Relationship Between Quality Of Work Life (QWL) And Employee Productivity (EP) Among Executive Staff In Srilankan State Universities

Abstract

Due to the rareness and their role, executive staff members are considered important assets of the University system. It is said that executive staff face lack of opportunities for career development. Their quality of work life should be enhanced for improving their productivity. This study attempts to determine the relationship between quality of work life and employee productivity. The study population for the study consists of 15 State Universities in Sri Lanka considering 306 executive staff. Data were collected during the period of 2013 and 2014 using questionnaire. Reliability results of this study disclosed that items of quality of work life and employee productivity have higher item reliability due to the values that are greater than 0.7. In terms of results of R square and adjusted R square, 63% and 61% of the variation is explained by quality of work life on employee productivity. Test of hypotheses proved that quality of work life is related to employee productivity. It is concluded that quality of work life is related to employee productivity.

Full text

Relationship Between Quality Of Work Life (QWL) And Employee
Productivity (EP) Among Executive Staff In Srilankan State
Universities
Mubeen, P. M1, Mohamed Ismail Mohideen Bawa2
1Senior Assistant Registrar, Faculty of Applied Sciences, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, Oluvil,
E- mail:ibthisampm@yahoo.com. Mobile: 0094 77 67 67 015
2Senior Lecturer in Management, Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Commerce,
South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, Oluvil, E- mail:mbmismail@seu.ac.lk, Mobile: 0094 77 69 444
77.
Abstract: Due to the rareness and their role, executive staff members are considered important assets of the University system. It
is said that executive staff face lack of opportunities for career development. Their quality of work life should be enhanced for
improving their productivity. This study attempts to determine the relationship between quality of work life and employee
productivity. The study population for the study consists of 15 State Universities in Sri Lanka considering 306 executive staff.
Data were collected during the period of 2013 and 2014 using questionnaire. Reliability results of this study disclosed that items
of quality of work life and employee productivity have higher item reliability due to the values that are greater than 0.7. In terms
of results of R square and adjusted R square, 63% and 61% of the variation is explained by quality of work life on employee
productivity. Test of hypotheses proved that quality of work life is related to employee productivity. It is concluded that quality
of work life is related to employee productivity.
Keywords: Employee productivity, executive staff, quality of work life, State Universities
1. INTRODUCTION
University Grants Commission (2013) reported that there are around 400 executive staff members, nearly
3500 teaching staff and more than 6000 non-teaching staff members in the all 15 State Universities in Sri Lanka.
Due to the rareness and their role, numbers of the executive staff members are considered important assets of the
University system. They are responsible for general administration of Universities. It is said that lack of
opportunities for career development, lack of flexibility and freedom, lower compensation, discrimination in
rewards and benefits, conflict between management and faculty members, lack of academic and research
environment, and limited job opportunities etc. are the reasons for leaving the job. Akhter, Muniruddin and Sogra
(2008) also explored the same reasons for leaving the jobs in Bangladesh Universities. All these factors are
essentially related with quality of work life (QWL). Further, QWL deals with both the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects
of jobs. According to Straw and Heckscher (1984), QWL is a philosophy, a set of principles, which holds that
people are the most important resource in the organization as they are trustworthy, responsible and capable of
making valuable contribution and they should be treated with dignity and respect. QWL encompasses mode of
wages payment, working conditions, working time, health hazards issue, financial and non-financial benefits and
management behavior towards employees (Islam &Siengthai, 2009). According to Gadon (1984), QWL
programmes enhance productivity and increase the satisfaction of employees. Thus, QWL provides healthier,
satisfied and productive employees, which in turn provides efficient and profitable organization (Sadique, 2003).
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Problem of this study is stated using previous empirical findings. Studies related to relationship between
quality of work life and employee productivity were scrutinized for defining the problem. There are various research
evidences to test the relationship between quality of work life and employee productivity. Salavati, Maghsoudi and
Hasani (2013) studied to determine the relationship between quality of work life and the productivity of manpower.
Their findings revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship between quality of work life and

employee productivity. Whereas some studies proved the relationship between quality of work life some other
studies failed to prove such relationship. Studies have failed to prove the association between quality work life
(employee participation) and employee productivity. Miller and Monge (1986) argued that there is evidence that
participative climate has a more substantial effect on worker’s satisfaction. But, participation in specific decisions
does not have impact on worker’s satisfaction. It appeared that participation in goal setting does not have strong
effect on productivity. Study argued that participation has a strong effect on both job satisfaction and productivity.
But, its effect on satisfaction is somewhat stronger than on productivity. Along with these confused empirical
evidences, researchers observed that there are turnover rate among executive staff. There are low productivity
among executive staff. However, they are committed to perform work in State Universities. Studies proved that
quality of work life enhances employee work performance. Kheradmand, Valilou, and Lotfi (2010) studied about the
relationship between quality of work life and job performance in DadevarzJooya Company in Iran using quality of
work life variables such as satisfaction with fair payments, a safe & healthy working environment, an opportunity
for continuous growth, social relationship in organization, balanced role of work, social coherent in the work
organization, developing human capacities, and regulation & rule orientation. The results of this study showed a
significant positive relationship between quality of quality of work life and employee job performance. Thus, it is
evident that when employees are given high quality of work life they will perform their jobs well. In other words,
they will improve their work productivity. Thus, executive staff of State Universities should be given high quality of
work life for enhancing their productivity.
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES
Based on the empirical evidences of previous studies, researchers wish to raise “whether there is
relationship between quality of work life and employee productivity”. So as to answer to this research question, “to
determine the relationship between quality of work life and employee productivity” is set as objective of this study.
1.3 SIGIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study has several significances. The first is that quality of work life is important to strategic planning
and employee satisfaction & retention. Most organizations today view quality of work life as important, but do not
formally link it to any of their strategic or business plans (Periman, 2006), which affects the employee job
satisfaction and retention (Havlovic, 1991, Newaz Ali & Akhter, 2007). When State Universities develop long term
strategic plans they have to concentrate on quality of work life that, in turn, leads to employee productivity. Second,
quality of work life has created an urge to the State University’s policy makers to identify the underlying reasons for
quality of work life. Therefore, due to the importance of this sector, it is a necessity to evaluate the quality of work
life and productivity of the executive staff members of State Universities. Third, quality of work life is important for
retaining employees from quitting State Universities. Once employees feel that quality of work life is not adequate,
they may try to leave the job and seek better places for quality of work life. Fourth, executive members of State
Universities play key role in manipulating their services through providing better administration and building the
nation. Studies witness this notion. Hasan, Chowdhury and Alam (2008) mentioned that faculty turnover has an
imperative effect on the ultimate education system. It has been accepted that the organization with good human
resources practices can lead to a high quality of work life for the employees who ultimately increase their
productivity and lowers the intention of leaving the jobs.
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Mubeen and Ismail (2014) are working for identifying factors of employee productivity among executive
staff in State Universities of Sri Lanka. It is expected that quality of work life may be determined by variables such
as ability, incentive & motivation, evaluation, environment, clarity & confidence, help & support and validity.
Mubeen and Ismail (2014) are working for determining factors affecting quality of work life of executive staff in
Srilankan State Universities. It is expected that quality of work life variables such as adequate and fair
compensation, safe & healthy environment, development of human capacities and growth & security, social
integration, social relevance, the total life space and constitutionalism would be the factors of quality of work life.
There are few studies that studied about some other concepts with employee productivity. For instance, Nely (1999)
studied about relationship between employee morale and employee productivity. Study found that there is a positive
relationship between the both variables. Specifically speaking, when the moral increase, employee productivity also
increase. Studies proved that quality of work life enhances employee work performance. Kheradmand, Valilou, and

Lotfi (2010) studied about the relationship between quality of work life and job performance in DadevarzJooya
Company in Iran using quality of work life variables such as satisfaction with fair payments, a safe & healthy
working environment, an opportunity for continuous growth, social relationship in organization, balanced role of
work, social coherent in the work organization, developing human capacities, and regulation & rule orientation. The
results of this study showed a significant positive relationship between quality of quality of work life and employee
job performance. Thus, it is evident that when employees are given high quality of work life they will perform their
jobs well. In other words, they will improve their work productivity. Thus, executive staff of State Universities
should be given high quality of work life for enhancing their productivity.
2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
To study relationship between quality of work life and productivity of employee, Walton (1980) introduced
a conceptual model. The same was used by Hersey & Goldsmith (1980). Since this model has popularity among
academics and practitioners. This study also adopts the same for the study. Figure 2.1.1 shows the conceptual model.
Figure 2.1.1: Total quality of work life and employee productivity
(Source: Adopted from Walton, 1980 and Hersey & Goldsmith, 1980)
2.1.1 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
With the argument of review of literature and adopted conceptual framework, the following hypothesis is
developed.
 Null hypothesis (H0) : Quality of work life is not related to employee productivity
 Alternative hypothesis (H1): Quality of work life is related to employee productivity
2.2 RESEARCH VARIABLES
Quality of work life is measured by eight factors such as adequate and fair compensation, work condition,
use & development of capacity, chance of growth & development, social integration in the organization,
Adequate & fair
compensation
A Safe and Healthy
Working environment
Growth and security
Development of human
capacities
The total life space
Constitutionalism
Social integration
Social relevance
Ability
Clarity
Help
Incentive
Evaluation
Validity
Environment
Employee
Productivity
Quality of
Work life

constitutionalism and work & the total space of life. Employee productivity is measured by seven factors such as
ability, clarity & confidence, help & support, incentive & motivation, evaluation, validity and environment.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLE
The study population for the study consists of 15 State Universities in Sri Lanka. Executive staffs ranging
from the registrar, bursar, deputy registrar, deputy bursar, senior assistant registrar, senior assistant bursar, assistant
registrar and assistant bursar were considered in this study. 306 (population size) executive staff were considered as
the total sample of the research. Stratified random sampling technique was used for this study.
3.2 DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The study made use of questionnaire as the research instrument. The majority of questions used were
adapted from a questionnaire on quality of work life used by Walton (1980) and Hersey & Goldsmith (1980). There
were 26 questions from quality of work life and 25 questions from employee productivity. Questions were scaled on
five-point Likert ranging from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5) with respect to quality of work life and
employee productivity. Acceptance rate was 75.816 [(232/306) * 100].
3.3 DATA COLLECTION
Data were collected during the period of 2013 and 2014 using questionnaire. Reliability is analyzed by
Cronbach alpha. Regression analysis is also conducted with the aid of statistical package such as SPSS.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.1 RELIABILITY OF QUESTIONNAIRE
Items of quality of work life and employee productivity have higher item reliability. Thus, items can be
reliable to describe the factors. Table 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 show reliability values.
Table 4.1.1: Reliability test for quality of work life
Factor
Items
Number of items
Alpha Value
Adequate and fair
compensation
remuneration, justice in the remuneration,
external fairness and fringe benefits
4
0.870
Safe and healthy
environment
working hours, work environment and salubity
level
3
0.890
Development of human
capacities
autonomy, multiple qualities and information
access
3
0.816
Growth and security
professional growth, personnel growth,
perspective of wage advantages and stability
4
0.829
Social integration
absence of prejudice, relationship and equality
3
0.856
Constitutionalism
labor laws, privacy and freedom of expression
3
0.723
Total life space
stability of schedules, geographic change and
time for leisure
3
0.709
Social relevance
proud of work, social responsibility and
responsibility of the product and service
3
0.813
(Source: Survey data)

Table 4.1.2: Reliability test for employee productivity
Factor
Items
Number of items
Alpha Value
Ability
experience, training, knowledge and skill
4
0.705
Clarity and confidence
understanding of goals and objectives, work
priority and self-assuredness
3
0.754
Help
adequate human resources, adequate facilities,
cooperation from superior and support of
subordinates
4
0.722
Incentive
rewards, commitment, willingness and positive
reinforcement
4
0.715
Evaluation
performance feedback, performance criteria and
coaching
3
0.858
Validity
legal guide lines, task legitimacy and
consistency in decision making
3
0.717
Environment
external control, external decision making and
global mindset
3
0.729
(Source: Survey data)
4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF WORK LIFE AND EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY
Regression analysis was conducted using “enter method”. Quality of work life components or variables
such as fair compensation, work condition, development of capacities, social integration, constitutionalism, total life
space and social relevance, and employee productivity were used in this analysis. In terms of R square and adjusted
R square, 63% and 61% of the variation is explained by quality of work life on employee productivity. Thus model
based on quality of work life (i.e. variables such as fair compensation, work condition, development of capacities,
social integration, constitutionalism, total life space and social relevance) and employee productivity is acceptable.
Since model is an acceptable and fitted one quality work life variables in this model are also suitable to describe
employee productivity. Model summary of regression analysis is shown in Table 4.2.1.
Table 4.2.1: Model summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1
.794a
.630
.618
.26686
(Source: Survey data)
Sum of square, mean square and F statistics show that model is statistically significant. It is also proved by sig value.
Since sig value is less than 0.05 model is statistically significant. It is shown in ANOVA Table 4.2.2.
Table 4.2.2: ANOVAb
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
27.149
7
3.878
54.461
.000a
Residual
15.952
224
.071
Total
43.101
231
(Source: Survey data)

4.2.1 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Since sig value is 0.000 which is less than 5% of significance level. Researchers reject null and accept
alternative hypothesis. In other words, quality of work life is related to employee productivity.
4.3 REGRESSION MODEL
Total quality of work life represents seven variables such as adequate & fair compensation, safe & healthy
environment, development of human capacities, social integration, constitutionalism, the total life space and social
relevance. All these positively rise towards total employee productivity. Beta values for related quality of work life
are shown in Table 4.2.3.
Table 4.2.3: Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
.068
.018
3.864
.000
adequate & fair
compensation
.098
.059
.228
1.666
.097
safe & healthy
environment
.077
.035
.178
2.186
.030
development of
human
capacities
.071
.058
.163
1.209
.228
social
integration
.104
.039
.242
2.682
.008
constitutionalism
.067
.018
.155
3.658
.000
the total life
space
.057
.018
.132
3.093
.002
social relevance
.084
.039
.194
2.158
.032
(Source: Survey Data)
From the above table, formula for the relationship between quality of work life components and employee
productivity has been developed. It is shown in the eq. (1).
Employee Productivity = 0.68 + .098 * adequate & fair compensation + .077 * safe & healthy environment + .071*
development of human capacities + .104 * social integration + .067 * Constitutionalism + 0.57* total life space +
.084 * social relevance……..eq. (4)

5. CONCLUSION
Researcher set to test the relationship between quality of work life and employee productivity in this study.
Reliability results of this study disclosed that items of quality of work life and employee productivity have higher
item reliability due to the values that are greater than 0.7. Thus, items can be reliable to describe the factors. In terms
of results of R square and adjusted R square, 63% and 61% of the variation is explained by quality of work life on
employee productivity. Test of hypotheses proved that since sig value is 0.000 which is less than 5% of significance
level. Researchers reject null and accept alternative hypothesis. In other words, quality of work life is related to
employee productivity. It is concluded that quality of work life is related to employee productivity. Results of this
research are similar to findings of Swart (1985), Marks et al.(1986), Buchele & Christiansen (1995), Knox, Irving &
Annalee(1997), Estele & Vilfred (2004), Beasley et al (2005), and Dargahi & Nasle Seragi (2007) in which
importance and relationship between quality of work life and employee productivity have been emphasized.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Researchers acknowledge that this study is a self- funded project. Therefore, all the costs of the research
belong to researchers.
REFERENCES
 Salavati, A., Keyhan, B. & Hasani, K. (2013). Relationship between Quality of work life and the Productivity of
Manpower, Management and Administrative Sciences Review, 2(3), 243 – 253.
 Beasley, J. W., Karsh, B.T., Sainfort, F., Hagenauer, M. E., Marchand, L. (2005). “Quality of work life of
family physicians in Wisconsin's health care organizations: a WReN study, 103(7), 51-5.
 Buchele, R.,& Christiansen, J. (1995).Worker Rights Promote Productivity Growth, Challenge. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 38(5), 32-37.
 Estele&Vilfred (2004).Vanderbilt marking studies to improve quality of work life.Vanderbilt university medical
center for more journal, 38, 42-58.
 Dargahi, H., & NasleSeragi, J., (2007), "An Approach Model for Employees” Improving Quality of work
life.Iranian Journal of Public Health, 36(4), 81-86.
 Havlovic, S. J. (1991). Quality of work life and human resource out comes. Industrial relations, 30 (3), 469 –
479.
 Hersey, H & Goldsmith, M (1980).A situational approach to performance planning. Training and Development
Journal, Madison, 34 (11), 38.
 Islam, M. Z. & Siengthai, S. (2009, June 18 - 19). Quality of work life and organizational performance,
Empirical evidence from Dhaka export processing zone. Presented paper at ILO conference, Geneva.
 Kheradmand, E., Valilou, M., & Lofty, A. (2010). The Relation between quality of work life and job
performance. Middle – East journal of scientific research, 6(4), 317 – 323.
 Knox, S., Irving, J., & Annalee, A. (1997). Interactive Quality of Work Life Model Applied to Organizational
Transition. The journal of nursing administration, 27 (1), 39-47.
 Marks, M. L., Mirvis, P. H., Hackett, E. J., Grady, J. F. (1986). Employee participation in a Quality Circle
program: Impact on quality of work life, productivity, and absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1),
61-69.
 Miller, K. I. & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, Satisfaction and Productivity: A Meta- Analytical Review.
Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 727-753.
 Mubeen, P. M. & Ismail, M. B. M. (2014). Factors of Employee Productivity among Executive Staff in State
Universities of Sri Lanka. Working Paper.
 Mubeen, P. M. & Ismail, M. B. M. (2014). Factors affecting Quality of Work Life (QWL) of Executive Staff in
Srilankan State Universities. Working Paper.
 Nely, G.H. (1999). Relationship between employee morale and employee productivity. International Journal of
Business Trends and Technology, 3(4), 30 – 35.
 Sadique, Z. (2003). Quality of work life among white collar and blue collar employees. Journal of the Institute
of Bangladesh studies, 26, 169 – 174.
 Swart J.C. (1985). Clerical Workers on Flextime. Personnel, 4-62.

 UGC (2013). Retrieved from www.ugc.ac.lk, Accessed on 24.01.2013.
 Walton, R.E. (1975). Criteria for quality of working life: The free press, New York, 1, 91 – 104.
 Walton, R. E. (1980). Improving the quality of work life. Harvard Business Review, 19(12), 11 – 24.