An Insight into Conceptualization of Quality of Work Life
Gurpreet Randhawa1, Summi Arora2
University Business School, Guru Nanak Dev University
Amritsar, Punjab, India,
Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College, Sarhali, Tarn Taran, Punjab, India,
In the present era, organizations cannot sustain competitive advantage and
growth unless they take care of the different needs of their employees. Suitable
working conditions, monetary and non-monetary benefits, amicable working
environment, appropriate working schedules, regular communication etc. are some
of the factors which can be helpful in winning the trust and whole hearted
commitment of workforce. Quality of work life (QWL) is related to those factors
which influence the life of the individuals which they spend while working for
their organisations. It encompasses certain subjective and objective indicators
which are related to the well being of the employees in the organisation. QWL of
employees in an organisation is the indicator of the significance which an
organisation attaches to their employees. In this regard, the present paper
attempts to examine the concept of QWL. The study discussed four main issues
related with QWL. Firstly, individual versus organizational perspective is
discussed. Secondly, subjective versus objective approach of QWL is presented.
Thirdly, QWL is discussed as a domain of quality of life. In the last, the
concept of customized QWL is discussed. The paper is based on secondary sources
: Well-being, Satisfaction, Dignity, Holistic.
An Insight into Conceptualization of Quality of Work Life
Today no organization can deny the fact that human resources working in an
organization are the most valuable asset and without their committed
involvement, competitive advantage cannot be achieved. Without humane
considerations, organizations cannot think of working smoothly because whatever
may be the extent of technological development, the human beings are the
ultimate users of the technology and hence can enhance the success of the
organization by making proper use of technology. In the present era, it is just
impossible to think about an organization which can sustain its growth and
development without the whole hearted contribution of its workforce towards its
goals. Human resources are a source of competitive advantage to the organization
and provide sustainability to the organizational success (Wright et al., 1993;
Cummings and Marcus, 1994; Boxall, 1996).
Another aspect which makes human beings working in an organization worth
consideration is the fact that work-life of an individual comprises significant
part of one’s total life and its interactive relationship with total life cannot
be ignored. Work not only satisfies one’s economic needs but also leads to
self-esteem and formation of identity (Indumathy and Kamalraj, 2012). “Work is
not a simple instrument or a mean of subsistence any more; it is now a
multifactor process in which human being is placed as a driving centre” (Timossi
et al., 2008).
The term ‘Quality of Work Life’ (QWL) was put forward as a development towards
humane considerations in the organization. The movements which were precursors
to the quality of work life include Taylor’s scientific management, Elton Mayo’s
human relations movement and Eric Trist’s social technical systems (Tandon et
al., 1982; Vetrivel, 2012). “The mechanist or quantitative approach provided by
scientific management resulted in frustration to workers which paved way for
human relations movement and later socio-technical systems which became bases
for quality of work life” (Pujari, 1992). However, the term QWL gained
significant attention of academicians and researchers only after the
International Conference on Quality of Work Life held from September 24-29, 1972
at Arden House, Harriman, New York (Gani and Ahmad, 1995; Martel and Dupuis,
2006; Rose et al., 2006; Kheradmand et al., 2010).
Review of Literature
Robbins (1989) defined QWL as a process through which an organization develops
mechanisms to enable employees to participate in making those decisions which
influence the satisfaction level of their needs and hence design their lives at
work. On the other hand, Carayon et al. (2003) viewed QWL as quality of
relationship which exists between employees and their working environment when
human dimensions are collaborated with technical and economic dimensions. Nadler
and Lawler (1994) explained this concept as a mindset or way of thinking about
people, work and organization. According to Ali and Zilli (2013) “It is a degree
of excellence in work and working conditions which contribute to overall
satisfaction of individual, thereby, enhancing the organizational
effectiveness”. Monkevicius (2014) explained it as a level of subjective human
well-being and personal satisfaction which results from working environment in
which human beings are put to work.
Over the years, this concept has been defined by numerous researchers. Majority
of studies explained this concept as an approach; as a philosophy; as a goal and
as an effort. As an approach, it focuses on collective efforts of employees and
management which aims to enhance dignity of workers and satisfy their economic
as well as psychological needs through improved organizational culture (Balaji,
2013; Chandrasekhar, 2007; Martin, 2010; Indumathy and Kamalraj, 2012). As a
philosophy it refers to those principles which consider human beings to be
trustworthy and capable resources hence they ought to be treated with dignity
and respect (Varghese and Jayan, 2013a). When it is considered as a goal, then
it requires that organizational mission and objectives should aim at improving
the economic, social and psychological well-being of the employees. “As an
effort, it refers to strategies aimed at reduction in absenteeism, building the
environment of trust in the organization and supporting individual participation
and involvement” (Katz, Kochan and Weber, 1982).
Thus, after considering the views of various researchers on QWL, it has been
observed that researchers have basically focused on subjective evaluation of QWL
from the perspective of employees. It has been explained mainly as experiences
that individuals gain in their organizations. Experiences at work lead to
arousal of certain perceptions about the work, working environment and the
organization itself which may further result into change in attitudes,
commitment and performance level of the human resources employed. High QWL in an
organization ensures open communication, respect, recognition, trust, support,
well-being and satisfaction of its members, both personally and professionally
(Dargahi and Seragi, 2007). In fact, high QWL serves twin objectives of
satisfying organizational goals as well as individual goals of its employees.
Thus, QWL has implications both for organization as well as for its human
resources. Its activities help the employees to acquire and/or develop
technical, managerial and behavioral knowledge, skills and abilities and mould
the values, beliefs and attitudes necessary to perform present and future roles
(Mohan and Ashok, 2011). Improvement in QWL is a source of numerous gains
(Saklani, 2003) for instance, by improving QWL organizational commitment of the
employees can be improved (Normala, 2010; Asgari and Dadashi, 2011; Tamini et
al., 2011), performance can be improved (Sabarirajan and Geethanjali, 2011),
leads to job satisfaction (Saad et al., 2008; Azril et al., 2010) etc. On the
other hand, the improved QWL has also shown the negative relationship with
employees’ aggression i.e. if employees are provided opportunities for skill
improvement, involved in decision making, provided suitable salary for their
work and ensured job security, their aggression is decreased (Porkiani et al.,
The Present Study
The above discussion point out towards divergent views about conceptualization
of quality of work life. The present study is also an effort in this direction.
The study discussed four main issues related with quality of work life. Firstly,
individual versus organizational perspective is discussed. Secondly, subjective
versus objective approach of quality of work life is presented. Thirdly, quality
of work life is discussed as a domain of quality of life. In the last, the
concept of customized quality of work life is discussed. The paper is based on
secondary sources of data. Data has been collected from the various research and
working papers, journals, technical reports of various agencies etc.
Issues in Quality of Work Life
I. Individual versus Organizational Perspective
From the individual perspective QWL refers to experiences of individuals at the
work place. It involves application of all organizational inputs in such a way
that employees’ satisfaction level is improved along with improvement in
organizational effectiveness (Venkatachalam and Velayudhan, 1999). Specifically,
when viewed from employee’s view point QWL includes physical working conditions,
pay, recognition, participation, supervisory support, feeling of pride,
interpersonal relations, job security etc. In other words, QWL encompasses all
those issues which affect the life of the individuals working in the
organization (Gani and Ahmad, 1995; Martel and Dupius, 2006; Rose et al., 2006,
Kheradmand et al., 2010). It involves issues which motivate an individual to
remain the part and parcel of the organization thereby eliminating any
intentions to leave the organization. It affects employees' job satisfaction as
well as satisfaction level of employees with their family, leisure and social
The components of QWL are interlinked to the components of the general/total
quality of life (Al-Qutop and Harrim, 2011; Emadzadeh et al., 2012). QWL theory
considers four fundamental domains of working life; quality of life (the
relation to one self), mastery (to the job function), fellowship (relation to
other members of working team) and creation of real value (to what extent
individual contributes to the surrounding world) (Ventegodt et al., 2007).
On the other hand, when considered from the organizational perspective, QWL is
reflected in policies, programs, goals and processes of the organizations. It
strives to integrate organizational objectives with individual objectives of
people working in the organization. It aims to build pattern of trust,
involvement and commitment in the organization. At organizational level, QWL
initiatives are implemented through envisaging those norms which positions
organization’s image as an ethical and humane organization wherein every sphere
of working like HRM, marketing and production processes have inbuilt system of
ethical human practices. It requires implementation of related labor laws,
providing equal opportunity to work without discrimination on the basis of the
caste, gender, place or religion.
The conceptualization of QWL should undertake the holistic view involving
integration of individual as well as organizational perspective. A holistic
approach to QWL defines it as encompassing all the goals, policies, procedures
and programs in the organization which strive to influence the satisfaction
level of individuals working in the organization with respect to the life they
spend working for their organization. The components of QWL should be embedded
into all the sub-systems of the organization when organization is viewed as a
whole system. Organizations which aim at providing high level of QWL to its
employees develop such culture which responds to the aspirations of employees
and where employees feel inherently attached to the goals of the organization.
It is a two way process wherein both the parties, organization as well as
employees should respect each other’s interests and try to harmonize their
interests to the best possible extent.
II. Subjective versus Objective Approach
The overall QWL depicts dual nature involving two complementary aspects:
subjective and objective (Kerce, 1992; Vinopal, 2012). These two indicators of
QWL are complementary in the sense that in the organizations QWL assessment
involves subjective evaluation of objective indicators. Though these are
complementary, these indicators cannot be used interchangeably because
individuals who may be working in same organization, holding almost same
position and enjoying same monetary and non-monetary benefits may perceive
different levels of QWL. Kerce (1992) explained the reasons of differences in
evaluation of QWL to be aspirational level of individuals and availability of
alternatives. When QWL is studied from organizational perspective involving
indicators of pay and compensation, working conditions, work schedules, leave
rules, workers participation in management, opportunities for promotion, it
appears to be an objective approach. However, from individuals’ perspective, QWL
becomes subjective approach wherein attempt is made to evaluate the satisfaction
level of individuals working in the organization with respect to objective
indicators. Another reason why QWL can be termed as subjective concept is the
fact that the word 'quality' itself cannot be measured in absolute terms under
organizational setting particularly in context to individuals working in the
organization. Individuals are the subject matter of both subjective and
objective approaches (Vinopal, 2012).
Researchers have attempted to bring objectivity to the subjective concept of QWL
by measuring perceptions of individuals through conducting surveys and applying
appropriate statistical tools and techniques. Varghese and Jayan (2013b)
attempted to provide a list of objective and subjective indicators of QWL. The
objective indicators’ list includes safe and healthy working conditions, job
security, adequate and fair compensation, constitution in the work organization,
work and total life space, the social relevance of work life, workload or
pressure at work, work and life balance, role ambiguity, job insecurity, social
support from supervisor and colleagues, and working conditions.
On the other hand, subjective indicators’ list comprises opportunities to use
and develop human capacities, social interaction in work organization,
acknowledgement for achievement, meaningful and significance of work, autonomy
and control, identification with and enjoyment of work, creativity and
innovation, skill discretion, task control, stress and its impact on QWL,
resiliency, positive attitudes, self-efficacy, self and self-development,
well-being and self-actualization.
Considering these subjective and objective indicators, QWL can be termed as a
multidimensional construct made up of a number of interrelated factors (Monga
and Maggu, 1981; Wyatt and Chay 2001; Azril et al., 2011; Mohan and Ashok, 2011;
Porkiani et al., 2011). As a multidimensional construct it refers to certain
work related and non-work related elements which help in creating stress free
work environment. The researchers have focused on varying factors while
evaluating QWL. For instance, Sirgy et al. (2001) developed a measure of QWL on
the basis of spill over theory of needs satisfaction. The measures included
various dimensions of QWL based on needs like, (a) health and safety needs
(protection from ill health and injury at work and outside of work, and
enhancement of good health), (b) economic and family needs (pay, job security,
and other family needs), (c) social needs (collegiality at work and leisure time
off work), (d) esteem needs (recognition and appreciation of work within the
organization and outside the organization), (e) actualization needs (realization
of one's potential within the organization and as a professional), (f) knowledge
needs (learning to enhance job and professional skills), and (g) aesthetic needs
(creativity at work as well as personal creativity and general aesthetics).
Adopting a psychological perspective, Sverko and Galic (2014) specified (a)
economic security, (b) social relationships at work, (c) work meaningfulness and
(d) autonomy in work and participation in decision making to be the major
dimensions of QWL. Walton (1975) suggested eight parameters to evaluate QWL,
namely (i) adequate and fair compensation, (ii) safe and healthy environment,
(iii) growth and security, (iv) development of human capabilities, (v) the total
life space, (vi) social integration, (vii) constitutionalism, and (viii) social
Al-Qutop and Harrim (2011) suggested that QWL is linked to human well- being
which involves physical/physiological well-being, psychological well-being,
intellectual/mental well-being, social well-being and ethical/moral well-being.
On the basis of review of literature, Mejbal et al., (2013) pointed out towards
rewards, benefits and compensation, career development, communication, safety
and security, top management involvement, cohesion of work and life, job
satisfaction and employee motivation to be the dominant drivers of QWL in the
order of their importance.
To determine level of QWL, Sojka (2014) categorized QWL characteristics into
primary (related to specific work place like financial rewards, working load,
working conditions, contents of work, social conditions, work position and
potential for career development), secondary (usually common for all
organizations like corporate culture and beliefs) and tertiary (going beyond the
organization like image of the organization and localization of organization).
In the evaluation of QWL subjective measures have been into main focus because
the behavior and the attitudes one learns from his experiences in the work
situation are depicted in the form of job involvement, job satisfaction and
turnover intention (Vliet and Hellgren, 2002). Royuela et al. (2007) suggested
that academic definition (which is based on subjective indicators) of QWL should
be integrated with the institutional definition of QWL given by European Union
(which is based on objective indicators of QWL).
III. Quality of Work Life as a Domain of Quality of Life
Quality of life encompasses a broad range of issues that impact a person’s
perception of his/her overall life quality (Dallimore and Mickel, 2006). The
term QWL has been conceptualized as a sub-set of the quality of life which
encompasses all spheres of life and living conditions covering thereby factors
such as general life satisfaction, leisure and well-being (Huzzard, 2003). The
domains of QWL are interdependent and thus individual's QWL directly influences
his quality of life value (Ruzevicius and Akranaviciute, 2007). Quality of life
is assessed by spill over theory wherein satisfaction in one life sphere spills
over to another sphere of life thereby promoting satisfaction in another sphere
also (Sirgy et al., 2001). High QWL leads to high satisfaction with quality of
life as well (provided satisfaction level with other spheres of quality of life
is assumed to be unchanged). Organizations are issue of concern not only for
their employees rather organizational activities impact community, regions and
society as a whole so quality of life cannot be discussed without referring to
quality of working life (Susniene and Jurkauskas, 2009).
Various components of life like interpersonal relations, stress, leisure,
safety, income, social status, culture, human rights, politics are equally
applicable to the organizational settings also, where an individual spends most
of his life time. Work place is not only the place where an individual performs
his duties to make earnings rather it is the place where variety of experiences
are gained which not only influence his behavior in the organization but also
influence behavior of individual in social as well as family settings. These
experiences may even extend to whole life and shape the personality, perception
and attitude of the individual in every sphere of life and get instilled into
his memory for the life time.
IV. Personalized/Customized Quality of Work Life: A Step Ahead
Organizational settings are changing rapidly due to advancement in technological
environment. One of these developments is in form of virtual organizations. The
new organizational work settings involving flexi timings and flexi places have
made workplace a virtual place where employees work according to their own
convenience. Work today is of mental nature rather than physical nature with
almost no geographical boundaries of work. It is not confined to a particular
place rather has got instilled into minds of people that it has become more
difficult to relax even during leisure time (Vliet and Hellgren, 2002).
Organizations have become increasingly responsible for not only the physical
work environment, but also for the mental working environment (Ventegodt and
Merrick, 2009). Academicians and researchers are moving ahead from issues of
work life balance towards work life integration which requires evolving such
strategies where an individual is not only able to balance his work life with
other spheres of life rather he is able to integrate work into all the spheres
of life. Besides with the increase in the size of the organizations and
expansion of organizations across nations, diversity in the work force with
respect to the age group, culture, religion, language, gender etc. has emerged
as a main issue to be managed properly. Individuals working in organizations
differ in their approach towards QWL due to individual differences in
preferences for QWL criteria which is result of different sub-cultures and
values to which they belong. It is thus necessary for organizations to
accommodate these sorts of different preferences, by making the necessary
adaptations and adjustments to the QWL evaluation criteria (Orpen, 1981).The
diversity in the work force point out towards the requirement for personalized
approach towards QWL. Looking ahead towards such organizational changes, even
more divergent views may appear regarding conceptualization of QWL. This
requires envisaging such policies and procedures which suit the requirements of
employees in these organizations. Paying attention to individual requirements
may be called personalized/customized approach towards QWL. Though it may be a
complex task to handle but in the times to come it may become imperative for the
organizations to adopt such personalized QWL approach so that employees remain
committed to their work and organization.
To conclude, while defining the concept of QWL various researchers pointed out
towards one basic requirement of QWL which is satisfied and happy human
resources in the organization. Achievement of high level of QWL is possible
through good working conditions, adequate and fair pay, job security,
organizational support, opportunities for advancement, good interpersonal
relations, work life balance, safe and healthy work environment, participation
of workers in decision-making and open and supportive communication. Presence of
these factors influences the motivational level of the workforce which in turn
leads to improved organizational performance and overall organizational
effectiveness. No doubt, economic considerations play a major role in
determining the satisfaction level of employees with their jobs and organization
however ignoring psychological well-being of employees may lead to failure of
the organization and hence requires equal weightage.
Ali, A. and Zilli, S. (2013). Influence of Quality of Work Life and Job Attitude
on Affective Commitment: A Case Study of Managerial Personnel. Artha
Journal of Social Sciences, 12(1), 67-81.
Al-Qutop, M. J. & Harrim, H. (2011). Quality of Work Life Human Well-being
Linkage: Integrated Conceptual Framework. International Journal of
Business and Management, 6(8), 193-205.
Asgari, M. H. & Dadashi, M. A. (2011). Determining the Relationship between
Quality of Work Life (QWL) and Organizational Commitment of Melli Bank Staff in
West Domain of Mazandaran in 2009-2010. Australian Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences, 5(8), 682-687.
Azril, M. S. H., Jagek, U., Asiah, M., Azman, A. N., Bahaman, A. S., Jamilah, O.
& Thomas, K. (2010). Can Quality of Worklife Affect Work Performance Among
Government Agriculture Extension Officers? A Case from Malaysia. Journal of
Social Sciences, 6(1), 64-73.
Balaji, R. (2013). A Study of Quality of Work Life among Employees .
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology, 2(2), 470-473.
Boxall, P. (1996). Achieving Competitive Advantage Through Human Resource
Strategy: Towards a Theory of Industry Dynamics. Human Resource Management
Review, 8(3), 265-288.
Carayon, P., Hoonakker, P., Merchand, S. & Schwarz, J. (2003). Job
Characteristics and the Quality of Working Life in IT: The Role of Gender.
Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference, April 10-12, Philadelphia,
Chandrasekhar, S. F. (2007). Perceived Quality of Work Experiences as a Function
of Organisation Type, Unit Type and Job Level in Large Hospitals. Retrieved from
1\http://www.mainstayin.com/QUALITY%20OF%20WORK%20EXPERIENCES.pdf on 10-3-2012.
Cummings, Thomas, F. and Marcus, S. (1994). Human Resources: Key to Competitive
Advantage. Retrieved from www.digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/248
Dallimore, E. and Mickel, A. (2006). Quality of Life: Obstacles, Advice, and
Employer Assistance. Human Relations, 59(1), 61-103.
Dargahi, H. & Seragi, J. N. (2007). An Approach Model for Employees’ Improving
Quality of Work Life. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 36(4), 81-86.
Emadzadeh, M. K., Khorasani, M. & Nematejadeh, F. (2012). Assessing the Quality
of Work Life of Primary School Teachers in Isfahan City.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9),
Gani, A. & Ahmad, R. (1995). Correlates of Quality of Work Life: An Analytical
Study. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(1), 1-17.
Huzzard, T. (2003). The Convergence of the Quality of Working Life and
Competition. Work Life in Transition. National Institute for Working Life.
Retrieved from nilr.lub.lu.se/arbarch/aio/2003/aio2003_09.pdf
Indumathy, R. & Kamalraj, S. (2012). A Study on Quality of Work Life among
Workers With Special Reference to Textile Industry in Tirupur District-A Textile
Hub. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(4),
Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A. & Weber, M. R. (1982). Assessing the Effects of
Industrial Relations and Quality of Work Life Efforts on Organisational
Effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3),
Kerce, E. W. (1992). Quality of Life: Meaning, Measurement and Models. Navy
Personal Research and Development Centre, San Diago, California. Retrieved from
Kheradmand, E., Valilou, M. & Lofti, A. (2010). The Relationship between Quality
of Worklife and Job Performance. Middle-East Journal of Scientific
Research, 6(4), 317-323.
Martel, J. P. & Dupuis, G. (2006). Quality of Work Life: Theoretical and
Methodological Problems, and Presentation of a New Model and Measuring
Instrument. Social Indicators Research, 77, 333-368.
Martin, J. (2010). Key Concepts in Human Resource Management. Sage Publications.
Mejbal, A. A., Almsafir, M. K., Siron, R. & Alnaser, A. S. M. (2013). The
Drivers of Quality of Work Life: A Critical Review. Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(10), 398-405.
Mohan, N. & Ashok, J. (2011). Measuring of Quality of Work Life in Textile
Industries–An Integration of Conceptual Relationship with Productivity.
International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management, 2(4), pp.
Monga, M. L. & Maggu, A. (1981). Quality of Work Life: A Study of Public Sector
in India. ASCI Journal of Management, 10(2), 115-137.
Monkevicius, A. (2014). Quality of Working Life Concept and Empirical
Indicators. Intellectual Economics, 8(1), 8-24.
Nadler, D. A. & Lawler, E. E. (1994). Quality of Work Life: Perspectives and
Directions. Centre for Effective Organisations. School of Business
Administration, University of South California, Los Angles. Retreived from
Normala, D. (2010). Investigating the Relationship between Quality of Work Life
and Organizational Commitment amongst Employees in Malaysian Firms.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(10), 75-82.
Orpen, C. (1981). The Conceptualization of Quality of Working Life.
Perspective in Industrial Psychology, 7, 36-69.
Porkiani, M., Yadollahi, M., Sardini, Z. & Ghayoomi, A. (2011). Relationship
between Quality of Work life and Employees’ Aggression. Journal of
American Science, 7(2), 687-705.
Pujari, D. (1992). Managing Quality of Work Life: The Key of Success. The
Indian Journal of Commerce, XLV, Part III(172), 93-102.
Robbins, S. P. (1989). Organisational Behaviour Concepts, Controversies and
Applications. Anglewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Rose, R. C., Beh, L., Uli, J. & Idris, K. (2006). Quality of Work Life:
Implications of Career Dimensions. Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2),
Royuela, V., Tamayo J. L. and Surinach, J. (2007): The Institution vs. Academic
Definition of the Quality of Work Life. What is the Focus of the European
Commission ? AQR-IREA Researach Group, University of Barcelona, Barcelona Spain.
http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2007/200713.pdf on 5-3-2011
Ruzevicius, J. and Akranaviciute, D. (2007). Quality of Life and Its Components
Measurement. Engneering Economics, 2, 43-48.
Saad, H. S., Samah, A. J. A. and Juhdi, N (2008). Employees’ Perception on
Quality of Work Life and Job Satisfaction in a Private Higher Learning
Institution. International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(3),
Sabarirajan, A. and Geethanjali, N. (2011). A Study on Quality of Work Life and
Organisational Performance among the Employees of Public and Private Sector
Banks in Dindigul. International Journal of Economic Research, 2(6),
Saklani, D. R. (2003). Quality of Work Life: Instrument Design. Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4), 480-503.
Sirgy, M. J., Erafty, D., Seigel, P. & Lee, D. J. (2001). A New Measure of
Quality of Work Life Based on Need Satisfaction and Spillover Theories.
Social Indicators Research, 55, 241-302.
Sojka, L. (2014). Specification of Quality of Work Life Characteristics in the
Slovak Economic Environment. Sociologia, 46(3), 283-299.
Susniene, Dalia and Jurkauskas, Algirdas (2009). The Concepts of Quality of Life
and Happiness- Correlation and Differneces. Engneering Economics, 3,
Sverko, Branimir and Galic, Zvonimir(2014). The Perceived Quality of Working
Life in Crotia and European Union. DRUS. ISTRAZ. ZAGREB GOD. 23, BR. 4, 557-575.
Tamini, B. K., Yazdany, B. O. and Bojd. F. B. (2011). Quality of Work Life as a
Function of Organizational Commitment and Job Burnout of Government and Private
Bank Employees in Zahedan City. The Social Sciences, 6(5), 368-374.
Tandon, R., Nilakant, V. and Roy, P. (1982). Work Redesign and Quality of
Working Life: Concepts and Issues. Retreived from
Timossi, L. S., Pedroso, B., Francisco, A. C. and Pilatti L. A. (2008).
Evaluation of Quality of Work Life: An Adaptation from the Walton’s QWL Model.
XIV International Conference on Indutrial Engineering and Operations Management.
Rio De Janerio, Brazil, 13-16 October. 1-17.
Varghese, S. and Jayan, C. (2013a). Quality of Work Life: A Dynamic
Multidimensional Construct at Work Place-Part I. Guru Journal of
Behavioural and Social Sciences, 1(1), 8-16.
Varghese, S. and Jayan, C. (2013b). Quality of Work Life: A Dynamic
Multidimensional Construct at Work Place-Part II. Guru Journal of
Behavioural and Social Sciences, 1(2), 91-104.
Venkatachalam, J. and Velayudhan, A. (1999). Impact of Advanced Technology on
Quality of Work Life: A Study of Steel Plant. Management and Labour
Studies, October, 24(4), 249-255.
Ventegodt, S., Andersen, N. J., Kandel, I., Enevoldsen, L. and Merrick, J.
(2007). Scientific Research in The Quality of Working-Life (QWL): Generic
Measuring of Global Working Life Quality With the SEQWL Questionnaire,
International Journal of Disability and Human Development, 7(2), 201-217.
Ventegodt, S., and Merrick, J. (2009). Health and Happiness from Meaningful
Work: Research in Quality of Working Life. Health and Human Development Series.
Retrieved from en.bookfi.org
Vetrivel, T. (2012). Quality of Work Life of Employees in Bharani Silks, Erode.
Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 2(1), 13-30.
Vinopal, J. (2012). The Discussion of Subjective Quality of Working Life
Indicators. Sociologia, 44(3), 385-401.
Vliet, Caroline Van Der and Hellgren, Jonny (2002). The Modern Working Life: Its
Impact on Employee Attitudes, Performance and Health. Report No. 4. Saltsa-Joint
Programme for Working Life Research in Europe. Retreived from
Walton, R. E. (1975). Criteria for Quality of Working Life. In Davis L. E. and
Cherns A. B. (Eds.), The Quality of Working Life, New York: The Free Press,
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. G. and McWilliams, A. (1993). Human Resources and
Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Resource Based Perspective. Centre for
Effective Organisations, Marshall School of Busienss, University of Southern
California, Los Angles. Retrieved from www.ceo.usc.edu/pdf/T9319239.pdf
Wyatt, T. A. and Chay, Y. W. (2001). Perceptions of QWL: A Study of Singaporean
Employees Development. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management,