Quality of Working Life - Models and Components

Models and Components

Various authors and researchers have proposed models of quality of working life which include a wide range of factors. Selected models are reviewed below.

Hackman and Oldham (1976) drew attention to what they described as psychological growth needs as relevant to the consideration of Quality of working life. Several such needs were identified :

• Skill variety,
• Task Identity,
• Task significance,
• Autonomy and
• Feedback.

They suggested that such needs have to be addressed if employees are to experience high quality of working life.

In contrast to such theory based models, Taylor (1979) more pragmatically identified the essential components of quality of working life as basic extrinsic job factors of wages, hours and working conditions, and the intrinsic job notions of the nature of the work itself. He suggested that a number of other aspects could be added, including :

• individual power,
• employee participation in the management,
• fairness and equity,
• social support,
• use of one’s present skills,
• self development,
• a meaningful future at work,
• social relevance of the work or product,
• effect on extra work activities.

Taylor suggested that relevant quality of working life concepts may vary according to organisation and employee group.

Warr and colleagues (1979), in an investigation of quality of working life, considered a range of apparently relevant factors, including :

• work involvement,
• intrinsic job motivation,
• higher order need strength,
• perceived intrinsic job characteristics,
• job satisfaction,
• life satisfaction,
• happiness, and
• self-rated anxiety.

They discussed a range of correlations derived from their work, such as those between work involvement and job satisfaction, intrinsic job motivation and job satisfaction, and perceived intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction. In particular, Warr et al. found evidence for a moderate association between total job satisfaction and total life satisfaction and happiness, with a less strong, but significant association with self-rated anxiety.

Thus, whilst some authors have emphasised the workplace aspects in quality of working life, others have identified the relevance of personality factors, psychological well being, and broader concepts of happiness and life satisfaction.

Factors more obviously and directly affecting work have, however, served as the main focus of attention, as researchers have tried to tease out the important influences on quality of working life in the workplace.

Mirvis and Lawler (1984) 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.

Baba and Jamal (1991) listed what they described as typical indicators of quality of working life, including:

• job satisfaction,
• job involvement,
• work role ambiguity,
• work role conflict,
• work role overload,
• job stress,
• organisational commitment and
• turn-over intentions.

Baba and Jamal also explored routinisation of job content, suggesting that this facet should be investigated as part of the concept of quality of working life.

Some have argued that quality of working life might vary between groups of workers. For example, Ellis and Pompli (2002) identified a number of factors contributing to job dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses, including:

• poor working environments,
• resident aggression,
• workload, innability to deliver quality of care preferred,
• balance of work and family,
• shiftwork,
• lack of involvement in decision making,
• professional isolation,
• lack of recognition,
• poor relationships with supervisor/peers,
• role conflict,
• lack of opportunity to learn new skills.

Sirgy et al. (2001) suggested that the key factors in quality of working life are:

• need satisfaction based on job requirements,
• need satisfaction based on work environment,
• need satisfaction based on supervisory behaviour,
• need satisfaction based on ancillary programmes,
• organizational commitment.

They defined quality of working life as satisfaction of these key needs through resources, activities, and outcomes stemming from participation in the workplace. Needs as defined by the psychologist, Abraham Maslow, were seen as relevant in underpinning this model, covering health & safety, economic and family, social, esteem, actualisation, knowledge and aesthetics, although the relevance of non-work aspects is play down as attention is focussed on quality of work life rather than the broader concept of quality of life.

These attempts at defining quality of working life have included theoretical approaches, lists of identified factors, correlational analyses, with opinions varying as to whether such definitions and explanations can be both global, or need to be specific to each work setting.

Bearfield, (2003) used 16 questions to examine quality of working life, and distinguished between causes of dissatisfaction in professionals, intermediate clerical, sales and service workers, indicating that different concerns might have to be addressed for different groups.

The distinction made between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in quality of working life reflects the influence of job satisfaction theories. Herzberg at al., (1959) used “Hygiene factors” and “Motivator factors” to distinguish between the separate causes of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. It has been suggested that Motivator factors are intrinsic to the job, that is; job content, the work itself, responsibility and advancement. The Hygiene factors or dissatisfaction-avoidance factors include aspects of the job environment such as interpersonal relationships, salary, working conditions and security. Of these latter, the most common cause of job dissatisfaction can be company policy and administration, whilst achievement can be the greatest source of extreme satisfaction.

An individual’s experience of satisfaction or dissatisfaction can be substantially rooted in their perception, rather than simply reflecting their “real world”. Further, an individual’s perception can be affected by relative comparison – am I paid as much as that person - and comparisons of internalised ideals, aspirations, and expectations, for example, with the individual’s current state (Lawler and Porter, 1966).

In summary, where it has been considered, authors differ in their views on the core constituents of Quality of Working Life (e.g. Sirgy, Efraty, Siegel & Lee, 2001 and Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979).

It has generally been agreed however that Quality of Working Life is conceptually similar to well-being of employees but differs from job satisfaction which solely represents the workplace domain (Lawler, 1982).

Quality of Working Life is not a unitary concept, but has been seen as incorporating a hierarchy of perspectives that not only include work-based factors such as job satisfaction, satisfaction with pay and relationships with work colleagues, but also factors that broadly reflect life satisfaction and general feelings of well-being (Danna & Griffin, 1999). More recently, work-related stress and the relationship between work and non-work life domains (Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991) have also been identified as factors that should conceptually be included in Quality of Working Life.