PRESENTATION OFORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOURONQUALITY OF WORKLIFE AND CASESTUDY OF QWLCompiled by-AKRITI SAXENAFARHAN KHURSHEEDMBA(FT)-3RD SEMIBM-CSJMU7TH NOV 2012
introduction• The concept of QWL was originated in India in mid 1970s when the country was passing through a phase of intense labour unrest.• QWL is a prescriptive concept it attempts to design work environment so as to maximize concern for human welfare it is a goal as well as process.
Definition of QWL Quality of work life can be defined as the environment at the work place provided to the people on the job. QWL means having good supervision, good working conditions, good pay and benefits and an interesting, challenging and rewarding job. QWL programs is the another dimension in which employers has the responsibility to provide congenial environment i.e excellent working conditions where people can perform excellent work also their health as well as economic health of the organization is also met.
• To attract and retain talents To prevent stress Effective integration of work and personal life Job satisfaction Increase quality and productivity To balance personal/family and work related demands on an individual employee.
COMPONENTS OF QUALITY OF WORKLIFE 7) Stress level 6) Opportunities 1) Open communication 5) Increased 2) Reward employee system participation 4) Career 3) Job security growth
Quality of Working Life is not a concept, that deals with one area but it has been observed as incorporating a hierarchy of concepts that not only include work- based factors such as job satisfaction, satisfaction with pay and relationships with work colleagues, but also factors that broadly focuses on life satisfaction and general feelings of well-being. To retain a good talent in the organization it is important for the organization that he should have low stress level and high quality of work life.
Sean Neale is facing a dilemma. And he’s not alone. like manymanagers, Sean is struggling to find creative ways to keep hisemployees motivated.Sean is CEO of robotics’ manufacturing firm located inMidwestern United States. The company prospered in the 1990s-sales revenue nearly tripled and the company’s workforcedoubled. The price of the company’s stock rose from under $8 ashare to more than $60 .And his employees prospered because thefirm had a pay – for-performance compensation system.specifically, every year,20% of the company’s profits were set asidein a bonus pool and used to reward employees. Profit sharingprovided the typical employees with an extra $7,800 in 1998 and$9,400 in 1999.then it dropped to just$2,750 in 2000.the companylost money in 2001 and 2002, so there were no profits to share.meanwhile, Sean’s executive team was not spared from watchingtheir profit-sharing bonuses disappear. The average executive
Like the company’s operating employees, in 2001and 2002,executivegot nothing over their basic salaries.Sean’s situation seems to be common among many firms. Whileemployees in2002 and 2003 were often glad to just have a job, theincentives they enjoyed in the 1990s were eroding. For instance,Ford Motor company suspended contribution to salaried employees401(k) retirement plans and merit raises for about 2200 seniorexecutive; media company tribune co in Chicago froze wages andcut 140 senior managers’ pay by 5 % and Hewett –Packardeliminated profits sharing in 2001. A 2002 survey of 391 companiesfound that 48% planned to lower performance-based rewards forboth managers and workers in the next 12 months.
1.What implication can you draw from this case regarding pay-for –performance?2.If you were Sean Neale, what can you offer employees as an alternative to compensation that will not place an undue hardship on your organization’s bottom line? Be specific.