REVIEW OF LITERATURE(QWL)

P.S.Venkateswaran

Review of related literature has been done particularly with a view to locate the possible

correlates of the variables studied. For more than two decades a sizable volume of

literature has been developed on Quality of Work Life. In India, scholars as well as

practitioners of Human Resources Management and Industrial Relation have studied its

various aspects and developed a few case studies. However, no comprehensive attempt

has been made so far in India, to objectively measure the Quality of Work Life in those

specific contexts.

Walton1 (1974) attributes the evolution of Quality of Work Life to various phases in

history. Legislations enacted in early twentieth century to protect employees from job-

injury and to eliminate hazardous working conditions, followed by the unionization

movement in the 1930’s and 1940’s were the initial steps in this direction. Emphasis was

given to job security, due process at the work place and economic gains for the worker.

The 1950’s and the 1960’s saw the development of different theories by psychologists

proposing a positive relationship between morale and productivity that improved human

relations. Attempts at reform to acquire equal employment opportunity and job

enrichment schemes also were introduced. Finally in the 1970’s the idea of Quality of

Work Life was conceived which according to Walton, is broader than these earlier

1 Walton

developments and is something that must include ‘the values that were at the heart of

these earlier reform movements and human needs and aspirations’.

Sekharan2 (1985) observes that, historically the concept of Quality of Work Life had

originally included only the issues of wages, working hours, and working conditions.

However, the concept has now been expanded to include such factors as the extent of

workers’ involvement in the job, their levels of satisfaction with various aspects in the

work environment, their perceived job competence, accomplishment on the job etc.

According to Keith3 (1989), Quality of Work Life refers to “the favorableness or

unfavourableness of a job environment for people”. The basic purpose in this regard is to

develop jobs aiming at Human Resource Development as well as production

enhancement.

Gani4 (1993) in his study stated that the core of the Quality of Work Life concept is the

value of treating the worker as a human being and emphasizing changes in the socio-

technical system of thorough improvement, in physical and psychological working

environment, design and redesign of work practices, hierarchical structure and the

production process brought with the active involvement of workers in decision making.

In the words of Kumar and Tripati (1993), Quality of Work Life is a philosophy of

management that believes co-operative relationship between employees and managers

and also believes that every employee has the ability and right to offer his intelligence

2 Sekharan3 Keith4 Gani

and useful inputs into decisions at various levels in the organisations. Quality of Work

Life is a process to involve employee at every level of the organisations in the decision

about their work and workplace. It refers to the intended outcomes of practicing above

philosophy and process with improvements in working condition, working environment,

working climate or work culture. The process brings ultimate benefit to individual

employee as well as to the organisations through individual development and increasing

quality and productivity respectively.

As explained by Kumar and Tripathy5 (1993), there are several approaches for achieving

Quality of Work Life in organisations, namely job design, workers’ participation, welfare

and quality circles. Quality Circles are one of the ways of involving employees at the

bottom level of the organisation in decisions affecting work and work related problems.

A Quality Circle is essentially a small group of employees who meet voluntarily on

regular basis to identify, analyse and find solutions to quality problems and other issues

in their work-environment. The employees in a Quality Circle can range from four to

twelve. The Quality Circles occupy a vital and far more specific role for aiming and

achieving Quality of Work Life of workers in organisations.

However, Singh6 (1983) states that, Quality of Work Life is not based on any theory. It is

concerned with overall climate of work place. Reduced supervision, increased self-

regulation and self-management are pillars of Quality of Work Life.

5 Kumar and Tripathy6 Singh

American Society of Training and Development (1979) presented Quality of Work Life

as a process of work organisations, which enables its members at all levels to participate

actively and efficiently in shaping the quality of life at work for employees.

Cohen and Rosenthal7 (1980) describes Quality of Work Life as an intentionally designed

effort to bring out increased labour management, and cooperation to jointly solve the

problem of improving organisational performance and employee satisfaction.

In the opinion of Jain8 (1991), Quality Of Work Life represents a blending of

motivational factors of work, socio-technical system etc. which are of very real concerns

for human values in today’s society with an awareness that all individuals devote the

greater part of their mature lives to the work, spending time, energy and physical and

mental resources to this endeavor. Moreover, it recognizes that, work is the chief

determinant of an individual’s freedom, growth and self respect as well as his or her

standard of living.

Quality of Work Life denotes the experienced “goodness” of working in the

organisational settings.

a) Ideas dealing with a body of knowledge, concepts, experiences related to the nature,

meaning, and structure of work;

7 Cohen and Rosenthal8 Jain

b) Ideas dealing with the nature and process of introducing and managing organisation

change; and

c) Ideas dealing with outcomes of results of the change process.

The concept of Quality of Work Life views work as a process of interaction and joint

problem solving by working people-managers, supervisors, and workers.

There is a growing recognition that work-environment factors affect health system

performance (Graham S Lowe, 2006). Basically, the work environment factors affect the

quality of work life, individual quality of work life outcomes, and organizational

outcomes. Rice (1985) emphasized the relationship between work satisfaction and

Quality of people’s lives. He contended that work experiences and outcomes can affect

person’s general Quality of life,both directly and indirectly through their effects on

family interactions, leisure activities and levels of health and energy.

The study conducted by Karrir and Khurana (1996) found significant correlations of

Quality of work life of managers from three sectors of industry viz., Public, Private and

Cooperative, with some of the background variables (education qualification,

native/migrant status, income level) and with all of the motivational variables like job

satisfaction and job involvement.

Singh (1983) conducted studies in chemical and textile factories in India that were

designed to improve the Quality of Work Life by reorganizing the work and introducing

participatory management. Bhatia and Valecha (1981) studied the absenteeism rates of

textile factory and recommended that closer attention should be paid to improve the

Quality of Work Life. Kavoussi (1978) compared the unauthorized absenteeism rates in

two large textile factories and recommended that closer attention be paid for improving

the Quality of Work Life.

Raghvan (1978), the ExChairman of BHEL, a public sector organization, stressed the

need for worker’s participation in management. According to him, “participation of

workers in the management of undertakings, establishments, or other organizations

engaged in any industry is underscored by Constitution of India”. Besides improved

working conditions in the organization, there are ample evidence to highlight the

implication of autonomy and participation at work to foster the meaning to work. Ritti

(1970) in his study found that lack of opportunity to perform meaningful work is at the

root of frustration among engineers and who have more autonomy at workplace feel more

satisfied with their work life.

In a study, Sirota (1973) found that underutilization of worker’s skill and abilities cause

low Quality of Work Life and suggested job enrichment programme to correct the

problems of worker’s skill and abilities. Trist (1981) suggested that there should be

optimum level of autonomy according to requirements of technology system.

Allenspach’s (1975) report on flexible working hours based on experiments in

Switzerland, discussed its advantages and disadvantages, including its effects on job

satisfaction and employee and management attitude.

Hackman and Oldham (1976) drew attention to what they described as psychological

growth needs as relevant to the consideration of Quality of working life. Warr and

colleagues (1979), in an investigation of Quality of working life, considered a range of

apparently relevant factors, including

1 work involvement,

2 intrinsic job motivation,

3 higher order need strength,

4 perceived intrinsic job characteristics,

5 job satisfaction,

6 life satisfaction,

7 happiness, and

8 self-rated anxiety

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

a) satisfaction with wages,

b) hours and working conditions,

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

working life, including:

1) job satisfaction,

2) job involvement,

3) work role ambiguity,

4) work role conflict,

5) work role overload,

6) job stress,

7) organizational commitment and

8) Turn-over intentions.

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

and quality of working life in nurses, including:

1) Poor working environments,

2) Resident aggression,

3) Workload, Unable to deliver quality of care preferred,

4) Balance of work and family,

5) Shift work,

6) Lack of involvement in decision making,

7) Professional isolation,

8) Lack of recognition,

9) Poor relationships with supervisor/peers,

10) Role conflict,

11) Lack of opportunity to learn new skills.