Dynamics of Quality of Work Life: A Study of Life Insurance Sector
Sunny Dawar1*,
Harbhan Singh2, Prince Dawar3
1Research Scholar, M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur
2Lecturer, Government College, Ajmer
3Assistant Professor, Poornima
Group of Colleges, Jaipur
*Corresponding Author E-mail: sunny.dawar86@gmail.com
An organization’s success
depends on its sustainability and development of its workforce. In present dynamic environment, every
organization requires to adopt flexible policies to implement the same. For
this an organizations needs to put those strategies into practice, which can be
helpful in improvement of quality of work life of its employees which plays a
significant role to measure the performance of employees. The purpose of this
paper is to identify the dynamics of quality of work life of insurance
personnel. In Indian context of life insurance, quality of work life gets affected
from various factors like workplace, target pressure etc. An exploratory
research design has been used for the research. The study provides evidence
that quality of work life is a major part of insurance personnel and it should
be in accordance with the life insurance companies.
KEYWORDS: Quality of work life,
Sustainability, Target pressure
INTRODUCTION:
Quality of Work
Life (QWL) includes the set of values and principles which define the
importance of people working in an organization because they are the most
valuable asset for an organization. QWL includes the various elements such as
working conditions, working duration, health policies, payment system, fringe
and non-fringe benefits that an organization provides to its employees. In the
present scenario, there is need of improvement in quality of work life programs
for enhancing the productivity and satisfaction level of organizations’
employees. An organization must give a good and healthy environment including
the various financial and non-financial advantages so that it can retain its
talent for a longer period of time to achieve organizational objectives in a
profitable way. Better quality of work life encourages human self esteem and
development, people compatibilities, collaboration for work and organizational
goals. When employees get quality of working life environment, they feel
satisfied, motivated, committed at work place. The reason for selecting
insurance sector for the study is that it has been playing a momentous role in
Indian economy after 1991.
As per research estimation in 2020,
Indian insurance market will be on 3rd position in top level ranking
insurance markets worldwide. But this sector is also facing a severe problem
that is high attrition rate of employees in insurance companies. This problem
can only be solved if insurance companies develop strategies for improving the
QWL of employees.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
Katzell et. al (1975) analyzed QWL as an evaluation parameter of individual
outcome of the work relationship. Their study revealed that if an employee has
a positive outlook for his job and the various prospects, then he may have a
high quality of working life. He feels motivated to stay with job and performs
in a well manner. This kind of person also makes an effort to develop a balance
between his personal life and professional life.
Hackman et.
al. (1976) suggested that there is a need to fulfill the psychological
development needs of employees as they are related with the quality of work
life of them. They identified such kinds of needs like skill variety, identity
of task, task importance, self sufficiency and feedback. Quality of work life
is associated with employees’ satisfaction, payment system, working
environment, equal employment opportunities and opportunities also for career
growth (Mirvis and Lawler, 1984).
Rice (1985) studied an interrelationship between people’s quality
of work life and their work satisfaction. The study described that there is a
strong impact of work experiences and work achievements on quality of work life
of people. These also impact degree of family interactions, leisure time for
free entertainment activities and health and energy levels. There
is a huge impact of need satisfaction on the job requirement, work environment
and supervisor behavior on QWL (Sirgy et. al., 2001).
Bear field (2003) examined quality of
working life and found out the different causes of dissatisfaction in
professional, sales and service workers. This study showed the diverse concerns
of the different occupational groups. The study came out with the finding that
the various differences exist between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in
QWL defining the impact of numerous theories related to job satisfaction.
According to Lawler, (2004) QWL is not
a single concept but it is viewed as accumulation of different perspectives that
include numerous significant factors related to work like job satisfaction,
satisfaction with payment system, satisfaction in relationships with peer
groups. It also includes the factors which are highly associated with
satisfaction such as safe and healthy working environment, fair wages, and
equal opportunities for job advancement.
Waddell et. al. (2005) studied that organizations are facing the most
difficult problem in internal environment of employee retention in addition to
problems of global competition. As
employees try hard to maintain the balance between family and work and consider
the maintenance of healthy work life as the most important concern, when they
get failed in achievement of the same, they feel clogged with work and do not
be able to work efficiently. There is a need to encourage a healthy working
life in order to achieve organization and employees objectives.
Swamy
(2007) described that in present scenario of business, employees feel a great
pressure at work expressing the demand of work is dominating the personal life.
It has become a great challenge for the employees to integrate work and
personal family life. So now it’s necessary for an organization to adopt
innovation concept continuously and implement those programs that may offer
conveniences to employees for maintaining a balance between responsibilities at
work place and concerns outside.
Tabassum et. al. (2011) examined that aspects related to quality of working
life influence the job satisfaction and employees productivity. Transformation
at workplace with use of initiatives of QWL can increase competitive lead of
employees. This will satisfy and motivate the employees to perform better for
achieving the personal and organizational objectives in future. The organizations
should turn out to be more aware for the assurance of sufficient and fair in
compensation because compensation influences the employee job satisfaction.
Flexibilities in work assignments, working hours and balance of workloads lead
to quality of work life among employees.
Somvir et. al. (2012) described that work has an effective influence
on the performance that reduces the stress among employees. In that case,
employees’ quality of working life can be improved. The study emphasized that
there should be meetings of assessment committees from time to time for the
regular performance assessment and appraisal of employees. The employees should
be given a chance to participate while designing policies because it would help
them contribute in organizational goals achievement.
PURPOSE
OF THE STUDY:
The purpose of this paper is to identify the dynamics of quality
of work life of insurance personnel in life insurance companies. The study is
an attempt to explore the better understanding of quality of working life in
insurance sector. The findings of the research will help the management and
also employees of the insurance companies to understand the quality of work
life.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY:
Quality of work life, in context of life insurance in India, gets affected
from the various factors like workplace, target pressure etc. The research
carries exploratory research design. The present research is characterized by
the prior formulation of specific research questions and hypotheses. Thus, the
information needed is clearly defined. As a result, this research is
pre-planned and structured. It is typically based on predetermined
representative samples and specifies the methods for selecting the sources of
information and for collecting data from those sources. Books, Magazines, Journals etc. remain as the
secondary source of data. Primary data has been collected through validated
questionnaire where five point likert scale has been
applied to determine various significant variables which have significant
impact upon quality of work life. A sample size of 170 employees of both
private and public insurance companies has been taken using convenience
sampling. Data is analyzed through descriptive statistics and factor analysis
using SPSS 20.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Demographic Profile of the
Respondents
As seen in below Table among the 170 respondents, 52.9 % were
males and 47.1% females which included team members, team leaders and sales
managers. There were 18.8 % employees below 21 years, 20.6% employees were
between 21 years and 30 years, 17.6 % employees between 31 years and 40 years,
18.8% employees between 41 years and 50 years, 24.1 % employees were above 50
years of age.
There were 16.5 % employees with graduation, 22.4% employees with
post graduation, 18.2 % employees with diploma, 19.4 % with professional
courses, 23.5 % employees with other qualifications. Out of all 170 employees, 22.9 % employees
had experience below 1 year, 15.9 % employees had experience between 2 to 3
years, 17.6 % employees had experience between 4 years to 5 years, 23.5 %
employees had experience between 6 years to 7 years, and 20 % employees had
experience above 7 years.
There were 27.1% employees who had income below Rs. 10,000, 21.2 %
employees had income between Rs. 10,001 to Rs. 25,000, 24.1 % employees had
income between Rs. 25,001 to Rs. 50,000, and 27.6% employees had income more
than Rs. 50,000. There were 23.5% employees who had target up to Rs. 100,000
per quarter, 21.8 employees had targets between Rs. 100,001 to Rs. 500,000 per
quarter, 31.2 % employees had target between 500,001 to Rs. 1000,000 per
quarter, 23.5 employees had target more than Rs. 1000,000 per quarter. There
were 11.8% employees who feel pressure due to frequent travelling, 15.3%
employees were in pressure due to superior’s behavior, 12.4% employees were in
pressure due to heavy targets, 12.4% employees were not able to spend quality
time the family, 10% employees were in pressure due to non-performance of team
members, 14.1% employees felt pressure due to tough competition, 10% employees
were in pressure due to product complexity and 14.1% employees were in pressure
due to several reasons including health problems.
Distribution of Respondents on
the Basis of Various Demographic Variables
|
Demographic Variables |
Number of Respon-dents |
Percentage |
|
|
Gender |
Male |
90 |
52.9 |
|
Female |
80 |
47.1 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100 |
|
|
Age Group |
Below 21 Years |
32 |
18.8 |
|
21 year – 30 years |
35 |
20.6 |
|
|
31 years – 40 years |
30 |
17.6 |
|
|
41 years – 50 years |
32 |
18.8 |
|
|
Above 50 Years |
41 |
24.1 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100 |
|
|
Education |
Graduation |
28 |
16.5 |
|
Post-Graduation |
38 |
22.4 |
|
|
Diploma |
31 |
18.2 |
|
|
Professional Course |
33 |
19.4 |
|
|
Others |
40 |
23.5 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
|
Experience |
Below 1 Year |
39 |
22.9 |
|
2 Years-3 Years |
27 |
15.9 |
|
|
4 Years- 5 Years |
30 |
17.6 |
|
|
6 Years- 7 Years |
40 |
23.5 |
|
|
Above 7 Years |
34 |
20.0 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
|
Monthly Income |
Below Rs. 10000 |
46 |
27.1% |
|
Rs.10001-25000 |
36 |
21.2% |
|
|
Rs.25001-Rs.50000 |
41 |
24.1% |
|
|
More than Rs. 50000 |
47 |
27.6% |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
|
Quantum of Target per Quarter |
Up to Rs. 100,000 |
40 |
23.5 |
|
Rs.100, 001 – Rs.500, 000 |
37 |
21.8 |
|
|
Rs. 500,001 – Rs. 1000,000 |
53 |
31.2 |
|
|
More than Rs. 1000,000 |
40 |
23.5 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
|
Reason of Pressure in Job |
Frequent Travelling |
20 |
11.8 |
|
Supervisor’s Behavior |
26 |
15.3 |
|
|
Heavy Targets |
21 |
12.4 |
|
|
Inability to spend quality time with family |
21 |
12.4 |
|
|
Non Performance of your agents |
17 |
10.0 |
|
|
Competition |
24 |
14.1 |
|
|
Product Complexity |
17 |
10.0 |
|
|
Others |
24 |
14.1 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
Factor Analysis- Measurement of
Factors affecting Quality of Work Life in Insurance Sector
An instrument was developed in the questionnaire consisting of 25
statements to measure Factors affecting Quality of Work Life in Insurance
Sector. The respondents were asked to rate their agreement with these
statements on a five point Likert rating scale.
The 5 point rating scale was given a numerical value ranging from
1 to 5. The scores of all the statements have been added to calculate aggregate
Score for each respondent. The scores of individual statements have been used
to identify the factors using multivariate technique of factor analysis.
Reliability of the Instrument
To measure the internal consistency and reliability of the
instrument developed for measuring the Quality of Work Life, Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient was calculated by using SPSS
20. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha is summarized below
in table:
|
Case Processing Summary |
|||
|
|
N |
% |
|
|
Cases |
Valid |
170 |
100.0 |
|
Excludeda |
0 |
.0 |
|
|
Total |
170 |
100.0 |
|
aList wise
deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
N of Items |
|
.884 |
25 |
As it can be observed that the instrument for Quality of Work Life
has attained a Cronbach Alpha value as 0.884. For the
purpose of basic research the Cronbach alpha values
should be higher than 0.7. The Cronbach Alpha is
0.884 hence it can be proved that there is consistency in responses.
Identification of Factors for
Quality of Work Life in Insurance Sector
As it has already been discussed that a separate instrument
containing 25 statements was inserted in questionnaire for the
measurement. To eliminate the problems
in analyzing large number of variables i.e. 25, closely related variables have
been clubbed using factor analysis. The technique factor analysis provides an
easy and proper way to reduce the number of variables in a research problem to
a concise or manageable number by combining selected ones in to factors (Nargundkar, 2005). A five factor solution was sought from
factor analysis using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 20. The
principle component analysis method of extraction and varimax
method of rotation has been used. Before using factor techniques, the
appropriateness of data set for factor model was tested using Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO). The value of KMO statistic 0.881 was found
which is greater than the desirable value 0.5. Thus the correlation between the
pairs of variables is explained by other variables and hence factor analysis
was found to be an appropriate analysis technique.
Bartelt's-test of sphericity
was used to test correlation of the variables are uncorrelated, thus the
correlation matrix is identity matrix. As it can be seen from the below table
that this null hypothesis is rejected as the appropriate chi-square statistic
is significant at 0.05 level. The appropriateness of factor analysis is thus
automatically proved.
|
KMO and Bartlett's Test |
||
|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. |
0.881 |
|
|
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity |
Approx. Chi-Square |
1889.561 |
|
df |
300 |
|
|
Sig. |
0.000 |
|
The five factor solution given by SPSS has explained 33.463 %
variance. These factors were extracted by using rotated component matrix and
were identified according to largest loading values in a particular factor. The
loading values of Total Variance Explained are shown in table.
|
Total Variance Explained |
|||||
|
Statements in Short
Description |
Initial Eigen values |
Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings |
|||
|
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
Total |
% of Variance |
|
|
Effectiveness of induction program in
organisation |
8.366 |
33.463 |
33.463 |
8.366 |
33.463 |
|
Open system to communicate with top
management |
2.443 |
9.772 |
43.236 |
2.443 |
9.772 |
|
Comfortable and attractive interior
design of office |
1.430 |
5.719 |
48.955 |
1.430 |
5.719 |
|
Open and frequent communication
with boss |
1.340 |
5.360 |
54.315 |
1.340 |
5.360 |
|
Sharing a friendly and harmonised
relationship with colleagues |
1.122 |
4.489 |
58.804 |
1.122 |
4.489 |
|
Presence of flexible working system in
organisation |
.985 |
3.939 |
62.743 |
|
|
|
Great scope of career growth in organisation |
.949 |
3.794 |
66.537 |
|
|
|
Organisation organizes entertainment
programs |
.855 |
3.421 |
69.959 |
|
|
|
Periodic performance reviews and
feedback |
.773 |
3.091 |
73.050 |
|
|
|
Satisfactory organisational performance
appraisal |
.701 |
2.804 |
75.854 |
|
|
|
Periodic and informative product
training programs |
.686 |
2.744 |
78.598 |
|
|
|
Impact of Strong brand image of company on work |
.660 |
2.641 |
81.239 |
|
|
|
Improvement of performance due to proper
mentoring and guidance |
.583 |
2.333 |
83.572 |
|
|
|
Improvement of overall performance due
to change in team agents |
.513 |
2.051 |
85.623 |
|
|
|
Significant influence of financial
incentives on work |
.474 |
1.894 |
87.517 |
|
|
|
Safe and healthy overall working
environment |
.426 |
1.704 |
89.220 |
|
|
|
Stressful working in the insurance
companies |
.393 |
1.573 |
90.793 |
|
|
|
Expects to give 100% in assigned tasks |
.381 |
1.526 |
92.319 |
|
|
|
Targets motivate to do hard work |
.376 |
1.505 |
93.823 |
|
|
|
Income level affects performance |
.354 |
1.416 |
95.239 |
|
|
|
Income satisfactory as per performance |
.308 |
1.231 |
96.470 |
|
|
|
Prefers loyalty more than financial
incentives |
.256 |
1.025 |
97.495 |
|
|
|
Job security matters than anything |
.233 |
.933 |
98.429 |
|
|
|
Recommends friend to join the insurance
industry |
.208 |
.832 |
99.261 |
|
|
|
Spends adequate time with family and friends |
.185 |
.739 |
100.000 |
|
|
|
Rotated Component Matrixa |
Factor |
||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Effectiveness of induction program in organisation |
|
|
.658 |
|
|
|
Open system to communicate with top
management |
|
|
|
.755 |
|
|
Comfortable and attractive interior
design of office |
.717 |
|
|
|
|
|
Open and frequent communication
with boss |
|
.567 |
|
|
|
|
Sharing a friendly and harmonised
relationship with colleagues |
|
|
|
.706 |
|
|
Presence of flexible working system in
organisation |
|
.600 |
|
|
|
|
Great scope of career growth in organisation |
.554 |
|
|
|
|
|
Organisation organizes entertainment
programs |
|
.597 |
|
|
|
|
Periodic performance reviews and
feedback |
.696 |
|
|
|
|
|
Satisfactory organisational performance
appraisal |
|
.670 |
|
|
|
|
Periodic and informative product
training programs |
|
|
|
.738 |
|
|
Impact of Strong brand image of company on work |
|
.685 |
|
|
|
|
Improvement of performance due to proper
mentoring and guidance |
|
|
.549 |
|
|
|
Improvement of overall performance due
to change in team agents |
|
|
.508 |
|
|
|
Significant influence of financial
incentives on work |
|
|
|
.523 |
|
|
Safe and healthy overall working
environment |
|
|
.745 |
|
|
|
Stressful working in the insurance
companies |
|
|
|
|
.534 |
|
Expects to give 100% in assigned tasks |
.554 |
|
|
|
|
|
Targets motivate to do hard work |
|
.614 |
|
|
|
|
Income level affects performance |
|
|
|
|
.677 |
|
Income satisfactory as per performance |
.639 |
|
|
|
|
|
Prefers loyalty more than financial
incentives |
.704 |
|
|
|
|
|
Job security matters than anything |
|
|
.643 |
|
|
|
Recommends friend to join the insurance
industry |
|
|
.798 |
|
|
|
Spends adequate time with family and friends |
|
|
|
|
.764 |
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization
The five factors are as follows:
Factor 1: It includes attractive interior
design and displays in office, great scope for career growth in the
organization, documentation of periodic performance reviews, dedication towards
assign tasks, satisfaction from salary as compared to performance, loyalty
towards organization.
Factor 2: It comprises open and frequent
communication with superior, flexible working system in the organization,
organizing entertainment programs, validity of performance appraisal system,
impact of brand image of company upon the employee standing in the marketplace,
motivation from targets.
Factor 3: It encompasses effectiveness of
employee induction program, proper mentoring and guidance of management,
performance improvement through changes in the team agents, safe and healthy
working environment, job security, employee recommends others to join the
organization.
Factor 4: It contains open system to
communicate with top management, friendly and harmonized relationship with
colleagues, periodicity and effectiveness of product training, motivation from
financial incentives.
Factor 5: It involves effect of income
upon performance, stressful working conditions in insurance companies, spends
significant time to spend with family and friends.
Conclusion:
The study can be concluded that the various factors have been
included in the research have a significant influence on employee’s job
satisfaction. In present competitive and stressful working environment,
employees want a flexible and healthy environment full of various growth
opportunities in their career. For creating a quality work life environment in
the organization, there is a need to maintain balance among organizational
objectives, individual goals and organization structure. So organizations have
to adopt a strategic framework to improve the quality of work life for
satisfying both the organizational and employees objectives to enhance
employees’ productivity. The organizations have to promote favorable working
environment to increase the effectiveness of employees.
1.
Barrie E.
Blunt and Kris Anne Spring. (1991). MPA Graduates and the Dilemma of Job
Satisfaction: Does Crossing the Sector Line Make a Difference. Journal of
Public Personnel Management , 20.
2.
Hackman, J.
and Oldham, G. (1976). The Job Dignostic Survey. New Heaven: Yale University.
3.
Katzell,
R.A., Yankelvich,D., Fein M.,Oranate, D.A. and Nash, A. (1975). Work
Productivity and Job Satisfaction. The Psychological Corporation, New York.
4.
Lawler,
E.E. (2004). Qualoity of Work Life Programs, Coordination and Productivity. Journal
of Contemporary Business , 11, 93-106.
5.
Mirvis,
P.H. and Lawler, E.E. (1984). Accounting for the Quality of Work Life. Journal
of Occupational Behavior , 197-212.
6.
Rice, R. W.
(1985). Organizational Work and the Perceived Quality of Life towards a
Conceptual Model. Academy of Management Review, 10 (2).
7.
Sirgy,
M.J., Efraty, D.,Siegel, P. and Lee, D. (2001). A New Measure of Quality of
Work Life based on Need Satisfaction and Spillover Theories. Social
Indicators Research , 55, 241-301.
8.
Somvir and
Kaushik, S. (2012). Quality Of Work Life among Library Professionals in Haryana
State. International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management ,
3 (3), 131-134.
9.
Tabassum,
A., Rahman,T.and 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, 17-33.
10. Walton, R. . (1973). Quality of Work Life
Indicators-Prospects and Problems. A Portigal Measuring the Quality of Working
Life , 55-70. Ottawa.
Received on 18.02.2014 Modified on 12.04.2014
Accepted on 21.04.2014 © A&V Publication all right reserved
Asian J. Management 5(3):
July-September, 2014 page 312-317