International Journal of Human Resource

Management and Research (IJHRMR)

ISSN (P): 2249-6874; ISSN (E): 2249-7986
Vol. 9, Issue 3, Jun 2019, 149-162
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON QUALITY OF WORK LIFE OF

EMPLOYEES IN MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATIONS

D. K. AMRUTH RAJ & Dr. D. BHANU SREE REDDY

VIT Business School, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India
ABSTRACT

A high level of quality of work life is essential for an organization to retain its talented workforce and also to
attract new talent into the organization. This is an attempt to understand the quality of work life of employees with special
reference to manufacturing organizations with an objective to identify the relationship between the demographic factors
and level of quality of worklife perceived by them and identify the factors with which the employees are not satisfied. The
descriptive research design was used in this study with a sample size of 100 using a convenience sampling technique. A
questionnaire was circulated among the permanent employees of the organization to collect their responses on 9
influencing factors of quality of work life and the data was analyzed using statistical tools like ANOVA, Chi-Square test,
Friedman test, and descriptive statistics. The analysis of the data pointed out that employees are satisfied with all the
factors except Grievances in workplace and Stress in workplace, their demographic factors like age, gender, etc. does not

Original Article
influence their perception but factors like department of work and years of association has an influence on their
perception on the quality of work life.

KEYWORDS: Job Satisfaction, Perception, Safety, Grievance & Stress

Received: Apr 26, 2019; Accepted: May 16, 2019; Published: May 30, 2019; Paper Id.: IJHRMRJUN201918

INTRODUCTION

Quality of work life is perceived differently by different people, those who enjoy their job and career say
that they have a higher quality of work life and those who are not enjoying their job and career say that they are
experiencing bad quality of work life. The quality of work life is through which the organization keeps its
employees happy and committed so that they can be productive, quality of work life considers the employees as
assets of the organization rather than considering them as an expense to the organization. Quality of work life runs
on a principle that employees need to be economically and psychologically satisfied to expect commitment and
performance from them.

Warret al. (1979) defined the quality of work life as a set of interrelated components like the involvement
of the employees in the decision-making activities, job satisfaction, characteristics of the job, life satisfaction,
happiness, anxiety and finally autonomy and self-control.

Quality of work life is through which the manager reduces the level of dissatisfaction among the workers
of the organization. QWL is a word that has different meaning to different people, some people think that their
work life is good when they have the opportunity to participate or play and important role in the organization’s
decision-making activities, for some people especially the managerial personnel it refers to improved state of
psychological aspects of work that improves their productivity. Unions i.e. employee or workers unions assume

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
150 D. K. Amruth Raj & Dr. D. Bhanu Sree Reddy

that good quality of work life as a situation where the organization provides job security, safe and healthy working
environment and shares its profits with the employees in a fair and equitable manner. On the other hand stakeholders of the
organization assume QWL as changing the organization to a more humane environment where importance is given to
employees and the employees are treated as human rather than machines that generate wealth to the organization.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Ayesha Tabassum, Tasnuva Rahman and Kursia Jahan (2011)described that there is a significant difference in
perception on the quality of work life presumed by employees and their perception is determined by the nature of their
organization i.e. organizations that have domestic origin and organizations that have a foreign origin, the difference in
perception was not found in all the factors of QWL but factors like fair and adequate compensation, opportunity for growth
and development, flexible schedule of their work and most importantly their relationship with the organization, it was
found that dissatisfaction of the employees are caused when the QWL does not meet their perception irrespective to their
designation and the factors stated above influences their job satisfaction.

Barkha Gupta (2016) describe that quality of work life is an important asset of the organization that helps in
retaining the existing talent of the organization and when the asset quality of work life is maintained properly the
employees will contribute for the growth of the organization by showing higher levels of commitment and higher levels of
job performance and this can only be achieved when the satisfaction levels are high, the present aim of the study is to find
out a list of factors that are currently contributing to the quality of work life in private sector banks. The findings of the
work state that Quality of work life is an umbrella that contains various segments in it and failure in any of the section will
lead to a situation where the employees will turn over to other organizations, there exists a high degree of positive
correlation between all the factors that influence the quality of work life and the correlation leads to job involvement and
satisfaction.

Ayesha Tabassum, Farhana Kahan (2011) studied the difference in perception of the employees based on their
gender, the research concluded that there is a significant difference in the perception of the male when compared to the
perception of the female respondents, the difference is found in factor named fair and adequate compensation which was
directly related to the job satisfaction of the respondents, out of 11 universities studied under this research all the
respondents in the sample have a difference in perception on this factor and the difference is only seen based on the gender,
the respondents have a similar perception on other factors like opportunity to grow, social integration, etc. here there exists
a relationship between the factors of quality of work life and overall job satisfaction thus improving the quality of work life
will have a positive impact on job satisfaction.

Christian Korunka, Peter Hoonakker, Pascale Carayon (2009) found that there are three important factors that
determine the turnover intention of the employees namely their Job Satisfaction, Emotional Exhaustion experienced by
them and finally the involvement of the organization, using these three factors a conceptual model was developed which is
a three-stage model which defines that the characteristics of the job and the organization will determine the level of quality
of work life and the quality of work life perceived by the employees determine their turnover intention, the testing of the
model revealed that the relationship between the three concepts are stable in all the cases but a strong relationship is
present between the demands of the job, job satisfaction and finally the turnover intention irrespective to the
demographical differences among the respondents, job design stands out as an important determinant of turnover intention.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092 NAAS Rating: 3.38

An Empirical Study on Quality of Work Life of Employees in Manufacturing Organizations 151

G Nasal Saraji and H Dargahi (2005) described quality of work life as a set of programs and strategies of the
organization to improve the satisfaction of the employees with a single aim of retaining them with the organization for a
longer period of time, their research studied the employees of TUMS’ hospitals in order to find out the positive and
negative feeling of the employees on the Quality of work life of their work environment and the research found that the
satisfaction of the employees on their work environment will have an impact on their life outside the organization, the
research on the quality of work life of the employees revealed that employees were not satisfied with their income,
employees can only be satisfied with their work and see the work to be interesting when their satisfaction on their income,
relationship with their immediate managers are healthy, this will also have an impact on their ability to manage to achieve
a balance with their work and family which can be achieved by training and development activities.

J. Nithya (2016) stated that quality of work life plays an important role in shaping the quality of life of an
individual both directly and indirectly and links the wellbeing of the individual with the quality of work life in the
organization in which is an employee. The problems that the employee is facing become the stepping stones for the
problems that he/she is facing outside the organization and thus affecting the individual and people surrounding them.
The aim of this research was to find out the reasons for human behavior and find out the way in which human behavior can
be enhanced both in work life and actual life. The analysis of the data collected from 100 samples reveal that there exists a
negative correlation between the job satisfaction the employee and the grievances that exist in the work floor, the research
states that the wellbeing of the individual depends upon the quality of work life that he/she is experiencing and the quality
of work life is directly or indirectly related to the quality of life of the individual.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Quality of work life is gaining its importance in most of the organizations because it is found that Quality of work
life is very essential to maintain peak working potential of the employee, away from the stress and strain. When the
employee is free from all kinds of disturbances it helps him to maintain his productivity which will help the organization to
achieve its goals and objectives. A good quality of work life can impact on the output generated by the employee, his or
her availability on the work floor and leaves, etc. Quality of work life creates a feeling among the employees that they are
taken care of by the organization. Organization irrespective of type and scale of operation the HR department is responsible
for taking care of the factors of the Quality of work life, in spite of having an effective Human Resource department which
continuously concentrates on improving the quality of work life of the employees problems such as absenteeism is seen in
the work floor and job dissatisfaction among the employees is still present in the work environment. Job satisfaction has an
influence on the performance of the organization, so it is essential that the organization drafts new strategies from time to
time to maintain higher standards in quality of work life. Higher standards of work life play an important role in retaining
the existing employees with the organization and also attract new talented workforce into the organization. Performance
and satisfaction are achieved through various elements of Quality of work life, identifying and materializing the same is a
never-ending task for any organization.

Management Questions

• What is the reason behind employees expressing a low level of commitment towards the organization?

• What are the dominant factors affecting the Quality of work life of the employees?

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
152 D. K. Amruth Raj & Dr. D. Bhanu Sree Reddy

Research Questions

• Is there any relationship between the demographic factors of the employees and the level of quality of work life
perceived by them.

• Are there a Quality of Work life factors with which the employees are not satisfied.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• To identify the factors contributing to the Quality of work life in the organization.

• To identify the factors of Quality of work life perceived to be more important by the employees.

• To explore whether the demographic characteristics of the employees influence their perception towards the
factors of Quality of work life and to find out the level of satisfaction of the employees.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Quality of Work life is a set of factors important for employees working in the organization, QWL is considered
to be more important because in a day an average employee will spend half of his day inside the walls of the organization,
as an individual, work is an integral part of our life, we spend more than 60 percent of our life working in an organization,
it is important that we are satisfied with what we do which gives us a satisfaction that we have spent our time wisely and
more constructively towards moving our career and life a step ahead, all these will enhance a peace of mind that will also
be reflected in our life outside the organization.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The descriptive research design was used in this study. The universe of this study refers to the employees working
with manufacturing organizations and the strength of the population is 939 employees. The sampling method used in this
study is convenience sampling with a sample size of 100 respondents. The primary data was collected by circulating a
questionnaire among the employees where the employees have to express their views on 9 factors that influence the quality
of work life perceived by them, the secondary data was collected from the various journal, article, and websites. Statistical
tools like ANOVA, Chi-square test, Friedman test, and Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND ITS INTERPRETATION

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1
Number of
Demographic Factors
Respondents
Gender
Male 69(69.0)
Female 31(31.0)
Age
Less than 30 years 31(31.0)
31 to 40 years 43(43.0)
41 to 50 years 21(21.0)
Greater than 50 years 5(5.0)
Educational Qualification
Post Graduate 51(51.0)

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092 NAAS Rating: 3.38

An Empirical Study on Quality of Work Life of Employees in Manufacturing Organizations 153

Graduate 38(38.0)
Diploma 5(5.0)
ITI 2(2.0)
Others 4(4.0)
Size of Family
Less than 3 27(27.0)
3 to 5 64(64.0)
Greater than 5 9(9.0)
Department
Finance and Accounting 26(26.0)
Human Resource 18(18.0)
Production 15(15.0)
Purchase and Logistics 19(19.0)
R&D 16(16.0)
Others 6(6.0)
Years of Association with the Organization
Less than a Year 10(10.0)
1 Year to 3 Years 25(25.0)
3 Years to 5 Years 28(28.0)
5 Years to 10 Years 28(28.0)
More than 10 years 9(9.0)
Note: Values in the Parenthesis represent Percentage

Interpretation

From the above table which represents descriptive statistics of respondents fall under demographic profile and we
can see that the majority of the respondents were male (69%) and female were 31%. It is observed that 43% of the
workforce are from the age group of 31 to 40 years and the respondents from the age group of less than 30 years are the
next highest with 31%, 27 % of the respondents are from the age group from 41 years to more than 50 years, 51% of the
respondents hold a postgraduate degree and 38% of the employees are graduates. In the sample of 100, 26% of the
respondents are from finance and accounts department and 19% from purchase and logistics, 18% from Human resource
department and 16% of them are from R&D. It is seen that that employees with an association of less than a year are only
10% of the entire sample, 28% of them have an association of 5 years to 10 years and the next 28% of them have and
association of 3 to 5 years, 25% of them are with the organization from the past 1 to 3 years.

Classification Based on the Study Factors

Table 2
Study Factor Levels of Opinion No of Respondents
Strongly Disagree 5 (5.0)
Dis agree 0 (0)
Safe and Healthy
Neutral 22 (22.0)
Work Environment
Agree 53 (53.0)
Strongly Agree 20 (20.0)
Strongly Dis agree 1 (1.0)
Dis agree 1 (1.0)
Social Integration Neutral 19 (19.0)
Agree 59 (59.0)
Strongly Agree 20 (20.0)
Strongly Dis agree 6 (6.0)
Dis agree 10 (10.0)
Stress in work place
Neutral 42 (42.0)
Agree 32 (32.0)

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
154 D. K. Amruth Raj & Dr. D. Bhanu Sree Reddy

Strongly Agree 10 (10.0)

Strongly Dis agree 1 (1.0)
Dis agree 12 (12.0)
Rewards and Recognition Neutral 29 (29.0)
Agree 50 (50.0)
Strongly Agree 8 (8.0)
Strongly Dis agree 8 (8.0)
Dis agree 7 (7.0)
Welfare Facilities Neutral 28 (28.0)
Agree 52 952.0)
Strongly Agree 5 (5.0)
Strongly Dis agree 3 (3.0)
Dis agree 5 (5.0)
Opportunity for growth
Neutral 18 (18.0)
and development
Agree 57 (57.0)
Strongly Agree 17 (17.0)
Strongly Dis agree 2 (2.0)
Dis agree 1 (1.0)
Participation in
Neutral 18 (18.0)
Managerial Activities
Agree 59 (59.0)
Strongly Agree 20 (20.0)
Strongly Dis agree 3 (3.0)
Dis agree 0 (0)
Job Satisfaction Neutral 18 (18.0)
Agree 59 (59.0)
Strongly Agree 20 (20.0)
Strongly Dis agree 6 (6.0)
Dis agree 15 (15.0)
Grievance in
Neutral 28 (28.0)
work place
Agree 42 (42.0)
Strongly Agree 9 (9.0)
Note: Values in the Parenthesis represent Percentage

Interpretation

The number of respondents remaining neutral on expressing their opinion is seen while expressing their opinion
on the factors influencing the quality of work life is observed to be as more than 30% out of the entire sample. Employees
in the organization are fully satisfied with their job, they have an opportunity to be a part of the decision-making activities
of the organization, Social integration is seen to be satisfactory, the working environment of the organization is safe and
healthy, the employees are satisfied with the opportunity that they get for their growth and development, but on the other
hand it is observed that high levels of dissatisfaction are seen in factors like grievance in work place. The other factor is
stress in workplace. People expressing their opinion to be as neutral means that they do not have any strong reason to stand
in either of the two sides.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING
ANOVA

H01: There is no significant relationship between gender of the employee and their perception of the Quality of
work life.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092 NAAS Rating: 3.38

An Empirical Study on Quality of Work Life of Employees in Manufacturing Organizations 155

Table 3
Quality of
Gender Mean SD F Sig.
Work Life Factors
Safe and Healthy Male 3.90 .877
1.234 .269
work environment Female 3.68 1.013
Male 4.14 .827
Social Integration 1.230 .270
Female 3.97 .482
Male 3.39 .927
Stress in Work place 1.911 .170
Female 3.10 1.106
Rewards and Male 3.57 .831
.633 .428
Recognition Female 3.42 .886
Male 3.32 1.064
Welfare Activities 1.167 .283
Female 3.55 .768
Opportunity for growth Male 3.90 .877
2.793 .098
and development Female 3.58 .886
Participation in Male 3.87 .839
1.849 .177
Managerial Activities Female 4.10 .597
Male 3.91 .722
Job Satisfaction .097 .756
Female 3.97 .983
Grievance in Male 3.64 .840
24.283 .000 *
work place Female 2.65 1.112

Interpretation

Fisher’s ANOVA resulted in a value which is greater than the agreed significance level of 0.05. And the tested
resulted the alternate hypothesis is rejected in all the cases except the grievance in workplace.

Chi-Square Test
Chi-Square Test 1

H02: There is no Significant association between the educational qualification of the employee and their
conception about the satisfaction on the reward and recognition earned by them in the organization.

Table 4
Value Df Asymptotic Significance (2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18.889a 16 .274
Likelihood Ratio 18.684 16 .285
Linear-by-linear Association .447 1 .504
Valid cases 100

Interpretation

The Pearson’s Chi-Square test resulted in a significance level which is greater than the agreed significance level
0.05, so the null hypothesis is Accepted.

Chi-Square Test 2

H03: There is no association between the employee’s department of work and their conception of a safe and
healthy working environment.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
156 D. K. Amruth Raj & Dr. D. Bhanu Sree Reddy

Table 5
Value Df Asymptotic Significance (2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 26.341a 15 .035
Likelihood Ratio 26.143 15 .037
Linear-by-linear Association 1.670 1 .196
Valid cases 100

Interpretation

The Pearson Chi-Square test resulted in a significance level which is less than the agreed significance level of
0.05, the null hypothesis is Rejected.

Chi-Square Test 3

H04: There is no Significant association between the experience of the employee with the organization and their
level of satisfaction on the opportunity for growth and development.

Table 6
Value Df Asymptotic Significance (2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 22.190a 16 .137
Likelihood Ratio 23.221 16 .108
Linear-by-linear Association 1.414 1 .234
Valid cases 100

Interpretation

The Pearson Chi-Square test resulted in a significance level which is greater than the agreed significance level of
0.05 which means the null hypothesis is Accepted.

Chi-Square Test 4

H05: There is no association between the gender of the employee and their view on a Safe and Healthy work
environment.

Table 7
Value Df Asymptotic Significance (2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.200a 2 .122
Likelihood Ratio 4.543 2 .103
Linear-by-linear Association .089 1 .766
Valid cases 100

Interpretation

The Pearson Chi-Square test resulted in a significance level greater than the agreed significance level of 0.05, the
null hypothesis is Accepted.

Chi-Square Test 5

H06: There is no significant association between experience of the employee with the organization and job
satisfaction.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092 NAAS Rating: 3.38

An Empirical Study on Quality of Work Life of Employees in Manufacturing Organizations 157

Table 8
Value Df Asymptotic Significance (2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 36.748a 16 .002
Likelihood Ratio 29.068 16 .023
Linear-by-linear Association 6.750 1 .009
Valid cases 100

Interpretation

The Pearson Chi-Square test resulted in a significance level which is lesser than the agreed significance level of
0.05, the null hypothesis is Rejected.

Friedman Test
Friedman Test Ranks

H07: There is no difference in the perception of the employees on the quality of work life factors.

Table 9
Ranks
Quality of Work Life Factors Mean Ranks
Job satisfaction 5.78
Participation in managerial activities 5.76
Social Integration 5.75
Safe and Healthy work environment 5.50
Opportunity for growth and development 5.32
Rewards and Recognition 4.51
Welfare Facilities 4.25
Grievance in workplace 4.22
Stress in Workplace 3.92

Test Statistics

Table 10
N 100
Chi-Square 85.110
df 8
Asymp. Sig. .000

Interpretation

The Milton Friedman test resulted in a significance level of 0.00 which means that there is a difference in
perception of the employees on quality of work life factors, the null hypothesis is Rejected. The Friedman Test ranks show
the factors with which the employees are satisfied from the highest to lowest, the factors having the least mean values are
those with the employees are not satisfied.

FINDINGS

This study ensures to understand the quality of work life among the employees of manufacturing organizations.
For further clarity, the study involved a few statistical tools to observe the level of quality of work life the employees
experience in their workplace. In the descriptive statistics, the difference in perception over the quality of work life is only
seen in factors like the Department of work and Years of association with the same organization. When the test was carried
to test the inferential different between the perception of male and female it is observed that the difference is only seen

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
158 D. K. Amruth Raj & Dr. D. Bhanu Sree Reddy

with the factor named grievance in workplace.

The association between Qualification Vs Reward and Recognition, Gender Vs Safe and Healthy Work
Environment, Experience Vs Opportunity for Growth and Development is found to be Accepted when tested using the Chi-
Square test. The other two hypothesis tested using Chi-Square came to be Rejected and they are Department of work Vs
Safe and Healthy Work Environment and Experience Vs Job Satisfaction. The results of the Friedman test stated that the
employees have a different opinion on the quality of work life factors such as Job Satisfaction, Social Integration,
Participation in Managerial Activities are the factors that are contributing to the Quality of work life. Grievances in work
place and Stress at workplace are the factors with which the employees are not satisfied. Hence, their contribution to the
quality of work life is less.

LIMITATIONS

The major limitation was the language as apart from the managerial personnel other cadre employees were not
familiar with the Likert scale form of a questionnaire which required a detailed explanation about how they have to answer
the questionnaire.

The questions regarding fair and adequate compensation were not asked as direct questions but those questions
were asked as a part of job satisfaction along with the questions regarding job satisfaction.

The sample may not be the representative of the total population because of the voluntary bias which is an
inherent risk of the convenience sampling.

FUTURE SCOPE

Apart from factors like Safe and healthy work environment, social integration, etc. which were studied, there are
other factors like the risk involved and compensation, life satisfaction, self-related anxiety can also be studied among the
employees working with manufacturing organizations.

The fairness and adequacy of the compensation which was measured under the contents of job satisfaction can be
considered as a separate factor that has an influence on the Quality of work life perceived by the employees in other
sectors.

Comparison of Quality of work life of employees who work with manufacturing organization and the employees
who are doing jobs on shift basis in the IT industry.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of the organization depends upon its employees, employees can make or break the organization. For
an employee in order to work effectively and efficiently Quality of work, life is very important. It becomes the prime
responsibility of the organization to provide its employees with a workplace which does not ruin their physical and mental
health. If the workforce is happy and healthy they contribute to the organization’s goals and aspirations. Quality of work
life is through which the organization keeps its employees healthy and happy, it not only attracts new talent into the
organization but also helps in retaining the talented and experienced workforce with the organization for an extended
period of time. A good Quality of work life will increase the productivity of the employee and thus increasing the
productivity of the organization. A good Quality of work life will increase the level of satisfaction of the employees and

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092 NAAS Rating: 3.38

An Empirical Study on Quality of Work Life of Employees in Manufacturing Organizations 159

satisfied employees will never think of leaving the organization which minimizes the employee turnover.

The Quality of work life of the employees working with manufacturing organizations is very high, the employees
are fully supported by the organization in carrying out their work in an effective manner. The employees are fully satisfied
with their job, the safety and healthiness of the environment in which they work. Organizations provide its employees the
utmost liberty to take decision-related to their area of work and also take their concern before making any important
changes to the existing rules, regulations, and procedures, the employees are satisfied with the rewards and recognition
with which the organization identifies their efforts. The overall satisfaction of the employees is good but factors like
Grievances in workplace and stress in workplace are the least satisfied factors of quality of work life. Among the nine
quality of work life factors that are assumed to be important for an organization which is into production, Grievances in
workplace and Stress in workplace are the most challenging factors that influence an employee to stay with the
organization or leave the organization. In spite, of satisfying all the other factors that contribute to a better Quality of work
life retaining talent depends upon these two important factors because it has a direct relationship with retention and
productivity.

REFERENCES

1. Adeyemo, D. A., Terry, D. L., & Lambert, N. J. (2015). Organizational Climate, Leadership Style And Emotional Intelligence
As Predictors Of Quality Of Work Life Among Bank Workers In Ibadan, Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 11(4).

2. Almalki, M. J., FitzGerald, G., & Clark, M. (2012). Quality of work life among primary health care nurses in the Jazan region,
Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Human resources for health, 10(1), 30.

3. Daiwatabai, D., & Anandhalli, G. (2018). Job Satisfaction of Library Professionals in Gulbarga and Yadgir Districts of
Hyderabad Karnataka Region. Available at SSRN 3116078.

4. Dehghan Nayeri, N., Salehi, T., & Ali Asadi Noghabi, A. (2011). Quality of work life and productivity among Iranian
nurses. Contemporary nurse, 39(1), 106-118.

5. Elizur, D., & Shye, S. (1990). Quality of work life and its relation to quality of life. Applied Psychology, 39(3), 275-291.

6. EllahMejbel, A. A., Almsafir, M. K., Siron, R., &Mheidi, A. S. (2013). The Drivers Of Quality Of Working Life (QWL): A
Critical Review. Australian journal of basic and applied sciences, 7(10), 398-405.

7. Havlovic, S. J. (1991). Quality of work life and human resource outcomes. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and
Society, 30(3), 469-479.

8. Hashmi, A., Malik, M., & Hussain, A. (2016). Work-life balance and its impact on job satisfaction among pharmacists: A
literature review. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences, 4(1), 29-36.

9. Indumathi, G. S., & Selvan, R. T. (2013). A Perception On Quality Of Work-Life Among Male And Female Employees In The
Information Technology Companies. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 1(7), 31-36.

10. Kaur, S., Singh, S., & Bhatia, B. Exploring Relationship among Spiritual Quotient, Feeling of Oneness and Job Satisfaction of
Employees: An Empirical Study.

11. Koonmee, K., Singhapakdi, A., Virakul, B., & Lee, D. J. (2010). Ethics institutionalization, quality of work life, and employee
job-related outcomes: A survey of human resource managers in Thailand. Journal of business research, 63(1), 20-26.

12. Korunka, C., Hoonakker, P., &Carayon, P. (2008). Quality Of Working Life And Turnover Intention In Information
Technology Work. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 18(4), 409-423.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
160 D. K. Amruth Raj & Dr. D. Bhanu Sree Reddy

13. Kraut, R. E., Dumais, S. T., & Koch, S. (1989).Computerization, Productivity, And Quality Of Work-Life. Communications of
the ACM, 32(2), 220-238.

14. Lawler, E. E. (1982). Strategies for improving the quality of work life. American psychologist, 37(5), 486.

15. Lee, Y. W., Dai, Y. T., Park, C. G., & McCreary, L. L. (2013). Predicting quality of work life on nurses’ intention to
leave. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 45(2), 160-168.

16. Louis, K. S. (1998). Effects of teacher quality of work life in secondary schools on commitment and sense of efficacy. School
effectiveness and school improvement, 9(1), 1-27.

17. Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler III, E. E. (1984). Accounting for the quality of work life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5(3),
197-212.

18. Mubeen, P. M., &Bawa, M. I. M. Relationship Between Quality Of Work Life (Qwl) And Employee Productivity (Ep) Among
Executive Staff In Srilankan State Universities.

19. Nadler, D. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1983). Quality of work life: Perspectives and directions. Organizational dynamics.

20. Nadler, D.A and Lawler, E.E (1983). “Quality of Work life: Perceptions and directions. Organizational dynamics” Volume
11(3), pages 20 to 30.

21. Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Swamy, D. R. (2013). Quality Of Work life Of Employees In Private Technical
Institutions. International journal for quality research, 7(3).

22. Nayak, S., & Joshi, H. G. (2017). Quality Of Work Life Among It Professionals In SME’s In Select Cities Of India. GSTF
Journal of Law and Social Sciences (JLSS), 1(1).

23. Nguyen, T. D., & Nguyen, T. T. (2012). Psychological capital, quality of work life, and quality of life of marketers: Evidence
from Vietnam. Journal of Macromarketing, 32(1), 87-95.

24. Nithya J. A Study On Quality Of Work Life And Linkage Between Human Wellbeing. International Journal For Science And
Advanced Research In Technology, Vol 2

25. Nnoaham, K. E., Hummelshoj, L., Webster, P., d’Hooghe, T., de Cicco Nardone, F., de Cicco Nardone, C.,... & Study, W. E. R.
F. G. (2011). Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten
countries. Fertility and sterility, 96(2), 366-373.

26. Normala, D. (2010). Investigating The Relationship Between Quality Of Work Life And Organizational Commitment Amongst
Employees In Malaysian Firms. International journal of business and management, 5(10), 75.

27. PP, S. (2017). Job Satisfaction of Women Teachers With Special Reference to Malappuram District. International Journal of
Human Resources Management (IJHRM), 6(6), 1-8.

28. Rai, G. D. (2015). An Empirical Understanding Of Quality Of Work Life Of Bank Employees. International journal of
advanced research in management and social sciences, 4(5), 234-246.

29. Sadri, S., &Goveas, C. (2013). Sustainable Quality Of Work Life And Job Satisfaction [An Indian Case Study]. Journal of
Economic Development, Environment and People, 2(4), 26-37.

30. Saraji, G. N., & Dargahi, H. (2006). Study of quality of work life (QWL). Iranian journal of public health, 35(4), 8-14.

31. Saraji, G. N., &Dargahi, H. (2006). Study Of Quality Of Work Life (Qwl). Iranian journal of public health, 35(4), 8-14..

32. Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., & Lee, D. J. (2001). A New Measure Of Quality Of Work Life (Qwl) Based On Need
Satisfaction And Spillover Theories. Social indicators research, 55(3), 241-302.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.2092 NAAS Rating: 3.38

An Empirical Study on Quality of Work Life of Employees in Manufacturing Organizations 161

33. Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., & Lee, D. J. (2001). A new measure of quality of work life (QWL) based on need
satisfaction and spillover theories. Social indicators research, 55(3), 241-302.

34. Sree Devi R and Ganapathi R V (2014). Factors Influencing the Quality of Work life of employees of the Garment Industry.
International journal of business and administrative research Vol: II Issue V.

35. Stein, B. A., & Kanter, R. M. (1980). Building the parallel organization: Creating mechanisms for permanent quality of work
life. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16(3), 371-388.

36. Subhashini, S., & Gopal, C. R. (2013). Quality Of Work Life Among Women Employees Working In Garment Factories In
Coimbatore District. Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I Issue XII.

37. Tabassum, A., & Khan, F. Quality of Work Life (QWL) among the Faculty Members of Private Universities in Bangladesh: A
Gender Perspective.

38. Tabassum, A., Rahman, T., & Jahan, K. (2011). A Comparative Analysis Of Quality Of Work Life Among The Employees Of
Local Private And Foreign Commercial Banks In Bangladesh. World Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 17-33.

39. Walton Richard E.“Quality of work life: What is it?”.Sloan management review Vol 15(1), pages 11 to 22.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org