STUDY ON PERCEPTION OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE

AMONG TEXTILE MANUFACTURING WORKERS IN

TIRUNELVELI
Abstract
Quality of Life is the extent of relationships between individuals
and organizational factors that existing in the working
environment. Quality of work life is the extent to which workers
can satisfy important personal needs through their experiences
in the organization. It is focusing strongly on providing a work
environment conducive to satisfy individual needs. It is assumed
that if employees have more positive attitudes about the
organization and their productivity increases, everything else
being equal, the organization should be more effective. The
present study was conducted to examine the work related
factors and demographic factors have any relationship with the
perception of quality of work life and to explore the relationship
between quality of work and quality of life in textile industries
located at Tirunelveli. The work related factors are combined in
six categories: working environment, welfare measures, safety
measures, supervision, participation in decision making and
intercommunication. The results hold that demographic factors
and work related factors have significant relationship with
perception of quality of work life.

A STUDY ON PERCEPTION OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE
AMONG TEXTILE MANUFACTURING WORKERS IN
TIRUNELVELI

Introduction Post liberalization environment give rise to
number of industries which brings competitive business war in
India. Industries in India have to think how to face them and
survive. Every organization is facing unique problems, some
organizations may have old technology, some may lag in
financial strength and some may pause be having obsolete
products, some may not have providing good working
environment, and some may not have job security but any of
which may affect the quality of work life. However many Indian
Textile industries are not exceptional one to face the same. Any
attempt at improving the performance of the organization can be
successful only if the organization is able to develop a strong
quality work life.

The term quality of work life refers to the favorableness or
unfavourableness of a total job environment for people (Davis
and Newstrom 1985). The basic purpose is to develop jobs and
working conditions that are excellent for people as well as for the
economic health of the organization. The elements in QWL
program include-open communication, equitable reward systems
a concern for employee job security and satisfying careers and
participation in decision making.
rs L. Kanagalakshmi, Lecturer, Department of anagement
Studies, anonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli
obnet's Placement
Consultants Directory -
India & International

Buy this ob
Directory NOW
,









iss Nirmala Devei .B, Researh Scholar, Department of
anagement Studies, anonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli

QWL programs usually emphasize development of employee
skills, the reduction of occupational stress and development of
labor management relations. Several researches have been
conducted in this field. Sayeed and Sinha (1981) examined the
relationship between QWL, job stress and performance. The
results indicate that higher QWL leads to greater job satisfaction.
Rahman (1984) in his study on the industrial workers of India
found that subjects having low educational background and
lower income had better perception of QWL than those having
higher education and higher income. Haque (1992) in his study
found that QWL is positively related to performance and
negatively correlated to absenteeism. But he found no
relationship between perceived QWL and workers age, education
and job experience. Wadud (1996) in a study found that QWL
was significantly higher among the private sector women
employees than their counterparts among the private sector
women employees than their counterparts in the public sector. It
also showed that younger group and higher experienced groups
had significantly higher perception of QWL than the older and the
lower experienced groups.

Objectives
No work so far has been conducted on QWL and work related
factors of textile industries at Tirunelveli. Thus there is a need to
conduct research on QWL and job related factors in these
industries. The present study was designed with a view to
achieving the following objectives

1. To determine how work related factors enhance better quality
of life
2. To assess the contribution of demographic variables

Hypothesis:

H0: Work related factors do not lead to better quality of work
Life.
H1: Work related factors leads to better quality of work life.
H0: Demographic factor does not influence the perceived level of
quality of work life.
H1: Demographic factor influence the perceived level of quality
of work of life.

Methodology

Sample The present study was conducted on a sample of 210
workers taken from five textile manufacturing workers at
Tirunelveli. The respondents were selected on stratified random
sampling basis.

Measuring Instruments used The major instruments used in
the present study were Sinha and Sayeed`s inventory for
measuring quality of working life was followed. An open-end
questions contains 55 question was used to measure the
perception of workers. Likert five point continuum was used to
prepare the scale to measure the work related attitude of
respondents. Personnel data were also collected to measure the
demographic variables

Present study The present study attempts to measure the level
of perceived Quality of work life of the workers of textile mills.
Attempt is also made to find out if quality of work life has any
significant relationship with job related variables and with
demographic variables. The present study suffered from some
limitations like small sample size and limited area of
investigation which might not be true representative of the
whole population of the textile industries. So, before
generalization, there is a need to conduct an in-depth study
covering larger sample size and broader areas of investigation.

Present scenario of study area
The study grasps the following sections that deals with the
present circumstances existing at the study area to bring the
complete picture under what situation the respondents are
working and what condition is prevailing then in the textile
industries in Tirunelveli.

Work Related Factors: Working environment

Environmental factors determine the type of supervisors
behavior required as a complement if worker outcomes to be
maximized. While personal characteristics of the workers
determine how the environment and supervisor behavior are
interpreted. It is observed that the climate of the textile
industries in Tirunelveli is comply with statutory measures and it
may suits to work comfortable for present employees.

Welfare Measures
Welfare measures are likely to promote good employee health
and safety which may result in greater worker efficiency and
productivity. It may also boost the employee morale and loyalty.
Welfare measures of textile industries shows that they are in
need of some provisions like sittings, suitable restrooms,
transport facilities are found to be not adequate, but the making
adjustments for late attendance, weekly holidays, rest hours,
canteen facilities, recreation facilities are found to be satisfied by
the respondents.

Safety measures
Safety is the freedom from the occurrence of risk, injury or loss.
The management should provide proper equipments, and tools
and training for using the tools. Top management in the textile
industries has made provisions for the worker and some of the
workers found to be unaware of it.

Supervision
Supportive supervision may leads higher employee performance
and satisfaction when workers are performing structured tasks.
It was expected that the supervisors would assume the role of
change agent in enhancing the self image of workers and to
develop them. The study area shows that supervisors role in
work done from the employees found to be critical and they very
supportive and assertive to complete the task assignment

Participation in decision making
Participation in decision making, particularly workers in deciding
important matters influence the workers to feel sense of
workmanship and creativity. It is directly concerned with an
individuals working and has an important bearing on his
satisfaction. Only autocratic power of attorney is prevailed and
supervisors are paying much attention to the proposal whispered
by the employees

Communication
Communication enhances the capacity to convey information.
Through upward communication, employees can share their
views, grievances and how to overcome these, and getting
suggestions for improving work performance. Communication is
held through notice board and circulars to all the employees.
Informal communication is also plays a vital role in the textile
industries.

Analysis of data:
The core of study being quality of work life measure the
dependent variables with the tools of statistical analysis
consisted of absolute numbers of summery statistics and
comparison of mean scores are made with the help of chi-square
test. In addition, the dependent variables are analyzed with the
help of Analysis of Variance to find out the level of significance of
the difference in mean squares. SPSS 10 VERSION was used to
analyze the data.

TableNo:1
Factor Calculate
d
Chi-
square
Degrees
oI
Ireedo
m

Table
value

Remarks
Age 14.727 4.00 13.27
7
1 level
signiIicanc
e
Educationa
l status
26.731 6.00 16.81
2
1 level oI
signiIicanc
e
Experience 7.910 4.00 9.488 Not
signiIicanc
e
Income 24.520 4.00 13.27
7
SigniIicant
at 1 level
Family size 5.197 4.00 9.488 Not
signiIicant
Wealth
position
7.533 4.00 9.488 Not
signiIicant
DEOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND LEVEL OF PERCEPTION OF QWL
- CHI-SQUARE TEST

TableNo: 2

WORK RELATED FACTORS -TEST OFANOVA

WORKING ENVIRONENT AND PERCEPTION OF QWL


Sourc
es oI
varian
ce
Sum oI
squares
DO
F
Mea
n
Squa
re
F-
Val
ue
Tabl
e
Val
ue
Remark
s
Betwe
en
Group
s
Withi
n
Group
s
64.450

899.07

2

207
32.2
25

4.34
7.42


3.00 SigniIic
ant
Total 963.524 209
TableNo:3

WELFARE EASURES AND PERCEPTION OF QWL


Sourc
es oI
varian
ce
Sum oI
squares
DO
F
Mea
n
Squa
re
F-
Val
ue
Tab
le
Val
ue
Remark
s
Betwe
en
Group
194.815

768.708
2

207
97.4
08

26.2
3

3.00 SigniIic
ant
s
Withi
n
Group
s
3.71
4

Total 963.524 209
TableNo:4

SAFETY EASURES AND PERCEPTION OF QWL


Source
s oI
varian
ce
Sum oI
squares
DO
F
Mea
n
Squa
re
F-
Valu
e
Tab
le
Val
ue
Remark
s
Betwe
n
Group
s
Within
Group
s
335.72

627.804

2

20
7
167.
86

3.03
3
55.3
47
3.00 SigniIic
ant
Total 963.524 20
9

TableNo:5

SUPERVISION AND PERCEPTION OF QWL


Sourc
es oI
varian
ce
Sum oI
squares
DO
F
Mea
n
Squa
re
F-
Valu
e
Tab
le
Val
ue
Remark
s
Betwe
en
Group
s
132.657

830.867

2

207
66.3
28

4.01
16.5
25


3.00 SigniIic
ant
Withi
n
Group
s
4
Total 963.524 209
TableNo:6

PARTICIPATION IN DECISION AKING AND PERCEPTION OF
QWL
Sourc
es oI
varian
ce
Sum oI
squares
DO
F
Mea
n
Squa
re
F-
Val
ue
Tab
le
Val
ue
Remark
s
Betwe
en
Group
s
Withi
n
Group
s
87.211

980.412

2

207
43.6
06

4.73
6
9.20
7


3.00 SigniIic
ant
Total 1067 209
TableNo:7

INTER COUNICATION AND PERCEPTION OF QWL


Source
s oI
varian
ce
Sum oI
squares
DO
F
Mean
Squa
re
F-
Valu
e
Tabl
e
Valu
e
Remarks
Betwe
en
Group
s
Within
Group
s
114.718

625.896

2

207
57.35
9

3.024
18.9
7


3.00 SigniIica
nt
Total 963.524 209
Analysis

Results It is noted from the table No:1 the demographic factors
of Age ,Education and Income of the calculated chi-square value
is less than the table value at 1% level of significance. This infers
that the age of the respondents, education and income and the
level of perception on QWL are associated "holds good.

The results further shows that Demographic factors of
Experience, Family size and Wealth position of the calculated chi-
square value is more than the table value at 1% level of
significance. This shows that there is no close relationship
between the variables of experience, family size and wealth
position and the level of perception on QWL

From the table no 2,3,4,5,6,7 shows that the workers of the
manufacturing industries have significant relationship with the
work related factors of working environment, welfare measures,
safety measures, supervision measures, participation in decision
making and intercommunication.
It is known that the factors influencing the working conditions
and welfare measures such as work place does not affect the
quality of work life in these industries. The implications of these
findings is that the supervisor who creates condition under which
his workers can satisfy important needs and allowing them to
participate in decision making is likely to motivate his workers
successfully to better work performance. However, sometimes
informally it is observed that the feedback about decision making
particularly in implementing interventions (specifically-techno
structural intervention) found to be dissatisfied. Even though the
management provide good quality of work life, the workers does
not have any scope for job confirmation. 20 % of the workers
have highest experience of 8 years service and there is no job
gradation

Discussion

The present study attempted to assess whether the workers in
textile industries perceived quality of work life. Attempt was also
made to find out if quality of work life had any relationship with
work related factors and with demographic factors. It appears
from the results that textile workers perceive significantly
according to the demographic factors of age, income, and
education. This finding supports the earlier findings by Haque
(1992), Hossain (1999), Rahman (1984), Hoque and Rahman
(1999) but against the factors of experience, wealth and family
size. Hoque and Rahman found that demographic factors of
(age, education, experience and income) private sector worker
perceived significantly higher QWL than their counter parts in the
public sector. Wadud (1996) and odway (1981) also expressed
the same.
QWL was found to have significant relationship with work related
factors. This result is consistent with the findings of Haque
(1992), Hossain (1999) and Sayeed Sinha (1981).

CONCLUSION
It is observed that quality of work is not equals to that of quality
of life. The study suggests the management to take the
necessary steps to arrest the drift of deteriorating quality of
work life in certain human factors like experience, wealth
position, family size which are the basic factors to express the
workers desire. Insecurity of job leads to discouragement,
anxiety and even bitterness for negative perception of quality of
work life. Providing sittings, suitable restrooms, transport
facilities to all the employees may encourage them to work
continuously in the same industry. Allowing employees to
participate in decision making make them to work
enthusiastically and give recognition to them in their work.
Providing training in using safety measures may build loyalty in
their work. If the management provides permanent job, will
definitely leads to good quality of work life.
References:
1. Haque, AB (1992), "QWL & Job satisfaction of industrial
workers in relation to size of the organization, Bangladesh
journal of psychological studies, 2,1, 43-45
2. Hossain, J.A. (1997), "QWL of Industrial workers in
Bangladesh: A case study, onograph, Dept of anagement,
Islamic University, Bangladesh
3. Rahman A. (1984), "QWL as perceived by the Industrial shift
workers, Thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad
4. Wadud N. (1996), "Job stress & QWL among working women,
Bangladesh Psychological Studies, 6, 31-37
5. Sinha P. & Sayeed O. B. (1980), "easuring QWL in relation
to job satisfaction & performance in two organization,
"anagerial Psychology, 2, 15-30
6. .E. Hoque & A. Rahman (1999), Quality of working life & Job
behaviour of workers in Bangladesh: a comparative study of
private and public sectors, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
35, 3, Oct 1999
7. d. Hossain & d T. Islam, "QWL & Job satisfaction of GVT
hospital nurses in Bangladesh, Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations, 35, 3, Oct 1999
8. L Prasad , "Organzational Behaviour, Sultan Chand & Sons,
ed 2003.

Appendix: List of Tables
Demographic factors -Chi Square Analysis
Table No: 1 Age and Perception of quality of work life

Age No. of Respondents % Average Range S.D.
in ax
Below 20 years 50 23.8 185.54 56 280 69.8
20-25 years 92 43.8 224.66 82 280 61.08
Above 25 years 68 32.4 208.01 56 280 69.77
Total 210 100

Table No: 2 Level of perception Two-way table

Age Level of Perception Total
Low edium High
Below 20 years 10 (20) 9 (18) 31(62) 50
20-25 years 8 (8.7) 6 (6.5) 78(84.8) 92
Above 25 years 8(11.8) 16(23.5) 44(64.7) 68
26 31 153 210

Table No: 3 Age and level of perception of quality of work life
(Chi-square Test)
Factor Calculated chi-square Degrees of freedom Table value
Remarks
Age 14.727 4 13.277 Significant at 1% level

Table No: 4 Education and Perception of quality of work life

Educational
Status No. of Respondents % Average Range S.D.
in ax
Below 8th std 105 50 224.24 84 280 60.87
SSLC 64 30.5 188.52 56 280 69.07
12th std 26 12.4 223.19 56 280 75.66
Diploma or ITI 15 7.1 178.53 100 280 62.77
210 100

Table No: 5 Level of perception Two-way table

Education Level of Perception Total
Low edium High
Below 8th std 11(10.5) 7 (6.7) 87(82.9) 105
SSLC 11 (17.2) 12(18.8) 41(64.1) 64
12th std 3(11.5) 4(15.4) 19(73.1) 26
Diploma or ITI 1(6.7) 8(53.3) 6(40) 15
26 31 153 210

Table No: 6 Education and level of perception of quality of work
life
(Chi-square Test)

Factor Calculated chi-square Degrees of freedom Table value
Remarks
Educational status 26.731 6 16.812 Significant at 1% level

Table No: 7 Experience and Perception of quality of work life

Experience No. of Respondents % Average Range S.D.
in ax
Below 5 Years 56 26.7 185.7 56 280 68.04
5-10Years 33 15.7 228.91 56 280 60.55
Above 10 years 121 57.6 216.02 56 280 66.65
Total 210 100

Table No: 8 Level of perception Two-way table

Experience Level of Perception Total
Low edium High
Below 5 Years 11(19.6) 11(19.6) 34(60.7) 56
5-10Years 1(3) 4(12.1) 28(84.8) 33
Above 10 years 14(11.6) 16(13.2) 91(75.2) 121
Total2631153210 Table No: 9 Experience and level of perception
of quality of work life
(Chi-square Test)

Factor Calculated chi-square Degrees of freedom Table value
Remarks
Experience 7.910 4 9.488 Not Significant

Table No: 10 Income and Perception of quality of work life

Income No. of Respondents % Average Range S.D.
in ax
Below 1500 100 47.6 210.81 56 280 68.67
1500-2000 61 29 221.49 56 280 62.25
Above 2000 49 23.4 193.86 87 280 69.83
Total 210 100

Table No:11 Level of perception Two-way table

Income Level of Perception Total
Low edium High
Below 1500 12(12) 15(15) 73(73) 100
1500-2000 7(11) 0 54(88.5) 61
Above 2000 7(14.3) 16(32.7) 26(53.1) 49
Total 26 31 153 210

Table No: 12 Income and level of perception of quality of work
life
(Chi-square Test)

Factor Calculated chi-square Degrees of freedom Table value
Remarks
Income 24.52 13.277 4 Significant at 1% level

Table No: 13 Family Status and Perception of quality of work life

Family embers No. of Respondents % Average Range S.D.
in ax
Less than 3 34 16.2 190.79 56 280 62.87
4-5 149 71 210.95 56 280 66.69
Above 5 27 12.8 228.63 56 280 74.35
Total 210 100

Table No:14 Level of perception Two-way table

Family Status Level of Perception Total
Low edium High
Less than 3 4(11.8) 9(26.5) 12(61.8) 34
4-5 18(12.1) 20(13.4) 111(74.5) 149
Above 5 4(14.8) 2(7.4) 21(77.8) 27
Total 26 31 153 210

Table No: 15 Family Status and level of perception of quality of
work life
(Chi-square Test)

Factor Calculated chi-square Degrees of freedom Table value
Remarks
Family Status 5.197 4 9.488 Not Significant
Table No: 16 Wealth and Perception of quality of work life

Wealth position No. of Respondent % Average Range S.D.
in ax
Below 10,000 156 74.3 213.25 56 280 66.32
10,000-15,000 35 16.7 208.34 87 280 70.26
Above 15000 19 9 185.89 100 280 71.5
Total 210 100

Table No:17 Level of perception Two-way table

Wealth position Level of Perception Total
Low edium High
Below 10,000 17(10.9) 20(12.8) 119(76.3) 156
10,000-15,000 5(14.3) 5(14.3) 25(71.4) 35
Above 15000 4(21.1) 6(31.6) 9(47.4) 19
Total 26 31 153 210

Table No: 18 Family Status and level of perception of quality of
work life
(Chi-square Test)

Factor Calculated chi-square Degrees of freedom Table value
Remarks
Wealth Position 7.533 4 9.488 Not Significant
WORK RELATED FACTORS -Descriptive Statistics and TEST
OFANOVA

Table No: 19 Working Environment and perception of quality of
work life

Factors No. of Respondent s ean Range S.D.
in ax
Comfortable 165 22.23 14 24 2.1267
Comfortless 24 21.125 13 23 2.34
Disconcert 21 20.667 18 22 1.2383
Total 210 21.95 13 24 2.147

TableNo: 20 WORKING ENVIRONENT AND PERCEPTION OF
QWL

Sources of variance Sum of squares DOF ean Square F- Value
Table Value Remarks
Between
Groups
Within Groups 64.450

899.07 2

207 32.225

4.34 7.42

3.00 Significant
Total 963.524 209

Table No: 21 Welfare easures and perception of quality of work
life

Factors No. of Respondents ean Range S.D.
in ax
Ideal 168 22.386 15 24 1.8569
Adequate 21 21.1429 17 23 1.7113
Inadequate 21 19..2857 13 22 2.5912
Total 210 21.95 13 24 2.147

TableNo:3 WELFARE EASURES AND PERCEPTION OF QWL

Sources of variance Sum of squares DOF ean Square F- Value
Table Value Remarks
Between
Groups
Within Groups 194.815

768.708 2

207 97.408

3.714 26.23

3.00 Significant
Total 963.524 209

Table No: 23 Safety easures and Perception of quality of work
life
Factors No. of Respondent ean Range S.D.
in ax
Increasing 168 22.386 14 24 1.6878
Stable 21 20.619 17 23 1.909
Decreasing 21 18..5714 13 22 1.9893
Total 210 21.95 13 24 2.147

Table No:24 SAFETY EASURES AND PERCEPTION OF QWL

Sources of variance Sum of squares DOF ean Square F- Value
Table Value Remarks
Between
Groups
Within Groups 335.72

627.804 2

207 167.86

3.033 55.347 3.00 Significant
Total 963.524 209

Table No: 25 Supervision and Perception of quality of work life

Factors No. of Respondent ean Range S.D.
in ax
Patience 155 20.883 12 24 2.321
Impatience 25 20.6 17 23 1.8484
Rigid 30 19.5 16 22 1.9253
Total 210 12 24


TableNo:26 SUPERVISION AND PERCEPTION OF QWL

Sources of variance Sum of squares DOF ean Square F- Value
Table Value Remarks
Between
Groups
Within Groups 132.657

830.867 2

207 66.328

4.014 16.525

3.00 Significant
Total 963.524 209

Table No: 27 Communication and Perception of quality of work
life

State of mind No. of Respondent ean Range S.D.
in ax
Spontaneous 168 22.655 16 24 2.1933
Isolate 30 21.1 18 23 1.2690
Inconsistent 12 19.0833 14 21 1.7752
Total 210 21.757 14 24 1.8824

TableNo:28 INTER COUNICATION AND PERCEPTION OF QWL

Sources of variance Sum of squares DOF ean Square F- Value
Table Value Remarks
Between
Groups
Within Groups 114.718

625.896 2

207 57.359

3.024 18.97

3.00 Significant
Total 963.524 209

Table No: 29 Participation in decision making and Perception of
quality of work life

Factors No. of Respondent ean Range S.D.
in ax
Highly Participative 175 22.2629 13 24 1.9738
Low participation 24 21.0417 17 23 1.8292
Idle 11 19 14 22 2.75681
Total 210 21.95 13 24 2.1471

TableNo:30 PARTICIPATION IN DECISION AKING AND
PERCEPTION OF QWL

Sources of variance Sum of squares DOF ean Square F- Value
Table Value Remarks
Between
Groups
Within Groups 87.211

980.412 2

207 43.606

4.736 9.207

3.00 Significant
Total 1067 209

Written By: Mrs L. Kanagalakshmi, (Phd) Experience: 10 Years
Lecturer, Publications: 2 selected for publication
Department of anagement Studies, . Phil Guideship: 2
anonmaniam Sundaranar University Tirunelveli


Miss Nirmala Devei .B, Presently working in Vinayaka issions
University, Researh Scholar, VKV Eng. College, Salem Department of
anagement Studies, Experience: 5 years anonmaniam Sundaranar
University, Publication: 1 has selected for publication Tirunelveli
devibs2003@yahoo.co.in