qwl in indian context

Quality of Work Life in the IndianContext: An Empirical Investigation

* D.R. Saklani

* Commerce Department, Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, University of Delhi

Since the emergence of the“concern” three decades ago,interest in the field of Quality ofWork Life (QWL) is continuingto grow. However, there has beenlittle effort to analyse and assessthe concept in a systematicmanner, particularly in theIndian context. This paper is anattempt to empirically evaluatethe importance of various QWLfactors pertaining to employeesand to measure the status of theirexistence in work organisations.The required data was generatedwith a standard instrumenthaving a sufficient degree ofpsychometric adequacy. Thes a m p l e c o m p r i s e d 2 9 4respondents of both managerialand non-managerial categoriesdrawn from 24 organisations ofdifferent types. Rejecting thecommonly held stereotype,evidence has been found tosuggest that apart from monetaryconsiderations, employees inIndia accord a high value to thefactors that satisfy self-esteemand self-actualisation needs ofa higher order. Similarly asagainst the observations ofearlier researchers, the existingstatus of QWL in Indianorganisations is not poor.

Introduction

The concern for QWL was first noticed in the early1970s. It was seen as the latest revolution that wastaking place in the relationship between men andwork. Two drastic changes in this relationship havebeen noticed in the past - the first one resulted fromwith the use of machine power (the replacement ofmuscle power by machines in the 19th century) andthe second one resulted from the explosion ofinformation technology (replacing programmablehuman mental processes by computers). The thirdrevolution is now taking place - that of ‘humanisationof work’ (Hofstede in Cooper and Mumford, 1979).The genesis of the concern for QWL can be foundin the humanistic tradition within the social sciencesthat tries to highlight the employees’ need formeaningful and satisfying work and for participationin decisions that influence their work environment.Therefore, from a historical perspective this concernfor QWL in organisations can be seen as the latest,

Quality of Work Life in the Indian context: An Empirical Investigation

Decision, Vol. 31, No. 2, July-December 2004

and, in many ways, the culmination of a string of reform movements that haveattempted during the past several decades, to protect the rights and interestof workers (Hackman and Suttle, 1977, 6). The concept of QWL is very closeto the concept of human resource development (HRD). The traditionalapproach to HRD led to the ‘dehumanisation’ of work as the emphasis wasmore on machines than on people. The human relations movement restoredthe balance and brought forth the significance of human beings in organisations. However, it was Herzberg who was the first to notice the failure of individualtraining to suit the job as a change strategy. Herzberg’s distinction between‘hygiene factors’ and ‘motivators’ advocated the use of job as a medium fordeveloping and changing organisations through the programme of ‘jobenrichment’. Later on, Davis proposed the concept of ‘job design’, satisfyingthe techno-social requirements of the job. This was followed by ‘workreorganisation’ as an extension of the ‘job design’ idea under the Socio-technical Approach of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London.At the core of all these programmes was the value of treating people inorganisations as human beings and helping them to grow, develop and takepart in the decision-making processes. The goal was to humanise theorganisations. Various terms such as, ‘humanisation of work’, ‘industrialdemocracy’, ‘workplace democracy’, ‘work redesign’, ‘organisationalredesigning’, ‘participative work’ and, later on, ‘QWL’ were usedinterchangeably to describe the same thing.

The interest in the field of QWL has survived the period of the past threedecades. In fact, it is growing in most of the countries of the world. Initially,it was the purported failure of the existing job satisfaction measures to explainthe simultaneous existence of a high level of job satisfaction and certainproblems of employee behaviour that led to the emergence of interest in QWL.

102



Job satisfaction measures of American employees in the 1970s revealed theexistence of such embarrassing situations, for instance, see Taylor (1977, 243)and this trend, apparently, was not exclusively an American phenomenon(Cherns, 1975). Interest in the area of QWL got a major fillip from theviewpoint where it is seen as a panacea for many organisational problems.Finally, the current thinking that business organisations must reconcile theirprofit motive with certain social responsibilities seems to have sustained theinterest in the area of QWL. Improvement in QWL is considered necessarynot only because it contributes to organisational efficiency and to a fall innegative employee behaviour but also because justice and fair play demandit. Moreover, the discharge of this social responsibility by organisations is notmerely a means to some end but is an end in itself. (Mullins, 1996, 535).

Improvement in QWL has many desirable effects (Hackman and Suttle, 1977).QWL programmes in Scandinavia (e.g., Volvo) as well as the United States(e.g., The General Motors, Tarrytown, New York plant), for example, wereundertaken as a response to extreme organisational problems involvingemployee alcoholism, absenteeism, tardiness, turnover and grievances filedby the unions (Pfeiffer and Jones, 1980, 258). These programmes of GeneralMotors at Tarrytown led to an increase in sales volumes, dramatic improvementin the quality of performance, decline in absenteeism, turnover, number ofgrievances, and disappearance of labour unrest (Millor, 1978 and Guest, 1979).Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that the QWL programmes of GeneralFood’s Topeka Plant and Volve’s Kalmer Plant resulted in the improvementof job satisfaction, involvement, commitment and productive efficiency ofemployees. These programmes were also successful in containing thebehavioural problems of absenteeism, strikes, accidents and excessive turnover,and in imbibing positive attitudes among operators at the plant level

103



(Lawler et al, 1974). Participation in decision making, freedom to communicate,expression of warmth, human dignity, commitment and individual esteemwere also reported to be high (Schrank, 1974).

Research on QWL programmes offer substantial evidence in favour of theireffectiveness (Simmons and Mares, 1987). Plants based on participative andQWL principles are more effective than traditionally managed plants (Lawler,1978). These programmes encouraged workers to participate with managementin making decisions about problems and opportunities in the workplace, asa way of increasing organisational effectiveness, and improving workersatisfaction, commitment and performance (Nadler and Lawler, 1983). Researchhas provided empirical support to the contention that enhanced QWL leadsto improved employee satisfaction and fulfilment, increased mutual trust,improved employee-supervisor relationships, reduced stress and improvedhealth, reduced counterproductive attitudes and behaviours, increased jobsecurity, reduced grievances, better utilization of human resources, deepersense of worker responsibility, reduced labour-management conflict, increasedproductivity, bolstered strength of unions in given settings and a strengthenedposition of companies in competitive markets (Steers and Porter, 1983). Manyof these positive outcomes of improvement in QWL have been substantiallycorroborated by cross-nation experiences (Gani and Ahmed, 1995; Runcie,1980; Dwivedi, 1995; Venkatachalam and Velayudhan, 1997). Results of astudy showed that a high level of QWL was associated with a high level ofjob satisfaction in many aspects of working life (Wilcock and Wright, 1991). Perceptions of QWL are positively and significantly related to organisationalcommitment (Weiner, 1982). A study by Fields and Thacker (1992) suggestedthat company commitment increased only when participants perceived QWLefforts as successful, but union commitment increased irrespective of the

104



perception of QWL success. It was found to be a significant predictor of theorganisational commitment of managers (Anuradha and Pandey, 1995).

Statement of Problem

With rising levels of education and consequent aspirations and growingemployee consciousness of their rights, it has become imperative for Indianorganisations to be more and more concerned about the quality of work life(QWL). The traditional master-slave pattern of relationship or even the carrotand stick approach are fast yielding place to supportive, consultative andparticipative approaches treating employees not merely as “heads” but assetswhich should always sharpen rather than stagnate. In the industrialised societyof America and Western countries there has been a conscious effort on thepart of both management and the government as far as the systematic evaluationand improvement of QWL is concerned. In the other industrialising countriesof the world there has also been a perceptible shift in favour of QWL. In India,the concern for QWL in its explicit form found manifestation in the mid1970s. In line with the trend elsewhere, a brief lull was followed by a phaseof intense activity in the next decade. In the Indian context, a revival of theconcern for QWL was all the more remarkable because of its timing. Its re-emergence coincided with the onset of the period of transition in the economy.Changes in economic policies, globalisation of the economies of the world,and the consequent compulsion of facing competition both in domestic andinternational markets pose a serious challenge to all concerned viz., employers,employees and the government. This, coupled with ever-changing technologyand increased access to information, has necessitated the studying oforganisations with respect to their productivity, efficiency and quality ofservice rendered. Today, there is a need to improve the performance of workorganisations in India. All this demands a new work culture and a high level

105



of motivation and commitment to the job and organisational goals on the partof employees. This cannot be attained unless adequate measures are takento enhance QWL in work organisations.

Continued concern for QWL has resulted in a plethora of literature in thisarea. However, its review reveals that, there has been little effort as far as thesystematic evaluation of QWL in Indian industry is concerned. An institutionalIndian approach to the problem is yet to evolve (Gani, 1993; Gani and Ahmed,1995). Most of the work in the area of QWL is in the form of articles andbooks touching upon the theoretical aspects of the concept. There are sporadicefforts to link the concept to the realities of life. There are a number oftheoretical and research gaps. Because of its broad and comprehensive nature,there are a lot of ambiguities about the concept of QWL and, hence, there isno general consensus regarding its meaning, scope and issues covered. Itmeans different things to different people. As a consequence, various studiesin the area have focused on different facets of QWL (Ledford and Lawler,1987; Sengupta, 1985; 1994; Srinivas, 1993, 1994; Venkatachalam andVelayudhan, 1997; Karrir and Khurana, 1997).

Therefore, we urgently need to enrich our knowledge as to what ‘quality oflife’ exactly means, what its dynamic relationship is with social, habitationaland individual structures. For the systematic evaluation of QWL, it is imperativefirst to demarcate its broad domain, then to develop the construct, and todesign an appropriate instrument for its measurement. The task of examiningissues providing theoretical underpinnings to the concept and demarcating itsdomain clearly, the process of construct development and design of theinstrument have been discussed elsewhere (Saklani, 2003). The rationale ofthe present study lies in the systematic evaluation and analysis of QWL inIndian organisations.

106



Purpose of the Study

The present study was undertaken with the following specific objectives inmind:

a) To assess the importance of various QWL factors to employees in organisations;

b) To measure the existence of QWL in organisations in India;

c) To examine the relevance of various QWL factors in terms of their contribution to the composite score; and

d) To identify the areas having potential for improving employee motivation.

Hypotheses of the Study

In line with the purpose of study, certain hypotheses were formulated on thebasis of available knowledge.

In Indian organisations issues relating to biological and social needs aremore important in comparison to others. Organisational studies suggestthat, in the Indian context, environmental factors (such as, physicalenvironment, safety and other working conditions) and relational factors(such as, work group relations, and labour-management relations) aremore important with regard to QWL (Srivastva and Verma , 1978; Kalra,1981; Mehta, 1982; Sharma and Rajan, 1983; Kalra and Ghosh, 1984).This is in contrast to Western society where job conditions (like meaningfulwork) are more significant in relation to QWL (Jackson, 1973; Cherns,1975; Mottaz, 1981). In a study of 150 workers and 50 managers at theHMT unit located in Kashmir, Gani and Ahmed (1995) found that adequate

107



financial returns from the job, besides desire for job security, better

working conditions and advancement opportunities continued to be major

considerations in the employees’ working life. Keeping in view these

considerations, in the Indian context, the following can be posited:

The fulfilment of lower order needs is paramount to people in organisations

in India (H 1).

The existing state of QWL in Indian organisations leaves much to be

desired. Chakroborty (1980) has concluded that from the available literature

it is clear that the existing level of QWL in our organisations is far from

satisfactory. Findings of a study reveal that the state of perceived QWL

in Indian industries in all dimensions is considerably poor (Singh, 1984).

In the light of the above, it can be hypothesised as below:

The existing state of QWL in organisations in India is of a low level (H 2).

Different groups of components (factors) differ from each other as far as

their contribution to overall QWL is concerned. There seem to be two sets

of reasons for this: one, differences in the importance of different issues

to people in organisations and two, the devotion of more effort and attention

both by employers and unions towards the improvement of those aspects

of work life which are of immediate concern to employees. Therefore, the

following can be proposed:

In terms of their contribution to composite QWL score, the dimensions

satisfying lower order needs are more significant as compared to the

dimensions fulfilling higher order needs (H 3).

108



Research Design and Methodology

Basic requirements in the process of research involving the use of an abstractconcept like QWL are (1) clarity and precision of the concept(s) used, and(2) their ability to bridge the gap between the theoretical-conceptual level andthe empirical-observable level. If these two conditions are not satisfied, aconcept cannot be measured and used for generating the required data. Inorder to carry out research in a systematic manner, it is imperative to developthe construct for operationalising the study. Without completing this task, itis not possible to design appropriate instrument(s) for assessing the phenomenonunder consideration. Construct development involves three steps: one, definingthe concept at the theoretical-conceptual level; two, identifying the factors(dimensions) constituting it and three, giving operational meaning to thedimensions. As mentioned earlier, the process of construct development hasbeen described in detail elsewhere. However, it is necessary to point out herethat, in the present study, the construct was developed by adopting the inter-actionist view of behaviour.

There have been two perspectives to motivational explanation of behaviourat work: individual and organisational. According to the individual perspective,variation in organisational behaviour is a function of individual differencesand, according to the organisational perspective, that of organisational conditionsand practices. Under the former, the assumption is that the work environmentis given; and under the latter, the individual motives (differences) are given.Individual differences have received tremendous attention in explainingmotivation and performance in organisations. Various psychologists tried toexplain behaviour in organisations with reference to individual needs, desiresand aspirations. There was little effort to learn about the organisational sideof the equation (Hackman, 1976). This trend was arrested in the seventies

109



with the emergence of interest in concepts like, organisational climate and

QWL. There was a growing realisation that, in reality, behaviour depends

upon the dynamic interaction between individual and organisational

characteristics. The two interact in a complex manner and jointly determine

organisational behaviour (Schein, 1965 and Lawler III, 1976 cited in Sharma,

1987). Now, it is a recognised fact that the subjective perceptions of people

about their work environment (i.e., working conditions and management

policies and practices) cannot be ignored as these affect the quality of their

work experiences. Thus, QWL is determined not by personal or situational

characteristics alone but by the interaction between these two sets of factors

– by the closeness of the individual – organisation fit (Hackman and Suttle,

1977).

Keeping this in view, an extensive review of the relevant literature was

undertaken. It was found that the various definitions of the concept of QWL

can be broadly placed under two approaches (Lawler, 1982 and Dubrin, 1984).

One approach defines QWL in terms of the existence of a certain set of

working conditions and management practices and the other, in terms of the

impact (affective reactions) these have on the well being of an individual

employee. The first approach is comparatively less subjective – it is based

upon the perceptions about realities prevailing at the workplace. The second

approach, because of differences among people in terms of their desires and

expectations, is quite subjective.

Different viewpoints about the concept can further be classified as (a) global,

and, (b) restricted (Boisvert and Theriault, 1977). Global viewpoints of QWL

take into account the role of work in one’s life outside the workplace as well.

Restricted viewpoints, on the other hand, are concerned with life at the

110



workplace only. QWL is closely related to the more general term quality oflife in that life at the workplace affects life outside the workplace as well. Theformer is a major component of the latter (Lawler, Nadler and Camman,1980). Further, QWL is a generic phrase that is multi-faceted and comprehensivein nature. It is a measure of the quality of human experience which is a matterof the individual – organisation interface (Guest, 1979). Recommendationsfrom the National Seminar on Improving Quality of Working Life, organisedby the National Productivity Council in New Delhi in 1982, emphasise theneed for enlarging the scope and coverage of QWL in India in several directionsand areas. In the light of the above, using the first approach that is based uponthe global view of the concept, QWL has been defined, for the purpose of thepresent study, as:

the existence of a ‘work environment’ which is a matter of certain humanisticand life-enhancing work experience characteristics, as perceived by peoplein the organisations. Certain working conditions and management practicessuch as, reasonable pay, healthy physical environment, employees welfare,job security, equal treatment in job related matters, grievance handling,opportunity to grow and develop, good human relations, participation indecision making and balance in life are some of the key components of thishumanistic and life-enhancing ‘work environment’. QWL covers a wide rangeof issues both financial and non-financial relating to work context, workcontent and work relations.

There is a plethora of literature highlighting the factors (dimensions) criticalfor the assessment of QWL (Walton, 1973; Morton, 1977; Rosow, 1980;Carlson, 1978; Kalra and Ghosh, 1984; Srinivas, 1994; and Gani and Ahmed,1995). Recognising the comprehensive and multifaceted nature of QWL,twenty two dimensions were initially identified for the analysis of the concept.

111



However, after a careful analysis of the responses of the pilot survey conductedfor the purpose, and also the views of people in industry and those engagedin research, the number of factors was reduced to thirteen. These includeadequate and fair compensation; fringe benefits and welfare measures; jobsecurity; physical working environment; work load and job stress; opportunityto use and develop human capacity; opportunity for career growth; humanrelations and social aspect of life; participation in decision-making; rewardand penalty system administration; equity, justice and grievance handling;work and total life space (balance in life) and image of organisation in thesociety (social relevance of work life).

As a final step in the process of construct development, the QWL factors weregiven operational meaning by identifying their real life indicators. Afterdeveloping the construct, the task of scale development (instrument design)- capturing the underlying meaning of QWL factors through contextuallyrelevant sample items - was undertaken. Like construct development, thistoo has been described at length elsewhere (Saklani, 2003). However, it isimperative to point out here that the final scale used in the present studycomprised of sixty-three items which were selected after a comprehensiveanalysis of the initial pool of ninety seven items generated at the pre-testingstage of the instrument. In line with the definition of the concept adopted inthe study, items (QWL statements) for the scale were constructed by takingQWL conditions (QWL-C) as a basis of measurement. Sashkin and Lengermann(1984) contend that QWL can be assessed with the help of the scales containingitems based on either of the two: QWL conditions (QWL-C); and QWLfeelings (QWL-F). As mentioned earlier, QWL- C as a basis of measurementcomprises of a set of objective indicators that reflect prevailing workingconditions and management policies and practices at the work place. This

112



approach allows for the drafting of QWL statements in such a manner thatthey are descriptive of empirical realities, evoking their cognition or recall,and leaving little scope for the influence of opinions and affective reactions.A five-point disagreement-agreement continuum indicating ‘very poor’ to'very good' status of QWL was used for recording responses on the 'items'.Only definitely favourable 'items' were included in the instrument. To bespecific, a Likert-type Summated Scale was developed for assessing theexistence of QWL, an attitudinal concept. This type of scaling technique notonly helps in avoiding any kind of confusion among the respondents, but alsomakes it easier to calculate a respondent’s total score under a factor by thesimple procedure of addition of the scores of relevant 'items' directly.

A scale developed in this fashion has been found to be considerably free fromboth random and non-random errors of measurement. Various statisticalproperties indicate the success achieved in standardising the instrument.Results of the analysis carried out for the purpose revealed the existence ofa sufficient degree of psychometric adequacy, meeting the requirements ofreliability as well as validity of the instrument. Reliability, a measure ofinternal consistency of an instrument, has two aspects: one, relationship ofan item score across the items and two, relationship of an item score acrossthe respondents. Reliability analysis for checking the relationship of itemscore across the items was conducted both at the level of the entire QWLscale and at the level of each dimension of the scale. Composite reliabilityof the scale, estimated with the help of two popularly known methods, wasfound to be considerably high. The values of the co-efficients derived fromthe tests contained under these methods were Cronbach Alpha (α) = .9056,Guttman Split-half = .8850 and Spearman – Brown Prophecy Formula =.8852. The existence of positive and high values of these coefficients is

113



reflective of the capability of the items included in the instrument to elicitconsistent and reliable responses capturing the same characteristic orphenomenon, i.e., QWL.

Not only should the items be internally consistent at the level of the entireinstrument but also at the level of each dimension for the sample as a whole.This is a necessary condition for constructing a composite index relating toeach factor (dimension). Results of the ‘item-item correlation’ analysis carriedout for this purpose has revealed that all the co-efficients are positive andstatistically significant at the 0.01 level of significance. Further, the averagereliability of the items under various clusters, as captured by the CronbachAlpha (α), has also been found to be sufficiently high and more than theacceptable level of 0.4. It ranges from 0.54 to 0.79.

Relationship of an items score across the respondents was estimated byassessing the adequacy of ‘inter-rater agreement’. Differences in the evaluationof items should not arise due to the difference in understanding and perceptionsof the meaning by different individuals. Perceptual agreement must precedeaggregation of responses (Sharma, 1987). Values obtained with the help ofa one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) provide an insight into this propertyof the instrument (Roberts, Hulin and Rousseau, 1978; Sharma, 1987). Resultsof the analysis indicate that for the sample as a whole there is a sufficientdegree of ‘inter- rater agreement’. For each of the thirteen dimensions ofQWL ‘between mean’ scores are substantially greater than ‘within mean’scores. Further, all the intra-class correlation (ICC) co-efficients are positiveand F- ratios are statistically significant at 0.003 level of significance.

The instrument used for measuring the existence of QWL, in the present study,possesses both aspects of content validity (i.e., face validity and sampling

114



validity) in ample measure. On the face of it, the instrument developed hereappears to be representing the concept of QWL. Various dimensions anditems constituting the scale have sufficient literature in their support (forinstance, see Walton, 1973; Morton, 1977; Rosow; 1980 and Carlson, 1978).These also have the approval of co-researchers and respondents. Many ofthese dimensions have already been used by researchers in the Indian context(Kalra and Ghosh, 1984; Srinivas, 1994; Gani and Ahmed, 1995). Constructionof the items (QWL statements) in the scale is based on the work done byCacioppe and Mock (1984) and Camman et al (1983). Sampling validity, theother aspect of content validity, requires the researcher to become acquaintedwith all the items that are known to belong to the content population of aconcept (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1976). Although it is impossible to specifyexactly how many items need to be developed for any particular contentpopulation, it is always preferable to construct too many items rather than toofew (Carmine and Zeller, 1979). Therefore, as mentioned earlier, after a carefulanalysis of a pool of twenty two dimensions and ninety seven items generatedinitially at the pre-testing stage, thirteen dimensions consisting of sixty threeitems were finally chosen for analysis of the concept under consideration.

An item validity index generated from ‘item-item total correlation’ analysisand a dimension validity index constructed with the help of ‘item total-composite score correlation’ analysis have furnished enough empirical credenceto these aspects of validity. All the co-efficients were found to be positiveand, statistically, highly significant (p-value < 0.001). This implied that allthe items do belong to the factor under which they were included and alsothat different factors indeed represent the underlying concept of QWL. Further,it is imperative to point out here that responses obtained on the ImportantFactor Information Schedule (IFIS), have also provided enough empirical

115



support to the contention that only contextually relevant factors were includedin the instrument. Thus, whereas the existence of various QWL factors wasmeasured with the help of a Likert-type Summated Scale, their importanceto employees was evaluated through the IFIS. Respondents were asked to ticka minimum of five factors out of the thirteen given in the schedule which theythought were important to them in their work life.

Using the technique of convenience-cum-quota sampling, the required datawas collected in a sample survey methodological situation with the help ofa questionnaire containing a Personal Information Schedule (PIS), an ImportantFactor Information Schedule (IFIS) and QWL items. The entire data bank isbased on the responses elicited from the sample of 294 employees comprising192 (about two-thirds) managerial and 102 (about one-third) non-managerialrespondents drawn from 24 different organisations having their establishmentsin and around the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The number of respondentsdrawn from each organisation varies from a minimum of one to a maximumof thirty two. The inclusion of employees of different status in the investigationprovided a balance to the sample. The need for this was felt all the more inthe face of the likelihood of marked differences in the structure of their needs,aspirations and perceptions. Keeping in view the objectives of the study, duecare was taken to give the sample a representative character. Therefore,organisations of diverse background were selected for carrying out the study.When classified on the basis of ‘ownership’, sixteen organisations belong tothe private sector and eight to the public sector. From the point of view of the‘nature of activity’ pursued, seventeen organisations are manufacturing andseven are service-oriented. Taking ‘origin’ as the criterion, nineteen organisationsfall in the category of domestic and five in the category of foreign organisations.Table 1 gives a bird’s eye view of the distribution of both managerial and

116



non-managerial respondents across different types of organisations.

ORGANISATIONS(N=24)

RESPONDENTS

Managerial( N = 1 9 2 )

Non-managerial(N=102)

Total(N=294)

Private 108 43 151

Public 84 59 143Ownership

Manufacturing 136 56 192

Service 56 46 102

Nature ofac t iv i ty

Domestic 149 78 227

Foreign 43 24 67

Origin

Table 1

Distribution of Respondents Across Different Types of Organisations

Findings and Discussion

Importance of Various QWL Factors (Dimensions) to Employees

Rejecting the null hypothesis that employees in India are predominantlyconcerned with factors fulfilling lower order needs, the findings of the studymake it abundantly clear that they, in fact, attach more importance to thesatisfaction of their higher order needs. The commonly held stereotype alsoappears to be challenged by the low importance ranking accorded to the factorshaving job context i.e., work environment (both physical and non-physical).

117



As is clear from Table 2, highly important components comprise of bothfinancial and non-financial factors relating to job content as well as jobcontext. A closer look at the ‘most important’ factors in the table indicatesthat employees in India not only have a yearning for more money but also forthe realisation of goals of a higher order. Exploitation of the developmentpotential through a job that provides meaning to life and continued growth(enhancing status) occupy the first two positions respectively in the rank orderof the thirteen parameters. In addition, proper administration of a reward andpenalty system giving due recognition to merit and penalising non-performanceand indiscipline seems to be highly valued by employees. Participation indecision-making and job security, in that order, have emerged as two ‘veryimportant’ factors. The image of the organisation; work and total life space;work load and job stress; equity, justice and grievance handling, and relationaland social aspect of work life fall in the category of ‘important’ componentsof QWL. The physical work environment has emerged as the only ‘moderatelyimportant’ factor. Interestingly, all the factors relating to the latter comparativelyless important categories pertain to organisation and work situation therein.

In brief, money, growth, self-development, enforcement of reward and penaltysystem, ability to influence decision making processes and security are thecherished goals of employees in India. Essentially, all these components ofQWL concern the enlightened self-interest of individuals. On the basis ofthese findings it can be reiterated that, apart from materialism, employees inIndia accord high significance to non-materialistic goals in life. In fact, higherorder needs of self-esteem and self-actualisation seem to enjoy pride of placein their estimation. These findings are similar to the observations made in theWestern societies. Jackson (1973), Cherns (1975) and Mottaz (1981) havereported that in the Western world, work and the job themselves rank quite

118

Table 2Importance of Various QWL Factors to Employees

NOTE :* Most important (total =5), Decision rule - with score above 65%** Very important (total =2), Decision rule - with score above 50% to 65%*** Important (total =5), Decision rule - with score above 35% to 50%**** Moderately important (total=1), Decision rule - with score above 20% to 35%

QWL COMPONENTSFREQUENCYDISTRIBUTION(N=294)

RANKORDER

PERCENTAGENUMBERAdequate and faircompensation (D-1)Fringe benefits andwelfare measures (D-2)Job security (D-3)Physical workenvironment (D-4)Work load and jobstress (D-5)Opportunity to use anddevelop humancapacity (D-6)Opportunity forcontinued growth (D-7)Human relations andsocial aspect of worklife (D-8)Participation in decisionmaking (D-9)Reward and penaltysystem (D-10)Equity, justice andgrievance handling(D-11)Work and total lifespace (D-12)Image of organisation(D-13)

235

210

168102

114

236

238

108

185

215

110

126

133

79.9*

71.4*

57.1**34.7****

38.8***

80.3*

81.0*

36.5***

62.9**

73.1*

37.4***

42.9***

45.2***

3

5

713

10

2

1

12

6

4

11

9

8



119

high in the QWL. Further, it appears that employees have a strong desire forperformance-reward linkage, fixing of accountability and responsibility fornon-performance, enforcement of discipline and participation in the processof decision making. These employees are inner-directed and look for bothfinancial as well as non-financial incentives.

A comparatively lesser value of the physical work environment appears toindicate that, today, issues pertaining to this aspect of life at work are not asserious as these used to be in the past to employees in India. Similarly, theless than expected relevance of the relational and social component of QWLis perhaps not out of tune with present day realities. Today, individualism isgaining pre-eminence and organisational life is becoming a pure exchangerelationship. These findings are contrary to the results reported by Sharmaand Sundara Rajan (1983) which show the high importance of social needsfor better labour management relations in the Indian context. These findingsalso contradict the assertions made by Srivastava and Verma (1978) that, forIndian workers, ‘good relations with co-workers’ is the second most importantfactor at the work place. This also explodes the myth about the influence ofthe traditional joint family system nurturing affiliation values. The roots ofthe joint-family system themselves have become weak under the sway ofindividualism and nuclear dual-career families. In fact, it may be a significantindicator of the fast erosion of the value attached to the need for affiliationof the society in general.

Existence of QWL: Overall and Component-wise

Table 3 presents the findings of the univariate analysis as a tool of inferentialstatistics. Rejecting the null hypothesis, findings of the study indicate that the

overall level of QWL of organisations in India is not poor. It is more than the



120



average level (P< .001). However, it is imperative to point out here that this

can in no way be construed to mean ‘good’, or ‘ideal’, state of QWL of

organisations in India.

Component-wise, also, the picture is not very different. None of the factors

have recorded ‘poor’ existence of QWL. A series of t-tests conducted for the

purpose reveal that QWL in most of the dimensions is either ‘average’ or

‘above average’. Although three dimensions seem to be indicating the below

average status of QWL, in no way can they be interpreted to be of a poor

level. Notwithstanding this, the status of QWL cannot be termed as ‘good’

on any of the thirteen dimensions under consideration.

Respondents have rated job security, physical work environment and

organisational image as being of a substantially high order. At the same time,

compensation level, opportunity for growth and participation in decisionmaking have been viewed as better than the average. These findings can beinterpreted as signifying the success of trade unions and various legislativeefforts of the government of India in ensuring a certain level of living standard,apart from economic security, to the working class. These are also indicativeof the success achieved in improving physical conditions at the work place,opportunities for growth, and participation in decisions affecting one’s worklife. Further, there is a positive perception of employees who consider theirorganisations to be socially responsible in matters, such as, product quality,

customer complaint handling, waste disposal and policies relating to the

recruitment of manpower. Viewed in its entirety, it may also be a reflection

of an attitudinal change with growing professionalism in management.

However, it is in contradiction with the popular perception that employers in

India do not command a good image in society.

121

Quality of Work Life in the Indian Context: An Empirical Investigation


Note: 1. Degree of freedom = 292 2. * Indicates significant values 3. Decision rule in univariate analysis is taken as .01 level of significance

Table 3 Relative Contribution of Two Groups of Components in the Composite

QWL Score

QWL MEAN STD. STD. VARIANCE T-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE SCORE DEV. ERROR Level

(N=294) (p-value)OVERALLD-1D-2D-3D-4D-5D-6D-7D-8D-9D-10D-11D-12D-13

3.183.473.093.723.732.843.043.252.763.123.062.942.773.52

.39

.64

.85

.71

.74

.56

.59

.61

.57

.64

.72

.72

.93

.53

.02

.04

.05

.04

.04

.03

.03

.04

.03

.04

.04

.04

.05

.03

.15

.41

.73

.51

.55

.32

.34

.37

.32

.41

.52

.52

.86

.28

7.7312.661.7717.2216.81- 4 . 9 01.097.08-7.1893.221.43- 1 . 3 3- 4 . 1 916.70

P<.001*P<.001*P>.05P<.001*P<.001*P<.001*P>.20P<.001*P<.001*P<.001*P>.10P>.10P<.001*P<.001*

Keeping in view the average status of QWL on certain dimensions, it can be

contended that, although employees have been able to secure participation in

decision making concerning issues affecting wages and salaries, security of

income and physical work environment, they have still to go a long way.

Despite their being high on three out of four such dimensions, employees

probably have not been able to secure jobs that are meaningful, challenging,

interesting and free from undue interference from the boss. Employers in

India, it seems, are yet to come forward in a big way to shoulder the social

122

responsibility of improving the lot of employees by undertaking various kindsof welfare measures. There appears to be a lack of strong motivation foremployees to work hard. Neither the rewarding of high performance nor thepenalising of bad conduct/ low performance looks to be the characteristicfeature of work life in India. An adverse effect thereof gets reflected, perhaps,in equity, justice and the grievance handling mechanism. Respondents haveperceived the status of this aspect of work life too as that of average levelonly. Such an atmosphere at the work place forces people to resort to activitiesaimed primarily at keeping the boss happy. In the absence of a sound grievanceredressal mechanism, it gives rise to the malaise of favouritism and nepotismin organisations at a wider scale. People with good public relation skillsderive undue advantage especially when it comes to work assignment, transfer,promotion and the distribution of other rewards.

Surprisingly, QWL is below ‘average’ in the case of work load and job stress,social relationships, and work and total life space components of work life.Organisations in India usually operate in a work schedule which is fixed innature. Concepts such as flexi-time and flexi-place are yet to become commonpractice. This, coupled with long working-hours, perhaps, is the major causeof imbalance in the life of the employee rendering him/her incapable ofperforming other life responsibilities. In the area of social relationships, onthe other hand, it seems that the lack of socio-emotional support and thegeneral tendency of people at the work place to overlook one’s skills, potential,and real worth are the main causes of below average status of QWL. Deeprooted distrust, lack of informal interaction, use of an espionage system,absence of community feeling, status differentials, acceptance of an individualin the organisational life on the basis of his superficial ability to influenceothers, are probably the hallmark of organisations in India. Further, the wrong



123



notion that long working-hours mean more productivity, and the promotion

of relational and social life interferes with performance, still appear to be

dominating the thinking of top management in India. All this, along with a

high concern for effecting immediate efficiency and cost effectiveness in order

to survive in a highly competitive environment, most likely, leads to the

neglect of issues of the long-term implications impinging on optimum level

of job stress, human relations and harmony in work, and total life space.

Relative Significance of Various Qwl Components

This issue has been examined in terms of the relative contribution of various

QWL dimensions towards an overall QWL score. One can have some idea

of this from the values given in the earlier table containing data relating to

the existence of QWL in organisations. However, for the sake of simplicity

and better understanding, the various QWL dimensions are being reduced to

two broad categories. Group one consists of all those dimensions, which

apparently lead to the satisfaction of lower order (LD) needs. These include

D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D7 and D8. Group two comprises of all such dimensions

that result in the fulfilment of higher order (HD) needs. D6, D7, D9, D10,

D11, D12 and D13 are the QWL components, which fall in this category. D7

has been included in both the groups of dimensions as it presumably fulfils

both lower and higher needs. Results of the bivariate analysis carried for this

purpose are given in Table 4. Rejecting the null hypothesis, on the basis of

this evidence, it can be contended that the two groups of dimensions do not

differ from each other significantly as far as their contribution to the overall

QWL score is concerned. Differences in the mean scores of LD and HD have

been found to be insignificant at the .05 level of significance (T-value=1.86,

P=.064). From this point of view, both sets of dimensions are equally important.

124

An Integrated View: The Gap and Implications

In order to know what is likely to have a greater impact on employee motivation

and hence, requires the maximum attention of top management, the data were

subjected to further analysis. In order to make the two sets of data generated

in different ways comparable, they were assigned a rank order. Table 5 provides

specific insight into the chasm between the importance of a factor to employees

and the status of its existence in the organisations. As is clear from the table,

the maximum gap (negative difference -where existence is less than importance)

is in the areas of opportunity to grow and develop human capacity, growth

in career terms, administration of reward and penalty system taking due note

of one’s achievements and failures, fringe benefits and welfare schemes, and

work and total life space ensuring balance in life. In other words, issues



In other words, employees are able to satisfy their lower order and higherorder needs in equal measure. These observations seem to be contrary to thepopular belief that, in the Indian context, employees have neither the desirenor the scope for the fulfilment of their esteem and self-actualisation needs.

Table 4Relative Contribution of Two Groups of Components in the

Composite QWL Score

Note:1. Degree of freedom=293 2.Decision rule in bivariate analysis is taken as .05 level of significance

ComponentGroup

L D

H D

MeanValue

3.20

3.15

Std.Deviation

.42

.51

Std.Error

.025

.030

P-Value

.064

T-Value

1.86

125



relating to these aspects of work life must catch the attention of the topmanagement on a priority basis. From this point of view, next in order arecompensation package, elements of workload and job stress, and aspects ofrelational and social life. Because of the not-so-good level of QWL oncomponents comprising of issues of high concern to employees, there existsa wide divergence between expectations and fulfilment, which must obviouslyimpinge upon employee motivation. Work and total life space appears to beof considerable significance from this point of view, notwithstanding thecomparatively lower values obtained by this component of QWL on bothimportance and existence. The disparity between the actual and the expected,in this case, is substantially large.

Keeping in view these revelations, it can here be contended that greater jobautonomy, feedback and job redesigning are some of the measures whichmust be considered by the management on an urgent basis. Provision ofcontent to job, and enabling the use and development of human capacity bytrying out the concepts of ‘job enlargement’ and ‘job enrichment’ on a widerscale, at the operative level, will possibly give a big push to employeemotivation in organisations in India.

Issues affecting opportunities for continued growth in career terms appear tobe of no less significance in this regard. Allocation of work keeping in mindone’s area of interest, career counselling, training and development activities,and proper manpower planning can go a long way in improving this aspectof work life. Contrary to popular belief, the efficient administration of rewardand penalty system, too, seems to offer a great scope for boosting employeemotivation in a milieu which seemingly promotes disregard for merit, rulesand discipline. Therefore, strict enforcement of discipline norms, applicationof rules to all, promotion on the basis of objective criteria giving due recognition

126



to merit are some of the measures which need to be uniformly followed byorganisations in India. In addition, there is a need to enlarge the range offringe benefits and other welfare measures in organisations. Free or subsidisedcanteen, conveyance, medical, children’s education, accommodation and suchother programmes are likely to have a favourable impact on employeemotivation. In the face of changing composition of the work force, the

Table 5

Gap Between the Importance and Existence of QWL(N = 294)

D - 1

D - 2

D - 3

D - 4

D - 5

D - 6

D - 7

D - 8

D - 9

D-10

D-11

D-12

D-13

QWLComponent

IMPORTANCE EXISTENCE DIFFERENCE

FREQUENCY

(in percentage)

R A N K

ORDER

MEAN

VALUE

R A N K

ORDER

79.9

71.4

57.1

34.7

38.8

80.3

81.0

36.5

62.9

73.1

37.4

42.9

45.2

3

5

7

13

10

2

1

12

6

4

11

9

8

3.47

3.09

3.72

3.73

2.84

3.04

3.25

2.76

3.12

3.06

2.94

2.77

3.52

4

7

2

1

11

9

5

13

6

8

10

12

3

-1

-2

5

1 2

-1

-7

-4

-1

Nil

-4

1

-3

5

127

importance of child day-care centres in this context should not be underestimated.

Finally, the findings of the study also appear to indicate that top management

in organisations cannot ignore the role of balance in work and total life space

in influencing employee motivation. The existing mind-set of management

in India must give way to a modern outlook. Longer and more working hours

do not necessarily imply higher productivity. This kind of work schedule, on

the contrary, may have a telling effect on the health of employees in the long

run. Inability to pursue other life interests and perform other life roles may

become a major source of unhappiness and tension and affect employee

efficiency adversely at the work place. Therefore, it is also in the interest of

organisations to evolve such policies and programmes that ensure a balance

in the lives of employees. A flexi-work schedule (involving the techniques

of flexi-time and flexi-place), resort to transfer of an employee only when it

is unavoidable, streamlining of working hours and a five-day week are some

of the steps which can be envisaged with this end in view.

It is pertinent to note here that most of the QWL components which seem to

be highly significant from the viewpoint of employee motivation consist of

the factors resulting in the satisfaction of the needs of a higher order. This is

in sharp contrast to the popular belief that employees in India are motivated

mainly by incentives in the form of money, physical material gains and their

equivalents. On the contrary, it is observed here that, now, it would perhaps

be better for employers in the organised sector to accord greater attention

towards issues which have a bearing on employees’ higher order self esteem

and self-actualisation needs in order to achieve the desired behaviour in

organisations.



128



Concluding Observations

The result of the study make it abundantly clear that, apart from financialfactors affecting primarily the material well-being of a person outside thework place, many non-financial issues (relating to both job content and jobcontext) which satisfy higher order needs of self-esteem and self- actualisationhave emerged as being highly important to employees in organisations inIndia. As against the commonly held stereotype, many factors fulfillingbiological and social needs at the work place are relatively less important tothe present-day work-force in organisations.

Contrary to the popular belief, the status of QWL in the organisations understudy is not of a low level. It is, in fact, somewhat better than the averagelevel as measured on a five-point scale. Dimension-wise as well, it is eitheraverage or above-average in most of the cases. QWL is higher than the averagestandard in about half of the total dimensions considered in the study. However,its overall as well as dimension-wise existence is far from the ‘ideal’ mark.It cannot even be considered as ‘good’. Notwithstanding all this, it can becontended that trade unions and legislative efforts of the government havemet a fair degree of success in improving the lot of the working class in India.Today employees appear to be better paid and seem to enjoy continuity ofincome with growth opportunities. There has been a substantial improvementin the physical environment comprising of elements such as, hygiene, safetyand comfort at the work place. This seems to have been greatly facilitated bythe enhanced opportunities for participation in the processes of decision-making. However, organisations in India seem to be characterised by a myopicvision with a focus on quick gains, overlooking the aspects adversely affectingmanpower efficiency in the long run. The below average status of QWL oncomponents, including issues having a bearing on the optimum level of job

129



stress, state of human relations and balance in life amply substantiates thisassertion. Further, even in areas of high relevance to employees, organisationsin India are yet to go a long way. QWL on opportunities to use and develophuman capacity, administration of reward and penalty system, and fringebenefits and welfare measures have been found to be of average level only.Finally, the status of the grievance-redressal mechanism aimed at ensuringequity and justice has also been perceived to be far below the satisfactorylevel. Interestingly, the results of the study also reveal that organisationsbroadly offer equal opportunities for the satisfaction of both higher order andlower order needs. Differences in the contribution of the two sets of factorsclassified from this point of view in the composite QWL score have beenfound to be statistically insignificant.

An integrated picture of the importance of various QWL components toemployees and their state of existence highlights that there is a substantialmis-match in a large number of areas. In other words, there appears to be agreat possibility of improving employee motivation. In this context, it can becontended that organisations in India would probably gain a lot if top priorityis accorded to the elements of content in job. Greater job autonomy, feedback,role clarity and job redesigning (using the concepts of ‘job-enlargement’ and‘job-enrichment’) are some of the ways that are likely to provide a big boostto employee motivation. Provision of training and development facilities,career counselling, proper allocation of work (keeping in mind one’s area ofinterest) and sound manpower planning aimed at improving career prospectsare also of high significance in this regard. Of no less relevance are the issuespertaining to the efficient administration of the reward and penalty system inorganisations. Strict adherence to the norms governing merit recognition,discipline enforcement and application of rules seems to be another potent

130



tool for enhancing employee motivation. Further, there is a need to streamlinework load and other factors contributing to job stress so that there is a balancein work and total life space of employees. Notwithstanding its being not highon both the importance and the existence scales, work and total life spacecomponent of QWL too seems to be relevant from this point of view. Finally,the management cannot disregard the role of various fringe benefits andwelfare measures affecting the well being of employees’ families in anyscheme aimed at improving motivation in organisations.

References

Anuradha, S and Pandey, P. N. 1995. Organisational commitment and QWL:Perception of Indian managers. Abhigyan, Summer, 39-44.

Boisvert, M and Theriault, R. 1977. Importance of individual differences in interventionand design for improving quality of working life. Commercial de Montreal,223-239.

Cacioppe, R. and M. Philip.1984. A comparison of the quality of work experiencein government and private organisations. Human Relations, 37(11): 923-40.

Camman, C., M., Fichman, M., Douglas, G., Jenkins Jr. and Klesh, J.R.1983.Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organisational members. In E.Seashore. E.Stanley, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis and C Cammann ( Ed.) AssessingOrganisational Change – A Guide to Methods, Measures and Practices, 71-138, New York: John Wiley.

Carlson, C. 1978. General Motors quality of work life efforts. Personnel, 55 (4):11-23.

Carmine, E. G. and Zeller, R.A. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. BeverlyHills: Sage Publications.

Cherns, A.B. 1975. Perspectives on the quality of working life. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 48(3):155-168.

131

Cooper, C.L. and Mumford, E. 1979. The quality of working life in Western andEastern Europe. Assoc. Business Press.

Dubrin, A.J.1984. Human relations – A job oriented approach (3rd Ed.). Virginia:Reston publications.

Dubrin, A.J.1984, Foundations of organisational behaviour – an applied perspec-tive. New Jersey: Prentice – Hall.

Fields, M.W. and Thacker, J.W. 1992. Influence of quality of work life on companyand union commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 31:439-450

Gani, A. 1993. Quality of work life in a state setting: Findings of an empirical study.The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 36(4):817-823.

Gani, A. and Ahmed, R. 1995. Correlates of quality of work life: An analyticalstudy. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations , 31(1):1-17.

Guest, R. H. 1979. Quality of work life – Learning from Tarrytown. Harvard BusinessReview, 57(4):76–87.

Hackman, J. R. The design of self- managing work groups. Technical Report No.11. School of Organisation and Management, Yale University. New Haven.

Hackman, J.R. and Suttle, L. L. 1977. Improving life at work: Behavioural scienceapproach to organisational change. California: Goodyear Publications.

Jackson, P. 1973. Better working lives – An organisational consultant’s view.Occupational Psychology, 47(1):29–31.

James, L. R. 1987. Organisational climate: Another look at a potentially importantconstruct.Unpublished Technical Report: Institute of Behavioural Research,Texas Christian University .

Kalra, S. K. and Ghosh S .1984. Quality of work life: A study of associated factors.The Indian Journal of Social Work, 25(3):341-349.

Kalra, S. K. and Ghosh, S. 1985. Quality of life: Some determinants. In N.K.Singhand G.K. Suri (Eds) Personnel Management. Delhi: Vani Education Books.



132

Karrir, N. and Khurana A. 1997. Measuring quality of life – A simple approach.Paradigm, 1(1):50-60.

Lawler III, E. E. 1976. Should the quality of life be legislated? The PersonnelAdministrator, 21:17-21.

Lawler III, E. E. 1978. The new plant revolution. Organisational Dynamics, 6(3):2-12.

Lawler III, E. E. 1982. Strategies for improving the quality of working life. AmericanPsychologist, 37(3):486-493.

Lawler III, E. E., Jenkins Jr. G.D. and G. E. Herline,G.F. 1974. Initial data feedbackto General Foods – Topeka Pet Food plants – Selected survey items. AnnArbor: Michigan Institute for Social Research.

Lawler III, E.E, Nadler,D.A. and Camman,C. (Eds). 1980. Organisational assessment:Perspectives on the mesurement of organisational behaviour and quality ofwork life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mehta, P. 1982. Rising aspirations, quality of life and work organisation. Productivity,22(4):85 – 88.

Morton, H. C. 1972. A look at factors affecting the quality of work life. MonthlyLabour Review, 10 October.

Mottaz, C. J. 1981. Some determinants of work alienation. Sociological Quarterly,Autumn: 515-529.

Mullins, L.J. 1996. Management and organisational behaviour (4th Ed). London:Pitman Publications.

Nachmias, D. and Nachmias, C. 1976. Research methods in the social sciences. U K: Edward Arnold.

Nadler, D. A. and E.E. Lawler III. 1983. Quality of work life, perspectives anddirections. Organisational Dynamics, Winter: 20-30.

Pfeiffer, J. W. and J.E. Jones. 1980. The 1980 annual handbook for group facilitators.San Diego, California: University Associates.

Roberts, K.H., Hulin, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. 1978. Developing an interdisciplinaryscheme of organisations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.



133

Rosow, J.M. 1980. QWL issues in the 1980s. Training and Development Journal,35:33-52.

Runcie, J.F. 1980. Dynamic systems and the quality of work life. Personnel, 57(6):13-24.

Saklani, D.R. 2003. Quality of work life: Instrument design. Indian Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 38 (4).

Sashkin, M and Lengermann, J.J. 1984. QWL conditions and feelings. In J. M.Pfeiffer and L D Gold Steins (Eds.) Developing human resources, 13th

Annual University Associates: California, 131-144.

Schein, E.H. 1965. Organisational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice Hall.

Schrank, R .1974. On ending worker alienation: The Gains Pet Food plant. In RFairfield (Ed.) Humanising the workplace. Prometheus Books: Buffalo, NewYork: 119-140.

Sengupta, A. K. 1985. Quality of working life: Some issues in the Indian context.Economic and Political Weekly, (Review of Management) 20(48): 151-154.

Sharma, B .R. 1987. Not by bread alone - A study of employer - employee relationsin India. New Delhi: Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and HumanResources.

Sharma, B.R. and Sundararajan, P.S.1983. Organisational determinants of labourmanagement relations in India. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,19(1):1-20.

Simmons, J. and Mares, W.1983. Working together. New York: Knopf. Cited in J.Pearce II, J.A, and Ravlin, R.C. 1987. The design and activation of selfregulating work groups. Human Relations, 40:751-782.

Singh, J.P.1984. Motivational profile and quality of corporate work life: A case ofmismatch. Indian Management, 23(2):13-20.

Sinha, J.B.P.1984. Quality of work life: A continuing concern. The Indian Journalof Labour Economics, 36(4):745-753.



134



Srinivas, E.S. 1994. Perceived Quality of Working Life (PQWL) and organizationalcommitment: A study of mangers in select organisations. In Nirmal Kr.Gupta and Abad Ahmad (Ed.) Management Research: Contemporary Issues.New Delhi: South Asia Publications.

Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. 1983. Motivation and work behaviour (3rd Ed.), NewDelhi: McGraw Hill.

Taylor, J. C.1977. Job Satisfaction and the quality of working life: A reassessment.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50:243-252.

Venkatachalam, J and Velayudhan, A. 1992. Quality of work life: A review ofliterature. South Asian Journal of Management, Jan.- March, 45-57.

Walton, R. E. 1975. Quality of work life. Sloan Management Review, 15(1):11-12.

Walton, R. E. 1975. Criteria for quality of working life. In L. E. Davis and A. B.Cherns (Ed.) Quality of working life.91-104.New York: Free Press.

Walton, R. E. 1985. Quality of working life: What is it? In Frederick. E. SchusterHuman resource management : Concepts, cases and readings (2ndEd.). 39-46. Reston Pub: Virginia.

Wilcock, A. and Wright, M. 1991. Quality of work life in the knitwear sector of theCanadian textile industry. Public Personnel Management, 20(4):457-468.

135

qwl in indian context

Documents