of an

organization. This realization has culminated itself in the creation ofMinistry of Human Resources Development. Therefore, major investments

have to be made by organizations in keeping themselves in best shape for

them to perform. Mere willingness to work cannot boost the morale of theworker unless he has socially accepted positions required for the industrial

way of life. According to Sen Gupta (1982), the Indian worker is deprived of

such a position. His wish has to be recognized and rewarded.

3. According to the latest Census of India, 33.44% per cent of the total

populations are employees. Of these, about 30 per cent work in industry,trade, commerce transportation etc. (Census of India, 1981). It is estimated

that approximately 10 per cent of the work force is currently employed in theorganized sector most of which is unionized and vocal. A quick look at theregistration of unions and their membership shows that both are steadily

increasing over time. At the same time the frequency of strikes and mandays

lost is also increasing over time. According to Verma (1986), the number of

disputes increased by 58 per cent and the number of mandays lost went up40.6 per cent during the period 1961-83.

4. Finally, as a result of growing body of knowledge in human behaviour in

general and industrial behaviour in particular, both the academicians and the

practitioners are gaining the necessary confidence to think of innovativemodules to understand, predict and control human behavior. There is a

growing trend of experimenting with newer concepts, theories andframework which is laying the foundation for determining most effective

utilization of human resources by inculcating a new sense of freedom andresultant increase in productivity.

In addition to usual work related and social psychological factors, Indian

organizations are adopting a number of strategies to improve the QWL of their

employees. There is an increasing emphasis on workers participation, jointconsultation, job rotation and job redesign. These strategies have been adopted to

humanize the work environment. Quality of work life is a set of principles which

hold that people are most important resource in the organization.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of work life as a subset of quality of life has remained relatively

unexplored. Review of literature shows that research studies have mainly focusedon three areas while dealing with QWL. These are studies related to job factor,

work environment and issues that have mutual significance for both employers

and employees. The basic focus of all these studies has been to humanize theplace of work leading to greater involvement and commitment of the employees

and consequently better productivity and efficiency of the organization.

8/6/2019 JMZ

5/8

However, there are still a few areas that need to be explored to make the QWLmore fruitful. Some of them one identified below.

While a number of studies have been conducted on the determents of QWL, most

of these are culture/locality specific. Several questions can be raised relating toQWL across culture. Do all cultures look for same determinants to improve QWL

of their constituents? Do people in different societies and cultures look fordifferent factors leading to improved quality of work life. If that be the case, can

we generalize the results of one research in one culture to all other cultures. This

is an important issue because what works in one situation may not work in theother situation or for that matter, what works today may not work tomorrow. This

opens a useful area of research. There is a need to conduct studies in various

cultures and societies to identify specific plans for improving the QWL of

employees.

A second area of future research in QWL can focus on profile differences of theemployees vis--vis determinants of QWL. Most studies have been conducted on

randomly selected employees. While sample profiles are provided little orno attempt is made to examine results by the variations in sample profile. Such

questions as do female employees look for different determinants as compared to

male employees; do younger or with limited years of experience need differentclusters of the factors in QWL as compared to those who are relatively older and

with more years of experience. Similarly, other personal and biosocial

differences constitute reasons to study factor determining QWL. Yet a third areaof research can focus on inter organizational and inter sector differences. Not

only this, within organization and within sector, do employees in different

position look for variables that vary in improving their quality of work life.

Quality of work life is not unitary concept. It has been as incorporating different

perspectives relating to specific profiles of jobs. However since it is a subset of

quality of life, it is useful to examine its effect on the life satisfaction and generalfeeling of well-being in life and society. Are the feeling of satisfaction carried to

non-related situations? Can we say a satisfied worker is also a satisfied citizen. It

may be useful to study this issue for the larger benefit of society.

While organization are making effort to improve the QWL of their employees by

introducing more satisfying work and work environment requirements, little or no

attempt is made to identify factor that militate against work environment

satisfaction. Herzberg et.al. (1959) did identify 10 variables that could be thecause of dissatisfaction of employees. This line of thought has not been carried

forward to exclusive study organization practices leading to dissatisfaction ofemployees and subsequently eliminating.

Finally, the cost effectiveness of QWL efforts in terms of return to theorganization is to be studied. Sometimes ago this point was raised by Worrall and

Cooper, (2006) but little or no follow up was reported in published research. The

basic issue has to do with the investment value of QWL effort and their value

addition to the bottom line of the organization.

8/6/2019 JMZ

6/8

REFERENCES

Census of India Government of India, 1981.

Dupuis, G, M.C, Taillerfer, A.M, Etienne, O, Fonotaine O.S. Boivin and A. VonTurk (2000) Measurement of quality of life in cardiac rehabilitation. In J. Jobin,

F. Mattais and P. Leblanc (Eds) Advances in cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation.Chanpaign, Illl. Human Kenetics Publishers.

Elizur, D and Shya, S. (1990) quality of work life and it relation to quality of life.Applied psychology: An International review, 39 (3) 275 291.

Ellis, N. and Pompli, A. (2002) Quality of Work life for Nurses. Canberra:Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging.

Feuer, D. (1989) Quality of work life: A cure for all ills. Training: The Magazinefor Human Resource Development, 26,65-66.

Hackman, J, and Oldham, G, (1975) Development of job diagnostic survey.Jouranl of applied psychology, 60, 159-170.

Herzberg, F, Mausner, B and Snyderman, B (1956) The Motivation of work. New

York : John Wikey.

Lawler, E. E (1982) Strategies for improving the quality of work life.AmericanPsychologist, 37, 486-493.

Mayo, E. (1933) The Human Problems of Industrial Civilization New York:

MacMillan

Mirwis, P. H, and Lawler, E. E. (1984) Accounting for the quality of work life.

Journal of Occupational Behaviouar, 5, 197-212.

Mohammed,. A.A. (2011) Quality of work life at Ashok Leyland. MBA thesis,

Crescent Business School, B. S. Abdur Rahman University, Chennai.

Mongo, M.L (1978). The Industrial worker: Emerging realities about his

commitment to the factory system. NLI Bulletin, 4 (12), 646-467.

Royuela, V, Lopez-Tamayo, J. and Surinach, J. (2007). The Institutional vs the

Academic Definition of Quality of work life: What is the Focus of EuropeanCommission. Barcelona, Spain: AQR IREA Research Groups, University ofBarcelona.

Saiyadain, M. S (2009) Human Resource Management(4th Edition)New Delhi :Tata McGraw Hill.

8/6/2019 JMZ

7/8

8/6/2019 JMZ

8/8