ISSN: 0974-438X
Imapct factor(SJIF): 5.889

Home | About Us| Invitation For Manuscript| Review Process| Indexing| Subscription | Disclaimer

 

 

PBRI is now indexed in ESCI by THOMSON REUTERS.

 
Editorial Board A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management
Prof. B. P. Sharma
(Editor in Chief)
Prof. Mahima Birla
(Editor)
Prof. Harshita Shrimali
(Consultative Editor)
Dr. Khushbu Agarwal
(Additional Editor)
Ms. Asha Galundia
(Circulation Manager)

 Editorial Team

Dr. Devendra Shrimali
Dr. Dharmesh Motwani
Mr. Jinendra Vyas
 
Go to back
July 2015

An Empirical Study of Impact of Demographic Variables on Quality of Work Life among Insurance sector employees in Indore Division

Dr. Barkha  Gupta

Faculty, Shri RGP Gujarati Professional Institute,

Scheme No.54, Indore (MP)

Abstract

Quality of work life (QWL) is one of the major parts for the employees’ motivation in organizations. People can deliver their best potential if the QWL is improved and satisfactory. The concept of Quality of Work Life deals with the issue of how rewarding or satisfying the time spent in the workplace is. As such, Quality of Work Life may reflect working conditions and contextual issues such as relationships with work colleagues and the intrinsic satisfaction of the job itself. Growth of Insurance sector is expected to be US$ 350-400 by 2020 and it is also expected that Indian Insurance market will reach the top 3 insurance market in the world. To achieve those insurance companies must have to reduce the attrition rate, which is very high in present conditions. This research study attempted to find out the impact of age, income, gender and experience on Quality of Work Life of Insurance sector employees. Data was collected from 151 Insurance sector employees of Indore city. T-test and One way Anova was used for data analysis.

Keywords- Quality of work life, Insurance sector employees, Gender, Experience, Age, Income.

1.1 Introduction:

Quality of work life (QWL):

The Quality of Work Life is the result of an evaluation that each individual carries out comparing his own hopes, expectations and desires with what he considers as reality. Quality of Work Life is basically the Quality of life that an employee experiences at his work place. Unless good Quality of Work Life is provided to an employee, he cannot be motivated towards work. Quality of Work Life covers all aspects of employee’s work life like economic, social, psychological and organizational. Quality of work life is a multifaceted concept. The premise of quality of work life is having a work environment where employees’ activities become more important.

Cunningham, J.B. and T. Eberle, (1990) described that, the elements that are relevant to an individual’s Quality of Work Life  include the task, the physical work environment, social environment within the organization, administrative system and relationship between life on and off the job. Chan, C.H. and W.O. Einstein, (1990) pointed out Quality of Work Life  reflects a concern for people’s experience at work, their relationship with other people, their work setting and their effectiveness on the job . European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions (2002) described that the Quality of Work Life is a multi-dimensional construct, made up of a number of interrelated factors that need careful consideration to conceptualize and measure. It is associated with job satisfaction, job involvement, motivation, productivity, health, safety, job security, competence development and balance between work and non-work life.

From this perspective, there has stemmed the notion of organizational responsibility and specifically of management, to ensure that employees who commit themselves fully to achieving the organization’s objectives should also experience a high Quality of Work Life (Kotze 2005). Besides, an employee who feels a great deal of work related well being and little job distress is apt to have a good Quality of Work Life (QWL), and vice versa (Riggio 1990). Indeed, QWL is a process by which an organization responds to employee need by developing mechanisms to allow members to share fully in making decisions that design their lives at work (Robbins 1998). Subsequently, organizations cognizant of issues surrounding the concept quality of work life appear to be more effective at retaining their employees and achieving their goals (Louis & Smith 1990).

2.1 Review of literature:

Various authors and researchers have proposed models of Quality of Working Life which include a wide range of factors. Baba and Jamal (1991) listed factors what they described as typical indicators of Quality of Working Life, including: job satisfaction, job involvement, work role ambiguity, work role conflict, work role overload,  job stress,  organizational commitment and  turn-over intentions.  They also explored reutilization of job content, suggesting that this facet should be investigated as part of the concept of Quality of Working Life. Rao (1992) contended that those factors which influence the importance of a particular need to an individual and those, which satisfy or frustrate the need determine Quality of Work Life. The Quality Work of Life is determined by interactions of personal and situational factors. The factors that influence and decide the Quality of Work Life are: Attitude, Environment, Opportunities, Nature of the job, People, Stress level, Career prospects, Challenges, Growth and development, Risk involved and reward.

 According to Balu (2001), Quality of Work Life encompasses various aspects relating to (1) Working Environment and (2) Employee Motivation. Employee Motivation consists of (i) Proper Communication at Shop-level, (ii) Employee Facilities, (iii) Employee Performance Recognition, (iv) Employee participation with team spirit, (v) Development and Job redesign and Job enrichment, (vi) Dynamic HRD factors, and (vii) Status of family. Arts et al. (2001) focused on the following factors: job satisfaction, involvement in work performance, motivation, efficiency, productivity, health, safety and welfare at work, stress, work load, burn-out etc. According to Royuela et al. (2007), European Commission (EC) proposed ten dimensions for QWL, which are (1) intrinsic job quality, (2) skills, life-long learning and career development, (3) gender equality (4) health and safety at work, (5) flexibility and security, (6) inclusion and access to the labor market, (7) work organization and work-life balance, (8) social dialogue and worker involvement, (9) diversity and non-discrimination, and (10) overall work performance.

Ellis and Pompli (2002) identified a number of factors contributing to job dissatisfaction and Quality of Work Life, including: Poor working environments, Resident aggression, Workload, inability to deliver quality of care preferred, Balance of work and family, Shift work, Lack of involvement in decision making, Professional isolation, Lack of recognition, Poor relationships with supervisor/peers, Role conflict, Lack of opportunity to learn new skill. Warr and colleagues (1979), 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.

2.2 Objectives of the study:

·         To study the Quality of work life with respect to gender among Insurance sector employees.

·         To study the Quality of work life with respect to experience among Insurance sector employees.

·         To study the Quality of work life with respect to age among Insurance sector employees.

·         To study the Quality of work life with respect to income among Insurance sector employees

2.3 Hypotheses:

H01: There is no significant difference in Quality of work life with respect to gender among Insurance sector employees.

H02 There is no significant difference in Quality of work life with respect to experience among Insurance sector employees.

H03: There is no significant difference of Quality of work life with respect to age among Insurance sector employees.

H04: There is no significant difference of Quality of work life with respect to income among Insurance sector employees.

 

3.1 Research Methodology:

This research is descriptive in nature.  Employees of Insurance sector of Indore City (n=151) were selected the sample of this study. For data collection purposes, Scale of QWL has been used, which was developed by Dhar, S. et at. (2006).This scale has been widely used in various researches of social science and well accepted to assess QWL of employees of various sectors. The questionnaire was divided in two parts. The first part of the questionnaire included questions about demographic profile of the respondents. Second part of the questionnaire included questions/variables related with dimensions of QWL. All the variables were required to be marked on likert scale in the range of 1 – 5, where 1 represented strongly disagree and 5 represented strongly agree. Reliability and Validity of the scale is 0.89 and 0.94 respectively. A convenient sampling technique was adapted for the research.

 Data was collected from 151 respondents during Jan –April 2014. Initially 180 questionnaires were distributed Out of the same, 167 questionnaires were received back and 151questionnaire were finally considered for data analysis. After collecting the data, the raw scores are tabulated and analyzed through appropriate statistics tools with the help of SPSS, t-test  One way Anova was used to test the hypothesis.

4.1 Results and Discussion:

The Kolmogorov- Smirnov Statistic tests the hypothesis that the data normally distributed. A low significance value less than 0.05 indicates that the distribution of the data differs significantly from a normal distribution. After conducting this test, it was found that the assumption holds good for the data. The data is normality distributed (.779) (see annexure1).

Reliability test has been made for testing the reliability of Quality of work life, with the help of Coefficient (Cronbach Alpha). Reliability of data is (.971) (see annexure 2) which is excellent.

Since p=.239 (see Annexure 3) which is greater than .05 which means that null hypothesis is   accepted. Therefore, H01 (There is no significant difference in Quality of work life with respect to gender among Insurance sector employees) is accepted. Hence, it may be concluded that there is no significant difference in Quality of Work Life of Insurance sector employees with respect to gender. G. Balachandar et al. (2013) also found that there is no significant difference between male and female category officers with respect to their quality of work life in Insurance Company.

Since p=.000 (see annexure 4) which is less than .05 which means that null hypothesis is not accepted. Therefore, H02 (There is no significant difference in Quality of work life with respect to experience among Insurance sector employees) is not accepted. From annexure 4 it can be concluded that significant difference arises among low experienced and high experienced employees. It could be the reason that higher experienced employees had spent more time with the organization so they are more comfortable with the working environment, policies, salaries, benefits etc. Bolhari Alireza et al. (2011) also found relation between work experience and QWL.

Since p=.000 (see Annexure 5) which is less than .05 which means that null hypothesis is not accepted. Therefore, H03 (There is no significant difference of Quality of work life with respect to age among Insurance sector employees) is not accepted. Hence there is a significant difference of Quality of work life with respect to age among Insurance sector employees. P. Aranganathan and R. Sivarethinamohan (2012) also found that there is significant association between the respondent’s age and various dimensions of overall Quality of Work Life. 

Since p=.000 (see Annexure 6) which is less than .05 which means that null hypothesis is not accepted. Therefore, H04 (There is no significant difference of Quality of work life with respect to income among Insurance sector employees) is not accepted. Difference emerged between high income group and low income group. G. Nasl Saraji and H. Dargahi, (2006) study of Quality of Work Life, conducted in hospital employees that reported that having a good and interesting income is an important issue for a high Quality of Work Life.

5.1 Conclusion:

The result of the study revealed that there is a significant difference between experiences; age; income and total mean scores of Insurance sector employees on QWL.  Age has a positive impact on Quality of Work Life as the older people are having higher degree of Quality of Work Life than Younger. Income of respondent was also found to have significant association with QWL. Accordingly, one is inclined to say that people who have high salaries seem to be unwilling to change their jobs and more satisfied with their jobs and enjoys high level of QWL. Experience seemed to affect the QWL of Insurance sector employees, with higher level of QWL shown for higher experienced group. This implies that QWL is stronger among Insurance sector employees that have spent longer period with the same organization. Gender has no impact on QWL of employees, means male and female employees both are enjoying same level of QWL.

References :

 

·         Alireza Bolhari, Ali Rezaeean, Jafar Bolhari, Sona Bairamzadeh 4and Amir Arzi Soltan (2011). The Relationship between Quality of Work Life and Demographic  Characteristics of Information Technology Staffs. International Conference on Computer Communication and Management , Proc. of CSIT, 5, IACSIT Press, Singapore.

·         Arts, E. J., Kerksta, A., & Van der Zee, J. (2001). Quality of working life and workload in home help services. Nordic College of Caring Sciences, 12-22.

·         Baba, VV and Jamal, M (1991) .Routinisation of job context and job content as related to employees quality of working life: a study o f psychiatric nurses. Journal of organizational behaviour. 12, 379-386.

·         Balu, V. (2001). Improving Quality of Work Life – The need for dynamic H.R.D. practices. In Bhatia, B. S. and Batra, G. S. (Eds.) .Human Resource Development, New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd.

·         Chan, C.H. and W.O. Einstein( 1990). Quality of Work Life (QWL): What can unions do? SAM Advanced Management J., 55, 17-22.

·         Cunningham, J.B. and T. Eberle. (1990). A guide to job enrichment and redesign. Personnel, 67, 56-61.

·         Dhar Upinder , Dhar Santosh , Roy Rishu (2006). Quality of Work Life Scale. National Psychological Corporation.    

·         Ellis N & Pompli A( 2002). Quality of working life for nurses. Commonwealth Dept of Health and Ageing, Canberra.

·         European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions ((2002). New Work Organization, Working Conditions and Quality of Work: Towards the Flexible Firm? Online available at www euro found.eu.int on 8-6-2013. http://www.human- resources- health.com/ content/10/1/30

·         G. Balachandar, n. Panchanatham and k. Subramanian. (2013). Quality of work life the power of insurance company: impact of personal factors on the quality of work life of the officers. Management and Marketing Journal, Xi (1), 123-133.

·         G. Nasl Saraji and H. Dargahi (2006). Study of Quality of Work Life. Iranian Journal of Public Health,  35 (4) , 8-14.

·         Kotze, T. (2005). The nature and development of the construct 'quality of work life'. Acta Academica, 37(2), 96-122.

·         Louis, K. S., & Smith, B. (1990). Teacher working conditions. In P. Reyes (Eds.), Teachers and their workplace: commitment, performance, and productivity ,23-47. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

·         P.Aranganathan and R.Sivarethinamohan (2012).Quality of Work Life as perceived by employees in private sector manufacturing companies – a research pape. Elixir Hum. Res. Mgmt, 44, 7462-7470.

·         Rao, S. (1992). Human Resource Management. New Delhi; Discovery Publishing House.

·         Riggio, R.E. (1990). Introduction to industrial/organizational psychology. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

·         Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behavior. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Simon & Schuster.

·         Royuela, V, Tamayo, JL, Suriñach, J (2007).The institutional vs. the academic definition of the quality of work life. What is the focus of the European Commission?. Research Institute of Applied Economics, Working Papers 2007/13, AQR-IREA Research Group, University of Barcelona, Geneva.

·         Warr, P, Cook, J and Wall, T (1979) .Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well being. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 52, 129-148.

Annexures :

Annexure 1

 

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

 

Total score

N

151

Normal Parametersa,b

Mean

141.77

Std. Deviation

32.816

Most Extreme Differences

Absolute

.054

Positive

.040

Negative

-.054

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z

.658

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

.779

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.

 

Annexure 2

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.971

45

Annexure 3

 

Group Statistics

 

Gender

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Total score

Male

87

145.15

33.829

3.627

Female

64

137.17

31.057

3.882

 

 

Independent Samples Test

 

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Total score

Equal variances assumed

1.396

.239

1.482

149

.140

7.978

5.383

-2.659

18.614

Equal variances not assumed

 

 

1.502

141.822

.135

7.978

5.313

-2.525

18.480

 

Annexure 4

 

Descriptives

Total score 

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

0-10 Years

69

129.00

29.835

3.592

121.83

136.17

69

195

10-20 Years

37

148.76

34.329

5.644

137.31

160.20

81

209

20-30 Years

29

152.62

28.910

5.369

141.62

163.62

103

207

30& above Years

16

161.00

29.198

7.300

145.44

176.56

104

208

Total

151

141.77

32.816

2.671

136.49

147.04

69

209

 

 

 

ANOVA

Total score 

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

22389.249

3

7463.083

7.884

.000

Within Groups

139145.638

147

946.569

 

 

Total

161534.887

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post Hoc Tests

 

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable:   Total score 

Tukey HSD 

(I) Experience

(J) Experience

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

0-10 Years

10-20 Years

-19.757*

6.269

.011

-36.05

-3.47

20-30 Years

-23.621*

6.809

.004

-41.31

-5.93

30& above Years

-32.000*

8.537

.001

-54.18

-9.82

10-20 Years

0-10 Years

19.757*

6.269

.011

3.47

36.05

20-30 Years

-3.864

7.630

.957

-23.69

15.96

30& above Years

-12.243

9.206

.545

-36.17

11.68

20-30 Years

0-10 Years

23.621*

6.809

.004

5.93

41.31

10-20 Years

3.864

7.630

.957

-15.96

23.69

30& above Years

-8.379

9.581

.818

-33.28

16.52

30& above Years

0-10 Years

32.000*

8.537

.001

9.82

54.18

10-20 Years

12.243

9.206

.545

-11.68

36.17

20-30 Years

8.379

9.581

.818

-16.52

33.28

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 

 

 

Annexure 5

Descriptives

Total score 

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

up to 30 Years

53

121.30

28.785

3.954

113.37

129.24

69

195

30-40 Years

23

149.26

31.499

6.568

135.64

162.88

82

203

40-50 Years

46

148.48

29.069

4.286

139.85

157.11

103

209

50 & above Years

29

162.59

27.034

5.020

152.30

172.87

106

208

Total

151

141.77

32.816

2.671

136.49

147.04

69

209

 

ANOVA

Total score 

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

38130.770

3

12710.257

15.141

.000

Within Groups

123404.117

147

839.484

 

 

Total

161534.887

150

 

 

 

 

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable:   Total score 

Tukey HSD 

(I) Age

(J) Age

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

up to 30 Years

30-40 Years

-27.959*

7.235

.001

-46.76

-9.16

40-50 Years

-27.176*

5.839

.000

-42.35

-12.00

50 & above Years

-41.284*

6.692

.000

-58.68

-23.89

30-40 Years

up to 30 Years

27.959*

7.235

.001

9.16

46.76

40-50 Years

.783

7.399

1.000

-18.45

20.01

50 & above Years

-13.325

8.090

.356

-34.35

7.70

40-50 Years

up to 30 Years

27.176*

5.839

.000

12.00

42.35

30-40 Years

-.783

7.399

1.000

-20.01

18.45

50 & above Years

-14.108

6.870

.173

-31.96

3.74

50 & above Years

up to 30 Years

41.284*

6.692

.000

23.89

58.68

30-40 Years

13.325

8.090

.356

-7.70

34.35

40-50 Years

14.108

6.870

.173

-3.74

31.96

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 

 

Annexure 6

Descriptives

Total score 

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

up to  Rs.20000 pm

59

126.10

27.836

3.624

118.85

133.36

79

195

Rs. 20000-30000 pm

23

143.17

39.099

8.153

126.27

160.08

69

203

Rs.30000-40000 pm

39

148.82

31.843

5.099

138.50

159.14

100

209

Rs. 40000 & above pm

30

162.33

22.952

4.190

153.76

170.90

118

208

Total

151

141.77

32.816

2.671

136.49

147.04

69

209

 

 

ANOVA

Total score 

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

29153.783

3

9717.928

10.791

.000

Within Groups

132381.104

147

900.552

 

 

Total

161534.887

150

 

 

 

 

Post Hoc Tests

 

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable:   Total score 

Tukey HSD 

(I) Income

(J) Income

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

up to  Rs.20000 pm

Rs. 20000-30000 pm

-17.072

7.377

.099

-36.24

2.10

Rs.30000-40000 pm

-22.719*

6.193

.002

-38.81

-6.63

Rs. 40000 & above pm

-36.232*

6.729

.000

-53.72

-18.74

Rs. 20000-30000 pm

up to  Rs.20000 pm

17.072

7.377

.099

-2.10

36.24

Rs.30000-40000 pm

-5.647

7.890

.891

-26.15

14.86

Rs. 40000 & above pm

-19.159

8.317

.102

-40.77

2.45

Rs.30000-40000 pm

up to  Rs.20000 pm

22.719*

6.193

.002

6.63

38.81

Rs. 20000-30000 pm

5.647

7.890

.891

-14.86

26.15

Rs. 40000 & above pm

-13.513

7.288

.252

-32.45

5.43

Rs. 40000 & above pm

up to  Rs.20000 pm

36.232*

6.729

.000

18.74

53.72

Rs. 20000-30000 pm

19.159

8.317

.102

-2.45

40.77

Rs.30000-40000 pm

13.513

7.288

.252

-5.43

32.45

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 

 
 

Pacific Institute of Management, Pacific Hills, Airport Road, Udaipur - 313001, E-mail: edit@pbr.co.in
Phone : +91-294-2494506, +91-294-2494507

©Pbr.co.in, All Right Reserved IT Department , Pacific Group