Chapter – Quality of WorkLife Employee Loyaltyshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/35952/9... · · 2015-02-19were assigned narrow jobs and supported by a rigid hierarchy

226

CChhaapptteerr –– 77

QQuuaalliittyy ooff WWoorrkkLLiiffee &&

EEmmppllooyyeeee LLooyyaallttyy

227

INTRODUCTION

There exist varied factors generating the need of new and innovative approaches to

designing and managing organizations. Quality of work life (QWL) forms one dimension

of empowerment, which meets this need. A growing number of companies recognize

that employees are more likely to choose a firm and stay there only of they believe that it

offers a high Quality of Work life.

In the early days, job specialization and simplification were popular and the employees

were assigned narrow jobs and supported by a rigid hierarchy in the expectation that

efficiency would improve. In the current scenario the ideas are changed and there are

many difficulties developed from the classical job design.

The classical design gave inadequate attention to human needs. Also the needs and

aspirations of workers themselves were changing.

So a question arises in our minds as to what is Quality of Work Life? Quality of Work

Life (QWL) in short is concerned with the overall work climate or culture. It may be

described as a concern about the impact of work on people and organizational

effectiveness. This is combined with an emphasis on participation in problem solving

and decision-making. QWL refers to the favorableness or unfavorableness of a total job

environment for people.

Newstrom and Keith Davis (2000) says QWL is, basically that organizations recognize

their responsibility to develop jobs and working conditions that are excellent for people

as well as for the economic health of the same. Employees, who are committed to the

organization, are truly empowered and work within a participatory, problem-solving

framework. There is plenty of evidence for this. The purpose of the researcher for taking

QWL as one of the dimensions that it plays a very important role in empowerment.

Another issue is that QWL as a program implements changes and improves the work

climate. It also enhances the interface of people, technology and the organization, by

making a more favorable work environment to its employees. In the area of HRM, job

228

sharing, Flextime and Four-day ten-hour workweeks are examples of improving the

Quality of Work Life. It is more concerned with the overall work climate or culture.

Luthans (2001) describes QWL as a concern about the impact of work on people and

organizational effectiveness combined with an emphasis on participation in problem

solving and decision-making.

Some of the questions do come for certain employees in the workplace situation. The

major question is employees seek employers who offer work/life benefits. Considering the

recent facts, they may be as follows:

• There are more households with two working parents.

• There are more single parent households.

• There are more employees with both children and elderly parents to care for.

• There are more employees who expect their employers to help.

• There are more employers who wish to attract and retain employees

• There are more employees who seek employers that offer Work/Life Benefits.

OBJECTIVES OF QWL

Three main objectives for the QWL are

• Improve employee satisfaction;

• Strengthen workplace learning; and

• Better manage on-going change and transition

In the opinion of some leaders (Tommy G. Thompson, 2001) has mentioned clearly that

one can accomplish their mission and provide the level of service the public demands

only if one recruits and retains the best and the brightest and provide them with a work

environment that supports them in getting their jobs done. Monitoring employee views

about the quality of their work and the quality of their work life helps the employers to

get a sense of their strengths as an employer and identify areas where improvements can

be made. QWL is becoming a major societal issue in our country and throughout the

world.

229

QWL is introduced in any to accomplish the following objectives:

• Improve communication with employees;

• Strengthen family friendly programs;

• Provide all employees with Internet access;

• Increase investment in workplace learning;

• Improve the effectiveness of supervisors and team leaders;

• Evaluate the effectiveness of diversity management practices; and

• Improve ability to manage change and transition.

Though most of the companies today measure the satisfaction level of the employees

through various ways, one method of measuring the quality of work life is the Human

Resource Index. The Human Resource Management (HRM) Index is a summary of

employee perceptions of the work environment. Just as the Consumer Price Index is a

composite of the costs of various market basket items, the HRM Index is a composite of

various work environment factors including Morale, Climate for Innovation, Planning

and Organization, Communication, and Operational Efficiency.

There are two major approaches to QWL recommended (Fred Luthans, 2002) which are

the socio-technical approach and the High Performance Work Practices (HPWPs). Both

the approaches bring an attempt to improve the quality of work experience. The former

is used to change the sociotechnical design whereas the latter is to change the

organizational financial and operational performance apart from concentrating on the

selection and evaluation practices.

There is considerable evidence that employees who are truly empowered and work

within a participatory, problem-solving framework are more committed to the

organization. Another factor that may be considered is communication. Communication

is one of the major factors in the workplace that needs to be improved especially in the

workplace.

230

It has two elements –both listening and communicating. Communication is filled with

opportunities for misunderstanding and confusion for today’s manager. It helps to

prevent mistakes that often occur and it helps cement the relationship between the

speaker and listener.

Listening is one of the most powerful things we so as human beings-when we do it, that

is. There are ranges of emotions, which are affected by listening. In the communication

regarding the quality of work life this is a crucial part.

There are a lot of emotions tied up in the act of listening. Mark Eppler (2001) has felt

that we do it well, the other person feels good about themselves and their ideas. We do it

poorly, and the emotions range from resentment to outright anger. Open

communication helps to increase the self-esteem of the individual in turn bringing a

good environment in the workplace.

Organizations may start all the meetings with a well-defined purpose and make sure

that the objectives are not fuzzier. Research indicates five to seven people are the ideal

number for any meeting to be successful. In any communication, one has to research a

conclusion, even if further study is needed. Early QWL programmes focused on job

enrichment and development of employee skills.

QWL programmes are the means to increase the participation of individual workers and

work groups in decision-making. Ian Beardwell and Len Holden (2001) say that QWL

has certain features that are associated with HRM. It has a strategic approach to the

organization of work and the management of the employment relationship.

Kochan et al (1986), identifies three basic approaches to QWL. The first approach

confines QWL initiatives to narrow task-based issues and improved management-

worker communications. The second approach includes the elements of the first and

also team working, work structuring, payment systems based on knowledge and skills

acquired.

The third approach includes the elements of the first two and also extends to ‘strategic’

issues such as employment security provisions, the sharing of gains from productivity

231

improvements, union representation on management planning committees and union

involvement in decisions relating to size and structure of the workforce.

Basic elements of QWL programmes identified by the researcher are open

communications, equitable reward systems, and job enrichment, a concern for employee

job security and satisfying careers and participation in decision making. Though the

elements seem to be known factors this is never an easy task, since QWL exists in

perceptions of employees that is constantly changing.

QWL AND JOB ENRICHMENT

Job enrichment is considered as an important element in QWL by the researcher. Jobs

vary in depth and in their breadth. Job enrichment means the efforts applied to any job

in order to humanize the jobs by the addition of more motivators. Job enrichment

process as such has its core dimensions like providing employees with skill variety, task

identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback regarding the job itself.

There are some workers who may not want enriched jobs because they are unable to

tolerate increased responsibility and they dislike more complex duties. If these

individuals are uncomfortable with group work and if they dislike relearning it becomes

difficult to implement QWL programmes. Some workers prefer security and stability

and if they are comfortable with supervisory authority, they prefer not to adopt QWL

programmes.

LIMITATIONS OF QWL

General limitations of QWL programmes are as follows:

• Employees are the final judges of what gives them satisfaction and what enriches their

job.

• Some workers may not want enriched jobs

o If they are unable to tolerate increased responsibility

o If they dislike more complex duties

o If they are uncomfortable with group work

232

o If they dislike relearning

o If they prefer security and stability

o If their skills are not adaptable

o Finally if they prefer to quit their jobs

Not all employees would feel enriched if they had an alternative option between two

jobs.

• Only certain employees feel that they are self- actualized and give a “better”

performance.

• At times enriched jobs might give dissatisfaction.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS OF QWL

Today QWL creates a need to give workers more of a challenge, more of a whole task

and more opportunity to use their ideas. Ultimately close attention to QWL provides a

more humanized work environment. It attempts to serve the higher-order needs of

workers as well as their more basic needs. It seeks to employ the higher skills of workers

and to provide an environment that encourages them to improve their skills.

The main idea of introducing QWL is that to develop human resources. It facilitates and

emphasizes that work should contribute to general social environment by enriching the

job and ultimately it is the employees who are the final judges of knowing what enriches

their jobs.

Though management gives due attention to the motivational factors m the employees

may be less responsive to the enrichment program because they are distracted by

various factors and limitations as cited above. To overcome this frustration and increase

the motivational level of the employees the organizations might adopt new training

strategies suggested in the training and development chapter by the researcher.

233

EMPLOYEE LOYALTY

Today's employees likely will work for several companies throughout their careers.

This does not mean that retention efforts on your part are ineffective or a waste of

resources. The right strategies can help you achieve the most from your valuable

employees and possibly extend the time they work for you.

Because of the skilled labor shortage, employers are ramping up retention efforts to try

and hold on to the workers they currently employ. Are these efforts having the desired

effect? Are they increasing employee loyalty and making it less likely that employees will

jump ship? Many CEOs think not.

EMPLOYER QUANDARY

According to the 2007 Management Action Programs (MAP) Quarterly CEO Survey

conducted by Vantage Research, some business leaders feel like they're spinning their

wheels when they put their workers' needs first, creating an employee-focused company,

only to struggle with long-term retention. This presents a quandary for CEOs who invest

time, money, and emotional energy into building and managing the employee-focused

workplace.

"Most CEOs believe their companies are currently geared much more toward employees

than they were 10 years ago, particularly in providing enhanced benefits such as

supportive working environments, flexible hours, and telecommuting," said Allan

Hauptfeld, principal of Vantage Research & Consulting, Valencia, Calif. "Interestingly,

however, their efforts may be falling short because one-third of these business leaders

also believe their employees to be less company-loyal than 10 years ago."

NEW PRIORITIES

In her article "Rethinking Company Loyalty" posted on the Harvard Business School

Web site, Lauren Keller Johnson had mentioned, "few business leaders would deny the

importance of organizational loyalty, perhaps fewer still believe they can achieve it the

way they once did. After all, the lifetime contract expired long ago, and your people—

234

especially your best people—are more likely to display loyalty to their careers than to

you, their employer.

"The very nature of the relationship between employers and employees has undergone a

fundamental shift: Today, workers not only don't expect to work for decades on end for

the same company, but they don't want to. They are largely disillusioned with the very

idea of loyalty to organizations. But, at the same time, they don't really want to shift

employers every two to three years for their entire careers. Similarly, companies would

grind to a halt if they had to replace larger portions of the work force on a similar

schedule."

EVOLUTION

Ron Wood, ThermaSys Corp., who has more than 20 years' experience in human

resources and has authored articles about work force development for

thefabricator.com, shared his thoughts about the evolution of employee loyalty.

"Beginning around the mid-1980s, corporate America began a transition in its employee

relations philosophy that increased its focus on short-term financial improvements to

enhance its share value on Wall Street. This early philosophy has now been adopted by

more and more employers. In fairness, the increased cost of employing workers has

driven a lot of this thinking.

"Benefits, especially the high cost of providing health benefits, have required many

employers to adopt lean staffing practices. When short-term revenues decline, one of

the first things considered is a reduction in headcount. Workers are displaced on short

notice and may or may not receive severance pay.

"[The fact that] the world has become a global market with countries like China and

India having the ability to manufacture and distribute goods much cheaper than the

U.S. [has exacerbated the problem]. Big-box retailers like Wal-Mart buy their inventory

at the best price available.

235

"The younger work force has seen their grandparents, parents, friends, and relatives

affected by these employment changes and the resulting plant closings, downsizings,

and rightsizing. They are not willing to form the same employer attachments that

existed in earlier times. They will market their skill and experience to the highest bidder.

They also value their personal life more than previous generations and will not readily

sacrifice personal time for the benefit of their employer. Moving up in a corporation no

longer has the appeal that it once had.

"Current employment statistics indicate that younger employees will

change employers 10 times in a 30-year work life”.

"There is no silver bullet for this employment culture change. Smart employers will

listen to their employees' needs and accommodate their needs when possible. Females

in the workplace value flexible work schedules to address family needs. The days of

demanding rigid work hours and short-notice overtime are disappearing rapidly.

Telecommuting is allowed more often when it is possible.

"As the baby boom generation retires, the need to retain valuable employees is going to

become more critical, and employers will need to be creative in their employment

practices in order to compete for the diminishing talent pool."

IPSOS LOYALTY STUDY

The landmark Ipsos Loyalty Study, the largest study of loyalty ever conducted, found

less than 30 percent of US employees say they are loyal to their company. Only about 25

percent of US employees think their employer has earned their loyalty.

The long-term success of any company depends heavily upon the quality and loyalty of

its people. Few corporate executives would disagree with this idea conceptually. But it is

also true that most treat the economic value of employees in enhancing customer

relationships and company profits as “soft” numbers, unlike the “hard” numbers they

use to manage their operations, such as the cost of labor.

236

The problem with this is that when the going gets tough, managers focus on the hard

numbers. And the reality is that at some point every company will go through tough

times. That is the nature of business cycles.

The result is that today we are overwhelmed with downsizings and restructurings.

Layoffs make the front pages of our newspapers regularly. And while Wall Street often

rewards layoffs by treating them as a sign that management is serious about getting a

company’s financial house in order, the reality is quite different. Most organizations that

downsize fail to realize any long-term cost savings or efficiencies, which necessitates

even more restructurings and layoffs.

DISLOYALTY IS A TWO-WAY STREET

Although the cost benefits tend to be mirages, the corresponding pain to customers and

employees is all too real. Research using the American Customer Satisfaction Index

found that those firms that engaged in substantial downsizing experienced large

declines in customer satisfaction. Unfortunately for those firms, the index has proven to

be a good predictor of future earnings. Downsizing may increase productivity in the

short term, but the downsized firms’ future financial performance will suffer if repeat

business is dependent on labor-intensive customized service.

The impact on the organization’s culture is also severe. Downsizings result in a rumor-

filled paranoia. When Coca-Cola instituted a restructuring that resulted in the loss of

thousands of jobs, the company became so awash in far-fetched stories that executives

were forced to take the unusual step of intervening to quash them.

Worse still, employees that remain often find themselves jaded. No CEO relishes the

thought of layoffs. It means that their companies are floundering. Furthermore, history

has shown us that the pain often outweighs any long-term financial gains.

If companies are going to grow their way out of difficult times (and excel in good times),

they need two things: (1) for their customers to stick with them, and (2) to improve their

productivity. But this only happens through an organization of committed, loyal

employees.

237

FINDING THE LINK BETWEEN EMPLOYEE LOYALTY AND

PROFITABILITY

Benjamin Schneider, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, has shown

conclusively that the employee’s loyalty-related attitudes precede a firm’s financial and

market performance. And there is a much greater payoff in working on improving the

human factor than people think. Researchers at University of Pennsylvania found that

spending 10 percent of a company’s revenue on capital improvements increased

productivity by 3.9 percent. But investing that same amount in developing the employee

capital more than doubles that amount, to a whopping 8.5 percent.

The place to begin is by asking, “How loyal are our employees really?” Doing this

requires meaningfully solicit feedback from all employees (management included). And

the organization should be willing to ask tough questions. For example:

• How do our managers’ relationship styles impact the organization’s service climate and

employee loyalty?

• Does the company provide the necessary tools and training for employees to perform

their jobs well?

• Is a commitment to serve customers rewarded and encouraged by the organization?

• Does the company demonstrate that it deserves the loyalty of its employees?

The ability to statistically link each of these measures to employee loyalty is relatively

straightforward. The key is to aggregate employee data into groups that meaningfully

link to turnover, customer loyalty, and revenue. For example, a retail chain might find

store level analysis to be the most relevant unit, since customer loyalty and revenue are

tracked at this level, and stores typically have semi-independent management.

The correlation between employee-loyalty-related attitudes and business outcomes is

always meaningful from a practical, managerially relevant perspective, so it is worth the

effort. In fact, a large-scale study conducted by researchers Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes

presented compelling evidence that employee-loyalty-related attitudes were positively

linked to each of these performance drivers. Furthermore, managers can learn a great

238

deal by studying the performance of their most loyal business units, and how this is

influenced by managers’ own relationship styles.

Despite the ability to pull this information together to gain invaluable managerial

insight, most companies do nothing (or next to nothing) in this regard. The number one

problem in making the link isn’t that this information doesn’t exist. It is simply a lack of

management will to pull the data contained in various departments together.

Why? We don’t want to hear bad news. And without question, this kind of company

internal examination always yields bad news. The reality is that employees are only as

loyal to the company as they believe the company is loyal to them. This is true almost

everywhere in the world! So in the end, building an organization of committed, loyalty

employees ultimately comes down to demonstrating to employees that the company

deserves their loyalty.

TABLE No: VII – 1

Table showing the distribution of response in number and percentage for the

question “Compared with a year ago, I am having more job satisfaction today”

Respondents Strongly Agree

Initial Response (2004)

287

Percentage 28.7%

Revisited

Response (2008) 128

Percentage 12.8%

415

Average 20.8%

Source: Data collected through field survey

Graph No: VII – 1

Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question

“Compared with a year ago, I am having more job satisfaction today”

28.7%

12.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts



Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly Disagree

578 66 54

28.7% 57.8% 6.6% 5.4% 1.5%

176 143 301

12.8% 17.6% 14.3% 30.1% 25.2%

754 209 355

20.8% 37.7% 10.5% 17.8% 13.4%



“Compared with a year ago, I am having more job satisfaction today”

Respondent’s Responses

57.8%

6.6% 5.4%

17.6%14.3%

30.1%

Agree Undecided Disagree

239



Strongly Disagree Total

15 1000

1.5%

252 1000

25.2%

267

13.4% 100


1.5%

25.2%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

240

Interpretation of Table & Graph No: VII – 1

28.7% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree in the initial response for

the question “Compared with a year ago, I am having more job satisfaction today”.

A majority of 57.8% have rated as agree and 6.6% were undecided.

While 5.4% had rated as disagree, 1.5% have rated as strongly disagree for

“Compared with a year ago, I am having more job satisfaction today” in the initial

response.

In the revisited response, a majority of 30.1% have rated as disagree followed by

25.2% rating as strongly disagree.

14.3% were undecided in their response.

12.8% have rated as strongly agree and 17.6% has rated as agree for “Compared

with a year ago, I am having more job satisfaction today” in revisited response.

Inference:

A clear indication showing job satisfaction has a correlation to economic conditions.

More than half of the respondents have rated in negative in the revisited response

in contrary to the initial response.

Maintain a consistent work environment is necessary for every organization.

Focusing on job enrichment helps in keeping the employees involved during the low

phases of business.

241

TABLE No: VII – 2


question “I maintain a satisfactory work-life balance”

Respondents Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree



89 254 96 328 233 1000

Percentage 8.9% 25.4% 9.6% 32.8% 23.3%

Revisited Response (2008)

128 226 134 272 240 1000

Percentage 12.8% 22.6% 13.4% 27.2% 24.0%

217 480 230 600 473

Average 10.9% 24.0% 11.5% 30.0% 23.7% 100


Graph No: VII – 2

Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “I

maintain a satisfactory work-life balance”


Strongly

AgreeAgree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response8.9% 25.4% 9.6% 32.8% 23.3%

Revisited

Response12.8% 22.6% 13.4% 27.2% 24.0%

8.9%

25.4%

9.6%

32.8%

23.3%

12.8%

22.6%

13.4%

27.2%

24.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

242


8.9% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree and 25.4% have rated as

agree for “I maintain a satisfactory work-life balance” in the initial response.

9.6% of the respondents were undecided.

32.8% have rated as disagree and 23.3% had rated as strongly disagree for “I

maintain a satisfactory work-life balance” in the initial response.

12.8% have rated as strongly agree and 22.6% as agree in the revisited response.

13.4% were undecided for “I maintain a satisfactory work-life balance” in the

revised response.

A majority of 27.2% have rated as disagree and 24% as strongly disagree in the

revised response.

Inference:

Work-life balance has always been an issue of concern for IT industry. Most of the

organizations keep innovating and develop different methodology to handle the

issue. One of the common methods is flexi-working. Work from home is another

practice which is widely used.

The problem mainly arises due to different time zone most of the organizations

support or due to increased pressure from customers to deliver in short notice. As

the competition gets tough organizations should be innovative and aggressive in

coming out with different strategies.

TABLE No: VII – 3


question “I expect to have a long career with this company”



145

Percentage 14.5%

Revisited

Response (2008) 178

Percentage 17.8%

323

Average 16.2%


Graph No: VII – 3

Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “I expect

to have a long career with this company”

14.5%

17.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


question “I expect to have a long career with this company”


Strongly Disagree

246 126 297

14.5% 24.6% 12.6% 29.7% 18.6%

275 265 189

17.8% 27.5% 26.5% 18.9% 9.3%

521 391 486

16.2% 26.1% 19.6% 24.3% 14.0%



to have a long career with this company”


24.6%

12.6%

29.7%

27.5%26.5%

18.9%


243



186 1000

18.6%

93 1000

9.3%

279

14.0% 100


18.6%

9.3%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

244


14.5% have rated as strongly agree for “I expect to have a long career with this

company” in the initial response.

24.6% have rated as agree in the initial response, and 12.6% were undecided in

their response.

A majority of 29.7% have rated as disagree and 18.6% have rated as strongly

disagree for “I expect to have a long career with this company”.

In the revisited response 17.8% have rated as strongly agree, and 27.5% have

rated as agree.

A majority of 26.5% have rated as undecided in the revisited response for “I expect

to have a long career with this company”.

18.9% have rated as disagree and 9.3% have rated as strongly disagree in the

revisited response.

Inference:

Attrition has been one of the major challenges for IT industry. The nature of work,

the availability of opportunities in the market and short supply of skilled resources

are few major reasons for high attrition.

In both the response the positivity is low. While in the initial response, good growth

conditions made the siltation of low expectation to stay in an organization, in the

revisited response the volatility in business made majority of the respondents to be

undecided.

TABLE No: VII – 4

Table showing the distribution of response in number and p

question “I would recommend my company as a place to work”

Respondents

Strongly

Agree

Initial

Response (2004) 278

Percentage 27.8%

Revisited

Response (2008) 138

Percentage 13.8%

416

Average 20.8%


Graph No: VII – 4

Graph showing the distribution of respo

recommend my company as a place to work”

27.8%

58.9%

13.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


question “I would recommend my company as a place to work”

Strongly

Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

589 31 76

27.8% 58.9% 3.1% 7.6% 2.6%

241 245 234

13.8% 24.1% 24.5% 23.4% 14.2%

830 276 310

20.8% 41.5% 13.8% 15.5% 8.4%


Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “I would

recommend my company as a place to work”


58.9%

3.1%

7.6%

24.1% 24.5% 23.4%


245

ercentage for the

Strongly

Disagree Total

26 1000

2.6%

142 1000

14.2%

168

8.4% 100

nse in percentage for the question “I would

2.6%

14.2%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

246


27.8% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree for “I would recommend my

company as a place to work” in the initial response.

A majority of 58.9% have rated as agree, and 3.1% were undecided.

7.6% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 2.6% have rated as strongly

disagree in the initial response for “I would recommend my company as a place to

work”.

In the revisited response, 13.8% have rated as strongly agree and 24.1% have

rated as agree.

A majority of 24.5% of the respondents were undecided for “I would recommend

my company as a place to work”.

23.4% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 14.2% have rated as

strongly disagree in the revisited response for “I would recommend my company as

a place to work”.

Inference:

High advocacy is very important to organizations. One of the strong tools used by

IT companies to recruit employees is through reference. Reference programs act as

two fold tool. While it is a good source to get candidates, it also helps in retention

of employees.

Organizations should always ensure high advocacy. Low advocacy would become a

negative tool.

247

In 2004, 278 out of a sample of 1000 employees agreed to recommend their company as a good place to work.

In 2008, only 138 employees agreed to recommend their company as a good place to work.

P1 = Proportion of employees in 2004 recommended their company as a good place to work 278/ 1000 = .278

P2 = Proportion of employees in 2008 recommended their company as a good place to work 138/ 1000 = .138

Confidence limits for difference of proportions

(P1 – P2) ± 1.96 √ pq (1/n1 + 1/n2)

Where P – n1p1 + n2p2 / n1+n2

P = 278 + 138 / (1000+ 1000)

= .208

= (.278 - .138) ± 1.96 √ (.208 × .792) * (2/1000)

= (.14 ± .036)

= (10.4 %, 17.6%)

Therefore we can conclude, with 95% confidence from 2004 to 2008 the employees who recommended those companies as a good place to work is reduced from 27.8 % to ((10.4 %, 17.6%) respectively.

TABLE No: VII – 5


question “I feel more committed to a career with the company this year than I did a

year ago”

Respondents

Strongly

Agree

Initial

Response (2004) 223

Percentage 22.3%


98

Percentage 9.8%

321

Average 16.1%


Graph No: VII – 5

Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “I feel

more committed to a career with the company this year than I did a year ago”

22.3%

45.6%

9.8%

16.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Strongly …

Re

spo

nd

en

ts



Strongly

Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

456 167 107

22.3% 45.6% 16.7% 10.7% 4.7%

241 289 246

9.8% 24.1% 28.9% 24.6% 12.6%

697 456 353

16.1% 34.9% 22.8% 17.7% 8.7%



r with the company this year than I did a year ago”


45.6%

16.7%

10.7%

24.1%

28.9%

24.6%

34.9%

22.8%

17.7%


248



Strongly

Disagree Total

47 1000

4.7%

126 1000

12.6%

173

8.7% 100


r with the company this year than I did a year ago”

4.7%

12.6%

8.7%

Strongly …

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

Averaging

249


22.3% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree, and a majority of 45.6%

have rated as agree.

16.7% of the respondents were undecided for the question “I feel more committed

to a career with the company this year than I did a year ago” in the initial response.

10.7% have rated as disagree, and 4.7% have rated as strongly disagree.

A majority of 28.9% of the respondents were undecided.

24.6% have rated as disagree, and 12.6% have rated as strongly disagree in the

revisited response. 9.8% have rated as strongly agree for “I feel more committed

to a career with the company this year than I did a year ago”.

24.1% of the respondents have rated as agree in the revisited response.

Inference:

Commitment from employees leads to higher engagement. Low commitment leads

to low morale and low productivity. Unless there is continuous change and

improved work, employees tend to look for a different company.

Companies employ methods like, attrition predictability to ensure commitment by

employees and have different type of forum to connect to them. These methods

help in identifying employee’s status and help organizations to build programs to

tackle issues.

TABLE No: VII – 6


question “I feel my company practices fair and ethical practice”



245

Percentage 24.5%

Revisited

Response (2008) 61

Percentage 6.1%

306

Average 15.3%


Graph No: VII – 6


my company practices fair and ethical practice”

24.5%

6.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


question “I feel my company practices fair and ethical practice”


Strongly Disagree

487 138 89

24.5% 48.7% 13.8% 8.9% 4.1%

289 278 233

6.1% 28.9% 27.8% 23.3% 13.9%

776 416 322

15.3% 38.8% 20.8% 16.1% 9.0%



my company practices fair and ethical practice”


48.7%

13.8%

8.9%

28.9% 27.8%

23.3%


250



41 1000

4.1%

139 1000

13.9%

180

9.0% 100


4.1%

13.9%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

251


24.5% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree for “I feel my company

practices fair and ethical practice”.

A maximum of 48.7% of respondents have rated as agree, and 13.8% were

undecided in their views.

While 8.9% of the respondents have rated as disagree, 4.1% of them have rated as

strongly disagree for “I feel my company practices fair and ethical practice” in the

initial response.

In the revisited response, 6.1% of the them have rated as strongly agree.

A maximum of 28.9% of the respondents have rated as agree for “I feel my

company practices fair and ethical practice”.

27.8% of them were undecided in the revisited response.

23.3% of the respondents have rated as disagree, and 13.9% of them have rated

as strongly disagree for “I feel my company practices fair and ethical practice” in

the revisited response.

Inference:

The last decade has seen lot of companies going down the wire due to unfair

practices. While there were few in India, in the IT space, many came up in the

global market from other sectors too.

Employees today look for public image for the companies. Fair practices can be

linked to anything from the policies followed to the statutory practices of the

organizations.

TABLE No: VII – 7


question “I have a best friend at work”



218

Percentage 21.8%

Revisited

Response (2008) 134

Percentage 13.4%

352

Average 17.6%


Graph No: VII – 7

Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “I have a

best friend at work”

21.8%

13.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

bution of response in number and percentage for the

question “I have a best friend at work”


Strongly Disagree

421 256 65

21.8% 42.1% 25.6% 6.5% 4.

487 123 178

13.4% 48.7% 12.3% 17.8% 7.8%

908 379 243

17.6% 45.4% 19.0% 12.2% 5.9%


bution of response in percentage for the question “I have a


42.1%

25.6%

6.5%

48.7%

12.3%

17.8%


252

bution of response in number and percentage for the


40 1000

4.0%

78 1000

7.8%

118

5.9% 100

bution of response in percentage for the question “I have a

4.0%7.8%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

253


21.8% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree for “I have a best friend at

work”.

A majority of 42.1% of the respondents have rated as agree, and 25.6% have been

undecided.

6.5%of the respondents have rated as disagree, and 4.0% have rated as strongly

disagree for “I have a best friend at work”.

In the revisited response, 13.4% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree.

A majority of 48.7% of the respondents have rated as agree for “I have a best

friend at work”.

12.3% were undecided, and 17.8% have rated as disagree.

7.8% of the respondents have rated as strongly disagree in the revisited response

for “I have a best friend at work”.

Inference:

Employees spend most of their time at office than at home. It’s very important that

they have a friend at work. Few organizations have the culture of ‘buddy’. This

helps the employee to share their good and bad feelings about the work and other

things with someone at office. Organizations use this as a channel to collect

information and feedback on different policies and practices.

TABLE No: VII – 8

Table showing the distribution of response in

question “My fellow colleagues are committed to work”



256

Percentage 25.6%

Revisited

Response (2008) 87

Percentage 8.7%

343

Average 17.2%


Graph No: VII – 8

Graph showing the distribution o

fellow colleagues are committed to work”

25.6%

48.9%

8.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


question “My fellow colleagues are committed to work”


Strongly Disagree

489 89 101

25.6% 48.9% 8.9% 10.1% 6.5%

238 189 378

8.7% 23.8% 18.9% 37.8% 10.8%

727 278 479

17.2% 36.4% 13.9% 24.0% 8.7%


Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “My

fellow colleagues are committed to work”


48.9%

8.9% 10.1%

23.8%

18.9%

37.8%


254

number and percentage for the


65 1000

6.5%

108 1000

10.8%

173

8.7% 100

f response in percentage for the question “My

6.5%

10.8%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

255


25.6% have rated as strongly agree for “My fellow colleagues are committed to

work” in the initial response.

A majority of 48.9% of the respondents have rated as agree. 8.9% have been

undecided.

10.1% have rated as disagree, and 6.5% have rated as strongly agree for “My

fellow colleagues are committed to work”.

In the revisited response, 8.7% have rated as strongly agree, 23.8% have rated as

agree.

18.9% of the respondents were undecided in their response.

A majority of 37.8% of the respondents have rated as disagree, 10.8% have rated

as strongly disagree for the question “My fellow colleagues are committed to work”

in the revisited response.

Inference:

Commitment from colleagues makes or breaks teams. Organizations adopt different

strategies in helping to build committed teams. Team building activities are one of

the most commonly used techniques.

“Team Actions” is other important tool. This tool make teams to work together to

find solutions by themselves for their problems. This also helps in building a culture

of self resolution of issues.

TABLE No: VII – 9

Table showing the distributi

question “My opinion counts at work”



199

Percentage 19.9%

Revisited

Response (2008) 87

Percentage 8.7%

286

Average 14.3%


Graph No: VII – 9

Graph showing the distribution

opinion counts at work”

19.9%

8.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


question “My opinion counts at work”


Strongly Disagree

532 137 87

19.9% 53.2% 13.7% 8.7% 4.5%

198 277 301

8.7% 19.8% 27.7% 30.1% 13.7%

730 414 388

14.3% 36.5% 20.7% 19.4% 9.1%


Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “My


53.2%

13.7%

8.7%

19.8%

27.7%30.1%


256

on of response in number and percentage for the


45 1000

4.5%

137 1000

13.7%

182

9.1% 100

of response in percentage for the question “My

4.5%

13.7%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

257


19.9% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree for “My opinion counts at

work” in the initial response.

A majority of 53.2% have rated as agree.

13.7% of the respondents were undecided in the initial response.

8.7% of the respondents have rated as disagree, and 4.5% have rated as strongly

disagree for “My opinion counts at work”

In the revisited response, 8.7% have rated as strongly agree, 19.8% have rated as

agree.

27.7% of the respondents were undecided in the revisited response.

A majority of 30.1% of the respondents have rated as disagree; against 13.7%

rating as strongly disagree for “My opinion counts at work” in the revisited

response.

Inference:

IT industry is a knowledge based industry. Employees always look for participation

and share their views in all process.

Organizations create different forums to enable employees to share feedback and

ideas. While technical pools are created to discuss technical ideas, Human Resource

create platform to discuss employee engagement issues and generate policy level

opinions.

TABLE No: VII – 10

Table showing the distribution of response in number a

Satisfaction”

Respondents Extremely Satisfied


243

Percentage 24.3%


87

Percentage 8.7%

330

Average 16.5%


Graph No: VII – 10

Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for

Satisfaction”

24.3%

52.4%

8.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Extremely Satisfied

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Table showing the distribution of response in number and percentage for

Extremely Satisfied Undecided Dissatisfied

Extremely Dissatisfied

524 76 143

52.4% 7.6% 14.3% 1.4%

245 321 277

24.5% 32.1% 27.7% 7.0%

769 397 420

38.5% 19.9% 21.0% 4.2%




52.4%

7.6%

14.3%

24.5%

32.1%

27.7%

Satisfied Undecided Dissatisfied

258

nd percentage for “Overall

Extremely Dissatisfied Total

14 1000

1.4%

70 1000

7.0%

84

4.2% 100

the question “Overall

1.4%

7.0%

Extremely

Dissatisfied

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

259


24.3% of the respondents have rated as extremely satisfied for “How satisfied are

you with the company as a place of work?”

A majority of 52.4% of the respondents have rated as satisfied in the initial

response.

7.6% of the respondents were undecided in their views.

14.3% of the respondents have rated as dissatisfied, 1.4% of them have rated as

extremely dissatisfied for the question “How satisfied are you with the company as

a place of work?”

In the revisited response 8.7% of the respondents have rated as extremely

satisfied.

24.5% have the respondents have rated as satisfied for “How satisfied are you with

the company as a place of work?”

A majority of 32.1% of the respondents were undecided in their views.

27.7% of the respondents have rated as dissatisfied, and 7.0% of the respondents

have rated as extremely dissatisfied for “How satisfied are you with the company as

a place of work?”

Inference:

There is a complete shift in the satisfaction of respondents from the initial response

to the revisited response. While a majority had rated satisfied in the initial

response, a majority of them were undecided in the revisited response.

Documents

Chapter – Quality of WorkLife Employee Loyaltyshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/35952/9... · · 2015-02-19were assigned narrow jobs and supported by a rigid hierarchy