The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
QAE
21,3
282
Received 6 February 2012
Revised 23 August 2012
Accepted 9 February 2013
Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 21 No. 3, 2013
pp. 282-298
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-Feb-2012-0006
Quality of work-life model for
teachers of private universities in
Pakistan
Seema Arif
Quality Enhancement Cell, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, and
Maryam Ilyas
College of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, The University of Punjab, Lahore,
Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore various dimensions of quality of work-life (QWL)
as it affects the life and attitude at work of teachers of private universities in Lahore, Pakistan.
Design/methodology/approach – The study was quantitative in nature. A survey was conducted
with 360 faculty members from private universities in Lahore, in order to find out their perceptions of
QWL, and its spill-over effect on employee commitment, engagement, job involvement and reputation
of the university.
Findings – It was found that perceived value of work, work climate, work-life balance and
satisfaction with relationships in life were the major factors which shaped work attitudes and
employee perceptions of overall quality of work-life.
Research limitations/implications – The data were cross-sectional, collected at one point in time
and relatively small in size. The responses are limited to private organizations, excluding public
universities.
Originality/value – The study makes both a scholarly and practical contribution. The scholarly
contribution highlights that the dominant constructs of QWL play an important role in shaping
attitudes towards work, life and relationships of teachers of private universities. On a practical level,
the study hints at the possible implications of dissatisfaction and imbalance within employee
commitment and engagement, and even the reputation of the university.
Keywords Universities, Teachers, Academic staff, Job commitment, Pakistan, Quality of work-life,
Higher education, Private universities, Reputation, Job involvement
Paper type Research paper
1. Background
The twenty-first century is recognized as an age of knowledge, where significant value
is being attached to attributes like knowledge creation, innovation and knowledge
management. However, knowledge workers generating these valuable attributes are
complaining about their quality of work-life (QWL), as are others such as university
teachers, who are the chaperones of society, preparing a workforce to meet the
high-tech needs of industry, business and service organizations. Although we
frequently come across rhetoric relating to the rights of knowledge workers, stated in
terms of work-life balance or QWL, in the corporate world, we still observe our valued
knowledge workers craving respect and recognition, especially in developing countries
like Pakistan. With the advent of globalization, universities are being managed like
private businesses, becoming knowledge corporations. Therefore, the knowledge
managers in these modern corporations seek the same status and facilities for
themselves as those provided to their counterparts in other industries, especially when Quality of work-
there is an increasing demand on them in terms of both knowledge dissemination life model
(teaching) and knowledge production (research).
In the twenty-first century, we are witnessing contrasting agendas: on the one hand
we witness service organizations like universities being operated as businesses,
governing the workforce with tools crafted by modern management theories focused
upon efficiency; on the other we strive to maximize human potential through 283
enhancing individual self-worth and self-esteem, by emphasizing positive identity with
work and the workplace. The ultimate aim is to develop satisfaction with life while
enhancing personal lifestyles. While this push-and-pull is going on, we can assume that
modern organizations, belonging to any business or industry, are in the process of
changing their outlook on work and relationships with employees, while attaching
significant importance to human effort and recognizing such effort through increasing
empowerment (EMP) and employee participation in decision making.
Higher education is considered to be one of the most effective and authentic means
of bringing qualitative change into one’s life; not only offering better incomes, but also
better roles and status as well. Such change is achieved through promoting acquisition
of knowledge and skills, and by shaping attitudes that will encourage change in the
lives of people, transforming their outlook on life. Consequently, their working styles
and their ability to adopt innovation and technology improve, and the behaviours that
bring about qualitative improvement within organizational systems will be reinforced.
In order to study such dynamics of change, a quality management approach seems
appropriate, allowing the study of behavioural dynamics from multiple perspectives.
One such perspective is that of QWL for the employees of any organization.
Successive movements to develop human capital (Argyris, 1973; Herzberg, 1987;
Maslow, 1954) and human social capital (Putnam, 2000) have been integrated into the
concept of QWL by the quality movement. Work-life quality and balance are probably
the greatest challenges most people face today. Life is so busy that it is hard to manage
time; therefore we will have to learn to manage important activities in our lives to
maintain a sense of quality and balance in life. This efficient self-management requires
the shaping of attitudes rather than the learning of new skills. QWL and work-life
balance (WLB) offer us a holistic perspective and framework, highlighting that
personal responsibilities and work cannot be conveniently separated in reality.

2. Literature review
The measurement of customer satisfaction has been expanding in higher education,
and focus is gradually moving onto employees’ satisfaction (Sahney et al., 2008).
Seeking employee satisfaction in higher education has become important because
“higher education institutions are labor intensive” and their budgets are predominantly
devoted to staff development, as employee efficiency is a key predictor of
organizational effectiveness (Kusku, 2003, p. 350). Internationally, higher education
institutions and organizations are becoming more accountable and responsive to their
internal customers’ needs, especially those of the academic staff (Chen et al., 2006;
Edwards et al., 2009; Sahney et al., 2008).
Sajid (2003) has drawn attention to the indifference of university academic staff in
Pakistan, pointing out that they lack interest in research and development, in grooming
students, or in mentoring colleagues. They fail to realize such efforts as tools for
QAE advancing careers or as sources of personal satisfaction, believing that such efforts are
21,3 not well recognized. If such efforts are lost and are unable to instigate positive changes
in personal lifestyle and or improve pay or status, what else could be the possible
causes of faculty burnout and lack of concern? Parkes (2008, p. 28) has warned that:
[. . .] if we ask people who have left an organization, they will often be able to point to
incidents that others may regard as petty, but which made them decide that they were no
284 longer committed to the organization.
Therefore, higher education leadership must be careful to retain well-qualified and
capable employees. Recently, in Pakistan, higher education has become an attractive
and promising sector to work in, attracting people from industry to teach in private
universities and pursue their careers there, but it is still unclear whether these people
have the basic mindset, or the right attitude and aptitude, that traditional “teaching”
demands. Not only do newly established, private universities need to adjust their
vision of “teaching as service”, but they also need to learn to recognize and reward
teaching as well (Arif, 2009; Arif and Ilyas, 2011; Arif and Riaz, 2011).
QWL is an emerging concept; which may be understood differently by different
people depending upon their situations and differing roles (Edwards et al., 2009;
Sashkin and Burke, 1987). QWL is referred to as the “favourableness or
unfavourableness of a total job environment for people” (Rantanen et al., 2011;
Rethinam and Ismail, 2008) and Bateman and Snell (2003) defined QWL as “enhanced
sense of employee well-being”. Moreover, Mohanraj and Ramesh (2010, p. 128) have
described QWL as an innovation which not only targets employee satisfaction, but also
enhances organizational effectiveness and productivity.
QWL is primarily a subjective phenomenon which is largely affected by existing
work conditions. Based upon previous research findings (Nadler and Lawler, 1983;
Seashore, 1975; Sashkin and Burke, 1987), Martel and Dupuis (2006) concluded that
measurement of QWL must involve organizational, human and social aspects of job
and work environment. Thus, QWL can be studied from three perspectives:
(1) employee perception of working conditions;
(2) employers’ evaluation of job quality and its cost effectiveness; and
(3) community views of meaningful work and purposeful jobs.

It is important to note that current study aimed to explore QWL from employees’ point
of view only.
QWL has been associated with basic job characteristics such as: salary, wages or
compensation; physical or psychological environment at work; workload and stress at
work; and equitable chances of promotion and professional growth (Lee et al., 2007;
Sirgy et al., 2008). The research on QWL broadly aims at getting an overview of
job-related factors that affect individuals and groups at work (Sirgy et al., 2001), and,
according to Edwards et al. (2009), the information thus obtained may help and guide
organizations to adopt appropriate actions to improve working conditions, as well as
their employees’ attitudes towards work. For instance, reducing absenteeism and
turnover, and improving job satisfaction through increasing staff retention; improving
productivity, morale and commitment (Efraty et al., 1991; Fuller, 2006; Sirin, 2009;
Worrall and Cooper, 2006), and thus employee involvement and engagement in socially
responsible activities (Razaq et al., 2011).
 The focus of QWL goes beyond job satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 2001). Seashore (1975) Quality of work-
earlier defined QWL as, “effectiveness in work roles”. QWL for him is not a measure of life model
job satisfaction, but acts as one of the predictor of consequences of prevailing work
conditions. Serey (2006) defined QWL as an important construct comprising four
conditions: concern, consciousness, capacity and commitment. It includes:
.
an opportunity to exercise one’s talents and capacities, and to face challenges and
situations that require independent initiative and self-direction; 285
.
an activity thought to be worthwhile by the individual involved;
.
an activity in which one understands the role the individual plays in the
achievement of some overall goals; and
.
a sense of taking pride in what one is doing and in doing it well.

The aim of QWL research is to evaluate job satisfaction of employees in order to make
informed decisions concerning their welfare and work productivity. The QWL
philosophy allows employees to participate in decisions concerning improvement of
their work environment. Sirgy et al. (1991, 2001, 2007, 2008) view QWL as a source of
employee satisfaction emerging from the fulfillment of basic needs, following Maslow
(1954), McClelland (1961), Herzberg (1987) and Alderfer (1972); seeing QWL as an
outcome of employee satisfaction with two sets of major needs: lower- and higher-order
needs. Lower-order needs comprise health/safety needs and economic/family needs.
Higher-order needs involve social needs, esteem needs, self-actualization needs,
knowledge needs and aesthetic needs. However, the concept is extended by the
“spill-over effect”, which goes beyond the extrinsic aspect of job satisfaction towards
more intrinsic satisfaction with life and non-work situations. Sirgy et al. (2008) quote
many others in stating that:
[. . .] the spillover approach to QWL posits that satisfaction in one area of life may influence
satisfaction in another. For example, satisfaction with one’s job may influence satisfaction in
other life domains such as family, leisure, social, health, financial, etc. (Loscocco and
Roschelle, 1991; Bromet et al., 1990; Crohan et al., 1989; Crouter, 1984 in Sirgy et al. (2001)).
Martel and Dupuis (2006, p. 341) claimed that “there is an in-dissociable relationship
between Quality of Life (QOL) and QWL”. QOL here implies the Aristotelian concept of
happiness derived from purposefulness and being engaged in meaningful work (Arif,
2011). The jobs thus defined must take care of human dignity and enhance workers’
self-esteem and self-worth. In this context, many developing countries are aiming to
improve their legislation to protect employee rights and their wellbeing.
Furthermore, QWL is also explored in terms of the interface between roles and
identities that employees create for themselves and the resources available in the work
environment (Sirgy et al., 2008). Rantanen et al. (2011) introduced many theoretical
approaches to WLB to develop a new typology among professionals; these help
researchers to identify constructs for QWL for their research.
Researchers have emphasized the importance of assessing both work and non-work
contexts to assess QWL, and six factors that are considered to be important are: job
and career satisfaction; general wellbeing; home-work interface; stress at work; control
at work; and working conditions (Loscocco and Roschelle, 1991; Van Laar et al., 2007).
QWL programs encourage organizations to recognize their responsibility to develop
jobs and working conditions that are excellent for people, as well as for the economic
QAE health of the organization. One such condition has been defined by Clark (2000, p. 751)
21,3 as the work-family balance: “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home,
with a minimum of role conflict”. Such alternate work schedules (flexi-time or
flexi-space) affect perceived work-life imbalance, which results in the “time bind”
(Tausig and Fenwick, 2001).
No doubt, QWL is a phenomenon realized by employees who get involved in their
286 jobs, pursue a hierarchy of goals and are able to clearly identify the state and stage of
their satisfaction with work itself and work environment. The context of involvement is
rooted in knowledge workers’ inherent need for better self-control and autonomy.
Johnsrud (2002) and Rosser (2005) identified three dimensions of faculty satisfaction:
professional priorities and rewards; administrative relations and support; and quality of
benefits and services. They also defined three dimensions of faculty morale as
engagement in work; sense of institutional regard; and personal sense of their own
wellbeing. They suggested that perceptions of work-life and morale have significant,
direct impacts on intent to leave. Rosser (2005) also suggested that the perception faculty
members have of their work life has a direct and powerful impact on their satisfaction.
To sum up in the words of Edwards et al. (2009), who concluded that QWL is a
subjective construct:
.
organizational, human and social aspects interact and must be integrated within
the definition of QWL; and
.
there is an in-dissociable relationship between QOL and QWL.

According to these researchers, QWL is what will differentiate good companies from
poor companies. QWL is all about the conducive and congenial environment created at
the workplace, as it is one of the main reasons for better performance and productivity.
Better quality of work-life leads to increased employee morale, minimizes attrition and
checks labor turnover and absenteeism. The concept allows us to value employees
more than just internal customers, and appreciate the concept of “employee first and
the customer second” (Collins and Smith, 2006). It is therefore assumed that when the
right ambience is provided for employees, they will be able to deliver their goods
effectively and efficiently.

3. The purpose of the study

The research was carried out in order to discover how teachers in private universities
in Pakistan view their work environment and whether this working environment is
helping them to become valued human beings or not.

4. Research questions
RQ1. What are the key dimensions of QWL as perceived by academic staff of
private universities in Lahore, Pakistan?
RQ2. How does QWL link with the academic staff’s needs for satisfaction? Are the
needs satisfied of a lower order or higher order?
RQ3. What is the nature of the spill-over effect of QWL? Is it the bottom-up type,
i.e. spreading to non-work conditions and relationships in life (RLT) or vice
versa?
5. Theoretical framework Quality of work-
The theoretical framework of the study has been derived from the studies of Sirgy, life model
Efraty, Lee and others (Sirgy et al., 2001, 2008; Lee et al., 2007) to determine the needs
satisfaction of faculty of private universities in Pakistan, and their spill-over effect
upon non-work conditions. The QWL constructs have been selected carefully
according to the propositions made by Edwards et al. (2009), Johnsrud (2002), Rantanen
et al. (2011), Rosser (2005) and Van Laar et al. (2007). It has been assumed that QWL 287
influences employees’ attitudes, as well as their perceptions regarding the quality of
their environment. Attitudes under study include one’s personal attitude towards the
profession and the lifestyle one maintains, and perceptions about the quality of inputs,
outputs and processes in the workplace. Environment constitutes the physical,
psychological and social environment at work. The attitudes under study include
different facets of job satisfaction, including satisfaction with general job
characteristics, perceived workload and stress. Job commitment is measured through
loyalty behaviours (i.e. engagement in promotional activities and degree of
involvement with the job and workplace) and maintaining a positive identity and
sense of belonging in the workplace (e.g. perceptions about the university’s reputation
or ranking reflects the desired image of the workplace) (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009).

6. Research design
The study was designed as a descriptive study with the intention to look at the
phenomenon of QWL as it is. A survey method was chosen to carry out the study for its
“broad coverage, flexibility and convenience with inputs on related populations or
events” (Rose and Naresh, 2006). Since no precedent of such a study was found in the
local context, and no reliable scale was available, we selected items for the
questionnaire after an in-depth literature review on the topic, in keeping with our local
context.
The questionnaire was self-constructed, but was reviewed by a team of experts and
pre-tested on 30 faculty members of various universities. Necessary amendments were
made to reach an overall reliability of . 0.7. The value achieved for Cronbach’s a was
0.98. The final questionnaire consisted of three parts: “Part A” sought demographic
information; “Part B” comprised the QWL scale, with 52 items summed up in 13
constructs; and “Part C” had nine items (three each) for measuring employee
commitment, employee engagement and perceived reputation of the university. A
five-point scale with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree” was used
in the questionnaire.
Questionnaires were administered in the five private universities of Lahore after
obtaining formal consent to collect data. The Institution of Research Promotion (IRP)
helped in collecting data in three universities, while in the remaining two, data was
collected with the help of students. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed in
five private universities; only 370 were returned, of which 360 were completed and
included in the final analysis. Hence, the final response rate was 72 percent. The data
was collected within two weeks of distributing questionnaires to the intended
participants. Questionnaires that were not returned within 20 days were not pursued
any further.
Multiple techniques have been used to explore data that qualify relationships
between variables. SPSS (17th edition) and AMOS (16th edition) were used to obtain
QAE key models for the research. Since we used a dynamic hypothesis to interpret data at
21,3 two levels, the independent and dependent variables differed at both levels. The
first-level results were achieved by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and stepwise
regression, to determine the internal dynamics of the data. The set of factors identified
by EFA indicated a strong relationship between five sets of independent variables
(factors) and two dependent variables: quality of work-life and job involvement. WLB
288 was found to be moderating with three sets of independent variables. In second-level
analysis, the relationship of QWL was further explored in terms of employee attitudes
like commitment and engagement, and the impact on the perceived reputation of the
university. Binary logistic regression was used in this part of the analysis.

7. Findings
7.1 Descriptives
Out of the sample of 360 teachers of five private universities, 87 percent were
permanent and 13 percent had visiting status. In addition, 40 percent of the teachers
were lecturers, 32 percent assistant professors, 20 percent professors and the others
were deans or heads of departments. A very high percentage of the sample (77 percent)
held MPhils, 16 percent held PhDs, while the remainder had other professional
qualifications. The respondents described various reasons for choosing their respective
universities as a workplace: for 36 percent it was the pay package; for 22 percent it was
the work climate (WC); for 20 percent it was opportunities for furthering their career;
for 14 percent it was academic and research value; and for the remainder, easy access
to the university was the sole reason to work there.

7.2 First-level analysis

The 42 items (on a five-point Likert scale), grouped into the original 13 variables
derived from the literature review to measure various aspects of satisfaction at work,
life and relationships, were explored using SPSS. Principal axis factor analysis reduced
the data into seven factors: quality of processes (QOP); perceived value of work (VOW);
WC; WLB; work stress (WS); RLT; and EMP. QWL identified by the respondents was
measured by five items, with reliability coefficient of 0.849. Factor analysis of the five
items also implied the existence of a single factor. All factors were defined over high
factor loadings (. 0.47) (Fava and Velicer, 1996) (Appendix 1). Cronbach’s a was . 0.8,
indicating that the eight extracted factors were reliable. Furthermore, the analysis of
the mean scores of the seven derived scales reflected no dissatisfaction among
respondents, with the exception of WLB and QWL, as all other mean scores were above
3.00. Therefore, these two factors (WLB and QWL) were assumed to be critical in
shaping the holistic perception of quality of work-life for teachers of private
universities working in Lahore, Pakistan, and were further investigated to determine
their moderating affect (Table I).
7.2.1 Stepwise multiple regression analysis. The variation in QWL was assessed by
stepwise multiple regression analysis considering QOP, VOW, WC, WLB, WS, RLT
and EMP as independent variables (Table II). Multicollinearity did not apply here
because the variance inflation factor (VIF) was much less than 10 and all tolerance
values were greater than 0.6 (Meyers et al., 2006). Stepwise regression resulted in five
significant models (Table II). Positive standardized coefficients indicate that the higher
the scores on QOP, VOW, WC, WLB, WS, RLT and EMP scales, the better will be the
 Quality of work-
Factors Mean SD
life model
Quality of processes (QOP) 3.54 0.78
Work stress (WS) 3.02 0.92
Value of work (VOW) 3.19 0.78
Empowerment (EMP) 3.23 0.86
Work climate (WC) 3.24 0.76 289
Relationships in life (RLT) 3.84 0.81
Work-life balance (WLB) 2.79 0.95 Table I.
Quality of work-life (QWL) 2.40 0.51 Descriptive statistics

Standardized Adjusted R 2
Model coefficients t-value Sig. (%)

1. VOW 0.802 25.412 0.000 64.2 F(1, 358) ¼ 645.767, p-value ¼ 0.000
2. VOW 0.615 18.287 0.000 72.0 F(2, 357) ¼ 461.485, p-value ¼ 0.000
WS 0.336 9.975 0.000 72.0
3. VOW 0.545 16.661 0.000 75.8 F(3, 356) ¼ 372.607, p-value ¼ 0.000
WS 0.370 11.682 0.000
RLT 0.202 7.421 0.000
4. VOW 0.533 16.576 0.000 77.0 F(4, 355) ¼ 296.345, p-value ¼ 0.000
WS 0.322 9.723 0.000
RLT 0.159 5.575 0.000
Table II.
WLB 0.128 4.132 0.000
Stepwise multiple
5. VOW 0.525 16.414 0.000 77.4 F(5, 354) ¼ 242.567, p-value ¼ 0.000 regression analysis:
WS 0.322 9.792 0.000 summary of seven scales
RLT 0.132 4.413 0.000 predicting teachers’
WLB 0.124 4.019 0.000 perceptions of quality of
QOP 0.074 2.664 0.008 work-life

QWL perception. Most of the variation (64.2 percent) in QWL was explained by VOW,
followed by WS, RLT, WLB and QOP, each of which uniquely added (R 2-adjusted) 7.8,
3.9, 1.2 and 0.4 percent, respectively. Hence, the level of the perceived VOW by a
teacher is the key determinant of their overall job satisfaction and perception of QWL.
7.2.2 Moderation analysis. Moderating effects of satisfaction with RLT and WLB
were assessed using AMOS 16.0 (Appendix 2), and the graphs were formulated in MS
Excel 2007. All the models were evaluated by five fit measures:
(1) chi-squared (x 2);
(2) the comparative fit index (CFI);
(3) the goodness of fit index (GFI);
(4) the normed fit index (NFI); and
(5) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).

For all the proposed models, the x 2-value was not significant, indicating a reasonable
match between the proposed structure and the observed data. The values of CFI, GFI,
QAE NFI and RMSEA made all four models an excellent fit for the data, as large values of
21,3 CFI, GFI, NFI and small values of RMSEA reflect better-fitting models (Appendix 2)
(Hu and Bentler, 1995, 1999; Byrne, 2010).
Taking QWL and WLB as dependent variables and EMP, VOW and WC as
independent variables, satisfaction with RLT was found to be a key moderator; it
moderates the relationship between EMP, VOW, WC and WLB, in the following three
290 ways (Figures 1-3).
The effect of perceived VOW on WS and QWL was explored, considering WLB as a
moderator. WLB did not moderate the relationship between VOW and QWL alone.
However, for the relationship between VOW and WS, the effect of WLB was prevailing
(as shown in Figure 4). Thus, the impact of WS on perceived VOW and satisfaction
was more positive for those with a high sense of WLB.

Figure 1.
RLT moderating the
relationship between EMP
and WLB

Figure 2.
RLT moderating the
relationship between
VOW and WLB

Figure 3.
RLT moderating the
relationship between WC
and WLB
7.3 Second level analysis Quality of work-
The outcomes of QWL were checked with other positive job satisfaction constructs, life model
such as job commitment and employee engagement, as well as on perceived reputation
of the university. Surprisingly, no significant model was indicated between the
relationships of QWL and the seven factors and commitment, engagement and
reputation. The calculated values were small, such as:
.
WLB, VOW and QOP explained 24 percent of the variation in commitment. 291
.
WS and WLB explained 16.8 percent of the variation in reputation.
.
WS, WLB, WC and QOP explained 29.8 percent of the variation in engagement.

However, QWL, engagement, commitment and reputation were all positively

correlated with each other. The impact of QWL, engagement (“I feel that I am a
valued member of this university”: yes ¼ 1, no ¼ 0) and commitment (“I’d like to take
part in the promotion of my university”: yes ¼ 1, no ¼ 0) upon reputation (“My
university is rightly ranked in ‘W’ category university”: yes ¼ 1, no ¼ 0) was found to
be significant (Table III). Those who are engaged and committed are 6.318 and 1.560
times more likely to project a positive reputation, respectively, than those who are not
engaged or committed. For a unit increase in QWL score, there is a 1.084 times greater
likelihood of projecting a positive reputation, controlling for engagement and
commitment. The model was adequate as it ensured a significant improvement over
the constant-only model, x 2 (3,313) ¼ 131.699, p , 0.001, accounting for 41.1 percent
of the variation in the dependent variable.

8. Conclusions
The academic staff of private universities seemed satisfied with general aspects of job
satisfaction; at least, there appeared to be no major dissatisfaction, as the mean average

Figure 4.
WLB moderating the
relationship between
VOW and WS

95.0% CI for Exp(B) Table III.

Variables b Wald Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper Logistic regression
analysis for predicting
Engagement 2.378 79.024 0.000 10.778 6.381 18.205 whether reputation is
Commitment 1.229 9.437 0.002 3.419 1.560 7.490 influenced by QWL,
QWL 0.081 4.587 0.012 1.084 1.007 1.168 engagement and
Constant 2 2.891 20.004 0.000 0.056 commitment
QAE of scores on these items was above 3.00. However, the mean scores on satisfaction with
21,3 QWL, RLT and WLB were below the average. Therefore, these two factors were
assumed to be critical in shaping a holistic perception of QWL for teachers of private
universities working in Lahore, Pakistan. However, we cannot disregard the influence
of relationships (RLT) as it was found to be the key moderator in the findings (Figures 1
and 2).
292 QWL is associated with lower needs, compared to European countries where it is
more associated with higher needs. The findings are in line with other research such as
Noor and Sahibzada (2012) and Syed et al. (2012), i.e. pay package and job security still
prevail as the major attraction for quality employees to a teaching institution. Other job
characteristics, such as status and rank in the department/college one is working in,
along with the opportunity for professional growth and promotion, and satisfaction
with autonomy at work, defined the perceived value of one’s job, and, as stated above,
was the sole determining factor of job satisfaction and QWL. Combined with workload,
such as total number of hours worked, number of courses taught, managerial
responsibility and expectations for creative output such as research, this determined
how more, or less, satisfied one will be with their job.
The results of stepwise regression completely exclude variables of WC. Therefore, if
we consider the items of VOW as more about personal achievement and enhancing
one’s self-esteem, then it can be concluded that psychological environment is more
important in creating the perception of QWL than physical environment.
Quality of certain processes, such as teacher recruitment, training,
teaching/learning environment and student intake, were found to be of little
significance, while the student and teacher output were considered of no value and did
not come up as significant factors for analysis in the data. Similarly, the qualities of
infrastructure, offices, labs, libraries, etc. were also taken for granted and their
presence did not contribute significantly to the perception of QWL. The work itself was
important as a means of earning one’s “bread and butter” and holding a respectable
position in society, but it did not matter whom you worked for.
The findings from the second-level analysis were even more dramatic. The overall
perception of QWL did not seem to impact much on employee commitment and
engagement; even the reputation of the university was taken for granted. Only the
people with a strong perception of being a “valued part of the community” seemed to
be interested in “taking an active part in the promotion of the university” and saw the
university as rightly ranked in “W” category.
Satisfaction can be likened to a fountain that is rising from the bottom to spill over
the top. QWL is an ability to perceive satisfaction in life and maintain a lifestyle, rather
than vice versa. This ability is personal and without regard for age, gender, education
or experience, but it makes life more meaningful. Therefore, it is a desired attribute, a
quality that every organization will prize and appreciate in their employees in times to
come.

9. Implications
The academic staff were highly conscious of improvement in their qualifications, as
almost 77 percent had completed MPhils, and were enrolled in a PhD program or were
enthusiastic about it. These are the statistics for the major private universities of
Lahore; the initiatives taken by Higher Education Commission, Pakistan seem to work
progressively, and we may see 100 percent PhD qualified staff in our universities over Quality of work-
the next few years. Moreover, improved qualifications are now perceived as a tool for life model
professional growth, as well as an effective means of improving one’s lifestyle, by
university academic staff.
Satisfaction with RLT and WLB represented the most influential variables, as they
moderated even the sense of EMP and satisfaction with the WC. Being a traditional
and a collectivist society, it was presumed that everything was seen in the light of one’s 293
successful engagement in personal and social relationships. Only successful and
satisfactory relationships give rise to a feeling of WLB and an accomplished sense of
QWL. These psychological variables were so strong that other demographic variables,
such as age, gender, qualifications or experience, seem to have no significant impact
upon the perception of QWL.
It appears strange, therefore, that after enjoying safety and security in the
workplace and experiencing a manageable level of stress at work, compared to other
professional environments, people have shown little commitment and enthusiasm for
their jobs and the organizations they work for. Their loyalty remains questionable, as
does their output as responsible citizens and valuable members of society. It seems that
faculty members who are employed by private universities consider themselves to be
part of a business organization, rather than people involved in the provision of a
critical service – higher education. They see “teaching as a business” rather than
feeling that they are in “the teaching business”.
QWL is the degree of personal satisfaction with life and work, with a realistic aim of
keeping up a WLB. The employees perceiving a high QWL were able to enhance their
personal lives, making them more meaningful and purposeful, through engaging in a
positive attitude at work, valuing their work and appreciating their work environment.
Today, the success of any organization is highly dependent on how it attracts, recruits,
motivates and retains its workforce; the institutions of higher education are no
exception to this. Therefore, university management must be able to create a working
environment ensuring physical and psychological security and safety. They must
think of original and innovative ways of developing their workforce, so that they can
increase their commitment to and engagement with work. Teaching is a valued service,
having an important role in creating future human and social capital. Therefore,
management of private universities must think in line with other business
organizations about assisting their employees to enhance their lifestyles.
Duyan et al. (2013, p. 114) recommended that “measuring QWL and employee
well-being might also actualize the practical implications like redesigning of jobs,
improvements in the workplace, working hours/patterns and environmental
conditions”. Sirgy et al. (2008) have proposed a variety of QWL programs related to
work-life, such as decentralized organizational structures, teamwork, parallel
structures, an ethical corporate mission and culture, organizational work schedule,
etc.; and non-work-life, such as working at home, flexi-time, compressed working
hours, part-time work arrangements, job-sharing, etc. and show how they serve to
enhance QOL using the language of work-life identity.

10. Limitations
Data collection was found to be difficult. Most of the respondents left the open-ended
questions unanswered in the questionnaire, and that portion was excluded from the
QAE final analysis. However, it could have given a deeper insight into the phenomenon of
21,3 QWL. Since data was collected from Lahore only, the results should be generalized
only with great care.

11. Directions for future research

294 Further in-depth analysis is required with important variables like “perceptions of
equity”, “procedural justice”, “psychological contract” and “dehumanization”, as QWL
seems to be more affected by psychological than physical environment. Also, the study
should be replicated with other private institutions of higher education in Pakistan.
Moreover, a comparison can be done with the perceptions of QWL when working in
faculties of public universities in Pakistan.

References
Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational
Settings, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Argyris, C. (1973), “Personality and organization theory revisited”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 141-167.
Arif, S. (2009), “Praxis: teachers’ dilemma to choose the right action”, The International Journal of
Learning, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 27-37.
Arif, S. (2011), “Highway to happiness”, Manager Today, Vol. 3 No. 13, pp. 26-27.
Arif, S. and Ilyas, M. (2011), “Leadership, empowerment and customer satisfaction in teaching
institutions: case study of Pakistani university”, Total Quality Magazine, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 388-402.
Arif, S. and Riaz, N. (2011), “Student development: emerging teaching paradigm”, Daily Dawn,
Sunday Magazine, 6 November, p. 7.
Bateman, T.S. and Snell, S.A. (2003), Management Building Competitive Advantage, 6th ed., Irwin
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Bromet, E.J., Dew, A. and Parkinson, D.K. (1990), “Spillover between work and family: a study of
blue-collar working wives”, in Eckenrode, J. and Gore, S. (Eds), Stress Between Work and
Family, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 133-151.
Brown, R. and Mazzarol, T. (2009), “The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction
and loyalty within higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 81-95.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York,
NY.
Chen, S., Yang, C., Shiau, J. and Wang, H. (2006), “The development of an employee satisfaction
model for higher education”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 484-500.
Clark, S.C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 6, p. 747.
Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human
resource practices in the performance of high technology firms”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 544-560.
Crohan, S.E., Antonucci, T.C., Adelmann, P.K. and Coleman, L.M. (1989), “Job characteristics and
well being at midlife: ethnic and gender comparisons”, Psychology of Women Quarterly,
Vol. 13, pp. 223-235.
Duyan, E.C., Aytaç, S. and Van Laar, D. (2013), “Measuring work related quality of life and Quality of work-
affective well-being in Turkey”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 105-116. life model
Edwards, J.A., Van Laar, D., Easton, S. and Kinman, G. (2009), “The work-related quality of life
scale for higher education employees”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 207-219.
Efraty, D., Sirgy, M.J. and Claiborne, C. (1991), “The effects of personal alienation on 295
organizational identification: a quality-of-work-life model”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 57-78.
Fava, J.L. and Velicer, W.F. (1996), “The effects of under extraction in factor and component
analysis”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56, pp. 907-929.
Fuller, G. (2006), “Anti-stress scheme boosts health and morale of city of London police”,
Personnel Today, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 207-219.
Herzberg, F. (1987), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 109-120.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Evaluating model fit”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural
Equation Modeling. Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage, London.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.
Johnsrud, L. (2002), “Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative work life: implications for
college and university campuses”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 379-395.
Kusku, F. (2003), “Employee satisfaction in higher education: the case of academic and
administrative staff in Turkey”, Career Development International, Vol. 8 No. 7,
pp. 347-356.
Lee, D.J., Singhapakdi, A. and Sirgy, M.J. (2007), “Further validation of a need-based
quality-of-work-life (QWL) measure: evidence from marketing practitioners”, Applied
Research in Quality of Life, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 273-287.
Loscocco, K.A. and Roschelle, A.N. (1991), “Influences on the quality of work and non-work life:
two decades in review”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 39, pp. 182-225.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Martel, J-P. and Dupuis, G. (2006), “Quality of work life: theoretical and methodological problems,
and presentation of a new model and measuring instrument”, Social Indicators Research,
Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 333-368.
Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York, NY.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A.J. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research: Design and
Interpretation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mohanraj, P. and Ramesh, R. (2010), “Measuring quality of work life: an integration of conceptual
relationship with productivity”, International Journal of Research in Management and
Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 128-132.
Nadler, D.A. and Lawler, E.E. (1983), “Quality of work life: perspectives and directions”,
Organizational Dynamics, Winter, pp. 20-30.
Noor, F. and Sahibzada, S.A. (2012), “An empirical analysis of factors affecting work life balance
among university teachers: the case of Pakistan”, Journal of International Academic
Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 16-29.
Parkes, C. (2008), “Angel grants employees their wish for time off in return for high
performance”, Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 23-24.
QAE Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and
Schuster, New York, NY.
21,3
Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S. and Tillemann, K. (2011), “Introducing theoretical
approaches to work-life balance and testing a new typology among professionals”,
in Kaiser, S., Ringlstetter, M., Eikhof, D.R. and E Cunha, M.P. (Eds), Creating Balance?
International Perspectives on the Work-Life Integration of Professionals, Springer, Berlin,
296 pp. 27-46.
Razaq, A., Yameen, M., Sabir, S., Iqbal, J.J., Ali, K.S. and Khan, M.A. (2011), “Impact of CSR,
quality of work life and organizational structure on employee’s performance in Pakistan”,
Journal of Social and Development Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 66-72.
Rethinam, G.S. and Ismail, M. (2008), “Constructs of quality of work life: a perspective of
information and technology professionals”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 58-70.
Rose, R.C. and Naresh, K. (2006), “Get educators to absorb the power of HRD in molding quality
education: performance improvement”, Silver Spring, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 32-37.
Rosser, V.J. (2005), “Measuring the change in faculty perceptions over time: an examination of
their worklife and satisfaction”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 81-107.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D. and Karunes, S. (2008), “An integrated framework of indices for quality
management in education: a faculty perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 502-519.
Sajid, A. (2003), “Effectiveness of faculty in public sector universities using quality indicators”,
Proceedings of the Pakistan’s First National Conference on Quality Assurance in Education
(EQ2003), Pakistan Institute of Quality Control, Lahore.
Sashkin, M. and Burke, W.W. (1987), “Organizational development in the 1980s”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 393-417.
Seashore, S.E. (1975), “Defining and measuring the quality of working life”, in Davis, L.E. and
Cherns, A.B. (Eds), The Quality of Working Life, Vol. 1, The Free Press, New York, NY,
pp. 105-118.
Serey, T.T. (2006), “Choosing a robust quality of work life”, Business Forum, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 7-10.
Sirgy, M.J., Grezeskowiak, S. and Rahtz, D. (2007), “Quality of college life (QCL) of students:
developing and validating a measure of well being”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 80,
pp. 343-360.
Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P. and Lee, D.-J. (2001), “A new measure of quality of work life
(QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories”, Social Indicators Research,
Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 241-302.
Sirgy, M.J., Mentzer, J.T., Rahtz, D.R. and Meadow, H.L. (1991), “Satisfaction with health care
services consumption and life satisfaction among the elderly”, Journal of Macro marketing,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-39.
Sirgy, M.J., Reilly, N.P., Wu, J. and Efraty, D. (2008), “A work-life identity model of well-being:
towards a research agenda linking quality-of-work-life (QWL) programs with quality of
life (QOL)”, Applied Research in Quality of Life, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 181-202.
Sirin, A.F. (2009), “Analysis of relationship between job satisfaction and attitude”, Journal of
Theory and Practice in Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 85-104.
Syed, A.A.S., Bhatti, N., Michael, S., Shaikh, F.M. and Shah, H. (2012), “Job satisfaction of faculty
members of universities in Pakistan: a case study of University of Singh-Jamshoro”,
Modern Applied Science, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 89-95.
Tausig, M. and Fenwick, R. (2001), “Unbinding time: alternate work schedules and work-life Quality of work-
balance”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 101-119.
Van Laar, D.L., Edwards, J.A. and Easton, S. (2007), “The work-related quality of life scale for
life model
healthcare workers”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 325-333.
Worrall, L. and Cooper, C.L. (2006), The Quality of Working Life: Managers’ Health and
Well-being, Executive Report, Chartered Management Institute, London.
297
Appendix 1. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis

Cronbach’s
Factors Items Loadings a

F1: quality of Satisfaction with induction of teachers 0.747 0.906

processes Satisfaction with mentoring/coaching of fresh teachers 0.756
Satisfaction with training (if any) provided to teachers 0.726
Quality of teacher intake over past five years (inputs) 0.794
Quality of teacher input over past five years 0.741
Quality of teaching/learning environment over past 0.765
five years
Quality of student intake over past five years 0.581
F2: value of work Satisfaction with current rank 0.793 0.877
Satisfaction with salary 0.750
Satisfaction with benefits 0.725
Satisfaction with chances of growth 0.586
Satisfaction with scope of professional development 0.566
Satisfaction with the department/college 0.526
Satisfaction with autonomy at work 0.553
F3: work climate Satisfaction with needed equipment/technology 0.702 0.848
Satisfaction with workspace 0.733
Labs 0.473
PCs 0.561
Classrooms 0.652
Cafeteria 0.473
F4: work-life Satisfaction with time spent with family 0.816 0.884
balance Satisfaction with time spent in recreation 0.870
Satisfaction with time spent at social, work and/or 0.660
creative activities
F5: work stress Satisfaction with teaching load 0.475 0.858
Satisfaction with managerial load 0.673
Satisfaction with productivity load 0.760
Satisfaction with working hours 0.801
F6: relationships in Satisfaction with personal relationships 0.608 0.814
life Satisfaction with student-teacher relationships 0.747
Satisfaction with collegial relationships 0.781
F7: empowerment Satisfaction with opportunity to share governance 0.647 0.854
Satisfaction with opportunity to participate in decision 0.749
making
Satisfaction with opportunity to explore teacher 0.574
leadership
Notes: KMO ¼ 0.891, x2 ¼ 7835.572, p , 0.000 Table AI.
QAE Appendix 2
21,3

298
Figure A1.
RLT moderating the
relationship between EMP
and WLB

Figure A2.
RLT moderating the
relationship between
VOW and WLB

Figure A3.
RLT moderating the
relationship between WC
and WLB

Figure A4.
WLB moderating the
relationship between
VOW and WS

Corresponding author
Seema Arif can be contacted at: drarif00@yahoo.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.