Learn More

Management Institute for Quality-of-Life Studies

The Quality-of-Work-Life Survey is a standardized survey that have been administered at many colleges and universities in the U.S. and other countries to assess the level of quality of work life.

The Theoretical Model Underlying the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey

Description of the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey

Conducting the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey

The Quality-of-Work-Life Survey Report

Project Fee

The Theoretical Model Underlying the Quality of Work Life Survey

The conceptual model underlying the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey is shown in Figure 1 below (Sirgy et al., 2001). The Quality-of-Work-Life measure is essentially based on need hierarchy theory, a theory widely accepted in social/personality psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, management, as well as quality-of-life studies. The measure is designed to assess the extent to which an organization is perceived to meet the needs of members of the employees. Seven major needs are captured in the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey, each having several dimensions. These are:

  1. health and safety needs
    1. protection from ill health and injury at work (i.e., safety at work)
    2. protection from ill health outside of work (i.e., job-related health benefits)
    3. enhancement of good health (i.e., encouragement at work of preventative measures of health care)
  2. economic and family needs
    1. pay (i.e., adequate wages)
    2. job security (i.e., feeling secure knowing that one is not likely to get laid off)
    3. other family needs (i.e., having enough time from work to attend to family needs)
  3. social needs
    1. collegiality at work (i.e., positive social interactions at work)
    2. leisure time off work (i.e., having enough time from work to relax and experience leisure)
  4. esteem needs
    1. recognition and appreciation of work within the college or university (i.e., recognition and awards for doing a good job at work)
    2. recognition and appreciation of work outside the college or university (i.e., recognition and awards by the local community and/or professional associations for work done within the college or university or on behalf of the college or university)
  5. actualization needs
    1. realization of one’s potential within the college or university (i.e., job is perceived to allow recognition of potential)
    2. realization of one’s potential as a professional (i.e., job is perceived to allow the person to become an expert in his or her field of expertise)
  6. knowledge needs
    1. learning to enhance job skills (i.e., perceives opportunities to learn to do the job better)
    2. learning to enhance professional skills (i.e., perceives opportunities to learn to become expert in one’s field)
  7. aesthetic needs
    1. creativity at work (i.e., perceives opportunities to be creative in solving job-related problems)
    2. personal creativity and general aesthetics (.e., perceives opportunities at work to allow personal development of one’s sense of aesthetics and creative expression)

The Quality-of-Work-Life measure has been administered in a variety of organizations to capture the quality of work life of faculty and staff in colleges and universities, nurses and medical staff in medical clinics and hospitals, accountants in accounting firms, marketing professionals, engineers, human resource managers, among others (e.g., Abdollahzade et al., 2016; Afsar & Burcu, 2014; Arndt, Singhapakdi, & Tam, 2015; Chan & Wyatt, 2007; Koonmee et al., 2010; Lee, Singhapakdi, & Sirgy, 2007; Marta et al., 2013; Mohan & Suppareakchaisakul, 2014; Nimalathasan & Ather, 2010; Rastogi, Rangnekar, & Rastogi, 2018; Saha & Kumar, 2016; Singhapakdi et al., 2014; Sirgy et al., 2001; Taher, 2013) and validated in terms of its prediction of constructs such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, satisfaction in non-work domains, and life satisfaction.

As shown in the figure, satisfaction with life overall of employees is heavily influenced by job satisfaction and satisfaction in non-work domains. Job satisfaction, satisfaction in non-work domains, as well as organizational commitment are all construed to be determined by quality of work life (i.e., employee need satisfaction in relation to health and safety needs, economic and family needs, social needs, esteem needs, actualization needs, knowledge needs, and aesthetics needs).

See exact items of the Quality-of-Work-Life measure and other model constructs shown in the figure in the actual online survey questionnaire in the survey.

References

Abdollahzade, F., Asghari, E., Asghari Jafarabadi, M., Mohammadi, F., Rohan, A., & Mardani-Kivi, M. (2016). Predictive factors of quality of work life among operating room nurses in training hospitals. Journal of Guilan University of Medical Sciences, 25(99), 57–68. Retrieved from http://journal.gums.ac.ir/article-1-1285-en.html

Afsar, S. T., & Burcu, E. (2014). The adaptation and validation of Quality of Work Life Scale to Turkish culture. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9(4), 897–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9276-0

Arndt, A. D., Singhapakdi, A., & Tam, V. (2015). Consumers as employees: the impact of social responsibility on quality of work life among Australian engineers. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(1), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2013-0075

Chan, K. W., & Wyatt, T. A. (2007). Quality of work life: A study of employees in Shanghai, China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 13(4), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602380701250681

Koonmee, K., Singhapakdi, A., Virakul, B., & Lee, D.-J. (2010). Ethics institutionalization, quality of work life, and employee job-related outcomes: A survey of human resource managers in Thailand. Journal of Business Research, 63(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.006

Lee, D.-J., Singhapakdi, A., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). Further validation of a need-based Quality-of-Work-Life (QWL) measure: Evidence from marketing practitioners. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-008-9042-x

Marta, J. K. M., Singhapakdi, A., Lee, D.-J., Sirgy, M. J., Koonmee, K., & Virakul, B. (2013). Perceptions about ethics institutionalization and quality of work life: Thai versus American marketing managers. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.019

Mohan, K. P., & Suppareakchaisakul, N. (2014). Psychosocial correlates of the quality of work life among university teachers in Thailand and Malaysia. International Journal of Behavioral Science, 9(2), 1–16. Retrieved from https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/IJBS/article/view/20099/pdf

Nimalathasan, B., & Ather, S. M. (2010). Quality of work life (QoWL) and job satisfaction (JS): A study of academic professionals of private universities in Bangladesh. In Annual Research Conference (ARC)-2010. Jaffna, Sri Lanka: University of Jaffna.

Rastogi, M., Rangnekar, S., & Rastogi, R. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of need-based quality of work life scale in an Indian sample. Industrial and Commercial Training, 50(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-06-2017-0041

Saha, S., & Kumar, S. P. (2016). Empirical validation of dimensionality of quality of work life in India. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 14(6), 4253–4266. Retrieved from http://www.serialsjournals.com/serialjournalmanager/pdf/1499751958.pdf

Singhapakdi, A., Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., Senasu, K., Yu, G. B., & Nisius, A. M. (2014). Gender disparity in job satisfaction of Western versus Asian managers. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1257–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.04.004

Sinval, J., Sirgy, M.J., Lee, DJ. et al. The Quality of Work Life Scale: Validity Evidence from Brazil and Portugal. Applied Research Quality Life (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09730-3

Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., & Lee, D.-J. (2001). A new measure of quality of work life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research, 55(3), 241–302. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010986923468

Taher, A. (2013). Variations of quality of work life of academic professionals in Bangladesh: A discriminant analysis. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(6), 580–595. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-05-2013-0060

Description of the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey

Faculty and staff in the target college and university are introduced to the survey questionnaire via a cover letter from their employer describing the objectives of the survey as aiming to assess the quality of work life in their college or university. Participants are assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous.

The questionnaire consists of three major sections. The first section (“Feelings about How the Firm Addresses Your Personal Needs”) involves the core quality-of-work-life survey items—items related to satisfaction with the seven categories of human needs (and 16 dimensions in total). See exact items of this construct in the actual online survey questionnaire.

The second section of the questionnaire involves a measure of organizational commitment. The third section focuses on measures of satisfaction with various life domains, including the work domain, and life overall. See exact items of these constructs in the actual online survey questionnaire.

The last (third) section of the questionnaire contains demographic questions related to gender, age, educational level, years of service in current type of work, and years of service.

Conducting the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey

The Management Institute for Quality-of-Life Studies (MIQOLS) provides human resource managers of any college or university worldwide with assistance in conducting the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey (online). The Quality-of-Work-Life Survey is first adapted to the exact specification of the college or university in question. The adapted version of the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey is then posted on MIQOLS website for data collection. The staff at the client college or university publicizes a call to their faculty and staff to complete the online survey anonymously and confidentially. A link is provided with the call to complete the survey with a specific deadline.

After the deadline, the survey site is closed, data analyzed, and a report is issued to the client college or university. To see an example of a typical report, see the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey Report below.

The Quality-of-Work-Life Survey Report


The report is structured as follows:

  • Cover page: A title page with applicant contact information and MIQOLS contact information
  • Executive Summary: The entire content of the report is summarized here.
  • Theory and Model: The theoretical model underlying the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey is described here and the theoretical constructs are clearly defined. The research supporting the Quality-of-Work-Life model is also discussed in this section.
  • Description of the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey: This section contains a description of the constructs with corresponding survey items.
  • Sampling and Data Collection: This part of the report describes the call issued to employees to participate in the Quality-of-Work-Life Survey, the deadline imposed, any incentives used to encourage employee participation, the survey link, the number of employees who actually participated in the survey, the total number of employees contacted, and the response rate. The response rate of the client organization is compared to past response rates of other organizations.
  • Survey Results: This section of the report provides descriptive statistics related to each survey item with figures (e.g., bar charts) against the norm. The norm is calculated based on the average of all past surveys that have been administered through MIQOLS.
  • Discussion and Recommendations: The survey results are then summarized and interpreted in this section. As such, specific strengths and weaknesses are identified. The client organization is then encouraged to bolster their strengths and correct weaknesses.
  • References: Exact references of corresponding text citations are fleshed out in this section.
  • Appendices: Extra detailed information related to any aspect of the report is placed in this section.
  • Click here to see an example of a report.

Project Fee

You can choose from the following options:

  1. FREE to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet);
  2. $500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet) plus statistical norms for every survey item;
  3. $4,500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet) plus a full report detailing the survey results with statistical graphs of the results with managerial recommendations;
  4. $7,500 to deliver an Excel data file containing the survey data (with the coding sheet), a full report detailing the survey results with statistical graphs of the results with managerial recommendations, with additional analysis and reporting (i.e., results broken down by specific demographic groups) as requested.

To request MIQOLS to conduct a Quality-of-Work-Life Survey, please send an e-mail message to the executive director of MIQOLS, Joe Sirgy, at office@miqols.org indicating interest. You can also contact MIQOLS by letter (address: 6020 Lyons Road, Dublin, Virginia 24084, USA) or by phone (540-674-5022; leave voicemail message). A staff member will contact you by e-mail to set up a telephone (or Skype or ZOOM) meeting. The staff member will answer whatever questions you may have and discuss the logistics of the entire project, the cost, survey specifications, time line, delivery of the survey report and other details