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
May 2015

Title of paper: An Empirical Study on Employees’ Quality of Work Life: a Case Study of Bokaro Steel Plant an integrated unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)

Name of authors

1.      Dr. Leena Toppo

Correspondence Address: H-2-N9/38, New colony, Patia, Newada, Pin- 221004, post-Bazardiah, Varanasi, India.

Email: toppoleena@gmail.com

Contact No.: 919453313121

2.      Dr. Saraju Prasad Yadav

Email: yadav.saraju73@gmail.com

Contact No.: 919125180215

An Empirical Study on Employees’ Quality of Work Life: A Case Study of Bokaro Steel Plant an Integrated Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)

*Dr. Leena Toppo, **Dr. Saraju Prasad Yadav

* Lecturer, Asha Mahavidyalaya, Babatpur Varanasi

** Lecturer, Asha Mahavidyalaya, Babatpur Varanasi

 

Abstract

Quality of work life is a very important issue in all type of industries especially in integrated iron and steel plants. Iron and steel plant are basic industries providing back bone for industrialization in any country. The physical working environments are much more hazardous in these industries than any other industries. Bokaro Steel Plant (BSL) is the fourth integrated and second largest steel producing unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). The present study has been focused on evaluation of factors related to quality of work life in BSL in relation to employees’ grade demographic. Based on employees’ perception regarding 31 (thirty one) variable taken under eight factors these are Working environment, Employees welfare, Relational factor, Promotional factor, Employees commitment & developmental, Employees involvement and influence, Job satisfaction and Financial factor. It has been observed that in most of the variables the average perception score of non executives’ was lesser than that of the executives’. In case of non-executives the employees of junior operative technician showed dissatisfaction in most of the factors.

Keywords: QWL, Executives, Non-Executives, Promotional factors, welfare factors.

1.     Introduction

In the context of present competitive business era, the quality of human capital of an organization determines the degree of success that can be achieved. The efficiency and effectiveness of an organization depends directly on how capable its personnel are and how effectively they are utilized for achieving organizational objectives. Therefore, maximizing the competencies of employees has become one of the prime objectives of all organizations. But the productivity of employees was not affected by their competency and type of technology alone but by the environment that prevailed at the workplace. With rapid technological advances and their applications in business have resulted into creation of a situation where employees have started developing the feeling of powerlessness, social isolation and self-estrangement. Such feelings have resulted into lesser increase in productivity as compared to the productivity estimated with their competency and technology provided. This led to the emergence of concept of quality of work life (QWL) during 1970s which aims at integrating the socio-psychological needs of people in the organization, the unique requirements of a particular technology, the structure and processes of the organization, and socio-cultural surroundings (Prasad, 2005).   

The contemporary concept of quality of work life is to create a climate at the work place so that human-technological-organizational interface leads to a better quality of work life. According to Suttle (1977); “Quality of work life is the degree to which members of a work organization are able to satisfy important personal needs through their experiences in the organization.”

 

2.     Literature Review

Quality of work life is a concept of behavioural scientist, and the term was first introduced by Davis in 1972 (Mathur[i], 1989; Hian and Einstein[ii], 1990). According Robins (1990) QWL is “a process by which an organization responds to employee needs by developing mechanisms to allow them to share fully in making the decisions that design their lives at work”. The key elements of QWL in the literature include job security, job satisfaction, better reward system, employee benefits, employee involvement and organizational performance (Havlovic[iii], 1991; Scobel[iv], 1975).

Walton[v] (1983) has suggested eight programmes to humanise the workplace: adequate and fair compensation, safe and healthy work environment, development of human capacities, growth and security, social integration in work environment, constitutionalism (rule of law), work and total life space, and social relevance of work life. As the concept of QWL is multi-dimensional, it may not, of course, be universal. However, key concepts tend to include job security, reward systems, pay and opportunity for growth among other factors (Hannif[vi] et al., 2008).

QWL practice involves acquiring, training, developing, motivating and appraising for the best performance of the employees as per organizational objectives. Indeed, core elements of QWL are of working conditions, employee job satisfaction, employees’ behavioural aspects, and employees’ financial and non-financial benefits, growth and development, and supervision (Lau & May[vii], 1998; Hackman & Oldham[viii], 1975; Taylor & Bowers[ix], 1972).

For the purpose of study, QWL is defined as the favourable condition and environment of employees’ benefit, employees’ welfare and management attitudes towards operational workers as well as employees in general.

3.     Iron and Steel Industries

Quality of Work Life (QWL) has become one of the important issues in manufacturing enterprises like iron and steel producing industries. In the world of materials, iron and steel products are reigning from many centuries. Iron and steel is a basic industry and forms the backbone of industrial development of any country. It provides raw material for making industrial machinery, electrical machinery, defence equipments, railway tracks, railway engines, bridges, dams, shops, automobiles, houses and a host of other industrial and consumer goods. In fact, the quantity of steel produced and its per capita consumption reflects the level of industrialization and economic development of a country.

India is the 5th major steel producing country as per the World Steel Association annual report 2010 with the 66.80 MT productions. It has increased to 71.30 MT in 2011. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) is the leading steel making, Maharatna Company of India, the largest producers of Iron and steel – 23.4 MT productions in 2009-2010. Bokaro Steel Plant (BSL) is the fourth integrated and modernized unit of SAIL. It started taking shape in 1965 in collaboration with the Soviet Union. It was originally incorporated as a limited company on 29th Jan 1964 and was merged with SAIL, first as a subsidiary and then as a unit through the public sector Iron and Steel companies(restructuring and miscellaneous provision) Acts 1978. BSL has 24165 total manpower (3119-executive and 21046-non-executive) employed including the works, administration, medical, township and project. It is almost 21% manpower strength of SAIL. All the employees of SAIL regulate by the human resource polices framed in corporate office of SAIL so the employees of BSL also.

4.     Significance of Study

Bokaro Steel Plant (BSL) is the fourth integrated and modernized unit of SAIL. To fulfil the increasing demand of steel, the expansion and modernization of plant has got the main focus of management not only in BSL but in all the units of SAIL. The modernization and expansion of plant, introduction of new product demands more competent and capable manpower. Changes in technology first affect the HR of organization. In BSL more than 24000 employees’ work together to achieve organizational objectives and BSL spends a large amount to develop its valuable asset, that is, human resource. Integrated iron and steel plants are considered as most hazardous industries. Workers are bound to work in the excessive temperature, dust, in the danger of poisonous gasses and chemicals. Nearly all production workers in iron and steel foundries are exposed to silica dust and other mineral constituents of foundry sand (IARC, 1984). The proposed study would be quite useful for the employees, management and the HR policy makers of BSL/SAIL. It would be helpful to the HR policy makers and management to identify the factors that affect the quality of work life of employees.

5.     Objective  

On the basis of the above review this paper deals on the employees’ perception regarding working environment, welfare facilities, relation with superior, co-worker and management, employees’ commitment and development,  involvement in decision making, financial factors etc which affects their quality of work life. The main objectives of the paper are as follows:-  

Ø To assess difference between the perceptions of executives and non executives regarding QWL in BSL.

Ø To evaluate the employees’ perception regarding different factors of quality of work life (QWL) of employee in BSL in respect of grade demography.

6.     Hypothesis

To achieve these objectives the following hypothesis has been tested:   

Ho1: There is no significant difference between the satisfaction level of executive and non-executive regarding QWL.

Ho2: There is no significant difference in the perception of employees’ regarding QWL among their different grade group.

7.     Methodology

7.1 Questionnaire: To examine and evaluate the perception of employees regarding the quality of work life (QWL) in BSL, a well structured questionnaire has been used. The questionnaire contains thirty one (31) variables under eight (8) factors regarding QWL. The factors includes working environment, employees’ welfare factor, relational factor, promotional factor, employees’ commitment and development factor, employees’ involvement and influence factor, job satisfaction and financial factor. All of the questions are measured in five point scale.

7.2 Sampling method: Proportionate stratified random sampling has been used.

7.3 Target population: The total manpower strength in BSL is 24165 (3119 executives + 21046 non executives) as per the BSL records 31.3.2010.

7.4 Sample size Technique: The sample size has been taken as 760 (being formulated by Toro Yamane’s formula), 360 from executives and 400 from non-executives.

n= Sample Size, N=Population Size, e = Sampling Error (.05) 

n = N/ [1+N (e)2]

 

 

Executives: 3119/ [1+3119 (.05)2 = 355.

Non-executives: 21046/ [1+21046 (.05)2 = 393

8.     Analysis

8.1 Reliability Analysis

Chronbach’s  Alpha test has been used for testing the reliability of the questionnaires as per the scale given by George, 2003. It has been presented in table no. 1.

Table No. 1 Chronbach Alpha Reliability

S. No.

Factors

Items

Cronbach’s Alpha

Ex.

N-Ex

1.

Working environment

2

.543

.621

2.

Employees welfare

6

.731

.779

3.

Relational factors

6

.829

.779

4.

Promotional factors

2

.574

.807

5.

Employees commitment & development

4

.761

.686

6.

Employees involvement & influence

3

.917

.811

7.

Job satisfaction

6

.795

.729

8.

Financial factors

2

.403

.558

9.

Total

31

.940

.932

 

 

8.2 Data Analysis

Table No. 2 General Profile of the Respondents

As the groups of Respondents

Category 

No.

%

Executive

360

47.37

N-Executive

400

52.63

Total

760

100.0

 

Executives

Non – Executives

 

Grade

No.

%

 

Grade

No.

%

1

E1- E3

Junior Management

134

37.2

1

S1 – S4

Junior Operative Technician

101

25.3

 

2

E4 – E5

Middle Management

96

26.7

2

S5 – S7

Senior Operative Technician

142

35.5

 

3

E6 – E7

Senior Management

130

36.1

3

S8 – S11

Operative Level

157

39.2

 

 

Total

360

100.0

 

Total

400

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table No. 4 distribution of employee according to their grade

E = Executives, S = Non Executives

Table no. 3 and 4 present general profile of respondents. Total respondents are divided into two categories executives (47.37%) and non executives (52.63%). Further executives and non executives are divided into three groups according to their grade.

Table no. 6 One Way ANOVA for Significant Difference among the Grade groups of Non Executives regarding QWL

Factors

Variables

Group

Total Av. mean

ANOWA(Value)

LS

Significant pair

F

P

1.Working environment

The water, light, temperature etc. facilities are good

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.37

3.30

1.13

0.31

P > 0.05

P > 0.05

NS

NS

-

-

Rest time during working hours

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.58

3.48

2.97

3.50

P > 0.05

P < 0.05

NS

S

-

1vs2, 1vs3

2. Employees welfare

Housing facilities are good      

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.78

2.82

10.18

10.68

P < 0.001

P < 0.001

VHS

VHS

1vs3, 2vs3

1vs3, 2vs3

Maintenance of housing facilities is good

Ex.

N-Ex.

2.84

2.18

2.90

4.37

P > 0.05

P < 0.05

NS

S

-

1vs3, 2vs3

Loan facilities are good

Ex.

N-Ex.

4.03

3.66

1.22

1.20

P > 0.05

P > 0.05

NS

NS

-

-

Medical facilities good

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.66

3.25

1.44

2.16

P > 0.05

P > 0.05

NS

NS

-

-

Insurance facility is good

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.62

3.41

6.48

6.69

P < 0.01

P < 0.001

HS

VHS

1vs2, 1vs3

1vs2, 1vs3

Satisfied with the education facilities provided by BSL

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.40

2.94

1.73

6.35

P > 0.05

P < 0.01

NS

HS

-

1vs3, 2vs3

3. Relational factor

Superiors provide regular feedback about your performance

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.42

3.55

6.45

5.48

P < 0.01

P < 0.01

HS

HS

 

2vs3

1vs2, 2vs3

Supervisor is supportive & understand your problems

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.79

3.58

1.39

7.25

P > 0.05

P < 0.001

NS

VHS

-

1vs2, 1vs3

Co-workers are cooperative

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.85

3.60

0.63

 0.01

P > 0.05

P > 0.05

NS

NS

-

-

If you offer suggestion, management pay attention

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.58

3.23

1.78

4.64

P > 0.05

P < 0.01

 

NS

HS

-

1vs2, 1vs3

If you share grievances, management listen

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.30

3.11

7.94

8.50

P < 0.001

P < 0.001

VHS

VHS

1vs2, 2vs3

1vs2, 1vs3

Management of BSL cares for you

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.66

3.26

0.12

7.34

P > 0.05

P < 0.001

NS

VHS

-

1vs2, 1vs3

4. Promotional factor

Promotion is based on your performance

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.51

2.76

9.47

11.21

P <0.001

P <0.001

VHS

VHS

1vs3, 2vs3

1vs2, 1vs3

Promotion policy is fair

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.28

2.83

5.08

 14.06

P < 0.01

P < 0.001

HS

VHS

1vs3

1vs2, 1vs3

5. Employees commitment & development

You feel proud to be employee of BSL

Ex.

N-Ex.

4.41

4.55

12.90

17.91

P < 0.001

P < 0.001

VHS

VHS

1vs3, 2vs3

1vs2, 1vs3, 3vs2

If your responsibilities increases you perform happily

Ex.

N-Ex.

4.11

4.05

0.21

5.25

P > 0.05

P < 0.01

NS

HS

-

1vs2, 2vs3

You enjoy your working hours.

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.90

3.93

3.70

28.74

P < 0.05

P < 0.001

S

VHS

1vs3

1vs2, 1vs3

BSL provides right training to develop your skill

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.49

3.11

2.76

0.89

P > 0.05

P > 0.05

NS

NS

-

-

6. Employees involvement

Your allow you to take part in decision making for the things that will affect your job.

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.69

3.44

2.37

7.60

 

P < 0.05

P < 0.01

 

NS

HS

-

1vs2, 1vs3

You have freedom to offer comment and suggestion

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.79

3.68

3.44

11.23

P < 0.05

P < 0.001

S

VHS

2vs3

1vs2, 1vs3

You have freedom to share views and grievances.

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.66

3.45

3.54

12.55

P < 0.05

P < 0.001

S

VHS

1vs2, 2vs3

1vs2, 1vs3

7.Job satisfaction

You are convenient with your working hours and shift duties

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.81

3.85

9.95

2.82

P < 0.001

P > 0.05

VHS

NS

1vs3, 2vs3

-

Your job is according to your educational qualification

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.73

3.04

6.20

41.87

P < 0.01

P < 0.001

HS

VHS

1vs3

1vs2,1vs3

Your job is according to your technical qualification

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.61

3.27

0.69

32.65

P > 0.05

P < 0.001

NS

VHS

-

1vs2, 1vs3

You feel comfortable and satisfied with your job

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.94

3.78

5.24

1.55

P < 0.01

P > 0.05

HS

NS

1vs3, 2vs3

-

Job security

Ex.

N-Ex.

4.38

3.86

2.23

4.25

P > 0.05

P < 0.05

NS

S

-

1vs2, 1vs3

Leave policy is fair

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.85

3.37

0.76

14.41

P > 0.05

P < 0.001

NS

VHS

-

1vs2, 1vs3, 3vs2

8.Financial factors

Salary provided by BSL is adequate

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.88

3.86

7.97

27.23

P < 0.001

P < 0.001

VHS

VHS

1vs2, 1vs3

1vs2,1vs3

Your salary is according to the responsibilities of your job

Ex.

N-Ex.

3.71

3.06

0.20

22.90

P > 0.05

P < 0.001

NS

VHS

-

1vs2, 1vs3, 2vs3

NS=Not Significant, S=Significant, HS=High Significant, VHS=Very High Significant

Table No. 6 presents employees’ perception regarding the eight factors of quality of work life (QWL) in relation to their grade demographic variable. Employees’ perception shown with the 31 Variables under eight factors of QWL i.e., Working environment, Employees welfare, Relational factor, Promotional factor, Employees commitment & developmental, Employees involvement and influence, Job satisfaction and Financial factor. Statistical analysis reveals significantly more differences in N-Ex. average perception score than the executives’ regarding all factors of QWL.

 

9.     Discussion

·         Statistical analysis reveals that employees are satisfied with most of the taken factors of QWL except executives are not satisfied with maintenance of housing facilities, under the employee welfare factors and N-Ex. are not satisfied with housing facilities, maintenance of housing facilities and educational facilities for children under employee welfare factors. And with promotional factor.

·         In the case of working environment factor, there is significant difference observed only in the perception of N-Ex regarding rest time during working hours. The non-executives of junior operative technician level (S1-S4) have significant less average satisfaction score than the N-Ex. of other operative level. (F=3.50) 

·         Under the employee welfare factor the executive of senior management level (E6-E7) have significantly high average satisfaction score regarding housing facilities and the executives of junior management level (E1-E3) have significantly high average satisfaction score regarding insurance facility than the executives of other management level.

In non-executives the employees of operative level (S8-S11) have significantly high average satisfaction score regarding housing facility, maintenance of housing facility and educational facilities for children. The employees of junior operative technician level (S1-S4) are significantly less satisfied with insurance facility than the employees of other operative level.

·         Under the relational factors, the executives of middle management level (E4-E5) have significantly more average satisfaction score regarding supervisors are supportive and management listen the grievances.

In non-executive the employees of junior operative technician (S1-S4) have significantly less average satisfaction score regarding relation with supervisor and management.

·         Under promotional factor, the executives of senior management level (E6-E7) have less average satisfaction score than the executives of other management level and in N-Ex. the employees of junior operative level (S1-S4) have less satisfaction score regarding promotional factor.

·         Under employee commitment and development, executives of senior management have significant less average satisfaction score regarding proud feeling to be BSL employee and they enjoy their working hours. But in N-Ex. of senior operative technician (S5-S7) are more satisfied to be called BSL employee and they perform happily when responsibility increases.

·         Under the employee involvement and influence, the executives of junior  management (E1-E3) are significantly less satisfied regarding they have freedom to share grievances and the N-Ex. of junior operative technician (S1-S4) level have significantly less average satisfaction score regarding employees involvement and influence.

·         Under the job satisfaction the executives of senior management level (E6-E7) have significantly less average satisfaction score regarding working hours and shift duties and their job is according to their educational qualification, but regarding their comfortably and satisfaction with job the executives of senior management level (E6-E7) have significantly high average satisfaction score than the executives of other management level.

·         In the case of non-executives employees, the employees of junior operative technician level (S1-S4) have significantly less average satisfaction score all most all the variables (labels) of job factor.

·         Under the last factor i.e. financial factor, the executives of junior management level (E1-E3) are significantly less satisfied with salary adequacy of salary provided by BSL. In the case of N-Ex. employees, the employees of junior operative technician level (S1-S4) have significantly less average satisfaction score regarding financial factor than the employees of other operative level.

 

 

 Table no.7 χ2 Test for Significant Difference between the Responses of Executives and Non-Executives Regarding QWL

 

Factors

 

Variables

Value

 

 

LS

χ2

df

p

1.

Working Environment

 

 

 

 

 

Water, light and temperature etc. facilities are good

14.26

4

p<0.01

HS

Rest time during working hours.

23.26

4

p<0.001

VHS

2.

Employees Welfare

 

 

 

 

Housing facilities are good

151.49

4

p<0.001

VHS

Maintenance of housing facilities is good

99.81

4

p<0.001

VHS

Loan facilities are good

48.20

4

p<0.001

VHS

Medical facilities are good

39.42

4

p<0.001

VHS

Insurance facilities are good

24.13

4

p<0.001

VHS

Education facilities for children provided by BSL is good

36.91

4

p<0.001

VHS

3.

Relational Factors

 

 

 

 

 

Supervisors provide regular feedback about your performance

30.04

4

p<0.001

VHS

Supervisor is supportive and understands your problems

22.32

4

p<0.001

VHS

Co-workers are cooperative

34.51

3

p<0.001

VHS

If you offer suggestion, management pay attention

58.14

4

p<0.001

VHS

If you share grievances management listen

27.92

4

p<0.001

VHS

Management of BSL cares for you

35.44

4

p<0.001

VHS

4.

Promotional Factor

 

 

 

 

Promotion is based your performance

131.91

3

p<0.001

VHS

Promotion policy is fair

62.42

4

p<0.01

HS

5.

Employees Commitment & Development

 

 

 

 

You feel proud to be employee of BSL

16.03

4

p<0.01

HS

As responsibilities increase you perform happily

41.40

4

p<0.001

VHS

You enjoy your working hours

3.94

4

p<0.05

S

BSL provides right training to develop your skill

102.41

4

p<0.001

VHS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.

 

Employees Involvement and Influence

 

 

 

 

You are allowed to take part in decision making

31.84

4

p<0.001

VHS

You have freedom to offer comment and suggestion

31.77

4

p<0.001

VHS

You have freedom to share views and grievances

35.69

4

p<0.001

VHS

7.

Job Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

You are convenient with your working hours & shift duties

3.34

4

p>0.05

NS

Your job is according to your educational qualification

108.51

4

p<0.001

VHS

Your job is according to your technical qualification

65.81

4

p<0.001

VHS

You are comfortable and satisfied with your job

27.35

4

p<0.001

VHS

Job security

67.39

3

p<0.001

VHS

Leave policy is fair

64.16

4

p<0.001

VHS

8.

Financial Factors

 

 

 

 

Salary provided by BSL is adequate

38.46

4

p<0.001

VHS

Your salary is according to the responsibilities of you job

97.68

4

p<0.001

VHS

*High Significant, **Very High Significant, ***Significant, ****Not Significant  

Above table depicts difference between perceptions of executive and non-executive regarding QWL. The differences between perceptions of executives and non executives have been found significant in most of the factors of QWL. Only regarding working hours and shift duties there is no significant difference between perception of executives and non-executives (χ2=3.34, p>0.05).

10.                        Findings & Conclusion

The statistical analysis reveals that employees are satisfied with most of the taken factors of QWL except the executives who are not satisfied with maintenance of housing facilities, under the employees’ welfare factor. In case of non-executives, employees are not satisfied with housing facilities, maintenance of housing facilities and educational facilities provided by BSL for employees’ children under employee’s welfare factor and similarly with those under promotional factor. The executives of BSL are found to be more satisfied than non-executive employees. The analysis reveals very high significant differences between the perceptions of executives and non-executives regarding most of the taken factors of QWL except regarding shift duties and working hours where no significant differences are found. So the null hypothesis (Ho1) has been rejected in most of the variables except in case of shift duties and working hours.                      

Father in the case of executives, it is found that there have been significant differences in some of the variables of QWL. But there is significant difference have been found among various management group regarding most of the variables of QWL. The middle level executives (E4-E5) are more satisfied regarding the relationship with superior and management and the executives of middle management level are also more satisfied regarding their involvement and influence in organization. Regarding shift duties and working hours and about promotional factor the executives of senior management level are found to be less satisfied, whereas executives of junior management level are less satisfied with adequacy of salary.

In case of non executives, grade demographic have very important impact on the non-executives employees’ satisfaction towards QWL. Statistical analysis shows significant differences between perceptions of non-executives of different grade groups. The non-executive employees of junior operative technician (S1-S4) are not satisfied with most of the factors predominantly with housing and maintenance of housing facilities, relationship with management, promotional factors etc whereas the employees of operative senior level (S8-S11) are more satisfied with most of the taken factors of QWL. So the null hypothesis (Ho2) has been rejected in most of the taken variable of QWL in both the category (executive and non-executive) of employees.            

Through the observations, executives have been more satisfied than the non-executives in all the taken factors of QWL working environment, employee’s welfare, relationship in workplace, job factors, impact on personal life and financial factors. Grade demographic has found to have great effect on QWL mostly in the non-executives as the satisfaction level of employees’ increases as their designation increases predominantly in financial factors, welfare factors, job factors, involvement in management factors etc.

 

References



[i] Mathur, R. N. (1989). Quality of working life of women construction workers. New Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers.

[ii] Hian, C. C. & Einstein, W. O. (1990). Quality of work life (QWL): What can unions do? S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 55(2), 17-22.

[iii] Havlovic, S. J. (1991). Quality of work life and human resource outcomes. Industrial Relations, 30 (3), 469-479.

[iv] Scobel. D. N. (1975). Doing away with the factory blue. Harvard Business Review, 53, 132-142.

[v] Walton, R. (1983). Quality of work Life: What is it? Sloan Management Review, 15(1), 11-21.

[vi] Hannif, Z., Burgess, J. & Connell, J. (2008). Call centres and the quality of work life: towards a research agenda. Journal of Industrial Relations, 50 (2), 271-84.

[vii] Lau, R.S.M and May, B.E., (1998), “A win-win paradigm for quality of work life and business performance”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Fall 1998, 9 (3).

[viii] Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R., (1980), Work redesign. Redings, M.A: Addison-Wesley.

[ix] Taylor, J. C., & Bowers, D. G., (1972), Survey of organizations: A machine scored standardized questionnaire instrument. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

 
 

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