Blair, G., & Meadows, S. (1996). A real-life guide to organizational change. England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Brady, Gene F. (1989). Management by Involvement. New York, NY. Human Sciences Press.
Inc.
Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Employee involvement and organizational citizenship:
implications for labor law reform and “lean production”. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51, 633-654.
Cole, Robert. E. (1989). Strategies for Learning. Berkeley, CA. University of California Press.
Corsentino, D., & Bue, P. T. (1993). Employee involvement: implementing quality change. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 62, 10-12.
Davis, L. & Sullivan, C. (1979). A labor-management contract and quality of working life.
Journal of Occupational Behavior 1, 29-41.
Glew, D., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R., & Van Fleet, D. (1995). Participation in organizations:
a preview of the issues and proposed framework for future analysis. Journal of Management, 21, 395-421.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading. MA. Addison-Wesley.
Harrison, M., & Shirom, A. (1999). Organizational diagnosis and assessment: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kahn, R. L. (1981). Work and Health. New York. NY. Wiley.
Kanter, R. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57, 65-75.
Kanter, R. (1983). The Change Masters. New York, NY. Simon and Shuster.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lawler, E. E., & Ledford, G. E. (1982). Productivity and the quality of work life. National Productivity Review, 2, 23-36.
Lawler, E. E., & Ledford, G. E. (1985). Skill based pay. Personnel, 62, 64-71.
Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1985). Quality circles after the fad. Harvard Business Review, 85, 64-71.
Lawler, Edward E. (1986). High-Involvement Management. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lawler, Edward E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lewis, Bob (1998). Employee involvement is losing favor, and for all the wrong reasons.
InfoWorld, 20, 88-89.
Mainero, L. (1986). Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job dependency to empowerment-strategy usage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 633-653.
Munchus III, G. (1983). Employer-employee based quality circles in Japan: human resource policy implications for American firms. Academy of Management Review, 8, 255-261.
Paulsen, K. M. (1994). Total employee involvement - why are you waiting? Industrial Engineering, 26, 16-18.
Pun, K. F., Chin, K. S., & Gill, R. (2001). Determinants of employee involvement practices in manufacturing enterprise. Total Quality Management, 12, 95.
Schlesinger, L. A. (1982). Quality of Work Life and the Supervisor. New York, NY. Praeger.
Spreitzer, G. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.
Young, J. & Murrell, K. L. (1998). Harley-Davidson motor company organizational design.
Organization Development Journal, 16, 65-74.
Quality of Work Life Programs (QWL) (prepared by Adeola Oduwole) 2. TARGETLEVELOFANALYSIS:
Quality of work life programs are organization-wide initiatives. Most QWL programs are designed and implemented based on organizational demographics, structure and goals. These programs are designed to impact the organization as a whole.
3. PURPOSEOFTHEINTERVENTION:
The primary goal of QWL programs is to improve the overall well being of the employee, while achieving organizational objectives, such as increased productivity. QWL initiatives started in the United States in 1972. It was first described as a movement of participative management and workplace democracy (Davenport, 1983; Feuer, 1989). The premise of the QWL movement (formerly “quality of life” at work) was that increased productivity would result by involving employees in the decision-making process at work (Davenport, 1983). In addition to this, QWL programs were developed to reduce absenteeism, turnover and increase productivity (Martinez, 1997).
Although it is difficult to come up with an all-encompassing definition of QWL, many researchers describe QWL in term of its major content areas. For example, May, Lau and Johnson (1999) define QWL companies as organizations that promote job security, employee growth, rewards and employee satisfaction. Overman (1999) suggests that QWL programs fall into two categories. The first category are work reorganization programs. These include things such as restructuring jobs and duties, telecommuting, job sharing, and flextime. The second category are employee benefit policies. These include things such as on-site childcare/eldercare and/or referral services, paid family and medical leave, release time and limits on business travel.
Furthermore, Greenfield and Terry (1995) describe QWL programs around six initiatives:
Helping employees manage their physical and metal health and helping employee’s care for dependents. Flexible leave policies (e.g. personal days, gradual return to work programs). Saving employees time (e.g. on-or-near-site banking) and supporting employees’ thorough the financial life cycle (e.g. financial and retirement planning). Two common themes emerge in all QWL initiatives: The first is to make working conditions more conducive to employees’ non-work lives. Second, is to increase employee involvement in the decision-making process (Feuer, 1989).
4. EFFECTIVENESSCRITERIA:
Prince (2000) says that when it comes to the measurement of work life programs, the idea that you can quantify or ‘count’ the amount of money saved is inadequate. This is because the outcomes to QWL programs are things that cannot be measured, such as, job satisfaction and increased morale. These factors should be taken into consideration when measuring the
effectiveness of QWL programs. However, it is important to note that increased productivity is indirectly tied to these factors. For example, May, Lau & Johnson (1999) suggest that an organizations financial performance is linked to the measurement and improvement of such things as employee satisfaction, innovation and productivity. Further, surveys conducted by groups, such as SHRM (Society of Human Resources Management) suggest that the main reason for implementing QWL programs relates to organizational performance, as measured by
recruitment, retention and productivity (Mechelen, 1998). May, et al. (1999) suggest that QWL initiatives fall along two lines: the employer (organizational effectiveness) and the employee (improved working conditions). When both of these objectives are achieved, you have what is called a “win-win” situation. What this means is that there is a positive and reciprocal
relationship between QWL and organizational performance, as measured by these bottom-line measures.
In a tight labor market, characterized by intense competition for qualified employees, such programs are not just added benefits, but deemed a necessity (Greenfield & Terry, 1995).
Overman (1999) supports this view, when he says that the labor market has heightened the need for such programs, and the survival of some companies depends on it. Roberts (1996) says that for companies to be competitive they need to implement some kind of work life initiative. A study conducted by the William M. Mercer Inc. found that over 50% of the 800 companies responding to a work life survey feel that QWL programs positively influence employee morale, attendance and productivity. This survey also found that flextime was a primary aid in recruiting.
May et. al (1999) also suggest that companies that offer QWL programs will have the advantage in hiring and retaining qualified workers. These programs are also positively related to customer retention and satisfaction.
5. EVIDENCEOFEFFECTIVENESS:
The effectiveness of QWL programs have been tremendous, as demonstrated by bottom-line or firm performance measures. For example, the Dupont Company reports that its family resources program results in a 637% financial return in increased performance, retention, stress reduction, and lowered absenteeism (Rowan, 1997). May et al. (1999) have found that QWL programs result in lowered absenteeism, lower turnover, improved job satisfaction, increased recruitment and competitiveness.
The Towers and Perrin study found that over forty percent of employees’ report that QWL programs helped recruiting efforts, and gave impression that the company was a “good place to work.” Thirty percent report that these programs positively influence employee loyalty, job satisfaction, employee awareness, and appreciation of the human resource policy. Approximately 25% of employees say that these programs have increased their productivity and have resulted in decreased absenteeism (Greenfield and Terry, 1995). Further, one expert from the Human
Resources Institute says that companies that offer wellness programs (e.g. fitness centers) have fewer absences, lower disability claims, higher productivity and lower insurance costs (Marcus, 2000). Overall, work life programs result in increases in productivity and positive employee perceptions about the organization.
Mechelen (1998) found that organizations with QWL programs are considered to be high
performing organizations. For example, evidence from both private and public sector companies suggest that QWL programs increase productivity, workforce stability, customer service and reduce costs. Mechelen highlights each of these criteria using a case study of the
Hewlett-Packard company. For this company, a compressed workweek increased profits by fifty-percent.
A caregiver assistance also helped remove barriers to work productivity. QWL programs also result in workforce stability. Mechelen (1998) suggests that QWL programs improve
recruitment, reduce attrition and absenteeism. For example, companies that offer QWL programs
are seen as more attractive than those that simply offer a higher salary. Employees are reluctant to leave companies that offer these programs, and QWL programs was a persuasive factor in many employees’ decisions to stay with a company. Caregiver’s assistance and flexible work schedules helped reduce absenteeism, and telecommuting expanded the applicant pool, because applicants were no longer restricted by geographic boundaries. In addition, customer service also improved when QWL programs were implemented. For example, telecommuting, which allow employees to deliver services from their homes were valuable in cases where emergencies arise at work sites (e.g. natural disasters). Finally, QWL programs result in reduced costs. For
example, flexible work schedules reduce overtime costs and turnover, and reduced turnover leads to fewer dollars allocated to recruitment. This is important when one considers that for one company, it costs 75% of the average salary to replace an employee (Mechelen, 1999).
Telecommuting also reduces facility/utility costs. For example, at one company it was estimated that employees who work at home two days a week save the company approximately $12,000 a year in office leases, furniture, and other equipment (Mechelen, 1999).
6. HOW/WHENWILLOUTCOMESBEASSESSED:
Measurement of QWL programs should be tailored to the organization (Prince, 2000). For example, some companies will evaluate the effectiveness of these programs based on increased retention or recruitment, lower turnover or absenteeism. Others may evaluate these programs based on better customer service. One study evaluated business performance, as indicated by the growth and profitability of QWL companies (companies that promote job security, employee growth, rewards and employee satisfaction) and Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500 companies (companies that are stable in performance). Growth was operationally defined by five-year (1993-1998) trends on three measures: sales growth, asset growth and maximum sustainable growth. Profitability was defined by five-year trends on two measures: return on assets, return on equity and five-year average profit margin (May et. al, 1999). Results indicated that QWL
companies have significantly higher growth rates and higher sustainable growth rates than S&P 500 companies. QWL companies were also more profitable than S&P 500 companies. However, the differences between the two types of companies, in terms of profit margin were not always statistically significant. Overall, there was a positive relationship between QWL and good business outcomes.
7. CHARACTERISTICSOFTYPICALPARTICIPANTS:
Traditionally, QWL programs were targeted towards women in the workforce. Specifically, the objective of these programs were to reduce turnover among women (Baker, 1999). However, there is consensus that the issues addressed by QWL programs are those that concern both men and women in the workplace (Rowan, 1997). Baker (1999) says that although the issues
addressed by QWL programs are issues that working women have had deal with for the last decade, it is now an issue that many men are also having to cope with. Today, men are placing more emphasis on family time and related issues. For example, Microsoft has started a program called Dads @ Microsoft to help father’s balance work and life demands. Men are now
recognizing the need to fulfill family needs as well as those on the job (Baker, 1999).
8. TIME-FRAMEOFTHEINTERVENTIONITSELF:
QWL interventions can be designed for long-term or short-term change. Time frame of the intervention will depend on the specific type of program that is being implemented. For example,
one North Carolina based company with a diverse workforce in which seven languages are spoken offered English classes to alleviate communication barriers. The program ended once there was no longer a need (Calabria, 1995). Other interventions have a long-term scope.
Examples would include initiatives such as child care assistance and fitness centers.
9. TIMEFRAMEOFANTICIPATEDCHANGE:
Most QWL programs anticipate long-term and ongoing change. For example, Prince (2000) suggests using the three ‘Cs” of measurement to ensure success of a QWL initiative. These are commitment, choice and communication. Commitment entails an ongoing assessment of employee needs. Choice requires the organization to address only the critical issues. Lastly, communication entails keeping upper management abreast of all work life developments and results.
10. RESOURCESTOCONDUCTINTERVENTION:
Costs to initiate and maintain work life interventions are modest (Greenfield and Terry, 1995).
For example, alternative work schedules, which are the most valued QWL program cost very little to implement, if anything at all (Mechelen, 1998). Calabria (1995) also asserts that the financial investment for most QWL programs is minimal. For example, Calabria speaks of one company who started a laundry and transportation service that transports employees to and from work. These services together cost approximately fifteen cents per employee per hour ($540 a day). Another company with very limited resources could not afford a full-scale child-care facility. So, what the company did was implement a child-care subsidy, which only cost $85 a month per child. This cost is insignificant, when one considers the benefits of reduced turnover and increased productivity, Calabria says. Overall, companies who are dedicated to work life programs have huge dollar payoffs, and these out weight the actual investments (Greenfield and Terry, 1995). It should be noted that although most intervention may require low resources, others interventions such as large-scale childcare facilities will require greater resources.
11. EXPERTISEOFCONSULTANTS: Not applicable to QWL programs.
12. DOPARTICIPANTSNEEDTOPREPARE:
In preparation for a QWL intervention, employees at all levels in the organization need to answer a survey assessing attitudes towards potential initiatives. Employees are also interviewed and/or participate in focus groups. This will help identify where employee needs are, the usage of various QWL strategies, and related costs. Based on this, programs would be implemented. The use of surveys also ensures that programs are implemented where they are needed and resources are not being wasted.
13. HOWISTHEINTERVENTIONCONDUCTED:
QWL interventions are only effective when they are aligned with organizational goals and objectives. In other words, implementing these programs for the sake of doing so will not be effective, and will not result in any returns. Greenfield and Terry (1995) propose a “five-point”
process to assist organizations align their goals with QWL initiatives.
The first step in implementing QWL programs is employee research. Employee needs
assessments are the foundation of any QWL program. Greenfield and Terry (1995) found that most organizations use employee attitude surveys before implementing any form of QWL programs. Prince (2000) also finds that using an in-house survey is best. It is during this stage that employee needs are matched or aligned with organizational goals. The use of an employee survey not only allows for employee feedback but it communicates to the employees that the organization is committed to the balance of work and life. It also prevents organizations from expending valuable dollars on programs that are useless to the employee. In addition to surveys, focus groups provide for a more in-depth exchange of information.
The next step is strategy development. Here, survey results would be communicated to upper management. This helps establish the link between work life issues and organizational
objectives, as well as identify what types of programs will support organizations goals. During this stage, a trust relationship is established between the manager and the employee. Overman (1999) makes an interesting point. She says that QWL programs should not be viewed as way of simply accommodating employees, but as a way to redesign work process in a way that both the organization and the employee can benefit. In order for these programs to be successfully implemented, supervisors need to shift from a “resource orientation” to a “results orientation”
(Mechelen, 1998).
Once a strategy has been developed, it is time to design the program. The QWL program has to align with organizational goals and reflect a promissory and reciprocal relationship that exists between the organization and its employees. According to Greenfield and Terry (1995), this is the most challenging aspect in the development of QWL initiatives. This is because the QWL program had to be coordinated with existing programs, specific programs have to be selected as well as their respective vendors. In deciding which QWL program to implement an organization must first decide which fits with its needs. A two-step approach can be used to make this
decision. First, an organization should do a cost-benefit analysis. Second, they should assess the organizational climate, culture, and resources. This information is used to decide which program will be best. The bottom line is that programs need to be specific to employee demographics, lifestyles and other factors related to the workforce (Mechelen, 1998). For example, Greenfield and Terry (1995) cite a survey conducted by Towers and Perrin of over 100 U.S. companies.
This study found that companies offer over 100 different types of work life programs and these programs are targeted to several different demographics, e.g. single employees to working parents. QWL programs can also be aligned with an organization’s customers (Greenfield and Terry, 1995). For example, the Avon Company which employs and caters mostly to women, offers eldercare assistance, coverage for mammograms, gynecological care, diversity initiatives and child care assistance.
Implementation is the fourth step. Here, the company must ensure that the work environment is appropriate for a QWL program. In other words, a completely new way of thinking must be communicated to employees. This communication should also be targeted to specific groups and not entire departments. Managers are an integral part of the implementation process. Focus groups, for example, are often conducted for the sole purpose of gaining input from them. The assumption is that for QWL programs to be effective it needs to have management support. This could explain why Mechelen (1998) calls QWL programs, management programs. Lastly, human
resource departments actually get the program off the ground. They are also responsible for channeling communications between employees and management. The assessment and implementation of such programs are an integral part of human resource strategy.
The last step is an ongoing one. QWL programs must be evaluated on a consistent basis so that it remains adaptable to the ever-changing workforce. Greenfield and Terry (1995) cite several QWL program evaluation and measurement techniques. These include assessments of employee use and satisfaction with QWL programs, vendor usage, management performance systems, and policy/practice implementation. Overall, Greenfield and Terry (1995) suggest that work life programs should have a strategic focus. They should also be incorporated into management philosophy.
14. RESISTANCETOCHANGE:
Management resistance and culture is the greatest barrier to the implementation of QWL
programs (Mechelen, 1998). Overman (1999) suggests that real obstacle in implementing QWL initiatives is getting managers to buy into it. For example, one consultant says that managers are reluctant to accommodate an employee because they are scared that they will have to do the same for everyone else. This is because managers use an “overseers” orientation in their approach to work. Mechelen (1998) outlines six management culture issues that may present barriers to successful implementation of QWL programs. First, if senior management does not have needs, they may not understand the needs of their employees. Second, supervisors may feel that employees will not be productive if they cannot see them working. Third, supervisors may feel that programs are brand new and untested: Fourth, supervisors may think that they will lose
programs (Mechelen, 1998). Overman (1999) suggests that real obstacle in implementing QWL initiatives is getting managers to buy into it. For example, one consultant says that managers are reluctant to accommodate an employee because they are scared that they will have to do the same for everyone else. This is because managers use an “overseers” orientation in their approach to work. Mechelen (1998) outlines six management culture issues that may present barriers to successful implementation of QWL programs. First, if senior management does not have needs, they may not understand the needs of their employees. Second, supervisors may feel that employees will not be productive if they cannot see them working. Third, supervisors may feel that programs are brand new and untested: Fourth, supervisors may think that they will lose