Printer Friendly

Relationship between job satisfaction and quality of work life of employees in service sector.

Introduction

Human resource is considered to be the most powerful and valuable asset for any organization. It may be noted that human resources should be utilized to the maximum possible extent in order to achieve individual and organizational objectives. It is thus the employee's performance, which ultimately decides the attainment of goals. The success and growth of any organization whatever may be the character, depends upon effective use of its human resources. The problem of handling human resources is quite different from that of physical material and financial resources because the former is not standardized, interchangeable, or passive always. Thus the performance of these factors is to a large extent influenced by motivation and job satisfaction.

The study of job satisfaction is very much essential to every management comes to know the area of satisfaction and dissatisfaction and satisfied and dissatisfied group of persons. Based on this, the study conducted to identify the relationship between QWL and job satisfaction of employees. The objective of the study was the nature of relationship between QWL and Job satisfaction of office and field staff of Service sector company--Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). The sample size of the study comprised of 300 employees from office and field staff category.

Analytical Framework

There are 13 statements identified as those which could shed light on the quality of work life of the employee. Each of the statements was measured with the help of the respondents' responses by adopting a five-point scaling technique. Further, an attempt has been made to compare each statement with different levels of job satisfaction. The mean score value of each statement has been used for the purpose.

In order to study the internal consistency of the thirteen factors of the quality of work life, the standard deviation technique has been used. Internal consistency means the stability of various factors within the group. In order to examine the difference in quality of the work life among the levels of job satisfaction, the Z-test has been used. Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient was determined to find the relationship between the quality of work life and job satisfaction. The correlation matrix has been formulated to understand the inter-correlations among the major variables such as age, experience, education, income, job satisfaction and quality of work life. The two-way ANOVA has been used to find the variation in job satisfaction among employees.

Relationship between QWL and level of job satisfaction--office staff

The mean score value of different levels of job satisfaction of the employees in the category of office staff are shown in Table 1.

From Table 1, it is seen that the mean score values are high for "participative management", "seniority and merit in promotion" and "organizational health programs" with high level of job satisfaction. The mean score values are high for "participative management", "satisfactory working environment" and "recognition" in the case of medium level of job satisfaction. In the case of low level of job satisfaction, the high mean score values are observed for "recognition", "alternative work schedule" and "satisfactory working environment". It could be seen that the overall quality of work life for high level of job satisfaction is 3.05, for medium level it is 2.96 and for low level of job satisfaction it is 2.70.

Consistency in perception of QWL with different levels of job satisfaction--office staff

The internal consistency of the quality of work life factors with level of job satisfaction for the employees working in office is presented in Table 2. It shows that in the case of employees working in office with high level of job satisfaction, the high level of internal consistency for quality of work life is observed in the factors "recognition" and "satisfactory working environment". In the case of medium level of job satisfaction, there is a high level of internal consistency of the quality of work life factors are "minimizing occupational stress" and "congenial relationship between clerks and officers" respectively. Under the low level of job satisfaction, "participative management" and "recognition" show a high level of internal consistency. It is understood that the overall quality of work life is 3.298 in high level of job satisfaction, 2.691 in medium level of job satisfaction and 2.163 in the case of low level of job satisfaction respectively.

Variation in QWL with different levels of job satisfaction of office staff

Ho1: There is no significant difference in quality of work life among the employees with high and medium level of job satisfaction

From Table 3, it is observed that the value of the Z-test for the quality of work life between high and medium levels of job satisfaction is 1.08. It is statistically not significant at 5 per cent level. Thus the null hypothesis is accepted. There is no significant difference in the quality of work life between high and medium levels of job satisfaction.

Ho2: There is no significant difference in quality of work life among the employees with medium and low level of job satisfaction

Table 4 shows that the Z-test for quality of work life between medium and low levels of job satisfaction is 3.19. It is statistically significant at 5 per cent level. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference in quality of work life between medium and low levels of job satisfaction.

Ho3: There is no significant difference in quality of work life among the employees with high and low level of job satisfaction

It is seen from Table 5 that the Z-test of quality of work life between high and low level of job satisfaction is 8.63. It is statistically significant at 5 per cent level. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence, there is a significant difference in quality of work life between high and low levels of job satisfaction of office staff.

Correlation between QWL and job satisfaction of office staff

Here to examine the correlation between quality of work life and job satisfaction of office staff. For this, Karl Pearsons' correlation coefficients were computed for employees working in office.

To find the relationship between quality of work life and employees' job satisfaction, Karl Pearsons' coefficient correlation was used. It is found to be positive (p=0.006) and it indicates that a positive relationship exists between quality of work life and job satisfaction. To find the significance of this relation, the r-value of this correlation is determined which comes out to be 0.78. It shows that the relationship is significant at the five per cent level. Thus, it may be concluded that quality of work life has a significant impact on the job satisfaction of the employees working in the category of office staff.

Relationship among the factors of QWL for office staff

To analyze the relationship among the factors of quality of work life for office staff, Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient was worked out separately for high, medium and low levels of job satisfaction.

It is seen from Table 6 that in the case of high level of job satisfaction, the factor "pay and its stability" is positively correlated with the factors "minimizing occupational stress." The factor "minimizing occupational stress" is positively correlated with the factors namely, "alternative work schedules", "promotional opportunities" and "satisfactory working environment". The factor "organizational health programs" is positively correlated with "participative management" and "adequacy of resources". The factor "alternative work schedules" is positively correlated with "recognition", "congenial relationship between office and field staff" and "job security". The factor "participative management" is positively correlated with "grievance redressal procedures" and "overall quality of work life", and the factor "recognition" is positively correlated with "seniority and merit in promotion" respectively.

Table 7 shows job satisfaction in the medium level, "pay and its stability" is positively correlated with the factor "organizational health programs". The factor "organizational health programs" is positively correlated with the factor "alternative work schedules" and "promotional opportunities". The factor "alternative work schedule" is positively correlated with "participative management" and "grievance redressal procedures". The factor "participative management" is positively correlated with "recognition", "congenial relationship between office and field staff", "grievance redressal procedures", "adequacy of resources" and "satisfactory working conditions"; the factor "recognition" is positively correlated with the factor "job security"; the factor "adequacy of resources" is positively correlated with the factor "seniority and merit in promotion" respectively. The factor "promotional opportunities" is positively correlated with "overall quality of work life."

Table 9 indicates that there was a significant positive correlation between age and income, experience and income, quality of work life and job satisfaction.

From Table 8, it is observed that in the case of low level of job satisfaction, the factor "pay and its stability" is positively correlated with "satisfactory working environment"; the factor "minimizing occupational stress" is positively correlated with "organisational health programs"; the factor "organisational health programs" is positively correlated with "alternative work schedules" and "congenial relationship between office and field staff'; the factor "alternative work schedules" is positively correlated with "participative management"; the factor "participative management" is positively correlated with "recognition", "adequacy of resources", "seniority and merit in promotion" and "promotional opportunities"; the factor "recognition" is positively correlated with "job security"; the factor "congenial relationship between office and field staff" is positively correlated with "grievance redressal procedure" and the factor "seniority and merit in promotion" is positively correlated with "overall quality of work life".

Relationship between QWL and level of job satisfaction--field staff

From Table 10, it can observed that in the case of high level of job satisfaction the mean score values are high for "participative management", "adequacy of resources" and "seniority and merit in promotion" for the employees working in the field. The mean score values are high for "grievance redressal procedures", "congenial relationship between office and field staff" and "minimizing occupational stress" in the case of medium level of job satisfaction. In the case of low level of job satisfaction high mean score values are observed for "adequacy of resources", "participative management" and "congenial relationship between office and field staff". It could be seen that the overall quality of work life for high level of job satisfaction is 2.61, for medium level it is 2.83 and for low level of job satisfaction it is 3.13.

Consistency in Perception of QWL with different levels of job satisfaction of field staff

From Table 11, it is seen that in the case of employees working in the field with high level of job satisfaction, a high level of internal consistency of the quality of work life is observed in the factors namely, "satisfactory working environment" and "pay and its stability". In the case of medium level of job satisfaction, there is a high level of internal consistency of the quality of work life factors "minimizing occupational stress" and "job security". Under the low level of job satisfaction, "recognition" and "promotional opportunity" show a high level of internal consistency. The internal consistency of the quality of work life for overall quality of work life is high in low level of job satisfaction which is 2.269 compared to medium and high levels of job satisfaction which are 2.826 and 3.421 respectively.

Variations in QWL with different levels of job satisfaction of field staff

Ho4: There is no significant difference in quality of work life among the employees with high and medium level of job satisfaction

Table 12 shows that the Z-test for quality of work life between high and medium level of job satisfaction is 4.12. It is statistically significant at 5 per cent level. Thus the established null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference in quality of work life among the employees with high and medium levels of job satisfaction.

Ho1: There is no significant difference in quality of work life among the employees with medium and low level of job satisfaction

Table 13 shows that the Z-test for quality of work life between medium and low level of job satisfaction is 3.29. It is statistically significant at 5 per cent level. Thus the established null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference in quality of work life between medium and low levels of job satisfaction.

Ho1: There is no significant difference in quality of work life among the employees with high and low level of job satisfaction

According to Table 14, the Z-test for quality of work life between high and low levels of job satisfaction is 8.75. It is statistically significant at the 5 per cent level. The established null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference in quality of work life between high and low levels of job satisfaction.

Correlation between QWL and job satisfaction of field staff

To find the relationship between quality of work life and employees' job satisfaction, Karl Pearson's coefficient of correlation was used. It is found to be positive (p = 0.007). It indicates that a positive relationship exists between quality of work life and job satisfaction. To find the significance of this relationship the r-value of this correlation is determined which comes to be 0.85. It shows that the relationship is significant at five per cent level. Thus, it may be concluded that the quality of work life has a significant impact on the job satisfaction of the employees.

Relationship among the factors of QWL for field staff

Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient was worked out separately for high, medium and low levels of job satisfaction. According to Table 15, it is clear that in the case of high level of job satisfaction, the factor "pay and its stability" is positively correlated with "recognition", the factor "minimizing occupational stress" is positively correlated with 'seniority and merit in promotion"; the factor "alternative work schedule" is positively correlated with "grievance redressal procedures"; the factor "participative management" is positively correlated with "job security"; the factor "recognition" is positively correlated with "promotional opportunities"; the factor "congenial relationship between office and field staff" is positively correlated with "satisfactory working environment" and the factor "seniority and merit in promotion" is positively correlated with "job security".

From Table 16, it is seen that in the case of medium level of job satisfaction, the factor "pay and its stability" is positively correlated with "adequacy of resources", "organisational health programs" is positively correlated with the factors "recognition", "promotional opportunities" and overall quality of work life; the factor "alternative work schedules" is positively correlated with "recognition" and "satisfactory working environment"; the factor "participative management" is positively correlated with "congenial relationship between office and field staff', the factor "recognition" is positively correlated with "grievance redressal procedure" and the factor "adequacy of resources" is positively correlated with the factor "promotional opportunities".

Table 17 shows that in the case of low level of job satisfaction, "pay and its stability" is positively correlated with the factor "alternative work schedules"; the factor "organisational health programs" is positively correlated with "grievance redressal procedures" and "overall quality of work life".

The factor "alternative work schedules" is positively correlated with the factor "job security"; the factor "participative management" is positively correlated with the factors namely "recognition" and "promotional opportunities". The factor "congenial relationship between office and field staff' is positively correlated with "promotional opportunities". The factor "grievance redressal" is positively correlated with "satisfactory working environment and the factor "seniority and merit in promotion" is positively correlated with "job security" respectively. According to Table 18, there was significant positive correlation between age and income, quality of work life and job satisfaction and negative correlation between experience and education.

Variations in job satisfaction and QWL among office staff and field staff

To analyze the variations in quality of work life and job satisfaction between the employees working in the categories of office and field staff, Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) has been computed and the results are given in Table 19. It has been observed from the table that, the two-way interaction was not significant, both the main effects (that is, the high, medium and low levels of job satisfaction and categories--office and field) were significant. The significant results suggest that the respondents' perception of job satisfaction differs according to different levels of job satisfaction and categories of employees.

Findings

The employees were found with high level of job satisfaction, quality of work life in "participative management" and "seniority and merit in promotion" and in case of medium level of job satisfaction mean score values are high for "participative management", "satisfactory working environment, and in the case of low level of job satisfaction, high mean score values are observed for "recognition" and "alternative work schedule." The thirteen identified variables are correlated and statistically significant with both the categories of employees (office and field staff). Age with income and QWL with job satisfaction are positively correlated both office and field staff. Further experience with income is positively correlated for office staff. For field staff, experience negatively correlated with education. The two-way ANOVA result suggests that the respondents' perception of job satisfaction differs according to different levels of job satisfaction (high, medium and low levels) and different categories (office and field staff) of employees. Hence there is a strong relationship between QWL and job satisfaction of both office and field staff of TNEB.

H. RAMESH BABU (1)

M. RAMESH (2)

(1) Departament of Business Administration, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli

(2) Dept. of Business Administration, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar
TABLE 1. MEAN SCORE VALUES OF QWL WITH
LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION--OFFICE STAFF

No.   Factors                                Level of job
                                             satisfaction

                                         High   Medium   Low

1     Pay and its stability              2.26    1.89    2.29

2     Minimizing occupational stress     2.24    2.45    2.64

3     Organizational health programs     3.31    3.26    3.11

4     Alternative work schedules         3.11    3.01    3.21

5     Participative management           4.24    4.10    3.15

6     Recognition                        3.26    3.36    3.29

7     Congenial relationship between     2.41    3.31    2.64
      office and field staff

8     Grievance redressal procedure      3.21    3.11    2.26

9     Adequacy of resources              3.01    3.06    3.01

10    Seniority and merit in promotion   3.43    3.00    2.61

11    Job security                       2.96    1.46    1.11

12    Promotional opportunities          3.16    3.11    2.64

13    Satisfactory working environment   3.06    3.46    3.20

      Overall quality of work life       3.05    2.96    2.70

TABLE 2. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF QWL WITH
LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION--OFFICE STAFF

No.   Factors                                 Level of job
                                              satisfaction
                                            (Coefficient of
                                             variation in %)

                                         High    Medium    Low

1     Pay and its stability              0.61     0.54    0.45

2     Minimizing occupational stress     0.67     0.42    0.51

3     Organizational health programs     0.93     0.83    0.49

4     Alternative work schedules         0.86     0.69    0.51

5     Participative management           0.63     0.71    0.36

6     Recognition                        0.54     0.66    0.39

7     Congenial relationship between     0.69     0.51    0.43
      office and field staff

8     Grievance redressal procedure      0.71     0.68    0.66

9     Adequacy of resources              0.66     0.64    0.63

10    Seniority and merit in promotion   0.73     0.64    0.55

11    Job security                       0.66     0.71    0.53

12    Promotional opportunities          0.63     0.53    0.61

13    Satisfactory working environment   0.56     0.63    0.59

      Overall quality of work life       3.298   2.691    2.163

TABLE 3. DIFFERENCE IN QWL BETWEEN HIGH AND
MEDIUM LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION--OFFICE STAFF

Variables                      Mean score            Z-test

                       High    Medium   Difference
                       level   level

Quality of work life   3.05     2.96       0.09      1.08 *

Note: * Indicates statistically not significant at 5 per cent
level

TABLE 4. DIFFERENCES IN QWL BETWEEN MEDIUM
AND LOW LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION--OFFICE STAFF

Variables              Mean score                              Z-test

                       Medium level   Low level   Difference

Quality of work life       2.96         2.70         0.26      3.19 *

Note: * Indicates statistically significant at
5 per cent level

TABLE 5. DIFFERENCE IN QWL BETWEEN HIGH
AND LOW LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION--OFFICE STAFF

Variables              Mean score                            Z-test

                       High level   Low level   Difference

Quality of work life     3.05.        2.70         0.35      8.63 *

Note: * Indicates statistically significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 6. CORRELATION AMONG THE FACTORS OF QWL WITH
HIGH LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION OF OFFICE STAFF

No.   Factors                    1        2        3        4

1     Pay and its stability      --
2     Minimizing               0.63 *     --
        occupational stress
3     Organizational health     0.34     0.29      --
        programs
4     Alternative work          0.45    0.61 *    0.26      --
        schedules
5     Participative             0.39     0.34    0.59 *    0.35
        management
6     Recognition               0.29     0.31     0.46    0.64*
7     Congenial relationship    0.39     0.41     0.46    0.59*
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal       0.29     0.41     0.33     0.46
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources     0.28     0.13    0.61 *    0.39
10    Seniority and merit       0.39     0.41     0.36     0.33
        in promotion
11    Job security              0.31     0.32     0.41    0.55 *
12    Promotional               0.33    0.61 *    0.41     0.49
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working      0.43    0.65 *    0.42     0.49
        environment
14    Overall quality           0.43     0.36     0.35     0.45
        of work life

No.   Factors                    5        6        7       8

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing
        occupational stress
3     Organizational health
        programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative              --
        management
6     Recognition               0.31      --
7     Congenial relationship    0.31     0.30      --
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal      0.68 *    0.31     0.41     --
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources     0.26     0.21     0.29    0.38
10    Seniority and merit       0.32    0.62 *   0.62 *   0.29
        in promotion
11    Job security              0.43     0.41     0.49    0.43
12    Promotional               0.43     0.40     0.41    0.39
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working      0.49     0.41     0.43    0.31
        environment
14    Overall quality          0.61 *    0s 6     0.45    0.46
        of work life

No.   Factors                   9      10     11

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing
        occupational stress
3     Organizational health
        programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative
        management
6     Recognition
7     Congenial relationship
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources     --
10    Seniority and merit      0.19    --
        in promotion
11    Job security             0.26   0.19    --
12    Promotional              0.38   0.31   0.41
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working     0.31   0.39   0.41
        environment
14    Overall quality          0.41   0.19   0.16
        of work life

No.   Factors                   12     13    14

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing
        occupational stress
3     Organizational health
        programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative
        management
6     Recognition
7     Congenial relationship
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources
10    Seniority and merit
        in promotion
11    Job security
12    Promotional               --
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working     0.41    --
        environment
14    Overall quality          0.21   0.46   --
        of work life

Note: * Indicates the co-efficient is statistically
significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 7. CORRELATION AMONG THE FACTORS OF QWL WITH MEDIUM
LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION OF OFFICE STAFF

No.   Factors                     1       2       3        4

1     Pay and its stability       --
2     Minimizing occupational    0.39     --
        stress
3     Organizational            0.53 *   0.39     --
        health programs
4     Alternative work           0.31    0.41   0.53 *     --
        schedules
5     Participative              0.36    0.39    0.43    0.59*
        management
6     Recognition                0.41    0.49    0.43     0.41
7     Congenial relationship     0.36    0.31    0.41     0.39
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal        0.30    0.31    0.29    0.49 *
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources      0.49    0.39    0.33     0.41
10    Seniority and merit        0.41    0.49    0.36     0.38
        in promotion
11    Job security               0.27    0.29    0.21     0.37
12    Promotional                0.39    0.41   0.63 *    0.46
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working       0.41    0.43    0.45     0.49
        environment
14    Overall quality            0.39    0.57    0.54     0.39
        of work life

No.   Factors                     5        6       7      8

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing occupational
        stress
3     Organizational
        health programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative               --
        management
6     Recognition               0.69 *     --
7     Congenial relationship    0.56 *    0.33     --
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal       0.68 *    0.41    0.46    --
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources     0.61 *    0.41    0.39   0.41
10    Seniority and merit        0.33     0.34    0.35   0.36
        in promotion
11    Job security               0.39    0.67 *   0.19   0.36
12    Promotional                0.43     0.33    0.32   0.33
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working      0.55 *    0.49    0.36   0.34
        environment
14    Overall quality            0.41     0.42    0.46   0.45
        of work life

No.   Factors                     9       10     11

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing occupational
        stress
3     Organizational
        health programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative
        management
6     Recognition
7     Congenial relationship
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources       --
10    Seniority and merit       0.64 *    --
        in promotion
11    Job security               0.40    0.31    --
12    Promotional                0.30    0.31   0.33
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working       0.31    0.31   0.33
        environment
14    Overall quality            0.46    0.14   0.15
        of work life

No.   Factors                     12      13    14

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing occupational
        stress
3     Organizational
        health programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative
        management
6     Recognition
7     Congenial relationship
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources
10    Seniority and merit
        in promotion
11    Job security
12    Promotional                 --
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working       0.41     --
        environment
14    Overall quality           0.55 *   0.26   --
        of work life

Note: * Indicates the co-efficient is statistically
significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 8. CORRELATION AMONG THE FACTORS OF QWL WITH
LOW LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION OF OFFICE STAFF

No.   Factors                    1       2        3        4

1     Pay and its stability     --
2     Minimizing               0.13      --
        occupational stress
3     Organizational           0.19    0.51 *     --
        health programs
4     Alternative work         0.41     0.36    0.55 *     --
        schedules
5     Participative            0.46     0.36     0.26    0.59 *
        management
6     Recognition              0.39     0.41     0.46     0.49
7     Congenial relationship   0.38     0.43    0.63 *    0.43
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal      0.33     0.39     0.34     0.31
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources    0.43     0.31     0.41     0.45
10    Seniority and merit      0.21     0.31     0.21     0.16
        in promotion
11    Job security             0.33     0.36     0.33     0.34
12    Promotional              0.39     0.33     0.35     0.33
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working     0.61*    0.19     0.29     0.41
        environment
14    Overall quality of       0.53     0.51     0.38     0.41
        work life

No.   Factors                    5        6        7       8

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing
        occupational stress
3     Organizational
        health programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative              --
        management
6     Recognition              0.61 *     --
7     Congenial relationship    0.39     0.41      --
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal       0.34     0.35    0.65 *    --
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources    0.66 *    0.41     0.40    0.50
10    Seniority and merit      0.79 *    0.18     0.11    0.15
        in promotion
11    Job security              0.35    0.53 *    0.34    0.35
12    Promotional              0.69 *    0.19     0.15    0.19
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working      0.39     0.38     0.36    0.31
        environment
14    Overall quality of        0.38     0.39     0.41    0.46
        work life

No.   Factors                   9       10      11

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing
        occupational stress
3     Organizational
        health programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative
        management
6     Recognition
7     Congenial relationship
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources     --
10    Seniority and merit      0.21     --
        in promotion
11    Job security             0.31    0.31     --
12    Promotional              0.18    0.21    0.21
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working     0.15    0.15    0.31
        environment
14    Overall quality of       0.36   0.55 *   0.11
        work life

No.   Factors                   12     13    14

1     Pay and its stability
2     Minimizing
        occupational stress
3     Organizational
        health programs
4     Alternative work
        schedules
5     Participative
        management
6     Recognition
7     Congenial relationship
        between office and
        field staff
8     Grievance redressal
        procedure
9     Adequacy of resources
10    Seniority and merit
        in promotion
11    Job security
12    Promotional               --
        opportunities
13    Satisfactory working     0.10    --
        environment
14    Overall quality of       0.15   0.43   --
        work life

Note: * Indicates the co-efficient is statistically
significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 9. INTER-CORRELATION AMONG SOME
MAJOR VARIABLES--OFFICE STAFF

Variables              1        2        3       4       5      6

Age (1)                --
Experience (2)        0.79      --
Education (3)         0.09    -0.16     --
Income (4)            0.46 *   0.79 *   0.15     --
Quality of           -0.29    -0.35    -0.26   -0.16     --
  work life (5)
Job                  -0.23    -0.29    -0.21   -0.15   0.99 *   --
  satisfaction (6)

Note: * Indicates the significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 10. MEAN SCORE VALUES OF QWL WITH
LEVELS OF JOB SATISFACTION--FIELD STAFF

No.   Factors                                Levels of job
                                             satisfaction

                                         High   Medium   Low

1     Pay and its stability              1.36    2.99    3.41

2     Minimizing occupational stress     1.46    3.53    2.75

3     Organizational health programs     2.41    2.36    3.26

4     Alternative work schedules         2.27    1.19    3.63

5     Participative management           5.34    3.29    3.98

6     Recognition                        1.22    2.46    3.43

7     Congenial relationship between     2.51    3.72    3.75
      office and field staff

8     Grievance redressal procedure      3.39    4.26    2.34

9     Adequacy of resources              4.11    2.73    4.16

10    Seniority and merit in promotion   3.54    3.16    2.79

11    Job security                       2.99    2.56    1.26

12    Promotional opportunities          2.26    2.27    2.74

13    Satisfactory working environment   1.16    2.29    3.26

      Overall quality of work life       2.61    2.83    3.13

TABLE 11. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF QWL WITH
LEVELS OF JOB SATISFACTION--FIELD STAFF

No.   Factors                                 Level of job
                                              satisfaction
                                            (Coefficient of
                                             variation in %)

                                         High    Medium    Low

1     Pay and its stability              0.45     0.73    0.56

2     Minimizing occupational stress     0.78     0.43    0.66

3     Organizational health programs     0.98     0.86    0.71

4     Alternative work schedules         0.99     0.81    0.66

5     Participative management           0.63     0.86    0.55

6     Recognition                        0.96     0.66    0.41

7     Congenial relationship between     0.98     0.69    0.56
      office and field staff

8     Grievance redressal procedure      0.86     0.83    0.76

9     Adequacy of resources              0.93     0.75    0.75

10    Seniority and merit in promotion   0.73     0.79    0.66

11    Job security                       0.76     0.55    0.73

12    Promotional opportunities          0.75     0.69    0.49

13    Satisfactory working environment   0.39     0.78    0.99

      Overall quality of work life       3.421   2.826    2.269

TABLE 12. DIFFERENCE IN QWL BETWEEN HIGH AND MEDIUM LEVEL OF
JOB SATISFACTION--FIELD STAFF

Variables                      Mean score            Z-test

                       High    Medium   Difference
                       level   level

Quality of work life   2.61     2.83       0.22      4.12 *

Note: * Indicates statistically significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 13. DIFFERENCE IN QWL BETWEEN MEDIUM AND LOW LEVEL OF JOB
SATISFACTION--FIELD STAFF

Variables                       Mean score           Z-test

                       Medium    Low    Difference
                       level    level

Quality of work life    2.83    3.13       0.30      3.29 *

Note: * Indicates statistically significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 14. DIFFERENCE IN QWL BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW LEVEL OF JOB
SATISFACTION--FIELD STAFF

Variables                      Mean score           Z-test

                       High     Low    Difference
                       level   level

Quality of work life   2.61    3.13       0.52      8.75 *

Note: * Indicates statistically significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 15. CORRELATION AMONG THE FACTORS OF QWL WITH HIGH LEVEL
OF JOB SATISFACTION OF FIELD STAFF

No.   Factors                    1        2       3        4

1     Pay and its stability      --

2     Minimizing                0.41      --
      occupational stress

3     Organizational            0.44     0.39     --
      health programs

4     Alternative work          0.49     0.48    0.37     --
      schedules

5     Participative             0.49     0.44    0.11    0.28
      management

6     Recognition              0.61 *    0.42    0.49    0.33

7     Congenial relationship    0.48     0.43    0.48    0.38
      between office and
      field staff

8     Grievance redressal       0.33     0.43    0.44   0.51 *
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources     0.33     0.26    0.39    0.43

10    Seniority and merit       0.41    0.52 *   0.39    0.43
      in promotion

11    Job security              0.41     0.39    0.49    0.40

12    Promotional               0.41     0.28    0.45    0.51
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working      0.36     0.26    0.48    0.48
      environment

14    Overall quality           0.46     0.39    0.46    0.46
      of work life

No.   Factors                    5        6        7       8

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational
      health programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative              --
      management

6     Recognition               0.21      --

7     Congenial relationship    0.33     0.34      --
      between office and
      field staff

8     Grievance redressal       0.24     0.33     0.46     --
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources     0.39     0.22     0.32    0.41

10    Seniority and merit       0.33     0.45     0.46    0.39
      in promotion

11    Job security             0.59 *    0.48     0.44    0.41

12    Promotional               0.44    0.62 *    0.46    0.49
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working      0.44     0.42    0.66 *   0.41
      environment

14    Overall quality           0.11     0.49     0.48    0.44
      of work life

No.   Factors                   9       10      11

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational
      health programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative
      management

6     Recognition

7     Congenial relationship
      between office and
      field staff

8     Grievance redressal
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources     --

10    Seniority and merit      0.21     --
      in promotion

11    Job security             0.29   0.57 *    --

12    Promotional              0.48    0.33    0.39
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working     0.39    0.33    0.43
      environment

14    Overall quality          0.21    0.41    0.19
      of work life

No.   Factors                   12     13    14

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational
      health programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative
      management

6     Recognition

7     Congenial relationship
      between office and
      field staff

8     Grievance redressal
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources

10    Seniority and merit
      in promotion

11    Job security

12    Promotional               --
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working     0.49    --
      environment

14    Overall quality          0.21   0.44   --
      of work life

Note: * Indicates the co-efficient is statistically
significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 16. CORRELATION AMONG THE FACTORS OF QWL WITH MEDIUM
LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION OF FIELD STAFF

No.   Factors                    1       2       3        4

1     Pay and its stability      --

2     Minimizing                0.41     --
      occupational stress

3     Organizational health     0.40    0.41     --
      programs

4     Alternative work          0.41    0.48    0.35      --
      schedules

5     Participative             0.46    0.49    0.32     0.31
      management

6     Recognition               0.46    0.41   0.58 *   0.43 *

7     Congenial relationship    0.46    0.45    0.44     0.49
      between office and
      field staff

8     Grievance redressal       0.32    0.33    0.32     0.28
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources    0.57 *   0.49    0.35     0.43

10    Seniority and merit       0.46    0.48    0.49     0.48
      in promotion

11    Job security              0.38    0.31    0.29     0.49

12    Promotional               0.43    0.43   0.69 *    0.42
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working      0.48    0.41    0.44    0.57 *
      environment

14    Overall quality of        0.49    0.38   0.84 *    0.41
      work life

No.   Factors                    5        6       7      8

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational health
      programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative              --
      management

6     Recognition               0.21      --

7     Congenial relationship   0.61 *    0.45     --
      between office and
      field staff

8     Grievance redressal       0.49    0.61 *   0.48    --
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources     0.36     0.44    0.49   0.50

10    Seniority and merit       0.33     0.34    0.45   0.46
      in promotion

11    Job security              0.46     0.38    0.18   0.57

12    Promotional               0.44     0.39    0.31   0.36
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working      0.41     0.41    0.46   0.31
      environment

14    Overall quality of        0.45     0.44    0.11   0.41
      work life

No.   Factors                    9       10     11

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational health
      programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative
      management

6     Recognition

7     Congenial relationship
      between office and
      field staff

8     Grievance redressal
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources      --

10    Seniority and merit       0.43     --
      in promotion

11    Job security              0.46    0.35    --

12    Promotional              0.52 *   0.21   0.46
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working      0.39    0.38   0.48
      environment

14    Overall quality of        0.19    0.48   0.31
      work life

No.   Factors                   12     13    14

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational health
      programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative
      management

6     Recognition

7     Congenial relationship
      between office and
      field staff

8     Grievance redressal
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources

10    Seniority and merit
      in promotion

11    Job security

12    Promotional               --
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working     0.44    --
      environment

14    Overall quality of       0.39   0.43   --
      work life

Note: * Indicates the co-efficient is statistically
significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 17. CORRELATION AMONG THE FACTORS OF QWL WITH
LOW LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION OF FIELD STAFF

No.   Factors                      1       2       3         4

1     Pay and its stability        --

2     Minimizing                  0.26     --
      occupational stress

3     Organizational health       0.45    0.54     --
      programs

4     Alternative work           0.51 *   0.39    0.38      --
      schedules

5     Participative               0.48    0.38    0.29     0.31
      management

6     Recognition                 0.49    0.42    0.48     0.49

7     Congenial relationship      0.48    0.46    0.26     0.41
      between office and field
      staff

8     Grievance redressal         0.36    0.41   0.61 *   0 60 00
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources       0.43    0.35    0.42     0.46

10    Seniority and merit in      0.26    0.35    0.41     0.18
      promotion

11    Job security                0.35    0.38    0.39    0.51 *

12    Promotional                 0.11    0.35    0.16     0.33
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working        0.18    0.17    0.35     0.16
      environment

14    Overall quality of work     0.18    0.24   0.51 *    0.19
      life

No.   Factors                      5       6       7        8

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational health
      programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative                --
      management

6     Recognition                0.63 *    --

7     Congenial relationship      0.55    0.43     --
      between office and field
      staff

8     Grievance redressal         0.35    0.36    0.45      --
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources       0.41    0.43    0.47     0.37

10    Seniority and merit in      0.16    0.15    0.21     0.13
      promotion

11    Job security                0.43    0.29    0.28     0.13

12    Promotional                0.65 *   0.41   0.53 *    0.18
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working        0.35    0.29    0.19    0.61 *
      environment

14    Overall quality of work     0.22    0.23    0.33     0.46
      life

No.   Factors                     9       10      11

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational health
      programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative
      management

6     Recognition

7     Congenial relationship
      between office and field
      staff

8     Grievance redressal
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources       --

10    Seniority and merit in     0.31     --
      promotion

11    Job security               0.25   0.73 *    --

12    Promotional                0.16    0.25    0.11
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working       0.45    0.15    0.18
      environment

14    Overall quality of work    0.41    0.48    0.36
      life

No.   Factors                     12     13    14

1     Pay and its stability

2     Minimizing
      occupational stress

3     Organizational health
      programs

4     Alternative work
      schedules

5     Participative
      management

6     Recognition

7     Congenial relationship
      between office and field
      staff

8     Grievance redressal
      procedure

9     Adequacy of resources

10    Seniority and merit in
      promotion

11    Job security

12    Promotional                 --
      opportunities

13    Satisfactory working       0.11    --
      environment

14    Overall quality of work    0.39   0.16   --
      life

Note: * Indicates the co-efficient is statistically
significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 18. INTER-CORRELATION AMONG SOME MAJOR
VARIABLES--FIELD STAFF

No.   Variables                    1         2        3

1     Age (1)                      --
2     Experience (2)             -0.58      --
3     Education (3)               0.08    -0.69 *    --
4     Income (4)                 0.61 *    0.19     0.21
5     Quality of work life (5)   -0.31     -0.41    -0.31
6     Job Satisfaction (6)       -0.29     -0.53    -0.23

No.   Variables                    4       5      6

1     Age (1)
2     Experience (2)
3     Education (3)
4     Income (4)                  --
5     Quality of work life (5)   -0.19     --
6     Job Satisfaction (6)       -0.18   0.93 *   --

Note: * Indicates significant at 5 per cent level

TABLE 19. TWO-WAY ANOVA FOR JOB SATISFACTION ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT
LEVELS OF JOB SATISFACTION AND CATEGORIES (OFFICE AND FIELD STAFF)

No.   Sources of variation     Sum of square   Df     Mean
                                                     square
1     Main effects

      Level of job                5415.61       2    2707.80
      satisfaction

      Categories (office and      1824.96       1    1824.96
      field staff)

2     Two-way interaction         463.15        3    154.38

3     Residual (error)           112415.89     293   383.67
      Total                      120119.61     299

No.   Sources of variation     F-value   P-Level

1     Main effects

      Level of job              7.51     < .0001
      satisfaction

      Categories (office and    5.69      < .01
      field staff)

2     Two-way interaction       0.46      N.S.

3     Residual (error)
      Total
COPYRIGHT 2013 Prague Development Center
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Babu, H. Ramesh; Ramesh, M.
Publication:Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business
Date:May 1, 2013
Words:6935
Previous Article:E-banking innovations in Poland.
Next Article:Student youth as an entrepreneurial resource; experience of Russian university.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters