Quality of working life – what, how and why Mr Simon Easton & Dr Darren Van Laar, Applied Psychology Unit Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth

Quality of Working Life Career choice Stress management Career change Quality of Working Life

“Without doubt, the most important determinant of QWL is career achievement, followed by career satisfaction and career balance.” Rose R C, Beh L, Uli J and Idris K (2006) Quality Of Work Life: Implications Of Career Dimensions. Journal of Social Sciences 2 (2): 61-67

What? A review of the literature reveals relatively little on quality of working life.

What? A review of the literature reveals relatively little on quality of working life. Where quality of working life has been explored, writers differ in their views on the core constituents. Taillefer,-Marie-Christine; Dupuis,-Gilles; Roberge,-Marie-Anne; Le-May,-Sylvie (2003) Health-related quality of life models: Systematic review of the literature. Social-Indicators-Research. 64 (2): 293-323

Quality of Working Life is the greater context in which to understand various factors in the workplace such as job satisfaction and stress. A proper understanding of the bigger picture would offer opportunity for better informed interventions for individuals and at an organisational level.

We looked at the literature, and talked with the organisations we work with and came up with: ‘Quality of Working Life is that part of overall quality of life that is influenced by work… the widest context in which an employee would evaluate the influence of work on their life.’* *Van Laar, Edwards & Easton (2007)

How? We set out to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure QoWL. We started with our working definition to help define the scope of a scale. We drew upon theoretical definitions of QoWL (Herzberg, Loscocco & Rochelle, Sirgy, Warr,etc.) We had access to related scales, our own staff survey data and job experts

How: Development of a measure 200 questions were gathered from existing surveys or generated based on theoretical requirements, and reviewed by an expert panel to give an item pool of 61 questions. The questionnaire was given to over 1000 employees of the UK National Health Service, and EFA and CFA on the two halves were undertaken. The data sets were combined (N = 953) to confirm a 6 factor structure with 23 items (Overall C’s α = .91) and show a ‘good’ model fit for the ‘Work-Related Quality of Life’ (WRQoL) scale which appeared to be a valid and reliable scale with good psychometric properties. 9

Work-Related Quality of Life (WRQoL) scale factors Job Career Satisfaction (JCS) : α = .86 How far you agree that you are generally happy with your ability to do your work General Well Being (GWB) : α = .89 How much you agree you feel generally content with life as a whole Home-Work Interface (HWI) : α = .82 How far you agree that the organisation understands and tries to help you with pressures outside of work Stress at Work (SAW) : α = .81 How far you feel agree you experience stress at work Control at Work (CAW) : α = .81 How far you agree you feel you are involved in decisions that affect you at work Working Conditions (WCS) : α = .75 The extent you agree that you are happy with conditions in which you work 10

Quality of Working Life The Big Picture……… Quality of Life Home General Well-Being Home- Work Interface Stress at Work Work Quality of Working Life Job -Career Satisfaction Individual Working Conditions Control at Work *Van Laar, Edwards & Easton (2007) 11

What best predicts Overall QoWL? Question or factor t Sig. General Well-Being (GWB) 16.205 0.001 I am able to achieve a healthy balance of work and home 14.805 Working Conditions (WCS) 9.606 I am satisfied with my job 9.572 I feel my job is secure 8.522 I enjoy my work 7.339 I would recommend this organisation as good to work for 6.388 My work is as interesting and varied as I would want it to be 4.087 The quality of supervision is as good as I would want it to be 3.979 Good Relationships 3.531 Stress at Work (SAW) -3.275 … (17th) I am paid fairly for the job I do, given my experience 2.11 0.035 Multiple Regression, with dependent variable: q65: I am satisfied with the overall quality of my working life. R2 = .75, N = 5500. 12

Patterns underlying overall quality of working life a to i = individual quality of working life report patterns 13

Why? WRQoL factors help identify positive and negative aspects of someone’s work experience Reliable and valid assessment of those key QoWL factors will provide required information for career guidance, coaching and therapy interventions ……..To improve current employment or ……..Help identify what alternative jobs might be more suitable to the individual.

Work-Related Quality of Life’ (WRQoL) scale Individual reports Organisational surveys Research – we need you! The WRQoL scale can be available for research courtesy of QoWL Ltd, a University of Portsmouth spin out company. Go to; www.qowl.co.uk for more information.

Quality of Working Life The Big Picture……… Quality of Life Home General Well-Being Home- Work Interface Stress at Work Cultural & Social & Economic Environment? Quality of Working Life Job -Career Satisfaction Work Individual Working Conditions Control at Work *Van Laar, Edwards & Easton (2007) 16

That’s it - Thanks for listening Try it! Email me to get your own individual report with a free voucher code: That’s it - Thanks for listening Simon Easton & Dr Darren Van Laar Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UK Simon.easton@port.ac.uk With thanks to QoWL Ltd.  

References Van Laar, D. L., Edwards, J. A. & Easton, S. (2007). The Work-Related Quality of Life (QoWL) scale for Healthcare Workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 60(3), 325-333. Edwards, J. A., Webster, S., Van Laar, D. and Easton, S. (2008). Psychometric analysis of the UK Health and Safety Executive's Management Standards work-related stress Indicator Tool, Work & Stress, 22(2), 96 - 107. Edwards, J., Van Laar, D.L., Easton, S, Kinman, G. (2009) The Work-Related Quality of Life scale for Higher Education Employees. Quality in Higher Education. 15. 3. 207-219