Pap.sm.qa.doc

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

AUTHORS (1) Seema Arif Head of Department Psychology Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Central Punjab Khayaban-i-Jinnah. Lahore. 54770. Pakistan Email: [email protected] Tel: 924235880007-272

(2) Maryam Ilyas Lecturer College of Statistical & Actuarial Sciences. University of the Punjab Quaid-i-Azam Campus, Lahore. 54660. Pakistan Email: [email protected] Tel: 923004865466

1

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore various dimensions of quality of work-life (QWL) as it affects the life and attitude at work of teachers of private universities in Lahore, Pakistan. Design/methodology/approach: The study was quantitative in nature. A survey was conducted with 360 faculty members from private universities in Lahore, in order to find out their perceptions of QWL, and its spill-over effect on employee commitment and engagement, job involvement and reputation of the university. Findings: It was found that perceived value of work, work climate, work-life balance and satisfaction with relationships in life were the major factors which shaped work attitudes and employee perceptions of overall quality of work-life. Originality/value: The study makes both a scholarly and practical contribution. The scholarly contribution highlights that the dominant constructs of QWL play an important role in shaping attitudes towards work, life and relationships of teachers of private universities. On a practical level, the study hints at the possible implications of dissatisfaction and imbalance within employee commitment and engagement, and even the reputation of the university. Limitations: The data was cross-sectional, collected at one point in time and relatively small in size. The responses are limited to private organizations, excluding public universities.

Key words: Quality of Work-life. Higher Education. Private universities. Reputation. Job commitment. Job involvement.

2

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan 1. Background The 21st century is recognized as an age of knowledge, where immense value is being attached to attributes like knowledge creation, innovation and knowledge management. However, knowledge workers generating these valuable attributes are complaining about their quality of work-life (QWL), as are others such as university teachers, who are the chaperones of society, preparing a workforce to meet the high-tech needs of industry, business and service organizations. Although we frequently come across rhetoric relating to the rights of knowledge workers, stated in terms of work-life balance or QWL, in the corporate world, we still observe our valued knowledge workers craving respect and recognition, especially in developing countries like Pakistan. After the advent of globalization, universities are managed like private businesses, becoming knowledge corporations. Therefore, the knowledge managers in these modern corporations want the same status and facilities for themselves as those provided to their counterparts in other industries, especially when there is an increasing demand on them in terms of both knowledge dissemination (teaching) and knowledge production (research). In the 21st century, we are witnessing contrasting agendas: on the one hand we witness service organizations like universities being operated as businesses, governing the workforce with tools crafted by modern management theories focused upon efficiency; on the other we strive for maximizing human potential through enhancing individual self-worth and self-esteem, by emphasizing the positive identity with work and workplace. The ultimate aim is to develop satisfaction with life while enhancing personal lifestyles. While this push-and-pull is going on, we can safely assume that modern organizations, belonging to any business or industry, are in a process of changing their outlook on work and relationships with employees, while attaching significant importance to human effort and recognizing such efforts through increasing empowerment and employee participation in decision making. Higher education is considered to be one of the most effective and authentic means of bringing qualitative change into one’s life; not only offering better incomes, but also better roles and status as well. Such change is achieved through promoting acquisition of knowledge and skills, and by shaping attitudes that will encourage change in the lives of people transforming their outlook on life. Consequently, their working styles and their ability to adopt innovation and technology will improve, and the behaviours that bring about qualitative improvement within organizational systems will be reinforced. In order to study such dynamics of change, a quality 3

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan management approach seems the most feasible, allowing us to study behavioural dynamics from multiple perspectives. One such perspective is that of QWL for the employees of any organization. Successive movements to develop human capital (Argyris, 1973; Herzberg, 1987; Maslow, 1954) and human social capital (Putnam, 2000) have been integrated into the concept of QWL by the quality movement. Work-life quality and balance are probably the greatest challenges most of us face today. Life is moving at such a speed that it is hard to manage time; therefore we will have to learn to manage important activities in our lives to maintain a sense of quality and balance in life. This efficient self-management requires the shaping of attitudes rather than the learning of new skills. QWL and work-life balance (WLB) offer us a holistic perspective and framework, highlighting that personal responsibilities and work cannot be conveniently separated in real-life situations. 2. Literature review

The scope of customers has been expanding in higher education, and focus is gradually moving onto employees’ satisfaction (Sahney et al., 2008). Seeking employee satisfaction in higher education has become important because “higher education institutions are labor intensive” and their budgets are predominantly devoted to staff development, as employee efficiency is a key predictor of organizational effectiveness (Kusku, 2003, p. 350). Parkes (2008) has identified that higher education organizations need a new type of human resource strategy, which encourages employee involvement and commitment, so as to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the organization. Parkes (2008) has further cautioned higher education administration that people like to be psychologically “stroked” – to think that others care about them or do nice things for them, which can be more powerful when it is unexpected. All over the world, higher education institutions and organizations are becoming more accountable and responsive to their internal customers’ needs, especially those of the faculty (Chen et al., 2006; Edwards et al., 2009; Sahney et al., 2008). Sajid (2003) has drawn attention to the indifference of university faculties in Pakistan, pointing out that they lack interest in research and development, in grooming students or in mentoring colleagues. They fail to realize such efforts as tools for advancing careers or as sources of personal satisfaction, believing that such efforts are not well recognized. If such 4

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan efforts are lost and are unable to instigate positive changes in personal lifestyle and or improve pay or status, what else could be the possible causes of faculty burnout and lack of concern? Parkes (2008, p.28) has warned that, “if we ask people who have left an organization, they will often be able to point to incidents that others may regard as petty, but which made them decide that they were no longer committed to the organization”. Therefore, higher education leadership must be careful to retain their quality employees. Recently in Pakistan, higher education has become an attractive and promising sector to work in, attracting people from industry to teach in business schools and pursue their careers there, but it is still unclear whether these people have the basic mindset, or the right attitude and aptitude, that traditional “teaching” demands. Not only do newly established, private universities need to adjust their vision of “teaching as service”, but they also need to learn to recognize and reward teaching as well (Arif, 2009; Arif and Ilyas, 2011; Arif and Riaz, 2011). QWL is an emerging concept; it may be understood differently by different people depending upon differing situations and people’s differing roles (Edwards et al., 2009; Sashkin and Burke, 1987). QWL is referred to as the “favourableness or unfavourableness of a total job environment for people” (Rantanen et al., 2011; Rethinam and Ismail, 2008). Bateman and Snell (2003) defined QWL as “enhanced sense of employee well-being”. QWL has been associated with basic job characteristics such as: salary, wages or compensation; physical or psychological environment at work; workload and stress at work; and equitable chances of promotion and professional growth (Lee et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2008). Mohanraj and Ramesh (2010) have described QWL as an innovation which not only targets employee satisfaction, but also enhances organizational effectiveness and productivity (p. 128). Many developing countries are aiming to improve their legislation to protect employee rights and their wellbeing. The research on QWL broadly aims at getting an overview of jobrelated factors that affect individuals and groups at work (Sirgy et al., 2001), and, according to Edwards et al. (2009), the information thus obtained may help and guide organizations to adopt appropriate actions to improve working conditions, as well as their employees’ attitudes towards work. For instance, reducing absenteeism and turnover, and improving job satisfaction through increasing staff retention; improving productivity, morale and commitment (Efraty et al., 1991; Fuller, 2006; Sirin, 2009; Worrall and Cooper, 2006), and thus employee involvement and engagement in socially responsible activities (Razaq et al., 2011). 5

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan The focus of QWL goes beyond job satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 2001). Serey (2006) defined QWL as an important construct comprising four Cs: concern, consciousness, capacity and commitment. It includes: (1) an opportunity to exercise one’s talents and capacities, and to face challenges and situations that require independent initiative and self-direction; (2) an activity thought to be worthwhile by the individual involved; (3) an activity in which one understands the role the individual plays in the achievement of some overall goals; and (iv) a sense of taking pride in what one is doing and in doing it well. Sirgy and his associates (1991; 2001; 2007; 2008) view QWL as a source of employee satisfaction emerging from the fulfillment of basic needs, following Maslow (1954), McClelland (1961), Herzberg (1987) and Alderfer (1972); seeing QWL as an outcome of employee satisfaction with two sets of major needs: lower- and higher-order needs. Lower-order needs comprise health/safety needs and economic/family needs. Higher-order needs involve social needs, esteem needs, self-actualization needs, knowledge needs and aesthetic needs. However, the concept is extended by the “spill-over effect”, which goes beyond the extrinsic aspect of job satisfaction towards more intrinsic satisfaction with life and non-work situations. Sirgy et al. quote many others in stating that, “the spillover approach to QWL posits that satisfaction in one area of life may influence satisfaction in another. For example, satisfaction with one’s job may influence satisfaction in other life domains such as family, leisure, social, health, financial, etc.” (See e.g., Loscoco and Roschelle, 1991; Bromet et al., 1990; Crohan et al.,1989 and Crouter, 1984 in Sirgy et al., 2001). Furthermore, QWL is also explored in terms of the interface between roles and identities that employees create for themselves and the resources available in the work environment (Sirgy et al., 2008). Rantanen et al. (2011) introduced many theoretical approaches to the work-life balance to develop a new typology among professionals; these help researchers to identify constructs for QWL for their research. Researchers have emphasized the importance of assessing both work and non-work contexts to assess QWL, and six factors that are considered to be important are: job and career satisfaction; general wellbeing; home-work interface; stress at work; control at work; and working conditions (Loscocco and Roschelle, 1991; Van Laar et al., 2007). QWL programmes encourage organizations to recognize their responsibility to develop jobs and working conditions that are excellent for people, as well as for the economic health of the organization. One such condition has been defined by Clark (2000) as the work-family balance: “satisfaction and good 6

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan functioning at work and at home, with a minimum of role conflict” (p. 751). Such alternate work schedules (flexi-time or flexi-space) affect perceived work-life imbalance, which results in the “time bind” (Tausing and Fenwick, 2001). Extending the scope of the study on the role of satisfaction to the case of faculty members, Johnsrud and Rosser (2002) identified three dimensions of satisfaction: professional priorities and rewards; administrative relations and support; and quality of benefits and services. They also defined three dimensions of faculty morale as engagement in work; sense of institutional regard; and personal sense of their own wellbeing. They suggested that perceptions of work-life and morale have significant, direct impacts on intent to leave. Rosser (2005) also suggested that the perception faculty members have of their work life has a direct and powerful impact on their satisfaction. To sum up in the words of Edwards et al. (2009), who concluded that QWL is a subjective construct: (1) organizational, human and social aspects interact and must be integrated within the definition of QWL; and (2) there is an indissociable relationship between quality of life (QOL) and QWL. According to these researchers, QWL is what will differentiate good companies from poor companies. QWL is all about the conducive and congenial environment created at the workplace, as it is one of the main reasons for better performance and productivity. Better quality of work-life leads to increased employee morale, minimizes attrition and checks labour turnover and absenteeism. The concept allows us to value employees more than internal customers, and appreciate the concept of “employee first and the customer second” (Collins and Smith, 2006). It is safely assumed that when the right ambience is provided for employees, they will be able to deliver their goods effectively and efficiently. 3. The purpose of the study

The research was carried out in order to discover how teachers of private universities in Pakistan view their work environment, and whether this working environment is helping them to become valued human beings or not. 4. Research questions

1. What are the key dimensions of QWL as perceived by faculties of private universities in Lahore, Pakistan?

7

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan 2. How does QWL link with the faculties’ needs for satisfaction? Are the needs satisfied of a lower order or higher order? 3. What is the nature of the spill-over effect of QWL? Is it the bottom-up type, i.e. spreading to non-work conditions and relationships in life? 5. Theoretical framework The theoretical framework of the study has been derived from the studies of Sirgy, Efraty, Lee and others (See e.g., Sirgy et al., 2001,2008 and Lee et al., 2007) to determine the needs satisfaction of faculty of private universities in Pakistan, and their spill-over effect upon nonwork conditions. The QWL constructs have been selected carefully according to the propositions made by Edwards et al. (2009), Johnsrud and Rosser (2002), Rantanen et al. (2011), Rosser (2005) and Van Laar et al. (2007). It has been assumed that QWL influences employees’ attitudes, as well as their perceptions regarding the quality of their environment. Attitudes under study include one’s personal attitude towards the profession and the lifestyle one maintains, and perceptions about the quality of inputs, outputs and processes in the workplace. Environment constitutes the physical, psychological and social environment at work. The attitudes under study include different facets of job satisfaction, including satisfaction with general job characteristics, perceived workload and stress. Job commitment is measured through loyalty behaviours (i.e. engagement in promotional activities and degree of involvement with the job and workplace) and maintaining a positive identity and sense of belonging in the workplace (e.g. perceptions about the university’s reputation or ranking reflects the desired image of the workplace) (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009).

6. Research design The study was designed as a descriptive study with the intention to look at the phenomenon of QWL as it is. A survey method was chosen to carry out the study for its “broad coverage, flexibility and convenience with inputs on related populations or events” (Rose et al., 2006). Since no precedent of such a study was found in the local context, and no reliable scale was available, we selected items for the questionnaire after an in-depth literature review on the topic, in keeping with our local context. The questionnaire was self-constructed, but was reviewed by a team of experts and pretested on 30 faculty members of various universities. Necessary amendments were made to reach 8

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan an overall reliability of >0.7. The value achieved for Cronbach’s alpha was 0.98. The final questionnaire consisted of three parts: ‘Part A’ sought demographic information; ‘Part B’ comprised the QWL scale, with 52 items summed up in 13 constructs; and ‘Part C’ had nine items (three each) for measuring employee commitment, employee engagement and perceived reputation of the university. A five-point scale with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree” was used in the questionnaire. Questionnaires were administered in the five private universities of Lahore after obtaining formal consent to collect data. The Institution of Research Promotion (IRP) helped in collecting data in three universities, while in the remaining two, data was collected with the help of students. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed in five private universities; only 370 were returned, of which 360 were completed and included in the final analysis. Hence the final response rate was 72%. The data was collected within two weeks of distributing questionnaires to the intended participants. Questionnaires that were not returned within 20 days were not pursued any further. Multiple techniques have been used to explore data that qualify relationships between variables. SPSS (17th edition) and AMOS (16th edition) were used to obtain key models for the research. Since we used a dynamic hypothesis to interpret data at two levels, the independent and dependent variables differed at both levels. The first-level results were achieved by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and stepwise regression, to determine the internal dynamics of the data. The set of factors identified by EFA indicated a strong relationship between five sets of independent variables (factors) and two dependent variables: quality of work-life and job involvement. Work-life balance was found to be moderating with three sets of independent variables. In second-level analysis, the relationship of QWL was further explored in terms of employee attitudes like commitment and engagement, and the impact on the perceived reputation of the university. Binary logistic regression was used in this part of the analysis.

7. Findings 7.1. Descriptives 9

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan Out of the sample of 360 teachers of five private universities, 87% were permanent and 13% had visiting status. In addition, 40% of the teachers were lecturers, 32% assistant professors, 20% professors and the remainder were deans or heads of departments. A very high percentage of the sample (77%) were MPhils, 16% were PhDs, while the remainder had other professional qualifications. The respondents described various reasons for choosing their respective universities as a workplace: for 36% it was the pay package; for 22% it was the work climate; for 20% it was opportunities for furthering their career; for 14% it was academic and research value; and for the remainder easy access to the university was the sole reason to work there. 7.2. First-level analysis The 42 items (on a five-point Likert Scale), grouped into the original 13 variables derived from the literature review to measure various aspects of satisfaction at work, life and relationships, were explored using SPSS. Principal axis factor analysis reduced the data into seven factors: quality of processes (QOP); perceived value of work (VOW); work climate (WC); work-life balance (WLB); work stress (WS); relationships in life (RLT); and empowerment (EMP). QWL identified by the respondents was measured by five items, with a reliability coefficient of 0.849. Factor analysis of the five items also implied the existence of a single factor. All factors were defined over high factor loadings (>0.47) (Fava and Velicer, 1996) (see Appendix A). Cronbach’s alpha score was >0.8, indicating that the eight extracted factors were reliable. Furthermore, the analysis of the mean scores of the seven derived scales reflected no dissatisfaction among respondents, with the exception of WLB and QWL, as all other mean scores were above 3.00. Therefore, these two factors (WLB and QWL) were assumed to be critical in shaping the holistic perception of quality of work-life for teachers of private universities working in Lahore, Pakistan, and were further investigated to determine their moderating affect.

10

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan Table 1. Descriptive statistics Factors Quality of processes (QOP) Work stress (WS) Value of work (VOW) Empowerment (EMP) Work limate (WC) Relationships in life (RLT) Work-life balance (WLB) Quality of work-life (QWL)

Mean 3.54 3.02 3.19 3.23 3.24 3.84 2.79 2.40

Standard deviation (SD) 0.78 0.92 0.78 0.86 0.76 0.81 0.95 0.51

7.2.1. Stepwise multiple regression analysis The variation in QWL was assessed by stepwise multiple regression analysis considering QOP, VOW, WC, WLB, WS, RLT and EMP as independent variables (Table 2). Multicollinearity did not apply here because the variance inflation factor (VIF) was much less than 10 and all tolerance values were greater than 0.6 (Meyers et al., 2006). Stepwise regression resulted in five significant models (see Table 2). Positive standardized co-efficients indicate that the higher the scores on QOP, VOW, WC, WLB, WS, RLT and EMP scales, the better will be the QWL perception. Most of the variation (64.2%) in QWL was explained by VOW, followed by WS, RLT, WLB and QOP, each of which uniquely added (R²-adjusted) 7.8%, 3.9%, 1.2% and 0.4%, respectively. Hence, the level of the perceived value of work by a teacher is the key determinant of their overall job satisfaction and perception of QWL. Table 2. Stepwise multiple regression analysis: summary of seven scales predicting teachers’ perceptions of quality of work-life Model

T-value

Sig.

1. VOW

Standardized co-efficients 0.802

25.412

0.000

2. VOW WS 3. VOW WS RLT 4. VOW WS

0.615 0.336 0.545 0.370 0.202 0.533 0.322

18.287 9.975 16.661 11.682 7.421 16.576 9.723

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

R² (Adjusted) 64.2% F(1,358) = 645.767, p-value = 0.000 72.0% F(2,357) = 461.485, p-value = 0.000 75.8%

F(3,356) = 372.607, p-value = 0.000

77.0%

F(4,355) = 296.345, 11

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

RLT WLB 5. VOW WS RLT WLB QOP

0.159 0.128 0.525 0.322 0.132 0.124 0.074

5.575 4.132 16.414 9.792 4.413 4.019 2.664

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008

p-value = 0.000

77.4%

F(5,354) = 242.567, p-value = 0.000

7.2.2. Moderation analysis Moderating effects of satisfaction with RLT and WLB were assessed using AMOS 16.0 (Appendix B), and the graphs were formulated in MS Excel 2007. All the models were evaluated by five fit measures: 1) chi-squared (χ²); 2) the comparative fit index (CFI); 3) the goodness of fit index (GFI); 4) the normed fit index (NFI); and 5) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). For all the proposed models, the chi-squared value was highly insignificant, indicating a reasonable match between the proposed structure and the observed data. The values of CFI, GFI, NFI and RMSEA made all the four models an excellent fit for the data, as large values of CFI, GFI, NFI and small values of RMSEA reflect better-fitting models (see Appendix B) (Hu and Bentler, 1995, 1999; Byrne, 2010). Taking QWL and WLB as dependent variables and EMP, VOW and WC as independent variables, satisfaction with RLT was found to be a key moderator; it moderates the relationship between EMP, VOW, WC and WLB, in the following three ways (see Figures1-3):

Figure 1. RLT moderating the relationship between EMP and WLB 12

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Figure 2. RLT moderating the relationship between VOW and WLB

Figure 3. RLT moderating the relationship between WC and WLB The effect of perceived VOW on WS and QWL was explored, considering WLB as a moderator. WLB did not moderate the relationship between VOW and QWL alone. However, for the relationship between VOW and WS, the effect of WLB was prevailing (as displayed in Figure 4). Thus, the impact of WS on perceived VOW and satisfaction was more positive for those with a high sense of WLB.

13

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Figure 4. WLB moderating the relationship between VOW and WS

7.3 Second level analysis The outcomes of QWL were checked with other positive job satisfaction constructs, such as job commitment and employee engagement, as well as on perceived reputation of the university. Surprisingly, no significant model was indicated between the relationships of QWL and the seven factors and commitment, engagement and reputation. The calculated values were small, such as: 1) WLB, VOW and QOP explained 24% of the variation in commitment. 2) WS and WLB explained 16.8% of the variation in reputation. 3) WS, WLB, WC and QOP explained 29.8% of the variation in engagement. However, QWL, engagement, commitment and reputation were all positively correlated with each other. The impact of QWL, engagement (“I feel that I am a valued member of this university”: yes=1, no=0) and commitment (“I’d like to take part in the promotion of my university”: yes=1, no=0) upon reputation (“My university is rightly ranked in “W” category university”: yes=1, no=0) was found to be significant (see Table 3). Those who are engaged and committed are 6.318 and 1.560 times more likely to project a positive reputation, respectively, than those who are not engaged or committed. For a unit increase in QWL score, there is a 1.084 times greater likelihood of projecting a positive reputation, controlling for engagement and commitment. The model was adequate as it ensured a significant improvement over the constant14

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan only model, χ2 (3,313) = 131.699, p<0.001, accounting for 41.1% of the variation in the dependent variable. Table 3. Logistic regression analysis for predicting whether reputation is influenced by QWL, engagement and commitment 95.0% C.I. for Exp(B) Variables Engagement Commitment QWL Constant

β 2.378 1.229 .081 -2.891

Wald 79.024 9.437 4.587 20.004

Sig. .000 .002 .012 .000

Exp(B) 10.778 3.419 1.084 .056

Lower 6.381 1.560 1.007

Upper 18.205 7.490 1.168

8. Conclusions The faculties of private universities seem satisfied with general aspects of job satisfaction; at least, there appears to be no major dissatisfaction, as the mean average of scores on these items is above 3.00. However, the mean scores on satisfaction with QWLRLT and WLB are below the average. Therefore, these two factors were assumed to be critical in shaping a holistic perception of QWL for teachers of private universities working in Lahore, Pakistan. However, we cannot disregard the influence of relationships (RLT) as it was found to be the key moderator in the findings (See Figure no 1 and 2). QWL is associated with lower needs, compared to European countries where it is more associated with higher needs. Pay package and job security still prevail as the major attraction for quality employees to a teaching institution. Other job characteristics, such as status and rank in the department/college one is working in, along with the opportunity for professional growth and promotion, and satisfaction with autonomy at work, defined the perceived value of one’s job, and, as stated above, is the sole determining factor of job satisfaction and QWL. Combined with workload, such as total number of hours worked, number of courses taught, managerial responsibility and expectations for creative output such as research, this determines how more or less satisfied one will be with their job. The results of stepwise regression completely exclude variables of work climate. Therefore, if we consider the items of VOW as more about personal achievement and enhancing 15

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan one’s self-esteem, then it can be concluded that psychological environment is more important in creating the perception of QWL than physical environment. Quality of certain processes, such as teacher recruitment, training, teaching/learning environment and student intake, were found to be of little significance, while the student and teacher output were considered of no value and did not come up as significant factors for analysis in the data. Similarly, the qualities of infrastructure, offices, labs, libraries, etc., were also taken for granted and their presence did not contribute significantly to the perception of QWL. The work itself was important as a means of earning one’s “bread and butter” and holding a respectable position in society, but it did not matter whom you worked for. The findings from the second-level analysis were even more dramatic. The overall perception of QWL did not seem to impact much on employee commitment and engagement; even the reputation of the university was taken for granted. Only the people with a strong perception of being a “valued part of the community” seemed to be interested in “taking an active part in the promotion of the university” and saw the university as rightly ranked in “W” category. Satisfaction can be likened to a fountain that is rising from the bottom to spill over the top. QWL is an ability to perceive satisfaction in life and maintain a lifestyle, rather than vice versa. This ability is personal and without regard for age, gender, education or experience, but it makes life more meaningful. Therefore, it is a desired attribute, a quality that every organization will prize and appreciate in their employees in times to come. 9. Implications The faculties are highly conscious of improvement in their qualifications, as almost 77% have completed MPhils, and were enrolled in a PhD programme or were enthusiastic about it. These are the statistics for the major private universities of Lahore; the initiatives taken by Higher Education Comission, Pakistan seem to work progressively, and we may hope to see 100% PhD faculties in our universities over the next few years. Moreover, improved qualifications are now perceived as a tool for professional growth, as well as an effective means of improving one’s lifestyle, by university faculties. Satisfaction with RLT and WLB represented the most influential variables, as they moderate even the sense of empowerment and satisfaction with the work climate. Being a 16

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan traditional and a collectivist society, it is presumed that everything is seen in the light of one’s successful engagement in personal and social relationships. Only successful and satisfactory relationships will give rise to a feeling of work-life balance and an accomplished sense of QWL. These psychological variables are so strong that other demographic variables, such as age, gender, qualifications or experience, seem to have no significant impact upon the perception of QWL. It appears strange, therefore, that after enjoying safety and security in the workplace and experiencing a manageable level of stress at work, compared to other professional environments, people have shown little commitment and enthusiasm for their jobs and the organizations they work for. Their loyalty remains questionable, as does their output as responsible citizens and valuable members of society. It seems that faculty members who are employed by private universities consider themselves to be part of a business organization, rather than people involved in the provision of a critical service – higher education. They see “teaching as a business” rather than feeling that they are in “the teaching business”. QWL is the degree of personal satisfaction with life and work, with a realistic aim of keeping up a WLB. The employees perceiving a high QWL are able to enhance their personal lives, making them more meaningful and purposeful, through engaging in a positive attitude at work, valuing their work and appreciating their work environment. Today, the success of any organization is highly dependent on how it attracts, recruits, motivates and retains its workforce; the institutions of higher education are no exception in this case. Therefore, university management must be able to create a working environment ensuring physical and psychological security and safety. They must think of original and innovative ways of developing their workforce, so that they can increase their commitment to and engagement with work. Teaching is a valued service, having an important role in creating future human and social capital. Therefore, management of private universities must think in line with other business organizations about assisting their employees to enhance their lifestyles. Sirgy et al. (2008) have proposed a variety of QWL programmes related to work-life, such as decentralized organizational structures, teamwork, parallel structures, ethical corporate mission and culture, organizational work schedule, etc.; and non-work-life, such as working at home, flexi-time, compressed working hours, part-time work arrangements, job-sharing, etc., and show how they serve to enhance QOL using the language of work-life identity. 17

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

10. Limitations Data collection was found to be difficult. Most of the respondents left the open-ended questions unanswered in the questionnaire, and that portion was excluded from the final analysis. However, it could have given a deeper insight into the phenomenon of QWL. Since data was collected from Lahore only, the results should be generalized carefully. 11. Directions for future research Further in-depth analysis is required with important variables like “perceptions of equity”, “procedural justice”, psychological contract” and “dehumanization”, as QWL seems to be more affected by psychological than physical environment. Also, the study should be replicated with other private institutions of higher education in Pakistan. Moreover, a comparison can be done with the perceptions of QWL when working in faculties of public universities in Pakistan.

References Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Settings, Free Press, New York, NY. Argyris, C. (1973), “Personality and organization theory revisited”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 141-167. Arif, S. (2009), “Praxis: Teachers’ dilemma to choose the right action”, The International Journal of Learning, Vol. 16 No.7, pp. 27-37. 18

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan Arif, S. and Ilyas, M. (2011), “Leadership, empowerment and customer satisfaction in teaching institutions: Case study of Pakistani university”, Total Quality Magazine, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 388– 402. Arif, S. and Riaz, N. (2011), “Student development: Emerging teaching paradigm”, Daily Dawn, Sunday Magazine, 6 November, p. 7. Bateman, T.S. and Snell, S.A. (2003), Management Building Competitive Advantage (6th ed.), Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Brown, R. and Mazzarol, T. (2009), “The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 81-95. Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.), Routledge, New York, NY. Chen, S., Yang, C., Shiau, J. and Wang, H. (2006), “The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 484-500. Clark, S.C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 6, p. 747. Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high technology firms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 544-560. Edwards, J.A., Laar, D.V., Easton, S., Kinman, G. (2009), “The work-related quality of life scale for higher education employees”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 207-219. Efraty, D., Sirgy, M.J. and Claiborne, C. (1991), “The effects of personal alienation on organizational identification: A quality-of-work-life model”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 57-78.

Fava, J. L., and Velicer, W. F. (1996), “The effects of under extraction in factor and component analysis”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56, pp. 907-929. Fuller, G. (2006), “Anti-stress scheme boosts health and morale of City of London Police”, Personnel Today, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 207–219. Herzberg, F. (1987), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 65, No.5, pp. 109-120. Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P. (1995), “Evaluating model fit”. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling. Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage, London. Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, pp. 1-55. Johnsrud, L. (2002), “Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative work life: Implications for college and university campuses”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 379-395. Kusku, F. (2003), “Employee satisfaction in higher education: The case of academic and administrative staff in Turkey”, Career Development International, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 347-356. Lee, D.J., Singhapakdi, A. and Sirgy, M.J. (2007), “Further validation of a need-based quality-of-worklife (QWL) measure: Evidence from marketing practitioners”, Applied Research in Quality of Life, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 273-287. Loscocco, K.A. and Roschelle, A.N. (1991), “Influences on the quality of work and non-work life: Two decades in review”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 39, pp. 182–225. Maslow, A H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York, NY. McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, The Free Press, New York, NY.

19

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A.J. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mohanraj, P. and Ramesh, R. (2010), “Measuring quality of work life: an integration of conceptual relationship with productivity”, International Journal of Research in Management and Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 128-132. Parkes, C. (2008), “Angel grants employees their wish for time off in return for high performance”, Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 16 No.4, pp. 23-24. Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S. and Tillemann, K. (2011), “Introducing theoretical approaches to work-life balance and testing a new typology among professionals”. In Kaiser, S., Ringlstetter, M., Eikhof, D.R. and E Cunha, M.P. (Eds.), Creating Balance? International Perspectives on the Work-Life Integration of Professionals, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 27-46. Razaq, A., Yameen, M., Sabir, S., Iqbal, J.J., Ali, K.S. and Khan, M.A. (2011), “Impact of CSR, quality of work life and organizational structure on employee’s performance in Pakistan”, Journal of Social and Development Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 66-72. Rethinam, G.S. and Ismail, M. (2008), “Constructs of quality of work life: A perspective of information and technology professionals”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 58-70. Rosser, V.J. (2005), “Measuring the change in faculty perceptions over time: An examination of their worklife and satisfaction”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 81-107. Sahney, S., Banwet, D. and Karunes, S. (2008), “An integrated framework of indices for quality management in education: A faculty perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No.5, pp. 502-519. Sashkin, M. and Burke, W.W. (1987), “Organizational development in the 1980’s”, Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 393–417. Serey, T.T. (2006), “Choosing a robust quality of work life”, Business Forum, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 7- 10. Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P. and Lee, D.-J. (2001), “A new measure of quality of work life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 55 No.3, pp. 241-302. Sirgy, M.J., Reilly, N.P., Wu, J. and Efraty, D. (2008), “A work-life identity model of well-being: Towards a research agenda linking quality-of-work-life (QWL) programs with quality of life (QOL)”, Applied Research in Quality of Life, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 181-202. Sirin, A.F. (2009), “Analysis of relationship between job satisfaction and attitude”, Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 85-104. Tausig, M. and Fenwick, R. (2001), “Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life balance”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 101-119. Van Laar, D.L., Edwards, J.A. and Easton, S. (2007), “The work-related quality of life scale for healthcare workers”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 60 No.3, pp. 325–333. Worrall, L. and Cooper, C.L. (2006), The quality of working life: Managers’ health and well-being, Executive Report, Chartered Management Institute, London.

Appendix A: Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis

20

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Factors F1: Quality of Processes

Items

Satisfaction with induction of teachers Satisfaction with mentoring/coaching of fresh teachers Satisfaction with training (if any) provided to teachers Quality of teacher intake over past 5 years (inputs) Quality of teacher input over past 5 years Quality of teaching/learning environment over past 5 years Quality of student intake over past 5 years F2: Value of Satisfaction with current rank Work Satisfaction with salary Satisfaction with benefits Satisfaction with chances of growth Satisfaction with scope of professional development Satisfaction with the department/college Satisfaction with autonomy at work F3: Work Satisfaction with needed equipment/technology Climate Satisfaction with workspace Labs PCs Classrooms Cafeteria F4: Work-Life Satisfaction with time spent with family Balance Satisfaction with time spent in recreation Satisfaction with time spent at social, work and/or creative activities F5: Work Satisfaction with teaching load Stress Satisfaction with managerial load Satisfaction with productivity load Satisfaction with working hours F6: Satisfaction with personal relationships Relationships Satisfaction with student-teacher relationships in Life Satisfaction with collegial relationships F7: Satisfaction with opportunity to share governance Empowerment Satisfaction with opportunity to participate in decision making Satisfaction with opportunity to explore teacher leadership KMO = 0.891, χ² = 7835.572, p<0.000

Loadings

(Cronbach’s alpha) .747 0.906 .756 .726 .794 .741 .765 .581 .793 0.877 .750 .725 .586 .566 .526 .553 .702 0.848 .733 .473 .561 .652 .473 .816 0.884 .870 .660 .475 0.858 .673 .760 .801 .608 0.814 .747 .781 .647 0.854 .749 .574

Appendix B: 21

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

χ² (1, N = 360) = 0.691; p = 0.145, CFI = 0.970, GFI = 0.989, NFI = 0.968, RMSEA = 0.023 Figure 1B. RLT moderating the relationship between EMP and WLB

χ² (1, N = 360) = 0.002; p = 0.963, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, NFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00 Figure 2B. RLT moderating the relationship between VOW and WLB

χ² (1, N = 360) = 0.896; p = 0.344, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.00 Figure 3B. RLT moderating the relationship between WC and WLB

22

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

χ² (1, N = 360) = 0.038; p = 0.845, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, NFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00 Figure 4B. WLB moderating the relationship between VOW and WS

23