Definition Various authors and researchers have proposed models of Quality of working life which include a wide range

of factors. Selected models are reviewed below. Hackman and Oldham (1976) drew attention to what they described as psychological growth needs as relevant to the consideration of Quality of working life. Several such needs were identified; Skill variety, Autonomy and Task Identity, Feedback Task significance, They suggested that such needs have to be addressed if employees are to experience high quality of working life. In contrast to such theory based models, Taylor (1979) more pragmatically identified the essential components of Quality of working life as; Basic 1.0) extrinsic job factors of wages, hours and working conditions, 2.0) intrinsic job notions of the nature of the work itself. He suggested that a number of other aspects could be added, including; individual power, 1) Employee participation in the 6) A meaningful future at work, management, 7) Social relevance of the work 2) Fairness and equity, or product, 3) Social support, 8) Effect on extra work 4) Use of ones present skills, activities. 5) Self development, Taylor suggested that relevant Quality of working life concepts may vary according to organisation and employee group. Warr and colleagues (1979), in an investigation of Quality of working life, considered a range of apparently relevant factors, including 1 work involvement, 5 job satisfaction, 2 intrinsic job motivation, 6 life satisfaction, 3 higher order need strength, 7 happiness, and 4 perceived intrinsic job 8 self-rated anxiety characteristics, They discussed a range of correlations derived from their work, such as those 1) between work involvement and job satisfaction, 2) intrinsic job motivation and job satisfaction, and 3) perceived intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction.

In particular, Warr et al. found evidence for a moderate association between total job satisfaction and total life satisfaction and happiness, with a less strong, but significant association with self-rated anxiety. Thus, whilst some authors have emphasized the workplace aspects in Quality of working life, others have identified the relevance of personality factors, psychological well being, and broader concepts of happiness and life satisfaction. Factors more obviously and directly affecting work has, however, served as the main focus of attention, as researchers have tried to tease out the important influences on Quality of working life in the workplace. Mirvis and Lawler (1984) suggested that Quality of working life was associated with a) satisfaction with wages, b) hours and working conditions, Describing the basic elements of a good quality of work life as; A) safe work environment, opportunities for B) equitable wages, advancement. C) Equal employment opportunities and Baba and Jamal (1991) listed what they described as typical indicators of quality of working life, including: 1) job satisfaction, 6) job stress, 2) job involvement, 7) organizational 3) work role ambiguity, commitment and 4) work role conflict, 8) Turn-over intentions. 5) work role overload, Baba and Jamal also explored routinisation of job content, suggesting that this facet should be investigated as part of the concept of quality of working life. Some have argued that quality of working life might vary between groups of workers. For example, Ellis and Pompli (2002) identified a number of factors contributing to job dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses, including: 1) Poor working 6) Lack of involvement in environments, decision making, 2) Resident aggression, 7) Professional isolation, 3) Workload, Unable to 8) Lack of recognition, deliver quality of care 9) Poor relationships with preferred, supervisor/peers, 4) Balance of work and 10) Role conflict, family, 11) Lack of opportunity 5) Shift work, to learn new skills.

Sirgy et al.; (2001) suggested that the key factors in quality of working life are: 1) Need satisfaction based 4) Need satisfaction based on job requirements, on Ancillary programmes, 2) Need satisfaction based 5) Organizational on Work environment, commitment. 3) Need satisfaction based on Supervisory behavior, They defined quality of working life as satisfaction of these key needs through resources, activities, and outcomes stemming from participation in the workplace. Maslows needs were seen as relevant in underpinning this model, covering Health & safety, Economic and family, Social, Esteem, Actualization, Knowledge and Aesthetics, although the relevance of non-work aspects is play down as attention is focussed on quality of work life rather than the broader concept of quality of life. These attempts at defining quality of working life have included theoretical approaches, lists of identified factors, correlational analyses, with opinions varying as to whether such definitions and explanations can be both global, or need to be specific to each work setting. Bearfield, (2003)used 16 questions to examine quality of working life, and distinguished between causes of dissatisfaction in professionals, intermediate clerical, sales and service workers, indicating that different concerns might have to be addressed for different groups. The distinction made between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in quality of working life reflects the influence of job satisfaction theories. Herzberg at al., (1959)used Hygiene factors and Motivator factors to distinguish between the separate causes of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. It has been suggested that Motivator factors are intrinsic to the job, that is; job content, the work itself, responsibility and advancement. The Hygiene factors or dissatisfactionavoidance factors include aspects of the job environment such as interpersonal relationships, salary, working conditions and security. Of these latter, the most common cause of job dissatisfaction can be company policy and administration, whilst achievement can be the greatest source of extreme satisfaction. An individuals experience of satisfaction or dissatisfaction can be substantially rooted in their perception, rather than simply reflecting their real world. Further, an individuals perception can be affected by relative comparison am I paid as much as that person - and comparisons of internalised ideals, aspirations, and expectations, for example, with the individuals current state (Lawler and Porter, 1966) (1).

In summary, where it has been considered, authors differ in their views on the core constituents of Quality of Working Life (e.g. Sirgy, Efraty, Siegel & Lee, 2001 (11) and Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979)(7). It has generally been agreed however that Quality of Working Life is conceptually similar to well-being of employees but differs from job satisfaction which solely represents the workplace domain (Lawler, 1982)(15). Quality of Working Life is not a unitary concept, but has been seen as incorporating a hierarchy of perspectives that not only include work-based factors such as job satisfaction, satisfaction with pay and relationships with work colleagues, but also factors that broadly reflect life satisfaction and general feelings of well-being (Danna & Griffin, 1999)(16). More recently, work-related stress and the relationship between work and non-work life domains (Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991) (17) have also been identified as factors that should conceptually be included in Quality of Working Life. Measurement There are few recognized measures of quality of working life, and of those that exist few have evidence of validity and reliability, that is, there is a very limited literature based on peer reviewed evaluations of available assessments. A recent statistical analysis of a new measure, the Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL), indicates that this assessment device should prove to be a useful instrument, although further evaluation would be useful. The WRQoWL measure uses 6 core factors to explain most of the variation in an individuals quality of working life: 1) Job and Career Satisfaction; 4) Home-Work Interface; 2) Working Conditions; 5) Stress at Work and 3) General Well-Being; 6) Control at Work. Applications Regular assessment of Quality of Working Life can potentially provide organizations with important information about the welfare of their employees, such as job satisfaction, general well-being, work-related stress and the home-work interface. Worrall and Cooper (2006) recently reported that a low level of wellbeing at work is estimated to cost about 5-10% of Gross National Product per annum, yet Quality of Working Life as a theoretical construct remains relatively unexplored and unexplained within the organizational psychology research literature. A large chunk of most peoples lives will be spent at work. Most people recognise the importance of sleeping well, and actively try to enjoy the leisure time that they can snatch. But all too often, people tend to see work as something they just have to put up with, or even something they dont even expect to enjoy. Some of the factors used to measure quality of working life pick up on things that dont actually make people feel good, but which seem to

make people feel bad about work if those things are absent. For example, noise if the place where someone works is too noisy, they might get frequent headaches, or find they can not concentrate, and so feel dissatisfied. But when it is quiet enough they dont feel pleased or happy - they just dont feel bad. This can apply to a range of factors that affect someone's working conditions. Other things seem to be more likely to make people feel good about work and themselves once the basics are OK at work. Challenging work (not too little, not too much) can make them feel good. Similarly, opportunities for career progression and using their abilities can contribute to someone's quality of working life.