Quality of working life From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Quality of Working Life" is a term that had been

used to describe the broader j ob-related experience an individual has. Contents [hide] 1 Quality of Working Life and related concepts: job satisfaction, workplace stre ss and quality of life 2 Models and components of quality of working life 3 Measurement 4 Applications 5 See also 6 References [edit]Quality of Working Life and related concepts: job satisfaction, workplace stress and quality of life Whilst there has, for many years, been much research into job satisfaction,[1] a nd, more recently, an interest has arisen into the broader concepts of stress an d subjective well-being,[2] the precise nature of the relationship between these concepts has still been little explored. Stress at work is often considered in isolation, wherein it is assessed on the basis that attention to an individual s s tress management skills or the sources of stress will prove to provide a good en ough basis for effective intervention. Alternatively, job satisfaction may be as sessed, so that action can be taken which will enhance an individual s performance . Somewhere in all this, there is often an awareness of the greater context, whe reupon the home-work context is considered, for example, and other factors, such as an individual s personal characteristics, and the broader economic or cultural climate, might be seen as relevant. In this context, subjective well-being is s een as drawing upon both work and non-work aspects of life. However, more complex models of an individuals experience in the workplace often appear to be set aside in an endeavour to simplify the process of trying to mea suring stress or some similarly apparently discrete entity. It may be, however, th at the consideration of the bigger, more complex picture is essential, if target ed, effective action is to be taken to address quality of working life or any of its sub-components in such a way as to produce real benefits, be they for the i ndividual or the organisation. Quality of working life has been differentiated from the broader concept of qual ity of life. To some degree, this may be overly simplistic, as Elizur and Shye,( 1990)[3] concluded that quality of work performance is affected by quality of li fe as well as quality of working life. However, it will be argued here that the specific attention to work-related aspects of quality of life is valid. Whilst quality of life has been more widely studied[4], quality of working life, remains relatively unexplored and unexplained. A review of the literature revea ls relatively little on quality of working life. Where quality of working life h as been explored, writers differ in their views on its core constituents. It is argued that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts as regards qual ity of working life, and, therefore, the failure to attend to the bigger picture may lead to the failure of interventions which tackle only one aspect. A cleare r understanding of the inter-relationship of the various facets of quality of wo rking life offers the opportunity for improved analysis of cause and effect in t he workplace. This consideration of quality of working Life as the greater context for various factors in the workplace, such as job satisfaction and stress, may offer opport unity for more cost-effective interventions in the workplace. The effective targ eting of stress reduction, for example, may otherwise prove a hopeless task for employers pressured to take action to meet governmental requirements. [edit]Models and components of quality of working life Various authors and researchers have proposed models of quality of working life which include a wide range of factors. Selected models are reviewed below. Hackman and Oldham (1976)[5] drew attention to what they described as psychologi

cal growth needs as relevant to the consideration of Quality of working life. Se veral such needs were identified : Skill variety, Task Identity, Task significance, Autonomy and Feedback. They suggested that such needs have to be addressed if employees are to experien ce high quality of working life. In contrast to such theory based models, Taylor (1979)[6] more pragmatically ide ntified the essential components of quality of working life as basic extrinsic j ob factors of wages, hours and working conditions, and the intrinsic job notions of the nature of the work itself. He suggested that a number of other aspects c ould be added, including : individual power, employee participation in the management, fairness and equity, social support, use of one s present skills, self development, a meaningful future at work, social relevance of the work or product, effect on extra work activities. Taylor suggested that relevant quality of working life concepts may vary accordi ng to organisation and employee group. Warr and colleagues (1979)[7], in an investigation of quality of working life, c onsidered 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 be tween work involvement and job satisfaction, intrinsic job motivation and job sa tisfaction, and perceived intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction. In particular, Warr et al. found evidence for a moderate association between total job satisfaction and total life satisfaction and happiness, with a less strong, but significant association with self-rated anxiety. Thus, whilst some authors have emphasised the workplace aspects in quality of wo rking life, others have identified the relevance of personality factors, psychol ogical well being, and broader concepts of happiness and life satisfaction. Factors more obviously and directly affecting work have, however, served as the main focus of attention, as researchers have tried to tease out the important in fluences on quality of working life in the workplace. Mirvis and Lawler (1984)[8] suggested that quality of working life was associate d with satisfaction with wages, hours and working conditions, describing the basi c elements of a good quality of work life as : safe work environment, equitable wages, equal employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement. Baba and Jamal (1991)[9] listed what they described as typical indicators of qua lity of working life, including: job satisfaction, job involvement, work role ambiguity, work role conflict,

work role overload, job stress, organisational commitment and turn-over intentions. Baba and Jamal also explored routinisation of job content, suggesting that this facet should be investigated as part of the concept of quality of working life. Some have argued that quality of working life might vary between groups of worke rs. For example, Ellis and Pompli (2002)[10] identified a number of factors cont ributing to job dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses, including : poor working environments, resident aggression, workload, innability to deliver quality of care preferred, balance of work and family, shiftwork, lack of involvement in decision making, professional isolation, lack of recognition, poor relationships with supervisor/peers, role conflict, lack of opportunity to learn new skills. Sirgy et al. (2001)[11] suggested that the key factors in quality of working lif e are: need satisfaction based on job requirements, need satisfaction based on work environment, need satisfaction based on supervisory behaviour, need satisfaction based on ancillary programmes, organizational commitment. They defined quality of working life as satisfaction of these key needs through resources, activities, and outcomes stemming from participation in the workplace . Needs as defined by the psychologist, Abraham Maslow, were seen as relevant in underpinning this model, covering health & safety, economic and family, social, esteem, actualisation, knowledge and aesthetics, although the relevance of nonwork aspects is play down as attention is focussed on quality of work life rathe r than the broader concept of quality of life. These attempts at defining quality of working life have included theoretical app roaches, lists of identified factors, correlational analyses, with opinions vary ing as to whether such definitions and explanations can be both global, or need to be specific to each work setting. Bearfield, (2003)[12] used 16 questions to examine quality of working life, and distinguished between causes of dissatisfaction in professionals, intermediate c lerical, sales and service workers, indicating that different concerns might hav e to be addressed for different groups. The distinction made between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in quality of working life reflects the influence of job satisfaction theories. Herzberg at al ., (1959)[13] used Hygiene factors and Motivator factors to distinguish between the separate causes of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. It has been suggest ed that Motivator factors are intrinsic to the job, that is; job content, the wo rk itself, responsibility and advancement. The Hygiene factors or dissatisfactio n-avoidance factors include aspects of the job environment such as interpersonal relationships, salary, working conditions and security. Of these latter, the mo st common cause of job dissatisfaction can be company policy and administration, whilst achievement can be the greatest source of extreme satisfaction. An individual s experience of satisfaction or dissatisfaction can be substantially rooted in their perception, rather than simply reflecting their real world . Furth er, an individual s perception can be affected by relative comparison am I paid as much as that person - and comparisons of internalised ideals, aspirations, and expectations, for example, with the individual s current state (Lawler and Porter, 1966).[1] In summary, where it has been considered, authors differ in their views on the c

ore constituents of Quality of Working Life (e.g. Sirgy, Efraty, Siegel & Lee, 2 001[11] and Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979).[7] It has generally been agreed however that Quality of Working Life is conceptuall y similar to well-being of employees but differs from job satisfaction which sol ely represents the workplace domain (Lawler, 1982)[14]. Quality of Working Life is not a unitary concept, but has been seen as incorpora ting a hierarchy of perspectives that not only include work-based factors such a s job satisfaction, satisfaction with pay and relationships with work colleagues , but also factors that broadly reflect life satisfaction and general feelings o f well-being (Danna & Griffin, 1999).[15] More recently, work-related stress and the relationship between work and non-work life domains (Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991)[16] have also been identified as factors that should conceptually be inclu ded in Quality of Working Life. [edit]Measurement There are few recognised measures of quality of working life, and of those that exist few have evidence of validity and reliability, that is, there is a very li mited literature based on peer reviewed evaluations of available assessments. A recent statistical analysis of a new measure, the Work-Related Quality of Life s cale (WRQoL)[17], indicates that this assessment device should prove to be a use ful instrument, although further evaluation would be useful. The WRQoWL measure uses six core factors to explain most of the variation in an individuals quality of working life: Job and Career Satisfaction; Working Conditions; General WellBeing; Home-Work Interface; Stress at Work and Control at Work. The Job & Career Satisfaction (JCS) scale of the Work-Related Quality of Life sc ale (WRQoL) is said to reflect an employee s feelings about, or evaluation of, the ir satisfaction or contentment with their job and career and the training they r eceive to do it. Within the WRQoL measure, JCS is reflected by questions asking how satisfied people feel about their work. It has been proposed that this Posit ive Job Satisfaction factor is influenced by various issues including clarity of goals and role ambiguity, appraisal, recognition and reward, personal developme nt career benefits and enhancement and training needs. The General well-being (GWB) scale of the Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WR QoL)[17], aims to assess the extent to which an individual feels good or content in themselves, in a way which may be independent of their work situation. It is suggested that general well-being both influences, and is influenced by work. M ental health problems, predominantly depression and anxiety disorders, are commo n, and may have a major impact on the general well-being of the population. The WRQoL GWB factor assesses issues of mood, depression and anxiety, life satisfact ion, general quality of life, optimism and happiness. The WRQoL Stress at Work sub-scale (SAW) reflects the extent to which an individ ual perceives they have excessive pressures, and feel stressed at work. The WRQo L SAW factor is assessed through items dealing with demand and perception of str ess and actual demand overload. Whilst it is possible to be pressured at work an d not be stressed at work, in general, high stress is associated with high press ure. The Control at Work (CAW) subscale of the WRQoL scale addresses how much employe es feel they can control their work through the freedom to express their opinion s and being involved in decisions at work. Perceived control at work as measuree d by the Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL)[17] is recognized as a centr al concept in the understanding of relationships between stressful experiences, behaviour and health. Control at work, within the theoretical model underpinning the WRQoL, is influenced by issues of communication at work, decision making an d decision control. The WRQoL Home-Work Interface scale (HWI) measures the extent to which an employ er is perceived to support the family and home life of employees. This factor ex plores the interrelationship between home and work life domains. Issues that app ear to influence employee HWI include adequate facilities at work, flexible work ing hours and the understanding of managers. The Working Conditions scale of the WRQoL assesses the extent to which the emplo

yee is satisfied with the fundamental resources, working conditions and security necessary to do their job effectively. Physical working conditions influence em ployee health and safety and thus employee Quality of working life. This scale a lso taps into satisfaction with the resources provided to help people do their j obs. [edit]Applications Regular assessment of Quality of Working Life can potentially provide organisati ons with important information about the welfare of their employees, such as job satisfaction, general well-being, work-related stress and the home-work interfa ce. Studies in the UK University sector have shown a valid measure of Quality of Working Life exists[18] and can be used as a basis for effective interventions. Worrall and Cooper (2006)[19] recently reported that a low level of well-being a t work is estimated to cost about 5-10% of Gross National Product per annum, yet Quality of Working Life as a theoretical construct remains relatively unexplore d and unexplained within the organisational psychology research literature. A large chunk of most peoples lives will be spent at work. Most people recognise the importance of sleeping well, and actively try to enjoy the leisure time that they can snatch. But all too often, people tend to see work as something they j ust have to put up with, or even something they don t even expect to enjoy. Some of the factors used to measure quality of working life pick up on things th at don t actually make people feel good, but which seem to make people feel bad ab out work if those things are absent. For example, noise if the place where someo ne works is too noisy, they might get frequent headaches, or find they cannot co ncentrate, and so feel dissatisfied. But when it is quiet enough they don t feel p leased or happy - they just don t feel bad. This can apply to a range of factors t hat affect someone's working conditions. Other things seem to be more likely to make people feel good about work and them selves once the basics are OK at work. Challenging work (not too little, not too much) can make them feel good. Similarly, opportunities for career progression and using their abilities can contribute to someone's quality of working life. A recent publication of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE)[20] emphasises the core role of assessment and understanding of the way working env ironments pose risks for psychological wellbeing through lack of control and exc essive demand. The emphasis placed by NICE on assessment and monitoring wellbein g springs from the fact that these processes are the key first step in identifyi ng areas for improving quality of working life and addressing risks at work. [edit]See also