Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

In the last few decades, we have witnessed a trend indicating that many corporations are increasingly implementing job satisfaction and empowerment programs (e.g., Wilkinson 1998). These programs promote employee well-being in the workplace and are often the result of management’s self-interest to promote profitability. Management has found that programs designed to increase job satisfaction and empower employees may increase employee productivity and job performance (e.g., Armenakis and Bedeian 1999; Greenhaus et al. 1987; O’Toole and Ferry 2002; Petty et al. 1984). In turn, higher levels of productivity and performance serve to increase the organization’s economic well-being.

From this perspective, management views employee participation in organization development activities as means to higher financial returns. While an economic orientation may remain a necessity for business organizations, it need not preclude a focus on employee well-being. Quality of work life (QWL) programs can result in job satisfaction and quality of life (QOL, i.e., life satisfaction, happiness, and subjective well-being). The often-overlooked non-financial consequences of QWL programs are commendable ends in and of themselves (Wolf 1971).

At the core of the QWL movement is the satisfaction of employees’ needs through organization development (e.g., McGregor 1960). Though QWL has been associated with employee productivity, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and low turnover rates, QWL researchers have shown that QWL plays an important role in life satisfaction and QOL (e.g., Ilies et al. 2009; Kabanoff 1980; Lawler 1982; Lee et al. 2002; Near et al. 1980; Sirgy et al. 2001). The current review links QWL research to overall QOL.

Both QWL and QOL represent conditions of work life and life in general. QWL programs can contribute to QOL through satisfaction of basic and growth needs in a variety of life domains: work, family, leisure, and spiritual, among others. The thread that binds a QWL program to QOL is the affect associated with the multiple domains that comprise work and nonwork activities. The most typical indicator of this affect is self-reported satisfaction.

Job satisfaction is viewed as an attitude or, more recently, an emotional state (Weiss et al. 1999) associated with one’s job experiences, whereas life satisfaction is considered to be associated with evaluations of all salient life domains are cognitively integrated (summed or averaged). Given that job satisfaction is positively related to life satisfaction (e.g., r  =  +.44; Kantak et al. 1992; Tait et al. 1989), it should follow that perceptions of QWL and QOL should also tend to be positively related because affective reactions to work experiences spill over or spread to nonwork domains, and vice versa. While Judge and Watanabe (1993) have argued that some people can segment their feelings or compensate for divergent affective reactions across life domains, they estimate that 68% of people experience reciprocal spillover between job satisfaction and life satisfaction (see also Rain et al. 1991; Rice, et al. 1985; Staines 1980).

The spillover from one’s experience in a particular life domain (e.g., work life, leisure life, family life, spiritual life) to one’s satisfaction/dissatisfaction with life in general may be affected by a variety of moderators. For example, a study conducted by Efraty et al. (1999) has shown that the spillover between job satisfaction and life satisfaction is moderated by organizational commitment. That is, employees who reported a higher level of organizational commitment experienced greater spillover than those who expressed lower levels of commitment. The authors explained this finding using the saliency bias hypothesis. Spillover of affect from one life domain to another is more likely to occur when the domain is considered highly salient in the mind of that individual than when that domain is not considered salient. Specifically, employees who regard their jobs to be very important in their lives at large are likely to experience heightened satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their jobs, which in turn spills over to other nonwork domains and affect life satisfaction in general.

Interestingly, both job and life satisfaction share a substantial dispositional component (e.g., Diener et al. 1999; Hart 1999; Heller et al. 2002). A top-down approach to the study of job and life satisfactions suggests that common traits (e.g., positive and negative affectivity) influence both. In fact, although personality removes a huge chunk of the variance from the job-life satisfaction relationship, the link still remains. It is interesting to note that situational influences on subjective well-being (a bottom-up approach) have been found to account for a significant amount of variance in subjective well-being (see Diener et al. 1999; also see Sirgy 2002). QWL programs traditionally assume a bottom-up approach to fostering productivity and satisfaction.

This chapter is designed to review the research related to QWL programs. There are many QWL programs. We will discuss some of them in terms of two major categories: QWL programs that affect work-related role identities and QWL programs that impact nonwork identities.

Satisfaction in Work Life and Spillover to Overall Life

QWL programs related to work life can be categorized into four major groups: (1) QWL programs related to the work environment, (2) QWL programs related to job facets, (3) QWL programs related to management/supervisory duties and responsibilities, and (4) QWL programs related to corporate policies dealing with employee pay and promotion. We will discuss selected QWL programs only. Table 13.1 summarizes the QWL programs related to work life.

Table 13.1 QWL policies and programs that satisfy employee needs in work life
Full size table

QWL Programs Related to the Work Environment

We identified several QWL programs related to the work environment. These are decentralized organizational structures, teamwork, parallel structures and quality circles, and ethical corporate culture.

Decentralized Organizational Structures

Based on the assumption that bureaucratization is positively associated with job dissatisfaction and off-the-job alienation, Efraty and Sirgy (1995) conducted a study showing workers in a decentralized bureaucracy experience greater spillover (between job satisfaction and life satisfaction) than workers in a centralized bureaucracy. Decentralized bureaucracies allowed workers to enjoy greater work discretion and less immediate supervision. Work discretion and low levels of supervision serve to reduce work role stress, which in turn help reduce negative self-evaluations in work life. This, of course, serves to reduce spillover of negative affect from work life to overall life, thus decreasing the likelihood of diminishing employee QOL. Furthermore, greater work discretion and less immediate supervision serve to enhance the value of the work role identity, which in turn leads to positive self-evaluations. Increases in positive self-evaluations in relation to the work role identity (and decreases in negative self-evaluations) contribute to higher levels of subjective well-being or QOL through spillover.

Teamwork

A team is a small group of people with complementary skills, who work together to achieve a common goal for which they are collectively accountable (Brill 1976). Teamwork, characterized by reciprocal trust and respect among team members, serves to enhance both QWL and QOL (e.g., Lee and Chang 2008; Nandan and Nandan 1995; Qvale and Hanssen-Bauer 1990; Richardson and West 2010). Teamwork can be induced through role clarification, problem solving, goal clarification and prioritization, and conflict resolution.

Teamwork promotes work role identity by providing employees with greater work resources to achieve work role expectations (than non-teamwork) through the participation required by goal setting, problem solving, goal clarification and prioritization, and conflict resolution. Achieving work role expectations, in turn, serves to increase positive self-evaluations. The latter generates positive affect in the work domain, which in turn spills over to overall life and thus increases subjective well-being. One can also argue that teamwork serves to reduce work demands by shifting this responsibility to the team and away from the self. This serves to decrease negative self-evaluations that may arise when work role expectations are not met.

Parallel Structures and Quality Circles

Jobs generating higher levels of involvement involve parallel structures, also known as “collateral structures,” “dualistic structures,” or “shadow structures” (e.g., Galbraith 1998). Jobs with parallel structures provide an alternative setting to address problems and propose innovative solutions free from the formal organization structure. Quality circles are an example of parallel structures. Quality circles consist of small groups of 13–15 employees who volunteer to meet periodically, usually once a week for an hour or so, to identify and solve productivity problems (Galbraith 1998). These group members make recommendations for change, but decisions about implementation of their proposals are reserved for management.

Parallel structures, characterized in terms of voluntary employee meetings to identify and discuss problems at work, serve to enhance employee–work environment fit and need satisfaction in the work domain. Just in the same way that teamwork is hypothesized to affect QOL, parallel structures promote the work role identity. It does so by providing the employee with additional resources to meet work demands. Doing so increases the likelihood of positive self-evaluations in work life (as a direct result of meeting work role expectations), which in turn spills over to overall life. Furthermore, parallel structures reduce work role stress by shifting responsibility of task completion away from the self and toward the group.

Ethical Corporate Mission and Culture

An ethical corporate mission and culture are important in enhancing work-related identity by generating positive affect that spills over to the other life domains. The results of a 2-year empirical study based on face-to-face interviews showed that employees believe that being associated with an ethical organization gives them a sense of meaning and purpose in their work (Mitroff and Denton 1999). The study uncovered five basic designs or models in which organizations can contribute meaning and a sense of purpose in work. These are the religious-based organization (e.g., church-affiliated and -run businesses), the evolutionary organization (a firm that begins with a strong association with a particular religion and over time evolves to a more ecumenical position), the recovering organization (an organization that focuses on helping people solve certain problems and in doing so fosters a sense of spirituality), the socially responsible organization (firms in which their founders or heads are guided by strong spiritual principles that they apply directly to their business for the betterment of society), and the values-based organization (the founders or managers are guided by general philosophical principles or values that are not aligned or associated with a particular religion or spirituality).

Organizations with a high ethical corporate mission and culture may provide a better person-environment fit than organizations with a low ethical mission and culture, as organizational characteristics can affect person-environment fit (e.g., Fletcher et al. 2008). For evidence of how a caring, ethical organization contributes to employee higher-order need satisfaction, see literature review by Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2002). Also see de Klerk (2005), Duchon and Plowman (2005), Fry (2005), Gavin and Mason (2004), Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2004), Kinjerski and Kolodinsky et al. (2008), Milliman et al. (2003), and Pawar (2009), Skrypnek (2004).

Many employees may desire to engage in tasks that can contribute to the betterment of the human condition. An ethical organization places demands on their employees that are more congruent with the employees’ work role identity (in the role of a “do-gooder”) than other organizations. Also, ethical organizations may provide more work resources to meet the demands of the “do-gooder” than other organizations. Such organizations increase the value of the work role identity in the sense that employees feel that their work is meaningful because they help others. Under these conditions, employees are likely to experience high levels of positive self-evaluations, which in turn contribute to subjective well-being.

QWL Programs Related to the Job

Several QWL programs are related to the job. These are participation in decision-making/high-involvement programs and job enrichment programs.

Participation in Decision-Making and High-Involvement Programs

In a seminal study, Teas et al. (1979) found that participation in decision-making and high-involvement programs contribute positively and significantly to work satisfaction (see Levine 1995; Stairs and Gaplin 2010 for reviews). High-involvement programs act as a conduit to help employees express their thoughts and feelings in important organizational decisions, and this input is likely to influence the final management decision. High-involvement programs afford employees with a greater sense of meaningfulness in their work activities, which increases the value of their work role identity.

Job Enrichment Programs

Job design is the process of defining the job tasks and work arrangements necessary to accomplish them. This process may determine the amount of satisfaction that workers experience at work. As noted by Schermerhorn et al. (2003, p.153), the best job design is always one that meets organizational requirements for high performance, offers a good fit with individual skills and needs, and provides opportunities for job satisfaction. Enriched jobs enhance motivation to work, as prescribed by the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman and Oldham 1980). This model identifies five job characteristics that are essential for job design—skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. If these job characteristics are present, they are likely to enhance the meaningfulness of work, experienced responsibility for outcomes and knowledge of actual results, as well as work outcomes such as intrinsic work motivation, quality of work performance, and satisfaction with the work.

The Job Characteristic Model allows for individual differences that moderate the match between the worker and the job (e.g., Blood and Hulin 1967; Hulin and Blood 1968). Specifically, the model describes the effects of the following moderators:

  1. 1.

    Growth need strength refers to the worker’s need for growth opportunities. The model prescribes that only individuals with high growth needs will favor enriched jobs that, for example, provide a high level of autonomy in decision-making. Those with low growth need strength might experience stress in response to an enriched job. Workers whose competencies and skills match the requirements of enriched jobs are likely to welcome the job redesign. Those who are deficient in the required skills are not likely to feel good about the enriched design.

  2. 2.

    Context satisfaction refers to worker satisfaction with various “context” (environmental) aspects of the work setting such as satisfaction with salary, working conditions, salary, supervision, etc. According to the model, workers who are satisfied with the job context are more likely to support and favor enriched jobs.

QWL Programs Related to Management Duties/Responsibilities and Supervisory Behavior

Several QWL programs relate to management duties and responsibilities. These include total quality management, performance feedback and role clarity, and ethical supervisory behavior.

Total Quality Management (TQM)

The idea underlying TQM is that all members of the organization are committed to high-quality results, continuous improvement, and customer satisfaction. TQM also prescribes employee involvement and empowerment. Popovich-Hill and Hubbard (1995) conducted a study in the hospitality field to examine the effect of TQM on QOL. They found that indeed TQM had a positive impact on work and life satisfaction (see also Ugboro and Obeng 2000). Ooi et al. (2008) also found that when TQM is conducted as teamwork, it significantly increases job satisfaction. TQM allows employees to assume multiple role identities within the work domain, including the role of planner, team member, coordinator, communicator, producer, and responsible party. Engaging in multiple identities at work provides added meaning and value to the overall work role. Furthermore, fulfillment of these varied roles is likely to satisfy more needs, which in turn translates into positive self-evaluations contributing to subjective well-being.

Performance Feedback and Role Clarity

The seminal study by Teas et al. (1979) found that salespeople’s need fulfillment is directly related to role clarity and performance feedback; higher levels of role clarity and performance feedback lead to higher levels of job satisfaction. Role clarity and performance feedback help employees meet their work role expectations. Meeting those expectations generate positive self-evaluations, which in turn contribute to subjective well-being. Performance feedback and role clarity facilitate learning and enhance job performance.

Ethical Supervisory Behavior

Employees view their jobs as purposeful and meaningful when their immediate supervisor treats them honestly, fairly, and with care. Thus, ethical supervisory behavior promotes the work role identity by heightening the importance of the work role. Meeting those work role expectations are then likely to generate higher levels of positive self-evaluations than meeting expectations that are less important. More positive self-evaluations in the work domain contribute significantly to subjective well-being.

Ethical supervisory behavior affects work satisfaction through perceptions of procedural justice. That is, employees feel dissatisfied with their work when they perceive that their supervisors are not living up to their own role expectations of what a “good and ethical supervisor” should do. In a classic sociological analysis of the effects of supervisory style, Hopper (1965) has shown that close or punitive supervision becomes frustrating to subordinates when it violates the subordinates’ normative expectations of authority. More recently, the literature on organizational justice (e.g., Cropanzano et al. 2002) provides more evidence to support this contention. In role theory terms, feelings of inequity translate to role stress, which contribute to negative self-evaluations adversely influencing subjective well-being.

Corporate Policies Related to Employee Pay and Promotion

In this section, we will discuss two sets of QWL programs related to employee promotion and incentives, namely promotion from within and incentive plans.

Promotion from Within

Self-actualization, according to Maslow (1954), is the desire to become more and more from what one is to anything that one is capable of becoming. Promotion and career progress are important in that regard. Progressive companies have promotion-from-within programs (Messmer 2004). This means that open positions are filled, whenever possible, by qualified candidates from within the company. Promotion-from-within programs serve to enhance the value of the work role identity and promote multiple work role identities (e.g., specialist, team player, and supervisor/manager). Meeting the needs of more role identities and highly valued role increases the likelihood of experiencing positive self-evaluations at work, which in turn contributes significantly to subjective well-being.

Pay and Incentive Plans

Diener et al. (2010) tested the relationship between income and happiness. Specifically, income was found to be related to well-being in that general life satisfaction was influenced by people’s contentment with their standard of living and their ability to fulfill their desire for luxury goods. However, it is not income that contributes to well-being per se but the social resources associated with income (e.g., purchase power of goods and services that provide status and prestige to the individual) (cf. Bozionelos and Nikolaou 2010).

There is a popular assumption that employees who draw higher pay are happier in their life and work. Judge et al. (2010) carried out a meta-analysis on this issue. They assessed 86 studies looking specifically at the correlations between employees’ compensation/pay and their job satisfaction. Across studies a key finding emerged: There is a modest and positive relationship between pay level and both satisfaction with the job as a whole and with pay specifically. Thus, one can argue that pay does indeed enhance the value of the work role identity, which in turn contributes to positive self-evaluations at work leading to subjective well-being. However, it should be noted that evidence suggests that the well-being effect generated by increases in pay is short-lived (cf. Maraist et al. 1999; Wyld and Maurin 2011).

There are many incentive plans that organizations use to reward their employees and satisfy employee needs for self-actualization, self-esteem, and social recognition. These include individual incentive programs, group incentive programs, and profit-sharing plans. Individual incentive programs give income over and above base salary to employees who meet work-related role expectations. Merit pay can be construed as a type of an individual incentive program. Much evidence has shown that individual incentive programs are directly linked to job performance (e.g., Tharp 1985). These programs are perceived as the outcome of meeting role demand, which in turn contributes to positive self-evaluations and positive affect in the work domain, spilling over to subjective well-being.

Group incentive programs give pay over and above base salary to all team members when the team collectively meets a project goal. There seems to be much evidence suggesting that group incentive programs serve to improve job performance and employee productivity (e.g., Bartol and Hagmann 1992), which in turn serve to enhance work satisfaction. This occurs as a result of recognizing the group incentive as an outcome of meeting role demand.

Profit-sharing plans are organization-wide incentive programs that provide employees with a share of the firm’s profits. There are many forms of profit-sharing plans such as stock options, stock appreciation rights, performance achievement plans, restricted stock plans, phantom stock plans, and book value plans (see Redling 1982, for a review). One can easily argue that profit-sharing plans go a long way to enhance satisfaction in the work domain as well as nonwork domains (e.g., family life, leisure life, social life). Profit sharing is a means to generate more resources to promote role identity at work and outside of work.

Satisfaction in Nonwork Life and Spillover to Overall Life

QWL programs that promote nonwork role identities and need satisfaction are grouped in three categories. The first is alternative work arrangements, the second is components of employee’s compensation package, and the third is ancillary programs. Table 13.2 summarizes the QWL programs related to nonwork life.

Table 13.2 QWL policies and programs that satisfy employee needs in nonwork life (e.g., family, leisure, financial, health, spiritual, community)
Full size table

Alternative Work Arrangements

Alternative work arrangements involve a QWL program designed to minimize work—family conflict and help employees balance the demands of their work and family lives (Quick et al. 1997). Greenhaus and Beutel (1985) suggested that the most common type of work-family conflict is time-based conflict, experienced when the time devoted to one role makes the fulfillment of the other difficult. Common programs are those that manipulate work arrangements such as full-time work-at-home, part-time work-at-home, flextime, compressed workweek, and part-time work arrangements (e.g., Duxbury and Haines 1991; Schermerhorn et al. 2003). Alternative work arrangements typically affect life satisfaction by reducing work-family conflict, which in turn enhances satisfaction with work and family life (e.g., Higgins and Duxbury 1992; Kopelman et al. 1983). For comprehensive overviews of alternative work arrangements, refer to the studies conducted by Baltes et al. (1999), and Baltes et al. (2010), Frone and Yardely (1996), Parker and Wall (1998).

Work at Home

Full-time (or part-time) work at home—sometimes referred to as “teleworking,” “telecommuting,” and “flexiplace”—involves allowing employees to fulfill their job duties and responsibilities from their home, thus spending significantly more time at home than at the office. Madsen (2003) conducted a survey to investigate the differences in work-family conflict between full-time worksite employees and full-time teleworking employees. The study results indicated that teleworkers had lower levels of work-family conflict in various dimensions. Research has shown that multiple roles involving both work and family may decrease stress because of increased opportunities for need satisfaction (e.g., Valdez and Gutek 1989). It may be that work at home contributes to QOL by reducing conflict between family and work roles; work at home serves to reduce the work role demand and concomitant stress and enhances multiple role identities—work and family roles (Batt and Valcour 2003; Hill et al. 2003).

Flextime

Flextime refers to the use of flexible work schedules to help employees integrate work and life demands (Kossek et al. 1999). A variation of flextime is “flexyears.” Under this program, employees can choose (at 6-month intervals) the number of hours they want to work each month over the next year (International Management 1982). Research has shown many firms use flextime; however, a majority of surveyed managers expressed more concerns about flextime than other forms of alternative work arrangements (e.g., part-time work and leave of absence). Why? Perhaps because of possible lower levels of employee productivity. With respect to the effect of flextime on nonwork life, Lucas and Heady (2002) conducted a survey of 125 full-time employed commuters from Atlanta, Georgia, the city with the largest average commute distance in the world. They found that commuters with flextime reported less stress and fewer feelings of time urgency than those without flextime. Thus, flextime provides employees with resources allowing them to engage in work and nonwork roles with less stress. By the same token, flextime allows employees to engage in work and nonwork roles with relative ease, thus satisfying more needs.

Furthermore, one can argue that flextime is likely to benefit certain kind of employees more than others. Using data from the 1997 Current Population Survey Work Schedules Supplement of the US Census Bureau, Sharpe et al. (2002) have shown that flextime is used more for married males, non-Hispanic whites, those with relatively higher levels of education and income, those with preschool-aged children, managers or professionals, and employees of the federal government than other demographic segments.

Studies have shown that the use of flextime at work is an effective strategy that helps employees manage demand of both work and family role by reducing role conflict, thus enhancing subjective well-being (e.g., Rau and Hyland 2002).

Compressed Workweek

A compressed workweek refers to working more hours during the day but taking longer weekends (or days off) to allow the employee to spend more time on nonwork matters. Much research has shown that employees gain from compressed workweek. For example, one study reported a 20% reduction in commuter trips (Northrup 1991). Another study has shown that childcare expenses can be reduced significantly by adopting a compressed workweek (Solomon 1991). A recent study shows that the alternative schedule reduces work-family conflict and has positive and long-lasting effects on both the organization and the employees. These positive effects may be due to reducing stress from commuting and the financial burden of childcare (Facer and Wadsworth 2008).

Furthermore, Latack and Foster (1985) reported that overall reactions to compressed workweeks are favorable for employees who are allowed to participate in the decision to adopt them, who have their jobs enriched as a result of the new schedule, and who have strong higher-order needs. Saltzstein et al. (2001) found that compressed workweek contributes to work-life balance. However, the same study also noted that its effects are most positive when the employee is in need of childcare assistance.

Part-Time Work Arrangements

Part-time work arrangements refer to working less than the traditional 40 h/week. Part-time work arrangements, characterized by working part time to allow the employee to spend more time with family members, serve to reduce work-related stress by reducing work role demands; it helps meet role demand in the context of both work and family roles, decreases conflict between work and family roles, enhances multiple role identities, and helps promote the family caretaker role by enhancing its perceived value. Doing so increases (decreases) the likelihood of positive (negative) self-evaluations in work and family roles, contributing to subjective well-being.

However, the effect of this QWL program may be limited to certain types of employees. For example, Booth and Van Ours (2009) found that part-time women are more satisfied with working hours than full-time women. Farber (1999) found that most people take part-time jobs when they get laid off or lose their full-time job. Thus, a part-time job for these workers becomes a point of transition to finding a full-time job. Therefore, future research could further investigate the QOL effectiveness of this QWL program in relation to employees who voluntarily choose this program versus those who are laid off or lose their full-time jobs. Other moderators may include lone mothers and culture. Specifically, Gill and Davidson (2001) found that lone mothers in management and professional occupations were less able to take advantage of part-time work arrangements because of greater financial pressures. Lone mothers reported higher levels of pressure from workload and the home-work balance than other women.

With respect to culture as a moderator, Wharton and Blair-Loy (2002) conducted a cross-national study of finance professionals interested in working part time. Hong Kong respondents expressed more interest in part-time work than their British and American counterparts. Perhaps the Chinese culture places more priority on the family role identity than the British and American culture. If so, we can expect that the effectiveness of this QWL program would be greater in places such as China and Hong Kong than in Britain and the USA.

Job Sharing

Job sharing refers to situations in which specific job-related duties and responsibilities are shared between two or more employees (Voydanoff 1989). About 10% of firms questioned in a survey conducted by Solomon (1994) indicated that they allow for job sharing. Job sharing has become increasingly popular recently, especially in industries hard hit by unemployment and job losses. An example of such an industry is travel and tourism because of the September 11, 2001 attacks (Sherwyn and Sturman 2002). Some large companies have created job-sharing programs such as the Barclay Bank in the UK (Human Resource Management Digest 2003), where there is a national online job-sharing register to help employees find a potential job-share partner. Job sharing may serve to enhance family well-being. Job sharing promotes the development of one’s work role identity as well as at least one valued nonwork role identity—that of a parent, spouse, or caretaker—by providing resources that reduce the conflict between the two.

As with part-time employment, Gill and Davidson (2001) found that lone mothers in management and professional occupations were less able to take advantage of job sharing, perhaps because of greater financial pressures.

Employment Benefits

A majority of companies in the USA offer at least some employment benefits to their employees (Grossman and Magnus 1988). For example, about 92% of medium and large firms and 69% of small firms provide health insurance. Most firms also provide retirement/pension benefits—88% of large firms, 78% of medium-sized firms, and 73% of small businesses. Social security is legally required and contributes toward most employees’ retirement income (Grossman and Magnus 1988). A discussion of employment benefits in terms of insurance benefits, retirement benefits, and supplemental pay benefits follows.

Insurance Benefits

There are essentially three types of insurance benefits provided to employees in the USA: worker’s compensation, life insurance, and medical/health insurance. Worker’s compensation is a program that provides income and medical benefits to work-related accident victims or their dependents regardless of fault. Some companies have instituted rehabilitation programs for injured employees (Bialk 1987). These include exercise programs, career counseling to guide injured workers into less strenuous jobs, and nursing assistance. Obviously, one can predict that the worker’s compensation program provides the injured employees a living allowance to satisfy basic needs affecting family’s finances and health. Thus, worker’s compensation can be construed as a QWL program that helps people meet demand of their roles as a financial provider and family caretaker and obviously applies only to people who are accident victims.

Life insurance and hospitalization/medical/disability insurance work similarly. One interesting area of research that may have a significant effect on employee QOL is the “pre-existing condition” exclusion. For example, Madrian (1994) assessed the effect of health insurance (provided by US employers) on job mobility and found that in many instances, employees are “locked” into their jobs because of “pre-existing condition” exclusions. The pre-existing conditions on their health insurance make it expensive for some employees with chronic health problems to relinquish their current health insurance (cf. Buckley and Van Giezen 2004). One can easily argue that the traditional health insurance requiring no pre-existing conditions is very negative on QOL, especially for those employees with chronic illness.

Retirement Benefits

Most US companies offer at least three forms of retirement benefits: social security, pension plans, and early retirement. Social Security in the USA provides three types of benefits: (1) retirement benefits, (2) survivor’s or death benefits, and (3) disability payments (Dessler 1997, p. 518). Thus, social security benefits help employees meet demand of their roles as a financial provider and family caretaker.

US employers offer a variety of pension plans. As with social security, pension plans help employees meet demand of their roles as a financial provider and family caretaker. Many large companies in the US also offer early retirement windows in which specific employees (often age 50+) are eligible to participate. Early retirement plans vary considerably, but most involve a combination of improved or liberal pension benefits plus a cash payment (Karoly and Rogowski 1994). How does the QOL of early retirees change after retirement? Perhaps employees who do not regard their work role as central to their self-concept and identity are likely to benefit more from an early retirement program.

Supplemental Pay Benefits

This program involves payment to employees for time off for holidays, vacations, jury duty, funerals, military duty, illness, sabbaticals, and maternity leave. It also includes unemployment insurance payments for laid-off or terminated employees, and it contributes to employee well-being in the same way that insurance and retirement benefits do. Furthermore, one can argue that unemployment insurance tends to benefit employees who are heads of households, particularly those with large families.

The average number of annual vacation days is generally high in industrialized countries. For example, the US average is about 10 days/year, 30 in Sweden and Austria, 25 in France, and 20–25 in the UK, Spain, Norway, Finland, and Belgium (Matthes 1992). Vacation allows employees to reduce work role stress and promote nonwork roles in family, social, leisure, and cultural life. It would be fruitful to investigate the QOL impact of variations in vacation days in relation to different population groups. Career-oriented professionals with stronger work role identities—or few non-work identities—may not need long vacations.

With respect to sick leave, most employers grant full pay for a specified number of days—usually up to 12 days/year. Some employers offer a buyback of unused sick leave at the end of the year by paying their employees a daily equivalent pay for each sick leave day not used (Bunning 1988). A buyback option may serve to promote the work role identity by rewarding work. It would be fruitful to investigate variations of sick leave programs on different employee groups. For example, a buyback of unused sick leave may contribute more to subjective well-being for employees who view their jobs as a way to make a living (and of lower socioeconomic status) than career-oriented professionals (and higher socioeconomic status).

Over 100 countries have enacted some form of parental leave policies, with most assuring at least 2–3 months of paid job absences (Ruhm 1998). A study of parental leave in Europe has shown that parental leave serves to increase the employment rate of women (Ruhm 1998). Parental leave may contribute to QOL by enhancing the role of parent in family life. Most significantly, parental leave works well for mothers and fathers of infants or children who suffered from physical and/or emotional trauma.

Severance pay—a one-time payment when terminating an employee—varies from 3 to 4 days wages to several months of wages. Many countries have laws that force employers to provide severance pay under conditions of plant closings and downsizing (Dessler 1997, p. 511). Having severance pay serves to reduce work role stress. Thus, employees, in their role of being financial providers to their families, can deal with job layoffs in case of plant closings, downsizing, etc.

Ancillary Programs

There are many ancillary programs found in the QWL literature designed to meet employee nonwork needs. These include childcare programs, elder care programs, fitness programs, social programs and events, employee assistance programs, and innovative programs.

Childcare Programs

Many large employers offer subsidized childcare assistance in the form of covering the full or partial cost of childcare or providing childcare services at the work site (Blain and Haywood 2004). Subsidized day care is becoming increasingly popular in the USA (Bureau of National Affairs 1988). Research has uncovered the positive effects of subsidized childcare to those organizations having them. These organizational effects include increased ability to attract employees, lower absenteeism, improved morale, favorable publicity, and lower turnover, among others (e.g., Campbell and Campbell 1988; Peterson and Massengill 1988; Quick et al. 1997).

Ezra and Deckman (1996) used data from the 1991 Survey of Federal Employees to investigate how the use of family friendly policies (e.g., childcare programs, flextime) affects federal employees’ satisfaction with their jobs and work-family balance. The study found that on-site childcare programs help employees, particularly mothers, face the demands of both work and family better. Ostensibly, this is due to the fact that the needs of both work and nonwork roles are simultaneously met and work-family conflict is reduced.

More recently, studies have shown that the use of childcare services at work is an effective strategy that helps employees manage demand of both work and family role by reducing role conflict, thus enhancing subjective well-being (e.g., Rau and Hyland 2002).

Elder Care Programs

These programs are designed to help employees who take care of their elderly parents. Many companies offer a variety of plans such as company-sponsored elder care centers and subsidies to help employees cover the cost of placing their parents into an elder care center (e.g., Earhart et al. 1993). Elder care programs have the potential to enhance QOL of employees who have parents in need in significant ways. They do so by minimizing the conflict between the work role and the caretaker role. The same mediation and moderation logic applied to childcare also applies to elder care.

Fitness Programs

The scope of employee fitness programs ranges from company-paid memberships at private fitness clubs to complete on-site facilities. Falkenberg (1987) reviewed much of the evidence available concerning the effects of employee fitness programs on employee well-being and the organization. The effects include the following:

  • Higher-fitness levels reduce stress and improve health.

  • Long-term participation in fitness programs changes employee mental state (i.e., employees show less signs of depression and anxiety).

  • Short-term participation in fitness programs affects mood states (i.e., stimulates positive feelings about one’s self and generates feelings of muscular endurance and increased physiological arousal that translate into feelings of exhilaration and relaxation).

Falkenberg argued that much of the evidence points out that employee fitness programs serve to reduce stress symptoms, absenteeism, and lateness. Reduction of stress occurs when employees exercise during demanding work periods, which may serve to reduce stress in both work and nonwork roles. Reduced absenteeism and lateness occur when employees are better able to schedule work and nonwork activities.

Social Programs and Events

Some employers provide various social and recreational opportunities for their employees. These include company-sponsored athletic events, dance clubs, annual summer picnics, craft activities, employee retreats, and parties (Bureau of National Affairs 1992). QOL is likely to be impacted through the social life domain. That is, employees’ QOL is enhanced through these QWL programs by increasing social and leisure well-being.

Consider the following seminal study by Kohn and Schooler (1982). These researchers have shown that providing tangible social support on the job can reduce the negative impact associated with stress at work.

Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs)

EAPs are services that provide employees with counseling or treatment for problems such as alcoholism, gambling, or stress (e.g., Employee Benefits 2005; Rockett 2004). One study estimated that 50–75% of all large US companies offer variations of EAP programs (Hellan 1986).

In the hospitality industry, Tse and Jackson (1990) argued that alcohol abuse is more likely because the work environment encourages drinking. The environment associated with food, drink, and entertainment is conducive to drinking alcohol. The environment is also quite stressful because service is time pressured. EAPs combating alcohol abuse can play a significant role in employee life satisfaction.

In general, one might argue that EAPs help employees better fulfill their work roles and their nonwork roles as well as reduce work and nonwork role stress. In addition to enhancing employees’ QOL, EAPs contribute to the financial health of employers. Evidence suggests that EAPs reduce health costs, improve productivity, decrease absenteeism, decrease employee turnover, and increase employee morale and job satisfaction (e.g., Rockett 2004).

Innovative Benefits

One study of innovative benefits (Dessler 1997, p. 527; The Research Staff of Hewitt Associates 1995) found Canadian companies offer benefits such as

  • Lakefront vacations

  • Weight loss programs

  • Child adoption assistance

  • Company country club membership

  • Season tickets to cultural activities and events such as the ballet, theaters, concerts, and museums

  • Lunch-and-learn programs (employees can attend talks on a variety of subjects such as stress management, weight control, computer literacy, fashion, and travel)

  • Home assistance program (monetary assistance to help employees purchase a home)

  • Subsidized employee transportation (e.g., car pooling systems)

  • Food services (coffee wagons, vending machines, and cafeteria services)

  • Executive perks (e.g., company car, chauffeured limousine, security system, company plane, yacht, executive dining room, liberal expense account, club membership, and credit cards, among others)

Summary and Conclusion

QWL deals with the interface between employee role identities and work resources. QWL programs serve to enhance QOL by (1) providing appropriate work resources to meet the expectations of employee role identities, (2) reducing role conflict in work and nonwork life, (3) enhancing multiple role identities, (4) reducing role demands, (5) reducing stress related to work and nonwork role identities, and (6) increasing the value of the role identity. Specifically, we describe a variety of QWL programs related to work life (decentralized organization structures, teamwork, parallel structures, ethical corporate mission and culture, the organization work schedule, etc.) and nonwork life (work at home, flextime, compressed workweek, part-time work arrangements, job sharing, etc.) and review the evidence in the research literature.

This chapter is designed to motivate industrial/organizational psychologists, management scholars, and QOL researchers to engage in research to further develop a theory of the QWL-QOL relationship. We believe that the QWL programs discussed in this chapter can play a significant role in employee life satisfaction, happiness, and subjective well-being. Such concepts are very important in organizational research for theoretical and practical purposes (e.g., Ashkanasy 2011; Blanchflower and Oswald 2011; Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller 2011). Future research should systematically and methodically test the QOL effects of these QWL programs. Different QWL programs tend to affect different role identities in different ways. Some meet multiple roles. Some are effective in generating more resources, facilitating the realization of role expectations. Some are effective in reducing conflict within a specific role identity or between two or more role identities. Others are designed to clarify and articulate role expectations to match work and nonwork demands.

Furthermore, one should not expect that the various QWL programs discussed in this chapter have equivalent QOL effects across the board. Of course not! QOL effects of these programs are likely to be moderated by a set of sociocultural, demographic, and dispositional factors that deserve attention. Future research should investigate the moderating effects of the QWL-QOL relationship in systematic and programmatic ways guided by well-established QOL theory.