chapter 5 employee attitudes and quality of work life...
TRANSCRIPT
131 �
Chapter 5
Employee Attitudes and Quality of Work Life and Strategies for
Improving Quality of Work Life
QWL depends not only on work place related factors but also on factors associated with
non-work life and also on employee attitudes developed over a period of time. All these
factors affect the human input at work place and ultimately the quality of work life. A
good QWL in fact promotes the employee well-being and thereby the well-being of the
organization. The present study is also attempts to analyze the impact of work life
conflict and employee attitudes, like professional commitment, job involvement and job
satisfaction on QWL. This chapter is divided into three sections; section first explains
the relation between work-family conflict and quality of work life, section second
examines the relationship between employee attitudes (professional commitment, job
involvement and job satisfaction) and quality of work life and the section third enlists the
strategies suggested by the respondents for improving the quality of their working lives.
Section I
Work-Family Conflict and Quality of Work Life
The increase in the occurrence and importance of work-family issues mirror changes
witnessed in both family structures and the nature of work in most of the developed
world (Watson et al., 2003). Family is indeed an important supporter for everyone and
probably the family support is able to provide motivation and strength to employees to
perform better (Azril et al., 2010). But if someone fails to devote adequate time and
attention to one’s family, may lead to work-family conflict. One of the earliest and
most frequently cited studies on work-family literature is Greenhaus and Beutell’s
(1985) conceptual framework. They defined work-family conflict as “a form of inter-
role conflict in which the role pressures from work and family domains are mutually
incompatible in some respect”. This conceptual framework has been consistently used
by many researchers in reference to work-family conflict (Gutek et al., 1991; Frone et
al. 1992; Huang et al., 2004). The present study also follows the same conceptual
framework to examine the incompatible role demands of work and family life. Conflict
between work and family is bi-directional. Role pressures from work and family can
occur simultaneously in both directions. That is, excessive role demands from the work
domain, i.e. hours worked, inflexible work schedules, etc., can result in work-to-family
132 �
(W-F) conflict. Similarly, excessive role demands from the family domain, i.e.
childcare duties, domestic chores, etc. can result in family-to-work (F-W) conflict.
Therefore, it is the combined effect of W-F and F-W conflict that ultimately results in
the overall level of work-family conflict experienced by an individual (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985; Netemeyer et al. 1996; Gutek et al. 1991). The work family conflict in
the present study has been measured with a ten-item scale developed by Gutek et al.
(1991) and Carlson and Perrewe (1999). The scale has been divided into two parts; first
part of the scale measures the interference of work in family life and second part of the
scale assesses interference of family in work life. The responses were sought on a five
point scale and respondents rated an item as 5 for ‘Strongly Agree’, 4 for ‘Agree’, 3 for
‘Undecided’, 2 for ‘Disagree’ and 1 for ‘Strongly Disagree’. Table 5.1 shows the mean
score and standard deviation of each item of the work family conflict scale.
Table 5.1 reveals that the respondents have been found agreeing with the variables; E1
‘After work, I come home too tired to do some of the things I would like to do’ with the
highest mean value of 3.42, which shows a strong agreement of the respondents with
the given statement. This is being followed by E4; ‘My work takes up time that I would
like to spend with my family’ with mean value 3.19; E2 ‘On the job I have so much
work to do that it takes away from my personal interests’ with mean value 3.07; E5‘My
job or carrier interferes with my responsibilities at home, such as yard work, cooking,
cleaning, repairs, shopping, paying the bills or child care’ with mean value 3.05.
No clear response by the respondents have been found about the variables; E3 ‘My
family and friends dislike how often I am preoccupied with my work while I am at
home’ with mean value 2.95; E6 ‘I am often too tired to work because of the things I
have to do at home’ with mean value 2.75; E9 ‘My personal life takes up time that I
would like to spend at work’ with mean value 2.55; E10 ‘My home life interferes with
my responsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks,
or working overtime’ with mean value 2.51.
The respondents have been found denying the presence of variables; E7 ‘My personal
demands are so great that it takes away from my work’ with mean value 2.48; E8‘My
superiors and peers dislike how often I am preoccupied with my personal life while at
work’ with mean value 2.43.
133 �
Table – 5.1
Work Family Conflict: Frequencies, Percentage, Mean and Standard Deviation
Variable Strongly
Agree (5) Agree (4) Undecided (3) Disagree (2)
Strongly
Disagree (1) Mean Std. Deviation
E1 38 (11.81) 166 (51.56) 20 (6.22) 90 (27.96) 8 (2.49) 3.42 1.09
E2 25 (7.77) 125 (38.82) 33 (10.25) 124 (38.51) 15 (4.66) 3.07 1.13
E3 23 (7.15) 99 (30.75) 50 (15.53) 140 (43.48) 10 (3.11) 2.95 1.07
E4 32 (9.94) 135 (41.93) 28 (8.70) 116 (36.03) 11 (3.42) 3.19 1.13
E5 29 (9.01) 113 (35.10) 39 (12.12) 126 (39.14) 15 (4.66) 3.05 1.14
E6 18 (5.60) 89 (27.64) 35 (10.87) 155 (48.14) 25 (7.77) 2.75 1.11
E7 16 (4.97) 52 (16.15) 38 (11.81) 179 (55.60) 37 (11.50) 2.48 1.05
E8 11 (3.42) 50 (15.53) 42 (13.05) 182 (56.53) 37 (11.50) 2.43 1.00
E9 14 (4.35) 63 (19.57) 39 (12.12) 176 (54.66) 30 (9.32) 2.55 1.04
E10 16 (4.97) 66 (20.50) 27 (8.39) 169 (52.49) 44 (13.67) 2.51 1.11
Note:-Figures in Parenthesis indicates the percentage of respondents�
134 �
The analysis also shows that 106 (32.90 percent) respondents have indicated the
presence of many of these variables, 86 (26.70 percent) respondents have been found
undecided about some of these variables while 130 (40.40percent) respondents have
clearly denied the presence of some of these variables included in the scale. The
analysis further revealed that mean value of work to family conflict (E1 - E5) varies
from 3.42 to 2.95, which is greater than the range of mean value from 2.75 to 2.43 for
the family to work conflict (E6 - E10). About 55 percent of the respondents agree with
the presence of work to family conflict variables, whereas about 24 percent of
respondents agree with the presence of family to work conflict variables. The findings
reveal that a large number of respondents have been found experiencing work to family
conflict as compared to family to work conflict which suggest that work to family
conflict is more prevalent than family to work. One reason for the given situation seems
to be that majority of the respondents of the present study are males and needs further
probe whether this situation holds true for females also or it is family to work conflict
which is more prevalent among females. To test it further statistically, paired sample t-
test has been used. Table 5.2 show that the mean score for work to family conflict was
15.68 with standard deviation 4.447 and for family to work conflict mean score was
12.71 with standard deviation 4.421.
Table – 5.2
Mean Score for W-F and F-W Scale
Mean N Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
W – F Conflict
F – W Conflict
15.68
12.71
322
322
4.447
4.421
0.248
0.246
Table 5.3, shows that there was a significant difference between the two scores (t =
12.44 with d.f. 321, p < 0.0005). It can be concluded that there is a significant
difference in the work to family and family to work conflict. In order to calculate the
effect size for paired sample t test Eta squared has been calculated
= 0.325
135 �
Table – 5.3
Paired samples test
Paired Differences
T df
Significance
Level
(2-tailed)
Mean S.D. Std.
Error
Mean
95 %
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
W – F
Conflict
F – W
Conflict
2.966 4.278 0.238 2.497 3.435 12.441 321 0.000
According to (Cohen, 1988), the value of t = 0.01 indicate small effect, 0.06 indicate
moderate effect, and 0.14 represent large effect. Given the Eta squared value of 0.325,
it can be concluded that there was a large effect, with a substantial difference in the
work to family and family to work conflict. With this large effect of difference in the
work to family and family to work conflict, it can be further concluded that mean
values of both types of conflicts show that intensity of work to family conflict is higher
than family to work conflict. The present situation can be explained with the help of
social identity theory (Stryker 1968; 1980; 1987; Lobel, 1991; Wiley, 1991; Rothbard
& Edwards, 2003) and the associated concept of ‘role salience’. Social identity theory
encapsulates a methodical approach to illustrate the relationships between gender, work
and family roles, stress, and oneself. An identity can be defined as “a meaning one
attributes to oneself (or others attribute to the person) by virtue of occupying a
particular position” (Wiley, 1991). The degree to which a person views a certain life
role (i.e. work) as an important means of self-definition and the extent to which a
person is willing to commit personal resources to ensure success in that role is defined
as role salience (Amatea et al., 1986). However, a person may attach varying levels of
importance to work and family roles. Therefore, a person may simultaneously have
high salience in both work and family spheres (Thompson& Bunderson, 2001).
Parasuraman and Greenhaus (2002) suggested that couple types can usefully be
understood as different combinations of role saliencies which aim to categorize couples
136 �
based on each partner’s role salience as advocated by social identity theory. This
approach yields the following five main couple types:
• Traditional: where the traditional work and family roles of each partner are
observed, (i.e., the male partner is highly work-oriented while the female
partner is highly family oriented.
• Modern I: where both partners place a high value on family life and
subordinate work roles to family needs and demands;
• Modern 2: where both partners seek to place equal value on work and
family roles, seeking to find balance through compromises in both of these
two domains;
• Modern 3: where both partners place a high value on their respective work
roles, with family responsibilities/aspirations subordinate to work and career
goals;
• Modern 4: where traditional work and family roles are reversed (i.e., the
male partner is highly family-oriented and the female partner is highly
work-oriented.
From the five main couple types; it is possible that the greatest level of conflict would
be experienced by Modern 1 and 3 couples where both the husband and wife are found
to possess high and equal orientations toward their family or work roles. Therefore,
couples in which both partners are either family (Modern 1) or work (Modern 3)
oriented would experience a lack of time available to perform duties in the opposite life
role. However, studies have found work and family domains to be asymmetrically
permeable (Rothbard and Edwards, 2003). That is, often individuals are found to draw
from family time to perform work demands but not vice versa, implying that family
boundaries are more flexible than the comparatively rigid work boundaries.
W - F Conflict and F – W Conflict and Quality of Work Life
Further to examine the association of work to family conflict and family to work
conflict with quality of work life, the correlation analysis has been performed. The
summated scores for work to family and family to work conflict have been used to
examine their association with quality of work life. The correlation coefficients are
reported in table 5.4.
137 �
Table – 5.4
Correlation between W – F and F – W Conflict and Quality of Work Life
Variable QWL W - F Conflict F – W Conflict
QWL 1
W- F Conflict -0.190 **
1
F - W Conflict -0.120 * 0.535
** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 2-tailed
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level 2-tailed
The table reveals that both work to family conflict and family to work conflict have
negative and significant relationship with quality of work life. It suggests that both
work to family and family to work adversely affect the quality of life. The correlation
coefficient of work to family conflict is bigger (r = - 0.19) than family to work conflict
(r = - 0.12). The findings of the present study are in line with studies carried out in past.
For instance, Allen et al. (2000) confirmed that conflict between work and non-work
life is associated with impaired psychological well-being and other negative outcomes.
They further emphasized that problems associated with family responsibilities are
additional resources that may diminish QWL. It was also asserted that when an
employee has higher responsibilities there will be more spill over of negative work
outcomes on family life. The demands of managing higher responsibilities at work and
home are also a potential source of stress because it allows a spill over to family life
thus creating an imbalanced working environment. Burke (1998) concluded that spill-
over between work and personal life has serious implications on QWL. It has also been
argued that the conflict related to work and personal demands can lead to negative
health outcomes for employees, and may decrease organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and increase burn out, which eventually lead to poor QWL. Aminah (2002)
also found that inter-role family conflict occurs when the accumulated demand of
multiple roles at home and at work become too great to manage comfortably. It further
suggested that reducing the level of spill over may help to reduce the perceived stress
and assist to maintain some amount of balance between the two environments.
138 �
Multiple linear regression analysis has been employed to assess the relative impact of
work to family and family to work conflict on QWL and the results are reported in table
5.5.
Table – 5.5
Regression Coefficients: W – F Conflict and F – W Conflict and QWL
Variable � (Un-standardized
coefficient) T Significance Level
Constant 17.572 40.980 0.000
W - F Conflict -0.081 - 2.717 0.007
F - W Conflict -0.012 - 0.398 0.691
R2 = 0.037, Adjusted R
2 = 0.031, F value = 6.085, Significance level = 0.003
The table reveals that only work to family conflict has been found to be significant and
has negative impact on QWL with regression coefficient � equals to - 0.081. The value
of adj. R2
is 0.031 which indicate that work to family conflict explains 3.1 percent of
variance in QWL and the estimated regression model is as follows:
QWL = 17.572 - 0.081 (W-F Conflict)
The findings of the present study disclose that there is an inverse relationship between
work to family conflict and QWL, which indicate that more the level of interference of
work in family life, lower will be the QWL. It extends the reasoning of the notion that
although work interfering with family and family interfering with work have been
distinguished at conceptual level (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985), yet majority of
research has assessed only work interfering with family under the broad terminology of
work family conflict (Netemeyer et al. 1996). This might be due to the fact that the
effects of work to family conflict have been serious than the effects of family to work
conflict. It has found adequate literature support, e.g. the former category of conflict is
related to various forms of psychological ill effects, like fatigue, distress, job
exhaustion, and dissatisfaction at work and home, whereas the latter has most often
been found related only to fatigue and low family satisfaction (Wayne et al., 2004;
Geurts et al., 2005; Kinnunen et al., 2006). Greenhaus et al. (2003) concluded that
among individuals with high level of engagement across roles, those reporting the
highest quality of life were those who invested more in the family than the work role,
139 �
that is, they showed an imbalance in favor of family. In regard to their level of
engagement, the equally balanced individuals scored lower in quality of life than those
favoring family over work, but higher than those favoring work over family. Thus,
those who invested most in work had the lowest quality of life. In nutshell, it can be
concluded that both forms of conflict have been associated with a variety of negative
consequences in both the work and the family domains, such as decreased family and
job satisfaction, stress, absenteeism, employee turnover and reduced work and family
performance (Allen et al.2000; Byron, 2005; Eby et al. 2005; Poelmans et al.2005;
Stevens et al., 2007).
Section II
Employee Attitudes and Quality of Work life
An individual's attitude, behavior, and health are all affected by how that individual
experiences his/her surroundings. Person’s attitudes towards objects in their
environment are shaped by his/her perceptual and cognitive processes. These attitudes
then affect the person's behavior towards the object. Such attitudes often lean in a
definite direction, such as in favor of or against the object (Allport, 1935). According to
Rosenberg and Hovland (1960), an attitude is composed of three parts: an affective, a
cognitive, and a behavioral component. The affective component includes; feelings,
values, and emotional states and the cognitive component is made up of beliefs whether
something is true or false and lastly, the behavioral component is comprised of
intentions and the decision to act. From this perspective, attitudes fall between stimuli
(e.g., object, people, and process) and the responses to these stimuli. According to this
tripartite approach, all responses to objects or stimuli are subject to the person's attitude
towards the object. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) share this view to a certain extent.
According to these authors, an internal hierarchical relationship exists amongst the
three components of attitude, in which cognition precedes affect which, in turn,
precedes intention. Within the context of an organization, these components of attitude
can be identified as job involvement (cognition), job satisfaction (affect), and turnover
intention (behavior). These attitudes significantly influence the QWL and this notion
has been duly witnessed in the research. According to Loscocco and Roschelle (1991)
the most common assessment of QWL is the individual attitudes. This is because
individual work attitudes are important indicators of QWL. Individuals selectively
140 �
perceive and make attributions about their jobs in accordance with the expectations
they bring to the work place. Subramanian and Anjani (2010) refers quality of work life
as the level of satisfaction, motivation, involvement, and commitment individuals
experience with respect to their lives at work. It is the degree to which individuals are
able to satisfy their important personal needs while employed by the firm.
Johnsrud (2002) points out that most of the studies on QWL are perceptual. That is, it is
assumed that whether or not by some absolute standard the QWL in a particular
situation is good or bad, that the fact is not as important as what the personnel perceive
the situation to be, it is assumed that perception matter. Individual perception may vary
sharply and when individual views are sub summed, that becomes the generalized
perception of the organizational unit. Thus QWL discussion must acknowledge that
quality is defined with regard to certain people in a particular place and time (Wyatt,
1988). Parker et al. (2003) also pointed out that there exists a relationship between
employee’s perception of their work environment and outcomes, such as job
performance. Results of study conducted by Parker et al. (2003) further concluded that
psychological climate perceptions have reliable relationships with employees work
attitudes, psychological well being, motivation and performance. Their study has
shown that climate perceptions have stronger relationships with employees’ work
attitudes as manifested by satisfaction. Bagtasos, (2011) is also of the view that QWL
that a worker expects and experiences could be a product of his perception about
himself, his work and his work environment. The perception could be manifested
through the worker’s attitude, behavior and level of job satisfaction in the work place.
Rice (1985) emphasized the relationship between work satisfaction and quality of
people’s lives. He contended that work experiences and outcomes can affect person’s
general quality of life, both directly and indirectly through their effects on family
interactions, leisure activities and levels of health and energy. The study conducted by
Karrir and Khurana (1996) found significant correlations of quality of work life of
managers from three sectors of industry viz., Public, Private and Cooperative, with
some background variables (education qualification, native/migrant status, income
level) and with all of the motivational variables, like job satisfaction and job
involvement. Efraty and Sirgy (1990) reported that QWL was positively related to
organizational identification, job satisfaction, job involvement, job effort and job
performance.
141 �
The present study focuses on three employee attitudes; professional commitment, job
involvement and job satisfaction and examine how far these attitudes of individual
employees affect QWL and what are the managerial implications of the same. A few
studies on QWL and job satisfaction, professional commitment and job involvement
used sophisticated statistical tools, like correlation and multiple regression analysis to
analyze the role of these attitudes in determining the quality of work life. The
interaction of each employee attitude considered in the present study and QWL has
been discussed in the text following.
a. Professional Commitment and QWL
Decades of research on professional commitment and the wide spread use of its
measures has not been accompanied by much of the research on its relationship with
QWL. Professional commitment has been defined as “one’s attitude towards one’s
profession or vocation and the strength of one’s motivation to work in a chosen career
role” (Blau, 1985, 1988). Professional commitment has three components; affective
commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment as defined by
Meyer et al. (1993). All the three components have been found having association with
employee turnover. It suggests that probability of staying with the organization is more
in case of committed employees as compared to non-committed employees. Common
to the three components is the understanding that commitment is a psychological state
that (a) characterizes the employee’s relationship with their profession and (b) has
implications for the employees’ decision to continue or discontinue membership for
their profession (Jeffrey, 2003).
The present study examines the relationship between professional commitment and
QWL. Professional commitment was measured using self-administered twenty item
scale based on the scales developed by Meyer et al. (1993), Fjortoft and Lee (1994)
and Aranya et al. (1986). The responses were sought on a five point scale ranging from
‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Undecided’, ‘Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’. The
response ‘Strongly Agree’ has been assigned a weight of 5, ‘Agree’ a weight of 4,
‘Undecided’ a weight of 3, ‘Disagree’ with a weight of 2 and ‘Strongly Disagree’ a
weight of 1. The variables along with their frequencies, mean value and standard
deviations are reported in table 5.6.
142 �
Table 5.7 reveals that the respondents have been found agreeing with all the
variables; D11 ‘I consider veterinary profession an important profession.’ has the
highest mean value of 4.17, which shows a strong agreement of the respondents
with the given statement. This is being followed by D19 ‘ I find veterinary
profession to be an interesting profession’ with mean value 4.14; D9 ‘Veterinary
profession is an important part of me with mean value 4.10; D12‘I consider
veterinary profession a well-thought of profession’ with mean value 4.07; D16
‘Veterinary profession offers many challenges to me with mean value 3.97; D7 ‘So
far, veterinary profession has fulfilled and satisfied me’ with mean value 3.92; D14
‘I consider veterinary profession a rewarding profession’ with mean value 3.91; D20
‘Veterinary profession plays a minor role in my life’ with mean value 3.87; D3 ‘My
most common reaction to veterinary profession now is that of enthusiasm’ with
mean value 3.83; D18 ‘I think veterinary profession is of minor importance in the
professional world’ with mean value 3.78; D13 ‘I find most veterinary profession
duties to be boring and dull’ with mean value 3.71; D15 ‘I feel that most aspects of
veterinary profession offer little or no challenge’ with mean value 3.68; D6
‘Somehow, I dread going to work because I no longer enjoy the profession’ with
mean value 3.64; D5 ‘I love veterinary profession and I can hardly conceive of
myself in another profession’ with mean value 3.63; D17 I feel veterinary profession
presents a poor professional image with mean value 3.60; D2 ‘If I could go back
and start over, I would choose veterinary profession again’ with mean value 3.53;
D8 ‘As of now, I'm disenchanted with veterinary profession’ with mean value 3.52;
D10 ‘If for any reason I could not be a veterinarian, it would be as though a part of
me was lost’ with mean value 3.37; D4 I do not like veterinary profession as much
as I thought I would be now with mean value 3.27; D1 To me, being a veterinarian
is only a small part of who I am’ with mean value 3.00.
The analysis also reveals that 297 (92.24 percent) respondents have reported higher
degree of professional commitment, whereas 25 (7.76 percent) of the respondents
have reported moderate degree of professional commitment, while no respondents
have reported no/low level of professional commitment. Summated scores of both
the scales, i.e. Professional Commitment and Quality of Work Life have been used
for the purpose of analysis. Correlation analysis as depicted in Table 5.7 established
143 �
significant and positive relationship between the quality of work life and
professional commitment (r = 0.182, p � 0.01). The positive association between
these variables suggests that higher level of professional commitment among
employees lead to better QWL. The table 5.8 discloses that the value of Adj.R2
=
0.030 indicates that ‘Professional Commitment’ accounts for 3 percent of total
variance in QWL, which is significant as the value of F (11.006) is significant (p �
0.01). The value of � (0.038) indicates that one unit change in ‘Professional
Commitment’ would bring 0.038 unit change in Quality of Work Life. The findings
of the present study are in line with the findings of Sturman (2002), Blair (2002);
Saraji and Dargahi (2007) and Anbarasan (2009) who also found professional
commitment to be a significant determinant of QWL.
Commitment is the function of inherent sincerity of an individual which leads to
development of the capacity to work hard and give good results in all the
circumstances. Effective employees consider commitment as both, the aspect of an
individual and organizational importance. The committed, sincere and honest person
efficiently sustains hard work towards his work which gives him internal
satisfaction of pulling his optimum strength to work. Professional commitment also
determines employee’s decision to stay or leave the organization, hence only the
professionally committed employees enjoy better their stay in their profession and
enjoy better QWL.
144 �
Table - 5.6
Professional Commitment: Frequencies, Percentage, Mean, and Standard Deviation
Variable Strongly
Agree Agree Undecided Disagree
Strongly
Disagree Mean Std. Deviation
D1 37 (11.50) 104 (32.30) 35 (10.87) 115 (35.72) 31 (9.63) 3.00 1.24
D2 62 (19.26) 139 (43.17) 46 (14.29) 59 (18.33) 16 (4.97) 3.53 1.15
D3 49 (15.22) 199 (61.81) 46 (14.29) 26 (8.08) 2 (0.63) 3.83 0.82
D4 40 (12.43) 123 (38.20) 60 (18.64) 82 (25.47) 17 (5.28) 3.27 1.13
D5 57 (17.71) 155 (48.14) 52 (16.15) 50 (15.53) 8 (2.49) 3.63 1.02
D6 56 (17.40) 159 (49.38) 51 (15.84) 47 (14.60) 9 (2.80) 3.64 1.02
D7 71 (22.05) 186 (57.77) 34 (10.56) 29 (9.01) 2 (0.63) 3.92 0.86
D8 47 (14.60) 140 (43.48) 76 (23.61) 50 (15.53) 9 (2.80) 3.52 1.01
D9 85 (26.40) 199 (61.81) 24 (7.46) 14 (4.35) (0.01) 4.10 0.71
D10 37 (11.50) 132 (41.00) 73 (22.68) 74 (22.99) 6 (1.87) 3.37 1.02
D11 99 (30.75) 193 (59.94) 20 (6.22) 7 (2.18) 3 (0.94) 4.17 0.72
D12 84 (26.09) 196 (60.87) 25 (7.77) 15 (4.66) 2 (0.63) 4.07 0.76
D13 59 (18.33) 177 (54.97) 34 (10.56) 38 (11.81) 14 (4.35) 3.71 1.04
D14 66 (20.50) 202 (62.74) 19 (5.91) 29 (9.01) 6 (1.87) 3.91 0.89
D15 55 (17.09) 178 (55.28) 29 (9.01) 50 (15.53) 10 (3.11) 3.68 1.03
D16 56 (17.40) 223 (69.26) 21 (6.53) 20 (6.22) 2 (0.63) 3.97 0.74
D17 57 (17.71) 161 (50.01) 35 (10.87) 56 (17.40) 13 (4.04) 3.60 1.09
D18 84 (26.09) 154 (47.83) 27 (8.39) 44 (13.67) 13 (4.04) 3.78 1.10
D19 91 (28.27) 200 (62.12) 18 (5.60) 12 (3.73) 1 (0.32) 4.14 0.70
D20 66 (20.50) 191 (59.32) 31 (9.63) 26 (8.08) 8 (2.49) 3.87 0.91
Note:- Figures in Parenthesis indicates the percentage of respondents
145 �
Table - 5.7
Correlation between QWL and Employees Attitude
Variable
QWL Professional
Commitment
Job
Involvement
Job
Satisfaction
QWL 1 - - -
Professional Commitment 0.182**
1 - -
Job Involvement 0.129 * 0.508
** 1 -
Job Satisfaction 0.298 **
0.383 **
0.341 **
1
** p � 0.01,
* p � 0.05
Table - 5.8
Employee Attitudes as predictors of QWL
Variable Unstandardized
coefficient �
t value Significance
Professional Commitment
(Adj.R2
= 0.030, F value = 11.006,
p � 0.01)
0.038
3.318
0.001
Job Involvement
(Adj. R2 = 0.013, F value = 5.376,
p � 0.05)
0.036
2.319
0.021
Job Satisfaction
(Adj.R2 = 0.086 , F value = 31.083,
p � 0.01)
0.056
5.575
0.000
146 �
Especially in the profession under consideration, commitment is all the more important
to provide selfless services to the poor masses of the society. The present study defines
QWL as favorable conditions and environment of work and different life aspects, better
work experience of employees may nurture employee’s commitment to their
profession. The positive relationship between QWL and professional commitment is
supported in literature, as both the variables lead to improvement of performance in the
organization. The outcome of the study can guide the policy makers and the
government to design policies relating to the working of the department in such manner
so that commitment on the part of employees can be further strengthened to ensure two
way benefits.
b. Job Involvement and QWL
People differ in the extent to which they are ego-involved in their jobs. According to
Efraty and Sirgy (1990) for some people work is simply the means of earning a living,
while others are deeply involved in their tasks and take special pride in their work. A
positive relationship has been found between need satisfaction and job involvement
which means that more the employees satisfy their survival, social, ego and self-
actualization needs, more they will be involved in their job. Job involvement is the
psychological state of identification of a person with job or importance of job in his/her
self-perception. Job involvement which is defined as one’s ego involvement in the
work itself, has been extensively studied by Lodahl and Kejner (1965), Schwyhart and
Smith (1972) and Rabinowitz and Hall (1977). Empirical studies have provided strong
evidences of positive effects of job involvement on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment (Ben-Porat, 1980; Blau, 1985a, 1985b, 1987; Kanungo, 1982; Lodahl and
Kejner, 1965; Morrow and McElroy, 1987; Parasuraman and Alutto, 1984;
Parasuraman and Nachman, 1987; Rabinowitz and Hall, 1981; Saal, 1978, 1981).
While some studies indicate that job involvement is an index of well-being along with
job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Blau, 1987; Dreher, 1980; Morris and
Koch, 1979; Morrow and McElroy, 1987; Sekaran and Mowday, 1981), whereas,
others suggest that job involvement may be a predictor of job satisfaction, work
commitment and performance (Ben-Porat, 1980; Rabinowitz, 1985; Wiener and
Gechman, 1977). Although the concept of job involvement, its antecedents and
outcomes have been researched extensively, but not much attention has been paid to the
relationship between job involvement and QWL.
147 �
The argument for investigating the relationship of job involvement with QWL among
veterinarians drives from the identification of veterinarians as distinct occupational
group, which impacts their identity, attitudes, interests, colleagueship, power, status and
work consciousness. The twenty item job involvement inventory (Lodahl and Kejner,
1965) has been used to measure the degree of job involvement among the respondents
of the present study. The responses were sought on a five point scale ranging from
‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Undecided’, ‘Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’. The
response ‘Strongly Agree’ has been assigned a weight of 5, ‘Agree’ a weight of 4,
‘Undecided’ a weight of 3, ‘Disagree’ with a weight of 2 and ‘Strongly Disagree’ a
weight of 1. The variables along with their frequencies, mean value and standard
deviations are reported in table 5.9.
Table 5.9 reveals that the respondents have been found agreeing with the variables; F2
‘You can measure a person pretty well by how good a job he does’ has the highest
mean value of 4.00, which shows a strong agreement of the respondents with the given
statement. This is being followed by F3; ‘The major satisfaction in my life comes from
my job with mean value 3.98; F1 ‘I will stay overtime to finish a job, even if I am not
paid for it’ with mean value3.93; F4 ‘For me, mornings at work really fly by’ with mean
value 3.89; F6 ‘The most important things that happen to me involve my work, with
mean value 3.89; F15 ‘I am very much involved personally in my work’ with mean
value 3.85; F5 ‘I usually show up for work a little early, to get things ready’ with mean
value 3.74; F8 ‘I am really a perfectionist about my work’ with mean value 3.61; F13
‘Quite often I feel like staying home from work instead of coming in’ with mean value
3.59; F9 ‘I feel depressed when I fail at something connected with my job’ with mean
value 3.57; F12 ‘I would probably keep working even if I did not need the money’ with
mean value 3.52; F11’I live, eat, and breathe my job with mean value 3.50.; F16 ‘I avoid
taking on extra duties and responsibilities in my work with mean value 3.42; F20
‘Sometimes I'd like to kick myself for the mistakes I make in my work’ with mean
value 3.38; F18 ‘Most things in life are more important than work’ with mean value
3.38; F19 ‘I used to care more about my work, but now other things more important to
me’ with mean value 3.37; F14 ‘To me, my work is only a small part of who I am’ with
mean value 3.32; F7 ‘Sometimes I lie awake at night thinking ahead to the next days’
work’ with mean value 3.16. �
148 �
Table - 5.9
Job Involvement: Frequencies, Percentage, Mean, and Standard Deviation
Variable Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Mean Std. Deviation
F1 67 (20.81) 203 (63.05) 23 (7.15) 21 (6.53) 8 (2.49) 3.93 0.87
F2 55 (17.09) 232 (72.05) 16 (4.97) 18 (5.60) 1 (0.32) 4.00 0.69
F3 72 (22.37) 201 (62.43) 24 (7.46) 22 (6.84) 3 (0.94) 3.98 0.81
F4 45 (13.98) 207 (64.29) 59 (18.33) 10 (3.11) 1 (0.32) 3.89 0.68
F5 29 (9.01) 216 (67.09) 43 (13.36) 32 (9.94) 2 (0.63) 3.74 0.78
F6 50 (15.53) 211 (65.53) 36 (11.19) 24 (7.46) 1 (0.32) 3.89 0.76
F7 20 (6.22) 143 (44.41) 42 (13.05) 101 (31.37) 16 (4.97) 3.16 1.09
F8 28 (8.70) 187 (58.08) 70 (21.74) 29 (9.01) 8 (2.49) 3.61 0.86
F9 34 (10.56) 190 (59.01) 29 (9.01) 62 (19.26) 7 (2.18) 3.57 0.99
F10 15 (4.66) 50 (15.53) 52 (16.15) 179 (55.60) 26 (8.08) 2.53 1.00
F11 34 (10.56) 165 (51.25) 56 (17.40) 63 (19.57) 4 (1.25) 3.50 0.96
F12 35 (10.87) 166 (51.56) 64 (19.88) 44 (13.67) 13 (4.04) 3.52 0.99
F13 46 (14.29) 158 (49.07) 64 (19.88) 48 (14.91) 6 (1.87) 3.59 0.97
F14 29 (9.01) 148 (45.97) 53 (16.46) 82 (25.47) 10 (3.11) 3.32 1.05
F15 50 (15.53) 211 (65.53) 31 (9.63) 23 (7.15) 7 (2.18) 3.85 0.84
F16 43 (13.36) 153 (47.52) 31 (9.63) 86 (26.71) 9 (2.80) 3.42 1.10
F17 24 (7.46) 91 (28.27) 58 (18.02) 128 (39.76) 21 (6.53) 2.90 1.11
F18 31 (9.63) 148 (45.97) 70 (21.74) 59 (18.33) 14 (4.35) 3.38 1.03
F19 24 (7.46) 152 (47.21) 72 (22.37) 67 (20.81) 7 (2.18) 3.37 0.97
F20 26 (8.08) 155 (48.14) 66 (20.50) 66 (20.50) 9 (2.80) 3.38 0.99
149 �
No clear response by the respondents has been found about the variables; F17 ‘I used to
be more ambitious about my work than I am now’ with mean value 2.90; F10 ‘I have
other activities more important than my work’ with mean value 2.53. The analysis
further reveals that 303 (94.09 percent) respondents have indicated the presence of
many of job involvement features while 19 (5.9 percent) respondents have been found
undecided about some of the features considered.
The table 5.7 reveals that ‘Job Involvement’ is positively and significantly related to
QWL (r = 0.129, p � 0.05), which specifies that higher the level of ‘Job Involvement’
better is the QWL among the veterinarians. The table 5.8 presents the results of
regression analysis of QWL as the criterion variable and ‘Job Involvement’ as the
predictor variable. The value of Adj. R2
= 0.013 indicates that ‘Job Involvement’
accounts for 1.3 percent of total variance in QWL, which is significant as the value of F
(5.376) is significant (p � 0.05). The value of � is 0.036 indicates that a unit change in
‘Job Involvement’ would bring 0.036 unit change in QWL among the respondents.
Blau & Boal (1987) refer to people with high levels of job involvement and
organizational commitment as “institutionalized stars” who are critical to the long-term
success of the organization. They refer to workers with low job involvement and
organizational commitment as “apathetic employees” who may actually impede the
long-term success of the organization. Job involvement leads to better performance as
job involvement is a necessary prerequisite for an employee to accept fully the
organizational demand entrusted upon him and moreover, it acts as a moderator
variable in the relationship between job satisfaction and performance opined Katz and
Khan (1966). Nelson (1993) observed that workers with high job involvement are able
to drive self esteem, satisfaction and pride in their work through effective supervision.
Maurer (1979) informed that individuals who are highly involved in their work tend to
meet higher personal needs, such as desire for self-esteem, autonomy and self-
actualization. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions (2002)
described that the QWL is a multi-dimensional construct, made up of a number of
interrelated factors that need careful consideration to conceptualize and measure. It is
associated with job satisfaction, job involvement, motivation, productivity, health,
safety, job security, competence development and balance between work and non-work
life. Quality of work life is also measured by the level of organization commitment, job
satisfaction, empowerment, job involvement and intent to turn over (Blair et al. 2002).
150 �
From the discussion above, it can be concluded that the results of the present study are
in line with the results of the previous studies. Hence government should provide such
an environment to the veterinarians so that they can fulfill their needs and feel satisfied
and remain involved in the profession. � �
c. Job Satisfaction and QWL
Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction may be regarded as an attitude based on the
worker’s feeling about what he should be receiving in, or getting out of a job compared
with what he actually perceives himself to be receiving (Lawler et al.,1980). Wanous
and Lawler (1972) felt that this expected/received ratio can also be expressed as the
degree to which the worker perceives that his needs are being met in a job. The
relationship of job satisfaction with quality of work life is another aspect of working
life that is investigated by researchers (Herzberg et al., 1959 and Herzberg, 1968).
From a business perspective, quality of work life (QWL) is important since there is
evidence demonstrating that the nature of the work environment is related to
satisfaction of employees and work-related behaviors (Greenhaus et al., 1987). QWL is
said to differ from job satisfaction (Quinn & Shephard, 1974; Davis & Cherns, 1975;
Hackman & Suttle, 1977; Kabanoff, 1980; Near et al., 1980; Staines, 1980; Champoux,
1981; Kahn, 1981; Lawler, 1982) but QWL is thought to lead to job satisfaction. As
Sirgy et al., (2001) opined that QWL refers to the impact of the workplace on
satisfaction in work life (job satisfaction), satisfaction in non-work life domains, and
satisfaction with overall life. Danna & Griffin (1999) see QWL as a hierarchy of
concepts that include non-work domains, such as life satisfaction (at the top of the
hierarchy), job satisfaction (at the middle of the hierarchy) and more work-specific
facets of job satisfaction, such as pay, co-workers, and supervisor (lower in the
hierarchy). During the 1990s, scholars and practitioners regained an interest in the
study of QWL and this concept has become of renewed concern and increased
importance to the organization and its human resources both in terms of employee job
satisfaction and in terms of the ultimate performance of the organization. QWL refers
to employee satisfaction with a variety of needs through resources, activities and
outcomes stemming from participation from the work place (Sirgy et al. 2001). This
assertion is consistent with Danna and Griffin’s (1999) view of QWL. Many
researchers (Efraty et al., 1990; Lau and May, 1999; Lewis et al., 2001; Blair, 2001;
Lee et al., 2007; Saad et al., 2008; Islam and Siengthai, 2009; and Koonmee et al.,
151 �
2009) have supported QWL as an antecedent of Job Satisfaction. But there are
researchers who have supported the other side of the causal nature of this relationship,
i.e. believing that job satisfaction causes QWL (Kaye and Sutton, 1985; Sturman, 2002;
Mott et al., 2004, Sale and Smoke, 2007; Anbarasan, 2009 and Azril et al., 2010).
Hence, the construct of job satisfaction establishes two way relationships with QWL,
but the present study views job satisfaction as a antecedent of QWL.
The fifteen item job satisfaction measure developed by Warr et al. (1979) was used to
assess the level of job satisfaction among the veterinary doctors. The responses were
sought on a five point likert scale; Very Dissatisfied, Moderately Dissatisfied,
Undecided, Moderately Satisfied, and Very Satisfied. The response ‘Very Dissatisfied’
has been assigned a weight of 1, ‘Moderately Dissatisfied’ a weight of 2, ‘Undecided’ a
weight of 3, ‘Moderately Satisfied’ with a weight of 4 and ‘Very Satisfied’ a weight of
5. The variables along with their frequencies, mean value and standard deviations are
reported in table 5.10
Table 5.10 reveals that the respondents have been found satisfied with the variables; G5
‘immediate boss’ has the highest mean value of 4.20, which shows a higher level of
satisfaction of the respondents with their immediate bosses. This is being followed by
G13; ‘hours of work with mean value 4.12;G9 ‘Relations between veterinary officers
and deputy directors in the department’ with mean value 4.10; G6 ‘The amount of
responsibility given’ with mean value 4.05; G2 ‘The freedom to choose own method of
working’ with mean value 3.98; G14 ‘The amount of variety in job’ with mean value
3.83; G1 ‘The physical working’ with mean value 3.77; G8 ‘opportunity to use abilities’
with mean value 3.77; G15 ‘job security’ with mean value 3. 75; G4 ‘The recognition
you get for good work’ with mean value 3.75; G3 ‘fellow workers’ with mean value
3.74; G7 ‘rate of pay’ with mean value 3.59; G11 ‘The way the department is being
managed’ with mean value 3.34; G12 ‘The attention paid to suggestions you make’ with
mean value 3.30.
No clear response by the respondents has been found about the variable; G10 ‘Chance of
promotion’ with mean value 2.83. The analysis also reveals that 275 (85.40 percent)
respondents have reported a higher level of job satisfaction, 29 (9 percent) of the
respondents have been found moderately satisfied with their jobs and 18 (5.60 percent)
respondents have clearly reported lack of job satisfaction.
152 �
Table - 5.10
Job Satisfaction: Frequencies, Percentage, Mean, and Standard Deviation
Variable Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Mean Std. Deviation
G1 100 (31.06) 133 (41.31) 20 (6.22) 54 (16.78) 15 (4.66) 3.77 1.19
G2 108 (33.55) 148 (45.97) 25 (7.77) 33 (10.25) 8 (2.49) 3.98 1.02
G3 62 (19.26) 178 (55.28) 27 (8.39) 45 (13.98) 10 (3.11) 3.74 1.02
G4 89 (27.64) 143 (44.41) 33 (10.25) 34 (10.56) 23 (7.15) 3.75 1.18
G5 144 (44.73) 132 (41.00) 18 (5.60) 22 (6.84) 6 (1.87) 4.20 0.95
G6 115 (35.72) 153 (47.52) 19 (5.91) 24 (7.46) 11 (3.42) 4.05 1.01
G7 98 (30.44) 123 (38.20) 19 (5.91) 34 (10.56) 48 (14.91) 3.59 1.40
G8 80 (24.85) 158 (49.07) 26 (8.08) 45 (13.98) 13 (4.04) 3.77 1.10
G9 136 (42.24) 136 (42.24) 14 (4.35) 18 (5.60) 18 (5.60) 4.10 1.09
G10 29 (9.01) 92 (28.58) 73 (22.68) 50 (15.53) 78 (24.23) 2.83 1.32
G11 46 (14.29) 142 (44.10) 48 (14.91) 47 (14.60) 39 (12.12) 3.34 1.24
G12 35 (10.87) 139 (43.17) 61 (18.95) 61 (18.95) 26 (8.08) 3.30 1.14
G13 114 (35.41) 165 (51.25) 16 (4.97) 22 (6.84) 5 (1.56) 4.12 0.90
G14 74 (22.99) 174 (54.04) 31 (9.63) 32 (9.94) 11 (3.42) 3.83 1.00
G15 139 (43.17) 88 (27.33) 25 (7.77) 15 (4.66) 55 (17.09) 3.75 1.48
153 �
The table 5.7 reveals that ‘Job Satisfaction’ is positively and significantly related to
QWL (r = 0.298, p � 0.05), which specifies that higher the level of ‘Job Satisfaction’
better is the QWL among the veterinarians. The table 5.8 presents the results of
regression analysis of QWL as the criterion variable and ‘Job Satisfaction’ as the
predictor variable. The value of Adj. R2
= 0.086 indicates that ‘Job Satisfaction’
accounts for 8.6 percent of total variance in QWL, which is significant as the value of F
(31.083) is significant (p � 0.01). The value of � is 0.056 indicates that a unit change in
‘Job Satisfaction’ would bring 0.056 unit change in QWL among the respondents.
The results validate the notion that the construct of job satisfaction significantly
contributes towards improving QWL of employees. The results of the present study are
supported by many studies (Lewis et al., 2001; Muftah and Lafi, 2011; Koonmee et al.,
2009 and Ganguly, 2010). Job satisfaction is one of the central variables related with
work seen as an important indicator of quality of working life (Cohen et al., 2007;
Aryee et al.,1999) determining the extent to which the employee is satisfied or is
enthusiastic about his job (Aryee et al., 1999). Job satisfaction is the primary outcome
of work experiences that meet valued needs of individuals and thus represents a key
indicator of the QWL (Iqbaria et al., 1994). Since long time it is established that job
satisfaction exhibits strong positive association in expected directions with measures of
a large work attributes, which include diverse aspects of work contents (variety, task
significance and skill use), pay and other benefits, job security, promotion
opportunities, recognition, work conditions, relations with co-workers and supervisors,
effective communication structures in the firms and participation in managerial
decision making (Locke, 1976; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Wooden and Warren,
2003).
Sale and Smoke (2009) gave due weightage to job satisfaction scale (both intrinsic and
extrinsic) to measure QWL which appeared to be highly reliable and sensitive to
variation amongst employees’ groups in the cancer centre population. Sturman (2002)
also assessed QWL of primary school teachers and reported that gains in job
satisfaction and freedom from stress could impact positively on job commitment and
rated their QWL positively significant. Azril et al. (2010) demonstrated that job
satisfaction is one of the factors for work satisfaction. This is expected as there is lot of
literatures available that associated job satisfaction and work performance. As job
154 �
satisfaction leads to increased motivation, better worker mood, which leads to increased
efficiency and over all QWL.
Research by Seashore (1975) and Walton (1975) have reported that job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction especially for office principals, are a principle cause of enhanced or
diminished QWL, not just the result or consequence of QWL programme.
Interaction between Employee Attitudes (professional commitment, job
involvement and job satisfaction) and QWL
This section enumerates the interaction between professional commitment, job
involvement, and job satisfaction taken together and QWL. Based on the past research
highlighting the relationship between QWL and employee attitude and vice versa,
structural model has been developed. The model postulates the relationship between
employee attitudes; professional commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction
with QWL. According to the model, QWL depends upon professional commitment, job
satisfaction and job involvement which has been shown in figure 5(i).
Figure 5(i): Structural model
To assess the impact of all the three employee attitudes on QWL, multiple regression
(enter method) has been employed in which job satisfaction, professional commitment
and job involvement were taken as independent variables and QWL as criterion
variable. As the table 5.12 shows, only job satisfaction has been found to be significant
predictor of QWL. The Adj. R2
of 0.085 implies that only job satisfaction explains
about 8.5 percent of variance in the QWL. The ANOVA table revealed that the F-
statistics is 11.001 and the corresponding p value is 0.000.
Employee
Attitude
Job Satisfaction�
Job involvement
Professional
Commitment
Quality of
Work Life
155 �
As depicted in table, � value for job satisfaction is 0.050. Based on the collinearity
diagnostics obtained, none of the tolerance value is smaller than 0.10 and VIF statistics
is less than 10. This indicated that there is no serious multi collinearity problem among
the predictor variables. The results of the present study showed that job satisfaction has
emerged as the only predictor of QWL. Although job involvement and professional
commitment are positively and significantly related to QWL (table 5.8) and explained
to some extent the total variance in QWL (table 5.9) individually but could not proved
to be significant predictors when taken together with job satisfaction. It is inferred from
the table 5.8 that job satisfaction alone explained 8.6 percent of the total variance which
is high as compared to variance explained by professional commitment (3 percent) and
job involvement (1.3 percent). The value of Adj. R2
has changed to 8.5 percent when
the effect of all the three variables are assessed together intimating that presence of
professional commitment and job involvement do not affect the relationship of job
satisfaction and QWL.
Table - 5.11
Regression Coefficients and Other Relevant Statistics
Independent
variable
Unstandardized
coefficient �
t value Significance Collinearity diagnostic
Tolerance VIF
Professional
Commitment
0.017 1.280 0.202 0.692 1.446
Job Involvement -0.001 -0.071 0.944 0.716 1.396
Job Satisfaction 0.050 4.553 0.000 0.824 1.213
Adj.R2 =0.085, F value = 11.001, p � 0.01
On the basis of output obtained, the restructured model has been presented in figure
5(ii). The dotted arrow lines from job involvement to QWL and professional
commitment to QWL indicates insignificant relationship between the two. For the only
significant link, regression coefficient has been assigned as shown in table 5.11. Job
satisfaction outweighs the effects of job involvement and professional commitment and
has emerged as the only significant factor from the category of employee attitude.
156 �
Figure 5(ii): The Restructured Model
Job satisfaction as the determinant of QWL has been extensively supported in
Literature. Mallik and Mallik (1998) are of the view that high job satisfaction
contributes to organizational commitment, job involvement, better physical and mental
health and quality of life of the employees. Igbaria and Siegel (1992) considered job
satisfaction as the most important factor affecting organizational commitment and job
involvement. As far as job involvement and professional commitment are concerned,
people who value their job quite highly will find that it affects the amount of time they
can devote to their family. Rapoport and Rapoport (1980) supported this by showing
that the family’s morale support and the diversion that it entails make it an important
factor affecting QWL. Schwyhart and Smith (1972) obtained a positive relationship
between job involvement and satisfaction of middle managers in a company.
It can thus be concluded that the major predictor of QWL appears to be job satisfaction.
The results of the study intends to assist policy makers in identifying key work place
issues which contributes towards satisfaction as perceived by the veterinarians, in order
to develop strategies to address and develop QWL conditions for them. Taking into
consideration the significance of animal husbandry to the growth of Indian economy
and specifically to the Punjab economy, the government should take consistent and
steadfast measures to improve the quality of work life of veterinarians. Such measures
will definitely benefit the veterinarians, government itself and the nation as a whole.
0.017�
-0.001
� = 0.050�Employee Attitude
Job Involvement
Job Satisfaction
Professional Commitment
QWL
157 �
Section III
Strategies for Improving Quality of Work Life
Information technology, knowledge management, adoption of new technology and
introduction of various processes has had tremendous impact on human behavior.
Organizations gave more importance to innovative technology for higher productivity
surpassing the needs and mental state of its employees, which created a negative impact
on the working environment among the employees. Many employees feel these days
that they are working harder, faster and for longer hours than ever before which leads to
job related stress with outcomes, like lack of commitment, poor productivity, burn out
and resentment, which are of serious concern for any management
The term ‘Quality of Work Life’ (QWL) originated from the concept of open socio-
technical system designed in the 1970s to ensure autonomy at work, interdependence,
and self-involvement with the idea of ‘best fit’ between technology and social
organizations. Although the open socio-technical system is a traditional concept for
practice, it assumes that optimal system performance and the ‘right’ technical
organization coincide with those job conditions under which the social and
psychological needs of the workers are satisfied (Belweg, 1976). Quality of work life is
both a goal and an ongoing process for achieving it. As a goal, QWL is the commitment
of any organization to work improvement- the creation of more involving, satisfying
and effective jobs and work environment for people at all levels of the organization. As
a process, QWL calls for efforts to realize this goal through the active involvement of
people throughout the organization. As a result of their involvement, people can make
more meaningful contributions to the organization, its objectives, and its ability to cope
with the changing demands of a changing environment and, at the same time,
experience greater feelings of satisfaction, pride in accomplishment, and personal
growth. Importantly, QWL brings together the needs and development of people with
the goals and development of the organization (Carlson, 1983). Quality of work life
also refers to all the organizational inputs which aim at the employee’s satisfaction and
enhancing organizational effectiveness. Every organization must do its best to provide a
working environment that is inclusive, enriching and encouraging to all employees.
Sloan (1964) translated quality of work life as the means, the strategies and
mechanisms needed to make the intentions or policies happen in some concrete way.
158 �
Each situation calling for strategies and mechanisms is unique. QWL initiatives benefit
both employees and employers. In the presence of QWL initiatives employees feel safe,
relatively well satisfied and able to grow and thus can develop as better human beings.
They believe that QWL enhances their dignity through job satisfaction and humanizing
work by assigning meaningful jobs, ensuring job security, making provisions for
adequate pay and benefits, providing safe and healthy working conditions, giving
opportunities to develop human capacity, ensuring growth and security, social
integration, constitutionalism, getting freedom to self-expression and thus, help to
increase individual productivity that supports to achieve organizational effectiveness
(Walton, 1974; Suttle, 1977; Guest, 1979; Carlson, 1980; Nachmias, 1988; Hian and
Einstein, 1990;)
For employers, QWL positively nurtures a more flexible, loyal, and motivated
workforce, which is essential in determining the company’s competitiveness (Allan and
Loseby, 1993; Meyer and Cooke, 1993; Bassi and Vanburen, 1997). QWL results in
reduced absenteeism, lower turnover, and improved job satisfaction (Havlovic, 1991;
Cohen et al., 1997; King and Ehrhard, 1997). Largely, it appears that the main concerns
of an effective QWL program is improved working conditions from employees’
perspective and greater organizational effectiveness from employers’ perspective.
Three different approaches regarding QWL are common in the literature of human
resource management (Krahn and Lowe, 1998; Crompton and Harris, 1998; Gallie,
1990; Rose, 1994). In this first era of scientific management, QWL was based on
extrinsic traits of jobs; salary, safety and hygiene, and other tangible benefits of the
workplace. The second approach, i.e. human relations approach stressed that, while
extrinsic rewards are important, intrinsic traits of job; autonomy, challenges and task
contents, are key predictors of productivity and efficiency. The third approach of
sociotechnical orientation to work suggested that a focus on extrinsic or intrinsic
reward is contingent on the person. However, the success of QWL initiatives depends
on openness and trust, information management, organizational culture, partnership
between management and workers (Casio, 1992). As far as, responsibility for
improving the QWL is concerned, it should be jointly shared by employees, owners,
union leaders and governments through legislations (Suttle, 1977).
159 �
National Seminar (1982) conducted by National Productivity Council, New Delhi on
improving the quality of working life was convened to enquire into the direction of
Quality of Work Life activities in India and prepare an action plan for implementing the
Quality of Work Life concepts. The recommendation of the National seminar published
in the Journal of Productivity (1982) states that at the enterprise level, improvement of
quality of work life should be through the co-operative endeavor between management
and unions. The conference pointed out that the Government could help in improving
quality of work life through legislation, executive policy and action through its
entrepreneurial role in the public sector. It recommended the need for engaging and
involving shop-floor level staff in the management and policy decisions for
improvement in Quality of Work Life.
As the interest in the field has grown, QWL has come to be loosely used to cover a
broad spectrum of activities (Jenkins 1983). QWL has been used differently by
different groups of people, for instance; as a specific set of theories, philosophies and
schools of thought; as a organizational design approach; as a problem solving approach;
as a technique to improve quality; as an organizational development strategies; as a
method to improve organizational effectiveness and productivity; and as a technique to
improve management relations (Shani et al. 2007). Considering the importance of
enhanced QWL, the organizations have been implementing various work life
improvement programmes, like ‘work improvement’, worker’s participation’, ‘work
humanization’, ‘industrial democracy’ and ‘job enrichment’. Some of the popular QWL
programmes being used by organizations have been examined by Nair et al. (2003) are
as follows.
• Flexi-time: A system of flexible working hours. Flexi-time serves as a work
scheduling scheme allowing individual employees, with in established limits.
To central and redistribute their working hours around organizational demands.
• Job enrichment: A programme for redesigning employee jobs to allow greater
autonomy and responsibility in the performance of the work tasks.
• Management by objectives: Participation of an employee with his superior in
setting employee goals those are consistent with the objectives of the
organization as whole. MBO is viewed as a way to integrate personal and
organizational needs.
160 �
• Staggered hours: A work hour arrangement of overlapping schedules of
predetermined hours established for the total work force. In a staggered work
hour scheme, groups of employees begin and end work at different intervals.
• Socio technical system: A physical and technological design of the work place
for employees with human consideration of the work force.
• Job enlargement: A programme in which employees continue their present job,
but duties are added with the intent of making the job more rewarding.
• Job rotation: A programme in which employees periodically change work
assignments to gain training and reduce monotony
• Autonomous work group: A form of participation in which the group of workers
is given some control of decision making on production methods, distribution of
tasks, recruitment of team members selection of team leaders, work schedules
and so on
• Employee participation: A programme aimed at a greater sharing of
responsibility for decision making.
Certain issues like tighter budgetary constraints, greater work demands, job stress,
departmental politics, and family issues can lead to imbalances that adversely affect
QWL of employees. Be they are the organizations or employees they definitely will
have the desire and determination to make changes in their work and home system to
improve their life. The information about similar feelings has been sought in black and
white from the respondents of the present study and is reported as follows.
• Infrastructure and facilities for productive job: As it has already been made
apparent that the job of a veterinarian is very taxing on account of dealing with
objective patients, and it further becomes complicated if the doctors are not
provided the required infrastructure and facilities. So, it is the basic requirement
of the veterinarians to have latest infrastructure and facilities. The infrastructure,
like hospital building, furniture and availability of electricity, are required to
generate conducive environment which could make their job more productive.
• Growth and development programme: As every employee intends to learn and
advance, so opportunities for professional growth can attract employees. The
government should conduct various growth and development programme not
only to help veterinarians feel like government is investing in them but also help
161 �
them maintain their skills they need viable in the profession. Use of audio visual
techniques under management programmes, workshops on zoonotic diseases,
conferences and seminars on modern ways of controlling the outbreak and
treatment of diseases and training of computers for using software specifically
designed for reporting can help employees to develop their skills. No doubt the
department of animal husbandry Punjab organizes various animal welfare
camps for providing technical guidance to field staff and farmers, delivers
lectures on lab diagnosis of different diseases and infertility problems in farm
animals and their management. The effectiveness of such programmes is
required to be ensured by providing all the doctors equal chance to avail such
opportunities.
• Diagnostic facilities and staff: Respondents feel that adequate diagnostic
facilities and staff for improved QWL are required. Hence government
cooperation in the form of increased investment in arranging and providing such
facilities is necessary. Access of facilities, like ultrasound machine, x-ray
machine, blood auto analyzers, postmortem techniques and histopathology are
required to be made easy and possible at district levels.
• Public awareness: The effectiveness of the profession depends on the
cooperation as well as the awareness of the farmers. In this direction the
government is required to conduct various educative programmes for the
livestock owners. The move to conduct awareness and grass root level camps
wherein the farmers are advised to prevent their animals from various diseases,
use latest techniques for preserving green fodder, use of alternative ways of
animal husbandry to increase their source of income by adopting goat, pig and
dairy farming should be intensified. Live demonstrations and hands on training
for farmers should be arranged.
• Extension activities: Veterinarians are of the view that the government should
undertake various extension activities for field staff as well as livestock owners
by delivering radio and or television talks. This attempt would ensure timely
action by experts during outbreaks to ensure accurate and speedy diagnosis.
162 �
• Well defined system/discipline in the department: The principles of justice, fair
and equity are required to be applied in respect to discipline, grievance
handling, promotions, transfers, work assignment and leave, etc.
• Performance appraisal and recognition of hard work: Monthly reporting and
discussion thereof at the district level is strongly advocated by the respondents.
This practice enables the authorities to appraise the performance of the staff and
identify the hospitals meeting the targets and excelling in the job. Lack of
monetary / non monetary incentives in the government jobs create a feeling of
resentment amongst the pushing veterinarians. Hence, endeavors on the part of
the department to offer leadership development activities, recognition for hard
work and excellence in going above and beyond the call of duty would be
highly appreciated and recommended by the respondents.
• Autonomy in work rules and financial powers: Work rules can help to create
and maintain an orderly atmosphere which is pleasant to work in. So,
department should keep an appropriate provision for autonomy in work along
with the enforced work rules. Doctors also seek adequate financial powers to
carry out additional job tasks assigned to them.
• Emotional supervisory support: Emotional supervisory support may help boost
an employee’s energy level by showing concern for individual problems, giving
feedback and appreciating the subordinates. Since the veterinarians are to work
as team members in the hospitals under the direct control of senior veterinary
officers, therefore emotional supervisory support has been highly valued and
recommended by the respondents for the peaceful functioning of the
department.
• Quackery checking: Government is required to take adequate measures to check
the working of parallel system being run by the unqualified people who inhibit
the effectiveness of the department.
• Use of new technology and computerization of work: Department is required to
make constant efforts to adopt new technology and computerize the working.
The departure form the traditional man made system to machine system is
assumed to lead to efficiency and effectiveness of the department.
163 �
• Balance of work and non-work life: Doctors also realize the importance of
family in their lives, hence the importance of balance of work and non-work
life. Majority of the doctors are of the view that continuous hard work causes
psychological and physical strains, therefore, there has to be balance between
professional and family life.
• Excursion activities: Some of the respondents suggested that in order to beat the
boredom and break up the monotony, one should go for excursion trips in the
weekends. Such activities revitalize and recharge the energy level to rejoin the
same duty with zeal.
• Upliftment of the profession: Collective efforts on the part of the government,
department and veterinarians themselves for the upliftment of the profession are
reported to be desirable as follows:
o Minimizing unproductive touring hours.
o Providing journals of veterinary medicine, gynecology and surgery to
hospitals.
o Facilities of video conferencing to update knowledge about the latest
developments in the department.
o Restricting target oriented job to give free hand working.
o Arranging refresher courses and seminars.
o Providing sufficient promotional avenues.
o Vaccination of veterinary staff against zoonotic diseases.
o Value punctuality on job and perform diligently.
o Plan work and own responsibility at work place.
o To maintain cordial relations with subordinates and superiors and to
have stress free working.
o Accept challenges at work place and update self knowledge.
o Practice meditation for healthy living.
In the present economy where several changes in the nature of economic activities,
such as strong growth in the service sector, increased level of productivity growth and
globalised market has taken place, organizations can experience more success by
creating a culture that promotes QWL initiatives for their employees. Organizations
164 �
taking lead in enhancing QWL of their employee’s value and respect their employees
and acknowledge the human side of the work. QWL programmes strive to synchronize
employee needs and well-being with the organizations urge for higher returns. Having
a good QWL depends upon the values, priorities and the circumstances of a particular
individual. Employees having a high QWL not only they get enjoyment in work but
also feel a sense of commitment in their profession.
The present study conducted on veterinarians working under department of animal
husbandry, Punjab can also make a niche in this area. Commitment on the part of
government and department itself to work on the activities and initiatives as suggested
by the respondents can create a sound and harmonious working environment to get the
desired results.