An exploratory study on perceived quality of working life among sales professionals employed in pharmaceutical, banking, finance and insurance companies in Mumbai.

Anbarasan, Vanmathy ; Mehta, Nikhil

Introduction

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The inspirational part of success is to hold a reputed job. On an average, we spend around twelve hours daily in the work place that is one third of our entire life. Job, occupies one's thoughts, prefixes the schedule of the day, determines the purchasing power of an individual, and contributes to the social identity. Today's literate workforce expects more than just pay from their work. The dynamic work environment demands equal importance to both technology and human needs, where the individual perspectives play a key role in humanization of work atmosphere and democratization of work relations. Such holistic approach reflected in the work place, determines the better relationship management, stress management and management of other human factors in work atmosphere, which can contribute to high employee's perception on "Quality of Working Life" in the organization. Davis (1983) defines QWL as "the quality of the relationship between employees and the total working environment, with human dimensions added to the usual technical and economic considerations". Quality of Working Life cannot be attained unless all needs arising in organizational settings are taken care of (Sinha and Sayeed, 1980). As organizations are struggling to survive and become more efficient, an accrued interest has evolved around the concept of professionals working life. (Dolan et al., 2008). Quality of Work Life (QWL) should be viewed as a two way process, from organizational perspective it should consider, employee as the most important resource as they are trustworthy, responsible and capable of making valuable contribution and they should be treated with dignity and respect (Straw and Heckscher, 1984). Whereas from the employee's perspective, QWL should be conceived as a set of methods, such as autonomous work groups, job enrichment, high-involvement aimed at boosting the satisfaction and productivity of workers (Feuer, 1989).

Emergence of QWL Concept

The expression "Quality of Work Life" evolved in the late 19th century. The first study of its kind done in Hawthorne Western Electric's plant by famous sociologist Elton Mayo, in 1933, highlighted the importance of environmental factors on plant workers' performance. The results tempered the Taylorian performance of "Scientific management theory" applied until then (Mayo, 1960). This led to the paradigm shift that, money was not the only motivator, where as other environmental factors also play a significant role in influencing the employee productivity.

Irving Bluestone, employee of General Motors, used the expression "Quality of work life" for the first time in late 1960s (Goode, 1989), to evaluate employee satisfaction. QWL as a discipline began in the U.S. in September 1972 when the phrase was coined at the International conference on "democratization of work" conference held at Columbia University's Arden House New York. In August 1973, the International Council for the Quality of Working Life was created, to promote research.

Corporate Significance

The important industrial focus to sustain the organic growth of the venture is by investing in the company's future. Here comes into play, the quality of working life. The effort has gained significant momentum in corporate America, where Fortune magazine ranks companies annually on employee workplace quality as "100 Best Companies to work for in America". Similarly the Best Workplaces in India list produced every year by Great Place to Work Institute India in collaboration with The Economic Times, ranks workplace based on the employee's perceptions rather than looking at employees from a management's perspective. This adds tribute to those organizations that attracts and sustains it's most valuable assets, ie the employees. Employee's overall satisfaction is an important tool, to build an intellectual capital base that can provide a company with a competitive advantage. It is high time that organizations are learning to respect the employee's individuality and concern for their personal growth, which in turn increases the employee's loyalty and affective commitment to work more effectively and efficiently. Creating high quality of work life increases an organization's value. (Ballou and Godwin, 2007)

Emphasis on such non-economic aspects can mitigate "job-insecurity" questions and help in identifying the source of workers problems, contributing to their better productivity. The loss of man-hours to the national income due the above factors is overwhelming. The Global Innovative Index (2008-09) has highlighted the importance of investment in human capital and infrastructural facilities in India for accelerating institutional growth, and business sophistication to compete with the leading nations. Worrall and Cooper (2006) reported that a low level of well-being at work is estimated to cost about five-ten percent of Gross National Product per annum, yet Quality of Working Life as a theoretical construct remains relatively less explored within the organizational psychology research literature.

Deficiency of Research Literature

The publication databases between 1973 and 2002 reveals that very few articles have made any kind of theoretical advances required to revamp the constructs of QWL. It is also remarkable to note that the frequency of publications on QWL is stagnating. Under the descriptors "Quality of working life" and "Quality of work life," the number of publications concerning QWL plateau a few years ago. For the period from 1973 to 1979, an average of 12 articles per year were published, compared to 26 between 1980 and 1984, 54 between 1985 and 1989, 42 between 1990 and 1994, and finally forty four per year between 1995 and 2002. (Martel and Dupuis, 2006). This elicits a strong need for more number of publications that would add value to the QWL databases.

Walton (1975) proposed eight major conceptual categories relating to QWL as (1) adequate and fair compensation, (2) safe and healthy working conditions, (3) immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacities, (4) opportunity for continued growth and security, (5) social integration in the work organization, (6) constitutionalism in the work organization, (7) work and total life space and (8) social relevance of work life. According to Hackman and Oldham (1976) psychological growth needs are as relevant to that of Quality of working life. Pelsma et al., (1989) and Hart (1994) determined that in the work climate of an occupation, QWL can be assessed by combining the amount and the degree of stress and the degree of satisfaction experienced by the individual within his/her occupational role. Winter et al. (2000) viewed QWL for academicians as an attitudinal response to the prevailing work environment and posited five work environment domains that include role stress, job characteristics, supervisory, structural and sectoral characteristics to directly and indirectly shape academicians' experiences, attitudes and behavior. According to Carayon et al., (2001) the indicators of QWL are job satisfaction, organizational commitment and perceived stress. Royuela et al., (2007) have compared the institutional definition (European Commission) of QWL with the academic definition. They have analyzed QWL concepts of European Commission with the thirty three domains of QWL of Marcel and Dupuis (2006), the four major dimensions of Turcotte (1988) and the fourteen domains of Kohl and Shooler (1982). According to Raduan et al., (2006), literature on QWL is limited and several studies commonly correlates with job satisfaction Sinha and Sayeed, 1980 designed a full-length QWL inventory relevant for the Indian sample. The study done by Lee et al., (2007) further validated the need-based measure of quality of work life (QWL) developed by Sirgy et al., (2001).According to Loscocco and Roschelle (1991) the most common assessment of QWL is the individual attitudes. This is because individual work attitudes are important indicators of QWL. Individuals selectively perceive and make attributions about their jobs in accordance with the expectations they bring to the workplace. The study done by Chan and Wyatt (2007) examined the Quality of Work Life in China in terms of how their work lives satisfy eight basic needs of employees. Therefore it is clear that, job characteristics and organizational settings have important influence on the employee's work attitude. Results of the study conducted by Elisavata (2006) verified the correlative relationship between quality of work life and satisfaction with definite job attributes in regard to job contents and work environment.

The research done by Dolan et al., (2008) focused on examining the effect of supervisor support, intrinsic and extrinsic job demands, as well as motivation on overall quality of working life and negative health consequences by using the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) of Karasek and colleagues (1990) and recommend concrete actions to reduce stress, reduce negative health outcomes and enhance the quality of work lives of the people in the sector. These findings were consistent with previous findings as reported by MacDonald et al. (2001), Ameringen et al. (1988), Arsenault et al. (1991) and Dolan et al. (1992).

Churchill et al., (1979) highlighted the importance of job satisfaction as a driver of sales force retention. Tanner and Castleberry (1990) found relationship type to be a strong predictor of sales force turnover, particularly amongst high performers. Park and George (2006) suggested that salesperson working relationship quality, mediates the adaptive selling behavior and job satisfaction. Purani and Sahadev (2008) found that industry experience moderated the job satisfaction, disinclination to quit relationship for most of the job satisfaction dimensions among the sales persons in the pharmaceutical company in India

Moreover experience and expression of QWL perceptions is very much a product of the socio-cultural context. There is a need to understand this construct in relation to the specific demographic factors and jobs related factors. The present study aims to develop a tool to measure the QWL index. Though work on QWL has already been initiated by many in Indian settings, they seem to be very exhaustive. Lack of clear cut dimensions and need for sound approach to develop an consolidated scale, measuring major dimensions of quality of working life with minimum number of items, motivated us to explore this area further and contribute to its deficient data base.

Methodology

Our study focused on the Quality of Working life of the sales executives, keeping in mind their highly challenging and insecure job profile and convenience in measuring their job performance. Moreover the Quality of Working life of the sales executives is very dynamic and less addressed. Data was collected from a sample of 100 sales executives belonging to different sectors namely, pharmaceuticals, banking, insurance and finance by non probability convenience sampling in the areas of Andheri, Sakinaka, Hiranandhani, Powai, Thane and Nariman Point in Mumbai.

The literature review pertaining to QWL was considered to pool up the QWL constructs for the questionnaire construction. In addition some items were collected from other related tools having variables semantically similar to the defined dimensions of QWL. Taking into considerations, to measure major dimensions of quality of working life of the sales executives with minimum number of items, nine a priori dimensions were formulated based on available research in the area (in consideration to various literatures reviewed). All these dimensions have been consolidated from the various similar studies in different contexts. The nine dimensions and their operational definitions are presented in table1.

With the probable dimensions being decided upon, an item pool of sixty nine items was constructed, constituting the nine QWL dimensions. The constructs were written in simple English using active voice. The scale used was a five point Likert scale as labels ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree for the statement. Sixty nine items, which were pooled, were pretested with a sample size of thirty for its clarity and relevance of the items. Wherever there was a need to restate the items for clarity, it was immediately carried out. Nine items were omitted because of low concurrence. The final version having sixty items was taken for the first trial, out of which fourteen items were negative and were reverse scored during data interpretation.

The data was subjected to factor analysis by using SPSS Ver 12.0. As the factor structure of the questionnaire was not clearly hypothesized, and it was the main aim of the study to explore the structure, an exploratory factor analysis using principle axis analysis with Varimax rotation was carried out to identify few coherent factors. Reliability analysis was done by split-half and Cronchbach's alpha to establish internal consistency of the scale. The discriminating power of the scale was tested by Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis

Results and Discussion

The following tables provide the general description of sample of the initial trial, reliability and factor analysis.

It was observed that eighty percent of the sample was male, showing a comparatively high male dominance in sales Sector. The banking executives had more years of experience when compared to other sales executives in insurance, Pharmaceuticals and finance.

Mean score of the sample on the questionnaire showed a value of 207.74 with a standard deviation of 33.72. The men in this group obtained a mean score of 209.84 and females were lower in their scores. The difference between males and females on the total score of the test was not statistically significant, stating that there is no significant difference in the perceived QWL among the men and women.

Factor Analysis

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy with value of 0.710 was in the acceptable range. Barlett's Test of Sphericity (5050.17, df. 1770, Sig.0.00) showed that non-zero correlations existed at the significance level of 0.000. This provided an adequate basis for proceeding with the factor analysis.

The screen test indicated five factors to be appropriate, with an eigen values greater than 2 ranging from 10.85 to 2.30, which shows the importance of each factor and their relative explanatory power. Five factors accounted for 50.63 percent of the total variance. To interpret the factors and construct the final version, only those variables having a loading at least 0.50 on a single factor were considered. Factor loadings of 0.50 or greater are "Practically significant" (Hair et al., 1999, P-111-114). The communality of variables- 4, 14, 19, 53 were below the recommended threshold, but loaded significantly on one factor when compared to others and represented an important element of the construct, so it was retained for the analysis. Therefore 41 variables out of the total 60 variables in the questionnaire were found to have significant loadings after factor analysis.

The identified first factor had thirteen items with significant loading, which ranged from 0.71 to 0.50. The total variance of this factor alone was 18.09 and the eigen value was 10.86 indicating a strong common factor variance and the purity of factor. The items on this factor described a generally positive perception on satisfaction and continuance in the job, characterized by career satisfaction, freedom for decision making, authority and responsibility, compensation, work-life balance. Based on these positive loading this factor is named as "Employee Satisfaction and Continuance" (ESC).

The next factor with an eigen value of 5.93, emerged as significant factor with 8 items. All of them had a strong positive loading ranging from 0.70 to 0.43. The items described job clarity, appraisal, relationship with others, opportunities for development, guidance and consultancy and other intrinsic motivators. Therefore this factor is named as "Perceived Job Motivators" (PJM).

The third factor had six items, all having significant positive loadings ranging from 0.67 to 0.44. This factor contributed a variance of 9.52 percent to the total variance with an eigen value of 5.71. This factor is named as "Job Awareness and Commitment" (JAC) as its items describe task identity, goal orientation and affective commitment.

Factor four had 11 items having reverse scores with significant loading, which ranged from 0.50 to 0.69. This explained 9.30 percent of variance with an eigen value of 5.58. The items described are unsafe working environment, injustice, stress, underperformance and job insecurity. This factor is named as "Unconducive Work Environment" (UWE).

The fifth factor is named as "Perceived Organizational Culture" (POC) which had only three strong positive loading items, describing the employees' outlook on organizational value and self respect. It contributed to 3.85 percent of total variance with an eigen value of 2.31.

Reliability Analysis

Split half co-efficient and Cronbach's alpha Reliability Analysis was done for the five factors separately and for the total 41 items, that were proved significant through factor analysis. The reliability of the instrument is relatively high as the Split half co-efficient and Cronbach's alpha was greater than 0.6 for all the factors. The overall Split half co-efficient and Cronbach's alpha was 0.71 and 0.92 respectively.

The inter factor correlation was done to identify the relationship between the factors. The negative correlations in each case between the factors reveal the uniqueness of factor with purity of the items defining them. Therefore the internal consistency of the instrument is proved to be good.

Discriminant Analysis

Stepwise canonical discriminant function analysis was done to determine which predictor variables (factors identified through factor analysis) contribute to the most of the intergroup differences. The details are shown in table no. VII.

On the basis of test of equality of group means, Employee Satisfaction and Continuance (ESC) was found to be more significant other among factors (Wilk's lambda 0.871 and significance .004) and therefore has entered the step 1. Canonical discriminant function (ESC) was used in the analysis on account of large coefficient value among other functions. Since other factors Job Awareness and Commitment (JAC), Perceived Organizational Culture (POC), Perceived Job Motivators (PJM), Unconducive Work environment (UWE) were not used in the analysis their high coefficient functions were discarded. The details are shown in table no. VIII.

On the basis of function at group centroids, it can be seen that group 2 (Insurance) has the highest value (0.308) on ESC while group 4 (Finance) has the lowest (-0.596) indicative of insurance sales representatives are likely to have comparatively more positive perception on satisfaction in career. They enjoy more freedom in decision making; have more authorities and responsibilities, better compensation and work-life balance. They are more likely to continue in their jobs in comparison to other groups considered in the study while banking and pharmaceutical sales representatives are likely to have comparatively lesser positive perceptions on the above issues (as Banking sales representatives are still on the negative side are likely to be more negative than pharmaceutical sales representatives).

Conclusion

Our study attempted to construct and validate a consolidated scale to measure the major dimensions of Quality of working life of sales executives with minimum number of items, which is applicable to Indian sample. The factor analysis resulted in five factors indicating Employee satisfaction and continuance, Perceived job motivators, Job awareness and commitment, Unconducive work environment and Perceived organizational culture. Among the five factors Unconducive work environment was found to have negative items. These factors with 41 items accounted for 50.63 percent of total variance in the questionnaire. Nineteen items were omitted due to their multicollinearity.

The most important component of Quality of Working Life dealing with the organizational characteristics was found to be employee satisfaction and continuance (ESC). At the negative side of this continuum is unconducive work environment (UWE), which defines unsafe working environment, injustice, stress, under performance and insecurity, was found to be second important component of QWL. Whereas perceived job motivators (PJM) and job awareness and commitment (JAC) contributed equally and Perceived organizational culture (POC) was the least. It can also be observed through the inter-factor correlations, that all the factors are independent of each other, with item purity for the factors. The highest centroid distance between the finance and the other groups, in the discriminant analysis is the indicative of the findings that perceived QWL among finance sales representatives is low when compared to the sales representatives of banking, pharmaceuticals and insurance. Discriminant analysis has also proved that the sales representatives among the four sectors differ only in their perception about Employee Satisfaction and Continuance (ESC), whereas their perceptions regarding Perceived Job Motivators (PJM), Job Awareness and Commitment (JAC), Unconducive Work Environment (UWE) and Perceived Organizational Culture (POC) were almost same irrespective of their sectors.

Thus the 5 factors of this scale, exhaustively estimates the perception of the sales executives on their Quality of working life in reference to the organizational characteristics. The observed factor outcomes define the subjectivity of the QWL construct and the integration of organizational, individual and social aspects.

Limitations

* The sample size in comparison with the number of items is lower for factor analysis

* Lack of clarity of some constructs has led to its elimination, despite its assumed importance.

* The study was conducted exclusively in various locations of Mumbai as specified during September 2008 to January 2009.

References

Ameringen, M.R., Arsenault, A. and Dolan, S.L., "Intrinsic Job Stress as Predictor of Diastolic blood Pressure Among Female Hospital Workers", Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 30 No.2, pp.93-7, 1988.

Arsenault, A., Dolan, S.L. and van Ameringen, M.R., "Stress and Mental Strain in Hospital Work: Exploring the Relationship Beyond Personality", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 pp.483-93, 1991.

Ballou,B and Godwin,H.N., Quality of "Work Life". Strategic Finance. Oct 2007; 89,4, 2007.

Carayon, P., Haims, M. C. and Yang, C. L., Psychosocial Work Factors and Work Organization. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors (pp. 111-121). London: Taylor and Francis, 2001.

Churchill, G., Ford, N. and Walker, O., Personal Characteristics of Sales People and the Attractiveness of Alternative Rewards. Journal of Business Research. June 1979;7;25- 50, 1979.

Davis, L.E. Design of New Organizations. The Quality of Working Life and the 1980s. H. Kolody and H.V.beinum (eds). New York, Praeger Publisher: 65-86, 1983.

Dolan, S.L., van Ameringen, M.R. and Arsenault, A., "The Role of Personality and Social Support in the Etiology of Workers' Stress and Psychological Strain", Industrial Relations (Canada), Vol. 47 No.1, 1992.

Dolan, L.S, Garcia,S., Cabezas,C. and Tzafrir, S.S., Predictors of "Quality of Work" and "Poor Health" Among Primary Health-Care Personnel in Catalonia. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. 21(2);Pg. 203-218, 2008.

Elisaveta, S., Relationship Among Perceptions of Quality of Work Life and Job Satisfaction. Management and Organization Review. 2(3): 459-460, 2006.

Feuer, D., Quality of work life: a cure for all ills? Training: The Magazine of Human Resources Development, 26: 65-66, 1989.

Goode, D. A. 'Quality of Life, Quality of Work Life'. in W. E. Kiernan and R. L. Schalock (eds.), Economics, Industry and Disability: A Look Ahead (Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore), pp. 337-349, 1989.

Hackman,J & Oldham,G., The Job Diagnostic Survey. New Haven: Yale University, 1974.

Hair, J.F; Anderson, R.E and Tatham, R.L. 1999. Multivariate Data Analysis. 2nd edition. Macmillan publishing company, New York. P 111-114.

Hart, P.M., Teacher Quality of Work Life: Integrating Work Experiences, Psychological Distress and Morale. J. Occupat. Organ. Psychol. 67: 109-132, 1994.

India slips to 41st rank on Global Innovation Index 2008-09. The Hindu Business Line. The Hindu Group of Publications, New Delhi. Sunday, January 11, 2009.

Karasek, R.A. "Control in the Workplace and its Health-Related Aspects", in Sauter, S.L., Hurrell, J.J., Cooper, C.L. (Eds),Job Control and Worker Health, Wiley, New York, NY, pp.129-59, 1989.

Kohl, M. L and Schooler, C., 'Job conditions and personality: A Longitudinal Assessment of Reciprocal Effects', American Journal of Sociology 87: 1257-1286, 1982.

Lee, J.D., Singhapakdi,A. and Sirgy, J.A., Further Validation of a Need-based Quality-of-work-life (QWL) Measure: Evidence from Marketing Practitioners. Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2(4), 273-287, 2007.

Loscocco, K.A. and A.R. Roschelle, Influences on the Quality of Work and Non-work Life: Two Decades in Review. J. Vocational Behavior, 39: 182-225, 1991.

MacDonald, L.A., Karasek, R.A., Punnett, L., Scharf, T. "Covariation Between Workplace Physical and Psychological Stressors: Evidence and Implications for Occupational Health Research and Prevention", Ergonomics, Vol. 44 No.7, pp.696-718, 2001.

Martel,P.J and Dupuis,G., Quality of Work Life: Theoretical and Methodological Problems, and Presentation of a New Model and Measuring Instrument. Social Indicators Research (2006) 77:333-368, 2006.

Mayo, E.:, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilisation (Viking Press, New York) 1960.

Park, E.J. and George, D., The Effect of Working Relationship Quality on Salesperson Performance and Job Satisfaction: Adaptive Selling Behavior in Korean Automobile Sales Representatives. Journal of Business Research. 59 (2006) 204-213, 2006.

Pelsma, D.M., Richard, G.V., Harrington, R.G. and Burry, J.M., The Quality of Teacher Work Life Survey: a Measure of Teacher Stress and Job Satisfaction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 21: 165-176, 1989.

Purani, K and Sahadev, S., The Moderating Role of Industrial Experience in the Job Satisfaction, Intention to Leave Relationship: an Empirical Study Among Salesmen in India. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 23(7): pg. 475, 2008.

Raduan,C. R., LooSee .B., Jegak,U and Khairuddin,I., 2006. Quality Of Work Life: Implications Of Career Dimensions. Journal of Social Sciences. 2 (2): 61-67, 2006,

Royuela, V., Tamayo, J and Surinach, J., The Institutional vs. the Academic Definition of the Quality of Work Life. What is the Focus of the European Commission? Research Institute of Applied Economics 2007. Working Papers 2007. Pg.13- 15, 2007

Sinha P, Sayeed OB. Measuring Quality of Working Life : Development of an Inventory. Indian Journal of Social Work. 41; 219-226, 1980.

Sirgy, J.M, Efraty,D., Siegel,P and Lee,J.D. A New Measure of Quality of Work life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research 55: 241-302, 2001.

Straw, R.J. and C.C. Heckscher, QWL: New Working Relationships in the Communication Industry. Labor Studies J., 9: 261-274, 1984.

Tanner, J.F., Jr, Castleberry, S.B., "Vertical Exchange Quality and Performance: Studying the Role of the Sales Manager", Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 10 pp.17-27, 1990.

Walton, R.E., Criteria for Quality of Working Life. In L.E. Davis, A.B. Cherns and Associates (Eds.) The Quality of Working. New York: The Free Press, Life, 1: 91-104, 1975.

Winter, R., Taylor, T and Sarros, J. Trouble at Mill: Quality of Academic Worklife Issues Within a Comprehensive Australian university. Studies in Higher Education, 25: 279-294, 2000.

Worrall, L. & Cooper, C. L. The Quality of Working Life: Managers' Health and Well-being. Executive Report, Chartered Management Institute, 2006.

Webliography

www.acirrt.com

www.eurofound.europa.eu

www.chrmglobal.com.

http://bjop.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/elisaveta_sardzoska_doklad.pdf

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/01/11/stories/ 2009011151060300.htm

Vanmathy Anbarasan,

Research Scholar, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai.

Dr. Nikhil Mehta Assistant Professor, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai.

Table-I
Dimensions of QWL and their Operational Definitions

Dimensions Operational Definitions

Economic Benefits(EB) Monetary income and financial rewards
 received for that ask accomplished

Work Itself(WI) Nature of work and it's characteristics
 as per the occupational demand that leads
 to job satisfaction

Working Work environment that influences the
Conditions(WC) comfort and convenience on and at the job.

Individual Notions that are bound to the individual's
perspectives(IP) space and freedom for working to prove one's
 individuality and enhances confidence and
 continuity at work

Opportunities for Opportunities to learn more and apply
Development(0D) skills and abilities meaningfully and in
 a challenging way

Work-life The hangover effect of job on personal
Balance(WLB) life of the individual which may be either
 positive or negative

Organizational The organization's climate, structure and
Factors(0F) approach in the interest of the worker to
 promote the betterment of the business
 and employee

Relationship The mutual understanding between the
Management(RM) employer and the employee and among the
 employees that develops interdependency
 and curtails communication blockages

Social The reference of the individual by the
Identity(SI) organization in the society for the
 integrated achievement of one's personal
 and professional goals through the job

Table-II
General Information

Category N Avg. Gender Mari. Avg.
 Age Status Experience

 M F M UM

Pharmaceuticals 31 28.55 31 - 18 15 4.38
Insurance 25 28.08 19 8 12 13 5.20
Bank 18 35.89 15 3 18 2 12.17
Finance 28 28.31 15 11 14 12 4.42
Total 100 30.21 80 20 58 42 8.53

Table-III
Mean Score Significance

Category N Mean score SD T value P value

Male 80 209.84 33.16
Female 20 201.86 36.50 0.96 0.339 NS
Total 100 207.74 33.72

Table-IV
Factor Analysis: Initial Solutions

Factors Eigen percent of Cumulative
 Value Variance percent

1 10.855 18.092 18.092
2 5.928 9.877 27.970
3 5.711 9.518 37.487
4 5.579 9.298 48.785
5 2309 3.848 50.833

Extraction method: Principle Axis Analysis

Table-V
Pattern Matrix

Variable Variable description ESC
code

VAR1 I am satisfied with my job 0.87 (b)
VAR2 I am certain to continue in the 0.88 (b)
 current job
VAR5 I have enough freedom of decision 0.70 (b)
 making in my job
VAR.10 I have authority and responsibility 0.88 (b)
 in my job
VAR.13 I find good job retaining potential 0.71 (b)
 in my company
VAR.15 I find proper balance between work 0.80 (b)
 and leisure hours
VAR.16 I believe I will be working here 0.89 (b)
 for the next 5 years
VAR.26 I am contented with the HR policies 0.52 (b)
 of my company
VAR.31 The company is flexible to my 0.80 (b)
 family responsibilities
VAR.36 I receive enough opportunities to 0.80 (b)
 perform in my position
VAR.40 My working atmosphere is novel 0.65 (b)
 and promising
VAR.42 I am satisfied with the productivity 0.68 (b)
 of my department
VAR.44 I meet the essential needs 0.50 (b)
 through my job
VAR.14 I consult my higher authorities -0.02
 regarding my job
VAR.17 I am apprised for my best and 0.07
 worst performance
VAR.19 I win praise and respect of others 0.19
 through my job
VAR.22 I job provides me opportunity to 0.21
 develop good communication
VAR.27 The company clearly communicates 0.16
 its goals to me
VAR.39 My job requirements are clear 0.23
VAR.53 My department operates in cost -0.06
 efficient manner
VAR.55 I receive enough guidance and 0.22
 instructions I need
VAR4 I strive to meet the daily targets -0.09
 and goals set for me
VAR6 I am aware about the problems 0.11
 regarding my job
VARB I try to go beyond what is expected 0.30
 to make customers happy
VAR.24 lam motivated to see the company succeed 0.24
VAR.32 I respond quickly and courteously 0.30
 to fulfill customer's needs
VAR.50 I am aware of the daily operations 0.28
 within my department
VAR.18 I feel certain restrictions in my 0.25
 work area sometimes
VAR.21 I become vulnerable to the situations -0.01
 in my work settings
VAR.23 I feel stressful and overloaded 0.17
 sometimes
VAR.29 I feel hazardous regarding my -0.1
 work environment
VAR.33 I face some unfair actions and -0.38
 decisions taken against me
VAR.41 Despite of my effort I feel 0.08
 unproductive
VAR.43 I stand defenseless in some 0.25
 situations
VAR.46 I hesitate for certain tasks as I -0.04
 dislike doing them
VAR.52 I am under paid for my performance 0.36
VAR.54 I find my profile less challenging 0.20
 and boring
VAR.57 I am unsure about my career in 0.39
 my company
VAR3 Individual differences are respected 0.25
 in my company
VAR.58 Diverse perspective are valued 0.18
 in my department
VAR.59 Productive time spent working on the 0.32
 tasks assigned to me

Variable Variable description PJM
code

VAR1 I am satisfied with my job -0.09
VAR2 I am certain to continue in the 0.00
 current job
VAR5 I have enough freedom of decision -0.05
 making in my job
VAR.10 I have authority and responsibility 0.22
 in my job
VAR.13 I find good job retaining potential 0.18
 in my company
VAR.15 I find proper balance between work 0.27
 and leisure hours
VAR.16 I believe I will be working here 0.22
 for the next 5 years
VAR.26 I am contented with the HR policies -0.02
 of my company
VAR.31 The company is flexible to my 0.28
 family responsibilities
VAR.36 I receive enough opportunities to 0.35
 perform in my position
VAR.40 My working atmosphere is novel 0.35
 and promising
VAR.42 I am satisfied with the productivity 0.09
 of my department
VAR.44 I meet the essential needs 0.23
 through my job
VAR.14 I consult my higher authorities 0.49 (a)
 regarding my job
VAR.17 I am apprised for my best and 0.43 (a)
 worst performance
VAR.19 I win praise and respect of others 0.68 (b)
 through my job
VAR.22 I job provides me opportunity to 0.61 (b)
 develop good communication
VAR.27 The company clearly communicates 0.54 (b)
 its goals to me
VAR.39 My job requirements are clear 0.70
VAR.53 My department operates in cost 0.43
 efficient manner
VAR.55 I receive enough guidance and 0.61
 instructions I need
VAR4 I strive to meet the daily targets 0.25
 and goals set for me
VAR6 I am aware about the problems 0.22
 regarding my job
VARB I try to go beyond what is expected 0.06
 to make customers happy
VAR.24 lam motivated to see the company succeed 0.21
VAR.32 I respond quickly and courteously 0.10
 to fulfill customer's needs
VAR.50 I am aware of the daily operations 0.32
 within my department
VAR.18 I feel certain restrictions in my -0.34
 work area sometimes
VAR.21 I become vulnerable to the situations -0.02
 in my work settings
VAR.23 I feel stressful and overloaded -0.01
 sometimes
VAR.29 I feel hazardous regarding my 0.13
 work environment
VAR.33 I face some unfair actions and -0.02
 decisions taken against me
VAR.41 Despite of my effort I feel 0.00
 unproductive
VAR.43 I stand defenseless in some 0.03
 situations
VAR.46 I hesitate for certain tasks as I -0.06
 dislike doing them
VAR.52 I am under paid for my performance 0.21
VAR.54 I find my profile less challenging 0.26
 and boring
VAR.57 I am unsure about my career in 0.24
 my company
VAR3 Individual differences are respected -0.1
 in my company
VAR.58 Diverse perspective are valued 0.07
 in my department
VAR.59 Productive time spent working on the 0.21
 tasks assigned to me

Variable Variable description JAC
code

VAR1 I am satisfied with my job 0.34
VAR2 I am certain to continue in the 0.17
 current job
VAR5 I have enough freedom of decision 0.37
 making in my job
VAR.10 I have authority and responsibility 0.28
 in my job
VAR.13 I find good job retaining potential 0.10
 in my company
VAR.15 I find proper balance between work 0.19
 and leisure hours
VAR.16 I believe I will be working here 0.02
 for the next 5 years
VAR.26 I am contented with the HR policies 0.28
 of my company
VAR.31 The company is flexible to my 0.17
 family responsibilities
VAR.36 I receive enough opportunities to 0.29
 perform in my position
VAR.40 My working atmosphere is novel 0.22
 and promising
VAR.42 I am satisfied with the productivity 0.38
 of my department
VAR.44 I meet the essential needs 0.39
 through my job
VAR.14 I consult my higher authorities 0.02
 regarding my job
VAR.17 I am apprised for my best and 0.05
 worst performance
VAR.19 I win praise and respect of others 0.15
 through my job
VAR.22 I job provides me opportunity to 0.31
 develop good communication
VAR.27 The company clearly communicates 0.22
 its goals to me
VAR.39 My job requirements are clear -0.02 (b)
VAR.53 My department operates in cost -0.02
 efficient manner
VAR.55 I receive enough guidance and 0.13 (b)
 instructions I need
VAR4 I strive to meet the daily targets 0.44
 and goals set for me
VAR6 I am aware about the problems 0.55
 regarding my job
VARB I try to go beyond what is expected 0.60
 to make customers happy
VAR.24 lam motivated to see the company succeed 0.58
VAR.32 I respond quickly and courteously 0.60
 to fulfill customer's needs
VAR.50 I am aware of the daily operations 0.67
 within my department
VAR.18 I feel certain restrictions in my 0.03
 work area sometimes
VAR.21 I become vulnerable to the situations 0.33
 in my work settings
VAR.23 I feel stressful and overloaded -0.01
 sometimes
VAR.29 I feel hazardous regarding my -0.03
 work environment
VAR.33 I face some unfair actions and 0.02
 decisions taken against me
VAR.41 Despite of my effort I feel 0.32
 unproductive
VAR.43 I stand defenseless in some 0.05
 situations
VAR.46 I hesitate for certain tasks as I -0.19
 dislike doing them
VAR.52 I am under paid for my performance 0.06
VAR.54 I find my profile less challenging 0.16
 and boring
VAR.57 I am unsure about my career in 0.00
 my company
VAR3 Individual differences are respected 0.17
 in my company
VAR.58 Diverse perspective are valued 0.12
 in my department
VAR.59 Productive time spent working on the 0.34
 tasks assigned to me

Variable Variable description UCW
code

VAR1 I am satisfied with my job 0.24
VAR2 I am certain to continue in the 0.18
 current job
VAR5 I have enough freedom of decision 0.04
 making in my job
VAR.10 I have authority and responsibility 0.03
 in my job
VAR.13 I find good job retaining potential 0.15
 in my company
VAR.15 I find proper balance between work 0.09
 and leisure hours
VAR.16 I believe I will be working here 0.14
 for the next 5 years
VAR.26 I am contented with the HR policies 0.18
 of my company
VAR.31 The company is flexible to my 0.10
 family responsibilities
VAR.36 I receive enough opportunities to 0.28
 perform in my position
VAR.40 My working atmosphere is novel 0.14
 and promising
VAR.42 I am satisfied with the productivity 0.06
 of my department
VAR.44 I meet the essential needs -0.02
 through my job
VAR.14 I consult my higher authorities -0.17
 regarding my job
VAR.17 I am apprised for my best and -0.14
 worst performance
VAR.19 I win praise and respect of others 0.09
 through my job
VAR.22 I job provides me opportunity to 0.06
 develop good communication
VAR.27 The company clearly communicates 0.04
 its goals to me
VAR.39 My job requirements are clear -0.01
VAR.53 My department operates in cost -0.21
 efficient manner
VAR.55 I receive enough guidance and 0.10
 instructions I need
VAR4 I strive to meet the daily targets -0.23 (a)
 and goals set for me
VAR6 I am aware about the problems -0.23 (b)
 regarding my job
VARB I try to go beyond what is expected 0.01 (b)
 to make customers happy
VAR.24 lam motivated to see the company succeed 0.06 (b)
VAR.32 I respond quickly and courteously 0.16 (b)
 to fulfill customer's needs
VAR.50 I am aware of the daily operations 0.09 (b)
 within my department
VAR.18 I feel certain restrictions in my 0.54
 work area sometimes
VAR.21 I become vulnerable to the situations 0.58
 in my work settings
VAR.23 I feel stressful and overloaded 0.56
 sometimes
VAR.29 I feel hazardous regarding my 0.61
 work environment
VAR.33 I face some unfair actions and 0.55
 decisions taken against me
VAR.41 Despite of my effort I feel 0.64
 unproductive
VAR.43 I stand defenseless in some 0.57
 situations
VAR.46 I hesitate for certain tasks as I 0.50
 dislike doing them
VAR.52 I am under paid for my performance 0.61
VAR.54 I find my profile less challenging 0.56
 and boring
VAR.57 I am unsure about my career in 0.69
 my company
VAR3 Individual differences are respected -0.01
 in my company
VAR.58 Diverse perspective are valued 0.12
 in my department
VAR.59 Productive time spent working on the 0.13
 tasks assigned to me

Variable Variable description POC
code

VAR1 I am satisfied with my job 0.17
VAR2 I am certain to continue in the 0.19
 current job
VAR5 I have enough freedom of decision 0.07
 making in my job
VAR.10 I have authority and responsibility 0.14
 in my job
VAR.13 I find good job retaining potential -0.01
 in my company
VAR.15 I find proper balance between work 0.13
 and leisure hours
VAR.16 I believe I will be working here 0.14
 for the next 5 years
VAR.26 I am contented with the HR policies 0.30
 of my company
VAR.31 The company is flexible to my 0.22
 family responsibilities
VAR.36 I receive enough opportunities to -0.01
 perform in my position
VAR.40 My working atmosphere is novel 0.04
 and promising
VAR.42 I am satisfied with the productivity 0.06
 of my department
VAR.44 I meet the essential needs 0.02
 through my job
VAR.14 I consult my higher authorities -0.02
 regarding my job
VAR.17 I am apprised for my best and 0.47
 worst performance
VAR.19 I win praise and respect of others 0.07
 through my job
VAR.22 I job provides me opportunity to 0.07
 develop good communication
VAR.27 The company clearly communicates 0.10
 its goals to me
VAR.39 My job requirements are clear -0.07
VAR.53 My department operates in cost 0.16
 efficient manner
VAR.55 I receive enough guidance and -0.11
 instructions I need
VAR4 I strive to meet the daily targets 0.10
 and goals set for me
VAR6 I am aware about the problems 0.10
 regarding my job
VARB I try to go beyond what is expected 0.19
 to make customers happy
VAR.24 lam motivated to see the company succeed -0.01
VAR.32 I respond quickly and courteously 0.05
 to fulfill customer's needs
VAR.50 I am aware of the daily operations 0.04
 within my department
VAR.18 I feel certain restrictions in my 0.06 (b)
 work area sometimes
VAR.21 I become vulnerable to the situations -0.36 (b)
 in my work settings
VAR.23 I feel stressful and overloaded 0.10 (b)
 sometimes
VAR.29 I feel hazardous regarding my 0.02 (b)
 work environment
VAR.33 I face some unfair actions and 0.17 (b)
 decisions taken against me
VAR.41 Despite of my effort I feel -0.01 (b)
 unproductive
VAR.43 I stand defenseless in some 0.19 (b)
 situations
VAR.46 I hesitate for certain tasks as I -0.04 (b)
 dislike doing them
VAR.52 I am under paid for my performance -0.22 (b)
VAR.54 I find my profile less challenging -0.12 (b)
 and boring
VAR.57 I am unsure about my career in -0.11 (b)
 my company
VAR3 Individual differences are respected 0.58 (b)
 in my company
VAR.58 Diverse perspective are valued 0.65 (b)
 in my department
VAR.59 Productive time spent working on the 0.51 (b)
 tasks assigned to me

Variable Variable description Communalities
code

VAR1 I am satisfied with my job 0.88
VAR2 I am certain to continue in the 0.53
 current job
VAR5 I have enough freedom of decision 0.83
 making in my job
VAR.10 I have authority and responsibility 0.58
 in my job
VAR.13 I find good job retaining potential 0.57
 in my company
VAR.15 I find proper balance between work 0.50
 and leisure hours
VAR.16 I believe I will be working here 0.57
 for the next 5 years
VAR.26 I am contented with the HR policies 0.48
 of my company
VAR.31 The company is flexible to my 0.52
 family responsibilities
VAR.36 I receive enough opportunities to 0.64
 perform in my position
VAR.40 My working atmosphere is novel 0.61
 and promising
VAR.42 I am satisfied with the productivity 0.62
 of my department
VAR.44 I meet the essential needs 0.46
 through my job
VAR.14 I consult my higher authorities 0.27
 regarding my job
VAR.17 I am apprised for my best and 0.43
 worst performance
VAR.19 I win praise and respect of others 0.54
 through my job
VAR.22 I job provides me opportunity to 0.51
 develop good communication
VAR.27 The company clearly communicates 0.37
 its goals to me
VAR.39 My job requirements are clear 0.56
VAR.53 My department operates in cost 0.26
 efficient manner
VAR.55 I receive enough guidance and 0.45
 instructions I need
VAR4 I strive to meet the daily targets 0.32
 and goals set for me
VAR6 I am aware about the problems 0.43
 regarding my job
VARB I try to go beyond what is expected 0.48
 to make customers happy
VAR.24 lam motivated to see the company succeed 0.45
VAR.32 I respond quickly and courteously 0.49
 to fulfill customer's needs
VAR.50 I am aware of the daily operations 0.64
 within my department
VAR.18 I feel certain restrictions in my 0.48
 work area sometimes
VAR.21 I become vulnerable to the situations 0.58
 in my work settings
VAR.23 I feel stressful and overloaded 0.35
 sometimes
VAR.29 I feel hazardous regarding my 0.40
 work environment
VAR.33 I face some unfair actions and 0.47
 decisions taken against me
VAR.41 Despite of my effort I feel 0.51
 unproductive
VAR.43 I stand defenseless in some 0.43
 situations
VAR.46 I hesitate for certain tasks as I 0.29
 dislike doing them
VAR.52 I am under paid for my performance 0.59
VAR.54 I find my profile less challenging 0.46
 and boring
VAR.57 I am unsure about my career in 0.70
 my company
VAR3 Individual differences are respected 0.44
 in my company
VAR.58 Diverse perspective are valued 0.49
 in my department
VAR.59 Productive time spent working on the 0.54
 tasks assigned to me

(a) Considered as high scores for that factor

(b) Pure Rems

Table-VI
Communalities for Reasons

 Initial Extraction

Communicate with family 1.000 .582
Communicate with friends 1.000 .750
Reconnect with old friends 1.000 .699
Leisure/Time pass 1.000 .728
Convenient than Phone/Email 1.000 .570
Entertain myself 1.000 .790
Share videos/ pictures/ music 1.000 .635
Make new friends 1.000 .612
Keep up-to-date with social happenings/events 1.000 .579
Explore possibility of a future relationship 1.000 .646
Business purpose 1.000 .689
Educational purpose 1.000 .656
Bully others 1.000 .413

Table-VII
Inter-Factor Correlation Matrix

Factors ESC PJM JAC UWE POC

ESC 1.000 -0.301 -0.199 -0.199 -0.301
PJM -0.301 1.000 -0.301 -0.199 -0.199
JAC -0.199 -0.301 1.000 -0.301 -0.199
UWE -0.199 -0.199 -0.301 1.000 -0.301
POC -0.301 -0.199 -0.199 -0.301 1.000

Table-VIII
Test of Equality of Group Means

Factors Wilks Lambda F Value dfi Significance

ESC 0.871 4.37 3 .004
PJM 0.978 0.779 3 .508
JAC 0.987 0.412 3 .745
UWE 0.939 2087 3 .110
POC 0.975 0.828 3 .483

Table-IX
Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis

Function Eigen percent
 Value Variance

ESC=1 * .148 100.00
Function n
ESC
Banking 18
Insurance 25
Pharmaceuticals 31
Finance 26

Function CannonicalWilks Chi df Significance
 CorrelatioLambda Square

ESC=1 * 0.359 0.871 13.304 3 .004
Function Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficient **
ESC
Banking -0.058 Lower ESC
Insurance 0.308 Highest ESC
Pharmaceuticals 0.285 Moderate ESC
Finance -0.596 Lowest ESC

* First 1 canonical discriminant function
were used in the analysis.

** On comparative basis

FOR GENERAL COMPLETE INFORMATION Pooled within group
correlations (between discriminating variables and
Standardized Canonical discriminating function variables)
ordered by absolute size of correlation with function
significance which are not used in the analysis are
also depicted below.

JAC-.585, POC-.518, PJM-.482, UWE-.301

Figure-1

Number of research articles published in QWL from 1973-2002

Years No. of Publications

1973-1979 12
1980-1984 26
1985-1989 54
1990-1994 42
1995-2002 44