Problems and perspectives in research into the quality of work life in organisational studies

Abstract

This paper outlines major theoretical and methodological problems in Quality of Work Life (QWL) research within organisational studies and discusses possible solutions, based on extensive literature analysis. An electronic search in the Scopus database found 1,244 publications utilising the QWL concept. From this sample we selected 387 papers dealing directly with QWL and compiled a final set of publications for detailed review. The literature analysis revealed the absence of a clear and concrete understanding of QWL, various (and often incomplete) approaches to QWL content and indicators and interference between QWL and other concepts such as ‘job satisfaction’, which all resulted in a general confusion about the notion in academic discussions. As a possible solution, we suggested distinguishing clearly and including the following in the single integrative research instrument: 1) an aggregate subjective QWL measurement tool and 2) an aggregate objective QWL measurement tool. Finally, we present arguments for a new understanding of QWL, combining subjective and objective measures in the context of a general integration between ‘working conditions’ and ‘needs satisfaction’ approaches.

Factors Determining Quality of Work Life for Employees in Private Security Business Organizations in Uganda

“…According to Abdullah, Zakaria and Zahoor (2021), QWL refers to a worker's contentment with the working life which is determined by the nature of work itself and the relationship quality that is experienced by the worker in a given working environment. Gogoleva et al (2017) notes that the construct covers a broad spectrum of factors comprising employee's satisfaction towards the physical work environment, compensation, promotion, team work, and work-life balance, among others. To support this view, Mazlan et al (2018) asserted that QWL is a composition of all those factors which are crucial to the attraction (Mosadeghrad, 2013) and retention (Sulaiman et al, 2015) of qualified employees.…”

“…Based on these arguments therefore, this study recognizes that apparently there is no one-fit-all definition of quality of work life (Adikoeswanto et al, 2020). This condition has therefore prompted the use of a combination of different approaches according to different contexts (Gogoleva et al, 2017). Researchers have come up with work balance factors that motivate individuals and strengthen their wellbeing (Adhikari & Gautam, 2010).…”

Developments in Quality of Work-Life Research and Directions for Future Research

“…Later on, need satisfaction approach emerged during 1980s and 2000s. Currently, researches are using combination of both approaches as per their judgment (Gogoleva et al, 2017). Combination of these approaches yield a broad spectrum of QWL dimensions, such as; employees’ feelings toward job content, physical work environment, pay, benefits, promotions, autonomy, teamwork, participation in decision-making, occupational health and safety, job security, communication, colleagues and managers support and work-life balance (Adhikari & Gautam, 2010), and several others.…”

“…As the previous studies conducted in this regard were quite limited in their scope. Gogoleva et al (2017) conducted a detailed bibliometric literature review of 387 publications to explore research perspectives and problems in conceptualization and operationalization of QWL. But his research was limited to only organizational studies.…”

Key performance indicators of compatibility process between knowledge workers and workplaces

“…One important aspect here is that KPIs should be defined by the top management of the company and those should have real strategic value. Instead of just presenting the situation of the past, decent KPI system should help to predict the future (Syvajarni, 2016;Gogoleva et al, 2017).…”