International Journal of Management (IJM)

Volume 8, Issue 1, January February 2017, pp.6272, Article ID: IJM_08_01_008

Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=8&IType=1
Journal Impact Factor (2016): 8.1920 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
IAEME Publication

QUALITY OF WORK LIFE IN THE HIGHER

EDUCATION SECTOR: TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED
OUTLOOK
Adimuthu Ramasamy
Department of Business Studies,
The Papua New Guinea University of Technology, LAE,
Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea

Dr. Balaguru Renganathan

Assistant Professor, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda College (Autonomous) Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
The quality of education that is provided to people is significantly dependent on the employees
that work in those organizations. In the recent times, Quality of Work Life (QWL) has emerged as
an important tool and an important concept in human resource management that is used for
improving the work life of employees within organizations. Components of QWL in the higher
education sector are discussed in this paper as a result of reviews of various studies related to
education sector. A summary of the components is being provided in accordance with those that
are always important, moderately important, and least important. It has been concluded in the
paper that work environment and work conditions, teacher autonomy, opportunities for
professional growth, and involvement in the process of decision making are important areas to
focus on and divert attention towards for better QWL in the education sector. This is because these
components are perceived as significantly important ones of QWL by employees in the field of
higher education.
Key words: Quality of Work Life; Quality Education; Human Resource Management; Work
Environment and Work Conditions; Teachers Autonomy; and Professional Growth
Cite this Article: Adimuthu Ramasamy and Dr. Balaguru Renganathan, Quality of Work Life In
The Higher Education Sector: Towards An Integrated Outlook. International Journal of
Management, 8(1), 2017, pp. 6272.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=8&IType=1

1. INTRODUCTION
Education has an important role to play in providing people with the skills and abilities they need for
surviving in the world. The quality of education that is provided to people is significantly dependent on the
employees that work in those organizations, specifically teachers (Pandey&Jha, 2015). Whether it is
primary, secondary or higher education, teachers have to understand and transform the knowledge and

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 62 editor@iaeme.com
 Quality of Work Life In The Higher Education Sector: Towards An Integrated Outlook

energy of students in an efficient and effective manner (Singh & Singh, 2015). Like in various other
sectors, teachers also spend about one-third of their time at the workplace (Ahmed, 2013). In such a
scenario, a better understanding of the various aspects of quality of their work life enables an analysis of
the extent to which employees, satisfied, and committed to the organization and their job (Ahmed, 2013).
In the recent times, Quality of Work Life (QWL) has emerged as an important tool for retaining the
best employees and attracting talented ones (Sojka, 2014). It is regarded as an important concept in human
resource management that is used for improving the work life of employees within organizations. The
concept was initiated during the 1960s and 1970s, with James Taylor and Louis E. Davis as major
proponents in America in 1972. In the Britain, Eric Trist, Albert Cherns (1975) and Ray Wild (1975)
advocated for QWL the most. Under this movement, there has been placed increasing emphasis on
bringing improvement to the workplace conditions for meeting the expectations of the workforce as well as
improving quality and productivity.
QWL has been defined differently by different theorists and scholars, while its components and aspects
in each sector or industry also differ. A considerable amount of research has been carried out to measure
and outline the QWL in various private, governmental and public firms belonging to various sectors such
as IT, Nursing, Insurance, manufacturing, and service industries. In this study, the focus is on Quality of
Work Life in the education sector. The method of study is desk research that enables reviewing and
analysing data to indicate the components of QWL that are always important to those that are moderately
to least important for employees in the education sector, particularly teachers. The secondary data is
obtained from searching journals, books, and reports related to the field.
The study, however, first provides an overview of the major definitions available from literature of
Quality of Work Life to understand what the concept constitutes. It is then followed by a review of general
literature on the concept. Finally components of QWL in the higher education sector are discussed with a
summary of the components being provided in accordance with those that are always important,
moderately important, and least important. Categorising the components in this manner will help those
interested and related to improvement of quality of work life in education sector to focus on components
that are the most important ones and always included by employees in the education sector. This will help
in aligning and directing the efforts in areas that will bring more productivity and enhance performance of
employees in this sector, while also increasing job satisfaction and employee engagement. Since, the
majority of the employees in this sector are teachers, improving their quality of work life may make them
more committed to their job and lead to better student outcomes.

2. DEFINITION OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE (QWL)

Despite the elapse of a considerable time since the concept of QWL surfaced, there has not been an
agreement or a unanimous definition of what actually constitutes the Quality of Work Life. A plethora of
definitions have been proposed over the years to suggest what actually constitutes Quality of Work Life. In
broad terms, QWL is defined as the individuals quality of life at the place of work. Suttle (1977) defines
QWL as the extent to which employees are able to satisfy their personal important primary needs by means
of the organizational experiences. Lawler (1982) suggests that QWL has the central purpose of improving
the well-being and productivity of the employees, with work conditions and job characteristics as central
aspects to QWL. Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy (2013) describe QWL as a process by which response
is provided by an organisation to the needs of employees, while Saraji and Dargahi (2006) explain QWL to
be a program designed for improving employee satisfaction and strengthening the learning at workplace.
According to Rethinam (2008), QWL is a construct that has multiple dimensions with various
interrelated factors that require to be carefully considered for measuring and conceptualizing. These
include, job engagement, job satisfaction, productivity, motivation, development of competence, security
of job, and a work and non-work life balance. Ahmed (2013), in his account, provides a comprehensive
definition of QWL when he states that QWL can be seen as associated with a series of objective
organizational conditions and practices that enables employees of an organization to perceive that they are

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 63 editor@iaeme.com
 Adimuthu Ramasamy and Dr. Balaguru Renganathan

virtually safe, satisfied and have better chances of growth and development as individual human beings
(p. 73). From the variety of definitions provided of QWL, it can be seen that the literature is rich in
providing an understanding of the concept. The authors have concentrated more on indicators and
characteristics of the QWL. However, this is not a major problem as there are commonalities in those
characteristics and indicators.
For this research paper, the generalised definition to QWL that is considered is: QWL is the extent to
which employees of an organization are able to satisfy their personal important primary needs and are
engaged in the job as a result of organizational conditions and practices that enables them to perceive that
they are virtually safe, satisfied, and have better chances of growth and development as individual human
beings.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature regarding Quality of Work Life (QWL) has been vast. Researchers from all around the world
have explored the concept and its components in various types of industries. Walton (1975) is one of the
first studies to surface that identified the components in service industries. It was reported in the study that
fair and adequate compensation, opportunities for security and continued growth, safe and healthy
conditions of working, social integration and constitutionalism in the work organization, and opportunities
for immediately developing and using human capacities are some components related to QWL that are
usually prominent in service industries.
Levine, Taylor and Davis (1984) studied components in an insurance company. They provided that
challenges in the work, future opportunities for development, respect and trust from supervisor on the
capability of the employee, changing work, and the works societal impact were some important
components. In the area of corporation services, Mirvis and Lawler (1984) associated QWL with safe work
environment, equal and appropriate wages, equal opportunities for employment and advancement, and
working conditions. In the manufacturing industries, Lau and Brace (1998) report QWL to be strategies,
environment and operations that enable promotion of and maintenance of satisfaction of employees. They
suggested training, reward system, opportunities for career advancement, role in the process of decision
making, and job security as some of the components.
Baba and Jamal (1991) carried out a study to identify QWL for nurses in hospitals. They found out that
monotony in the job because of routine work activities affects QWL negatively. Therefore, conflict in
work role and ambiguity in work role are some components that affect QWL. Ellis and Pompli (2002) in
this account for identifying quality of work life of nurses in hospitals. They informed that poor working
environments, workload, inability of delivering preferred quality of care, professional isolation, conflict in
role, lack of recognition, poor relationship with peers and supervisors, lack of opportunity of learning new
skills, and lack of participation in the process of decision making are some factors that bring job
dissatisfaction and affect negatively on QWL.
In the insurance industry, Hosseini (2010) concluded that the dimensions of quality of work life
included paying fair and adequately, growth opportunities, continuous security, development of
capabilities of humans, and integration and social cohesion, which were related to performance. In the field
of information technology, Rethinam and Ismail (2008) associate health and well-being, job security, job
satisfaction, balance between non-work and work life, and competence development to be associated with
quality of work life. Bolhari et al., (2011) also measured QWL preferences of employees in the IT industry
in relation to social integration, adequate and fair compensation, health and safe working environment,
constitutionalism, development of human capacities, and total life space.
In relation to women employees and their quality of work life, Subhashini and Gopal (2013) carried out
a study in garment factories. They found out that health and safety measures, working hours, workload,
respect at the workplace, procedure of grievance handling, relationship with co-workers, and satisfaction
about the provided feedback were some areas to be taken into consideration when addressing quality of
work life. Findings of a study by Stephen (2012) lead to some similar components. These include

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 64 editor@iaeme.com
 Quality of Work Life In The Higher Education Sector: Towards An Integrated Outlook

interpersonal relationship, social support, autonomy, recognition, working environment, relationship with
the supervisor, role clarity, working hours, and fringe benefits.
Apart from these industry focused studies, there are also some researches that have identified QWL
factors and components in general. Bhanugopan and Fish (2008) states measures of QWL to be lack of job
stress, lack of intentions of turnover, lack of job burnout, and job satisfaction. Connell and Hannif (2009)
extend key areas related to QWL to be reward system, job security, wages, and opportunities for growth
amongst others. Adhikari and Gautam (2010) add safe and healthy conditions of working, autonomy in the
work, and meaningful work to the factors. Wyatt and Wah (2001) also inform about components that are
associated with quality of work life in general. According to the researchers, favorable work environment,
nature of job, relationship with co-workers, opportunities that are stimulating, autonomy, and personal
growth are some areas to consider for quality of work life for all regardless of the type of industry (Wyatt
&Wah, 2001).
Above are some of the studies reviewed related to different sectors that surround the quality of work
life. There are myriad of other similar kind of studies that have surfaced in relation to the topic. However,
from the above review of literature, some of the common components found in most of the studies can be
summarized. It can be stated that fair and adequate compensation, safe and healthy conditions of the
workplace, opportunities for development and growth, job security, relationship with the supervisor,
constitutionalism in the work organization, involvement in the process of decision making, and
relationship with co-workers are QWL components that are usually regarded as important for effective and
efficient quality of work life.

4. COMPONENTS OF QWL IN HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR

Like in other sectors, QWL also has an important role to play in the higher education sector. Kumar and
Shanubhogue (1996) studied by comparing the expected and current QWL in universities, stating that
quality of work life is an approach that enables bringing improvement to the employees lives and bring
improvement to the overall performance of the university. Similarly, Patro (2015) suggests that QWL of
the faculty has an important impact on the quality of education in academic institutions and there are many
components of QWL that impact on the education quality.
In this section, the focus of components of QWL is directed towards education sector in general, and
higher education sector in particular. There are not may studies carried out that identify the components of
QWL in education sector, and more specifically, higher education sector. However, few studies are present
that can provide some important information about it and enable in providing insights for the paper. These
studies are reviewed and components are ascertained and classified into three categories. From a review of
studies, first those components are identified and discussed that are always important in QWL in higher
education sector. There are also some components that are moderately important or have medium
importance, which are also provided and discussed. And finally, those components are identified that are
considered least important and do not have any major impact on their job satisfaction and quality of work
life. Categorising the components in such a way will help those involved in bringing improvement to
quality of work life in higher education sector to focus on components that are the most important ones and
always included by employees in the education sector when studied about their quality of work life.
One of the first studies that were carried out in the education sector was by Haughey and Murphy in
1989 of quality of work life of teachers in the Canadian context. They found out that strong leadership was
viewed highly quality of work life, along with safe conditions for working, autonomy, good relations
between the institute and community, student discipline, and sense of achievement. Rossmiller in 1992
also studied QWL on principals and teachers. It was found out that teacher participation, collaboration
between professionals, environment of teaching, and use of knowledge and skills had positive influence on
QWL (Rossmiller, 1992).
Hart (1994) in a sample of educational institutes from Australia reported that positive factors such as
feedback, professional interaction, involvement in decision making, supportive leadership affective policy

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 65 editor@iaeme.com
 Adimuthu Ramasamy and Dr. Balaguru Renganathan

of discipline, and autonomy were significant factors. However, components that were identified as least
important included collaboration between teachers and student discipline. WFD Consulting (2003) is
another important study in identification of components in the higher education sector. On the basis of a
survey conducted of the faculty of Ohio state university, it provides that work environment and nature of
job have an important role to play in satisfaction of employees. Increasing commitment of employees and
satisfaction requires providing them with better work life.
Buffardi, Baughman and Morse (2004) undertook a survey on the employees in George Mason
University for correctly measuring the quality of work life. It was intended that there were many central
factors that influenced the quality of work life or on which quality of work life, commitment to the
organization, and satisfaction with the job was dependent. These included health care benefits, salary,
benefits at the time of and after retirement, job security, recognition for achievement, work space, child
care availability on the place, involvement in the process of decision making, equitable and fair
performance appraisal, and distribution of resources equitably (Buffardi et al., 2004). The autonomy that
teachers had in their jobs was the most valued by the employees along with a climate of respect and
opportunities for interacting and knowing people from different backgrounds. In the aspects of the job
where employees were least satisfied, salary was the component identified.
Ming Chang Tomayko (2007) examined the quality of work life in Marylands mathematics teachers,
with the purpose of improving their satisfaction and effectiveness. There was designed a questionnaire in
which 5 areas were focused on. These included professional interaction, teacher efficacy and respect,
teacher agency, goal congruence, and appropriateness of load. It was revealed from the study that
mathematics teachers in the organization were overloaded with the responsibilities related to their job and
also had lack of agency. Despite that they were still fully motivated toward teaching their subject
(Tomayko, 2007). This implies that both, overload of work and lack of agency, were components of
quality of work life that were not regarded as significant.
Saad, Samah and Juhdi (2008) in their investigation of the employees perception on their quality of
work life in a Malaysian university, Razak University, sought whether the environment of the university
influences the perception of job satisfaction. In their study, ten variables or components related to QWL
were used for testing QWLs relationship with satisfaction in their job. These included meaningfulness,
pessimism related to change in the organization, resource access, support, time control, self-determination,
self-competence, work-family interference, quality of relationship, and impact (Saad et al., 2008). Out of
these 10 variables, only 3 were reported to be linked significantly with job satisfaction and resulted in
quality of work life.
Shahbazi, Shokrzadeh, Bejani, Malekinia and Ghoroneh (2011) carried out a study with the purpose of
identifying the relationship between performance of employees of Esfahan medical university and Esfahan
University. From the study, it was understood that fair and adequate compensation, growth and security,
safe and healthy work environment, development of human capacities, work environment,
constitutionalism, work and life space, and social integration were related to quality of work life and to
performance. However, the findings revealed that development of human capabilities, total life space,
social integration in the workplace, and constitutionalism in the workplace are the most important ones
(Shahbazi et al., 2011).
RochitaGanguly (2010) in her examination of QWL of university employees and understanding of the
relationship between job satisfaction and work life concluded that autonomy, superior support and personal
growth were important components of QWL for job satisfaction in education sector. This was because their
absence had resulted in unhappiness and dissatisfaction with their job at the university.
SeemaArif and Maryam Ilyas (2013) in their study on QWL of Lahore, Pakistans private universities
explored the dimensions of QWL that affected the attitude and life of teachers. In their quantitative
investigation, they suggested that the work climate, perceived value of work, and work-life balance were
the major factors that influenced the attitude towards work and also bring improvement to the work life of
the employees. Gowrie (2014) also carried out an exploration of factors that influence the teachers QWL

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 66 editor@iaeme.com
 Quality of Work Life In The Higher Education Sector: Towards An Integrated Outlook

in an education district in Trinidad and Tobago. Using quantitative method, the researcher found out social
integration, student related issues and intrinsic characteristics as the most important dimension of quality
of work life of teachers.
From the above review of studies, the following table (Table 1) illustrates the components that are
identified in accordance with the three categories, i.e. Always, Medium and Least. These three categories
describe the extent to which importance is placed on their relevant components for QWL in the education
sector.

Table 1: Components of QWL in the education sector in view of different researchers

S No Components Attributes
1 Work environment and conditions Always
2 Teacher autonomy Always
3 Involvement in the process of decision
Always
making
4 Opportunities for professional growth Always
5 Salary/Compensation Medium
6 Opportunities for using and developing
Medium
human capacities
7 Professional interaction Medium
8 Social integration in the work
Medium
organization
9 Job Security Least
10 Overload of work Least
11 Work-life balance Least
12 Student Discipline Least

5. SUMMARY OF COMPONENTS
Table 1 provides an illustration of the components and the relative importance of those components in the
higher education sector. Those in the Always category are components that have always been indicated
by researchers in their studies as important. Some of the factors that were identified by some studies as
important but by others as less important as compared to others fall under the medium category. On the
other hand, those components that were either not considered by employees in education sector as much
important or were not included in studies are regarded as Least.

5.1. Always Components of QWL

Components of QWL that were identified in most of the studies by the employees in higher education
sector included work environment and work conditions, teacher autonomy, opportunities for professional
growth, and involvement in the process of decision making. These are described and summarized below:
Work environment and work conditions play an important role in QWL in all types of organizations
and education sector is no different. It mainly refers to the place of work or the social and professional
environment of an individual where the employees interact and work in coordination with each other
(Nanjundeswaraswamy&Swamy, 2013). Safe and healthy environment and work conditions and a climate
of respect ensure there are no threats to the employees because of any physical conditions as well as the
culture and climate of the educational workplace. Working conditions encompass a wide range of topics
and issues such as working hours, schedules of work, physical conditions, as well as organizational
climate. When the work environment and work conditions are positive, the QWL of employees in the
education sector is positive (Saad et al., 2008). As a result, there is job satisfaction and employee
engagement.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 67 editor@iaeme.com
 Adimuthu Ramasamy and Dr. Balaguru Renganathan

Teacher autonomy is related to having freedom to take decisions related to the learning of students
depending on the needs they identify. Autonomy also includes that teachers plan, co-ordinate and control
activities related to their work. Furthermore, it also includes having opportunities for and authority of
accessing the information that is related to the task (Swamy et al., 2015). When organizations believe in
autonomy, the employees are empowered, which is important for academicians in carrying out their
responsibilities (Saad et al., 2008). A related concept in this regard is having teacher agency. Beista (2015)
asserts that many scholars have regarded teacher agency to be good and meaningful for education, and they
advocate for understanding the dynamics of teacher agency.
Continued growth and having opportunities for professional growth is another important component of
QWL in higher education sector. This includes advancement and expansion of their knowledge, skills,
capabilities, and qualification. It is a concern for employees in this sector since the jobs in this industry are
carried out in a traditional manner and growth is much lower as compared to other industries (Pandey&Jha,
2015). It is usually seen that teachers or educators join the industry and work of a considerable number of
years without any noticeable growth. Educational institutes where such opportunities are available are
perceived as better in QWL. This is because they can then enhance their skills, techniques and methods of
pedagogy, and consequently, get promoted in their professional lives. Certo (2004) in a study shows that
quality of work life is related to the extent to which employees get the opportunity of being involved in
decisions that influence their situation at work. The more opportunities that employees get in this regard,
the higher the quality of work life. Management of educational institutes, hence, needs to focus on this area
for ensuring that this component of QWL is satisfied, and there is more employee commitment and
satisfaction.
Another component that is regarded as a significant part of QWL in higher education sector is to have
opportunities of being involved in the process of decision making. When educational institutions seek
adequate input from employees in the decision making process and seek their active involvement in it,
QWL is positively affected leading to job satisfaction (Ahmed, 2013). Lack of participation in decision
making is identified to have negative effects on job satisfaction and QWL. This implies that teachers need
to be provided with opportunities to be part of problem solving and decision making by the educational
institutes regarding content, or any policies and procedures, contextual factors, and operations that have an
impact on their teaching practice or work life.

5. 2. Medium Components of QWL

These components of QWL are those that get a moderate response regarding their effect on quality of work
life. It also includes those that are identified by a study as least influential but another study identifies it to
be an important one. The components which are regarded as medium ones include salary or compensation,
professional interaction, social integration in the work organization, and opportunities for using and
developing human capacities.
Salary or compensation also has some contribution and role in creation of better QWL. Adequate, fair
and equitable compensation work to satisfy employees and enhances QWL. When employees are paid low,
there are financial stress that they have to face, which may lead to demotivation and decrease quality of
work life. When educational institutes seek to employ best people and retain them, they are required to
take into consideration this aspect of QWL. The salary structure needs to be fair, just, and equitable and
reasonable wages need to be provided to employees in order to ensure that they have a decent and desired
standard of life (Jain & Thomas, 2016).
Professional interaction is another area that has been given some attention by employees in the higher
education sector with regard to QWL. This encompasses collaboration and interaction by professionals in
the workplace to seek guidance and advice or discuss issues or concerns. Relation and cooperation with
each other and interacting with them in an unbiased manner can be seen as a dimension that has acquired
some attention. The role of organizational culture is an important one in relation to professional interaction
as it may support such interaction for enhancing student learning.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 68 editor@iaeme.com
 Quality of Work Life In The Higher Education Sector: Towards An Integrated Outlook

Social integration in the work organization in the higher education sector is created when there are no
prejudices and a sense of openness. There is developed a sense of belonging and conflicts can be avoided
when there is social integration, thereby minimizing the unfavorable effects and improving QWL (Ahmed,
2013). Within the context of educational institutions, the notion of social integration also incorporates
interaction with parents and students. When employees have the opportunities to socially integrate with
other staff members, management, parents, and students, they are able to work as a team and there is a
sense of belongingness. This impacts positively, to some extent, on improving QWL in education sector.
In the higher education sector, opportunities of using and developing human capacities are regarded as
having more contribution to QWL as compared to manufacturing and service industries. Employees in the
education sector regard it has moderately important for QWL. This is because they are involved in
researching, teaching, training, experimenting and providing advice. In these areas, they not just need
opportunities for development and growth but also require opportunities for using and developing their
capacities. It is hence important for institutions to identify areas of improvement and create opportunities
for improving those skills (Pandey&Jha, 2015).

5.3. Least Components of QWL

Components that are considered as least important with regard to QWL in higher education sector include
job security, overload of work, work-life balance, and student discipline. These are explained and
discussed in this section and there has also been an attempt to provide reasons for the perception of them as
least influential components of QWL in educational workplace environment.
Job security is identified as one component in QWL in education sector that is not as influential as
others. In the education industry, it is continuous growth of employees that is the main concern instead of
job security (Pandey&Jha, 2015). Job security generally refers to the extent to which there is a feeling of
security found in employees regarding the continuation of their job. Permanent employment generates
security to the employees and QWL is improved as a result. However, there is no such threat to jobs in the
education sector for employees as the education sectors continues to operate in a traditional manner, and
therefore, people tend to spend a considerable amount of time at the same job.
Overload of work is usually referred to a situation in which there is a lot to be done by an individual.
Increased responsibility may be a reason for work overload, however, in the education sector, the role that
teachers have does not vary much and the responsibilities are seldom too many to be difficult to handle.
Hence, there is only one study by Tomayko (2007) that highlighted this factor as troublesome and affecting
the quality of work life for mathematics teachers.
Balance between the times spent at work and with friends and family is also not a very influential
component in QWL in the education sector. This is because in the field of education, there is rarely a
requirement to work for late hours, transferring from one to another place, or travelling as part of their
duty. Hence, their QWL is not affected by this aspect as they do not have to remain away from their
families for long periods of time. In other words, there is no strain between professional and family life s
there are no overtime work, travelling etc. while they also get vacations etc. to spend and enjoy more time
with families as compared to other organizations and sectors.
Finally, the discipline of the educational institute also does not affect QWL in higher education sector
as much and only has a minor role. This is because teachers can look for ways to maintain discipline in
their educational institute and the educational management also usually ensures that the discipline is
maintained within the educational institute.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Hence, from the above account, it can be seen that some areas or components require more attention for
improving QWL in higher education sector as compared to others. While the role of others cannot be
denied too, there are much better results and improvements in QWL when those that are perceived as
always important and influential by studies are focused more on and efforts are directed towards them. To

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 69 editor@iaeme.com
 Adimuthu Ramasamy and Dr. Balaguru Renganathan

be specific, from the review, the focus in the higher education sector for improving and advancing the
quality of work life is to be on work environment and work conditions, teacher autonomy, opportunities for
professional growth, and involvement in the process of decision making.
It is recommended that safe and healthy work conditions and an environment and culture of respect is
in place. Creation of an environment in which employees in the education sector are able to achieve the
targets they set for excellence and are able to sustain them may be helpful. Furthermore, teacher autonomy
in various aspects of teaching needs to be provided. In this regard, teachers need to be trained to take
important decisions in an efficient and effective manner, and they can then be provided with autonomy to
take decisions regarding various aspects of their role and their responsibilities. Teachers also need to be
provided with an involvement in the decision making process, particularly those areas, policies and
procedures that may have an important role or impact on their teaching and work life. When this is done,
they feel more valued and a vital part of the organization, thereby leading to greater job satisfaction, and
improvement in QWL.
In relation to having opportunities for profession growth, it is recommended that a variety of courses
are designed for teachers to keep them updated and abreast with the knowledge and skills that are needed
in the changing environment and be conversant with the new developments taking place in the field.
Appropriate facilities and support may also be extended to those employees who want to grow
professionally. Encouragement should also be provided by the institutions to employees along with
facilities and incentives for participating in programs that may enable in enhancement of their skills and
knowledge related to methods and techniques, content, and pedagogy so that they not just enhance the
scope of their work, but also grow and get promoted. The institutes may design programs for career
development, provide funding for publications and research, change their job profiles, increase leadership
and management roles so that they get a sense of value.
Finally, despite being of medium importance for QWL in education sector, the salary structure also
needs some attention. It needs to be fair, just, and equitable and reasonable wages need to be provided to
employees in order to ensure that they have a decent and desired standard of life. With these
recommendations, it is suggested that the quality of work life and job satisfaction for employees in the
field of education will be improved considerably.

7. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, quality of work life in the higher education sector has important implications for job
satisfaction and job commitment. Components such as work environment and work conditions, teacher
autonomy, opportunities for professional growth, and involvement in the process of decision making are
important areas to focus on and divert attention towards for better QWL in the education sector. It is
suggested that a Key Index for measuring QWL is used by the employer in order to identify the QWL of
employees. This could include measuring the average number of years that employees work in the
institution, number of employees who leave the institute before retirement, employee retention rate,
satisfaction with work and pay, satisfaction with co-workers and promotion policies, satisfaction with work
environment and work conditions, the amount of independence that is experienced by employees on the
job, satisfaction with the opportunities for promotion, and the number of vacancies that cannot be filled.
When these are identified and addressed in efficient ways, a strong work culture with high QWL can be
ensured.

REFERENCES
[1] Adhikari, D. R., &Gautam, D. K. (2010). Labor legislations for improving quality of work life in
Nepal. International Journal of Law and Management, 52(1), 40-53.
[2] Ahmad, S. (2013). Paradigms of quality of work life. Journal of Human Values, 19(1), 73-82.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 70 editor@iaeme.com
 Quality of Work Life In The Higher Education Sector: Towards An Integrated Outlook

[3] Arif, S., &Ilyas, M. (2013). Quality of work-life model for teachers of private universities in
Pakistan. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(3), 282-298.
[4] Baba, V. V., & Jamal, M. (1991). Routinization of job context and job content as related to employees'
quality of working life: A study of Canadian nurses. Journal of organizational behavior, 12(5), 379-386.
[5] Bhanugopan, R., & Fish, A. (2008). The impact of business crime on expatriate quality of work-life in
Papua New Guinea. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 68-84.
[6] Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and
Teaching, 21(6), 624-640.
[7] Bolhari, A., Rezaeean, A., Bolhari, J., Bairamzadeh, S., &Soltan, A. A. (2011). The relationship
between quality of work life and demographic characteristics of information technology staff. Age, 2,
H1.
[8] Buffardi, L., Baughman, K., & Morse, K., (2004). Findings from the 2003 Quality of Work Life Survey
of George Mason University Employees, Draft Report.
[9] Cherns, A.B. & Davis, L.E. (Eds). (1975). The quality of working life (2 vols). New York, NY: Free
Press.
[10] Connell, J., &Hannif, Z. (2009). Call centres, quality of work life and HRM practices: An in-
house/outsourced comparison. Employee Relations, 31(4), 363-381.
[11] Davis, L.E. & Taylor, J.C. (Eds). (1972). Design of jobs: Selected readings.Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin Books.
[12] Ellis, N., &Pompli, A. (2002). Quality of working life for nurses. Commonwealth Dept of Health and
Ageing. Canberra.
[13] Ganguly, R. (2010). Quality of work life and job satisfaction of a group of university employees. Asian
Journal of Management Research, 1(1), 209-216.
[14] Hart, P. M. (1994). Teacher quality of work life: Integrating work experiences, psychological distress
and morale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(2), 109-132.
[15] Hosseini, S. M. (2010). Quality of work life (QWL) and its relationship with performance. Advanced
Management Science, 1, 559-562.
[16] Jain, Y., & Thomas, R. (2016). A study on quality of work life among the employees of a leading
pharmaceuticals limited company of Vadodara district. IJAR, 2(5), 926-934.
[17] Kumar, H., &Shanubhogue, A., (1996). Quality of Work Life-An Empirical Approach, Manpower
Journal, 32(3), 17-32.
[18] Lau, R. S. M., & Bruce, E. M. (1998). A win-win paradigm for quality of work life and business
performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(3), 211-226.
[19] Lawler, E.E. (1982). Strategies for improving the quality of work life. American Psychologist, 37(5),
486693.
[20] Levine, M. F., Taylor, J. C., & Davis, L. E. (1984). Defining quality of working life. Human
Relations, 37(1), 81-104.
[21] Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1984). Accounting for the Quality of Work Life. Journal of
Occupational Behaviour, 5, 197-212.
[22] Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., &Swamy, D. R. (2013). Review of Literature on Quality of Work
life. International Journal for Quality Research, 7(2), 201-214.
[23] Pandey, D. B. and Jha, B. K. (2015). Review and Redefine: Quality of Work Life for Higher
Education. Global Journal of Management And Business Research, 14(11), 34-41.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 71 editor@iaeme.com
 Adimuthu Ramasamy and Dr. Balaguru Renganathan

[24] Patro, C. S. (2015). A Study on the Impact of Faculty QWL on Quality of Education in Academic
Institutions. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research (IJKSR), 6(1), 1-16.
[25] Rethinam, G. S. (2008). Constructs of Quality of Work Life: A Perspective of Information and
Technology Professionals. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 58-70.
[26] Rethinam, G. S., & Ismail, M. (2008). Constructs of Quality of Work Life: A Perspective of Information
and Technology professionals. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 58-70.
[27] Rossmiller, R. A. (1992). The secondary school principal and teachers' quality of work life. Educational
Management & Administration, 20(3), 132-146.
[28] Saad, H. S., Samah, A. J. A., &Juhdi, N. (2008). Employees perception on quality work life and job
satisfaction in a private higher learning institution. International Review of Business Research
Papers, 4(3), 23-34.
[29] Saraji, G. N., Dargahi, H. (2006). Study of Quality of Work Life (QWL). Iranian Journal of Public
Health, 35(4), 8-14.
[30] Shahbazi, B., Shokrzadeh, S., Bejani, H., Malekinia, E., &Ghoroneh, D. (2011). A survey of relationship
between the quality of work life and performance of Department Chairpersons of Esfahan University
and Esfahan Medical Science University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1555-1560.
[31] Singh, O. P., & Singh, S. K. (2015). Quality of Work Life of Teachers Working in Higher Educational
Institutions: A Strategic Approach towards Teachers Excellence. International Journal of Advance
Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, 3(9), 180-186.
[32] Sojka, L. (2014). Specification of the Quality of Work Life Characteristics in the Slovak Economic
Environment. Sociologia, 4, 283-299.
[33] Stephen, A., &Dhanapal, D. (2012). Quality of Work Life in Small Scale Industrial Units: Employers
and Employees Perspectives. European Journal of Social Sciences, 28(2), 262-271.
[34] Subhashini and C.S.RamaniGopal (2013), Quality of work life among women employees working in
garment factories in coimbatore district, Asia Pacific Journal of Research, 1(12), 22-29.
[35] Suttle, J.L. (1977). Improving life at work: Problem and prospects. In H.R. Hackman & J.L. Suttle
(Eds), Improving life at work: Behavioural science approaches to organizational change (pp. 129).
Santa Barbara, CA: Goodyear.
[36] Swamy, D. R., Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., &Rashmi, S. (2015). Quality of Work Life: Scale
Development and Validation. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(2), 281-300.
[37] Tomayko, M. C. (2007). An examination of the working conditions, challenges, and tensions
experienced by mathematics teachers. ProQuest.
[38] Walton, R. E. (1975). Criteria for Quality of Working Life. In Davis, L. &Cherns, A. (eds) (1975) The
Quality of Working LifeVol 1, Free Press, New York, 91-10.
[39] WFD Consulting. (2003). The Ohio State University Faculty Work Environment and Work/Life Quality
Report Executive Summary. Retrieved from Staff Professional Development and Work/Life Survey
Report. website: http://senate.osu.edu/WorkLife ExecSummary.pdf
[40] Wild, R. (1975). Work organization: A study of manual work and mass production. New York, NY:
Wiley.
[41] V MallikaVedantham and JD Sarswathi. Good Governance in Higher Education. International Journal
of Management, 7(2), 2016, pp. 443-448.
[42] Wyatt, T. A., &Wah, C. Y. (2001). Perceptions of QWL: A study of Singaporean employees
development. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 9(2), 59-76.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 72 editor@iaeme.com