3. LITERATURE REVIEW:
Quality of Work Life incorporates a hierarchy of perspectives that not only include work-based factors such as job satisfaction, satisfaction with pay and relationship with work colleagues, but also factors that broadly reflects life situation and general feelings of well being.
The term “quality of work life” (QWL) was first introduced in 1972 during an international labour relations conference. QWL received more attention after United Auto Workers and General Motors initiated a QWL program for work reforms. According to Goodman QWL is “an attempt to restructure multiple dimensions of the organisation and to institute a mechanism which introduces and sustains changes overtime”i.
According to Glacer, QWL requires an Organisational climate and structure that really encourages, facilitates, rewards, questions, challenges or suggest ways to improve the existing modes operating anyway.ii Acording to Luthans (1973) QWL is more concerned with overall climate of work. It is a concern about the impact of work on people as organisational effectiveness and an idea of participation in organisational problem solving and decision making.iii
Robbins (1989) defined QWL as “a process by which an organization responds to employees needs by developing mechanisms to allow them to share fully in making the decisions their design their lives at work”iv. QWL has been well recognized as a multi-dimensional construct and it may not be universal or eternal. The key concepts captured and discussed in the existing literature include job security, better reward system, higher pay and opportunity for growth, participate groups, and increased organizational productivity among others.
According to J. LIoyd Suttle, “Quality of work life is the degree to which members of a work organization are able to satisfy important personal needs through their experiences in the organization.” v More specifically, QWL may be set into operation in terms of employees” perceptions of their physical and psychological well-being at work. It includes virtually every major issue that labor has fought for during the last two decades. Quality of Working Life is a term that had been used to describe the broader job-related experience an individual has. Whilst there has, for many years, been much research into job satisfaction, and, more recently, an interest has arisen into the broader concepts of stress and subjective well-being, the precise nature of the relationship between these concepts has still been little explored.
Stress at work is often considered in isolation, wherein it is assessed on the basis that attention to an individual’s stress management skills or the sources of stress will prove to provide a good enough basis for effective intervention. Alternatively, job satisfaction may be assessed, so that action can be taken which will enhance an individual’s performance. Somewhere in all this, there is often an awareness of the greater context, whereupon the home-work context is considered, for example, and other factors, such as an individual’s personal characteristics, and the broader economic or cultural climate, might be seen as relevant. In this context, subjective well-being is seen as drawing upon both work and non-work aspects of life.
Hackman and Oldham (1976)vi drew attention to what they described as psychological growth needs as relevant to the consideration of Quality of working life. Several such needs were identified- 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. In contrast to such theory based models, Taylor (1979)vii more pragmatically 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 according to organization and employee group.
Warr and colleagues (1979),viii in an investigation of quality of working life, considered a range of apparently relevant factors, including- Work involvement, Intrinsic job motivation, Higher order needs 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. In particular, Warr et al. found evidence for a moderate association between total job satisfaction and total life satisfaction and happiness, with a less strong, but significant association with self-rated anxiety.
Mirvis and Lawler (1984)ix suggested that quality of working life was associated with satisfaction with wages, hours and working conditions, describing the “basic elements of a good quality of work life” as – Safe work environment, Equitable wages, Equal employment opportunities and, Opportunities for advancement. Baba and Jamal (1991)x listed what they described as typical indicators of quality of working life, including – Job satisfaction, Job involvement, Work role ambiguity, Work role conflict, Work role overload, Job stress, Organizational commitment and Turnover intentions. They also explored routinisation of job content, suggesting that this facet should be investigated as part of the concept of quality of working life. Some have argued that quality of working life might vary between groups of workers. For example, Ellis and Pompli (2002)xi identified a number of factors contributing to job dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses, including – Poor working environments, Resident aggression, Workload, inability 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 and Lack of opportunity to learn new skills.
Sirgy (2001)xiisuggested that the key factors in quality of working life are – Need satisfaction based on job requirements, Need satisfaction based on work environment Need satisfaction based on supervisory behavior, Need satisfaction based on ancillary programmes. 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. Needs as defined by the psychologist, Abraham, were seen as relevant in underpinning this model, covering health & safety, economic and family, social, esteem, 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.
Bearfield, (2003) xiiiused 16 questions to examine quality of working life, and distinguished between causes of dissatisfaction in professionals, intermediate clerical, sales and service workers, indicating that different concerns might have to be addressed for different groups. The distinction made between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in quality of working life reflects the influence of job satisfaction theories.
Herzberg (1959) xivused “Hygiene factors” and “Motivator factors” to distinguish between the separate causes of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. It has been suggested that Motivator 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. Of these latter, the most common cause of job dissatisfaction can be company policy and administration, whilst achievement can be the greatest source of extreme satisfaction.An individual’s experience of satisfaction or dissatisfaction can be substantially rooted in their perception, rather than simply reflecting their “real world”. Further, an individual’s perception can be affected by relative comparison – am I paid as much as that person – and comparisons of internalised ideals, aspirations, and expectations, for example, with the individual’s current state (Lawler and Porter, 1966).
In summary, where it has been considered, authors differ in their views on the core constituents of Quality of Working Life (e.g. Sirgy, Efraty, Siegel & Lee, 2001 and Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979). It has generally been agreed however that Quality of Working Life is conceptually similar to well-being of employees but differs from job satisfaction which solely represents the workplace domain (Lawler, 1982).
Quality of Working Life 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 feelings of well-being (Danna & Griffin, 1999). More recently, work-related stress and the relationship between work and non-work life domains (Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991) have also been identified as factors that should conceptually be included in Quality of Working Life.
The major determinants of QWL include Decision Making, Authority, Growth and Development, Job Security, Organisational Prestige, Feeling of worthwhile accommodation, Pay and Allowance, Promotional Avenues, Recognition and Appreciation.
Prof. Richard E. Watson (1975)xv identifies eight dimensions that make up Quality of Work Life framework as Adequate and Fair Compensation, Safe ad Healthy Working Conditions, Immediate Opportunities to use to develop human capacities, future opportunities for continued growth and security, Social Integration in the work organisation, Constitutionalism and rights for privacy in the work organisation, work and the total life space refer to the balanced role of work, Social relevance of work.
According to Organ (1988), The definition of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) is “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”. Organ also noted that defining OCB as behaviors that are not formally rewarded is equally too broad, as few “in-role” behaviors actually guarantee a formal reward Dyne (1995)xvi proposed the broader construct of “extra-role behavior” (ERB), defined as “behavior which benefits the organization and/or is intended to benefit the organization, which is discretionary and which goes beyond existing role expectations”. Thus organizational citizenship is functional, extra-role, pro-social organizational behaviors directed at individual, groups and / or an organization. These are helping behaviors not formally prescribed by the organization and for which there are no direct rewards or punishments.
Several studies in the field of research has been done, here are some of this research. Mardani and Heidari (2008)xvii, in a study entitled “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior” concluded that organizational justice and its components are positive and significant relation with organizational citizenship behavior of and its components. Ahmadi (2009)xviii, in their research, as” identify the factors affecting the development of organizational citizenship behavior pattern for the National Iranian Oil Company “states that structural factors, leadership, personality, values and culture are among the factors that influence the development of organizational citizenship behavior.
Waitayangkook (2003)xix in a study as “Quality of work life of International prospects of the Thai” consider quality of working life as one of the applied techniques used in management training which is benefit in today complex environment of social, economic and political. Barling (2003)xx, in their research, as “Relationship between quality of working life and jobs arousal capacity’ concluded that lacking quality of Working Life blow damage into the job and there is there is significant positive relationship between the quality of working life and increasing the skills, information and motivation.
Donalson (2000)xxi in their research, as” Relationship between quality of work life and organizational commitment” concluded that there is significant relationship between the quality of working life to organizational commitment, absenteeism from work and the delay and two components of the partner’s satisfaction and job security have the strongest impact on organizational commitment. Kim (2006)xxii, in a survey on 1584 of state employees in 6 countries conclude that there are significant and direct relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, but there are not found a direct relation between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior.
In the present study, QWL is defined as the favorable conditions and environments of a workplace that support and promote employees satisfaction by providing them with rewards, job security and growth opportunities, and OCB is evaluated based on Altruism and Conscientiousness.
Altruism (Pro Social Behaviour) is defined as behavior within an organization that is aimed at improving the welfare of another person (Organ 2006). Conscientiousness (Extra-role behavior) is another construct similar to OCB. It is defined as “behavior that attempts to benefit the organization and that goes beyond existing role expectations” (Organ 2006)xxiii.