Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers

of Private Universities in Pakistan

AUTHORS
(1) Seema Arif
Head of Department Psychology
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of Central Punjab
Khayaban-i-Jinnah. Lahore. 54770. Pakistan
Email: drarif00@yahoo.com
Tel: 924235880007-272

(2) Maryam Ilyas

Lecturer
College of Statistical & Actuarial Sciences. University of the Punjab
Quaid-i-Azam Campus, Lahore. 54660. Pakistan
Email: maryamilyas@hotmail.com
Tel: 923004865466

1
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore various dimensions of quality of work-life
(QWL) as it affects the life and attitude at work of teachers of private universities in Lahore,
Pakistan.

Design/methodology/approach: The study was quantitative in nature. A survey was conducted

with 360 faculty members from private universities in Lahore, in order to find out their
perceptions of QWL, and its spill-over effect on employee commitment and engagement, job
involvement and reputation of the university.

Findings: It was found that perceived value of work, work climate, work-life balance and
satisfaction with relationships in life were the major factors which shaped work attitudes and
employee perceptions of overall quality of work-life.

Originality/value: The study makes both a scholarly and practical contribution. The scholarly
contribution highlights that the dominant constructs of QWL play an important role in shaping
attitudes towards work, life and relationships of teachers of private universities. On a practical
level, the study hints at the possible implications of dissatisfaction and imbalance within
employee commitment and engagement, and even the reputation of the university.

Limitations: The data was cross-sectional, collected at one point in time and relatively small in
size. The responses are limited to private organizations, excluding public universities.

Key words: Quality of Work-life. Higher Education. Private universities. Reputation. Job
commitment. Job involvement.

2
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

1. Background
The 21st century is recognized as an age of knowledge, where immense value is being
attached to attributes like knowledge creation, innovation and knowledge management.
However, knowledge workers generating these valuable attributes are complaining about their
quality of work-life (QWL), as are others such as university teachers, who are the chaperones of
society, preparing a workforce to meet the high-tech needs of industry, business and service
organizations. Although we frequently come across rhetoric relating to the rights of knowledge
workers, stated in terms of work-life balance or QWL, in the corporate world, we still observe
our valued knowledge workers craving respect and recognition, especially in developing
countries like Pakistan. After the advent of globalization, universities are managed like private
businesses, becoming knowledge corporations. Therefore, the knowledge managers in these
modern corporations want the same status and facilities for themselves as those provided to their
counterparts in other industries, especially when there is an increasing demand on them in terms
of both knowledge dissemination (teaching) and knowledge production (research).
In the 21st century, we are witnessing contrasting agendas: on the one hand we witness
service organizations like universities being operated as businesses, governing the workforce
with tools crafted by modern management theories focused upon efficiency; on the other we
strive for maximizing human potential through enhancing individual self-worth and self-esteem,
by emphasizing the positive identity with work and workplace. The ultimate aim is to develop
satisfaction with life while enhancing personal lifestyles. While this push-and-pull is going on,
we can safely assume that modern organizations, belonging to any business or industry, are in a
process of changing their outlook on work and relationships with employees, while attaching
significant importance to human effort and recognizing such efforts through increasing
empowerment and employee participation in decision making.
Higher education is considered to be one of the most effective and authentic means of
bringing qualitative change into one’s life; not only offering better incomes, but also better roles
and status as well. Such change is achieved through promoting acquisition of knowledge and
skills, and by shaping attitudes that will encourage change in the lives of people transforming
their outlook on life. Consequently, their working styles and their ability to adopt innovation and
technology will improve, and the behaviours that bring about qualitative improvement within
organizational systems will be reinforced. In order to study such dynamics of change, a quality

3
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

management approach seems the most feasible, allowing us to study behavioural dynamics from
multiple perspectives. One such perspective is that of QWL for the employees of any
organization.
Successive movements to develop human capital (Argyris, 1973; Herzberg, 1987;
Maslow, 1954) and human social capital (Putnam, 2000) have been integrated into the concept of
QWL by the quality movement. Work-life quality and balance are probably the greatest
challenges most of us face today. Life is moving at such a speed that it is hard to manage time;
therefore we will have to learn to manage important activities in our lives to maintain a sense of
quality and balance in life. This efficient self-management requires the shaping of attitudes rather
than the learning of new skills. QWL and work-life balance (WLB) offer us a holistic perspective
and framework, highlighting that personal responsibilities and work cannot be conveniently
separated in real-life situations.

2. Literature review
The scope of customers has been expanding in higher education, and focus is gradually
moving onto employees’ satisfaction (Sahney et al., 2008). Seeking employee satisfaction in
higher education has become important because “higher education institutions are labor
intensive” and their budgets are predominantly devoted to staff development, as employee
efficiency is a key predictor of organizational effectiveness (Kusku, 2003, p. 350). Parkes (2008)
has identified that higher education organizations need a new type of human resource strategy,
which encourages employee involvement and commitment, so as to promote efficiency and
effectiveness in the organization. Parkes (2008) has further cautioned higher education
administration that people like to be psychologically “stroked” – to think that others care about
them or do nice things for them, which can be more powerful when it is unexpected. All over the
world, higher education institutions and organizations are becoming more accountable and
responsive to their internal customers’ needs, especially those of the faculty (Chen et al., 2006;
Edwards et al., 2009; Sahney et al., 2008).
Sajid (2003) has drawn attention to the indifference of university faculties in Pakistan,
pointing out that they lack interest in research and development, in grooming students or in
mentoring colleagues. They fail to realize such efforts as tools for advancing careers or as
sources of personal satisfaction, believing that such efforts are not well recognized. If such

4
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

efforts are lost and are unable to instigate positive changes in personal lifestyle and or improve
pay or status, what else could be the possible causes of faculty burnout and lack of concern?
Parkes (2008, p.28) has warned that, “if we ask people who have left an organization, they will
often be able to point to incidents that others may regard as petty, but which made them decide
that they were no longer committed to the organization”. Therefore, higher education leadership
must be careful to retain their quality employees. Recently in Pakistan, higher education has
become an attractive and promising sector to work in, attracting people from industry to teach in
business schools and pursue their careers there, but it is still unclear whether these people have
the basic mindset, or the right attitude and aptitude, that traditional “teaching” demands. Not
only do newly established, private universities need to adjust their vision of “teaching as
service”, but they also need to learn to recognize and reward teaching as well (Arif, 2009; Arif
and Ilyas, 2011; Arif and Riaz, 2011).
QWL is an emerging concept; it may be understood differently by different people
depending upon differing situations and people’s differing roles (Edwards et al., 2009; Sashkin
and Burke, 1987). QWL is referred to as the “favourableness or unfavourableness of a total job
environment for people” (Rantanen et al., 2011; Rethinam and Ismail, 2008). Bateman and Snell
(2003) defined QWL as “enhanced sense of employee well-being”. QWL has been associated
with basic job characteristics such as: salary, wages or compensation; physical or psychological
environment at work; workload and stress at work; and equitable chances of promotion and
professional growth (Lee et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2008).
Mohanraj and Ramesh (2010) have described QWL as an innovation which not only
targets employee satisfaction, but also enhances organizational effectiveness and productivity (p.
128). Many developing countries are aiming to improve their legislation to protect employee
rights and their wellbeing. The research on QWL broadly aims at getting an overview of job-
related factors that affect individuals and groups at work (Sirgy et al., 2001), and, according to
Edwards et al. (2009), the information thus obtained may help and guide organizations to adopt
appropriate actions to improve working conditions, as well as their employees’ attitudes towards
work. For instance, reducing absenteeism and turnover, and improving job satisfaction through
increasing staff retention; improving productivity, morale and commitment (Efraty et al., 1991;
Fuller, 2006; Sirin, 2009; Worrall and Cooper, 2006), and thus employee involvement and
engagement in socially responsible activities (Razaq et al., 2011).

5
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

The focus of QWL goes beyond job satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 2001). Serey (2006)
defined QWL as an important construct comprising four Cs: concern, consciousness, capacity
and commitment. It includes: (1) an opportunity to exercise one’s talents and capacities, and to
face challenges and situations that require independent initiative and self-direction; (2) an
activity thought to be worthwhile by the individual involved; (3) 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.
Sirgy and his associates (1991; 2001; 2007; 2008) view QWL as a source of employee
satisfaction emerging from the fulfillment of basic needs, following Maslow (1954), McClelland
(1961), Herzberg (1987) and Alderfer (1972); seeing QWL as an outcome of employee
satisfaction with two sets of major needs: lower- and higher-order needs. Lower-order needs
comprise health/safety needs and economic/family needs. Higher-order needs involve social
needs, esteem needs, self-actualization needs, knowledge needs and aesthetic needs. However,
the concept is extended by the “spill-over effect”, which goes beyond the extrinsic aspect of job
satisfaction towards more intrinsic satisfaction with life and non-work situations. Sirgy et al.
quote many others in stating that, “the spillover approach to QWL posits that satisfaction in one
area of life may influence satisfaction in another. For example, satisfaction with one’s job may
influence satisfaction in other life domains such as family, leisure, social, health, financial, etc.”
(See e.g., Loscoco and Roschelle, 1991; Bromet et al., 1990; Crohan et al.,1989 and Crouter,
1984 in Sirgy et al., 2001). Furthermore, QWL is also explored in terms of the interface between
roles and identities that employees create for themselves and the resources available in the work
environment (Sirgy et al., 2008). Rantanen et al. (2011) introduced many theoretical approaches
to the work-life balance to develop a new typology among professionals; these help researchers
to identify constructs for QWL for their research.
Researchers have emphasized the importance of assessing both work and non-work
contexts to assess QWL, and six factors that are considered to be important are: job and career
satisfaction; general wellbeing; home-work interface; stress at work; control at work; and
working conditions (Loscocco and Roschelle, 1991; Van Laar et al., 2007). QWL programmes
encourage organizations to recognize their responsibility to develop jobs and working conditions
that are excellent for people, as well as for the economic health of the organization. One such
condition has been defined by Clark (2000) as the work-family balance: “satisfaction and good

6
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

functioning at work and at home, with a minimum of role conflict” (p. 751). Such alternate work
schedules (flexi-time or flexi-space) affect perceived work-life imbalance, which results in the
“time bind” (Tausing and Fenwick, 2001).
Extending the scope of the study on the role of satisfaction to the case of faculty
members, Johnsrud and Rosser (2002) identified three dimensions of satisfaction: professional
priorities and rewards; administrative relations and support; and quality of benefits and services.
They also defined three dimensions of faculty morale as engagement in work; sense of
institutional regard; and personal sense of their own wellbeing. They suggested that perceptions
of work-life and morale have significant, direct impacts on intent to leave. Rosser (2005) also
suggested that the perception faculty members have of their work life has a direct and powerful
impact on their satisfaction.
To sum up in the words of Edwards et al. (2009), who concluded that QWL is a
subjective construct: (1) organizational, human and social aspects interact and must be integrated
within the definition of QWL; and (2) there is an indissociable relationship between quality of
life (QOL) and QWL. According to these researchers, QWL is what will differentiate good
companies from poor companies. QWL is all about the conducive and congenial environment
created at the workplace, as it is one of the main reasons for better performance and productivity.
Better quality of work-life leads to increased employee morale, minimizes attrition and checks
labour turnover and absenteeism. The concept allows us to value employees more than internal
customers, and appreciate the concept of “employee first and the customer second” (Collins and
Smith, 2006). It is safely assumed that when the right ambience is provided for employees, they
will be able to deliver their goods effectively and efficiently.

3. The purpose of the study

The research was carried out in order to discover how teachers of private universities in
Pakistan view their work environment, and whether this working environment is helping them to
become valued human beings or not.

4. Research questions
1. What are the key dimensions of QWL as perceived by faculties of private
universities in Lahore, Pakistan?

7
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

2. How does QWL link with the faculties’ needs for satisfaction? Are the needs
satisfied of a lower order or higher order?
3. What is the nature of the spill-over effect of QWL? Is it the bottom-up type,
i.e. spreading to non-work conditions and relationships in life?

5. Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of the study has been derived from the studies of Sirgy, Efraty,
Lee and others (See e.g., Sirgy et al., 2001,2008 and Lee et al., 2007) to determine the needs
satisfaction of faculty of private universities in Pakistan, and their spill-over effect upon non-
work conditions. The QWL constructs have been selected carefully according to the propositions
made by Edwards et al. (2009), Johnsrud and Rosser (2002), Rantanen et al. (2011), Rosser
(2005) and Van Laar et al. (2007). It has been assumed that QWL influences employees’
attitudes, as well as their perceptions regarding the quality of their environment. Attitudes under
study include one’s personal attitude towards the profession and the lifestyle one maintains, and
perceptions about the quality of inputs, outputs and processes in the workplace. Environment
constitutes the physical, psychological and social environment at work. The attitudes under study
include different facets of job satisfaction, including satisfaction with general job characteristics,
perceived workload and stress. Job commitment is measured through loyalty behaviours (i.e.
engagement in promotional activities and degree of involvement with the job and workplace) and
maintaining a positive identity and sense of belonging in the workplace (e.g. perceptions about
the university’s reputation or ranking reflects the desired image of the workplace) (Brown and
Mazzarol, 2009).

6. Research design
The study was designed as a descriptive study with the intention to look at the
phenomenon of QWL as it is. A survey method was chosen to carry out the study for its “broad
coverage, flexibility and convenience with inputs on related populations or events” (Rose et al.,
2006). Since no precedent of such a study was found in the local context, and no reliable scale
was available, we selected items for the questionnaire after an in-depth literature review on the
topic, in keeping with our local context.
The questionnaire was self-constructed, but was reviewed by a team of experts and pre-
tested on 30 faculty members of various universities. Necessary amendments were made to reach

8
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

an overall reliability of >0.7. The value achieved for Cronbach’s alpha was 0.98. The final
questionnaire consisted of three parts: ‘Part A’ sought demographic information; ‘Part B’
comprised the QWL scale, with 52 items summed up in 13 constructs; and ‘Part C’ had nine
items (three each) for measuring employee commitment, employee engagement and perceived
reputation of the university. A five-point scale with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being
“strongly agree” was used in the questionnaire.
Questionnaires were administered in the five private universities of Lahore after obtaining
formal consent to collect data. The Institution of Research Promotion (IRP) helped in collecting
data in three universities, while in the remaining two, data was collected with the help of
students. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed in five private universities; only 370 were
returned, of which 360 were completed and included in the final analysis. Hence the final
response rate was 72%. The data was collected within two weeks of distributing questionnaires
to the intended participants. Questionnaires that were not returned within 20 days were not
pursued any further.
Multiple techniques have been used to explore data that qualify relationships between
variables. SPSS (17th edition) and AMOS (16th edition) were used to obtain key models for the
research. Since we used a dynamic hypothesis to interpret data at two levels, the independent and
dependent variables differed at both levels. The first-level results were achieved by exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and stepwise regression, to determine the internal dynamics of the data.
The set of factors identified by EFA indicated a strong relationship between five sets of
independent variables (factors) and two dependent variables: quality of work-life and job
involvement. Work-life balance was found to be moderating with three sets of independent
variables. In second-level analysis, the relationship of QWL was further explored in terms of
employee attitudes like commitment and engagement, and the impact on the perceived reputation
of the university. Binary logistic regression was used in this part of the analysis.

7. Findings

7.1. Descriptives

9
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Out of the sample of 360 teachers of five private universities, 87% were permanent and
13% had visiting status. In addition, 40% of the teachers were lecturers, 32% assistant
professors, 20% professors and the remainder were deans or heads of departments. A very high
percentage of the sample (77%) were MPhils, 16% were PhDs, while the remainder had other
professional qualifications. The respondents described various reasons for choosing their
respective universities as a workplace: for 36% it was the pay package; for 22% it was the work
climate; for 20% it was opportunities for furthering their career; for 14% it was academic and
research value; and for the remainder easy access to the university was the sole reason to work
there.

7.2. First-level analysis

The 42 items (on a five-point Likert Scale), grouped into the original 13 variables derived
from the literature review to measure various aspects of satisfaction at work, life and
relationships, were explored using SPSS. Principal axis factor analysis reduced the data into
seven factors: quality of processes (QOP); perceived value of work (VOW); work climate (WC);
work-life balance (WLB); work stress (WS); relationships in life (RLT); and empowerment
(EMP). QWL identified by the respondents was measured by five items, with a reliability co-
efficient of 0.849. Factor analysis of the five items also implied the existence of a single factor.
All factors were defined over high factor loadings (>0.47) (Fava and Velicer, 1996) (see
Appendix A). Cronbach’s alpha score was >0.8, indicating that the eight extracted factors were
reliable. Furthermore, the analysis of the mean scores of the seven derived scales reflected no
dissatisfaction among respondents, with the exception of WLB and QWL, as all other mean
scores were above 3.00. Therefore, these two factors (WLB and QWL) were assumed to be
critical in shaping the holistic perception of quality of work-life for teachers of private
universities working in Lahore, Pakistan, and were further investigated to determine their
moderating affect.

10
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Table 1. Descriptive statistics

Factors Mean Standard deviation (SD)
Quality of processes (QOP) 3.54 0.78
Work stress (WS) 3.02 0.92
Value of work (VOW) 3.19 0.78
Empowerment (EMP) 3.23 0.86
Work limate (WC) 3.24 0.76
Relationships in life (RLT) 3.84 0.81
Work-life balance (WLB) 2.79 0.95
Quality of work-life (QWL) 2.40 0.51

7.2.1. Stepwise multiple regression analysis

The variation in QWL was assessed by stepwise multiple regression analysis considering
QOP, VOW, WC, WLB, WS, RLT and EMP as independent variables (Table 2). Multicollinearity
did not apply here because the variance inflation factor (VIF) was much less than 10 and all
tolerance values were greater than 0.6 (Meyers et al., 2006). Stepwise regression resulted in five
significant models (see Table 2). Positive standardized co-efficients indicate that the higher the
scores on QOP, VOW, WC, WLB, WS, RLT and EMP scales, the better will be the QWL
perception. Most of the variation (64.2%) in QWL was explained by VOW, followed by WS,
RLT, WLB and QOP, each of which uniquely added (R²-adjusted) 7.8%, 3.9%, 1.2% and 0.4%,
respectively. Hence, the level of the perceived value of work by a teacher is the key determinant
of their overall job satisfaction and perception of QWL.

Table 2. Stepwise multiple regression analysis: summary of seven scales

predicting teachers’ perceptions of quality of work-life
Model Standardized T-value Sig. R²
co-efficients (Adjusted)
1. VOW 0.802 25.412 0.000 64.2% F(1,358) = 645.767,
p-value = 0.000
2. VOW 0.615 18.287 0.000 72.0% F(2,357) = 461.485,
WS 0.336 9.975 0.000 p-value = 0.000
3. VOW 0.545 16.661 0.000
WS 0.370 11.682 0.000 75.8% F(3,356) = 372.607,
RLT 0.202 7.421 0.000 p-value = 0.000
4. VOW 0.533 16.576 0.000
WS 0.322 9.723 0.000 77.0% F(4,355) = 296.345,

11
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

RLT 0.159 5.575 0.000 p-value = 0.000

WLB 0.128 4.132 0.000
5. VOW 0.525 16.414 0.000
WS 0.322 9.792 0.000 F(5,354) = 242.567,
RLT 0.132 4.413 0.000 77.4% p-value = 0.000
WLB 0.124 4.019 0.000
QOP 0.074 2.664 0.008

7.2.2. Moderation analysis

Moderating effects of satisfaction with RLT and WLB were assessed using AMOS 16.0
(Appendix B), and the graphs were formulated in MS Excel 2007. All the models were evaluated
by five fit measures: 1) chi-squared (χ²); 2) the comparative fit index (CFI); 3) the goodness of fit
index (GFI); 4) the normed fit index (NFI); and 5) the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). For all the proposed models, the chi-squared value was highly insignificant,
indicating a reasonable match between the proposed structure and the observed data. The values
of CFI, GFI, NFI and RMSEA made all the four models an excellent fit for the data, as large
values of CFI, GFI, NFI and small values of RMSEA reflect better-fitting models (see Appendix
B) (Hu and Bentler, 1995, 1999; Byrne, 2010).

Taking QWL and WLB as dependent variables and EMP, VOW and WC as independent
variables, satisfaction with RLT was found to be a key moderator; it moderates the relationship
between EMP, VOW, WC and WLB, in the following three ways (see Figures1-3):

Figure 1. RLT moderating the relationship between EMP and WLB

12
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Figure 2. RLT moderating the relationship between VOW and WLB

Figure 3. RLT moderating the relationship between WC and WLB

The effect of perceived VOW on WS and QWL was explored, considering WLB as a
moderator. WLB did not moderate the relationship between VOW and QWL alone. However, for
the relationship between VOW and WS, the effect of WLB was prevailing (as displayed in
Figure 4). Thus, the impact of WS on perceived VOW and satisfaction was more positive for
those with a high sense of WLB.

13
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Figure 4. WLB moderating the relationship between VOW and WS

7.3 Second level analysis

The outcomes of QWL were checked with other positive job satisfaction constructs, such
as job commitment and employee engagement, as well as on perceived reputation of the
university. Surprisingly, no significant model was indicated between the relationships of QWL
and the seven factors and commitment, engagement and reputation. The calculated values were
small, such as:

1) WLB, VOW and QOP explained 24% of the variation in commitment.

2) WS and WLB explained 16.8% of the variation in reputation.
3) WS, WLB, WC and QOP explained 29.8% of the variation in engagement.

However, QWL, engagement, commitment and reputation were all positively correlated with
each other. The impact of QWL, engagement (“I feel that I am a valued member of this
university”: yes=1, no=0) and commitment (“I’d like to take part in the promotion of my
university”: yes=1, no=0) upon reputation (“My university is rightly ranked in “W” category
university”: yes=1, no=0) was found to be significant (see Table 3). Those who are engaged and
committed are 6.318 and 1.560 times more likely to project a positive reputation, respectively,
than those who are not engaged or committed. For a unit increase in QWL score, there is a 1.084
times greater likelihood of projecting a positive reputation, controlling for engagement and
commitment. The model was adequate as it ensured a significant improvement over the constant-

14
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

only model, χ2 (3,313) = 131.699, p<0.001, accounting for 41.1% of the variation in the
dependent variable.

Table 3. Logistic regression analysis for predicting whether reputation is

influenced by QWL, engagement and commitment

95.0% C.I. for Exp(B)

Variables β Wald Sig. Exp(B)
Lower Upper
Engagement 2.378 79.024 .000 10.778 6.381 18.205
Commitment 1.229 9.437 .002 3.419 1.560 7.490
QWL .081 4.587 .012 1.084 1.007 1.168
Constant -2.891 20.004 .000 .056

8. Conclusions
The faculties of private universities seem satisfied with general aspects of job
satisfaction; at least, there appears to be no major dissatisfaction, as the mean average of scores
on these items is above 3.00. However, the mean scores on satisfaction with QWLRLT and WLB
are below the average. Therefore, these two factors were assumed to be critical in shaping a
holistic perception of QWL for teachers of private universities working in Lahore, Pakistan.
However, we cannot disregard the influence of relationships (RLT) as it was found to be the key
moderator in the findings (See Figure no 1 and 2).
QWL is associated with lower needs, compared to European countries where it is more
associated with higher needs. Pay package and job security still prevail as the major attraction for
quality employees to a teaching institution. Other job characteristics, such as status and rank in
the department/college one is working in, along with the opportunity for professional growth and
promotion, and satisfaction with autonomy at work, defined the perceived value of one’s job,
and, as stated above, is the sole determining factor of job satisfaction and QWL. Combined with
workload, such as total number of hours worked, number of courses taught, managerial
responsibility and expectations for creative output such as research, this determines how more or
less satisfied one will be with their job.
The results of stepwise regression completely exclude variables of work climate.
Therefore, if we consider the items of VOW as more about personal achievement and enhancing

15
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

one’s self-esteem, then it can be concluded that psychological environment is more important in
creating the perception of QWL than physical environment.
Quality of certain processes, such as teacher recruitment, training, teaching/learning
environment and student intake, were found to be of little significance, while the student and
teacher output were considered of no value and did not come up as significant factors for
analysis in the data. Similarly, the qualities of infrastructure, offices, labs, libraries, etc., were
also taken for granted and their presence did not contribute significantly to the perception of
QWL. The work itself was important as a means of earning one’s “bread and butter” and holding
a respectable position in society, but it did not matter whom you worked for.
The findings from the second-level analysis were even more dramatic. The overall
perception of QWL did not seem to impact much on employee commitment and engagement;
even the reputation of the university was taken for granted. Only the people with a strong
perception of being a “valued part of the community” seemed to be interested in “taking an
active part in the promotion of the university” and saw the university as rightly ranked in “W”
category.
Satisfaction can be likened to a fountain that is rising from the bottom to spill over the
top. QWL is an ability to perceive satisfaction in life and maintain a lifestyle, rather than vice
versa. This ability is personal and without regard for age, gender, education or experience, but it
makes life more meaningful. Therefore, it is a desired attribute, a quality that every organization
will prize and appreciate in their employees in times to come.

9. Implications
The faculties are highly conscious of improvement in their qualifications, as almost 77%
have completed MPhils, and were enrolled in a PhD programme or were enthusiastic about it.
These are the statistics for the major private universities of Lahore; the initiatives taken by
Higher Education Comission, Pakistan seem to work progressively, and we may hope to see
100% PhD faculties in our universities over the next few years. Moreover, improved
qualifications are now perceived as a tool for professional growth, as well as an effective means
of improving one’s lifestyle, by university faculties.
Satisfaction with RLT and WLB represented the most influential variables, as they
moderate even the sense of empowerment and satisfaction with the work climate. Being a

16
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

traditional and a collectivist society, it is presumed that everything is seen in the light of one’s
successful engagement in personal and social relationships. Only successful and satisfactory
relationships will give rise to a feeling of work-life balance and an accomplished sense of QWL.
These psychological variables are so strong that other demographic variables, such as age,
gender, qualifications or experience, seem to have no significant impact upon the perception of
QWL.
It appears strange, therefore, that after enjoying safety and security in the workplace and
experiencing a manageable level of stress at work, compared to other professional environments,
people have shown little commitment and enthusiasm for their jobs and the organizations they
work for. Their loyalty remains questionable, as does their output as responsible citizens and
valuable members of society. It seems that faculty members who are employed by private
universities consider themselves to be part of a business organization, rather than people
involved in the provision of a critical service – higher education. They see “teaching as a
business” rather than feeling that they are in “the teaching business”.
QWL is the degree of personal satisfaction with life and work, with a realistic aim of
keeping up a WLB. The employees perceiving a high QWL are able to enhance their personal
lives, making them more meaningful and purposeful, through engaging in a positive attitude at
work, valuing their work and appreciating their work environment. Today, the success of any
organization is highly dependent on how it attracts, recruits, motivates and retains its workforce;
the institutions of higher education are no exception in this case. Therefore, university
management must be able to create a working environment ensuring physical and psychological
security and safety. They must think of original and innovative ways of developing their
workforce, so that they can increase their commitment to and engagement with work. Teaching is
a valued service, having an important role in creating future human and social capital. Therefore,
management of private universities must think in line with other business organizations about
assisting their employees to enhance their lifestyles.
Sirgy et al. (2008) have proposed a variety of QWL programmes related to work-life,
such as decentralized organizational structures, teamwork, parallel structures, ethical corporate
mission and culture, organizational work schedule, etc.; and non-work-life, such as working at
home, flexi-time, compressed working hours, part-time work arrangements, job-sharing, etc., and
show how they serve to enhance QOL using the language of work-life identity.

17
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

10. Limitations
Data collection was found to be difficult. Most of the respondents left the open-ended
questions unanswered in the questionnaire, and that portion was excluded from the final analysis.
However, it could have given a deeper insight into the phenomenon of QWL. Since data was
collected from Lahore only, the results should be generalized carefully.

11. Directions for future research

Further in-depth analysis is required with important variables like “perceptions of
equity”, “procedural justice”, psychological contract” and “dehumanization”, as QWL seems to
be more affected by psychological than physical environment. Also, the study should be
replicated with other private institutions of higher education in Pakistan. Moreover, a comparison
can be done with the perceptions of QWL when working in faculties of public universities in
Pakistan.

References

Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Settings, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Argyris, C. (1973), “Personality and organization theory revisited”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.
141-167.
Arif, S. (2009), “Praxis: Teachers’ dilemma to choose the right action”, The International Journal of
Learning, Vol. 16 No.7, pp. 27-37.

18
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Arif, S. and Ilyas, M. (2011), “Leadership, empowerment and customer satisfaction in teaching
institutions: Case study of Pakistani university”, Total Quality Magazine, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 388–
402.
Arif, S. and Riaz, N. (2011), “Student development: Emerging teaching paradigm”, Daily Dawn, Sunday
Magazine, 6 November, p. 7.
Bateman, T.S. and Snell, S.A. (2003), Management Building Competitive Advantage (6th ed.), Irwin
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Brown, R. and Mazzarol, T. (2009), “The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and
loyalty within higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 81-95.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.), Routledge, New York, NY.
Chen, S., Yang, C., Shiau, J. and Wang, H. (2006), “The development of an employee satisfaction model
for higher education”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 484-500.
Clark, S.C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 6, p. 747.
Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human
resource practices in the performance of high technology firms”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 544-560.
Edwards, J.A., Laar, D.V., Easton, S., Kinman, G. (2009), “The work-related quality of life scale for
higher education employees”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 207-219.
Efraty, D., Sirgy, M.J. and Claiborne, C. (1991), “The effects of personal alienation on organizational
identification: A quality-of-work-life model”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 57-78.
Fava, J. L., and Velicer, W. F. (1996), “The effects of under extraction in factor and
component analysis”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56, pp. 907-929.
Fuller, G. (2006), “Anti-stress scheme boosts health and morale of City of London Police”, Personnel
Today, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 207–219.
Herzberg, F. (1987), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
65, No.5, pp. 109-120.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P. (1995), “Evaluating model fit”. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation
Modeling. Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage, London.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.
Johnsrud, L. (2002), “Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative work life: Implications for
college and university campuses”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 379-395.
Kusku, F. (2003), “Employee satisfaction in higher education: The case of academic and administrative
staff in Turkey”, Career Development International, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 347-356.
Lee, D.J., Singhapakdi, A. and 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, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 273-287.
Loscocco, K.A. and Roschelle, A.N. (1991), “Influences on the quality of work and non-work life: Two
decades in review”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 39, pp. 182–225.
Maslow, A H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York, NY.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, The Free Press, New York, NY.

19
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A.J. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research: Design and
Interpretation, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mohanraj, P. and Ramesh, R. (2010), “Measuring quality of work life: an integration of conceptual
relationship with productivity”, International Journal of Research in Management and
Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 128-132.
Parkes, C. (2008), “Angel grants employees their wish for time off in return for high performance”,
Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 16 No.4, pp. 23-24.
Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and
Schuster, New York, NY.
Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S. and Tillemann, K. (2011), “Introducing theoretical approaches to
work-life balance and testing a new typology among professionals”. In Kaiser, S., Ringlstetter,
M., Eikhof, D.R. and E Cunha, M.P. (Eds.), Creating Balance? International Perspectives on the
Work-Life Integration of Professionals, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 27-46.
Razaq, A., Yameen, M., Sabir, S., Iqbal, J.J., Ali, K.S. and Khan, M.A. (2011), “Impact of CSR, quality
of work life and organizational structure on employee’s performance in Pakistan”, Journal of
Social and Development Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 66-72.
Rethinam, G.S. and Ismail, M. (2008), “Constructs of quality of work life: A perspective of information
and technology professionals”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 58-70.
Rosser, V.J. (2005), “Measuring the change in faculty perceptions over time: An examination of their
worklife and satisfaction”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 81-107.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D. and Karunes, S. (2008), “An integrated framework of indices for quality
management in education: A faculty perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No.5, pp. 502-519.
Sashkin, M. and Burke, W.W. (1987), “Organizational development in the 1980’s”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 393–417.
Serey, T.T. (2006), “Choosing a robust quality of work life”, Business Forum, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 7- 10.
Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P. and Lee, D.-J. (2001), “A new measure of quality of work life (QWL)
based on need satisfaction and spillover theories”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 55 No.3, pp.
241-302.
Sirgy, M.J., Reilly, N.P., Wu, J. and Efraty, D. (2008), “A work-life identity model of well-being: Towards
a research agenda linking quality-of-work-life (QWL) programs with quality of life (QOL)”,
Applied Research in Quality of Life, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 181-202.
Sirin, A.F. (2009), “Analysis of relationship between job satisfaction and attitude”, Journal of Theory and
Practice in Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 85-104.
Tausig, M. and Fenwick, R. (2001), “Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life balance”,
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 101-119.
Van Laar, D.L., Edwards, J.A. and Easton, S. (2007), “The work-related quality of life scale for healthcare
workers”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 60 No.3, pp. 325–333.
Worrall, L. and Cooper, C.L. (2006), The quality of working life: Managers’ health and well-being,
Executive Report, Chartered Management Institute, London.

Appendix A:
Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis

20
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

Factors Items Loadings (Cronbach’s

alpha)
F1: Quality of Satisfaction with induction of teachers .747 0.906
Processes Satisfaction with mentoring/coaching of fresh
.756
teachers
Satisfaction with training (if any) provided to
.726
teachers
Quality of teacher intake over past 5 years (inputs) .794
Quality of teacher input over past 5 years .741
Quality of teaching/learning environment over past 5
.765
years
Quality of student intake over past 5 years .581
F2: Value of Satisfaction with current rank .793 0.877
Work Satisfaction with salary .750
Satisfaction with benefits .725
Satisfaction with chances of growth .586
Satisfaction with scope of professional development .566
Satisfaction with the department/college .526
Satisfaction with autonomy at work .553
F3: Work Satisfaction with needed equipment/technology .702 0.848
Climate Satisfaction with workspace .733
Labs .473
PCs .561
Classrooms .652
Cafeteria .473
F4: Work-Life Satisfaction with time spent with family .816 0.884
Balance Satisfaction with time spent in recreation .870
Satisfaction with time spent at social, work and/or
.660
creative activities
F5: Work Satisfaction with teaching load .475 0.858
Stress Satisfaction with managerial load .673
Satisfaction with productivity load .760
Satisfaction with working hours .801
F6: Satisfaction with personal relationships .608 0.814
Relationships Satisfaction with student-teacher relationships .747
in Life Satisfaction with collegial relationships .781
F7: Satisfaction with opportunity to share governance .647 0.854
Empowerment Satisfaction with opportunity to participate in
.749
decision making
Satisfaction with opportunity to explore teacher
.574
leadership
KMO = 0.891, χ² = 7835.572, p<0.000

Appendix B:

21
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

χ² (1, N = 360) = 0.691; p = 0.145, CFI = 0.970, GFI = 0.989, NFI = 0.968, RMSEA = 0.023

Figure 1B. RLT moderating the relationship between EMP and WLB

χ² (1, N = 360) = 0.002; p = 0.963, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, NFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00

Figure 2B. RLT moderating the relationship between VOW and WLB

χ² (1, N = 360) = 0.896; p = 0.344, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.00

Figure 3B. RLT moderating the relationship between WC and WLB

22
Quality of Work-Life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan

χ² (1, N = 360) = 0.038; p = 0.845, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.00, NFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00

Figure 4B. WLB moderating the relationship between VOW and WS

23