2. Literature review
The phrase Quality of work life (QWL) according to Stephen and Dhanapal (2011); Bagtasos (2011), originates back in 19th century labor conference at Arden House, Columbia University. Stephen and Dhanapal states that people use the term to refer to the well-being of organization employees. Nevertheless, Normala (2010) uses business perspective to define QWL as employee satisfaction and their work related behaviors. Stephen and Dhanapal indicates that QWL also affects employees in the way they response to their work in terms of job performance, job effort, organization identification, job involvement, job satisfaction, personal alienation, intention to quit and organization employee turnover.
In the following section, the writer provides a clear explanation to eight factors that affects QWL in organization. This includes workplace spirituality, employee relations, health work environment, development human capacity, job role ambiguity, job uncertainty, social support and organization success.
2.1. Workplace spirituality
Altaf and Awan (2011) illustrates on how organization structures occurs not as a way of executing and implementing on their tasks. However, Altaf and Awan indicate that organization structures only exists to gain from cultural or legitimacy support. In the case of workplace spirituality however Ramdass (2009) asserts that spiritual talks continues to ascendant and help to ascertain the level at which organizations seek legitimacy than commitment to spirituality.
According to Petchsawang and Duchon (2009), workplace spirituality seems adopted without an authentic commitment towards its practice. As a tool, workplace spirituality seeks for legitimacy with organization stakeholders. For example, Petchsawang and Duchon note that when legitimacy motivates workplace spirituality, employees are likely to work harder for the benefit of their organizations. Furthermore, Petchsawang and Duchon argue that by organization practicing spirituality, this raises genuine concerns towards economic gains and management aspect.
2.2. Employee relations
Work place employee relations Katz, Kochan and Weber (2010) concerns implementing on several factors that provides maintenance of healthy relationships among employees. In their discussion, Katz et al states that organization implements such initiates as a way of motivating employees, providing morale and ensuring that all employees gain satisfaction from their jobs. Essentially, organizations regard employee relations as a way of preventing and dealing with a number of issues that involves employees. Such issues according to Rathi (2009) may arise out of any work situation or end up having a negative effect to employee performance. In addition, employee relations also include the way employees relate with an entire organization environment and with other co-workers. due to the fact that organizations is a constituent of workers and other operations, this implies that employee relations also involves apart from just relating with the co-workers, employees also have an opportunity of relating with several processes involving development, implementation, administration and even analyzing the entire employee-to-employer relationship, management of overall performance and dispute resolution. Rathi asserts that in case management needs to assure organization success, then it means that a pre-requisite aspect has to come from maintenance of healthy employee relations. Saklani (2010) discusses that management through their healthy employee relations; provide stronger relations as a pre-requisite for employee satisfaction and hence high productivity. Different from the external employee relations, Saklani indicates that organization internal employee relations involve different HRM (Human Resources Management) policies that ensure flexible movement of within the firm. In his illustration, Saklani states that such policies may include activities such as resignations, retirement, layoffs, demotions, promotion, transfers and discharge. In general, healthy employee relations according to Rathi (2009), results into efficiency, increased productivity, motivation that as a contributory factor, results into organizational success.
As discussed earlier, is that QWL remains a multi-dimensional construct and not as a universal construct. While discussing on how QWL relate to employee relations, Rathi (2009); Normala (2010) asserts that QWL provides favorable work environment and other conditions that offers support to employee satisfaction. However, a multi-dimensional aspect, Normala indicates that employee satisfaction includes a number of aspects but not limited to growth opportunities, job security and rewards. Therefore, the continued efforts to ensure an increase in the level of cooperation between labor and management through disputes resolution to improved performance and overall employee satisfaction largely depend on QWL. In most cases, employees have demanded formation of their own unions in order to help enhance relations amongst themselves. According to Rathi (2009), unions at the work place serve a constructive role in any QWL initiatives. For example, Rathi asserts that it is through unions that management comes to sustain and enhance the relevancy of legitimate institution with aims of representing both interest and rights of all employees. In effect, Rathi asserts that this motivates employees through their unions, to take on collaborative course that minimizes any form of competitive and adversarial effects. This results into employee satisfactions that consequently lead into a better QWL at the workplace. Mutual respect according to Normala (2010) remains one of the foundations and a building block for an entire QWL initiatives. It becomes easier for employees to realize an improvement in their life at work and greater productivity only through an environment that fosters mutual respect. As a way of mutually dealing with problems, creation of cooperation among employees, improvement of general work environment, solving work-related disputes, restructuring employees’ roles, careful management of HR outcomes and employee pay, all comes as a way of benefiting employees and employers.
As an effect therefore, determination of work environment solely depends on both management and union commitment. Through their localized experiments and activities, Normala indicates that management can help increase relations amongst employees through participations. As a solution, Normala recommends that this may require organization to foster decentralization, responsibility among works, ensure that workers come together to work as a team and be able to solve their own disputes without having to depend entirely on management hierarchy. In most cases, organizations through their management, initiates aspects such as dispute solving teams and quality circles with an aim of encouraging teamwork and high level of improvement at the workplace. Based on these factors, Rathi (2009) argues that both organization management and employee unions should always strive to create mutual respect based on values and interest in order to generate a flexible, productive and a highly motivate QWL. In this regard, unions adopt creative and proactive job roles at the work place and ensure discarding of reactive strategies that provides a more relation environment. As a result, Rathi also advices and recommends that organizations through their managements should create a work environment that allow unions to participate easily. Management can achieve this as a way of establishing organized, supportive and cohesive groups that entirely depends on educational strategy. In addition, the author also indicates that it is through an educational strategies that management can analyze and assess different processes and come up with programs that increases employee autonomy, social support, empowerment and skills. As a result, Messersmith and Guthrie (2010) argue that employee-management positive and healthy relationship plays a major role of facilitating QWL.
2.3. Health work environment
There is a growing acknowledgement that work environment factors affect employees’ health status and their performance outcome. More importantly, such factors affect the overall QWL, individual work outcome and overall organization outcome. In 2011, Nayeri, Salehi and Noghabi conducted a study to investigate Iranian employee health status and their relation to QWL. In their analysis, Nayeri, results indicated that Iranian health staff identified elements in terms of rank, better facilities, better working conditions, more staffs and finally better pay. Despite these factors, Rathi (2009) notes a growing concern that both environmental and organization factors such as management styles, noise, smoke, heat, job design and employee flows, need to gain acceptance among organizations.
A healthy work place according to Almalki, FitzGerald and Clark (2012), provides better environment that enables staffs to gain dedication. Almalki, et al states that majority of people prefer working in a sincere environment. According to their research, Nayeri et al., (2011) reveals that employees gain attraction towards their work environment in case there are advancement opportunities, participate in decision-making and continually gain from compensations. For example, Nayeri et al notes that several factors at the workplace can become critical in motivating employee QWL and employee turnover.
Different from health work environment, Niks et al., (2013) on the other hand, argues that unhealthy work environments contribute to ineffectiveness and absenteeism among employees. For example, Niks et al., indicates that often, characteristics of unhealthy work environment remains important in determining employee day-to-day interactions. Illustratively, Niks et al., notes that abusive, non-collaborative and disrespectful behaviors contributes to unhealthy work environment that creates unsafe and negative conditions.
2.4. Development human capacity
Sinha (2012) career planning as an element of human capacity development program, assist employees to manage their own lives. Sinha also indicates such developmental programs enable employees deal and perceive organizations to implement on promotional policies. Instead of employers promising job securities, Sinha asserts that employers use human capacity development programs to assist employees gain from job market needed skills and remain relevant and viable.
According to previous studies, literature indicates on how such programs relate to QWL. For example, Dhanapal (2011) analyses employee perception concerning the quality of work tasks, career opportunities, levels used to make decisions and available job securities. In addition, Bagtasos (2011) also conducted an empirical study to investigate the relation that QWL has career related programs and human capacity development policies. In his analysis, Bagtasos used a sample of 480 managers working in free trade countries for both small and medium corporations (SMC) and Multinational Corporations (MNCs). In his analysis, Bagtasos indicated three exogenous as being statistically significant. These comprises of employee career balance, career achievement and satisfaction. In all these, results indicated an existence of 65 percent QWL variability. In fact, according to Sinha (2012), high level of QWL forms one of the element that employee use to develop their own close personal ties and gain career goals. Sinha indicates that in a work environment where employers understand their employees’ attitudes in the way they are able to multitask between the family roles and organization work, then it becomes easier for them to worry less. This also relates to the way employees are able to develop their careers by reducing the amount of work hours and attend to family responsibilities.
2.5. Job role ambiguity
Job role ambiguity (Nanik et al., 2011) refers to single or multiple employee roles that result into role incumbent confrontation. Such confrontations occur in situations where management fails to articulate or communicate clearly the terms, behaviors and employee performance levels. Nanik et al., further indicates that role ambiguity may occur in a situation where management acquire, shift or restructure their organizations. In such scenarios, employees are likely to become uncertain concerning their new job roles or responsibilities. In most cases, Nanik et al., states that lack of information concerning what the role entails, makes employees lack information on where to direct their efforts, success and hence failure in the overall performance.
In any organization, Nanik et al., explains that it is through employee defined job roles that enable them to gain QWL. While investigating on how ambiguity relates to QWL, Bedeian and Armenakis (2009) conducted a study on American textile workers. The analyzed results indicate that stress increased with the level of imbalance between employee capabilities to deal with situations and demand for the same job. Furthermore, Bedeian and Armenakis illustration indicates that in case employees gain control over their jobs, there is a high tendency of reducing stress. Nanik et al., (2011) also studies the relationship between job role and stress that eventually affects QWL. In their analysis, the results indicate that employees’ stress concerning their roles, greatly affects the availability of resources. This is because organizations are more likely to divert available resources to help deal with stress than help deal with QWL. In fact, majority of employees that experience high level of job role ambiguity, are unlikely to focus on their performance and give QWL. Furthermore, this may also result into high level of absenteeism, unusual work attitude, psychological problems and low turnover.
2.6. Job uncertainty
Debus et al., (2012) likens job uncertainty to job insecurity. Debus et al., refers to job uncertainty as employees’ negative reactions towards different changes concerning their jobs. In addition, it also includes people’s expectations concerning continuity of their job situations. For example, Debus et al., states that such scenario presents an overall scenario that concerns employees’ future expectation and existence of their jobs.
Debus et al., notes that intuitively, organization managers may perceive job uncertainties to have a stronger effect towards employee psychology. In long term, Debus et al., explains that job uncertainties are to a larger degree, likely to affect employees’ overall QWL situation. For example, Debus et al. indicates that both economic and other factors that assists performance, becomes threatened. Indeed, a number of studies continue to reveal that employee perception concerning both the nature and existence of jobs may have a greater consequence on job losses. This also presents a consistent results conducted by Hellgren and Sverke (2010) on the stress research. In their research, Hellgren and Sverke results indicate that stressful situations represent greater sources of anxiety, equally important than actual practices.
Job uncertainties relate to high levels of employee impairment and well- being (Sinha, 2012). Mental distresses, work-to-leisure and complaints from physical health, carry an increased level of job uncertainties. However, organization work changes from traditionally considered secure and certain environment towards dynamic and uncertain work environment, could have a greater impact not only on the overall wellbeing of employees, but also, on the way they are likely to perform, behave, attitude and in the long run, the overall QWL.. For example, Sinha explains that workers react easily towards job uncertainty or insecurity.
Furthermore, studies have also found job uncertainties to associate consistently with reductions in employee work attitudes and job satisfaction. For instance, Messersmith and Guthrie (2010) showed that employees, who experienced insecurity and uncertainty, became more dissatisfied on their present jobs than those who considered and perceived their future jobs as more secure and certain. In a similar effort, employee perception concerning their future role within the organization may also result into employees becoming less inclined towards remaining in the organization. Just like any other stressor, job uncertainty could make employees to withdraw from attending to their daily operations and thus a high level of turnover.
2.7. Social support
Besides job uncertainty, the level of support provided to employees by organizations, plays a major role of improving quality of work at the work place. Social support according to Martins (2013); Charu (2013), refers to the degree at which employees develop their perception that other co-workers values their work and hence cares for their social well-being. Social support forms one of the key factors that influences employees towards becoming committed to their work, they derive satisfaction from their work and a general QWL. While investigating on the relationship between the social support and QWL, Stephen and Dhanapal (2011); Harris, Winskowski and Engdahl (2007) found an existence of a positive impact towards employee job satisfaction, employee performance and commitment towards their organization.
2.8. Organization success
Organization success (Farjad, 2013); Alexandrova, 2012) comes as a result of implementing initiatives that ensures job satisfaction, job security, better reward systems, employee involvement and overall employee benefits. Alexandrova assesses the effect that QWL has on organization performance and success. Alexandrova acknowledges that employees form core resources that lead into organization success.
Organizations implement QWL by acquiring several practices such as training, appraisals, motivational and developments that allows success through employee performance. Indeed, major factors that create QWL arise from better working conditions, employee financial and non-financial benefits, job satisfaction, supervision, growth and development (Abdul Halim, Said and Syed Yusuf, 2012).
Job initiatives (Mishra, Dangayach & Mittal, 2011) motivate employees to become committed to their work. In effect, the relationship that occurs between QWL and organization success, arise from employee commitment. In the recent past, studies indicate that committed workers gain motivation to retain their positions for longer period than those with the less commitment. Mishra et at., (2011) more committed workers gain more desire to frequently attend to their work and positive attitude to employment. In his study to Indian textile workers, Abdul Halim et al., (2012) investigates the relation between employee commitment towards organization success and their overall turnover. The results indicate significant inverse relationship between employee commitment and turnover. According to Farjad (2013) organization foster and implement on commitment policy to reduce chances of employees seeking employment opportunities in other organizations. Similarly, Mehdipour et al., (2012) results indicated that workers that had higher level of commitment towards their job positions had also higher level of turnover cognitions. High scores for turnover cognition according to Mehdipour et al indicated employee favorable and less likelihood to consider turnover.
Reference list
Abdul Halim, H., Said, J., & Syed Yusuf, S. (2012). Individual Characteristics of the Successful Asnaf Entrepreneurs: Opportunities and Solutions for Zakat Organization in Malaysia. International Business & Management, 4(2), 41-49. doi:10.3968/j.ibm.1923842820120402.1040
Alexandrova, M. (2012). IT OUTSOURCING PARTNERSHIPS: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON KEY SUCCESS FACTORS IN BULGARIAN ORGANIZATIONS. Management: Journal Of Contemporary Management Issues, 17(2), 31-50.
Almalki, M. J., FitzGerald, G., & Clark, M. (2012). Quality of work life among primary health care nurses in the Jazan region, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Human Resources For Health, 10(1), 30-42. doi:10.1186/1478-4491-10-30
Altaf, A., & Awan, M. (2011). Moderating Affect of Workplace Spirituality on the Relationship of Job Overload and Job Satisfaction. Journal Of Business Ethics, 104(1), 93-99. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0891-0
Bagtasos, M. (2011). Quality of Work Life: A Review of Literature. DLSU Business & Economics Review, 20(2), 1-8.
Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (2009). A PATH-ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY. Academy Of Management Journal, 24(2), 417-424. doi:10.2307/255852
Charu, M. (2013). Effect of Occupational Stress on QWL: Amongst the Associates of IT Industry. Advances In Management, 6(5), 43-48.
Debus, M. E., König, C. J., Probst, T. M., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Catch Me If I Fall! Enacted Uncertainty Avoidance and the Social Safety Net as Country-Level Moderators in the Job Insecurity—Job Attitudes Link. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 690-698. doi:10.1037/a0027832
Farjad, R. H. (2013). Study of relationship of quality of work life (QWL) and organizational commitment. Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business, Vol 4, No 9. January 2013
Harris, J., Winskowski, A., & Engdahl, B. E. (2007). Types of Workplace Social Support in the Prediction of Job Satisfaction. Career Development Quarterly, 56(2), 150-156.
Haslam, S., O'Brien, A., Jetten, J., Vormedal, K., & Penna, S. (2010). Taking the strain: Social identity, social support, and the experience of stress. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 44(3), 355-370. doi:10.1348/014466605X37468
Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A., & Weber, M. A. (2010). ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SYSTEMS AND EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. Academy Of Management Journal, 28(3), 509-526. doi:10.2307/256111
Kolodinsky, R., Giacalone, R., & Jurkiewicz, C. (2008). Workplace Values and Outcomes: Exploring Personal, Organizational, and Interactive Workplace Spirituality. Journal Of Business Ethics, 81(2), 465-480. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9507-0
Kulkarni, G. (2013). Case of Successful Evolution of Strategy to Create a Sustainable Business Organization: Managerial Implications and Challenges. International Journal Of Business & Management, 8(5), 96-103. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v8n5p96
Martins, N. (2013). The relationship between organizational trust and quality of work life. South African Journal Of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 1-13. doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v11i1.392
Mehdipour, A., Shetab Boushehri, S., Saemi, E., & Rayegan, A. (2012). Relationship between the quality of working life and job involvement of Iranian physical education teachers. Studies In Physical Culture & Tourism, 19(4), 185-190.
Messersmith, J. G., & Guthrie, J. P. (2010). High performance work systems in emergent organizations: Implications for firm performance. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 241-264.
Mishra, P., Dangayach, G. S., & Mittal, M. L. (2011). An Empirical Study on Identification of Critical Success Factors in Project Based Organizations. Global Business & Management Research, 3(3/4), 356-368.
Nanik, R., Khoso, I., Asif Ali, S., Chandio, F., & Shaikih, F. M. (2011). Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity as Factors in Work Stress among Managers: A Case Study of Manufacturing Sector in Pakistan. Asian Social Science, 7(2), 113-118.
Nayeri, N., Salehi, T., & Noghabi, A. (2011). Quality of work life and productivity among Iranian nurses. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal For The Australian Nursing Profession, 39(1), 106-118.
Niks, I. W., de Jonge, J., Gevers, J. P., & Houtman, I. D. (2013). Design of the DISCovery project: tailored work-oriented interventions to improve employee health, well-being, and performance-related outcomes in hospital care. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 1-11. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-66
Normala, D. (2010). Investigating the Relationship between Quality of Work Life and Organizational Commitment amongst Employees in Malaysian Firms. International Journal Of Business & Management, 5(10), 75-82.
Petchsawang, P., & Duchon, D. (2009). Measuring workplace spirituality in an Asian context. Human Resource Development International, 12(4), 459-468. doi:10.1080/13678860903135912
Ramdass, P. (2009). A SPIRITED WORKPLACE: EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEANING OF WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY. South African Journal Of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 230-241. doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v7i1.207
Rathi, N. (2009). Relationship of Quality of Work Life with Employees' Psychological Well-Being. International Journal Of Business Insights & Transformation, 3(1), 52-60.
Rathi, N. (2009). Relationship of Quality of Work Life with Employees' Psychological Well-Being. International Journal Of Business Insights & Transformation, 3(1), 52-60.
Saklani, D. R. (2010). Non-managerial Perspective of Quality of Work Life. Journal Of Management Research (09725814), 10(2), 87-102.
Saklani, D. R. (2010). Non-managerial Perspective of Quality of Work Life. Journal Of Management Research (09725814), 10(2), 87-102.
Sinha, C. (2012). FACTORS AFFECTING QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: Empirical Evidence From Indian Organizations
Stephen, A. A., & Dhanapal, D. D. (2011). Quality of Work Life and its impact on Organizational Excellence in Small Scale Industrial Units: Employers Perspectives. Journal Of Contemporary Management Research, 5(2), 55-67.
