A win‐win paradigm for quality of work life and business performance

Abstract

This study develops and tests hypotheses to examine empirically how the perceived image ofa company's quality ofwork life will affect'its market and financial performances. Growth and profitability of two groups of publicly held companies were compared bused on sales growth, asset growth, return on equity, and return on assets. Thefirst group consisted ofjfty-eight companies identified as the best companies to workfor in the United States; the second group consisted of eighty-eight of Standard and Poor's top one hundred companies. Statistical evidencefound in this study supports a paradigm that aligns the interests of the investor managel; and employee stakeholders into a win-win situation. Findingsfrom this empirical study suggest that companies with high quality of work l$e can also enjoy exceptional growth and profi tabili ty.After many years of organizational restructuring and work reengineering, American companies are regaining their competitiveness in the global marketplace. In search of greater efficiency and higher productivity, many companies continue to redesign and automate a number of processes and operations, resulting in a reduction of their workforce. Although the restructuring processes have left many workers unemployed, management is, ironically, paying more attention than ever before to recruiting qualified people (Osterman, 1995; Vallario, 1997). Management recognizes that a productive workforce will provide a global, sustainable competitive advantage for business organizations (Bohl, Slocum, Luthans, and Hodgetts, 1996;Lau, 1993). As the composition of the workforce continues to change over the years, companies that offer better benefits and supportive working environments are expected to gain ieverage in hiring and retaining valuable people. Although both management and employees confront the issue of quality of work life (QWL), research to date has provided little empirical evidence of its effect on business performance. The reason for such a lack of research in this critical area may be the result of

The Level of Wage and Labor Productivity in Hotel Industry: An Analysis

“…The results support the Walton (1975) about the QWL is defined as a balance between the desire and interest towards corporate social responsibility. The results of this study are also consistent with the results of research Horst et al (2014) Santercole (1993), French et al, (1990), Luthans (1995), Lau andMay (1998), Jewell andSiegall (1998) Kondalkar (2009) and Naude (2010), which states that the QWL has strong effect on employee productivity. The quality of work life related to the high level of satisfaction of individuals who are enjoying his work in the organization.…”

What Affects the Quality of Work Life Most?: Turkey Example

“…QWL is defined as "the interaction between work environment and personal needs (personal needs are satisfied when rewards from the organisation, such as compensation, promotion, recognition and development meet their expectations)" (Hackman and Oldham 1980); "the quality of the relationship between employees and the total working environment, with human dimensions added to the usual technical and economic considerations" (Davis 1983); "a way of thinking about people, work and organisations" (Nadler and Lawler 1983); "quality of working life was associated with satisfaction with wages, hours and working conditions, describing the "basic elements of a good quality of work life" as; safe work environment, equitable wages, equal employment Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi / Journal of Sociological Research -2014 / 2 opportunities and opportunities for advancement (Mirvis and Lawler 1984); "the workplace strategies, operations and environment that promote and maintain employee satisfaction aimed at improving working conditions for employees and organisational effectiveness" (Lau and Bruce 1998); "a generic concept that covers a person's feelings about every dimension of work, and a way of thinking about people, work and organization that involves a concern for employee well-being and organizational effectiveness" (Yousuf 1996;Cummings and Worley 1997); "employee satisfaction with a variety of needs through resources, activities, and outcomes stemming from participation in the workplace" (Sirgy et al 2001); "the favourable working environment that supports and promotes satisfaction by providing employees with rewards, job security and career growth opportunities" (Lau et al 2001).…”

Investigating the Relationship between Quality of Work Life and Organizational Commitment amongst Employees in Malaysian Firms

“…According to Akdere (2006), the issue of work life quality has become critical in the last two decades due to increasing demands of today's business environment and family structure. May, Lau and Johnson (1999) suggested that companies offering better QWL and supportive work environments would likely gain leverage in hiring and retaining valuable people and companies with high QWL enjoy exceptional growth and profitability (Lau & May, 1998). In the beginning, QWL is synonymous with employability rate, job security, earnings and benefits (Elizur & Shye, 1990).…”