1 �

Chapter 1

Quality of Work Life

Introduction

The inspirational part of success is to hold a reputed job as it occupies one's thoughts,

prefixes schedule of the day, determines purchasing power of an individual, and

contributes to the social identity. Today's literate workforce expects more than just

pay from their work. The dynamic work environment demands equal importance to

both technology and human needs, where the individual perspective play a key role in

humanization of work atmosphere and democratization of work relations. Such

holistic approach reflected in the work place can contribute to high employee

perception of "Quality of Working Life" in an organization (Anbarasan and Mehta,

2009). As the work culture changes drastically in the recent years, the traditional

concept of work to fulfill basic human needs is also fazing out. The basic needs are

continued to diversify and change according to the evolution of the work system and

standards of living of work force (Rethinam and Ismail, 2008).

The term quality of work life (QWL) can be conceptualized as a subset of the quality

of life as both are closely related to each other. Work life is an integral part of total

lifespace (Lawler E.E, 1982). Quality of life may describe a person or group’s

standard of living, environment, public health and safety and/or general surrounding.

It also includes the quality of a person’s work life encompassing things those affect

his/her well-being during a working day, such as salary and benefits, facilities, the

potential for advancement and work-life balance (Ballou et al., 2007). Elizur and

Shye (1990) observed that quantity of work performance is affected by quality of life

as well as quality of working life. However, it may be argued that the specific

attention to work related aspects of quality of life is valid. The genesis of the concern

for QWL could be found in the humanistic tradition within the social sciences that

tries to highlight the employees’ need for meaningful and satisfying work and for

participation in decisions that influence their work environment. The concept of QWL

is very close to the concept of human resource development (HRD). The traditional

approach to HRD led to the ‘de-humanization’ of work, as the emphasis was more on

machines than on people. The human relations movement restored the balance and

brought forth the significance of human beings in organizations (Saklani, 2004).

2 �

Quality of work life is a set of principles, which holds that people are the most

important resources in the organization as they are trustworthy, responsible, and

capable of making valuable contribution and they should be treated with dignity and

respect (Raduan Che Rose et al., 2006). The narrow concept of QWL explains

workers participation in management or support localized activities and experiments

to increase employee’s participation, etc. Whereas, the broader concept explains

QWL in conceptual categories, viz. adequate and fair compensation, safe and healthy

working conditions, opportunity to use and develop human capacities, future

opportunity for continued growth and security, social integration in work place, social

relevance of work, balanced role of work in total life space, etc. (Bhola, 2006). The

term QWL has been defined by various scholars and management practitioners but

did not find a common definition. Some common definitions of QWL are discussed

here.

• Lawler (1982) defines quality of work life in terms of job characteristics and

work conditions. He highlights that the core dimensions of the entire quality of

work life in the organization is to improve employees’ well-being and

productivity.

• Davis (1983) defines QWL as "the quality of the relationship between

employees and the total working environment with human dimensions added

to the usual technical and economic considerations".

• Robbins (1989) defined QWL as “a process by which an organization

responds to employee needs by developing mechanisms to allow them to share

fully in making the decisions that design their lives at work.”

• Lau and May (1998) defines quality of work life as “the workplace strategies,

operations and environment that promote and maintain employee satisfaction

with an aim to improve working conditions for employees and organizational

effectiveness for employers.”

• Heery and Noon (2001) defined quality of work life in a generic term

including “a range of techniques and processes that are designed to give

employees greater discretion and control over their work. The principle behind

all QWL initiatives is that greater participation and involvement in decision

3 �

making by employees will lead to increase in satisfaction, motivation and

commitment, which in turn might lead to improvements in performance”.

• Serey’s (2006) work on quality of work life is quite conclusive and best meets

the contemporary work environment. The definition has been related to a

meaningful and satisfying work. It includes; (i) an opportunity to exercise

one’s talent, capacities and to face challenges/situations that require

independent initiative and self-direction; (ii) an activity thought to be

worthwhile by the individuals involved; (iii) an activity in which one

understands the role the individual can play in the achievement of some

overall goals; and (iv) a sense of taking pride in what one is doing and in

doing it well. This issue of meaningful and satisfying work has been merged

with discussions of job satisfaction, and believed to be more favorable to

quality of work life.

To sum up, quality of work life is viewed as a wide ranging concept, which includes

adequate and fair remuneration, safe and healthy working conditions that enables an

individual to develop and use all his or her capacities. Most of the definitions aim at

achieving the effective work environment that meets organizational and personal

needs and values that promote health, well-being, job security, job satisfaction,

competency development and balance between work and non work life (Rethinam,

2008).

Factors Affecting Quality of Work Life

QWL can be described as the way an individual perceives and evaluates the

characteristics intrinsic to his/her past experience, education, race, and culture (Feuer,

1989). Various researchers have proposed different models of quality of working life

which include a wide range of factors which affect quality of work life. For instance,

Gani and Ahmed (1995) derived these factors from theoretical expositions and

empirical studies and combined in four categories; working environment factors,

relational factors, job factors and financial factors.

Hackman and Oldham (1976) drew attention to psychological growth needs as

relevant to the consideration of quality of working life, such as skill variety, task

identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. They suggested that such needs

have to be addressed if employees are to experience high quality of working life.

4 �

Taylor (1979) identified the essential components of quality of working life as; basic

extrinsic job factors of wages, hours and working conditions, and the intrinsic job

notions of the nature of the work itself. He suggested that a number of other aspects

could be added, including; individual power, employee participation in the

management, fairness and equity, social support, use of one’s present skills, self

development, a meaningful future at work, social relevance of the work or product,

effect on extra work activities. Taylor suggested that relevant quality of working life

concepts may vary with organisation and employee group.

Warr and colleagues (1979) in an investigation of quality of working life, considered

a range of apparently relevant factors including; work involvement, intrinsic job

motivation, higher order need strength, perceived intrinsic job characteristics, job

satisfaction, life satisfaction, happiness, and self-rated anxiety. They discussed a range

of correlations derived from their work, such as those between work involvement and

job satisfaction, intrinsic job motivation and job satisfaction, and perceived intrinsic

job characteristics and job satisfaction.

Mirvis and Lawler (1984) suggested that quality of working life was associated with

satisfaction with wages, hours and working conditions, describing the “basic elements

of good quality of work life” as safe work environment, equitable wages, equal

employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement.

Baba and Jamal (1991) listed what they described as typical indicators of quality of

working life which include; job satisfaction, job involvement, work role ambiguity,

work role conflict, work role overload, job stress, organizational commitment and

turn-over intentions. They also explored reutilization of job content, suggesting that

this facet should be investigated as part of the concept of quality of working life.

Ellis and Pompli (2002) identified a number of factors contributing to job

dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses, including; poor working

environments, resident aggression, workload, unable to deliver quality of care

preferred, balance of work and family, shift work, lack of involvement in decision

making, professional isolation, lack of recognition, poor relationships with

supervisor/peers, role conflict, lack of opportunity to learn new skills.

Sirgy et al. (2001) suggested that the key factors in quality of working life are; need

5 �

satisfaction based on job requirements, work environment, supervisory behaviour,

ancillary programmes, and organizational commitment. They defined quality of

working life as satisfaction of these key needs through resources, activities, and

outcomes stemming from participation in the workplace. Maslow’s needs were seen

as relevant in underpinning this model, covering health & safety, economic, family

and social, esteem, self-actualization, knowledge and aesthetics, although the

relevance of non-work aspects is play down as attention is focused on quality of work

life rather than the broader concept of quality of life.

Herzberg et al. (1959) used “hygiene factors” and “motivation factors” to distinguish

between the causes of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. It has been suggested

that motivating factors are intrinsic to the job, that is, job content, the work itself,

responsibility and advancement. The hygiene factors or dissatisfaction-avoidance

factors include; aspects of the job environment such as interpersonal relationships,

salary, working conditions and security.

QWL is not a unitary concept, but has been seen as incorporating a hierarchy of

perspectives that not only include work based factors, such as job satisfaction,

satisfaction with pay and relationships with work colleagues but also factors that

broadly reflect life satisfaction and general feeling of well-being (Danna and Griffin

1999). More recently work related stress and the relationship between work and non-

work life domains have also been identified as factors that should conceptually be

included in QWL (Loscocco and Roshelle, 1991).

Quality of Work Life Measures

Quality of work life is a relationship between the worker and his environment. There

is a plethora of literature highlighting the dimensions critical for its assessment which

presents the comprehensive and multiple faceted nature of the concept. The models

more frequently used to measure the quality of work life are reported below.

Walton (1975) conceptualized eight categories of factors which influence quality of

work life and include; fair and appropriate compensation, work conditions, use and

development of capacities, chances of growth and security, social integration in the

organization, constitutionalism, work and the total space of life, and social relevance

of work in life. Brief account of these components has been given:

6 �

• Adequate and fair compensation: Fair remuneration, wage balance,

participation in results, and extra benefits.

• Safe and healthy environment: Weekly Journey, Workload, Process

Technology, EPI and EPC Equipments, Fatigue.

• Development of human capacities: Autonomy, Importance of the Task,

Polyvalence, Performance Evaluation, Conferred Responsibility

• Growth and security: Professional Growth, Trainings, Resignations,

Encouragement for studies.

• Social integration: Discrimination, Interpersonal Relationship, Team’s

Compromise, Ideas’ Valorization.

• Constitutionalism: Worker’s Right, Freedom of Expression, Discussion

and Norms, Respect of Individualities.

• The total life space: Influence on the Family Routine, Leisure

Possibility, Time of Work and Rest.

• Social relevance: Proud of the Work Institutional Image, community

integration qualities of the products services politic of human

recourses.

Sinha and Sayeed (1980) designed a full-length inventory of quality of work life,

administered on a sample from two industries in an industrial complex at Allahabad

(UP). The combined sample yielded a coefficient alpha equal to 0.97 and on the basis

of analysis, 17 dimensions retained were: economic benefits, physical working

conditions, mental states, career orientation, advancement on merit, effect on personal

life, union management relation, self respect, supervisory relationships, intra-Group

relations, apathy, confidence in management, meaningful development,

control/influence/participation, employee commitments, general life satisfaction and

organizational climate. The scale has good amount of discriminatory power, so as to

independently separate high and low quality of work life organizations from each

other. The QWL criteria suffices not only for measuring the higher order needs but

the lower order needs too in an Indian environment

Mcdonald (2001) designed a quality of work life scale which consists of 53

statements covering various aspects of working defined under seven broad categories;

job satisfaction, communication, support from manager/supervisor, freedom from

7 �

work related stress, salary and additional benefits, relationships with work, colleague

involvement and responsibility at work.

Brooks and Anderson (2005) developed nurses’ quality of work life scale to

measure the quality of work life of nurses having four sub scales, i.e. work-home life,

work designs, work contexts and work world. The first is termed as ‘work-home life

dimension’, or the interface between the nurse’s work and home life. Since nurses are

primarily female, this dimension reflects the role of mother (child care), daughter

(elderly parent care), and spouse (family needs, available energy). The work design

dimension is the composition of nursing work, and describes the actual work nurses

perform. The work context dimension includes the practice settings in which nurses

work and explores the impact of the work environment on both nurse and patient

systems. Finally, the work world dimension is defined as the effect of broad social

influences and change on the practice of nursing.

Van Laar et al. (2007) developed and tested the psychometric properties of work

related quality of life scale for health care workers. The scale uses six core factors to

explain variation in an individual’s QWL - Job and career satisfaction; working

conditions; general well-being; home-work interface; stress at work and control at

work.

• Job and career satisfaction (JCS) contained six items associated with aspects

of JCS and had a sub-scale reliability of 0.86.

• Working conditions (WC) comprised of three items relating to physical

working environment and had a sub scale reliability of 0.75.

• General well-being (GWB) consisted of six items relating to happiness and

life satisfaction and exhibited a reliability value of 0.82.

• Home-work interface (HWI) included three items related to issues of

accommodating family and work commitments and showed a scale reliability

of 0.82.

• Stress at work (SAW) was represented by two items related to demands and

had a sub scale reliability of 0.81.

8 �

• Control at work (CAW) comprised of five items related to being able to have

control over decisions and showed sub scale reliability of 0.81.

The overall scale reliability was 0.91. This model is presented as a scale that measures

broad aspects of both work and non-work QWL, as well as work related stress, thus

providing an extremely quick and efficient tool to gather data about employee QWL.

As employees are encouraged to address the issues related to QWL as well as stress in

the work place, thus instrument could be used as a valuable and practical tool for

comprehensive assessment of health care employees’ stress as well as QWL.

Employee Well-being and Health

Health and well-being of an employee refers to physical and psychological aspects of

an individual in any working environment. Several large cross-sectional and

longitudinal studies have focused on job components, such as demands, control,

rewards and support. The results indicate that the combination of high demands and

low control at work have impact on health and well being (Rethinam, 2008). A robust

body of evidence is available from epidemiologic studies that demonstrate elevated

health hazards among employed people who report high demand and low control

and/or high effort and low reward at work. Health hazards include; cardiovascular risk

and disease, depressive disorders, alcohol consumption, and poor self-rated health

(Marmot et al. 2002, Siegrist, 2002). Conversely, people whose work life is

characterized by challenging jobs with a high degree of personal control and with

adequate opportunities of experiencing social reward more often remain healthy and

exhibit a high level of well-being (Siegrist, 2003). Job demands that cause strain can

be detrimental to individual health, thus leading to psychological distress and health

complaints (Karasek and Theorell, 1991; Cheng et al., 2000; De jonge et al., 2000).

The apparent trend involving increasing levels of stress, ill health and absenteeism

that is prevalent in today’s work place may seem discouraging. However, evidence

suggests the workplace is well positioned to create an environment that supports

employees in ways that promote, rather than compromise, their health and wellbeing.

Shain and Suurvali (2001), for example, have acknowledged that the workplace is a

major determinant of health. They have identified four elements of the workplace that

can influence the health of employees. The first element, the physical environment,

refers to a well designed workplace that promotes employee safety. The second

element, the psychological environment, describes a workplace culture that is

9 �

supportive and flexible. The third element is personal resources, referring to

employees who have control over their work and the resources to do their job. The

final element influencing employee health is identified as personal health practices.

This element is described as the opportunities to make healthy lifestyle choices that

contribute to overall health and well-being. For workplace health promotion to be

effective, they argue that it should be comprehensive and aim at improving each of

these elements in ways that maximize employee wellness. Well-being is a notion that

people and policymakers generally aspire to improve. However, it is an ambiguous

concept, lacking a universally acceptable definition and often faced with competing

interpretations. Well-being is generally viewed as a description of the state of

people’s life situation (McGillivray 2007). Number of scholars and health care

agencies, have attempted to define the concept of employee well-being and health, a

brief description of those is given below.

• Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland (2005) defined employee well-

being at work as employees’ capacity to manage and to cope with their work

tasks. Working capacity is influenced by the employee’s physical, mental, and

social condition, the functioning of the work society and factors present in the

work environment. An employee’s well-being at work depends also on

employment relationship, remuneration, employment contract, private, and

family life, economic status and life situation in general.

• Oxford English Dictionary (2007) defined Well-being as “the state of being or

doing well in life; happy, healthy, or prosperous condition; moral or physical

welfare (of a person or community).

• The CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) defines

employee well-being as “creating an environment to promote a state of

contentment which allows an employee to flourish and achieve their full

potential for the benefit of themselves and their organization.”

• According to International Labor Organization (ILO) and the World Health

Organization (WHO), Occupational health should aim at the promotion and

maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of

workers in all occupations; the prevention amongst workers of departures from

health caused by their working conditions; the protection of workers in their

10 �

employment from risks resulting from factors adverse to health; the placing

and maintenance of the worker in an occupational environment adapted to his

physiological and psychological capabilities and to summarize the adaptation

of work to man and of each man to his job.

• Towers Watson (2010) defines well-being as encompassing three

interconnected aspects of an individual’s work life, such as:

Physical health: overall health, energy/stamina.

Psychological health: stress/anxiety, intrinsic satisfaction, accomplishment,

optimism, confidence, control, empowerment, safety.

Social health: work relationships, balance in work and personal life, equity,

fairness, respect and social connectedness.

• Warr (1987) define well-being more broadly as the overall quality of an

employee’s experience and functioning at work. This holistic definition is

based on the healthcare philosophy, psychology, and sociology literatures,

which converge on three core dimensions of well-being, i.e. psychological,

physical, and social.

While definitions and measures of health and well-being vary, there tend to be two

salient person-related concepts that are often combined with a more societal-level

perspective. The first is that health and well-being can refer to the actual physical

health of workers, as defined by physical symptomatology and epidemiological rates

of physical illness and diseases. The second is that health and well-being can refer to

the mental, psychological, or emotional aspects of workers as indicated by emotional

states and epidemiological rates of mental illnesses and diseases. The term “health”

generally appears to encompass both physiological and psychological

symptomatology within a more medical context. Well-being tends to be broader and

encompassing concept that takes into consideration the “whole person.” Beyond

specific physical and/or psychological symptoms or diagnoses related to health,

therefore, well-being should be used as appropriate to include context-free measures

of life experiences e.g. life- satisfaction, happiness (Danna & Griffin, 1999).

11 �

Well-being Measures

Well-being is difficult to define and harder to measure. In general, well-being

measures can be classified into two broad categories: objective and subjective

measures. The first category measures well-being through certain observable facts,

such as economic social and environmental statistics. People’s well-being is assessed

indirectly using cardinal measures. On the other hand, subjective measures of well-

being capture people’s feelings or real experience in a direct way, assessing well-

being through ordinal measures (McGillivray and Clarke 2006; Van Hoorn 2007).

Concentrating on the subjective measures, brief descriptions of some of the measures

are discussed here.

Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, 1985): It is a hallmark of the subjective well-

being area that it centers on the person's own judgments, not upon some criterion

which is judged to be important by the researcher (Diener, 1984). The scale consists

of five items requiring respondents to respond on a seven point scale ranging from

strongly disagree to strongly agree. The scale consists of items; In most ways my life

is close to my ideal, The conditions of my life are excellent, I am satisfied with life,

So far I have gotten the important things I want in life, If I could live my life over,

and I would change almost nothing, with coefficient alpha of 0.87. The Satisfaction

with Life Scale was developed to assess satisfaction with people's lives as a whole.

The scale does not assess satisfaction with specific life domains, such as health or

finances, but allows subjects to integrate and weigh these domains in whatever way

they choose.

Psychological Well-being Scale (Carol Ryff, 1995): It consists of six dimensions;

autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others,

purpose in life, and self-acceptance. The scale assesses the individual's well-being at a

particular moment of time within each of these six dimensions. Three to twelve items

per scale validated versions exist of the measures for use in survey research or other

data collection. Individuals respond to various statements and indicate on a 6-point

Likert scale how true each statement is of them. Higher scores on each dimension

indicate greater well-being on that dimension.

Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky, 1999): It is a four-item scale of global

subjective happiness. Two items ask respondents to characterize themselves using

12 �

both absolute ratings and ratings relative to peers, whereas the other two items offer

brief descriptions of happy and unhappy individuals and ask respondents the extent to

which each characterization describes them. Subjective Happiness Scale measures

long-term happiness. Participants rate their responses to the statements on a scale of 1

to 7 (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The 4 items include: In general, I

consider myself a happy person; Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself

happier; some people are generally very happy and enjoy life regardless of what is

going on, getting the most out of everything. To what extent does this describe you?

Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they

never seem as happy as they might be. To what extent does describe you? This

allowed the researchers to evaluate the happiness of individuals, providing an estimate

for them to work with when they looked for reasons why various people had different

levels of happiness.

Well-being Measure (Warr, 1987): Affective well-being measure is a

psychometrically accepted and context free measure of well-being. Warr (1987, 1994)

distinguishes five components of mental health: (1) affective well-being (2)

competence (3) autonomy (4) aspiration (5) integrated functioning. Psychological

research mainly focuses on affective well-being as an indicator of job-related mental

health. In order to measure affective well-being empirically three axes are used: (1)

displeasure-pleasure (2) anxiety-contentment (3) depression-enthusiasm. The vertical

arousal dimension is not considered to be an empirical indicator of well-being and is

therefore not labeled in figure 1(i).

Figure 1(i): Psychological well-being (Warr, 1990a)

13 �

Negative aspects of affective well-being are shown at the left-hand side of figure

whereas positive aspects are depicted on the right-hand side. The elongated figure 1

suggests that the pleasure dimension is more important than the arousal dimension in

constituting affective well-being. Warr (1990a) has developed measurement scales of

all aspects of mental health, including job-related affective well-being These scales

for job-related affective well-being cover the full range of the two principal axes

(numbers 2 and 3 in figure), and seem to be psychometrically quite acceptable.

Consistent with the position of the axes in figure, the scores on the dimensions of

affective well-being are expected to be positively correlated; that is, the angles

between the axes are less than 90 degrees. In occupational settings, the first axis (i.e.

displeasure-pleasure) has mostly been operationalized through measures of job

satisfaction, but measures of job attachment and organizational commitment, have

been used as well (Warr, 1987). The second axis (i.e. anxiety-contentment) is usually

tapped through measures of job-related anxiety, job-related tension, and job-related

strain. Finally, the third axis (i.e. depression-enthusiasm) is assessed by such

measures as occupational burnout, job-related depression, job boredom, and fatigue.

Three of the six adjectives in each scale are positive and three negative. In the original

application, answers were given on a response scale with six options running from

‘never’ to ‘all the time. Responses were scored so that higher values represent greater

contentment (i.e. lower anxiety) or greater enthusiasm (i.e. lower depression). The

three pairs of measures of present interest all use the same general instructions and set

of items, which include: tense, optimistic, worried, contented, miserable, calm,

enthusiastic, gloomy, depressed, relaxed, uneasy, and cheerful. The Anxiety–

Contentment scale consists of items; tense, calm, relaxed, worried, uneasy and

contended; and the Depression–Enthusiasm scale of items miserable, depressed,

optimistic, enthusiastic, gloomy and cheerful. Few researchers have used the scales in

exactly their original form, and this has resulted in the existence of the three variants

which differentiated by choice of items, response scale and scoring direction. One of

the commonly used measures is Job-related Anxiety–Contentment and Job-related

Depression–Enthusiasm (6 items, 5-point response scale). This version of the two

scales is the most similar to the original, differing only in that it uses a 5- rather than

6-point response scale. Internal reliability (alpha) of the scale varies from 0.71-0.91

for different samples.

14 �

Job Satisfaction

Satisfaction is a psychological factor, which cannot be seen and quantified but its

expression in human mind is understandable. When an employee is satisfied with his

assigned task and can discharge his functions satisfactorily, it is called job

satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been defined in several ways and a definitive

designation for the term is unlikely to materialize. A simple or general way to define

it therefore is as an attitudinal variable. Job satisfaction is simply seen as how people

feel about their jobs and different related aspects. It is the extent to which people like

(satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs (Spector, 1997). Job satisfaction is

generally defined as an employee’s affective reaction to a job based on comparing

actual outcomes with desired outcomes (Cranny et al., 1992). It is generally

recognized as multi faceted construct that includes employee feelings about a variety

of both intrinsic and extrinsic job elements (Howard and Frink, 1996). A classic

reference for defining job satisfaction is Locke (1976), who defines it as a pleasurable

or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job

experiences. Job satisfaction is also defined as an individual’s general attitude

regarding his or her job (Robbins, 1999). A person may be relatively satisfied with

one aspect of his or her job and dissatisfied with one or more other aspects. The

overall job satisfaction depends on what one expects and what he or she receives. An

employee will remain satisfied with receiving less provided he or she expects less. A

high level of receiving is required for an employee to be satisfied whose expectation

is high (Nimalathasan & Mohammad, 2010).

A brief examination of the definitions of satisfaction shows that it corresponds to a

psychological state resulting from the difference between the situation in which a

person finds himself or herself and the situation in which that person wishes to be.

Job Satisfaction Theories

The various theories of job satisfaction are briefly explained in the text following:

Affect Theory

Affect Theory (Locke, 1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The

main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy

between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states

that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a

15 �

position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations

are/aren’t met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is

more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively

(when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesn’t value that facet. This

theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of

dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet.

Dispositional Theory

Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory which

suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have tendencies

toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of one’s job. A significant model that

narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the core self-evaluations model,

proposed by Timothy in 1998. Timothy argued that there are four core self-

evaluations that determine one’s disposition towards job satisfaction; self-esteem,

general self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. This model states that higher

levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his self) and general self-efficacy (the

belief in one’s own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal

locus of control (believing one has control over her\his own life, as opposed to outside

forces having control), leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of

neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction.

Two-Factor Theory (Motivator-Hygiene Theory)

Herzberg’s (1959) two factor theory (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory)

attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace. This theory states

that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors – motivation and

hygiene factors, respectively. Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make

people want to perform, and provide people satisfaction, for example achievement in

work, recognition, promotion opportunities. These motivating factors are considered

to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out. Hygiene factors include aspects of

the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and

other working conditions.

Job Characteristics Model

Hackman & Oldham (1976) proposed the job characteristics model, which is widely

used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics impact job outcomes,

16 �

including job satisfaction. The model states that there are five core job characteristics

(skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) which impact

three critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced

responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of the actual results), in turn influencing

work outcomes (job satisfaction, absenteeism, work motivation, etc.).The five core

job characteristics can be combined to form a motivating potential score (MPS) for a

job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an employee's

attitudes and behaviors.

The literature on the subject indicates that many different aspects of job, such as pay,

promotions, supervision, fringe benefits, one’s co-workers support and excessive

working hours, etc. are examined as determinants of job satisfaction and have been

found associated with levels of satisfaction (Watson et al., 2003).

Job Satisfaction Measures

There are two primary ways to measure job satisfaction. One method is to simply

measure overall or "global" job satisfaction. Many times, this overall measure is

obtained by asking a single question, such as, "Overall, how satisfied are you with

your job?” The other method of measuring job satisfaction involves "facet" scales that

are used to measure such separate, or specific, areas of a job as satisfaction with

supervision and satisfaction with pay (Mike, 1996). Some of the popular job

satisfaction measures are explained briefly in the text following.

Brayfield-Rothe’s (1951) index of job satisfaction is a widely used scale for

measuring overall job satisfaction. The scale consists of 18 items constructed by the

Likert scoring system consisting of five categories of agreement-disagreement was

applied to each item. The Likert scale scoring weights for each item ranged from 1 to

5 and the range of possible total scores became 18 to 90 with the undecided or neutral

point at 54. The reliability coefficient computed for the scale by the Spearman-Brown

formula was 0.87.

Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is one of the most popular measurement devices of job

satisfaction is the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). Developed in 1969 by Pat Smith and

her colleagues, the JDI has been used in over 400 research publications (Ironson et

al., 1989). The JDI is used to determine satisfaction with five facets: work itself,

coworkers, supervisor, pay, and promotion opportunities. Each JDI facet scale

17 �

contains either 9 or 18 adjectives or short adjective phrases describing various aspects

of the respondent’s work experiences. Although the instrument’s brief response

format (yes/no), item brevity, and low required reading level, simplify the

respondent’s task. One methodological issue of concern is the use and allocation of

points in the three point response used in the JDI scales. Instead of the customary 3, 2,

1 point distribution found on most three-point scales, the JDI allocates three points for

a "yes" response, one point for a "?" response, and zero points for a "no" response.

Apparently, the "?" response is more indicative of dissatisfaction than satisfaction

(Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981). Smith et al., (1969) developed the JDI to

emphasize job characteristics and not personal emotions about a person's job. Yet,

they conceptualized job satisfaction as "feelings or affective responses". This

contradiction certainly illustrates that the JDI is not a conceptually strong measure of

job satisfaction

Job in General Index (JIG) was developed by Ironson et al., (1989). Like the JDI,

the JIG uses18 questions with the yes, no and ?, three point response format, with

three points for a "yes" response, one point for a "?" response, and zero points for a

"no" response and like JDI, the JIG provides phrases or adjectives that a person uses

when rating his/her job. Unlike JDI, however, the JIG is based on feelings about one's

job and not on descriptions of one's job. Although the scale is fairly new, the JIG has

received evidence of construct validity (Smith et al., 1989). It is an improvement over

the JDI because the JDI focused too much on individual facets and not enough on

work satisfaction in general.

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was designed by Weiss et al.,

(1967) to measure an employee's satisfaction with his or her job. Three forms are

available: two long forms (1977 version and 1967 version) and a short form from the

long-form MSQ (1977). MSQ provides more specific information about the various

aspects of a job that an individual finds rewarding than do more general measures of

job satisfaction. The MSQ measures job satisfaction with 20 facets and has a long

form with 100 questions (5 items from each facet) and a short form with 20 questions

(1 item from each facet). The 20 facets in long form are; ability utilization, co-

workers, moral values, achievement, creativity, recognition, activity, independence,

responsibility, advancement, security, supervision—human relations, authority,

social-service, supervision—technical, company policies, social status, variety,

18 �

compensation and working conditions. Long form MSQ uses the following five

response choices: Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied,

Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied. Short form MSQ consists of 20 items from the long-

form MSQ that best represent each of the 20 scales. Additionally, a 20-item General

Satisfaction scale is also scored. The items in the short-form MSQ measure intrinsic

satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction and general satisfaction. The MSQ was perceived as

a sound measure of overall job satisfaction (Cook et al. 1981). The Cronbach's alpha

reported in the original instrument was 0.93. The MSQ has the advantage of

versatility-long and short forms are available, as well as faceted and overall measures.

(Judge and Klinger, 2000)

The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) developed by Spector (1985) is a 36 item, nine

facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the job and the various aspects of the

job. The nine facets are; Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits, Contingent

Rewards (performance based rewards), Operating Procedures (required rules and

procedures), Coworkers, Nature of Work, and Communication. Although the JSS was

originally developed for use in human service organizations, it is applicable in all

organizations.

The Faces Scale developed by Kunin, (1955) provides an assessment of overall job

satisfaction. The scale is unique because the response categories consist of drawings

of faces that vary in emotional expression. The drawings have been scaled so that they

represent equidistant points along a continuum from positive to negative. A

respondent checks the box under the face that best expresses how he or she feels

about the job. The Face Scale is especially useful with illiterate workers or with those

who have language difficulties. This scale is directly focused on the affective or

emotional component of the job attitude, making it particularly useful for studies in

which job satisfaction is viewed as an emotion.

Warr et al. (1979) conceptualized job satisfaction measure which is easily completed

by employees at all levels and is psychometrically sound can be scored to provide a

single index of overall job satisfaction, or separate indices of intrinsic and extrinsic

job satisfaction. It consists of 15 items, and respondents are asked to indicate on a

seven-point response scale the extent to which they are satisfied or dissatisfied with

19 �

each. The intrinsic job satisfaction subscale comprises seven items and the extrinsic

job satisfaction subscale is made up of eight items.

Job Involvement

While job satisfaction is generally considered to be the primary indicator of the QWL,

job involvement has also been identified as important attitudinal outcome reflective of

the internal career and of the goodness of QWL (Davis and Cherns, 1975; Loscocco

and Roschelle, 1991). Job involvement has been defined and operationalized in a

variety of ways across studies.

• Kanunge (1982) defined it as “a belief descriptive of the present job and tends to be a

function of how much the job can satisfy one’s present needs.

• Lodahl and Kejner (1965) defined job involvement as ‘‘the degree to which a person

is identified psychologically with his work or the importance of work in his total self-

image’’.

• According to Saleh and Hosek (1976) job involvement is “the degree to which the

person identifies with his/her job, actively participates in it and considers his/her

performance important to his/her self-worth”.

Relevant models for understanding the relationship between job involvement and its

antecedent and outcome variables include; Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964),

Integrated Theory (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977), the Motivational Approach (Kanungo,

1982), Causality Theory (Brown, 1996), and Multidimensional model (Yoshimura,

1996).

Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964) suggests that job involvement of an employee is

determined by his/her expectancy level, which results in incentives for action. If

expectations are lower than the inducement provided by the organization, job

involvement will increase. On the other hand, when expectations are higher than the

inducement provided by the organization then job involvement will decrease.

Integrated Theory Model (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977) conceptualizes three

approaches; the dispositional approach, the situational approach and interaction

between these approaches. In the dispositional approach, job involvement is viewed

as dependent on individual personality characteristics, such as, age, gender, marital

20 �

status, external and internal control features, job seniority, dwelling locations, the

intensity of high-level work demands in terms of time and responsibility, etc. In a

situation-determined approach, job involvement can be viewed as the personal

attitude towards the particular job. In this conceptualization, job involvement will be

affected by leadership style, the opportunities the individual has to be involved in

decision-making, social factors, job features and other conditional influences. Values

are thus internalized with job attitude. The interaction between disposition and

situational approaches is labeled as the dispositional situation. In this approach,

personal characteristics and the environment in interaction are used to explain

personal work attitudes and behaviors. When personal characteristics and the situation

reach congruence, the individual will develop high job involvement.

Motivational Approach (Kanungo, 1982) hypothesizes that employee perceptions

concerning a job's potential to satisfy their needs represents a more proximal influence

on job involvement. Kanungo contends that individuals develop beliefs that a job's

context potentially provides an opportunity for them to satisfy their most important

future needs. Consequently, job involvement depends on employees' needs (both

extrinsic and intrinsic), as well as their perceptions of the job's potential to satisfy

those needs.

Causality Theory (Brown, 1996) includes antecedents (i.e. personality variables

concept of work ethic), the pivotal mediator role of job involvement, and its

consequences, such as organizational commitment. This model also depicts the

relationships between job involvement and organizational commitment. In addition,

work ethic has shown to play a significant role in job involvement.

Multidimensional Model (Yoshimura, 1996) states that job involvement is not uni-

dimensional concept but consists of three dimensions: emotional job involvement,

cognitive job involvement and behavioral job involvement. Emotional job

involvement indicates how strongly the worker is interested in his/her job or how

much the worker likes his/her job. Cognitive job involvement indicates how strongly

the worker wants to participate in his/her job related decision making or how

important the job is in his/her whole life. Behavioral job involvement indicates how

often the worker usually takes extra-role behavior such as taking an evening class to

enhance job related skills or thinking about the job after leaving the office.

21 �

Nelson (1993) observed that highly job involved workers are able to desire self

esteem, satisfaction and pride in their work through effective supervision. Schwyhart

and Smith (1972) obtained a positive relationship between job involvement and

satisfaction of a group of middle managers in a company. Maurer (1969) informed

that individuals who are highly job involved in their work tend to meet higher

personal needs, such as desire for self-esteem, autonomy and self-actualization.

Wernumont and Fitzpatrick (1968) suggested that employees who are more involved

in their job, desire more intrinsic satisfaction from the work itself rather than extrinsic

satisfaction.

Professional Commitment

Commitment is becoming an increasingly important topic of discussion for employers

as well as for employees. Two important facets of commitment, which need utmost

attention, are organizational and professional commitment. These two aspects are

being discussed and studied by managerial and organizational behavior researchers

during the recent decades (Abtahi & Molaee, 2004).

Most researchers treat professional commitment as a uni-dimensional construct that

can be easily measured by adapting well-established measures of organizational

commitment, such as the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al.,

1979). Vandenberg and Scarpell (1994) defined professional commitment as “a

person’s belief in and acceptance of the values of his or her chosen occupation or line

of work, and a willingness to maintain membership in that occupation”. Touching

multidimensionality of the concept, Meyer et al. (1993) defined three distinct

components of professional commitment, i.e. affective professional commitment

(APC), continuance professional commitment (CPC), and normative professional

commitment (NPC). Affective professional commitment (APC) refers to

identification with, involvement in, and emotional attachment to the profession. Thus,

employees with strong affective professional commitment remain members of their

profession because they want to do so. Continuance professional commitment (CPC)

refers to commitment based on the employee’s recognition of the costs associated

with leaving their profession. Employees with strong continuance commitment remain

with their profession because they realize that they have much to lose by not doing so.

Normative professional commitment (NPC) refers to commitment based on a sense of

obligation to the profession. Employees with strong normative professional

22 �

commitment remain members of their profession because they feel they ought to do

so. Normative professional commitment may develop because of effective

professional socialization or the sacrifices involved in becoming a member of a

particular profession (Meyer et al., 1993).

Interest in professional commitment developed as researchers and practitioners began

exploring the positive impact of having employees who are highly committed to their

profession (Hall et al, 2005). Professional commitment has been linked to important

outcomes, such as, improved work performance, reduced turnover intentions and

greater satisfaction at both organizational and professional levels (Elias, 2007).

Higher levels of professional commitment are associated with positive behaviors that

are beneficial to an organization. Accordingly, individuals with high levels of

professional commitment should be less likely to engage in activities that are

detrimental to a firm (Greenfield et al., 2008).

Quality of Work and Non-work life

Ideological, political, economic and social developments have led to changes in the

structure of the labor market and the industrial landscape more generally over the last

few decades. In turn these changes have resulted in reforms at the workplace level

that have long since raised concern amongst individuals, families and researchers

(Allan et al., 2005). The increased focus on work–family research in recent years has

been sparked by the realization that the roles we fill are not independent of each other,

and that participation in one role creates stressful demands that have implications for

other roles that may be positive or negative (Gutek et al., 1981; Kanter, 1997;

Kirchmeyer, 1995). Work/non-work conflict is generally defined as occurring when

the emotional and behavioral demands of work and non-work roles are incompatible

such that participation in one role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in

the other (Greenhaus and Boutell, 1985).

Allan et al., (2005) suggested that work/non-work conflict is a result of high workload

pressure, long working hours, unsupportive management and weak employee control,

especially work overload. They further suggested that work/non-work conflict is

important because it tells us about the well-being of individuals and more generally of

a particular work place or organization. Important progress has been made to date

23 �

about the importance of structural policies designed to assist workers to meet

competing demands to be at work and at home.

Studies highlighting the link between work/non-work conflict and fatigue, stress,

burnout, psychological well-being, depressed mood and physical symptoms are well

documented in the research literature (Barton & Folkard, 1991; Bohle & Tilley, 1989;

Duxbury, 2003; Earle, 2003; Loudoun & Bohle, 1997). While ethically these findings

alone should be sufficient reason to make work/non-work conflict an important area

of investigation, there is another reason researchers are interested in work/non-work

conflict. Evidence indicates that policies designed to assist work/non-work conflict

can promote employee behaviour that is beneficial to the firm. For example,

researchers has found that family friendly policies can result in increases in return to

work after childbirth (Squirchuk and Bourke,1999), retention rates (Squirchuk and

Bourke, 1999), morale and productivity (McCampbell,1996), and absenteeism

(Kossek and Nichol, 1992). Given the strong links found between work/non-work

conflict and health of workers and their family members and the links between

work/non-work conflict and organizational performance, it is likely to be an area of

growing interest in the future. Indeed some argue that it is one of most pressing social

problem facing most economies today (Zetlin and Whitehouse, 1998).

Bradley (2001) argued that constantly increasing work demand creates an isolation of

the personnel from their families. Personnel and family responsibilities are neglected

in the process of securing an economic prospect, hence it deteriorates the interaction

of family life that reduces QWL. Many people seem to be working longer and harder

than ever before and are finding it increasingly difficult to achieve a much desired

work life balance. Stress is also found to be associated with a perceived lack of work

life balance. Work life balance is believed to exist when there is good functioning at

work and at home with a minimum of role conflict (Sturges and Guest 2004).

On the other hand, work family conflict studies have contributed a better

understanding of role conflict and its impact on mental health and quality of work life

(Higgins, C. et al., 1994). In summary, work/non-work conflict is important because it

tells us about the well-being of individuals and more generally of a particular

workplace or organization. Important progress has been made to date about the

importance of structural policies designed to assist workers to meet competing

24 �

demands to be at work and at home. More research is needed, however, about the

influence of organisational variables on the emotional aspects of work/non-work

conflict (Allan et al., 2005).

Strategies for Improving QWL

All over the world, people are craving for their human dignity and respect. Besides,

their aspirations and expectations are rising along with rapid changes in times and

technologies. There is growing significance attached to human resources. Therefore, it

is necessary to ensure quality of work life for all-round peace and prosperity. Quality

of work life is all about the conducive and congenial environment created at the work

place as it is one of the main reasons for better performance and productivity. Only

when the right ambience is provided to the employees they will be able to deliver

their goods effectively and efficiently (Rao, 2010). Research witnesses such

endeavors either on the part of the organization or the people involved. Such efforts at

the work place can be categorized as job specific or employee specific. Under the first

category some of the coping up strategies can be described as job enrichment, job

security, flexible hours, establishment of communication boards, visibility of

administration, support for creative and challenging job, attendance management, self

scheduling, humanized vision and working conditions with respect to job context.

Similarly, some of the attempts in this direction can be viewed as employee specific

and includes; recreational facilities, industrial housing scheme, autonomy, opportunity

to interact with each other, employee oriented work system, professional development

strategies, investment in human resource management, staff information sessions,

leadership education and recognition programmes, health and well being programmes,

satisfaction of social and knowledge needs, promoting work life balance, shared

governance, discretionary employee benefits, stress management techniques, family

friendly arrangement policies, motivating for physical exercise, employee assistance

programmes, etc. (Gani and Ahmed, 1998; Hossain and Islam, 1999; Bram Steijn,

2001; Baker, 2002; Gifford, 2002; Littlefield, 2004; Lees and Kearns, 2005; Dollan et

al., 2007; Lee, 2007; Duxbury and Higgins, 2007; Dargahi and Saragi, 2007; Khani,

2008; Timossi et al., 2008; Rethinam, 2008; Dhar, 2008; Subramanian, 2009;

Amarnath and Naidu, 2010 and Azril, 2010).

25 �

Rationale of the Study

The veterinary profession is progressing by leaps and bounds with each passing day.

Its scope of activity is also diversified manifolds. Earlier, nobody bothered about this

profession which now stands at par, if not taller in comparison to the medical,

engineering and any other profession. The veterinarians have outplayed their role in

providing the state of the art technology to the farmers in every nook and corner of the

society. The role of veterinarians in providing technical services, e.g. vaccination,

disease treatment, controlling different types of outbreaks, providing artificial

insemination for breed improvement and advising farmer owners in rearing and

maintaining the health status of animals, paves the way for increased importance to

this profession.

On the other hand, we can have an insight of the working conditions of veterinary

officers who act as the promoters of human health in taking the responsibilities for

hygienic production of meat, eggs, milk, etc. All the veterinary officers, at many a

times, have to be prepared to work in unhygienic conditions. Appropriate protective

clothing for such jobs has to be worn in such conditions. They have to work outdoor

in all kinds of weather and treat the animals or may have to perform surgeries under

unsanitary conditions. They are more exposed to fatal infections and physical risks of

being bitten, kicked or scratched. In brief, duties of veterinary officers while

providing treatment are hard, arduous and tedious due to objective patients who are

non-cooperative.

In terms of parity of veterinary officers with medicos, certain issues need to be

highlighted, like educational qualifications, pay scales, working conditions,

conveyance allowance, farm allowance, etc. As far as educational qualifications and

pay scale are concerned they are comparable to the medicos. But various allowances,

which they really deserve, are not included in their pay structure. There is hardly any

incentive for the officers, which may motivate them to prove their excellence.

Promotion by virtue of seniority and that too with very limited avenues does not

contribute anything constructive to the services. Transfers according to Punjab

government rules and regulations with more or less political pressure un-necessarily

harass the employees. Sub-standard infrastructure without any adequate security

measures also add to the woes of the veterinary officers. The working conditions

under which these highly qualified and talented technocrats are supposed to work and

26 �

live in, reflects upon the family especially the education of their wards. The

unfavorable environment under which they are supposed to work does affect their

QWL adversely. So, study of QWL of these veterinary doctors will prove to be of

great help to the regulatory authorities to frame suitable rules and regulations for

conducive growth of the profession, as well as the veterinary doctors individually for

improving their quality of work life.

Objectives

The overall objective of the study is to measure the quality of work life of Veterinary

doctors in Punjab. The specific objectives are as follows:

• To measure the quality of work life among veterinary doctors in Punjab.

• To identify the various determinants of quality of work life among veterinary

doctors in Punjab.

• To study the impact of employee attitude like professional commitment, job

involvement and job satisfaction on quality of work life.

• To identify the personal strategies being used by the veterinary doctors to

improve their quality of work life.

Chapter Scheme:

The chapter scheme of the dissertation is as follows:

• Chapter 1- Quality of Work Life.

• Chapter 2- Review of Literature.

• Chapter 3- Research Methodology.

• Chapter 4- Quality of Work-life and its Determinants.

• Chapter 5- Employee Attitudes and Quality of Work Life and Strategies for

Improving Quality of Work Life.

• Chapter 6- Summary and Conclusions.

• Bibliography.

• Annexures.