A STUDY ON

“QUALITY OF
WORK LIFE” AT
DHL EXPRESS
SHASHWATI JASUTKAR -21021141133
ADWITIYA MISTRY-21021141011
 ABSTRACT

The research is on the basis of A STUDY ON “QUALITY OF WORK LIFE” AT DHL EXPRESS. Due
to changes in technology and to meet various demands of the employees and to withstand the
place in the Global market the company has to focus on employees’ satisfaction on major areas
like job security, job satisfaction, medical facilities, canteen facilities, rewards, ESI, etc. Surveys
are an effective way of knowing about employees’ quality of work life in the organization. While
exit interviews are generally used, they are a delayed way of knowing the quality of work life.
The study was based on the descriptive research design. The sampling design being used here is
Simple Random Sampling. The sample size 46 has been used. Thus this report seeks to utilize
primary research, through structured questionnaires and secondary method involves data
collection through magazines and websites.
 Introduction

Quality of Work Life:

Quality of work life (QWL) is viewed as an alternative to the control approach of managing
people. The QWL approach considers people as an 'asset' to the organization rather than as
'costs'. It believes that people perform better when they are allowed to participate in managing
their work and make decisions.

This approach motivates people by satisfying not only their economic needs but also their social
and psychological ones. To satisfy the new generation workforce, organizations need to
concentrate on job designs and organization of work. Further, today's workforce is realizing the
importance of relationships and is trying to strike a balance between career and personal lives.
Successful organizations support and provide facilities to their people to help them to balance the
scales. In this process, organizations are coming up with new and innovative ideas to improve
the quality of work and quality of work life of every individual in the organization. Various
programs like flex time, alternative work schedules, compressed work weeks, telecommuting
etc., are being adopted by these organizations. Technological advances further help organizations
to implement these programs successfully. Organizations are enjoying the fruits of implementing
QWL programs in the form of increased productivity, and an efficient, satisfied, and committed
workforce which aims to achieve organizational objectives. The future work world will also have
more women entrepreneurs and they will encourage and adopt QWL programs.

Quality of Working Life is a term that had been used to describe the broader job-related experience
an individual has.

Whilst there has, for many years, been much research into job satisfaction (1), and, more
recently, an interest has arisen into the broader concepts of stress and subjective well-being (2),
the precise nature of the relationship between these concepts has still been little explored. Stress
at work is often considered in isolation, wherein it is assessed on the basis that attention to an
individual’s stress management skills or the sources of stress will prove to provide a good
enough basis for effective intervention. Alternatively, job satisfaction may be assessed, so that
action can be taken which will enhance an individual’s performance. Somewhere in all this, there
is often an awareness of the greater context, whereupon the home-work context is considered, for
example, and other factors, such as an individual’s personal characteristics, and the broader
economic or cultural climate, might be seen as relevant. In this context, subjective well-being is
seen as drawing upon both work and non-work aspects of life.
However, more complex models of an individual’s experience in the workplace often appear to
be set aside in an endeavor to simplify the process of trying to measuring “stress” or some
similarly apparently discrete entity. It may be, however, that the consideration of the bigger,
more complex picture is essential, if targeted, effective action is to be taken to address quality of
working life or any of it’s sub-components in such a way as to produce real benefits, be they for
the individual or the organisation.

Quality of working life has been differentiated from the broader concept of Quality of Life. To
some degree, this may be overly simplistic, as Elizur and Shye,(1990)(3) concluded that quality
of work performance is affected by Quality of Life as well as Quality of working life. However,
it will be argued here that the specific attention to work-related aspects of quality of life is valid.

Whilst Quality of Life has been more widely studied (4), Quality of working life, remains
relatively unexplored and unexplained. A review of the literature reveals relatively little on
quality of working life. Where quality of working life has been explored, writers differ in their
views on its’ core constituents.

It is argued that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts as regards Quality of working Life,
and, therefore, the failure to attend to the bigger picture may lead to the failure of interventions
which tackle only one aspect. A clearer understanding of the inter-relationship of the various
facets of quality of working life offers the opportunity for improved analysis of cause and effect
in the workplace.This consideration of Quality of working Life as the greater context for various
factors in the workplace, such as job satisfaction and stress, may offer opportunity for more cost-
effective interventions in the workplace. The effective targeting of stress reduction, for example,
may otherwise prove a hopeless task for employers pressured to take action to meet
governmental requirements.
 COMPANY PROFILE

DHL Group is the world's leading logistic company. It is a Global Logistics company as it connects
people and markets to enable trade worldwide. It has been ranked as a Great Place to Work for many
years consecutively. DHL Group believes in living responsibility; the Provider of Choice, Investment
of Choice and Employer of Choice. DHL Express is one of the international market leaders in express
delivery with over 50 years of successful experience. The key to its success is its global network of
over 120,000 employees in 220 countries and territories of the world, every one of them striving to
deliver the best-in-class service.

Express delivery industry in general and DHL in particular came to life due to innovative thinking of
three entrepreneurs from San Francisco. In 1969 Adrian Dalsey, Larry Hillblom and Robert Lynn set
up door-to- door express delivery of document and non-document shipments, thus becoming pioneers
of logistics industry.

The idea which made a big difference in the world and brought countries and continents closer was
simple as all breakthrough ideas are. The three partners decided to reduce the time of customs
clearance for shipments by speeding up delivery of customs documents. Due to express courier
delivery the paperwork arrived at customs offices before the actual freight arrival at the destination
port, thus enabling goods to pass through customs without any delay.

On September 20, 1969 Dalsey, Hillblom and Lynn (the D, H and L in the company name) registered
their enterprise. The first DHL customers were Seatrain Lines, APL and Matson Navigation. Banks
were also among the first to fully realize advantages of working with DHL: they used the company
services to ensure fast and safe delivery of documents.

The innovative company expanded its geography and entered the international market in 1972.
Following its aim to be wherever its customers need it, DHL opened its offices in the People’s
Republic of China (1980) and the Soviet Union (1984) during the high Cold War.

Improving its skills to transport heavy shipments all over the world as well as mastering the complex
supply chain management, the express delivery provider enjoyed rapid development. In 2002 a
German corporation Deutsche Post became the major shareholder in DHL. The event was followed
by integration with the market leader in freight forwarding Danzas Air&Ocean. In 2005 the company
merges with Exel, an expert in contract logistics. As a result, DHL gained the opportunity to provide
the full scope of logistics services operating its unique network which spans 220 countries and
territories of the world.

In 2007 DHL opened the Innovation Center, a one-of-a-kind facility. It is here that high-tech, flexible
and sustainable logistics solutions are designed and special offers are worked out for global
customers.

The company was the first to offer to its clients an opportunity to make a contribution into the
environmental protection by choosing dedicated green services for shipments aimed at reducing
emissions into the atmosphere and mitigate the impact of CO2 produced by airplanes and trucks
when carrying shipments. In 2008 DHL became the first operator on express delivery and logistics
market to publicly announce its commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 30% by 2020.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Baba and Jamal (1991) listed what they described as typical indicators of quality of working
life, including: job satisfaction, job involvement, work role ambiguity, work role conflict, work
role overload, job stress, organisational commitment and turn-over intentions. Baba and Jamal
also explored routinisation of job content, suggesting that this facet should be investigated as part
of the concept of quality of working life.

Some have argued that quality of working life might vary between groups of workers. For
example, Ellis and Pompli (2002)(10) identified a number of factors contributing to job
dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses, including: Poor working environments,
Resident aggression, Workload, Unable to deliver quality of care preferred, Balance of work and
family, Shiftwork, Lack of involvement in decision making, Professional isolation, Lack of
recognition, Poor relationships with supervisor/peers, Role conflict, Lack of opportunity to learn
new skills.

Sirgy et al.; (2001)(11) suggested that the key factors in quality of working life are: Need
satisfaction based on job requirements, Need satisfaction based on Work environment, Need
satisfaction based on Supervisory behaviour, Need satisfaction based on Ancillary programmes,
Organizational commitment. They defined quality of working life as satisfaction of these key
needs through resources, activities, and outcomes stemming from participation in the workplace.
Maslow’s needs were seen as relevant in underpinning this model, covering Health & safety,
Economic and family, Social, Esteem, Actualisation, Knowledge and Aesthetics, although the
relevance of non-work aspects is play down as attention is focussed on quality of work life rather
than the broader concept of quality of life.

These attempts at defining quality of working life have included theoretical approaches, lists of
identified factors, correlational analyses, with opinions varying as to whether such definitions
and explanations can be both global, or need to be specific to each work setting.

Bearfield, (2003)(12) used 16 questions to examine quality of working life, and distinguished
between causes of dissatisfaction in professionals, intermediate clerical, sales and service
workers, indicating that different concerns might have to be addressed for different groups.

The distinction made between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in quality of working life
reflects the influence of job satisfaction theories. Herzberg at al., (1959)(13) used “Hygiene
factors” and “Motivator factors” to distinguish between the separate causes of job satisfaction
and job dissatisfaction. It has been suggested that Motivator factors are intrinsic to the job, that
is; job content, the work itself, responsibility and advancement. The Hygiene factors or
dissatisfaction-avoidance factors include aspects of the job environment such as interpersonal
relationships, salary, working conditions and security. Of these latter, the most common cause of
job dissatisfaction can be company policy and administration, whilst achievement can be the
greatest source of extreme satisfaction.
Quality of Working Life is not a unitary concept, but has been seen as incorporating a hierarchy
of perspectives that not only include work-based factors such as job satisfaction, satisfaction with
pay and relationships with work colleagues, but also factors that broadly reflect life satisfaction
and general feelings of well-being (Danna & Griffin, 1999)(16). More recently, work-related
stress and the relationship between work and non-work life domains (Loscocco & Roschelle,
1991)(17) have also been identified as factors that should conceptually be included in Quality of
Working Life.

References
1. Lawler III E and Porter L, (1966). Managers pay and their satisfaction with their pay.
Personnel Psychology. XIX 363-73

2. Mullarkey S, Wall T, Warr P, Clegg C & Stride C (1999) Eds.. Measures of Job Satisfaction,
mental Health and Job-related Well-being. Inst Work psychol..

3. Elizur D & Shye S 1990 Quality of work life and its relation to quality of life. Applied
psychology: An international review. 39 3 275-291

4. Taillefer,-Marie-Christine; Dupuis,-Gilles; Roberge,-Marie-Anne; Le-May,-Sylvie (2003)

Health-related quality of life models: Systematic review of the literature. Social-Indicators-
Research. Nov; Vol 64 (2): 293-323

5. Hackman J & Oldham G (1974) The Job Diagnostic Survey. New Haven: Yale University.

OBJECTIVES

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

✓ To know the overall quality of work life in the organization and its impact on employees
work culture.
 SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:

✓ To measure the level of satisfaction of employees towards the quality of work life.
✓ To suggest suitable measures to improve the quality of work life.
✓ To identify the major areas of dissatisfaction if any, and provide valuable suggestions
improving the employees satisfaction in those areas.
✓ To analyze the findings and suggestion for the study.

SCOPE OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE:

Quality of work life is a multi-dimensional aspect. The workers expect the following needs
to be fulfilled.

✓ Compensation the reward for the work should be fair and reasonable.
✓ The organization should take care of health and safety of the employees.
✓ Job security should be given to the employees.
✓ Job specification should match the individuals.
✓ An organization responds to employee needs for developing mechanisms to allow
them to share fully in making the decisions that design their lives at work.
 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY:

➢ Time was the major constraint for the project.

➢ The study is restricted to HR dept., and can’t be generalized.

➢ The individual perspective appears to be different.

➢ Questionnaire is the major limitation for the project.

 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problem. It may be

understood as a science of studying how research is done scientifically. The scope of research
methodology is wider than that of research methods. When we talk of research methodology we
not only talk of research methods but also consider the logic behind the methods we use in the
context of our research study and explain why we are using a particular method or technique.

RESEARCH DESIGN

“A research design is the arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data in a
manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy in
procedure”.Research design is the conceptual structure within which research is conducted; it
constitutes the blueprint for the collection, measurement and analysis of data.The type of
research design used in the project was Descriptive research, because it helps to describe a
particular situation prevailing within a company. Careful design of the descriptive studies was
necessary to ensure the complete interpretation of the situation and to ensure minimum bias in
the collection of data.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

Sampling is the selection of some part of an aggregate or totality on the basis of which a
judgment about the aggregate or totality is made. Simple random sampling method was used in
this project. Since population was not of a homogenous group, Stratified technique was applied
so as to obtain a representative sample. The employees were stratified into a number of
subpopulation or strata and sample items (employees) were selected from each stratum .

SIZE OF THE SAMPLE

For a research study to be perfect the sample size selected should be optimal i.e. it should neither
be excessively large nor too small. Here the sample size was bounded to 46.
DATA COLLECTION METHOD

Both the Primary and Secondary data collection method were used in the project. First time
collected data are referred to as primary data. In this research the primary data was collected by
means of a Structured Questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of a number of questions in
printed form. It had both open-end closed end questions in it. Data which has already gone
through the process of analysis or were used by someone else earlier is referred to secondary
data. This type of data was collected from the books, journals, company records etc.

TOOLS USED FOR ANALYSIS

➢ Percentage analysis.
➢ Chi-Square.
➢ five point liker scales.

Percentage analysis:

One of the simplest methods of analysis is the percentage method. It is one of the traditional
statistical tools. Through the use of percentage, the data are reduced in the standard form with
the base equal to 100, which facilitates comparison.

The formula used to compute Percentage analysis is, Chi-Square

It is a measure to study the divergence of actual and expected frequencies. It is

represented by the symbol 2, Greek letter chi. It describes the discrepancy theory and
observation. The formula used is,

ψ 2 = ∑ (O-E)2

Where "O" is the observed Frequency

"E" is the expected Frequency

 CHAPTER-3

RESULT AND INTERPRETATION

Data analysis and interpretation:

SATISFACTION OF SALARY PACKAGE

SI. Level of No. of percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 highly satisfied 4 8.7
2 satisfied 23 50
3 neutral 10 22
4 dissatisfied 6 13
5 highly 3 6.3
dissatisfied
46 100

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 8.7% of employees are highly satisfied with the salary
package and 50% of employees are satisfied, 22% of employees are neutral, 13%
of employees are dissatisfied, and 6.3% of employees are highly dissatisfied with
the salary packag
SATISFACTION OF CURRENT JOB

SI. Level of No. of percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 highly satisfied 5 11
2 satisfied 27 59
3 neutral 12 26
4 dissatisfied 2 4
5 highly 0 0
dissatisfied
46 100

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 11% of employees are highly satisfied with current job
and 59% of employees are satisfied, 26% of employees are neutral, 4% of
employees are dissatisfied, and 0% of employees are highly dissatisfied.
 CASUAL LEAVE

Table3.1.3:

SI. Level of No.of percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 Strongly agree 2 4
2 agree 19 41
3 moderate 16 36
4 disagree 7 15
5 Strongly 2 4
disagree
46 100

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 4% of employees are highly satisfied with the casual
leave and 41% of employees are satisfied, 36% of employees are neutral, 15% of
employees are dissatisfied, and 4% of employees are highly dissatisfied with the
casual leave.
 MEDICAL FACILITIES

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 Strongly agree 8 17
2 agree 1 39
8
3 moderate 1 22
0
4 disagree 6 13
5 Strongly 4 9
disagree
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 17% of employees are highly satisfied with the
medical facilities and 39% of employees are satisfied, 22% of employees are
neutral, 13% of employees are dissatisfied, and 9% of employees are highly
dissatisfied with the medical facilities.
 BONUS

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 Strongly agree 5 11
2 agree 2 45
1
3 moderate 1 24
1
4 disagree 9 20
5 Strongly 0 0
disagree
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 11% of employees are highly satisfied with the bonus
and 45% of employees are satisfied, 24% of employees are neutral, 20% of
employees are dissatisfied, and 0% of employees are highly dissatisfied with the
bonus.
 Canteen facilities

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 Strongly agree 9 20
2 agree 2 43.5
0
3 moderate 1 29.5
4
4 disagree 3 7
5 Strongly 0 0
disagree
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 20% of employees are highly satisfied with the
canteen facility and 43.5% of employees are satisfied, 29.5% of employees are
neutral, 7% of employees are dissatisfied, and 0% of employees are highly
dissatisfied.
 HEALTHY & SAFETY WORKING CONDITIONS

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 highly satisfied 8 17.5
2 satisfied 2 50
3
3 neutral 1 28.5
3
4 dissatisfied 2 4
5 highly 0 0
dissatisfied
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 17.5% of employees are highly satisfied with the
healthy and safety working conditions and 50% of employees are satisfied, 28.5%
of employees are neutral, 4% of employees are dissatisfied, and 0% of employees
are highly dissatisfied with the healthy and safety working conditions.
 Job security

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 highly satisfied 5 11
2 satisfied 2 63
9
3 neutral 7 15
4 dissatisfied 3 7
5 highly 2 4
dissatisfied
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 11% of employees are highly satisfied with the job
security and 63% of employees are satisfied, 15% of employees are neutral, 7% of
employees are dissatisfied, and 4% of employees are highly dissatisfied with the
job security.
 Promotion policy

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 highly satisfied 3 7
2 satisfied 2 43.5
0
3 neutral 1 36.5
7
4 dissatisfied 2 4
5 highly 4 9
dissatisfied
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 7% of employees are highly satisfied with promotion
policy and 43.5% of employees are satisfied, 36.5% of employees are neutral, 4%
of employees are dissatisfied, and 9% of employees are highly dissatisfied with
promotion policy.
 Proper communication with employees:

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 Strongly agree 9 20
2 agree 1 39
8
3 moderate 1 26
2
4 disagree 7 15
5 Strongly 0 0
disagree
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 20% of employees are highly satisfied with the
attention of changes and 39% of employees are satisfied, 26% of employees are
neutral, 15% of employees are dissatisfied, and 0% of employees are highly
dissatisfied with the attention of changes.
 CORDIAL RELATIONSHIP AMONG EMPLOYEES

Table 3.1.13:

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 Strongly agree 2 4
2 agree 2 54
5
3 moderate 1 35
6
4 disagree 3 7
5 Strongly 0 0
disagree
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 4% of employees are highly satisfied cordial
relationship among employees and 54% of employees are satisfied, 35% of
employees are neutral, 7% of employees are dissatisfied, and 0% of employees are
highly dissatisfied cordial relationship among employees.
 Training

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 highly satisfied 5 11
2 satisfied 2 45
1
3 neutral 1 35
6
4 dissatisfied 3 7
5 highly 1 2
dissatisfied
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 11% of employees are highly satisfied with training
and 45% of employees are satisfied, 35% of employees are neutral, 7% of
employees are dissatisfied, and 2% of employees are highly dissatisfied with
training.
 SATISFACTION IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 highly satisfied 3 7
2 satisfied 2 52
4
3 neutral 1 26
2
4 dissatisfied 6 13
5 highly 1 2
dissatisfied
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 7% of employees are highly satisfied performance
appraisal and 52% of employees are satisfied, 26% of employees are neutral, 13%
of employees are dissatisfied, and 2% of employees are highly dissatisfied
performance appraisal.
 GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 highly satisfied 4 9
2 satisfied 2 50
3
3 neutral 1 35
6
4 dissatisfied 2 4
5 highly 1 2
dissatisfied
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 9% of employees are highly satisfied with grievance
redressal and, 35% of employees are neutral, 4% of employees are dissatisfied, and
2% of employees are highly dissatisfied with grievance redressal.
 Reward Recognition

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 Yes 1 41
9
2 No 2 59
7
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 41% of employees are highly satisfied with reward
recognition and 59% of them are highly dissatisfied with reward recognition.
 Career development

SI. Level of No. of Percenta

No satisfaction Responden ge
ts
1 Very high 4 9
2 High 1 41
9
3 Moderate 1 33
5
4 Low 6 13
5 Very low 2 4
4 100
6

INFERENCE:

It is seen from the table that 9% of employees are highly satisfied with the career
development and 41% of employees are satisfied, 33% of employees are neutral,
13% of employees are dissatisfied, and 4% of employees are highly dissatisfied
with the career development.
 Chi-square Analysis:

QUALIT Highly satisfie neutr Highly Tot

Y AGE satisfied d al dissatisfied al
BELOW 0 3 2 2 7
25Yrs
25-35Yrs 0 5 6 1 12
35-45Yrs 1 4 5 0 10
45-55Yrs 1 3 3 0 7
55Yrs Above 2 4 4 0 10
Total 4 19 20 3 46

Hypothesis:

Null hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between the age and the
quality of work life

Alternate hypothesis H1: There is significant difference between the age and the
quality of work life

The observed frequency (O) is the value obtained from the collected data and the
expected frequency (E) is calculated using the equation

Row total of the cell x column total of the cell

E=

Grand total

In the next step the corresponding values of O and E are calculated using the
formula in equation

ψ2 = (O-E) 2

E
 Observed(O) Expected(E) O-E (O-E) 2 (O-E) 2 /E
0 0.61 -0.61 -1.22 -2
0 1.04 -1.04 -2.08 -2
1 0.87 0.13 0.26 0.29885057
1 0.61 0.39 0.78 1.27868852
2 0.87 1.13 2.26 2.59770115
3 2.89 0.11 0.22 0.07612457
5 4.95 0.05 0.1 0.02020202
4 4.13 -0.13 -0.26 -0.062954
3 2.89 0.11 0.22 0.07612457
4 4.13 -0.13 -0.26 -0.062954
2 3.04 -1.04 -2.08 -0.6842105
6 5.22 0.78 1.56 0.29885057
5 4.35 0.65 1.3 0.29885057
3 3.04 -0.04 -0.08 -0.0263158
4 4.35 -0.35 -0.7 -0.1609195
2 0.46 1.54 3.08 6.69565217
1 0.78 0.22 0.44 0.56410256
0 0.65 -0.65 -1.3 -2
0 0.46 -0.46 -0.92 -2
0 0.65 -0.65 -1.3 -2
1.20779344

Result:

Here, the calculated value ψ 2 is 1.2077 and the table value for degree of
freedom is 12 [d.f= (c-1)(r-1) = (5-1)(4-1)] at 5% level of significance is 26.296.

Since Table value> Calculated Value, Null Hypothesis is accepted i.e. There is
no significant difference between the age and the quality of work life.
3.1. FINDINGS

From the study,

✓ 50% of employees are satisfied with the salary package.

✓ 59% of employees are satisfied with the current job.

✓ 41% of employees are satisfied with casual leave with pay.
✓ 39% of employees are satisfied with the medical facilities.
✓ 45% of employees are satisfied with the bonus.
✓ 43.5% of employees are satisfied with the canteen facility.
✓ 44% of employees are satisfied with the ESI & PF.
✓ 50% of employees are satisfied with the healthy and safety working
conditions.
✓ 63% of employees are satisfied with the job security.
✓ 43.5% of employees are satisfied with the promotion policy.
✓ 44% of employees are neutral with quality of work life.
✓ 39% of employees are satisfied with the attention of changes.
✓ 54% of employees are satisfied cordial relationship among employees.
✓ 45% of employees are satisfied with training.
✓ 52% of employees are satisfied with performance appraisal.
✓ 50% of employees are satisfied with grievance redressal.
✓ 59% of employees are highly dissatisfied with reward recognition.

✓ 41% of employees are satisfied with the career development.

✓ 48% of employees are satisfied with the freedom given to the employee for
doing their own work.
✓ From the chi square table there is no significant difference between the age
and the quality of work life.
3.2. SUGGESSTIONS
 Improving more policies and some good entertainment and relaxation programs for

employees.

 Improving good relationship with employees and providing friendly environment in the

organization.

 Making the employees to enjoy the work.

 Establish career development systems

 Help to satisfy the employees esteem needs.

 Gift vouchers for the top performers in the department for giving an innovative idea for
solving problems which is cost saving, time saving and is beneficial to the organization.
3.3. CONCLUTIONS

Social security scheme as well as welfare measures that are undertaken by the
company are appreciable. These measures are not only for the company but also
for the employees through satisfaction levels a company can ascertain whether an
employee has shown his/her best performance on given job.

Welfare measures of the employees should be taken seriously by the top

management to improve the satisfaction level by providing various benefits and
facilities to them.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

● Research Methodology – C.R. Kothari

● Research methodology – Uma Shekaran

● Statistics for Management – Arora

Website Referred:

● www.citehr.edu

● www.google.com
 ANNEXURE

QUESTIONNAIRE

PERSONAL DATA:
Name :

Sex :

Age:
• below 25 yrs • 25-35 yrs • 35-45 yrs • 45-55yrs • Above55 yrs
Educational Qualification :

Marital status :

Department :

Designation :
 Experience: • Less than 5 yrs • 5-10 yrs • 10-15 yrs • 15-20yrs • Above20 yrs

1. Are you satisfied with your salary package?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

2. How far you are satisfied with your current job?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

3. Is the organization providing casual leave with pay?

• Strongly Agree • Agree • Moderate • Disagree • Strongly Disagree

4. What do you feel about the medical facilities provided by the concern?

• Strongly Agree • Agree • Moderate • Disagree • Strongly Disagree

5. Are you satisfied with the bonus provided to you?

• Strongly Agree • Agree • Moderate • Disagree • Strongly Disagree

6. Are you satisfied with your canteen facility?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

7. How far you are satisfied with the ESI and PF given by the organization?

• Strongly Agree • Agree • Moderate • Disagree • Strongly Disagree

8. To what extend you are satisfied with the safety and healthy working conditions?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

9. What do you feel about the job security in your organization?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

10. Are you satisfied with the promotion policies in your organization?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

11. What do you think about the quality of work life in the organization?
 • very good • Good • Ok • Bad • Very bad

12. The company communicates every new change that takes place from time to time.

• Strongly Agree • Agree • Moderate • Disagree • Strongly Disagree

13. To what extend the cordial relationship exist among the employees and superiors?

• Strongly Agree • Agree • Moderate • Disagree • Strongly Disagree

14. How far you are satisfied with the training given by the employer?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

15. Are you satisfied with the training method used in your organization?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

16. How do you find the performance appraisal methods adopted by your management?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

17. Are you satisfied with the Grievance Redressel?

• Highly satisfied • satisfied • Neutral • Dissatisfied • Highly Dissatisfied

18. Are you getting reward as means of recognition?

• YES • NO

19. What is the scope of your career development in the organization?

• Very high • High • Moderate • Low • Very low

20. Do they give freedom to decide how to do your own work?

• Very true • True • Somewhat true • Not too true • Not at all tru