QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SATISFACTION GUARANTEED M.

Jamal Mohamed Zubair

INTRODUCTION: Way back in 1902 Fredrick Taylor, father of Scientific Management proposed a management model based on finding one best way to get the job done. It was a continuation of the philosophy proposed by Adam Smith and Max weber. It propagated a highly simplified routinized and monotonous job which required only surface attention. It was based on the assumption that an average worker is mechanical appendage to industrial machine and hence should respond as dehumanized mechanical robot. What is more interesting, it emphasized the economic motive as the only driving force and called worker as an Economic Animal. Taylor summarized the work environment and this philosophy in three simple phrases Judo Christian Ethics, Social Darwinians and Economic incentive (Taylor, 1902). This orientation got shattered 1almost 35 years later when Hawthorne experiment conducted at Hawthorne plant of Western Elective Company, Cicere, Illinois proved that social factors play a more dominant role in the life of a worker than sheer economic incentive. It showed that workers only responded to the norms setup by informal groups. They reported average production every day despite fluctuates in output and ridiculed and punished those who did not adhere to the standards set by the informal groups. This gave rise to what came to be known as Human Relations School. This School made organizations to realize that no matter how rationally a system is designed human elements would still influence in one form or the other. It pointed out that organizations are social system and productivity and efficiency directly depends on the satisfaction of employs. Hence, number of design option were initiated to create conditions for motivation and commitment. Concern for quality of work life was one such design option. Quality of work life has been differentiated from the broader concept of quality of life (Elizuran and Shye, 1990). Quality of life refers to enjoyment in personal life. It is much more broad base and according to Dupuis et.al. (2000), Quality of life at a given time, is a state that corresponded to the level attained by a person in the pursuit of his/her hierarchically organized goals. Quality of work life is a subset of quality of life. It refers to a set of principles that pronouns the employees are the greatest asset as they can make valuable contribution to the growth and survival of the organization if treated right. The specific elements that contribute to the motivation are the nature of job, physical environment and social environment within the organization. (Feuer,1989). Quality of work life however,

is a function of ones perception and may have different levels depending upon the perception of individual employees. This description takes into account the level attained. A number of researches have wondered at the concept of level. According to Takezawa (1976), what constitute high level of QWL may vary in relation to both the worker aspiration and the objective reality of his/her work and society. It is ultimately defined by the worker himself. Quality of work life it is a subset of quality of life and is specifically related to the degree of happiness and satisfaction a person derives from his/her career. It various from individual to individual because each individual has different needs and perceptions and QWL is determined on how well these needs and perceptions are satisfied by the job. Hence QWL can be described as the extent to which employees can enhance their personal life through their work and its environment. The approach is design to motivate employees by satisfying not only their economic needs but also their social and psychological needs. A large number of factors have been included in the general definition of QWL. One set of factors have to do with the job related well being designed to create a rewarding work experience. The second set of factors have to do with the working conditions, such as management policies, relationship with other employees, salary and benefits etc. Yet a third set of factors deal with such issues that are of mutual benefit for employer and employees such as autonomous work group, job engagement, flextime and job rotation etc. All three consists of interventions designed to create a reward structure, their effect on employees and organization and involvement of employees in decision making process (Lawler, 1982) the ultimate objective is to provide a satisfying work and work arrangements that use the talents and skills of employees and provide them feeling of involvement and pride in their work. RESEARCH EVIDENCE While quality of life is very well research, QWL remains relatively unexplored. Interest in this area was stated way back in 70s by a few researchers. One of the first study was conducted by Walton, (1975), who proposed 8 conceptual categories that together make up the quality of working life. These are, adequate and fare compensation, safe and healthy working condition, immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacities, opportunities for continued growth and security, social integration in work organization, constitutionalaization in the work organization, work and the total life space and social relevance of work life. Subsequent research studies have focused more on the determinants of quality of work life. For example, Hackman and Oldham (1975) identified five psychological needs, the satisfaction of which contributed to the QWL. These are, skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. In another study Mirvis and Laver (1984) suggested that QWL was mainly linked to the wages. However, such factors as safe work environment, equal employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement also contributed to the QWL.

More recently in a study on nurses in a hospital Ellis and Pampli (2002) found eleven factors contributing to job dissatisfaction and QWL. They included such things as poor working environments, workload (inability to deliver quality of care), bnalance of work and family, resident aggression, lack of involvement in decision making, shift work, lack of recognition, professional isolation, role conflict, poor interpersonal relations with supervisors / peers and lack of opportunity to learn new skills. In a recent thesis on the quality of work life, at Ashok Leyland, Mohammed (2011) conducted survey of the job factors and work environment. Data was collected from randomly selected 100 employees. The results show that employees were very satisfied (77% and above) with work environment facilities, infrastructure, medical and first aid, transport and welfare activities. As far as job related quality measure were concerned, more than 84% of the employees felt no stress on job, satisfaction with the procedure, job rotation and use of their skills on the job. These had direct effect on the satisfaction with the job (78%) and better relationship with immediate supervisor (83%) A working paper by Royuela et.al. (2007) has concentrated on the European Institutional approach to the concept of QWL. In 2000 the Lisbon European Council decided to launch a 10 years strategy to achieve three objectives: 1. More and better jobs for Europe: Developing an active employment policy 2. Education and training for living and working in the knowledge society. 3. Promoting social inclusion. To achieve these objectives the Commission proposed ten dimension of QWL. These are: intrinsic job quality, skills lifelong learning and career development, gender equality, health and safety at work, flexibility and security, inclusion and access to the labour market, work organization and work life balance, social dialogue and worker involvement, diversity and non-discrimination and overall work performance. In the Indian context, with the encouragement of International Labour Organization and active lead taken by National Institute of Labour, the QWL as a movement has taken a different turn. This is based because of the following factors that have played a significant role in its initiations (Saiyadain, 2009) 1. The profile of India industrial worker has substantially changed over time. From an illiterate, rural, low caste individual to educated, urban and essentially belonging to upper caste, the Indian workers has come a long way (Sharma, 1978). He seems to have different hopes and aspirations and more committed to the factory way of life. Monga (1978b) believes that blue collar workers today is a committed man who has moulded himself according to the emergent social structure.

2.

Of late growing emphasis is placed on the significance of human resources in India. More and more people are beginning to realized that like finances and machines, work force is an equally significant input in the survival of an organization. This realization has culminated itself in the creation of Ministry of Human Resources Development. Therefore, major investments have to be made by organizations in keeping themselves in best shape for them to perform. Mere willingness to work cannot boost the morale of the worker unless he has socially accepted positions required for the industrial way of life. According to Sen Gupta (1982), the Indian worker is deprived of such a position. His wish has to be recognized and rewarded. According to the latest Census of India, 33.44% per cent of the total populations are employees. Of these, about 30 per cent work in industry, trade, commerce transportation etc. (Census of India, 1981). It is estimated that approximately 10 per cent of the work force is currently employed in the organized sector most of which is unionized and vocal. A quick look at the registration of unions and their membership shows that both are steadily increasing over time. At the same time the frequency of strikes and mandays lost is also increasing over time. According to Verma (1986), the number of disputes increased by 58 per cent and the number of mandays lost went up 40.6 per cent during the period 1961-83. Finally, as a result of growing body of knowledge in human behaviour in general and industrial behaviour in particular, both the academicians and the practitioners are gaining the necessary confidence to think of innovative modules to understand, predict and control human behavior. There is a growing trend of experimenting with newer concepts, theories and framework which is laying the foundation for determining most effective utilization of human resources by inculcating a new sense of freedom and resultant increase in productivity.

3.

4.

In addition to usual work related and social psychological factors, Indian organizations are adopting a number of strategies to improve the QWL of their employees. There is an increasing emphasis on workers participation, joint consultation, job rotation and job redesign. These strategies have been adopted to humanize the work environment. Quality of work life is a set of principles which hold that people are most important resource in the organization. CONCLUSIONS Quality of work life as a subset of quality of life has remained relatively unexplored. Review of literature shows that research studies have mainly focused on three areas while dealing with QWL. These are studies related to job factor, work environment and issues that have mutual significance for both employers and employees. The basic focus of all these studies has been to humanize the place of work leading to greater involvement and commitment of the employees and consequently better productivity and efficiency of the organization.

However, there are still a few areas that need to be explored to make the QWL more fruitful. Some of them one identified below. While a number of studies have been conducted on the determents of QWL, most of these are culture/locality specific. Several questions can be raised relating to QWL across culture. Do all cultures look for same determinants to improve QWL of their constituents? Do people in different societies and cultures look for different factors leading to improved quality of work life. If that be the case, can we generalize the results of one research in one culture to all other cultures. This is an important issue because what works in one situation may not work in the other situation or for that matter, what works today may not work tomorrow. This opens a useful area of research. There is a need to conduct studies in various cultures and societies to identify specific plans for improving the QWL of employees. A second area of future research in QWL can focus on profile differences of the employees vis--vis determinants of QWL. Most studies have been conducted on randomly selected employees. While sample profiles are provided little or no attempt is made to examine results by the variations in sample profile. Such questions as do female employees look for different determinants as compared to male employees; do younger or with limited years of experience need different clusters of the factors in QWL as compared to those who are relatively older and with more years of experience. Similarly, other personal and biosocial differences constitute reasons to study factor determining QWL. Yet a third area of research can focus on inter organizational and inter sector differences. Not only this, within organization and within sector, do employees in different position look for variables that vary in improving their quality of work life. Quality of work life is not unitary concept. It has been as incorporating different perspectives relating to specific profiles of jobs. However since it is a subset of quality of life, it is useful to examine its effect on the life satisfaction and general feeling of well-being in life and society. Are the feeling of satisfaction carried to non-related situations? Can we say a satisfied worker is also a satisfied citizen. It may be useful to study this issue for the larger benefit of society. While organization are making effort to improve the QWL of their employees by introducing more satisfying work and work environment requirements, little or no attempt is made to identify factor that militate against work environment satisfaction. Herzberg et.al. (1959) did identify 10 variables that could be the cause of dissatisfaction of employees. This line of thought has not been carried forward to exclusive study organization practices leading to dissatisfaction of employees and subsequently eliminating. Finally, the cost effectiveness of QWL efforts in terms of return to the organization is to be studied. Sometimes ago this point was raised by Worrall and Cooper, (2006) but little or no follow up was reported in published research. The basic issue has to do with the investment value of QWL effort and their value addition to the bottom line of the organization.

REFERENCES Census of India Government of India, 1981. Dupuis, G, M.C, Taillerfer, A.M, Etienne, O, Fonotaine O.S. Boivin and A. Von Turk (2000) Measurement of quality of life in cardiac rehabilitation. In J. Jobin, F. Mattais and P. Leblanc (Eds) Advances in cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation. Chanpaign, Illl. Human Kenetics Publishers. Elizur, D and Shya, S. (1990) quality of work life and it relation to quality of life. Applied psychology: An International review, 39 (3) 275 291. Ellis, N. and Pompli, A. (2002) Quality of Work life for Nurses. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging. Feuer, D. (1989) Quality of work life: A cure for all ills. Training: The Magazine for Human Resource Development, 26,65-66. Hackman, J, and Oldham, G, (1975) Development of job diagnostic survey. Jouranl of applied psychology, 60, 159-170. Herzberg, F, Mausner, B and Snyderman, B (1956) The Motivation of work. New York : John Wikey. Lawler, E. E (1982) Strategies for improving the quality of work life. American Psychologist, 37, 486-493. Mayo, E. (1933) The Human Problems of Industrial Civilization New York: MacMillan Mirwis, P. H, and Lawler, E. E. (1984) Accounting for the quality of work life. Journal of Occupational Behaviouar, 5, 197-212. Mohammed,. A.A. (2011) Quality of work life at Ashok Leyland. MBA thesis, Crescent Business School, B. S. Abdur Rahman University, Chennai. Mongo, M.L (1978). The Industrial worker: Emerging realities about his commitment to the factory system. NLI Bulletin, 4 (12), 646-467. Royuela, V, Lopez-Tamayo, J. and Surinach, J. (2007). The Institutional vs the Academic Definition of Quality of work life: What is the Focus of European Commission. Barcelona, Spain: AQR IREA Research Groups, University of Barcelona. Saiyadain, M. S (2009) Human Resource Management (4th Edition) New Delhi : Tata McGraw Hill.

Sen Gupta, C (1982) Industrial man in India reconsidered. Economic and Political Weekly, 17 (22), M52 M56. Sharma, B.R (1978) Labour force Commitment: Some implications for industrial relations. Management and Labour Studies, 4(1), 7-17. Takezawa Shin khi (1976) The quality of work life: Ttrends in Japan. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Taylor, F. (1911) Scientific Management, New York: Harper. Verma, P (1986) Management of Industrial Relations, New Delhi: Oxford IBH Publishers. Walton, R.E. (1975). Criteria for quality of working life. In L.E. Davis and A.B. Cherns (Eds.), Quality of Working Life, volume. 1, New York: Free Press. Worrall, L and Cooper, C. L (2006) Quality of working life Managers Health and Well-being. Executive Report, Chartered Management Institute.