Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Maimunah Ismail
Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
E-mail: mismail@educ.upm.edu.my
Tel: 603-89468111; Fax: 603-89467905
Abstract
Many factors determine the meaning of quality of work life (QWL), one of which is work
environment. A group of workforces that is greatly affected in QWL as a result of dynamic
changes in work environment is information technology (IT) professionals. This article
reviews the meaning of QWL, analyses constructs of QWL based on models and past
research from the perspective of IT professionals in many countries and in Malaysia. The
constructs of QWL discussed are health and well-being, job security, job satisfaction,
competency development, work and non-work life balance. The article concludes that
QWL from the perspective of IT professionals is challenging both to the individuals and
organizations. The implications of this meaning and constructs for future research in QWL
from the perspective of IT professionals are discussed.
the argument posted in the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in which each individual has different level of
needs because in reality what is important to some employees may not be important to others although
they are being treated equally in the same organization. This definition, focusing on personal needs has
neglected the fact that the construct of QWL is subjective and continuously evolves due to an ever-
growing needs of each and every employees.
Hackman and Oldhams (1980) further highlight the constructs of QWL in relation to the
interaction between work environment and personal needs. The work environment that is able to fulfill
employees’ personal needs is considered to provide a positive interaction effect, which will lead to an
excellent QWL. They emphasized the personal needs are satisfied when rewards from the organisation,
such as compensation, promotion, recognition and development meet their expectations. Parallel to this
definition, Lawler (1982) defines QWL in terms of job characteristics and work conditions. He
highlights that the core dimension of the entire QWL in the organization is to improve employees’
well-being and productivity. The most common interaction that relates to improvement of employees’
well-being and productivity is the design of the job. Job design that is able to provide higher employee
satisfaction is expected to be more productive. However, he accepted the fact that QWL is complex,
because it comprises physical and mental well being of employees.
Later definition by Beukema (1987) describes QWL as the degree to which employees are able
to shape their jobs actively, in accordance with their options, interests and needs. It is the degree of
power an organization gives to its employees to design their work. This means that the individual
employee has the full freedom to design his job functions to meet his personal needs and interests. This
definition emphasizes the individual’s choice of interest in carrying out the task. However, this
definition differs from the former which stresses on the organization that designs the job to meet
employees’ interest. It is difficult for the organization to fulfill the personal needs and values of each
employee. However if the organization provides the appropriate authority to design work activities to
the individual employees, then it is highly possible that the work activities can match their employees’
needs that contribute to the organizational performance.
In the same vein Heskett, Sasser and Schlesinger (1997) define QWL as the feelings that
employees have towards their jobs, colleagues and organizations that ignite a chain leading to the
organizations’ growth and profitability. A good feeling towards their job means the employees feel
happy doing work which will lead to a productive work environment. This definition provides an
insight that the satisfying work environment is considered to provide better QWL.
Proceeding to previous definitions, Lau, Wong, Chan and Law (2001) operationalised QWL as
the favourable working environment that supports and promotes satisfaction by providing employees
with rewards, job security and career growth opportunities. Indirectly the definition indicates that an
individual who is not satisfied with reward may be satisfied with the job security and to some extent
would enjoy the career opportunity provided by the organization for their personal as well as
professionals growth.
The recent definition by Serey (2006) on QWL is quite conclusive and best meet the
contemporary work environment. The definition is related to meaningful and satisfying work. It
includes (i) an opportunity to exercise one’s talents and capacities, to face challenges and situations
that require independent initiative and self-direction; (ii) an activity thought to be worthwhile by the
individuals involved; (iii) 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. This issue of meaningful and satisfying work is often merged with discussions of job satisfaction,
and believed to be more favourable to QWL.
This review on the definitions of QWL indicates that QWL is a multi-dimensional construct,
made up of a number of interrelated factors that need careful consideration to conceptualize and
measure. It is associated with job satisfaction, job involvement, motivation, productivity, health, safety
and well-being, job security, competence development and balance between work and non work life as
is conceptualized by European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions (2002).
59
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 1 (2008)
To summarise, QWL is viewed as a wide-ranging concept, which includes adequate and fair
remuneration, safe and healthy working conditions and social integration in the work organization that
enables an individual to develop and use all his or her capacities. Most of the definitions aim at
achieving the effective work environment that meets with the organizational and personal needs and
values that promote health, well being, job security, job satisfaction, competency development and
balance between work and non-work life. The definitions also emphasize the good feeling perceived
from the interaction between the individuals and the work environment.
Understanding the nature of work in the contemporary environment, we define QWL as the
effectiveness of work environment that transmit to the meaningful organizational and personal needs in
shaping the values of the employees that support and promote better health and well-being, job
security, job satisfaction, competency development and balance between work and non-work life. This
definition quantifies the QWL among the IT professionals with the aim to gain leverage in recruiting,
motivating and retaining the valuable IT workforce as the nature of work continues to diversify.
widely in their QWL studies. These factors are believed to be appropriate and reliable in the context of
Asia generally and Malaysia specifically because some of the factors were used separately by
researchers in Japan (Fujigaki, Asakura and Haratani, 1993), Singapore (Lau et al., 2001) and Malaysia
(Rethinam, Maimunah, Musa and Bahaman, 2004). The dimensions of QWL selected are health and
well-being, job security, job satisfaction, competence development and the balance between work with
non-work life. The following section discusses each of the constructs of QWL from the perspectives of
IT professionals.
health and safety among the computer users in various occupational office workers in Malaysia. They
suggested for a serious policy initiatives on computer users because they argued that the workers’
health should not be sacrificed for the sake of greater productivity and efficiency in the industry. A
recent research conducted by Blatter and Bongers (2002) on the duration of computer and mouse use in
relation to musculoskeletal disorders of neck or upper limb, indicates that the duration and the
frequency of computer use have substantially increased the health risk of the users. The majority of
these studies showed substantial increase in neck, shoulder and hand or wrist problem among those
working for longer hours with poor ergonomic practices while working on a computer.
Several large cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have focused on job components such as
demands, control, rewards and support. The results indicate that the combination of high demands and
low control at work have impact on health and well being. The European Agency for Safety and Health
at Work (2000) examined the number of European employees that are exposed to risks or that have
experienced illness. They observed that the main indicators for Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)
risks are the work pace which is determined by a high prevalence of repetitive movements and high-
speed work. This finding is parallel to the earlier research by Ng and Kua (1994) on the health hazards
among IT professionals in Malaysia. The research signifies that a substantial number of IT
professionals experienced OSH outcomes such as musculoskeletal disorders, stress and work-related
sick leave.
Although, the health and well-being of workforce has improved due to the disappearance of
harsh and hazardous work in the last century, workforce are again at risk because of the nature of
contemporary work especially in IT industries is psychologically demanding. Therefore, job demands
that cause strain can be detrimental to individual health, thus leading to psychological distress and
health complaints (Karasek and Theorell, 1991; Cheng et al., 2000; De Jonge et al., 2000). As a
concluding remark, IT workplace should focus on prevention strategies from poor health and wellbeing
in order to provide a good QWL. Factors that lead to physical and psychological disorders should be
nipped in its bud in order to provide a good QWL among the fastest growing IT workforce. Stress
management techniques and complementary medicine may have some positive benefits as short-term
relief of strains, but they cannot eradicate the problem completely. The prevention strategies should
focus on the relationship between the individual job context, working conditions and the changes in the
workplace. The prevention strategies must be healthy and humanistic nature in order to enable IT
professionals to work comfortably. An unstressful workplace is not merely from the financial
reimbursement or other benefits that matter. It is a feeling of fulfillment and gratification that the
employees experience from working, thus it eventually provides a good health and well being.
periphery of project based IT professionals where employer can leverage scarce and high value talents
that tend to be terminated at the end of every project. The increase in project based working
arrangements is often regarded as employees’ choice, although the desire has come from the employer
to increase the part timers or contract workers and long work culture (Cooper, 1998). The emergence
of outsourcing and IT automation concept also has significantly fuelled the sense of job insecurity
among IT professionals. As a conclusion, the unstable work nature and the way working culture are
being diversified, point to a considerable impact on the job security among the IT professionals.
The ability of organization to provide better QWL to retain their IT professionals has been a
critical factor in the effort to achieve strategic business goal. The exit of IT professionals who seem to
know a project in detail can ultimately contribute to the lost of business opportunities. Not long ago,
Fortune magazine reported that quitting a job in the technology profession has become an annual event,
as the average job tenure in IT shrank to about 13 months, down from about 18 months in 1998
(Daniels and Vinzant, 2000). Changing employers may be an effective career strategy for some IT
professionals. On the other hand, most organizations strive to retain the valued IT professionals by
various means. This is one of the realities of QWL among the IT professionals even though the
organization provides secured job environment that is expected to provide better QWL.
63
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 1 (2008)
64
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 1 (2008)
workload and working hours among the workforce have increased. The extended function of IT as a
communication tool necessitates employees to distinguish between significant and insignificant
information. This could increase the intensity of work because the information overload through e-mail
consumes a considerable amount of time. Therefore, IT professionals to some extent are required to
work long hours; hence compromising their personal time will lead to an imbalance between work with
non-work life.
The threat of imbalance in work and non-work life has implications not only on the employees
but also on organizations, governments and society (Grzywacz and Marks, 2000; Swanson, Power and
Simpson, 1998). This relationship is bi-directional because previous studies have indicated that less
conducive environments in the workplace have a greater impact on home life than vice versa. Another
important factor that creates an imbalance work condition was a commitment to the work activities.
The IT work environment is widely assumed to be a high-commitment workplace that forces the IT
professionals to sacrifice their personal leisure hours to meet their work demand. The flexible
scheduling of work hours which supposedly contribute to balance work and family relationship, which
may create a conflict. Such a work arrangement demands the IT professionals to be committed with
work whenever possible and hijack them from joining non work related activities.
A meta-analysis has confirmed that conflict between work and non-work life is associated with
impaired psychological well-being and other negative outcomes (Allen et al., 2000). Work family
conflict is a form of inter-role conflict in which the general demand of time devoted to the job
interferes with the involvement of family related responsibilities. The study carried out by Aminah
(2002) supports that inter-role family conflict occurs when the cumulative demands of multiple roles at
home and at work become too great to manage comfortably.
Allen et al. (2000) emphasized that problems associated with family responsibilities are
additional sources that may diminish QWL among IT professionals. They additionally assert that when
an employee has higher work responsibility there will be more spillover of negative work outcomes on
family life. The demands of managing higher responsibility at work and home are also a potential
source of stress because it allows a spillover to family life thus creating an imbalance working
environment.
Burke (1998) proposed three hypotheses to explain the work-family relationship. The first is
spillover, where the events of one environment affect the other; the second is compensation, where the
individuals attempt to compensate in one environment for what is lacking in the other and the third is
where the environments can be described as independent. Accordingly, IT based employers that have
been slow to respond to the continuing pressures have contributed to a growing incidence of work-life
conflict among their employees. The spillovers between work and personal life have serious
implications on employees’ QWL. It has also been argued that the conflict related to work and personal
demands can lead to negative health outcomes for employees, may decrease organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and increase burnout, which will eventually lead to poor QWL.
Traditional human resource policy practices that require the IT professionals to work long
hours at the expense of personal time is believed to generate poor work family relationship. Working
long hours consistently reflect poor health both physically and psychologically. Most studies on hours
of work and health re-affirm that consistent long hours at work do reflect itself in employees’ ill-
health, both physical and psychological.
As the IT work environment imposes its employees to work extended hours either at office or
home, this might have tremendous effect on the marital and family relationship. There is a link
between long hours and the breakdown of the family, primarily because in contemporary business
environment an average family is a dual-earner family. Elisa and Ellen (2001) revealed that the
majority of employees suggested that their long work hours have negatively affected their personal life
and family responsibilities. The portability and the connectivity of IT allow the connection of job task
from remote areas. The stringent deadline on their tasks encourages the IT professionals to engage with
work task for longer hours in a day. Indeed, the IT professionals are willing to sacrifice non-work
65
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 1 (2008)
related activities to accomplish the task on time. Bradley (2001) argued that constantly increasing work
demand creates an isolation of the personnel from their families. Personnel and family responsibility
are neglected in the process of securing an economic prospect; hence, it deteriorates the interaction of
family life that reduces QWL.
Competitive work pressures among IT professionals to boost productivity with skeleton
resources make it difficult to achieve a balanced work-life. The work pressures affect the employee’s
social environment, and if no corrective action taken, it may result in a poor social life. Therefore,
alternatives such as career breaks, flexible working arrangements (Bijleveld, Andries and Rijkevorsel,
2000) and family friendly employment policies were suggested to balance between work and non-work
life.
Reducing the level of spillover may help to reduce the perceived stress and psychological stress
and assist to maintain some amount of balance between the two environments (Aminah, 2002). The
existing low level of organizational support with increase in work-life conflict provides the risk of
lower QWL. Organizations need to provide alternative means of employment practices to eliminate the
pressure of spillover without influencing the career progression. The balance is important particularly
among the IT professionals in order to nurture and develop the sustainable human resource practices in
the IT work environment. Therefore, balance between work and non-work life is suggested as one of
the measures of QWL.
Quality of Work
Life (QWL)
pertaining to QWL. The article would certainly enhance knowledge on the contextual environments of
IT professionals that lead to QWL.
The main elements of the QWL, such as health and well-being, job security, job satisfaction,
competence development, balance between work and non-work life are expected to help human
resource practitioners as adult educators to co-design the IT work with humanistic factors. This will
ensure the smooth transition of the contemporary workforce towards a knowledge based workforce.
Subsequently, this analysis would also serve as a guide for the relevant ministries related to
communication and multimedia functions, organizational practitioners, decision makers and individual
employees to humanize the workplace for a better QWL.
We believe that the results of this review would also have significant implications on the
individuals who intend to join the IT profession and would help the potential IT professionals to
prepare themselves psychologically to meet the demands and challenges which otherwise may risk a
poor QWL. This analysis also allows the utility of the knowledge claimed by other scholars in different
work and cultural backgrounds to fill a scarcity of information that can eventually improve the
understanding on the QWL among IT professionals. We also believe that this review provides
directions to researchers from the various fields such as medical practice, occupational, safety and
health (OSH) as well as ergonomics to further explore empirical evidence affecting QWL of IT
professionals.
67
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 1 (2008)
References
[1] Allen, T.D., D.E., Herst, C.S., Bruck, and M., Sutton, 2000. “Consequence Associated With
Work-to-Family Conflict: A Review and Agenda for Future Research”. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, pp. 278-308.
[2] Aminah, A., 2002. “Conflict between Work and Family Roles of Employed Women in
Malaysia”. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organisational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
[3] Andries, F., G.W., Smulders, Peters And S., Dhondt, 2002. “The Use of Computers Among the
Workers in the European Union and Its Impact on the Quality of Work”. Behaviour and
Information Technology, 21(6), pp. 441-447.
[4] Asakura, R., & Y., Fujigaki, 1993. “The Impact of Computer Technology on Job
Characteristics and Worker Health”. In: M.J. Smith and G., Salvendy (ed.) Human Computer
Interaction: Applications and Case Studies, New York: Elsevier, pp. 982-987.
[5] Bagnara, S., M., Mariani, and O., Parlangeli, 2001. “Quality of Working Life in Services”. In:
G. Bradley (ed.) Humans on the Net: Information and Communication Technology, Work
Organization and Human Beings. Stockholm, Sweden: Prevent, pp 139- 154.
[6] Beukema, L., 1987. “Kwaliteit Van De Arbeidstijdverkorting [Quality of reduction of working
hours]. Groningen: Karstapel”. In: Suzanne, E.J. Arts, Ada Kerkstra, Jouke Van Der Zee, and
Huda Huyer Abu Saad, (eds.) (2001). Quality of Working Life and Workload in Home Help
Services: A Review of the Literature and a Proposal for a Research Model. Scandinavian
Journal of Caring Society, 15, pp. 12-24.
[7] Bijleveld, C.C.J.H., F., Andries, and J.L.A., Rijkevorsel, 2000. “Positive and Negative Aspects
of the Work of Information Technology Personnel: An Exploratory Analysis”. Behaviour and
Information Technology, 19, pp. 125-138.
[8] Blatter, B.M., and P.M., Bongers, 2002. “Duration of Computer use and Mouse use in Relation
to Musculoskeletal Disorders of Neck or Upper Limb”. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 30, pp. 295-306.
[9] Bradley, G., 2001. “Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Humans: How We
Will Live, Learn and Work”. In: G. Bradley ed Humans on the Net: Information and
Communication Technology, Work Organization and Human Beings. Stockholm, Sweden:
Prevent, pp. 22- 44.
[10] Burke, R.J., 1998. “Correlations of Job Insecurity Among Recent Business School Graduates”.
Employee Relations, 20/1 (2), pp. 92-100.
[11] Bureau of Labour Stastistics (BLS), 2007. “Occupational Employment Projections to 2016”.
Monthly Labour Review, November, 2007: Online Available:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/11/contents.hrm. Accessed 17/04/2008.
[12] Carayon, P., M.C., Haims, and S., Kraemer, 2001. “Turnover and Retention of the Information
Technology Workforce: The Diversity Issue”. In: Smith M.J. and G., Salvendy, eds Systems,
Social and Internationalization Design Aspect of Human-Computer Interaction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 67-70.
[13] Cardosa, M., and W.Y., Fauziah, 1994. “Health Consequences of VDT Work in Malaysia:
Some Preliminary Findings”. In: Ng, C. and M.K., Anne, (eds.) Keying Into the Future: the
Impact of Computerization on Office workers. Womens’ Development Collective and Women’s
Studies Unit, UPM Serdang, Malaysia: Vinlin Press.
[14] Chan, K.B., G., Lai, Y.C., Ko, and K.W., Boey, 2000. “Work Stress Among Six Professionals
Groups: The Singapore Experience”. Social Science and Medicine, 50, pp. 1415-1432.
[15] Cheng, Y., I., Kawachi, E.H., Coakley, J., Schwartz, and G., Colditz, 2000. “Association
between Psychosocial Work Characteristic and Health Functioning in American women:
Prospective Study”. British Medical Journal, 320, pp. 1432-1436.
68
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 1 (2008)
[16] Cooper, C.L. 1998. “The Psychological Implications of the Changing Nature of Work”, RSA
Journal, 1, pp. 71-84.
[17] COMPUTER COMPUTERWORLD, 2006. “Hot Skills, Cold Skills, July 17, 2006”. Available
Online: www.computerworld.com/action/article. Accessed 17/04/ 2008.
[18] Daniels and Vinzant, 2000. “On the Job: The Joy of Quitting”. Fortune (Accessed 07/02/2000),
pp. 199-202.
[19] De Jonge, J., H., Bosma, R., Peter and J., Siegrist, 2000. “Job Strain, Effort Reward Imbalance
and Employee Well Being: A large Scale Cross Sectional Study”. Social Science and Medicine,
50, pp. 1317-1327.
[20] Elisa, J.GV. and A.E., Ellen, 2001. “An Examination of Work and Personal Life Conflict,
Organizational Support and Employee Health Among International Expatriates”. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, pp. 261-278.
[21] European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2000. “The State of Occupational Safety in
the European Union, pilot study”. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities. Available: www.agency.osha.eu.int/reports [December 10, 2003,].
[22] European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions, 2002. “New Work
Organization, Working Conditions and Quality of Work: Towards the Flexible Firm?” [Online]
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Condition. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Ireland .Available:
wwweurofound.eu.int
[23] Evans, P., and T.S., Wurster, 2000. “Blown to Bits: How the New Economics of Information
Transforms Strategy”. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
[24] Fujigaki, Y., T., Asakura, And T., Haratani, 1994. “Work Stress and Depressive Symptoms
Among Japanese Information Systems Managers”. Industrial Health, 32(4), pp. 231-238.
[25] Grzywacz, J.G., and N.F., Marks, 2000.” Reconceptualising the Work-Family Interface: An
Ecological Perspective on the Correlates of Positive and Negative Spillover between Work and
Family”. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, pp. 111-126.
[26] Hackman, J.R., and G.R., Oldham, 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, M.A: Addison-Wesley.
[27] Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E., Jr and L.A., Schlesinger, 1997. “The service profit chain”. New
York: The Free Press.
[28] Iacovides, A., K.N., Fountoulakis, G.K., St. Kaprins, 2003. “The Relationship between Job
Stress, Burnout and Clinical Depression”. Journal of Affective Disorders, 75, pp. 209-221.
[29] Industrial Relations Services, 2000. E-commerce. London: IRS.
[30] Jarvenpaa, E., and E., Eloranta, 2001. “Information and Communication Technologies and
Quality of Working Life: Implications for Competencies and Well-Being”. In: G. Bradley, (ed.)
Humans on the Net: Information and Communication Technology, Work Organization and
Human Beings, Stockholm, Sweden: Prevent, pp. 109- 118.
[31] Karasek, R., and T., Theorell, 1991. “Healthy Work Stress, Productivity, and the
Reconstruction of Working Life”. New York: Basic Books.
[32] Korunka, Christian, Zauchner, Sabine, Weiss, and Andreas 1997. “New Information
Technologies, Job Pofiles and External Workloads as Predictors of Subjectively Experienced
stress and dissatisfaction at work”. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction,
9(4), pp. 407-424.
[33] Lamond, D.A., and P., Spector, 2000. “Taking Stock of the Job Satisfaction Survey; Its Validity
and Reliability in a Different Time and Place”. Proceedings of the 5th IFSAM World Congress.
Montreal, Canada.
[34] Lau, T., Y.H., Wong, K.F., Chan, and M., Law, “Information Technology and the Work
Environment-Does it Change the Way People Interact at Work”. Human Systems Management,
20(3), pp. 267-280.
69
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 1 (2008)
[35] Lawler E. E., LLL, 1982. “Strategies for Improving the Quality of Work Life”. American
Psychologist, 37, pp. 486-693.
[36] Lewis, S. 1997. “An International Perspective on Work-Family Issues”. In: S. Parasuraman and
J.H. Greenhaus eds Integrating Work and Family: Challenges and Choices for a Changing
World. Westport, CN: Quorum Books.
[37] Martinsons, M.G., and C., Cheung, 2001. “The Impact of Emerging Practices on IS Specialists:
Perceptions, Attitude and Role Changes in Hong Kong”. Information and Management, 30, pp.
167-183.
[38] Merrill, L., 2000. “Benchmarking the New Economy: A report”. London: Merrill Lynch.
[39] Murray, L., and T., Schoenborn, 1987. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service
Publication, No. 87-111.
[40] Ng, Cecilia and Munro-Kua Anne, 1994. “Keying Into the Future: the Impact of
Computerization on Office Workers”. Women’s Development Collective and Women’s Studies
Unit, UPM Serdang: Vinlin Press.
[41] Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, 1996. “Technology, Productivity and
Job Creation”, Vol. 1 & 2, OECD, Paris.
[42] Probst, T.M., 2003. “Development and Validation of the Job Security Index and the Job
Security Satisfaction Scale: A Classical Test Theory and IRT Approach”. Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 76 (14), pp. 451.
[43] Rethinam, G. S., I., Maimunah, A.H., Musa, and A.S., Bahaman, 2004 “Working Conditions
and Predictors of Quality of Work Life: A Psychosocial Perspective of Malaysian Information
System Personnel”, In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Conference of the Academy of HRD, Nov.
20-23, 2004, Seoul, Korea, pp. 98-105.
[44] Scully, J., A., Kirkpatrick, and E., Locke, 1995. “Locus of Knowledge as a Determination of
the Effects of Participation on Performance, Affect, and Perceptions”. Organisational
Behaviour Human Decision Making Process, 61, pp. 276-288.
[45] Serey, T.T., 2006. “Choosing a Robust Quality of Work Life”. Business Forum, 27(2), pp. 7-
10.
[46] Smithson, J. and S., Lewis, 2000. “Is Job Insecurity Changing the Psychological Contract?”
Personal Review, 29 (6), pp. 680-702.
[47] Spector, P.E., 1997. “Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences”.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[48] Suttle, J.L., 1977. “Improving Life at Work: Problem and Prospects”. In H.R. Hackman and J.L
Suttle eds Improving Life at Work: Behavioural Science approaches to organizational change
(pp. 1-29). Santa Barbara, CA: Goodyear.
[49] Swanson, W., K.G., Power, and R.J., Simpson, 1998. “Occupational Stress and Family Life: A
comparison of Male and Female Doctors. Journal of Occupational and Organisational
Psychology, 71, pp. 237-60.
[50] Traut, C.A., R., Larsen, and S.H. Feimer, 2000. “Hanging on or Fading Out?: Job Satisfaction
and the Long-Term Worker”. Public Personnel Management. 29, pp. 343-351.
[51] Wall, T.D., J., Cordery, and C.W., Clegg, 2002. “Empowerment, Performance and Operational
Uncertainty: A Theoretical Integration”. Journal of Applied Psychology: International Review,
51, pp.146-169.
[52] Watson, I., J., Buchanan, I., Campbell, and C., Briggs, 2003. “Fragmented Futures: New
Challenges In Working Life”. Sydney, New South Wales: The Federation Press.
70