Quality of Working Life" (QWL) is a term that had been

used to describe the broader job-related experience an

individual has.
Contents
[hide]

1 Models and components

2 Measurement

3 Applications

4 See also

5 [20] References

Models and components[edit]

Various authors and researchers have proposed models of
quality of working life which include a wide range of factors.
Selected models are reviewed below.
Hackman and Oldham (1976)[1] 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

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)
[2]

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 ones 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 organisation and employee
group.
Warr and colleagues (1979),[3] 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. 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.
Thus, whilst some authors have emphasised the workplace
aspects in quality of working life, others have identified the
relevance of personality factors, psychological well being,
and broader concepts of happiness and life satisfaction.
Factors more obviously and directly affecting work have,
however, served as the main focus of attention, as
researchers have tried to tease out the important influences
on quality of working life in the workplace.
Mirvis and Lawler (1984)[4] 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

opportunities for advancement.

opportunities to learn and grow

protection of individual rights

Baba and Jamal (1991)[5] 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,

organisational commitment and

turn-over intentions.

Baba and Jamal 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)[6] identified a number of factors contributing to job
dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses,
including:

poor working environments,

resident aggression,

workload, innability to deliver quality of care preferred,

balance of work and family,

shiftwork,

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)[7] suggested 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 behaviour,

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 Maslow, were seen
as relevant in underpinning this model, covering health &
safety, economic and family, social, esteem, actualisation,
knowledge and aesthetics, although the relevance of nonwork aspects is play down as attention is focussed on
quality of work life rather than the broader concept of quality
of life.
These attempts at defining quality of working life have
included theoretical approaches, lists of identified factors,
correlational analyses, with opinions varying as to whether

such definitions and explanations can be both global, or

need to be specific to each work setting.
Bearfield, (2003)[8] used 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 at al., (1959) [9] used
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.

T S Nanjundeswaraswamy, Swamy D R (2013)[20] Used 9

components to mesaure quality of worklife of employees in
Technical institution they are
Work environment
Organization culture and climate
Relation and co-operation
Training and development
Compensation and Rewards
Facilities
Job satisfaction and Job security
Autonomy of work
Adequacy of resources
in summary Male employees are more satisfied than female
employees the chi square test confirms that all the
demographic factors like gender, designation, salary,
department, experience are independent of quality of
worklife of employees in private technical institution. Study
also reveals that there is a significant association between
QWL of Teaching and Non teaching staffs. From the
correlation analysis it is find that Adequacy of Resources are
more correlated and Training & Development are less

correlated with teaching staffs perception towards quality of

worklife and in case of non teaching staffs Compensation &
Rewards are more correlated and Work Environment are
less correlated with QWL.
An individuals experience of satisfaction or dissatisfaction
can be substantially rooted in their perception, rather than
simply reflecting their real world. Further, an individuals
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 individuals current state (Lawler and
Porter, 1966).[10]
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[7] and Warr, Cook
& Wall, 1979).[3]
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). [11]
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).
[12]

More recently, work-related stress and the relationship

between work and non-work life domains (Loscocco &

Roschelle, 1991)[13] have also been identified as factors that
should conceptually be included in Quality of Working Life.

Measurement[edit]
There are few recognised measures of quality of working life
and jobs, and of those that exist few have evidence of
validity and reliability, although the Brief Index of Affective
Job Satisfaction has been systematically developed to be
reliable and is rigorously psychometrically validated. [14] A
recent statistical analysis of a new measure, the WorkRelated Quality of Life scale (WRQoL),[15] provides support
for the psychometric structure of this instrument. The
WRQoWL measure [16] uses six core factors to explain most
of the variation in an individuals quality of working life: Job
and Career Satisfaction; Working Conditions; General WellBeing; Home-Work Interface; Stress at Work and Control at
Work.

The Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAFJS) is

a 4-item, purely affective as opposed to cognitive, measure
of overall affective job satisfaction that reflects quality of
working life. The BIAJS differs from other job satisfaction
measures in being comprehensively validated not just for
internal consistency reliability, temporal stability, convergent
and criterion-related validities, but also for cross-population
invariance by nationality, job level, and job type. Reported
internal consistency reliabilities range between .81 and .87.
[14]

The Job & Career Satisfaction (JCS) scale of the WorkRelated Quality of Life scale (WRQoL) is said to reflect an
employees feelings about, or evaluation of, their satisfaction
or contentment with their job and career and the training
they receive to do it. Within the WRQoL measure, JCS is
reflected by questions asking how satisfied people feel
about their work. It has been proposed that this Positive Job
Satisfaction factor is influenced by various issues including
clarity of goals and role ambiguity, appraisal, recognition
and reward, personal development career benefits and
enhancement and training needs.

The General well-being (GWB) scale of the Work-Related

Quality of Life scale (WRQoL),[15] aims to assess the extent
to which an individual feels good or content in themselves,
in a way which may be independent of their work situation. It
is suggested that general well-being both influences, and is
influenced by work. Mental health problems, predominantly
depression and anxiety disorders, are common, and may
have a major impact on the general well-being of the
population. The WRQoL GWB factor assesses issues of
mood, depression and anxiety, life satisfaction,
general quality of life, optimism and happiness.
The WRQoL Stress at Work sub-scale (SAW) reflects the
extent to which an individual perceives they have excessive
pressures, and feel stressed at work. The WRQoL SAW
factor is assessed through items dealing with demand and
perception of stress and actual demand overload. Whilst it is
possible to be pressured at work and not be stressed at
work, in general, high stress is associated with high
pressure.
The Control at Work (CAW) subscale of the WRQoL scale
addresses how much employees feel they can control their
work through the freedom to express their opinions and

being involved in decisions at work. Perceived control at

work as measureed by the Work-Related Quality of Life
scale (WRQoL)[15] is recognized as a central concept in the
understanding of relationships between stressful
experiences, behaviour and health. Control at work, within
the theoretical model underpinning the WRQoL, is
influenced by issues of communication at work, decision
making and decision control.
The WRQoL Home-Work Interface scale (HWI) measures
the extent to which an employer is perceived to support the
family and home life of employees. This factor explores the
interrelationship between home and work life domains.
Issues that appear to influence employee HWI include
adequate facilities at work, flexible working hours and the
understanding of managers.
The Working Conditions scale of the WRQoL assesses
the extent to which the employee is satisfied with the
fundamental resources, working conditions and security
necessary to do their job effectively. Physical working
conditions influence employee health and safety and thus
employee Quality of working life. This scale also taps into

satisfaction with the resources provided to help people do

their jobs.

Applications[edit]
Regular assessment of Quality of Working Life can
potentially provide organisations with important information
about the welfare of their employees, such as job
satisfaction, general well-being, work-related stress and the
home-work interface. Studies in the UK University sector
have shown a valid measure of Quality of Working Life
exists[17] and can be used as a basis for effective
interventions.
Worrall and Cooper (2006)[18] recently reported that a low
level of well-being at work is estimated to cost about 5-10%
of Gross National Product per annum, yet Quality of
Working Life as a theoretical construct remains relatively
unexplored and unexplained within the organisational
psychology research literature.
A large chunk of most peoples lives will be spent at work.
Most people recognise the importance of sleeping well, and
actively try to enjoy the leisure time that they can snatch.
But all too often, people tend to see work as something they

just have to put up with, or even something they dont even

expect to enjoy.
Some of the factors used to measure quality of working life
pick up on things that dont actually make people feel good,
but which seem to make people feel bad about work if those
things are absent. For example, noise if the place where
someone works is too noisy, they might get frequent
headaches, or find they cannot concentrate, and so feel
dissatisfied. But when it is quiet enough they dont feel
pleased or happy - they just dont feel bad. This can apply to
a range of factors that affect someone's working conditions.
Other things seem to be more likely to make people feel
good about work and themselves once the basics are OK at
work. Challenging work (not too little, not too much) can
make them feel good. Similarly, opportunities for career
progression and using their abilities can contribute to
someone's quality of working life.
A recent publication of the National Institute of Clinical
Excellence (NICE)[19] emphasises the core role of
assessment and understanding of the way working
environments pose risks for psychological wellbeing through
lack of control and excessive demand. The emphasis placed

by NICE on assessment and monitoring wellbeing springs

from the fact that these processes are the key first step in
identifying areas for improving quality of working life and
addressing risks at work.

See also[edit]