Quality of working life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Quality of Working Life" (QWL) is a term that had been used to describe the broader
job-related experience an individual has.
Contents [hide]
1 Models and components
2 Measurement
3 Applications
4 See also
5 References
Models and components[edit]
Various authors and researchers have proposed models of quality of working life which
include a wide range of factors. Selected models are reviewed below.
Hackman and Oldham (1976)[1] drew attention to what they described as psychological
growth needs as relevant to the consideration of Quality of working life. Several such
needs were identified :
Skill variety,
Task Identity,
Task significance,
Autonomy
Feedback.
See also: Job characteristic theory
They suggested that such needs have to be addressed if employees are to experience high
quality of working life.
In contrast to such theory based models, Taylor (1979)[2] more pragmatically identified
the essential components of quality of working life as basic extrinsic job factors of wages,
hours and working conditions, and the intrinsic job notions of the nature of the work
itself. He suggested that a number of other aspects could be added, including :
individual power,
employee participation in the management,
fairness and equity,
social support,
use of ones present skills,
self-development,
a meaningful future at work,
social relevance of the work or product,
effect on extra work activities.
Taylor suggested that relevant quality of working life concepts may vary according to
organisation and employee group.
Warr and colleagues (1979),[3] in an investigation of quality of working life, considered a

range of apparently relevant factors, including :

work involvement,
intrinsic job motivation,
higher order need strength,
perceived intrinsic job characteristics,
job satisfaction,
life satisfaction,
happiness, and
self-rated anxiety.
They discussed a range of correlations derived from their work, such as those between
work involvement and job satisfaction, intrinsic job motivation and job satisfaction, and
perceived intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction. In particular, Warr et al. found
evidence for a moderate association between total job satisfaction and total life
satisfaction and happiness, with a less strong, but significant association with self-rated
anxiety.
Thus, whilst some authors have emphasised the workplace aspects in quality of working
life, others have identified the relevance of personality factors, psychological well being,
and broader concepts of happiness and life satisfaction.
Factors more obviously and directly affecting work have, however, served as the main
focus of attention, as researchers have tried to tease out the important influences on
quality of working life in the workplace.
Mirvis and Lawler (1984)[4] suggested that quality of working life was associated with
satisfaction with wages, hours and working conditions, describing the basic elements of
a good quality of work life as :
safe work environment,
equitable wages,
equal employment opportunities
opportunities for advancement.
opportunities to learn and grow
protection of individual rights
Baba and Jamal (1991)[5] listed what they described as typical indicators of quality of
working life, including:
job satisfaction,
job involvement,
work role ambiguity,
work role conflict,
work role overload,
job stress,
organisational commitment and
turn-over intentions.

Baba and Jamal also explored routinisation of job content, suggesting that this facet
should be investigated as part of the concept of quality of working life.
Some have argued that quality of working life might vary between groups of workers. For
example, Ellis and Pompli (2002)[6] identified a number of factors contributing to job
dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses, including:
poor working environments,
resident aggression,
workload, innability to deliver quality of care preferred,
balance of work and family,
shiftwork,
lack of involvement in decision making,
professional isolation,
lack of recognition,
poor relationships with supervisor/peers,
role conflict,
lack of opportunity to learn new skills.
Sirgy et al. (2001)[7] suggested that the key factors in quality of working life are:
need satisfaction based on job requirements,
need satisfaction based on work environment,
need satisfaction based on supervisory behaviour,
need satisfaction based on ancillary programmes,
organizational commitment.
They defined quality of working life as satisfaction of these key needs through resources,
activities, and outcomes stemming from participation in the workplace. Needs as defined
by the psychologist, Abraham Maslow, were seen as relevant in underpinning this model,
covering health & safety, economic and family, social, esteem, actualisation, knowledge
and aesthetics, although the relevance of non-work aspects is play down as attention is
focussed on quality of work life rather than the broader concept of quality of life.
These attempts at defining quality of working life have included theoretical approaches,
lists of identified factors, correlational analyses, with opinions varying as to whether such
definitions and explanations can be both global, or need to be specific to each work
setting.
Bearfield, (2003)[8] used 16 questions to examine quality of working life, and
distinguished between causes of dissatisfaction in professionals, intermediate clerical,
sales and service workers, indicating that different concerns might have to be addressed
for different groups.
The distinction made between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in quality of working
life reflects the influence of job satisfaction theories. Herzberg at al., (1959)[9] used
Hygiene factors and Motivator factors to distinguish between the separate causes of
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. It has been suggested that Motivator factors are

intrinsic to the job, that is; job content, the work itself, responsibility and advancement.
The Hygiene factors or dissatisfaction-avoidance factors include aspects of the job
environment such as interpersonal relationships, salary, working conditions and security.
Of these latter, the most common cause of job dissatisfaction can be company policy and
administration, whilst achievement can be the greatest source of extreme satisfaction.
Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy (2013) used 9 components to measure quality of
worklife of employees in private technical institutions:[10]
Work environment
Organization culture and climate
Relation and co-operation
Training and development
Compensation and Rewards
Facilities
Job satisfaction and Job security
Autonomy of work
Adequacy of resources
Male employees are more satisfied than female employees the chi square test confirms
that all the demographic factors like gender, designation, salary, department, experience
are independent of quality of worklife of employees in private technical institution. Study
also reveals that there is a significant association between QWL of Teaching and Non
teaching staffs. From the correlation analysis it is find that Adequacy of Resources are
more correlated and Training & Development are less correlated with teaching staffs
perception towards quality of worklife and in case of non teaching staffs Compensation &
Rewards are more correlated and Work Environment are less correlated with QWL.
An individuals experience of satisfaction or dissatisfaction can be substantially rooted in
their perception, rather than simply reflecting their real world. Further, an individuals
perception can be affected by relative comparison am I paid as much as that person and comparisons of internalised ideals, aspirations, and expectations, for example, with
the individuals current state (Lawler and Porter, 1966).[11]
In summary, where it has been considered, authors differ in their views on the core
constituents of Quality of Working Life (e.g. Sirgy, Efraty, Siegel & Lee, 2001[7] and
Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979).[3]
It has generally been agreed however that Quality of Working Life is conceptually similar
to well-being of employees but differs from job satisfaction which solely represents the
workplace domain (Lawler, 1982).[12]
Quality of Working Life is not a unitary concept, but has been seen as incorporating a
hierarchy of perspectives that not only include work-based factors such as job
satisfaction, satisfaction with pay and relationships with work colleagues, but also factors
that broadly reflect life satisfaction and general feelings of well-being (Danna & Griffin,
1999).[13] More recently, work-related stress and the relationship between work and non-

work life domains (Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991)[14] have also been identified as factors
that should conceptually be included in Quality of Working Life.
Measurement[edit]
There are few recognised measures of quality of working life and jobs, and of those that
exist few have evidence of validity and reliability, although the Brief Index of Affective
Job Satisfaction has been systematically developed to be reliable and is rigorously
psychometrically validated.[15] A recent statistical analysis of a new measure, the WorkRelated Quality of Life scale (WRQoL),[16] provides support for the psychometric
structure of this instrument. The WRQoWL measure [17] uses six core factors to explain
most of the variation in an individuals quality of working life: Job and Career
Satisfaction; Working Conditions; General Well-Being; Home-Work Interface; Stress at
Work and Control at Work.
The Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAFJS) is a 4-item, purely affective as
opposed to cognitive, measure of overall affective job satisfaction that reflects quality of
working life. The BIAJS differs from other job satisfaction measures in being
comprehensively validated not just for internal consistency reliability, temporal stability,
convergent and criterion-related validities, but also for cross-population invariance by
nationality, job level, and job type. Reported internal consistency reliabilities range
between .81 and .87.[15]
The Job & Career Satisfaction (JCS) scale of the Work-Related Quality of Life scale
(WRQoL) is said to reflect an employees feelings about, or evaluation of, their
satisfaction or contentment with their job and career and the training they receive to do it.
Within the WRQoL measure, JCS is reflected by questions asking how satisfied people
feel about their work. It has been proposed that this Positive Job Satisfaction factor is
influenced by various issues including clarity of goals and role ambiguity, appraisal,
recognition and reward, personal development career benefits and enhancement and
training needs.
The General well-being (GWB) scale of the Work-Related Quality of Life scale
(WRQoL),[16] aims to assess the extent to which an individual feels good or content in
themselves, in a way which may be independent of their work situation. It is suggested
that general well-being both influences, and is influenced by work. Mental health
problems, predominantly depression and anxiety disorders, are common, and may have a
major impact on the general well-being of the population. The WRQoL GWB factor
assesses issues of mood, depression and anxiety, life satisfaction, general quality of life,
optimism and happiness.
The WRQoL Stress at Work sub-scale (SAW) reflects the extent to which an individual
perceives they have excessive pressures, and feel stressed at work. The WRQoL SAW
factor is assessed through items dealing with demand and perception of stress and actual
demand overload. Whilst it is possible to be pressured at work and not be stressed at
work, in general, high stress is associated with high pressure.

The Control at Work (CAW) subscale of the WRQoL scale addresses how much
employees feel they can control their work through the freedom to express their opinions
and being involved in decisions at work. Perceived control at work as measured by the
Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL)[16] is recognized as a central concept in
the understanding of relationships between stressful experiences, behaviour and health.
Control at work, within the theoretical model underpinning the WRQoL, is influenced by
issues of communication at work, decision making and decision control.
The WRQoL Home-Work Interface scale (HWI) measures the extent to which an
employer is perceived to support the family and home life of employees. This factor
explores the interrelationship between home and work life domains. Issues that appear to
influence employee HWI include adequate facilities at work, flexible working hours and
the understanding of managers.
The Working Conditions scale of the WRQoL assesses the extent to which the employee
is satisfied with the fundamental resources, working conditions and security necessary to
do their job effectively. Physical working conditions influence employee health and
safety and thus employee Quality of working life. This scale also taps into satisfaction
with the resources provided to help people do their jobs.
Applications[edit]
Regular assessment of Quality of Working Life can potentially provide organisations with
important information about the welfare of their employees, such as job satisfaction,
general well-being, work-related stress and the home-work interface. Studies in the UK
University sector have shown a valid measure of Quality of Working Life exists[18] and
can be used as a basis for effective interventions.
Worrall and Cooper (2006)[19] recently reported that a low level of well-being at work is
estimated to cost about 5-10% of Gross National Product per annum, yet Quality of
Working Life as a theoretical construct remains relatively unexplored and unexplained
within the organisational psychology research literature.
A large chunk of most peoples lives will be spent at work. Most people recognise the
importance of sleeping well, and actively try to enjoy the leisure time that they can
snatch. But all too often, people tend to see work as something they just have to put up
with, or even something they dont even expect to enjoy.
Some of the factors used to measure quality of working life pick up on things that dont
actually make people feel good, but which seem to make people feel bad about work if
those things are absent. For example, noise if the place where someone works is too
noisy, they might get frequent headaches, or find they cannot concentrate, and so feel
dissatisfied. But when it is quiet enough they dont feel pleased or happy - they just dont
feel bad. This can apply to a range of factors that affect someone's working conditions.
Other things seem to be more likely to make people feel good about work and themselves
once the basics are OK at work. Challenging work (not too little, not too much) can make

them feel good. Similarly, opportunities for career progression and using their abilities
can contribute to someone's quality of working life.
A recent publication of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE)[20]
emphasises the core role of assessment and understanding of the way working
environments pose risks for psychological wellbeing through lack of control and
excessive demand. The emphasis placed by NICE on assessment and monitoring
wellbeing springs from the fact that these processes are the key first step in identifying
areas for improving quality of working life and addressing risks at work.
See also[edit]
Worklife balance
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Hackman J & Oldham G (1974) The Job Diagnostic Survey. New Haven: Yale
University.
Jump up ^ Taylor J C in Cooper, CL and Mumford, E (1979) The quality of working life
in Western and Eastern Europe. ABP
^ Jump up to: a b Warr, P, Cook, J and Wall, T (1979) Scales for the measurement of
some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well being. Journal of Occupational
Psychology. 52, 129-148.
Jump up ^ Mirvis, P.H. and Lawler, E.E. (1984) Accounting for the Quality of Work Life.
Journal of Occupational Behaviour. 5. 197-212.
Jump up ^ Baba, VV and Jamal, M (1991) Routinisation of job context and job content as
related to employees quality of working life: a study of psychiatric nurses. Journal of
organisational behaviour. 12. 379-386.
Jump up ^ Ellis N & Pompli A 2002 Quality of working life for nurses. Commonwealth
Dept of Health and Ageing. Canberra.
^ Jump up to: a b Sirgy, M. J., Efraty,, D., Siegel, P & Lee, D. (2001). A new measure of
quality of work life (QoWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social
Indicators Research, 55, 241-302.
Jump up ^ Bearfield, S (2003)Quality of Working Life. Aciirt Working paper 86.
University of Sydney. www.acirrt.com
Jump up ^ Herzberg F, Mausner B, & Snyderman B., (1959) The Motivation to Work.
New York:Wiley.
Jump up ^ T S Nanjundeswaraswamy, Swamy D R (2013). "QUALITY OF WORKLIFE
OF EMPLOYEES IN PRIVATE TECHNICAL INSTITUTION". International Journal for
Quality Research 7 (3): 314. ISSN 1800-6450.
Jump up ^ Lawler III E and Porter L, (1966). Managers pay and their satisfaction with
their pay. Personnel Psychology. XIX 363-73.
Jump up ^ Lawler, E. E. (1982). Strategies for improving the quality of work life.
American Psychologist, 37, 2005, 486-493.
Jump up ^ Danna, K. & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A
review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357-384.
Jump up ^ Loscocco, K. A. & Roschelle, A. N. (1991). Influences on the Quality of Work
and Nonwork Life: Two Decades in Review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 182225.

^ Jump up to: a b Thompson, E.R; Phua, F.T.T. (2012). "A Brief Index of Affective Job
Satisfaction". Group & Organization Management 37 (3): 275307.
doi:10.1177/1059601111434201.
^ Jump up to: a b c Van Laar, D, Edwards, J & Easton, S (2007). The Work-Related
Quality of Life scale for healthcare workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Volume 60,
Number 3, pp. 325333
Jump up ^ Easton, S. & Van Laar, D. (2013) User Manual for the Work-Related Quality
of Life (WRQoL) Scale. University of Portsmouth. UK.
http://www.qowl.co.uk/researchers/WRQoL%20User%20manual%20v38%20ebook
%2003%20Nov14.pdf
Jump up ^ Edwards, J., Van Laar, D.L. & Easton, S. (2009). The Work-Related Quality of
Life (WRQoL) scale for Higher Education Employees. Quality in Higher Education. 15:
3, 207-219.
Jump up ^ Worrall, L. & Cooper, C. L. (2006). The Quality of Working Life: Managers
health and well-being. Executive Report, Chartered Management Institute.
Jump up ^ National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) public health guidance 22;
Promoting mental wellbeing through productive and healthy working conditions.

Quality of Work Life: its Meaning and Definition | Employee Management

by Smriti Chand Employee Management
Advertisements:
Quality of Work Life: its Meaning and Definition!
The present era is an era of knowledge workers and the society in which we are living has
come, to be known as knowledge society. The intellectual pursuits have taken precedence
over the physical efforts.
Some knowledge workers work for more than 60 hours a week. As a result of this, their
personal hobbies and interests clash with their work. Life is a bundle that contains all the
strands together and hence the need to balance work life with other related issues.
One must have both love and work in ones life to make it healthy. Gone are the days
when the priority of employees used to be for physical and material needs. With the
increasing shift of the economy towards knowledge economy, the meaning and quality of
work life has undergone a drastic change.
Meaning:
Quality of work life (QWL) refers to the favourableness or unfavourableness of a job
environment for the people working in an organisation. The period of scientific
management which focused solely on specialisation and efficiency, has undergone a

revolutionary change.
The traditional management (like scientific management) gave inadequate attention to
human values. In the present scenario, needs and aspirations of the employees are
changing. Employers are now redesigning jobs for better QWL.
Definition:
The QWL as strategy of Human Resource Management has assumed increasing interest
and importance. Many other terms have come to be used interchangeably with QWL such
as humanisations of work quality of working life, industrial democracy and
participative work.
There are divergent views as to the exact meaning of QWL.
A few definitions given by eminent authors on QWL are given below:
1. QWL is a process of work organisations which enable its members at all levels to
actively; participate in shaping the organizations environment, methods and outcomes.
This value based process is aimed towards meeting the twin goals of enhanced
effectiveness of organisations and improved quality of life at work for employees.
The American Society of Training and Development
2. QWL is a way of thinking about people, work and organisations, its distinctive
elements are (i) a concern about the impact of work on people as well as on
organisational effectiveness, and (ii) the idea of participation in organisational problemsolving and decision making. Nadler and Lawler
3. The overriding purpose of QWL is to change the climate at work so that the humantechnological-organisational interface leads to a better quality of work life.
-Luthans
4. QWL is based on a general approach and an organisation approach. The general
approach includes all those factors affecting the physical, social, economic, psychological
and cultural well-being of workers, while the organisational approach refers to the
redesign and operation of organisations in accordance with the value of democratic
society.
Beinum
From the definitions given above, it can be concluded that QWL is concerned with taking
care of the higher-order needs of employees in addition to their basic needs. The overall
climate of work place is adjusted in such a way that it produces more humanized jobs.

QWL is viewed as that umbrella under which employees feel fully satisfied with the
working environment and extend their wholehearted cooperation and support to the
management to improve productivity and work environment.