PRESENTATION OF

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
ON
QUALITY OF WORKLIFE AND CASE
STUDY OF QWL

Compiled by-
AKRITI SAXENA
FARHAN KHURSHEED
MBA(FT)-3RD SEM
IBM-CSJMU
7TH NOV 2012
 introduction
• The concept of QWL was originated in India in mid
1970s when the country was passing through a
phase of intense labour unrest.
• QWL is a prescriptive concept it attempts to design
work environment so as to maximize concern for
human welfare it is a goal as well as process.
 Definition of QWL
 Quality of work life can be defined as the environment at
the work place provided to the people on the job.

 QWL means having good supervision, good working

conditions, good pay and benefits and an
interesting, challenging and rewarding job.

 QWL programs is the another dimension in which

employers has the responsibility to provide congenial
environment i.e excellent working conditions where
people can perform excellent work also their health as
well as economic health of the organization is also met.
• To attract and retain talents

 To prevent stress

 Effective integration of work and personal life

 Job satisfaction

 Increase quality and productivity

 To balance personal/family and work related demands on

an individual employee.

COMPONENTS OF QUALITY OF WORKLIFE
7) Stress
level

6) Opportunities 1) Open
communication

5) Increased
2) Reward
employee
system
participation

4) Career 3) Job security

growth
 1) Flexibility
on Job

5) 2) Job
Participative Enrichment
mgt

4) 3) Secured
Grievance Job
Handling
Quality of Working Life is not a concept, that deals with
one area but it has been observed as incorporating a
hierarchy of concepts that not only include work-
based factors such as job satisfaction, satisfaction
with pay and relationships with work colleagues, but
also factors that broadly focuses on life satisfaction
and general feelings of well-being. To retain a good
talent in the organization it is important for the
organization that he should have low stress level and
high quality of work life.
 Sean Neale is facing a dilemma. And he’s not alone. like many
managers, Sean is struggling to find creative ways to keep his
employees motivated.
Sean is CEO of robotics’ manufacturing firm located in
Midwestern United States. The company prospered in the 1990s-
sales revenue nearly tripled and the company’s workforce
doubled. The price of the company’s stock rose from under $8 a
share to more than $60 .And his employees prospered because the
firm had a pay – for-performance compensation system.
specifically, every year,20% of the company’s profits were set aside
in a bonus pool and used to reward employees. Profit sharing
provided the typical employees with an extra $7,800 in 1998 and
$9,400 in 1999.then it dropped to just$2,750 in 2000.the company
lost money in 2001 and 2002, so there were no profits to share.
meanwhile, Sean’s executive team was not spared from watching
their profit-sharing bonuses disappear. The average executive
Like the company’s operating employees, in 2001and 2002,executive
got nothing over their basic salaries.
Sean’s situation seems to be common among many firms. While
employees in2002 and 2003 were often glad to just have a job, the
incentives they enjoyed in the 1990s were eroding. For instance,
Ford Motor company suspended contribution to salaried employees
401(k) retirement plans and merit raises for about 2200 senior
executive; media company tribune co in Chicago froze wages and
cut 140 senior managers’ pay by 5 % and Hewett –Packard
eliminated profits sharing in 2001. A 2002 survey of 391 companies
found that 48% planned to lower performance-based rewards for
both managers and workers in the next 12 months.
1.What implication can you draw from this case
regarding pay-for –performance?

2.If you were Sean Neale, what can you offer employees
as an alternative to compensation that will not place
an undue hardship on your organization’s bottom line?
Be specific.