a study on quality of worklife of an

A STUDY ON QUALITY OF WORKLIFE OF

EMPLOYEES IN THE KCP LIMITED,

THIRUVOTTIYUR, CHENNAI

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

HEMAVATHY.L.D.

(REG NO: 22109631013)

OF

SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

In partial fulfilment for award of the degree

Of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

IN

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

AUGUST 2010

DECLARATION:

I, HEMAVATHY.L.D. (REG.NO. 22109631013) is a Bonafide student of

Department of Management studies, SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF

ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Chennai here by declare that the

project entitled “A STUDY ON QUALITY OF WORKLIFE OF

EMPLOYEES WITH REFERNCE TO THE KCP LIMITED,

CHENNAI” submitted by myself in partial fulfilment of Master of Business

Administration course of the Anna University is our original work.

Place:

Date: Signature

SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

PARIVAKKAM, POONAMALLEE, CHENNAI-600 056.

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “A STUDY ON QUALITY OF

WORKLIFE OF EMPLOYEES” is the Bonafide work of

“HEMAVATHY.L.D.” who carried out the project work under our

supervision.

Certified further, that to the best of my knowledge the work reported herein

does not form part of any other project or dissertation on the earlier occasion

on this or any other candidate.

Name of the Head of the Department Name of the Superior

Management Studies Management Studies

Internal Examiner External Examiner

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank for his grace that sustained to complete this project work successfully.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to our beloved Prof. A. Kanagaraj,

M.A,M.PHIL, Chairman, Jaya educational Trust, Mrs. K.Vijaya kumari, M.A, B.ED,

Secretary of Jaya Educational trust and Mr. Er. K.Navaraj, Vice Chairman, Jaya

Engineering College.

I express my immense gratitude to our Principal DR.PADMANABHAN, M.E.,

and PH.D for his support and encouragement for the completion of my project.

I acknowledge my sincere thanks and gratitude to our head of the department

Dr. Sivakami MBA., M.Phil., Ph.D., and I would like to express my special thanks to

my faculty guide Ms. S. Deepa Rekha MBA., for their encouragement and continuous

guidance in doing the project successfully.

I sincerely thank to the staff members Department of Management of Srinivasa

Institute of Engineering and Technology for their motivation.

I own the pride to thank Mr. Pavan Kumar Manager, Human Resources and

Services Department and Mr. Bhakyaraj, Personnel officer for giving me an

opportunity to undertake this project in THE KCP Engineering Unit. I am thankful for

their motivation support for having helped me to complete the project.

Finally, I thank my family and friends for their valuable support throughout my

project.

Overall, I render my thanks to the Almighty for his blessings.

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER.NO. CONTENT PAGE.NO.1. 1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Industrial profile 21.3 Company profile 61.4 Importance of the study 91.5 Needs of the study 101.6 Objectives of the study 111.7 Scope of the study 121.8 Limitations of the study 13

2. Review of literature 14-17

3. Research methodology3.1 Meaning 183.2 Research design 193.3 Data collection 203.4 Sampling design 213.5 Data analysis tools 23

4. Data analysis and interpretation 25-58

5. Findings 59-60

6. Suggestions 61

7. Conclusion 62

8. Bibliography 63

9. Annexure

LIST OF TABLES

S.NO. CHAPTER PAGE.NO.

1. 4.1 Table showing department wise distribution of respondents 272. 4.2 Table showing designation wise distribution of respondents 283. 4.3 Table showing experience wise distribution of respondents 294. 4.4 Table showing income wise distribution of respondents 305. 4.5 Table showing influences of quality of work life on

Productivity 31

6. CHI-SQUARE4.6.1 Table showing the relationship between experiences of respondents and work stress in the organisation:Observed frequency 334.6.2 Expected frequency 344.6.3 Calculation of Chi-square 34-35

7. ANOVA (One way classification)4.7.1 Table showing the relationship between the age of respondents in the organisation 384.7.2 ANOVA table 41

8. ANOVA (Two way classification)4.8.1 Table showing the relationship between the age of respondents and working shifts in the organisation 444.8.2 ANOVA table 47

9. ANOVA (Two way classification)4.9.1 Table showing the relationship between the experience of respondents and training conducted by the organisation 524.9.2 ANOVA table 55

LIST OF CHARTS

S.NO. CHAPTER PAGE.NO.

1. 4.1 Chart showing department wise distribution of Respondents

27

2. 4.2 Chart showing designation wise distribution of respondents

28

3. 4.3 Chart showing experience wise distribution of Respondents

29

4. 4.4 Chart showing income wise distribution of Respondents

30

5. 4.5 Chart showing influences of quality of work life On productivity and respondents

31

ABSTRACT

A STUDY ON QUALITY OF WORKLIFE OF AN EMPLOYEES in Heavy

Engineering units, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai. This study gives a clear picture about the

Quality of Work Life in the Organization.

The Primary objective of the project is to analyze the quality of work life of

employees.

The study will give a detailed note about the HR&S department in the

organization. There is specific statistical tool which I used to analyze the data that have

been collected.

The study will enable the organization and provide effective and beneficial

measures for the development of the organization.

The study is helpful of gaining the practical knowledge about the organization.

CHAPTER-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION :

An organization is made of four resources namely, Men, Material, Money,

Machinery. The most significant in an organization are the people (men). Human

resources are heterogeneous in the sense, that they differ in personality, perception,

emotions, values, attributes, motives and modes of thoughts. Their behavior to stimuli is

often inconsistent and unpredictable.

“Hackman and Suttle” describes a Quality of Work Life from varied viewpoints.

Such views are

From the professional view point, it refers to the industrial democracy and

increased workers participation in a corporate decision making.

From the management point of view, it relates to a variety of efforts to improve

productivity through human, rather than the capital.

DEFINITION OF QWL:

According to J. Lloyd Suttle, defines as “Quality of Work Life is the degree to

which members of a work organization are able to satisfy important personnel needs

through their experiences in the organization”.

MEANING OF QWL:

Quality of Work life is first to identify the employees important needs, their

experience in work environment and satisfy them. Positive result is a Win-Win QWL has

supported number of previous studies, includes reduced absenteeism, lower turnover and

improved job satisfaction. Quality of Work Life balanced and satisfaction of the

organization’s objectives in an effective manner.

1

1.2 INDUSTRIAL PROFILE:

2

Hydel power

division

Heavy engineering

division

KCP technology

Limited

KCP biotech limited

KCP Vietnam

industries

Cement division

THEKCP

KCP GROUP DIVISIONS

KCP CEMENT DIVISION:

KCP Cement Division has a state-of-the-art cement manufacturing plant at

Macherla, Andhra Pradesh, South India. Strong emphasis on new technology

characterized all operations at KCP’s Macherla Plant. India’s first dry process kiln

was installed here in 1958 by HUMBOLDT, Germany even while it was still a

prototype in Europe. In the year 1962, KCP installed a second wet process kiln in

collaboration with FIVES LILLIE CAIL, France.

Today, KCP is a 100% modernized Cement Plant with a World Bank

funded outlay of Rs. 367 million incorporates the latest technology such as the

energy-efficient dry process, with a two support KCP also incorporates a

sophisticated centralized process SIEMENS, Germany.

KCP HEAVY POWER:

When the government of Andhra Pradesh gave private enterprises the

opportunity to generate their own power, KCP rose to the challenges by

establishing mini-hydel KCP developed the most cost effective way to generates

power from five different canal drops. The capacity of four of these power projects

is 1.5 megawatts and fifth is 2.25 megawatts. Construction work for three of these

projects is already completed; the other two projects are nearing completion.

FIVE CAIL:

FIVES CAIL – A GLOBAL FORCE:

Today the fives cail group has come to literally mean engineering

excellence in the sugar, cement and mineral industries worldwide. Its ISO certified

Sugar Division specifically has been a long standing supplier of equipment and

3

technology to the world sugar industry. Right from design of new equipment,

development of process, automation of plants and modernization or expansion of existing

sugar factories. Fives cail’s expertise covers every conceivable need of the industry

KCP TECHNOLOGY LIMITED:

KCP Technology Limited was setup in 2000, with a mission to be a

globally preferred offshore IT solutions provider. The services they provide include

Software Development, Auto ID/RFID solution and Engineering Technical Services.

They also have partnerships with global companies like Oracle, IBM and Lumigent

KCP Technologies Limited, an ISO 9001:2008 certified company and a

part of the KCP Group Company was founded in August 2000, with a mission to be a

globally preferred provider of IT solutions. The company’s domain expertise

encompasses Engineering, Manufacturing, cement, sugar, Biotechnology, financial

service, Logistics and education.

KCP BIOTECH LIMITED:

KCP Biotech Limited is a subsidiary of The KCP Limited, India, a leading

procedure of high performance goods and services in the core businesses – Cement,

Heavy Engineering, Sugar and Hydel power. KCP Biotech Limited marks KCP’s

diversification into biotechnology with its range of natural colors in the food processing

industry. The color of food affects the flavor, appeal and perception of quality. Natural

colorants are extracted from natural herbs, plants and vegetables and are not harmful.

KCP Biotech’s natural colors have the distinctive touch of India, produced from raw

material cultivated through indigenous knowledge systems. The company’s collaboration

with the internationally renowned central food technology Research Institution (CFTRI),

India, ensures product quality.

4

KCP HEAVY ENGINEERING:

KCP Heavy Engineering Division setup in 1955 is an integrated

manufacturing facility that caters to a wide range of heavy mechanical equipment and

sub-systems for the core sector industries. KCP Heavy Engineering has significantly

contributed to the development of core sector infrastructure in India, Srilanka,

Bangladesh and Vietnam. The company has made a pioneering contribution in the

modernizing and expansion of the cement and sugar industries in India by providing high

quality import substitutions equipment. The Heavy Engineering Division of “THE KCP

LIMITED”, established in 1955, is a sprawling, Hi-tech complex that can roll out the

entire range of heavy mechanical equipment for the core sector industries. This complex

is one of the largest, well-integrated workshops of its kind and has facilities forecasting,

fabricating and machining heavy equipment.

KCP has a marked presence in the supply of key machinery to the core

sector industries. They are:

Casting.

Machining.

Fabrication.

Cement Plant Machinery.

Sugar Plant Machinery.

Steel Plant Machinery.

Power Plant Machinery.

General Engineering Machinery.

Process Industry Equipment.

5

1.3 COMPANY PROFILE:

The Krishna Construction Private (The KCP) Limited:

The KCP Limited was started in 1941. The founder of The KCP Limited was

“Sri.V.Ramakrishna”.

An 800 TCP sugar plant was setup at vuyyuru (Andhra Pradesh).

In 1955, KCP Heavy Engineering Division Plant-I, setup at Thiruvottiyur.

In consisting of an integrated manufacturing facility, which caters to a wide range

of Heavy Mechanical Equipment and sub-system for core sector industries.

Over 2000 employees in KCP groups. It is undertaken by Private Sector.

The chairman and managing director is Dr.V.L.Dutt and joint managing director

is Mrs. V.L. Indira Dutt.

Under their leadership, KCP have grown from strength to strength into a Rs. 150

crore ($50 million) company.

MAJOR CUSTOMERS:

The major customers of The KCP Limited are L&T, ABB, Gujarat Ambuja

Cement Limited (GACL), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), ALSTOM,

Defense Research and Development Laboratories (DRDL), Vizag Steel Plant, Essar

Steel Plant etc.

6

AWARD:

ISO 9001 is a standard.

ISO 9001:2008.

Now preparing records and documents, for getting an approval from ISO

18001.

TURNOVER OF THE YEAR 2009-2010:

Turnover of this year is Rs. 150 crore.

DEPARTMENTS OF THE KCP ENGINEERING UNIT:

The various departments at the KCP are 19 in number. The number of

staff members at KCP is around 250 and the total numbers of workers are over 750.

The various departments at KCP are:

Design.

Human Resources and Services.

Marketing.

Production Planning and Control.

Procurement.

Industrial Engineering.

Management System.

Finance.

Computer Services.

7

Foundry.

Fabrication.

Machine shop.

Maintenance services – Civil.50

Maintenance services – Electrical.

Maintenance service – Mechanical.

Quality services.

Stores.

Vendor development.

Logistics.

8

1.4 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY:

The effectiveness of organization and the views are to participate in the

organizational problems and solving and decision-making.

More positive feelings towards one’s self and one’s job.

Improvement in the physical and psychological health.

Decreased absenteeism and turnover and fewer accidents.

Higher quality and quantity of output of goods and services.

Improved communication leads to improved labor management communication.

The management assesses the employee satisfaction level.

The organization believes that by providing a good Quality of Work Life, the

employees feel more balanced.

9

1.5 NEEDS OF THE STUDY:

In recent times, KCP management identified many deviations between estimated

time and actual time of dispatch of job orders. The management had to assess the quality

of work life led by the employees and find out the satisfaction level regarding significant

variables of quality of work life.

10

1.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

To analyze the Quality if Work Life of the employees.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:

To study the present level of satisfaction among the workers and staff.

To find the relationship between the variables influencing quality of work life.

To find the perception of the employees among superior and subordinates

relationship.

To analyze the job involvement of the employees.

11

1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The scope of this study is to find the Quality of Work Life satisfaction level in the

working environment of the employees and to increase the personnel needs.

12

1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

Even though the survey was conducted among the employees of the KCP Limited,

it may not reflect the real opinion of the employees.

Interaction with the employees was very limited because of their busy work

schedule.

The samples may give opinion differently at different times because of their

psychological temperament. This will affect the survey.

13

CHAPTER-2

REVIEW OF LITERARURE:

Quality of Working Life is a term that had been used to describe the broader job-

related experience an individual has.

Whilst there has, for many years, been much research into job satisfaction (1),

and, more recently, an interest has arisen into the broader concepts of stress and

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 stress management skills or the

sources of stress will prove to provide a good enough basis for effective intervention.

Alternatively, job satisfaction may be assessed, 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, whereupon 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

seen 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 measuring

“stress” or some similarly apparently discrete entity. It may be, however, that the

consideration of the bigger, more complex picture is essential, if targeted, effective action

is to be taken to address quality of working life or any of it’s sub-components in such a

way as to produce real benefits, be they for the individual or the organisation.

Quality of working life has been differentiated from the broader concept of

Quality of work 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 Life 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.

14

Whilst Quality of Life has been more widely studied (4), Quality of working life,

remains relatively unexplored and unexplained. A review of the literature reveals

relatively little on quality of working life. Where quality of working life has 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 Quality

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 clearer understanding of the

inter-relationship of the various facets of quality of working life offers the opportunity for

improved analysis of cause and effect in the 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 opportunity for

more cost-effective interventions in the workplace. The effective targeting of stress

reduction, for example, may otherwise prove a hopeless task for employers pressured to

take action to meet governmental requirements.

Definition:

Mirvis and Lawler (1984)(8) suggested that Quality of working life was

associated with satisfaction with wages, hours and working conditions, describing the

“basic elements of a good quality of work life” as; safe work environment, equitable

wages, equal employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement.

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 limited literature

based on peer reviewed evaluations of available assessments. A recent statistical analysis

15

of a new measure, the Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL)(18), indicates that

this assessment device should prove to be a useful instrument, although further evaluation

would be useful. The WRQoWLS measure uses 6 core factors to explain most of the

variation in an individuals quality of working life: Job and Career Satisfaction; Working

Conditions; General Well-Being; Home-Work Interface; Stress at Work and Control at

Work.

The Job & Career Satisfaction Job and Career satisfaction (JCS)scale of the

Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL) is said to reflect an employee’s feelings

about, or evaluation of, their satisfaction or contentment with their job and career and the

training they receive 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 Positive

Job Satisfaction factor is influenced by various issues including clarity of goals and role

ambiguity, appraisal, recognition and reward, personal development career benefits and

enhancement and training needs.

The General well-being (GWB) scale of the Work-Related Quality of Life scale

(WRQoL) (18) 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. Mental health

problems, predominantly depression and anxiety disorders, are common, 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 satisfaction, general quality of life,

optimism and happiness.

The WRQoL Stress at Work sub-scale (SAW) reflects the extent to which an

individual perceives they have excessive pressures, and feel stressed at work. The

WRQoL SAW factor is assessed through items dealing with demand and perception of

stress and actual demand overload. Whilst it is possible to be pressured at work and not

be stressed at work, in general, high stress is associated with high pressure.

16

The Control at Work (CAW) subscale of the WRQoL scale addresses how much

employees feel they can control their work through the freedom to express their opinions

and being involved in decisions at work. Perceived control at work as measured by the

Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL)(18)is recognized as a central 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 and decision control.

The WRQoL Home-Work Interface scale (HWI) measures the extent to which an

employer is perceived to support the family and home life of employees. This factor

explores the interrelationship between home and work life domains. Issues that appear to

influence employee HWI include adequate facilities at work, flexible working hours and

the understanding of managers.

The Working Conditions scale of the WRQoL assesses the extent to which the

employee is satisfied with the fundamental resources, working conditions and security

necessary to do their job effectively. Physical working conditions influence employee

health and safety and thus employee Quality of working life. This scale also taps into

satisfaction with the resources provided to help people do their jobs.

17

CHAPTER-3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

3.1 MEANING:

Research Methodology is the backbone of the project work. It includes Research

design, Data collection, Sampling design and Data analysis tools are used for studying the

problem.

18

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN:

A research design is the arrangement of conditions for collection and

analysis of data in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose

with economy in procedure. In fact, the research design is the conceptual structure

within which research is conducted; it constitutes the blueprint for the collection,

measurement and analysis of data. The research design of the analysis has been

drawn from the needs of the study, objectives of the study, collection of data,

statistical tools and limitations of the study.

DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH:

This study is concerned with describing the characteristics group or an

identified population. It is aimed at studying the Quality of Work Life of

Employees in the KCP Limited, and hence it is a descriptive research. The opinion

from the employees was elicited through separate questionnaire and schedule

method. A relevant statistical tool was applied at the appropriate place to analyze

and interpret the data and to draw useful inference.

19

3.3 DATA COLLECTION:

Data are the input to any decision-making process in a business. The

processing of data gives statistics of the study. As stated earlier, data can be

classified into two types namely, Primary data and Secondary data.

PRIMARY DATA:

The primary data are those, which are collected a fresh and for the first

time and thus happen to be original in character.

SECONDARY DATA:

The secondary data constitute the chief material on the basis of which

statistical work is carried out. Secondary data was collected from various sources as

books and websites.

DATA COLLECTIONS THROUGH QUESTIONNAIRES:

In this method, a questionnaire is provided to the employees concerned

with a request to answer the questions along with their feedback. The questionnaire

consists of three parts namely, Demographic details, Quality of Work Life of an

Employees and Suggestions are printed in a definite set of forms.

20

3.4 SAMPLING DESIGN:

A sample design is a definite plan for obtaining a sample from a given

population. It refers to the techniques or a procedure, where the researcher would

adopt in selecting items for the sample.

SAMPLE UNIT:

The sampling units were the workforce of various designations i.e., it

includes both workers and staff at the KCP Limited.

SAMPLING SIZE:

The sample size consists of 150 employees.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES:

Sampling is done to collect samples. The sampling techniques are used for

large numbers. The sampling technique used in this study is Convenience

Sampling under non-probability sampling.

In Convenience Sampling the samples from population are chosen

primarily based on convenience of the research.

CONVENIENCE RANDOM SAMPLING:

This is a Non-Probability Sampling method in which the interviewers will

decide the choice of sampling units based on their convenience.

In most of the situations, the following may be reasons:

The sampling units may be distributed sparely.

Many respondents will refuse to fill the questionnaires.

Some respondents will not cooperate in filling the questionnaires.

21

Some of the interviewers may not be serious in selecting the sampling

units as per the assumed sampling plan.

Total population: 820.

Sample size: 150.

Sampling method: convenience sampling method.

22

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS:

The various statistical techniques such as Bar charts have been employed

in making the results of the study more pictorial and easy to understand. The

following statistical tools were applied in order to validate the result of the study.

PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS.

CHI-SQUARE TEST.

ANOVA.

PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS:

Percentage method is used to find out the number of respondents opted for

one particular option. It is used to make comparison between two or more set of

data and to describes the relations between variables and, is also used to compare

the relative term.

CHI-SQUARE TEST (Ψ2):

The chi-square test is one of the simplest and most widely used non-

parametric tests in statistic works. The symbols Ψ2 is a Greek letter chi. The Ψ2

test was first used by Karl-Pearson, the quantity Ψ2 describes the magnitude of the

discrepancy between theory and observation.

23

ANOVA:

Analysis of variances (ANOVA) is a method which separates the

variation ascribable to one set of causes from the variation ascribable to other set.

ANALYTICAL TOOLS:

Rating scale is used for the questionnaires and given to the employees. The Bar

charts are drawn for an easy observing.

24

CHAPTER-4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:

Data analysis and interpretation refers to the tasks of drawing inferences

from the collected facts after an analytical and experimental study. Interpretation is

the device through which the factor explains what have been observed by researcher

in the course of the study. Interpretation is essential for a simple reason that the

usefulness and utility of research finding lie in proper interpretation.

It is through interpretation the researcher can understand the abstract

principle that works beneath his findings. Interpretation leads to the establishment

of explanatory concepts that can serve as a guide for future research studies.

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the sample, data

collected from questionnaires, which were issued, to a sample of 150 employees.

The company follows a particular system regarding quality of work life of

employees in order to assess the present satisfaction level among the workers and

staff. The effectiveness of this system can be ascertained by analyzing the

responses given to the questionnaires.

The analysis is done based on the sample data, which has been reflected in

various tables, which helps to draw conclusions whether the measures followed by

the organization to improve the Quality of Work Life of an Employees, are

effective.

25

FORMULA FOR CALCULATING STATISTICAL TOOLS:

1. Percentage analysis = number of respondents ×100

Total number of respondents

2. Chi-square test= ∑ (O-E) 2 ×100

E

3. ANOVA= variance between the samples

Variance within the samples

26

Table showing Department wise Distribution of Respondents

TABLE 4.1

DEPATRTMENT RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

Foundry 33 22

Fabrication 36 24

Machine shop 51 34

Quality Services 30 20

TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Department wise Distribution of respondents

CHART 4.1

PERCENTAGE

2224

34

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Foundry Fabrication Machine shop Quality Services

PERCENTAGE

INFERENCE:

Is the inference from the above statistic analysis that 34% of the respondents are

workers, employed in the Machine Shop which is the highest percentage. 20% of the

respondents are workers, employed in Fabrication Department.

27

Table showing Designation wise Distribution of respondents

TABLE 4.2

DESGINGNATION RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

Super Skilled 24 16

Highly Skilled 28 18.7

Skilled-I 42 28

Skilled-II 32 21.3

Semi-Skilled 24 16

TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Designation wise Distribution of Respondents

CHART 4.2

RESPONDENTS

Super Skilled16%

Highly Skilled19%

Skilled-I28%

Skilled-II21%

Semi-Skilled16%

Super Skilled

Highly Skilled

Skilled-I

Skilled-II

Semi-Skilled

INFERENCE:

It is inferred from the above statistic analysis that 28% of the respondents come

under the Skilled-I. 16% of the respondents come under the Super Skilled and Semi-

Skilled designation.

28

Table showing Experience wise distribution of Respondents

TABLE 4.3

EXPERIENCE RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

<5years 36 24

5-10years 42 28

11-15years 42 28

>20years 30 20

TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Experience wise distribution of Respondents

CHART 4.3

0

24

0

28

0

28

0

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

EXPERIENCE PERCENTAGE

INFERENCE:

It is inferred the above statistic analysis that 28% of the respondents are worked

up to 5-10 years and 11-15 years of experience. 24% of the respondents are worked less

than 5 years of experiences.

29

Table showing Income Wise distribution of respondents

TABLE 4.4

INCOME RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

5,000-10,000 30 20

11,000-15,000 40 26.7

16,000-20,000 38 25.3

>20,000 42 28

TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Income Wise distribution of respondents

CHART 4.4

PERCENTAGE

20

26.7 25.328

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

5,000-10,000

11,000-15,000

16,000-20,000

>20,000

PERCENTAGE

INFERENCE:

It is inferred from the above statistic analysis that 28% of the respondents are

getting income more than 20,000. 20% of respondents are getting income up to 5,000-

10,000.

30

Table showing Influences of Quality of work life on productivity and

Respondents

TABLE 4.5

INFLUENCES OF

QUALITY OF WORK

LIFE

RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

Agree 42 28

Strongly agree 36 24

Disagree 37 24.7

Strongly disagree 35 23.3

TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Influences of Quality of Work Life on Productivity and

Respondents

CHART 4.5

2824 24.7 23.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

INFLUENCES OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE PERCENTAGE

INFLUENCES OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE PERCENTAGE

INFERENCE:

It is inferred from the above statistic analysis that 28% of the respondents are

affected on quality of work life is agreed. 23.33% of the respondents are strongly

disagreed with their QWL affected the productivity.

31

CHI-SQUARE TEST

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS AND

WORKSTRESS IN THE ORGANISATION

AIM:

To test whether there is a relationship between the Experience of respondents and

Work stress in the organisation.

NULL HYPOTHESIS: (H0)

There is no significant relationship between the Experiences of respondents and


ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: (H1)

There is a significant relationship between the Experiences of respondents and


32

Table showing the relationship between Experience of respondents and

Work stress in the organisation

Table 4.6.1

OBSERVED FREQUENCY:

EXPERIENCE

OF

RESPONDENTS

WORK STRESS IN THE ORGANISATION

AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY

AGREE DISAGREE

TOTAL

<5years 8 10 12 12 42

5-10 years 14 11 7 9 41

11-20 years 8 11 11 8 38

>20 years 10 6 6 7 29

TOTAL 40 38 36 36 150

33

Table 4.6.2

EXPECTED FREQUENCY:

EXPERIENCE

OF

RESPONDENTS

WORK STRESS IN THE ORGANISATION


AGREE DISAGREE

TOTAL

<5years 11.2 10.64 10.08 10.08 42

5-10 years 10.93 10.39 9.84 9.84 41

11-20 years 10.67 9.63 9.60 9.60 38

>20 years 7.20 7.35 6.48 6.48 29

TOTAL 40 38 36 36 150

Table 4.6.3

CALCULATION OF CHI-SQUARE:

O E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E

8 11.2 10.24 0.91

14 10.93 9.42 0.86

8 10.67 7.2 0.67

10 7.2 7.84 1.09

10 10.64 0.41 0.04

11 10.39 0.37 0.04

11 9.63 1.88 0.19

6 7.35 1.82 0.25

12 10.08 3.69 0.37

7 9.84 8.07 0.82

11 9.6 1.96 0.2

6 6.48 0.23 0.04

12 10.08 3.69 0.37

9 9.84 0.71 0.07

8 9.6 2.56 0.27

7 6.48 0.27 0.04

TOTAL 6.23

35

Degree of freedom= (r-1) (c-1)

= (4-1) (4-1)

= 9.

Table value @ 5% Level of significance with Degree of freedom of 9.

Ψ²0.05 = 16.919.

RESULT:

The calculated Ψ² value is 6.23 is less than the table value is 16.919

Calculated value < Tabulated value.

6.23 < 16.919

.·. H0 is accepted.

INFERENCE:

There is no significant relationship between the Experiences of respondents

and Work stress in the organisation.

36

Analysis of Variances (ANOVA):

ONE WAY CLASSIFICATION:

AIM:

To test whether there is a significance difference in their performance in the

organisation.

NULL HYPOTHESIS:

There is no significant difference of their performance in the organisation.

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS:

There is a significant difference of their performance in the organisation.

37

Table showing the difference of their performance in the organisation:

TABLE 4.7.1

PERFORMANCE IN THE

ORGANISATION

OPINION OF RESPONDENTS

Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly

Agree disagree

TOTAL

Comfortable with their shifts. 14 15 6 4 39

Training program conducted by

the organisation. 13 13 3 2

31

Skills & knowledge is matching

your experience. 15 14 8 4 41

Mutual understanding between

superior & subordinates 14 12 9 4 39

TOTAL 56 54 26 14 150

38

N=16

T= ∑Xi1+…..+∑Xin

= 56+54+26+14

T = 150

Calculation of correction factor:

C = T²/N

= 150/16

C = 1406.25

Calculation of Total Sum of Squares (SST):

SST = ∑∑Xij – C

= [(14² +13² +15² +14²) + (15²+13²+14²+12²) + (6²+3²+8²+9²) +

(4²+2²+4²+4²)] – 1406.25

= (786+734+190+52) – 1406.25

SST = 355.75

39

Calculation of Sum of Squares Between Samples (SSB):

SSB = ∑ (∑Xij) ² - C

Nij

= [(56²/4) + (54²/4) + (26²/4) + (14²/4)] – 1406.25

= (784 + 729 + 169 + 49) – 1406.25

SSB = 324.75

Calculation of Sum of Squares Within samples (SSW):

SSW = SST – SSB

= 355.75 – 324.75

SSW = 31.00

40

Table 4.7.2

ANOVA TABLE:

SOURCES OF

VARIANCE

SUM OF

SQUARES

DEGREE OF

FREEDOM

MEAN SUM OF

SQUARE

VARIANCE

RATIO

Between

C-1 = 4-1 MSB = SSB/C-1 F = MSB/MSW

samples SSB = 324.75 = 3 = 324.75/3

= 108.25

= 108.25/2.583

= 41.91

Within

samples

SSW = 31.00

N-C = 16-4

= 12

MSW = SSW/N-C

= 31.00/3

= 2.583

Level of Significance = 1%

α = 0.01

41

Degree of freedom = V1 = 3; V2 = 12

Critical value = Fα (V2, V1)

= F0.01 (12, 3)

Fα = 5.95

Decision:

|F| = 41.91; |Fα| = 5.95

|F| > |Fα|

41.91>5.95

.·. H0 is rejected.

RESULT:


INFERENCE:

Hence, there is a significance difference of their performance, in the organisation.

42

TWO WAY CLASSIFICATIONS:

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE OF RESPONDENTS AND

WORKING SHIFTS:

AIM:

To test whether there is a relationship between the Age of respondents and

Working shifts.

NULL HYPOTHESIS:

There is no significant relationship between the Age of respondents and Working

shifts in the organisation.


There is a significant relationship between the Age of respondents and Working

shifts in the organisation

43

Table showing the Relationship between the Age of respondents and

Working Shifts in the organisation:

TABLE 4.8.1

AGE OF

RESPONDENTS

WORKING SHIFTS IN THE ORGANISATION


AGREE DISAGREE

TOTAL

25-35 8 9 10 8 35

36-45 10 8 13 9 40

46-50 9 11 11 11 42

>50 7 5 11 10 33

TOTAL 34 33 45 38 150

Correction factor = C= T²/ N

= (150)²/16

= 1406.25

44

Calculation of Total Sum of Squares: (SST):

SST = ∑∑xij²- C

= [(8²+10²+9²+7²) + (9²+8²+11²+5²) + (10²+13²+11²+11²) + (8²+9²+11²+10²)] –

1406.25

= [294+291+511+366] – 1406.25

SST= 55.75

Calculation of Sum of Square Between Column: (SSC):

SSC = ∑ (∑Xi) ²

j -- C

nj

= [(34)²/4 + (33)²/4 + (45)²/4 + (38)²/4] – 1406.25

= [289 + 272.25 + 506.25 + 361] – 1406.25

= 1428.5 – 1406.25

SSC = 22.25

45

Calculation of Sum of Square Between Rows: (SSR):

SSR = [(35)²/4 + (40)²/4 + (42)²/4 + (33)²/4] – 1406.25

= [306.25+400+441+272.25] – 1406.25

= 1419.5 – 1406.25

SSR = 13.25

Calculation of Sum of Square Between Error: (SSE):

SSE = SST – SSC – SSR

= 55.75 – 22.25 – 13.25

SSE = 20.25

46

Table 4.8.2

ANOVA TABLE:

SOURCES OF

VARIANCE

SUM OF

SQUARES

DEGREE OF

FREEDOM

MEAN SUM OF

SQUARE

VARIANCE

RATIO

Between

column

(working shifts

in the

SSC = 22.25

C-1 = 4-1

= 3

MSC = SSC/C-1

= 22.25/3

F = MSC/MSE

= 7.42/0.25

organisation)

= 7.42 = 29.68

Between rows

(age of

respondents)

SSR = 13.25

R-1 = 4-1

= 3

MSR = SSR/R-1

= 13.25/3

= 4.42

F = MSR/ MSE

= 4.42/0.25

= 17.68

ERROR

SSE = 20.25

(C-1)(R-1)

= 3(3)

=9

MSE = SSE/(C-1)(R-1)

= 20.25/9

= 0.35

47

The level of significant = 5%

α = 0.05

(i). Degree of Freedom = V1 = C-1; V2 =(C-1) (R-1)

= 3; 9


= F0.01 (9, 3)

Fα = 3.86

|F| = 29.68. The table value of F for 3, 9 Degree of Freedom at 5% level of significance

is 3.86

Decision:

|F| = 29.68; |Fα| = 3.86

|F| > |Fα|

29.68 > 3.86


48

RESULT:


INFERENCE:

Hence, there is a significant relationship between the age of respondents and

Working shifts in the organisation.

(ii). |F| = 17.68

Level of significant = α = 5%

= 0.05

Degree of Freedom = V1 = R-1; V2 =(C-1) (R-1)

= 3; 9

|F| = 17.68. The table value of F for 3, 9 Degree of Freedom at 5% Level of significant

is 3.86

49

Decision:

|F| = 17.68; |Fα| = 3.86

|F| > |Fα|

17.68 > 3.86


RESULT:


INFERENCE:

Hence, there is a relationship between the age of respondents and working shifts

in the organisation.

50

TWO WAY CLASSIFICATIONS:

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIENCE OF

RESPONDENTS AND TRAINING PROGRAM CONDUCTED

BY THE ORGANISATION

AIM:

To test whether there is a significant relationship between the Experiences of

Respondents and Training program conducted by the organisation.

NULL HYPOTHESIS:

There is no significant relationship between the Experience of respondents and

Training program conducted by the organisation.


There is a significant relationship between the Experience of respondents and

Training program conducted by the organisation

51

Table showing the relationship between the Experiences of respondents

and Training program conducted by the organisation

TABLE 4.9.1

EXPERIENCE

OF

RESPONDENTS

TRAINING PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY THE

ORGANISATION


AGREE DISAGREE

TOTAL

<5years 15 14 8 4 41

5-10 years 14 15 6 4 39

11-20 years

14 12 9 4 39

>20 years

13 13 3 2 29

TOTAL 56 54 26 14 150

Correction factor = C = T²/N

= (150)²/16

C= 1406.25

52

Calculation of Total Sum of Squares (SST):

SST = ∑∑Xij – C

= [(15²+14²+14²+13²) + (14²+15²+12²+13²) + (8²+6²+9²+3²) + (4²+4²+4²+2²)] –

1406.25

= (786+734+190+52) – 1406.25

= 1762 – 1406.25

SST = 355.75

Calculation of Sum of Squares Between Rows (SSR):

SSR = ∑ (∑Xi) ²

j - C

nj

= [(41)²/4 + (39)²/4 + (39)²/4 + (31)²/4] – 1406.25

= (420.25+380.25+380.35+240.25) – 1406.25

= 1421 – 1406.25

SSR = 14.75

53

Calculation of Sum of Squares Between Column (SSC):

SSC = [(56)²/4 + (54)²/4 + (26)²/4 + (14)²/4] – 1406.25

= (784+729+169+49) – 1406.25

= 1731 – 1406.25

SSC = 324.75

Calculation of total Sum of Squares Between Error (SSE):

SSE = SSC – SSR

= 355.75 – 324.75 – 14.75

SSE = 16.25

54

Table 4.9.2

ANOVA TABLE:

SOURCES OF

VARIANCE

SUM OF

SQUARES

DEGREE OF

FREEDOM

MEAN SUM OF

SQUARE

VARIANCE

RATIO

Between

column

(Training

program

conducted

by the

SSC = 324.75

C-1 = 4-1

= 3

MSC = SSC/C-1

= 324.75/3

= 108.25

F = MSC/MSE

= 108.25/1.81

= 59.81

organisation)

Between rows

(Experience of

respondents)

SSR = 14.75

R-1 = 4-1

= 3

MSR = SSR/R-1

= 14.75/3

= 4.75

F = MSR/ MSE

= 4.75/1.81

= 2.62

ERROR SSE = 16.25

(C-1)(R-1)

= 3(3)

=9

MSE = SSE/(C-1)(R-1)

= 16.25/9

= 1.81

55

The level of significance = 5%

α = 0.05

(i). Degree of Freedom = V1 = C-1; V2 =(C-1) (R-1)

= 3; 9


= F0.01 (9, 3)

Fα = 3.86

|F| = 59.81. The table value of F for 3, 9 degree of freedom at 5% level of

Significance is 3.86

Decision:

|F| = 59.81; |Fα| = 3.86

|F| > |Fα|

59.81 > 3.86

56

RESULT:


INFERENCE:


Training conducted by the organisation.

(ii). Degree of Freedom = V1 = C-1; V2 =(C-1) (R-1)

= 3; 9


= F0.01 (9, 3)

Fα = 3.86

|F| = 2.62. The table value of F for 3, 9 degree of freedom at 5% level of

Significance is 3.86

57

Decision:

|F| = 2.62; |Fα| = 3.86

|F| > |Fα|

2.62 > 3.86

RESULT:


INFERENCE:


Training conducted by the organisation.

58

CHAPTER-5

FINDINGS:

Majority of the respondents (30.67%) from the age group of 36-46 years.

The male population is nearly twice (84%) as that of female population.

Most of the respondents form the Diploma qualification is 41%.

58% of the respondents from the 11-20 years of Experience.

Most of the respondents are from the Income level is more than 15,000 is 48%.

49% of the respondents are strongly agreed with the peer groups are friendly and

cooperative.

56% of them agreed that, there is a mutual understanding between the

departments.

53% of the workers are satisfied with their working condition.

39% of the workers are dissatisfied with their quality of work life will not affect

their family.

35% of them are strongly agreed with a mutual understanding between superior

and subordinates.

Majority of respondents 24% of them disagreed with their work stress in the

organisation.

31.67% of the respondents are agreed with the suggestions considered by their

superior.

47.34% of them agreed with their comfortable with their working shifts.

62% of the respondents are agreed with the training program conducted by the

organisation.

Strongly agreed (66%) of the respondents are the superior is adjustable with

subordinates.

36% of the respondents are agreed that there is a influences the productivity in

quality of work life.

59

57% of the respondents are agreed that the superior encourages them for a job

done well.

42% of the respondents of them strongly agreed that their level of skills &

knowledge is matching their experience.

53% of the respondents are agreed that, there colleagues guiding them during

working hours.

52% of them agreed that their role is well defined.

33% are the most of the respondents agreed that the organisation is following the

safety regulation.

55% of them strongly agreed with the reward policy provided by the organisation

while they perform well.

32% are the most of the respondents agreed that, they treat their work as a

challenge.

46% of them strongly agreed that, they are satisfied with their work.

42% of them gave suggestions regarding quality of work life.

60

CHAPTER-6

SUGESSTION:

An effective management program should be conducted to improve the quality of

work life.

Still the should be improvement in the coordination between superior and

subordinates.

The mutual understanding between the workers and the staff should be increased.

The job involvement of an employees is satisfied by them and also satisfied with

there wages.

61

CHAPTER-7

CONCLUSION:

The key factor in the success of extension organizations is improving their human

resources. This will help extension managers improve their human resource system. The

proper planning and implementation of the human resource system will result in overall

development of extension personnel. This will also enable extension organizations to

adapt to the rapid changes occurring in the extension environment of developing

countries.

CHAPTER-8

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BOOKS:

P. Subba Roa; “PERSONNEL & HRM”; Himalaya publishing house;

Edition-2007.

R.S. Dwivedi; “HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT”; UBS publishers

distributors private limited; (2007).

C.R. Kothari; “RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, METHODS &

TECHNIQUES”; New age international publishers; (2008).

R. Panneer selvam; “RESEARCH METHODOLOGY”; Prentice-hall of

Delhi(PHD) private limited; Edition-2007.

P.N. Arora, S. Arora; “STATISTICS FOR MANAGEMENT”; S.Chand; Third

revised edition 2008.

WEBSITES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_working_life

http://www.kcp.co.in/Html/heavy_engineering.html

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5830e/w5830e0g.html

63

http://www.kcp.co.in/Html/heavy_engineering.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_working_life

CHAPTER-9

ANNEXURE

QUESTIONNAIRE ON QUALITY OF WORK LIFE OF

EMPLOYEES

Dear Sir,

I am Hemavathy.L.D. doing my MBA in Srinivasa Institute of Engineering

and Technology, Parivakkam, Chennai. I am doing this survey as a part of my

Curriculum and I promise you that, your name will not be mentioned at any instance.

1. Name :

2. Employee No. :

3. Designation :

4. Department :

5. Age :

a). 25-35 b). 36-45

c). 46-50 d). >50

6. Gender :

a). Male b). Female

7. Qualification :

a). ITI b). Non-ITI

c). Diploma d). Others ……………….

8. Experience :

a).<5years b). 5-10years

c). 11-20years d). >21years

9. Monthly income :

a). 5,000-10,000 b). 11,000-15,000

c). 15,000-20,000 d). >20,000

10. Is your peer group friendly and cooperative?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

11. Do you agree that there is a mutual understanding between the departments?



12. Do you satisfied with your working conditions?



13. Does the quality of work life affect your family?



14. Do you have a mutual understanding between you & superior?



15. Do you find the work is stressful?



16. Are your suggestions considered by your superior?



17. Are you comfortable with your shifts?



18. Do the training program conducted by the organization helped you to perform the

work effectively?



19. Do you find the superior is adjustable with you?



20. Do you agree that quality of worklife affect the productivity?



21. Does your superior encourage you for a job done well?



22. The level of your skill & knowledge is matching your experience?



23. Are your colleagues guiding you during working hours?



24. Is your role is well defined?



25. Are you satisfied with your canteen facilities?



26. Does the organization follow safety regulation?


c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagree

27. Is there any reward policy for your performance?



28. Do you take / treat your work as a challenge?



29. Are you satisfied with your work?



30. Give your suggestions to improve the quality of work life …

a study on quality of worklife of an

Documents