Abstract:
Aggressive drive towards increased productivity and profit maximisation often
compromise employees‟ welfare, satisfaction and commitment. Quality of work life
programme (QWLFP) such as occupational health and safety (OHS), training and skill
development (TSD), teamwork, employee involvement (EI), employee recognition (ER),
flexible working hour (FWH), long service award (LSA) health care and wellness (HCW),
and child educational benefit (CEB) can promote employees‟ job attitudes, while
enhancing organisational performance. Previous studies on QWLFP focused more on
reducing counter-productive behaviours than the enhancement of employee job attitudes
(Job satisfaction and Organisational commitment). This study, was, therefore, designed to
examine employees‟ benefit from QWLFP, factors that influence benefit from QWLFP,
Satisfaction with QWLFP (SQWLFP), Employees‟ Job Satisfaction (JS) and
Organisational Commitment (OC), QWLFP influence on employees‟ JS and OC and
challenges with QWLFP implementation.
Expectancy and Social Exchange theories provided the framework, while cross-sectional
survey design was adopted. The Nigerian Petroleum Development Company Limited
(NPDC) and Nigerian Bottling Company Limited (NBC) were purposively selected due to
their implementation of QWLFP. A sample size of 536 (NPDC; 274 and NBC; 262) was
selected using Yamane‟s (1976) formula. Respondents were systematically and randomly
sampled from departments. A semi-structured questionnaire elicited information on socio demographic characteristics, benefit from QWLFP, factors influencing benefit from
QWLFP, SQWLFP, JS, OC, QWLFP influence on employees‟ JS and OC and challenges
encountered. Sixteen in-depth interviews were conducted with employees (13) and Trade
Union officials (3) and three key informant interviews were conducted on Human
Resource Managers. The SQWLFP, JS and OC were respectively measured as low
≤49.9% or high ≥50%. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential
statistics at p ≥ 0.05, while qualitative data were content analysed.
Respondents‟ age was 35 ± 2.3 years; males constituted 72.2%; those with tertiary
education had 86.8% and those who earned above N170,000 monthly ( 31.7%).
Respondents in NPDC (86%) and NBC (74.6%) benefited from teamwork, OHS, TSD, EI,
FWH, HCW and CEB. Employees‟ benefit from QWLFP was influenced by age
(β=8.164), employment status (β=5.464), sex (β=3.854) and staff cadre (β=3.535) in
NPDC and highest educational qualification (β=63.521), income (β=53.558), employment
status (β=48.300) and age (β=19.343) in NBC. Employees in NPDC (89.1%) and NBC
(57.6%) were satisfied with QWLFP. In NPDC, employees‟ JS (88.3%) and OC (88.7%)
were high; in NBC, JS (40.8%) and OC (40.5%) were low. There was a positive influence
of QWLFP on employees‟ JS and OC. Specifically, QWLFP significantly influenced
employees‟ JS; EI [β= 6.043], ER [β=4.560] and LSA [β=3.398] in NPDCand JS; ER
[β=15.480], LSA [β=13.314] and FWH [13.925] in NBC. Also, QWLFP significantly
influenced employees‟ OC in NPDC; EI [β=4.121], HCW [β=5.005], and in NBC; ER
[β=16.239], LSA [β=14.340] and FWH [β=13.007]. Challenges encountered in the
implementation of QWLFP included inadequate technological infrastructure, lack of
resilience in the pursuit of QWLFP by trade unions, cost considerations and poor
Management attitude.
Quality of work life programme leads to positive job attitudes. Organisations should
overcome managerial challenges and increase efforts towards implementing the
programme to improve employees‟ job attitudes
