SOCIAL
QUALITY AND QUALITY OF WORK LIFE OUTLINE THE EMPLOYEES’ QUALITY OF LIFE IN
INDIAN PUBLIC SECTOR: AN INVESTIGATION
Rinku Sanjeev
Institute of Management Studies, Ghaziabad (UP), India
E-mail: drrinkusanjeev@gmail.com
Urvashi Makkar
G. L. Bajaj Institute of Management & Research,
Greater Noida, India
E-mail: urvashimakkar@gmail.com
Sanjeev Kumar Singh
Apeejay Institute of Technology, School of Management,
Greater Noida, India
E-mail: singhssk@gmail.com
Submission: 30/01/2016
Revision: 31/08/2015
Accept: 15/09/2015
ABSTRACT
Many
researchers have tried to identify the factors that determine quality of life
and impact on these factors on social quality. The current
research outlines the existing theory and provides an argument which suggests
that the trust, loyalty and challenging works also can be part of the construct
of social quality. Authors propose a model, supported by data, which suggests
ways in which current social theories of trust, loyalty and challenging work
may be incorporated within the quality of life framework.
Design/Methodology/Approach The study has two fold
objectives. Firstly, to analyze the factors influencing employees social
quality and quality of work life in Indian public sector and secondly, to
understand the impact of identified variables on quality of life. The study is
based on the primary data, collected from the employees of public sector of
India. Data analysis was done using SPSS software. The statistical analysis
method employed was descriptive analysis, factor analysis and multiple
regressions.
Keywords: Social Quality, Quality of work life,
Quality of life, Trust, Loyalty, Challenging work.
1. INTRODUCTION
Social
Quality, a revolutionary concept having the potential to influence the lives at
professional and personal spheres, has captured the attention of managers and
workers similarly. The social quality approach argues that it comes on
mainstream of the behavioral sciences and has turned its empirical interest to
individual perspectives on ‘Quality of Life’.
This
approach is trying to conceptualize the quality of life from a scientific
perspective. The improvement of quality at the workplace is a concept that has
captured the imagination of managers and workers in a similar way. A number of
researchers and theorists have tried to identify the kinds of factors that
determine quality of life in the work place. It is always proven that a high
quality of life is essential for organizations to attract and retain their
employees.
Akdere
(2006) stated that the issue of work life quality has become vital in the last
two decades due to increasing stress of day to day business environment and
family structure. Lau, and May (1998) suggested that companies offering better
work life quality and supportive work environments would likely gain leverage
in hiring and retaining valuable people and companies with high quality of life
enjoy excellent growth and profitability.
Mirvis
and Lawler (1984),
supported the need for objective criterion to measure work life quality. In
recent development, governments around the World have been keen to explore
inter-connected issues related to improving the health and wellbeing of their
citizen and communities. Some of these issues include maintaining and
developing social order, human rights, equity and human capabilities (SEN,
1999; 2003).
The
social quality approach argues that it comes on mainstream of the behavioral
sciences and has turned its empirical interest to individual perspectives on
‘Quality of Life’. This approach is trying to conceptualize the quality of life
from a scientific perspective.
The authors have verified the
contribution of quality of life within the social quality theory. This study
outlines the current theory and provides an argument which suggests that the
Trust, Loyalty and Challenging works also can be part for the construction of
social quality. Authors propose a model which suggests ways in which current
social theories of trust may be incorporated within the social quality theory.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Social
quality refers to an ideal standard for life which can be acceptable and affordable
to the people. It may be defined as the standard of living where people are
able to accept, follow and contribute in social, cultural and economic activity
for the development and well-being of oneself and their society under the given
circumstances (BECK, et al., 2001).
Since
social life reflects in representation and identification of self and groups,
people must participate as actors and representative of the class they belong. The individuals have their own status but in
groups, they represent a collective way to
identify and follow the norms. There are four factors which determine
environment of social quality. They are Social empowerment, social inclusion,
socio-economic security, and social cohesion. It is understood that these
factors can be measured in the social symbols and indicators which presents
the social index of quality of life (MAESEN; WALKER; KEIGER, 2005;
MAESEN; WAKER, 2005).
2.1.
The
origins of Social Quality
The rise of Social
Quality started by the initiative launched by a group of social scientist in
1997 under the Dutch Presidency of the European Union. The objective behind
this initiative was to develop a conceptual framwork on which a line of strategy
can be drawn and activities can be exercised to shape the social life. (BECK,
et al., 2001).
The concept
of Social Quality drew the attention of social thinkers, philosphers, and
researchers upto that extent where the term ‘Social Quality’ got a special
meaning and value in the literature related to society and in other cases. The
indicators of quality life were being identified through which the social
quality can be measured and quantified.
With this
background the rise of social dimensions and empirical research on quality of
life, set new goals of societal development and value orientation. At the same time, an awareness and approach developed to structure a social system to
address the challenges in meeting 'quality of life'.
2.2.
Quality
of Life
The Quality of Life is a well
acknowledged topic of social theory which appreciate and plead for individual
well-being, discuss about objective indicators on the one hand (such as income,
condition of accommodation, employment etc.) and subjective indicators on the
other hand.
This shows concerns how individuals
are satisfied about these most important aspects of their lives. These
indicators for Quality of Life are meant for adding a new dimension to the
concept of well-being, which may be used for measuring social development and
growth. The Quality of Life of a country cannot necessarily be understood in
terms of GDP or income or consumption, but when looking at the human progress
that reflects in eco-cultural environment
of societies and bring it on a subjective, as well as an objective indicator
and dimension .
The initiative of the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions reflects that
the normal approach to asking for Quality of Life is to identify the key
domains of life (housing, employment, health, family relations, social
development, etc.) and to identify several indicators under each of these
domains (RAPLEY, 2003; FAHEY, et al., 2004).
According to Bohnke (2005), the key
indicator for Quality of Life is basically satisfaction about these dimensions.
This can be defined as satisfaction with any one of the dimensions or with life
in general. It is concerned with the individual’s standard of living (living
conditions) and his or her perceptions of such circumstances (satisfaction and
happiness).
It has been observed that attractive
as a policy tool both subjective as well as objective indicators have been well
established in social life (NOLL, 2004; NOLL, 2002). It is understood as a
means of observing social change and measuring well-being in the society
(FAHEY, et al., 2004).
Lane (1996) has stated quality of
life as a process which includes subjective and objective essentials. He
emphasized the active role of personal experience and the capacity of
individuals – in his terms the ‘quality of persons’ - as a constitutive element
of quality of life:
According to him “Quality of life is
well defined by the relation between two subjective elements and a set of
objective circumstances. The subjective elements of a high quality of life
includes: (1) a sense of well-being and (2) personal development & learning
growth. The objective element is visualized as quality of circumstances which
represents prospects for optimum utilization by the individual leading a life”.
2.3.
Quality
of Life and Social Quality
The dimensions explored with the
Quality of Life approach, rose the issue of reorganizing the concept of Social
Quality. The approach for Quality of Life has proved that, after a certain
level of monetary growth, overall satisfaction does not enhance the perception
of wellbeing and happiness (ECKERSLEY, 2000; ECKERSLEY, 1998; CUMMINS, 1995;
CUMMINS, 1998).
However, people are less open about
the acceptability for Quality within their society. After a limit of economic threshold,
people become conscious about distribution of income, unpaid housework issues,
the wastage of natural resources and the unemployment cost (ECKERSLEY, 2000;
HALSTEAD, 1998; HAMILTON, 1998).
Individual’s own quality of life is
most influenced by personal and intimate aspects of life, which protects
against several negative changes in personal conditions. This may appear as a
loss of confidence for society and its future, which results in terms of loss
of individual trust. (ECKERSLEY, 2000). At the same time a big concern is about
the negative effects of economic changes on family and social life (PUSEY,
1998). It may result as the collapse of traditional ethics and values in
society. It also harms existing family relations and working networks.
The social quality approach
underlines both social and the individual aspects. It measures the quality of
everyday social life, which is different from the quality of life approach that
gets the viewpoint of an individual as independent entity. It is based on ‘the
social theory’- a sociological approach, which is opposite to the quality of
life approach. The social quality approach also actively focuses on the
individual, who living in developing social situations.
The social theory is the result of
the dialectical relationship between the collective identities development and
human being self-realization. This includes four conditional factors –
socioeconomic security, social cohesion, social inclusion and social
empowerment. These essential four
factors represent the way by which, Individual become competent in the field of
social quality. The perquisites of this process are the rule of law, human
rights and social justice, social recognition or respect, social responsiveness
and the individual’s capacity and determination to participate. (VAN DER
MAESEN, et al., 2002).
The approach reproduces the human
being as social, not only as individual subjects. It also provides a vision for
the future of social quality about how the social quality of a society can and
should be improved. It provides the fundamental association between need,
action and policies. The social quality approach merges together both economic
and social development. It also measures the degree of quality of routine life
for an acceptable living standard, the structural attribute of societies and
their associates, as judged by reference to their impact on society. Basically,
it includes both the combination of structural as well as individual-level
factors.
The scope of quality of life is vast,
extensive, comprising with potentially continuous inventory of realms and
indicators and covering the entire world, whereas social quality is initially
viewed and defined strongly around its four core components. Furthermore, in
difference to quality of life, social quality has an explicitly political or
ideological dimension that being associated to a vision of participative social
relations. However, the quality of life entails value judgments as neutral.
2.4.
Quality
of Work Life
It has been supported by the
researches that quality of work life enhances the feelings of employees towards
their jobs, colleagues, and companies which leads to organization’s growth and
profitability. Quality of work life is one of the most prominent researched
area . Researchers have attempted to measure work life quality in a variety of
combinations of their questionnaires such as, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, job stress, organizational identification, job involvement etc.
Finally work role ambiguity, conflict, and overload were also studied as
alternative measures of quality of work life.
According to Havlovic (1991), Scobel
(1975), and Straw and Heckscher (1984), the key parameters observed in quality
of work life include job security, better reward systems, higher pay,
opportunity for growth, challenging work and participative groups among others.
Walton (1974) proposed the conceptual aspects of work life quality where
employees perception towards their work organizations could determine their
quality of work life. These are adequate and fair compensation, safe and
healthy environment, development of human capacities, growth and security,
social integrative constitutionalism, the total life space, and social
importance.
An extensive Literature review of these
disciplines recommended that trust is an important component for the smooth
functioning of society and for the progress, development, maintenance and
sustainability of the social quality of people’s lives (MEYER et al., 2008;
MEYER; WARD, 2008; WARD, 2006; WARD; COATES, 2006).
social cohesion, a social quality
conditional factor deals with identity, value, and ethics. It is considered by
1) trust in others 2) near by transparency and corruption 3) believe in social
rules and institutions 4) humanity and multiculturalism diversity 5) value and
belongingness. Ilast few decades it has been observed that general trust and
loyalty among people has decreased. Distrust against major institutions has
increased, corruptions has improved . This impact working life also.
It is a fact that the importance of
trust arises as an important contributor for relationship building and given
support to the strength of different relationships for social as well as
professional exchange (GRÖNROOS, 2000; HÅKANSSON; SNEHOTA, 1995; MORGAN; HUNT,
1994). Hence, trust is the corner stone in relationship marketing and social
exchange theory (MORGAN; HUNT, 1994) It is extensively accepted that it is an
important factor to build a strong business relationships (YOUNG; WILKINSON,
1989).
Giddens (1990; 1991; 1998)
highlighted the importance of trust which has been conceptualized as an
essential feature of late modernity and a clear cut demarcation between what
has been called ‘pre-modern’ and ‘modern’ society. Luhmann specified that “one
should expect trust to be progressively in demand as a facilitator to handle
the complications of the future which technology will cause” (LUHMANN, 1979).
This suits within the framework of
the ‘risk society’ (BECK, 1992), hence, the growing perception of risk
transports ‘trust’ in even more significant factor. Therefore, more the risk,
more would be the need for trust (LUHMANN, 2005). Consequently, trust assumes
role of crucial academic prominence to social scientists who are principally
concerned in both understanding the vital factors of social life and also
social change.
Beck (1992; 2005) and Giddens, both
the researchers, highlighted the significance of trust for an individual and
its impact on quality of life. Henceforth, the matter of trust / mistrust is
not only about the construction of risks, but that individual and groups
working in an organization have established higher levels of reflexivity. Trust
is widely accepted as a key managerial concept. Therefore, trust is identified as an essential key for problem resolution
(ANDERSON; NARUS, 1984; SCHURR; OZANE, 1985), and play as an important tool of
the creativity and challenge involved in solving problems (WOOLTHUIS et al.,
2002).
Apart from these, trust is able to
convert individual differences into functional conflicts and resulted in
productivity benefits (MORGAN; HUNT, 1994). Loyalty has been discussed by many
social researchers. Richard Oliver (1999) summits, that loyalty can be
visualized as a strong sense of commitment which plays an important role to
build impression for individual’s professional life and relationship building.
Based on the literature review certain questions may occur which can outline
the relationship between social quality and quality of life.
Based on the literature review the following hypothesized model of social quality is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Hypothesized Model of Social Quality
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
Further this study investigates
about the following research questions through the data surveyed.
i.
What
are the factors which influence employee’s social quality and quality of work
life?
ii.
Is
there any impact of trust, loyalty and challenging work on quality of life?
In this regard, the study has two
fold objectives:
i.
Firstly,
to find out the factors influencing employee’s social quality and quality of
work life in Indian public sector.
ii.
Secondly,
to understand the impact of identified variables on quality of life.
4. BACKGROUND OF THE SURVEYS AND DATA ANALYSIS
The study was exploratory in nature
and survey method was used to complete the study. It uses the data for
analysis, which was gathered through non-disguised questionnaire during the
period April 2015. The primary data was collected using non-probability random
sampling technique with a sample size of 184 respondents who are the employees
from Public Sector in Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR) in India.
The sample choice is based on the
fact as Delhi & NCR are the representative of whole country and secondly,
all working age groups have been included in the sample to rationalize the
impact on quality of life. Moreover, public sector in India is presumed as a
sector which provides better quality of life with highly attractive wages and
incentive policy. These criteria influenced sampling selection by the
researchers.
In this survey, the questions to ask
were consisting in three parts. The first part intended to capture the
demographic profile of the respondent like gender, age, and experience.
The second part contains nine
statements to test the level of social quality. It includes following
statements: 1. I am provided with the proper training for better performance of
my job. 2. I find my work challenging. 3.
Work load is properly distributed among all the employees. 4. I trust
the seniors with whom I work. 5. I am
working in one of the best organizations in the industry. 6. I am able to
balance my work and family life.7. I am proud to be a part of this
organization. 8. I find my work motivating. 9. At the place where I work, I am
treated with respect.
The above mention questions are the
indicative of the quality of life led by the employees of the organizations
chosen as our sample. Besides this, these questions also indicate the social
quality quotient directly or indirectly.
Of course, we need to address that
these indicators are neither purely objective indicators nor the subjective
indicators. To use the survey data to reflect the condition of social quality,
one should be aware of the impact on quality of life.
The third part includes the
questions of identified variables related to quality of work life. In this
regard, we put questions related to Safety measures, Health facilities, Welfare
facilities, Job security, Pay package, Grievance Handling, Lighting facilities
and Supervisory support . These questions are able to reveal the impact of
quality of work life.
With these questions, we can thus,
understand the impact of quality of work life in the public sector.
Data analysis was done using SPSS
software. The statistical analysis method employed is Descriptive analysis;
factor analysis and multiple regression analysis. The scale used for collecting
data was ‘Five Point Likert Scale’ ranging from 5 for ‘strongly agree’ down to
1 for ‘strongly disagree.
5. DATA ANALYSIS
Among the surveyed groups, the basic
features of the respondents are below: 47.8 percent respondents were from 25-30
years of age group, 76.1 percent respondents were male staff, 23.9 percent were
female staff, and 44.6 percent respondents had worked in the organization for
more than 5 yrs (see Table 1).
Table 1: An overview of respondent’s demographic profile
Gender |
|
|||||
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
|
|
|
Male |
140 |
76.1 |
76.1 |
|
||
Female |
44 |
23.9 |
23.9 |
|
||
Age |
|
|||||
20-25 yrs |
35 |
19.0 |
19.0 |
|
||
25-30 yrs |
88 |
47.8 |
66.8 |
|
||
30-35 yrs |
31 |
16.8 |
83.7 |
|
||
35-40 yrs |
9 |
4.9 |
88.6 |
|
||
Above 40 yrs |
21 |
11.4 |
100.0 |
|
||
Work Experience |
|
|||||
0-2 yrs |
15 |
8.2 |
8.2 |
|
||
2-3yrs |
26 |
14.1 |
22.3 |
|
||
3-5 yrs |
61 |
33.2 |
55.4 |
|
||
Above 5 yrs |
82 |
44.6 |
100.0 |
|
||
5.1.
Factor
analysis for Quality of Work life:
According to the above mentioned
methodological notes, we develop further for data analysis. Factor analysis has been used to find
out the factors influencing employee’s social quality and quality of work life.
The
Strength of relationship among variables is strong. It presents good idea to
proceed for factor analysis of the data. Factor analysis with principal
component by varimax rotation, that was performed to find out the factor
structure, revealed one factor. Thus, the one factors explained 47.834 percent
of the total variance. All factors’ factor loadings and variance values can be
seen in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2: Factor matrix - quality of work life
Component |
variables |
Component Value |
Factor Name |
|
C1 |
Safety measures (SM) |
0.78 |
|
|
C2 |
Health facilities (HF) |
0.774 |
|
|
C3 |
Welfare facilities
(WF) |
0.731 |
|
|
C4 |
Job security (JS) |
0.728 |
Quality of work life |
|
C5 |
Pay package (PP) |
0.65 |
|
|
C6 |
Transparency
of Grievance Handling |
0.65 |
|
|
C7 |
Lighting facilities
(LF) |
0.619 |
|
|
C8 |
Supervisory support
(SS) |
0.571 |
|
|
Table 3: Total variance explained - Quality of Work
life
Component |
Initial
Eigenvalues |
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings |
||||
Total |
%
of Variance |
Cumulative
% |
Total |
% of
Variance |
Cumulative % |
|
C1 |
3.827 |
47.834 |
47.834 |
3.827 |
47.834 |
47.834 |
C2 |
.892 |
11.147 |
58.981 |
|
|
|
C3 |
.786 |
9.820 |
68.801 |
|
|
|
C4 |
.718 |
8.979 |
77.780 |
|
|
|
C5 |
.616 |
7.704 |
85.484 |
|
|
|
C6 |
.436 |
5.451 |
90.935 |
|
|
|
C7 |
.391 |
4.887 |
95.821 |
|
|
|
C8 |
.334 |
4.179 |
100.000 |
|
|
|
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Accordingly we test the reliability
of the data. It is acceptable (.876). We also calculate the kaiser-meyer-olkin
measure of sampling, result was .856 (>.80) and significance level was p=
.00 (<.05), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value was found 91.275 (df= 45).
Hence, it was acceptable. Accordingly, Factor Analysis refers to the procedure
used for data reduction and summarization.
Thus, factor analysis is most
frequently used to identify small number of factors that may be used to
represent the relationship among the set of inter-related variables. In the
current research, high correlation exists between Safety Measures (SM), Health
Facilities (HF), Welfare Facilities (WF), Job Security (JS), Pay Package (PP),
Transparency of Grievance Handling (TGH), Lighting Facilities (LF), and
Supervisory Support (SS). Thus, we can combine these variables to form a single
factor as the values are greater than 0.5, namely
Quality of work Life. All these deducted factors directly or indirectly are
having strong influence on quality of work life.
5.2.
Factor
analysis to know the variables of Social Quality:
Factor analysis was performed to
identify the key factors of social quality. Factor analysis with principal
component by varimax rotation, that was performed to find out the factor
structure, revealed three factors. The
three factors explained 63.411 percent of the total variance.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling result was .796 (>.75) and
significance level was p= .00 (<.05), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value
was found 451.739 (df= 36). Hence, the result was acceptable. All factors’
factor loadings and variance values can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4: Total variance
explained- Social Quality
Component |
Initial Eigenvalues |
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings |
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings |
||||||
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
|
C1 |
3.567 |
39.636 |
39.636 |
3.567 |
39.636 |
39.636 |
2.261 |
25.122 |
25.122 |
C2 |
1.14 |
12.662 |
52.298 |
1.14 |
12.662 |
52.298 |
1.928 |
21.427 |
46.549 |
C3 |
1 |
11.113 |
63.411 |
1 |
11.113 |
63.411 |
1.518 |
16.861 |
63.411 |
C4 |
0.837 |
9.296 |
72.706 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
C5 |
0.685 |
7.615 |
80.321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
C6 |
0.567 |
6.303 |
86.624 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
C7 |
0.483 |
5.371 |
91.996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
C8 |
0.424 |
4.709 |
96.705 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
C9 |
0.297 |
3.295 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotated Component Matrix has been
generated using varimax with Kaiser normalization procedure. All nine variables
along with the three extracted factors are given below in Table 5.
Table 5: Rotated component matrix- Social Quality
|
|
Component |
Factor Name |
||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
Trust |
C1 |
Trust on Seniors |
0.736 |
|
|
|
C2 |
Treated with Respect |
0.684 |
|
|
|
C3 |
Work load is Properly Distributed |
0.661 |
|
|
|
C4 |
Provided with Proper Training |
0.591 |
|
|
|
C5 |
Work and Family Life Balance |
0.53 |
0.521 |
|
|
C6 |
Best Organization in the Industry |
|
0.882 |
|
Loyalty |
C7 |
Proud to be part of Organization |
|
0.811 |
|
|
C8 |
Work is Challenging |
|
|
0.889 |
Challenging Work |
C9 |
Work is Motivating |
|
|
0.686 |
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with
Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Three factors
found are as: 1) Trust, 2) Loyalty 3) Challenging Work
Three factors have been extracted as a result of factor analysis and they represent social quality in one and another ways. Accordingly, we can further assess the studies of social trust in relation to social quality. Hence the selection of these three factors is fully justified. The cumulative impact of these three factors has directly impact on Social Quality refer to Figure 2.
Figure 2:
Model of Social Quality (with beta values)
5.3.
Multiple
Linear Regression Analysis
Among these three factors identified
in factor analysis, Trust is to be considered more powerful since it projects
maximum variance. In order to test the impact of these variables on quality of
life, multiple linear regression analysis has been employed. All three
variables are considered as independent variable and the social quality is
assumed as dependent variable, which are presented in Table 7.
Table 6 reveals the value of adjusted
R square is .492, which indicates that 49% of variation on quality of work life
is explained by three underlying variables of social quality. It can be seen
from Table 7 that all three independent variables are positively related with
the quality of life.
Table 6: Model summary – Regression analysis
Model |
R |
R
Square |
Adjusted
R Square |
Std.
Error of the Estimate |
Change Statistics |
||||
R
Square Change |
F
Change |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. F Change |
|||||
1 |
.701a |
0.492 |
0.483 |
0.719 |
0.492 |
58.011 |
3 |
180 |
.000 |
a) Predictors:
(Constant), Trust, Loyalty, Challenging work
b)
Dependent Variable: Social Quality
·
Trust
having highest beta coefficient of 0.495 and t value of 9.32 is statistically
significant at .01 level.
·
Loyalty
is positively correlated with quality of life and statistically found to be
significant at .01 level.
·
Challenging
Work, as another important factor of social quality has significant affect on
quality of life and is statistically significant at .01 level.
Hypothesis:
HO: There is no impact of trust,
loyalty and challenging work on quality of life.
HA: There is impact of trust,
loyalty and challenging work on quality of life.
Beta
value is significance at .000 so alternative hypothesis is accepted i.e. there
is impact of trust, loyalty and challenging work on quality of life.
6. CONCLUSION:
Thus,
we can conclude that the Beta value is significance at .000 so alternative
hypotheses is accepted i.e. there is impact of trust, loyalty and challenging
work on social quality. Based on the analysis, the 'Model of Social Quality' (with
significance values) is shown in Figure 2.
The
current study presents a structured approach which represents a correlation
between social quality domains and quality of life. However, trust, loyalty,
and challenging work, as the components of social quality have directly
correlated impact on quality of life. Trust is the major influencer which
impacts the personal and societal levels at work place; it must play a larger
role in the current social quality framework before it can form the basis for empirical
research.
Overall,
the findings of the present study have provided answers to the research
questions. The study boost the concept of social quality. Three major factors
reflected for overall social quality. These are trust, loyalty and challenging
work which outlines the societal environment.
The
variables which reflect the quality of work life may be outlined as Safety
measures (SM), Welfare facilities (WF), Job security (JS), Pay package (PP),
Transparency of Grievance Handling (TGH), Lighting facilities (LF), Supervisory
support (SS) and Health facilities (HF). The research represents a significant
impact of social quality factors on employee work life quality which means
trust on supervisors and colleagues, loyalty with organization, and positive
work challenges significantly associate with employee quality of work life.
The
finding also provide the insights in efforts to improve the social quality and
quality of work life among employees. Trust, loyalty and challenging work have
been indicated by respondents as a significant antecedent to improve quality of
work life.
Finally, a model of quality of life has been developed in a broad manner which may help the working people in understanding how to lead the life and improve the level in work life (Figure 3).
Figure
3: Model of Quality of Life
Based
on the result drawn from research a model of quality of life can be proposed
as:
1. Quality
of life has two major aspects: a) social quality and, b) quality of work life.
2. The
factors involved in quality of life are: a) societal factors as trust, loyalty
and positive work challenge, and b) work life factors as safety measures, welfare facilities,
health facilities, job security, and pay package,
transparency of grievance handling, lighting facilities, and supervisory
support.
So,
overall quality of life can be represented as an integration of several
societal and individual indicators which help the person in leading the life.
7. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH
Several
limitations exist in the present study that may limit the scope of research.
First, the sample of this study was derived from employees’ of public sector in
India. The overall findings of this study are encouraging but the findings of
the study cannot be generalized until we include private sector. The variations
in the social quality are explained less than fifty percent with the help of
trust, loyalty and challenging work. The future research should explore more
antecedents of social quality and quality of work life by including private
sectors, enabling the comparative analysis also.
REFERENCES
AKDERE, M. (2006) Improving Quality of Work-Life:
Implications for Human Resources. The Business Review, Cambridge,
v. 6, n. 1, December, p. 173-177.
ANDERSON, J. C.; NARUS, J. A. (1984) A Model of the
Distributor's Perspective of Distributor-Manufacturer Working Relationships, Journal of Marketing, v. 48, n. 4, p.
62-74
BECK, W.; L. J. G.; MAESEN V. D.; THOMESE, F.;
WALKER, A. (2001). Social Quality: A
Vision for Europe. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
BECK, W. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London:
Sage Publications.
BECK, W. (2005) World Risk Society.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
BOHNKE, P. (2005) First European Quality of Life Survey: Life Satisfaction, happiness
and sense of belonging. Dublin, European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions,
CUMMINS, D. A. (1995) On the trail of the goal
standard for subjective well-being, Social
Indicators Research, v. 35, p. 200.
CUMMINS, D. A. (1998) The second approximation to an international standard for life
satisfaction, Social Indicators Research", v. 43, p. 307–334.
ECKERSLEY, R. (2000) The state and the future of
nations: implications of subjective measures of personal and social quality of
life, Social Indicators Research, v.
52, p. 33–27.
ECKERSLEY, R. (Ed.) (1998) Measuring Progress: is life getting better?, Collingwood Australia,
CSINO Publishing.
FAHEY, T.; MAITRE, B.; WHELAN, C. (2004) Quality of Life in Europe, Dublin,
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
GIDDENS, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
GIDDENS, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
GIDDENS, A. (1998) The Third Way: Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
GRONROOS, C. (2000) Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship
Management Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
HAKANSSON, H.; SNEHOTA, I. (1995) Developing Relationships in Business
Networks, Routledge, London.
HALSTEAD, J. (1998) The science and politics of new measures of progress. A United States
perspective, in Eckersley, R. (Ed.) Measuring Progress. Is life getting
better? Collingwood, Australia, CSINO Publishers.
HAMILTON, C. (1998) Measuring changes in economic welfare. the genuine progress indicator
for Australia, in Eckersley, R. (Ed.) Measuring progress. Is life getting
better? Collingwood Australia, CSINO Publishers.
HAVLOVIC, S. J. (1991) Quality of Work Life and
Human Resource Outcomes. Industrial Relations, v. 30, n. 3, Fall. p. 469-479
LANE, ROBERT E. (1996) Quality of Life and Quality of Persons: A New Role for Government.
In: A. Offer. Ed. In Pursuit of the Quality of Life. New York: Oxford
University Press, p. 256-293
LAU, R. S. M.; MAY, B. E. (1998) A Win-Win Paradigm
for Quality of Work Life and Business Performance. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, v. 9, n. 3, p. 211-226.
LUHMANN, N. (2005) Risk: a Sociological Theory. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
LUHMANN, N. (1979) Trust and Power: Two Works by Niklas Luhmann. Brisbane:
John Wiley and Sons.
MAESEN V. D., L. J. G.; WALKER, A.; KEIGER, M.
(2005). European Network Indicators of
Social Quality: Social Quality: the Final Report. The Hague: European
Foundation on Social Quality.
MAESEN V. D., L. J. G.; WALKER, A. (2005).
“Indicators of Social Quality: Outcomes of the European Scientific Network,” European Journal of Social Quality, v.
3, n. 1-2, p. 8- 24.
MEYER, S. B.; WARD, P. R. (2008) Do Your Patients
Trust You? A Sociological Trust, Social Quality and Wellbeing Understanding of
the Implications of Patient Mistrust in Healthcare Professionals. Australasian
Medical Journal, v. 1,
n. 1, p. 1-12.
MEYER, S. B.; WARD, P. R.; COVENEY, J.; ROGERS, W.
(2008b) Trust in the Health System: an Analysis and Extension of the Social
Theories of Giddens and Luhmann. Health Sociology Review, v. 17, n. 2, p. 177-186.
MEYER, S. B.; WARD, P. R.; COVENEY, J.; ROGERS, W.
(2008a). Thinking in Synergy Conference, Operationalising Trust in Food, Food Systems and Dietary
Recommendations: What can Social Theory Add? Adelaide, SA: Flinders
University.
MIRVIS,
P.; LAWLER, E. (1984). Accounting for the quality of work life. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, v.
5, p. 197-212.
MORGAN, R. M.; HUNT, S. D. (1994) The
commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, v. 58, n. 3, p. 20-38.
NOLL, H.-H. (2002) Towards an European system of
social indicators: theoretical framework and system architecture, Social Indicators Research, n. 58, p.
547–584.
NOLL, H.-H. (2004), The European System of Social
Indicators: a tool for welfare measurement and monitoring social change,
Germany 2–4 July, Paper presented to the
International Workshop on Researching Well-being in Developing Countries.
OLIVER RICHARD, L.
(1999) Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal
of Marketing, Special Issue 1999, p.
33-44
PUSEY, M. (1998) The impact of economic restructuring on women and families: preliminary
findings from the middle Australia project, Australian Quarterly, p. 18–27.
RAPLEY, M. (2003) Quality of Life Research. A critical introduction, London, Thousand
Oaks, New Delhi, Sage.
SCHURR, P. H.; OZANNE, J. L. (1985) Influences on
exchange processes: Buyers’ perceptions of a seller’s trustworthiness and
bargaining toughness, Journal of
Consumer Research, n. 11, p. 939-53
SCOBEL, D. N. (1975) Doing away with the Factory
Blues. Harvard Business Review, n. 53, Nov-Dec., p. 132-142.
SEN A. (2003) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
SEN, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
STRAW, R. J.; HECKSCHER, C. C. (1984) QWL: new
working relationships in the communication industry. Labor Studies Journal.
n. 8 winter, p. 261-274.
VAN DER MAESEN, L.; WALKER, M.; KEIZER, M. (2002) Social Quality. The Final Report.
European Newwork of Indicators of Social Quality, Amsterdam, European
Foundation for Social Quality.
WALTON, R. E. (1974) QWL indicators: prospects and problems. In Portigal, A.H. (Eds.).
Measuring the quality of working life. A
symposium on Social Indicators of Working Life. Ottawa, March, 19-20.
WARD, P. (2006) Trust, Reflexivity and Dependence:
A ‘Social Systems Theory’ Analysis in/of Medicine. European Journal of Social
Quality, v. 6, n. 2,
p. 121-133.
WARD, P.; COATES, A. (2006) We Shed Tears, But
There is No One There to Wipe Them Up For Us: Narratives of (Mis) trust in a
Materially Deprived Community.” Health:
An Interdisciplinary Journal for the
Social Study of Health, Medicine and Trust, Social Quality and Wellbeing Illness, v. 10,
n. 3, p. 283-301.
WOOLTHUIS, R. K.; HILLEBRAND, B.; NOOTEBOOM, B.
(2002) Trust and formal control in inter
organizational relationships, ERIM Report Series Research in Management,
Rotterdam, p. 1-18.
YOUNG, L. C.; WILKINSON, I. F. (1989) The Role of Trust and Co-operation in Marketing Channels: A Preliminary Study, European Journal of Marketing, v. 23, n. 2, p.109 – 122.