A STUDY ON QUALITY OF WORKLIFE OF

EMPLOYEES IN THE KCP LIMITED,

THIRUVOTTIYUR, CHENNAI

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

HEMAVATHY.L.D.

(REG NO: 22109631013)

OF

SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

In partial fulfilment for award of the degree

Of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

IN

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

AUGUST 2010
 DECLARATION:

I, HEMAVATHY.L.D. (REG.NO. 22109631013) is a Bonafide student of

Department of Management studies, SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Chennai here by declare that the
project entitled “A STUDY ON QUALITY OF WORKLIFE OF
EMPLOYEES WITH REFERNCE TO THE KCP LIMITED,
CHENNAI” submitted by myself in partial fulfilment of Master of Business
Administration course of the Anna University is our original work.

Place:

Date: Signature
SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
PARIVAKKAM, POONAMALLEE, CHENNAI-600 056.

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “A STUDY ON QUALITY OF

WORKLIFE OF EMPLOYEES” is the Bonafide work of
“HEMAVATHY.L.D.” who carried out the project work under our
supervision.

Certified further, that to the best of my knowledge the work reported herein
does not form part of any other project or dissertation on the earlier occasion
on this or any other candidate.

Name of the Head of the Department Name of the Superior

Management Studies Management Studies

Internal Examiner External Examiner

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank for his grace that sustained to complete this project work successfully.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to our beloved Prof. A. Kanagaraj,

M.A,M.PHIL, Chairman, Jaya educational Trust, Mrs. K.Vijaya kumari, M.A, B.ED,
Secretary of Jaya Educational trust and Mr. Er. K.Navaraj, Vice Chairman, Jaya
Engineering College.

I express my immense gratitude to our Principal DR.PADMANABHAN, M.E.,

and PH.D for his support and encouragement for the completion of my project.

I acknowledge my sincere thanks and gratitude to our head of the department

Dr. Sivakami MBA., M.Phil., Ph.D., and I would like to express my special thanks to my
faculty guide Ms. S. Deepa Rekha MBA., for their encouragement and continuous
guidance in doing the project successfully.

I sincerely thank to the staff members Department of Management of Srinivasa

Institute of Engineering and Technology for their motivation.

I own the pride to thank Mr. Pavan Kumar Manager, Human Resources and
Services Department and Mr. Bhakyaraj, Personnel officer for giving me an opportunity
to undertake this project in THE KCP Engineering Unit. I am thankful for their
motivation support for having helped me to complete the project.

Finally, I thank my family and friends for their valuable support throughout my
project.

Overall, I render my thanks to the Almighty for his blessings.

 TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER.NO. CONTENT PAGE.NO.

1. 1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Industrial profile 2
1.3 Company profile 6
1.4 Importance of the study 9
1.5 Needs of the study 10
1.6 Objectives of the study 11
1.7 Scope of the study 12
1.8 Limitations of the study 13

2. Review of literature 14-17

3. Research methodology
3.1 Meaning 18
3.2 Research design 19
3.3 Data collection 20
3.4 Sampling design 21
3.5 Data analysis tools 23

4. Data analysis and interpretation 25-58

5. Findings 59-60

6. Suggestions 61

7. Conclusion 62

8. Bibliography 63

9. Annexure
 LIST OF TABLES

S.NO. CHAPTER PAGE.NO.

1. 4.1 Table showing department wise distribution of respondents 27

2. 4.2 Table showing designation wise distribution of respondents 28
3. 4.3 Table showing experience wise distribution of respondents 29
4. 4.4 Table showing income wise distribution of respondents 30
5. 4.5 Table showing influences of quality of work life on
Productivity 31

6. CHI-SQUARE
4.6.1 Table showing the relationship between experiences of
respondents and work stress in the organisation:
Observed frequency 33
4.6.2 Expected frequency 34
4.6.3 Calculation of Chi-square 34-35

7. ANOVA (One way classification)

4.7.1 Table showing the relationship between the age of
respondents in the organisation 38
4.7.2 ANOVA table 41

8. ANOVA (Two way classification)

4.8.1 Table showing the relationship between the age of
respondents and working shifts in the organisation 44
4.8.2 ANOVA table 47

9. ANOVA (Two way classification)

4.9.1 Table showing the relationship between the experience of
respondents and training conducted by the organisation 52
4.9.2 ANOVA table 55
 LIST OF CHARTS

S.NO. CHAPTER PAGE.NO.

1. 4.1 Chart showing department wise distribution of 27

Respondents

2. 4.2 Chart showing designation wise distribution of 28

respondents

3. 4.3 Chart showing experience wise distribution of 29

Respondents

4. 4.4 Chart showing income wise distribution of 30

Respondents

5. 4.5 Chart showing influences of quality of work life 31

On productivity and respondents
 ABSTRACT

A STUDY ON QUALITY OF WORKLIFE OF AN EMPLOYEES in Heavy

Engineering units, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai. This study gives a clear picture about the
Quality of Work Life in the Organization.

The Primary objective of the project is to analyze the quality of work life of
employees.

The study will give a detailed note about the HR&S department in the organization.
There is specific statistical tool which I used to analyze the data that have been collected.

The study will enable the organization and provide effective and beneficial
measures for the development of the organization.

The study is helpful of gaining the practical knowledge about the organization.
CHAPTER-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION :
 An organization is made of four resources namely, Men, Material, Money,
Machinery. The most significant in an organization are the people (men). Human resources
are heterogeneous in the sense, that they differ in personality, perception, emotions, values,
attributes, motives and modes of thoughts. Their behavior to stimuli is often inconsistent
and unpredictable.

“Hackman and Suttle” describes a Quality of Work Life from varied viewpoints.
Such views are

• From the professional view point, it refers to the industrial democracy and
increased workers participation in a corporate decision making.

• From the management point of view, it relates to a variety of efforts to improve

productivity through human, rather than the capital.

DEFINITION OF QWL:

According to J. Lloyd Suttle, defines as “Quality of Work Life is the degree to

which members of a work organization are able to satisfy important personnel needs
through their experiences in the organization”.

MEANING OF QWL:

Quality of Work life is first to identify the employees important needs, their
experience in work environment and satisfy them. Positive result is a Win-Win QWL has
supported number of previous studies, includes reduced absenteeism, lower turnover and
improved job satisfaction. Quality of Work Life balanced and satisfaction of the
organization’s objectives in an effective manner.

1.2 INDUSTRIAL PROFILE:

 Heavy
engineering
division

Hydel
Cement power
division division

THE
KCP
KCP
KCP technology
Vietnam Limited
industries

KCP
biotech
limited

2
 KCP GROUP DIVISIONS

• KCP CEMENT DIVISION:

KCP Cement Division has a state-of-the-art cement manufacturing plant at

Macherla, Andhra Pradesh, South India. Strong emphasis on new technology
characterized all operations at KCP’s Macherla Plant. India’s first dry process kiln
was installed here in 1958 by HUMBOLDT, Germany even while it was still a
prototype in Europe. In the year 1962, KCP installed a second wet process kiln in
collaboration with FIVES LILLIE CAIL, France.

Today, KCP is a 100% modernized Cement Plant with a World Bank

funded outlay of Rs. 367 million incorporates the latest technology such as the
energy-efficient dry process, with a two support KCP also incorporates a
sophisticated centralized process SIEMENS, Germany.

• KCP HEAVY POWER:

When the government of Andhra Pradesh gave private enterprises the

opportunity to generate their own power, KCP rose to the challenges by establishing
mini-hydel KCP developed the most cost effective way to generates power from five
different canal drops. The capacity of four of these power projects is 1.5 megawatts
and fifth is 2.25 megawatts. Construction work for three of these projects is already
completed; the other two projects are nearing completion.

• FIVE CAIL:

FIVES CAIL – A GLOBAL FORCE:

Today the fives cail group has come to literally mean engineering
excellence in the sugar, cement and mineral industries worldwide. Its ISO certified
Sugar Division specifically has been a long standing supplier of equipment and

3
technology to the world sugar industry. Right from design of new equipment, development
of process, automation of plants and modernization or expansion of existing sugar
factories. Fives cail’s expertise covers every conceivable need of the industry

• KCP TECHNOLOGY LIMITED:

KCP Technology Limited was setup in 2000, with a mission to be a globally

preferred offshore IT solutions provider. The services they provide include Software
Development, Auto ID/RFID solution and Engineering Technical Services. They also have
partnerships with global companies like Oracle, IBM and Lumigent

KCP Technologies Limited, an ISO 9001:2008 certified company and a part

of the KCP Group Company was founded in August 2000, with a mission to be a globally
preferred provider of IT solutions. The company’s domain expertise encompasses
Engineering, Manufacturing, cement, sugar, Biotechnology, financial service, Logistics and
education.

• KCP BIOTECH LIMITED:

KCP Biotech Limited is a subsidiary of The KCP Limited, India, a leading

procedure of high performance goods and services in the core businesses – Cement, Heavy
Engineering, Sugar and Hydel power. KCP Biotech Limited marks KCP’s diversification
into biotechnology with its range of natural colors in the food processing industry. The
color of food affects the flavor, appeal and perception of quality. Natural colorants are
extracted from natural herbs, plants and vegetables and are not harmful. KCP Biotech’s
natural colors have the distinctive touch of India, produced from raw material cultivated
through indigenous knowledge systems. The company’s collaboration with the
internationally renowned central food technology Research Institution (CFTRI), India,
ensures product quality.

4
 • KCP HEAVY ENGINEERING:

KCP Heavy Engineering Division setup in 1955 is an integrated

manufacturing facility that caters to a wide range of heavy mechanical equipment and sub-
systems for the core sector industries. KCP Heavy Engineering has significantly
contributed to the development of core sector infrastructure in India, Srilanka, Bangladesh
and Vietnam. The company has made a pioneering contribution in the modernizing and
expansion of the cement and sugar industries in India by providing high quality import
substitutions equipment. The Heavy Engineering Division of “THE KCP LIMITED”,
established in 1955, is a sprawling, Hi-tech complex that can roll out the entire range of
heavy mechanical equipment for the core sector industries. This complex is one of the
largest, well-integrated workshops of its kind and has facilities forecasting, fabricating and
machining heavy equipment.

KCP has a marked presence in the supply of key machinery to the core
sector industries. They are:

• Casting.

• Machining.

• Fabrication.

• Cement Plant Machinery.

• Sugar Plant Machinery.

• Steel Plant Machinery.

• Power Plant Machinery.

• General Engineering Machinery.

• Process Industry Equipment.

5
 1.3 COMPANY PROFILE:

The Krishna Construction Private (The KCP) Limited:

• The KCP Limited was started in 1941. The founder of The KCP Limited was
“Sri.V.Ramakrishna”.

• An 800 TCP sugar plant was setup at vuyyuru (Andhra Pradesh).

• In 1955, KCP Heavy Engineering Division Plant-I, setup at Thiruvottiyur.

• In consisting of an integrated manufacturing facility, which caters to a wide range

of Heavy Mechanical Equipment and sub-system for core sector industries.

• Over 2000 employees in KCP groups. It is undertaken by Private Sector.

• The chairman and managing director is Dr.V.L.Dutt and joint managing director is
Mrs. V.L. Indira Dutt.

• Under their leadership, KCP have grown from strength to strength into a Rs. 150
crore ($50 million) company.

MAJOR CUSTOMERS:

The major customers of The KCP Limited are L&T, ABB, Gujarat Ambuja Cement
Limited (GACL), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), ALSTOM, Defense
Research and Development Laboratories (DRDL), Vizag Steel Plant, Essar Steel Plant
etc.

6
AWARD:

• ISO 9001 is a standard.

• ISO 9001:2008.

• Now preparing records and documents, for getting an approval from ISO
18001.

TURNOVER OF THE YEAR 2009-2010:

Turnover of this year is Rs. 150 crore.

DEPARTMENTS OF THE KCP ENGINEERING UNIT:

The various departments at the KCP are 19 in number. The number of staff
members at KCP is around 250 and the total numbers of workers are over 750. The
various departments at KCP are:

• Design.

• Human Resources and Services.

• Marketing.

• Production Planning and Control.

• Procurement.

• Industrial Engineering.

• Management System.

• Finance.

• Computer Services.
 7

• Foundry.

• Fabrication.

• Machine shop.

• Maintenance services – Civil.50

• Maintenance services – Electrical.

• Maintenance service – Mechanical.

• Quality services.

• Stores.

• Vendor development.

• Logistics.
 8

1.4 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY:

• The effectiveness of organization and the views are to participate in the

organizational problems and solving and decision-making.

• More positive feelings towards one’s self and one’s job.

• Improvement in the physical and psychological health.

• Decreased absenteeism and turnover and fewer accidents.

• Higher quality and quantity of output of goods and services.

• Improved communication leads to improved labor management communication.

• The management assesses the employee satisfaction level.

• The organization believes that by providing a good Quality of Work Life, the
employees feel more balanced.
 9

1.5 NEEDS OF THE STUDY:

In recent times, KCP management identified many deviations between estimated

time and actual time of dispatch of job orders. The management had to assess the quality of
work life led by the employees and find out the satisfaction level regarding significant
variables of quality of work life.
 10

1.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

• To analyze the Quality if Work Life of the employees.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:

• To study the present level of satisfaction among the workers and staff.

• To find the relationship between the variables influencing quality of work life.

• To find the perception of the employees among superior and subordinates

relationship.

• To analyze the job involvement of the employees.

 11

1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The scope of this study is to find the Quality of Work Life satisfaction level in the
working environment of the employees and to increase the personnel needs.
 12

1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

• Even though the survey was conducted among the employees of the KCP Limited,
it may not reflect the real opinion of the employees.

• Interaction with the employees was very limited because of their busy work
schedule.

• The samples may give opinion differently at different times because of their
psychological temperament. This will affect the survey.
 13

CHAPTER-2
 REVIEW OF LITERARURE:

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 individuals experience in the workplace

often appear to be set aside in an endeavour 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 work 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.
 14

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.

Definition:

Mirvis and Lawler (1984)(8) suggested that Quality of working life was associated
with satisfaction with wages, hours and working conditions, describing the “basic elements
of a good quality of work life” as; safe work environment, equitable wages, equal
employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement.

Measurement:

There are few recognised measures of quality of working life, and of those that
exist few have evidence of validity and reliability, that is, there is a very limited literature
based on peer reviewed evaluations of available assessments. A recent statistical analysis
 15

of a new measure, the Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL)(18), indicates that this
assessment device should prove to be a useful instrument, although further evaluation
would be useful. The WRQoWLS measure uses 6 core factors to explain most of the
variation in an individuals quality of working life: Job and Career Satisfaction; Working
Conditions; General Well-Being; Home-Work Interface; Stress at Work and Control at
Work.

The Job & Career Satisfaction Job and Career satisfaction (JCS)scale of the Work-
Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL) is said to reflect an employee’s feelings about, or
evaluation of, their satisfaction or contentment with their job and career and the training
they receive to do it. Within the WRQoL measure, JCS is reflected by questions asking
how satisfied people feel about their work. It has been proposed that this Positive Job
Satisfaction factor is influenced by various issues including clarity of goals and role
ambiguity, appraisal, recognition and reward, personal development career benefits and
enhancement and training needs.

The General well-being (GWB) scale of the Work-Related Quality of Life scale
(WRQoL) (18) aims to assess the extent to which an individual feels good or content in
themselves, in a way which may be independent of their work situation. It is suggested that
general well-being both influences, and is influenced by work. Mental health problems,
predominantly depression and anxiety disorders, are common, and may have a major
impact on the general well-being of the population. The WRQoL GWB factor assesses
issues of mood, depression and anxiety, life satisfaction, general quality of life, optimism
and happiness.

The WRQoL Stress at Work sub-scale (SAW) reflects the extent to which an
individual perceives they have excessive pressures, and feel stressed at work. The WRQoL
SAW factor is assessed through items dealing with demand and perception of stress and
actual demand overload. Whilst it is possible to be pressured at work and not be stressed at
work, in general, high stress is associated with high pressure.
 16

The Control at Work (CAW) subscale of the WRQoL scale addresses how much
employees feel they can control their work through the freedom to express their opinions
and being involved in decisions at work. Perceived control at work as measured by the
Work-Related Quality of Life scale (WRQoL)(18)is recognized as a central concept in the
understanding of relationships between stressful experiences, behaviour and health. Control
at work, within the theoretical model underpinning the WRQoL, is influenced by issues of
communication at work, decision making and decision control.

The WRQoL Home-Work Interface scale (HWI) measures the extent to which an
employer is perceived to support the family and home life of employees. This factor
explores the interrelationship between home and work life domains. Issues that appear to
influence employee HWI include adequate facilities at work, flexible working hours and
the understanding of managers.

The Working Conditions scale of the WRQoL assesses the extent to which the
employee is satisfied with the fundamental resources, working conditions and security
necessary to do their job effectively. Physical working conditions influence employee
health and safety and thus employee Quality of working life. This scale also taps into
satisfaction with the resources provided to help people do their jobs.
 17

CHAPTER-3
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

3.1 MEANING:

Research Methodology is the backbone of the project work. It includes Research

design, Data collection, Sampling design and Data analysis tools are used for studying the
problem.

18
 3.2 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. In fact, the research design is the conceptual structure
within which research is conducted; it constitutes the blueprint for the collection,
measurement and analysis of data. The research design of the analysis has been
drawn from the needs of the study, objectives of the study, collection of data,
statistical tools and limitations of the study.

• DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH:

This study is concerned with describing the characteristics group or an

identified population. It is aimed at studying the Quality of Work Life of Employees
in the KCP Limited, and hence it is a descriptive research. The opinion from the
employees was elicited through separate questionnaire and schedule method. A
relevant statistical tool was applied at the appropriate place to analyze and interpret
the data and to draw useful inference.

19
 3.3 DATA COLLECTION:

Data are the input to any decision-making process in a business. The

processing of data gives statistics of the study. As stated earlier, data can be classified
into two types namely, Primary data and Secondary data.

• PRIMARY DATA:

The primary data are those, which are collected a fresh and for the first time
and thus happen to be original in character.

• SECONDARY DATA:

The secondary data constitute the chief material on the basis of which
statistical work is carried out. Secondary data was collected from various sources as
books and websites.

• DATA COLLECTIONS THROUGH QUESTIONNAIRES:

In this method, a questionnaire is provided to the employees concerned with

a request to answer the questions along with their feedback. The questionnaire
consists of three parts namely, Demographic details, Quality of Work Life of an
Employees and Suggestions are printed in a definite set of forms.
 20

3.4 SAMPLING DESIGN:

A sample design is a definite plan for obtaining a sample from a given

population. It refers to the techniques or a procedure, where the researcher would
adopt in selecting items for the sample.

• SAMPLE UNIT:

The sampling units were the workforce of various designations i.e., it

includes both workers and staff at the KCP Limited.

• SAMPLING SIZE:

The sample size consists of 150 employees.

• SAMPLING TECHNIQUES:

Sampling is done to collect samples. The sampling techniques are used for
large numbers. The sampling technique used in this study is Convenience Sampling
under non-probability sampling.

In Convenience Sampling the samples from population are chosen

primarily based on convenience of the research.

• CONVENIENCE RANDOM SAMPLING:

This is a Non-Probability Sampling method in which the interviewers will

decide the choice of sampling units based on their convenience.

In most of the situations, the following may be reasons:

• The sampling units may be distributed sparely.

• Many respondents will refuse to fill the questionnaires.

• Some respondents will not cooperate in filling the questionnaires.

 21

• Some of the interviewers may not be serious in selecting the sampling

units as per the assumed sampling plan.

• Total population: 820.

• Sample size: 150.

• Sampling method: convenience sampling method.

 22

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS:

The various statistical techniques such as Bar charts have been employed
in making the results of the study more pictorial and easy to understand. The
following statistical tools were applied in order to validate the result of the study.

• PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS.

• CHI-SQUARE TEST.

• ANOVA.

• PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS:

Percentage method is used to find out the number of respondents opted for
one particular option. It is used to make comparison between two or more set of data
and to describes the relations between variables and, is also used to compare the
relative term.

• CHI-SQUARE TEST (Ψ2):

The chi-square test is one of the simplest and most widely used non-
parametric tests in statistic works. The symbols Ψ2 is a Greek letter chi. The Ψ2 test
was first used by Karl-Pearson, the quantity Ψ2 describes the magnitude of the
discrepancy between theory and observation.
 23

• ANOVA:

Analysis of variances (ANOVA) is a method which separates the variation

ascribable to one set of causes from the variation ascribable to other set.

 ANALYTICAL TOOLS:

Rating scale is used for the questionnaires and given to the employees. The Bar
charts are drawn for an easy observing.
 24

CHAPTER-4
 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:

Data analysis and interpretation refers to the tasks of drawing inferences from
the collected facts after an analytical and experimental study. Interpretation is the
device through which the factor explains what have been observed by researcher in
the course of the study. Interpretation is essential for a simple reason that the
usefulness and utility of research finding lie in proper interpretation.

It is through interpretation the researcher can understand the abstract

principle that works beneath his findings. Interpretation leads to the establishment of
explanatory concepts that can serve as a guide for future research studies.

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the sample, data
collected from questionnaires, which were issued, to a sample of 150 employees.

The company follows a particular system regarding quality of work life of

employees in order to assess the present satisfaction level among the workers and
staff. The effectiveness of this system can be ascertained by analyzing the responses
given to the questionnaires.

The analysis is done based on the sample data, which has been reflected in
various tables, which helps to draw conclusions whether the measures followed by
the organization to improve the Quality of Work Life of an Employees, are effective.
 25

•FORMULA FOR CALCULATING STATISTICAL TOOLS:

1. Percentage analysis = number of respondents ×100

Total number of respondents

2. Chi-square test= ∑ (O-E) 2 ×100

3. ANOVA= variance between the samples

Variance within the samples

 26

Table showing Department wise Distribution of Respondents

TABLE 4.1

DEPATRTMENT RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

Foundry 33 22

Fabrication 36 24

Machine shop 51 34

Quality Services 30 20

TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Department wise Distribution of respondents

CHART 4.1

PERCENTAGE

40
34
35
30
24
25 22
20
20 PERCENTAGE
15
10
5
0
Foundry Fabrication Machine shop Quality Services

INFERENCE:
 Is the inference from the above statistic analysis that 34% of the respondents are
workers, employed in the Machine Shop which is the highest percentage. 20% of the
respondents are workers, employed in Fabrication Department.

27

Table showing Designation wise Distribution of respondents

TABLE 4.2

DESGINGNATION RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

Super Skilled 24 16

Highly Skilled 28 18.7

Skilled-I 42 28

Skilled-II 32 21.3

Semi-Skilled 24 16

TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Designation wise Distribution of Respondents

CHART 4.2
RESPONDENTS

Semi-Skilled Super Skilled

16% 16%
Super Skilled
Highly Skilled
Skilled-I
Skilled-II Highly Skilled
Skilled-II
21% 19%
Semi-Skilled
Skilled-I
28%

INFERENCE:
It is inferred from the above statistic analysis that 28% of the respondents come
under the Skilled-I. 16% of the respondents come under the Super Skilled and Semi-Skilled
designation.
 28
Table showing Experience wise distribution of Respondents
TABLE 4.3
EXPERIENCE RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE
<5years 36 24
5-10years 42 28
11-15years 42 28
>20years 30 20
TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Experience wise distribution of Respondents

CHART 4.3
EXPERIENCE PERCENTAGE

30
28 28
25 24

20 20

15

10

5
0 0 0 0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

INFERENCE:
It is inferred the above statistic analysis that 28% of the respondents are worked up
to 5-10 years and 11-15 years of experience. 24% of the respondents are worked less than 5
years of experiences.

29
 Table showing Income Wise distribution of respondents
TABLE 4.4
INCOME RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE
5,000-10,000 30 20
11,000-15,000 40 26.7
16,000-20,000 38 25.3
>20,000 42 28
TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Income Wise distribution of respondents

CHART 4.4

PERCENTAGE

PERCENTAGE

30 28
26.7 25.3
25
20
20
15
10
5
0
5,000- 11,000- 16,000- >20,000
10,000 15,000 20,000

INFERENCE:
It is inferred from the above statistic analysis that 28% of the respondents are
getting income more than 20,000. 20% of respondents are getting income up to 5,000-
10,000.

30
Table showing Influences of Quality of work life on productivity and
Respondents
 TABLE 4.5
INFLUENCES OF
QUALITY OF WORK RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE
LIFE
Agree 42 28
Strongly agree 36 24
Disagree 37 24.7
Strongly disagree 35 23.3
TOTAL 150 100

Chart showing Influences of Quality of Work Life on Productivity and

Respondents
CHART 4.5
INFLUENCES OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE PERCENTAGE

INFLUENCES OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE PERCENTAGE

30 28
24 24.7 23.3
25
20
15
10
5
0

INFERENCE:
It is inferred from the above statistic analysis that 28% of the respondents are
affected on quality of work life is agreed. 23.33% of the respondents are strongly disagreed
with their QWL affected the productivity.
31
CHI-SQUARE TEST

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS AND

WORKSTRESS IN THE ORGANISATION
AIM:
To test whether there is a relationship between the Experience of respondents and
Work stress in the organisation.

NULL HYPOTHESIS: (H0)

There is no significant relationship between the Experiences of respondents and
Work stress in the organisation.

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: (H1)

There is a significant relationship between the Experiences of respondents and
Work stress in the organisation.

32
Table showing the relationship between Experience of respondents and
Work stress in the organisation

Table 4.6.1
 OBSERVED FREQUENCY:

EXPERIENCE OF WORK STRESS IN THE ORGANISATION

RESPONDENTS TOTAL
AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE

<5years 8 10 12 12 42

5-10 years 14 11 7 9 41

11-20 years 8 11 11 8 38

>20 years 10 6 6 7 29

TOTAL 40 38 36 36 150

33
Table 4.6.2

EXPECTED FREQUENCY:

EXPERIENCE OF WORK STRESS IN THE ORGANISATION TOTAL

RESPONDENTS
AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY
 AGREE DISAGREE

<5years 11.2 10.64 10.08 10.08 42

5-10 years 10.93 10.39 9.84 9.84 41

11-20 years 10.67 9.63 9.60 9.60 38

>20 years 7.20 7.35 6.48 6.48 29

TOTAL 40 38 36 36 150

Table 4.6.3

CALCULATION OF CHI-SQUARE:

O E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E

8 11.2 10.24 0.91

14 10.93 9.42 0.86

8 10.67 7.2 0.67

10 7.2 7.84 1.09

10 10.64 0.41 0.04

11 10.39 0.37 0.04

11 9.63 1.88 0.19

6 7.35 1.82 0.25

 12 10.08 3.69 0.37

7 9.84 8.07 0.82

11 9.6 1.96 0.2

6 6.48 0.23 0.04

12 10.08 3.69 0.37

9 9.84 0.71 0.07

8 9.6 2.56 0.27

7 6.48 0.27 0.04

TOTAL 6.23
35

Degree of freedom= (r-1) (c-1)

= (4-1) (4-1)

= 9.

Table value @ 5% Level of significance with Degree of freedom of 9.

Ψ²0.05 = 16.919.

RESULT:
The calculated Ψ² value is 6.23 is less than the table value is 16.919

Calculated value < Tabulated value.

6.23 < 16.919

.·. H0 is accepted.

INFERENCE:

There is no significant relationship between the Experiences of respondents

and Work stress in the organisation.

36

Analysis of Variances (ANOVA):

ONE WAY CLASSIFICATION:

AIM:
To test whether there is a significance difference in their performance in the
organisation.

NULL HYPOTHESIS:

There is no significant difference of their performance in the organisation.

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS:
 There is a significant difference of their performance in the organisation.

37
Table showing the difference of their performance in the organisation:
TABLE 4.7.1

PERFORMANCE IN THE OPINION OF RESPONDENTS

ORGANISATION TOTAL
Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly
Agree disagree

Comfortable with their shifts. 14 15 6 4 39

Training program conducted by 31

the organisation. 13 13 3 2

Skills & knowledge is matching

your experience. 15 14 8 4 41

Mutual understanding between

superior & subordinates 14 12 9 4 39

TOTAL 56 54 26 14 150

38
N=16

T= ∑Xi1+…..+∑Xin

= 56+54+26+14

T = 150

Calculation of correction factor:

C = T²/N

= 150/16

C = 1406.25
Calculation of Total Sum of Squares (SST):

SST = ∑∑Xij – C

= [(14² +13² +15² +14²) + (15²+13²+14²+12²) + (6²+3²+8²+9²) +

(4²+2²+4²+4²)] – 1406.25

= (786+734+190+52) – 1406.25

SST = 355.75

39
Calculation of Sum of Squares Between Samples (SSB):

SSB = ∑ (∑Xij) ² - C

Nij

= [(56²/4) + (54²/4) + (26²/4) + (14²/4)] – 1406.25

= (784 + 729 + 169 + 49) – 1406.25

SSB = 324.75

Calculation of Sum of Squares Within samples (SSW):

 SSW = SST – SSB

= 355.75 – 324.75

SSW = 31.00

40
Table 4.7.2

ANOVA TABLE:

SOURCES OF SUM OF DEGREE OF MEAN SUM OF VARIANCE

VARIANCE SQUARES FREEDOM SQUARE RATIO

C-1 = 4-1 MSB = SSB/C-1 F = MSB/MSW

Between
samples SSB = 324.75 =3 = 324.75/3 = 108.25/2.583

= 108.25 = 41.91
 N-C = 16-4 MSW = SSW/N-C
Within SSW = 31.00
samples = 12 = 31.00/3

= 2.583

Level of Significance = 1%

α = 0.01
41
Degree of freedom = V1 = 3; V2 = 12

Critical value = Fα (V2, V1)

= F0.01 (12, 3)

Fα = 5.95

Decision:

|F| = 41.91; |Fα| = 5.95

|F| > |Fα|

41.91>5.95

.·. H0 is rejected.
RESULT:

.·. H1 is accepted.

INFERENCE:

Hence, there is a significance difference of their performance, in the organisation.

42
TWO WAY CLASSIFICATIONS:

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE OF RESPONDENTS AND

WORKING SHIFTS:
AIM:

To test whether there is a relationship between the Age of respondents and Working
shifts.

NULL HYPOTHESIS:

There is no significant relationship between the Age of respondents and Working

shifts in the organisation.

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS:
 There is a significant relationship between the Age of respondents and Working
shifts in the organisation

43
Table showing the Relationship between the Age of respondents and
Working Shifts in the organisation:

TABLE 4.8.1

AGE OF WORKING SHIFTS IN THE ORGANISATION TOTAL

RESPONDENTS
AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE

25-35 8 9 10 8 35

36-45 10 8 13 9 40

46-50 9 11 11 11 42

>50 7 5 11 10 33
TOTAL 34 33 45 38 150

Correction factor = C= T²/ N

= (150)²/16

= 1406.25

44
Calculation of Total Sum of Squares: (SST):

SST = ∑∑xij²- C

= [(8²+10²+9²+7²) + (9²+8²+11²+5²) + (10²+13²+11²+11²) + (8²+9²+11²+10²)] –

1406.25

= [294+291+511+366] – 1406.25

SST= 55.75

Calculation of Sum of Square Between Column: (SSC):

SSC = ∑ (∑Xi) ²

j -- C

nj
 = [(34)²/4 + (33)²/4 + (45)²/4 + (38)²/4] – 1406.25

= [289 + 272.25 + 506.25 + 361] – 1406.25

= 1428.5 – 1406.25

SSC = 22.25

45
Calculation of Sum of Square Between Rows: (SSR):

SSR = [(35)²/4 + (40)²/4 + (42)²/4 + (33)²/4] – 1406.25

= [306.25+400+441+272.25] – 1406.25

= 1419.5 – 1406.25

SSR = 13.25

Calculation of Sum of Square Between Error: (SSE):

SSE = SST – SSC – SSR

= 55.75 – 22.25 – 13.25

SSE = 20.25
 46
Table 4.8.2
ANOVA TABLE:

SOURCES OF SUM OF DEGREE OF MEAN SUM OF VARIANCE

VARIANCE SQUARES FREEDOM SQUARE RATIO

Between
column C-1 = 4-1 MSC = SSC/C-1 F = MSC/MSE
(working shifts SSC = 22.25
in the =3 = 22.25/3 = 7.42/0.25
organisation)
= 7.42 = 29.68

Between rows R-1 = 4-1 MSR = SSR/R-1 F = MSR/ MSE

(age of SSR = 13.25
respondents) =3 = 13.25/3 = 4.42/0.25
 = 4.42 = 17.68

SSE = 20.25 (C-1)(R-1) MSE = SSE/(C-1)(R-1)

ERROR = 3(3) = 20.25/9

=9 = 0.35

47

The level of significant = 5%

α = 0.05

(i). Degree of Freedom = V1 = C-1; V2 =(C-1) (R-1)

= 3; 9

Critical value = Fα (V2, V1)

= F0.01 (9, 3)

Fα = 3.86

|F| = 29.68. The table value of F for 3, 9 Degree of Freedom at 5% level of significance

is 3.86
Decision:

|F| = 29.68; |Fα| = 3.86

|F| > |Fα|

29.68 > 3.86

.·. H0 is rejected.
48

RESULT:

.·. H1 is accepted.

INFERENCE:

Hence, there is a significant relationship between the age of respondents and

Working shifts in the organisation.

(ii). |F| = 17.68

Level of significant = α = 5%

= 0.05

Degree of Freedom = V1 = R-1; V2 =(C-1) (R-1)

= 3; 9
|F| = 17.68. The table value of F for 3, 9 Degree of Freedom at 5% Level of significant

is 3.86

49
Decision:

|F| = 17.68; |Fα| = 3.86

|F| > |Fα|

17.68 > 3.86

.·. H0 is rejected.

RESULT:

.·. H1 is accepted.

INFERENCE:

Hence, there is a relationship between the age of respondents and working shifts

in the organisation.
 50

TWO WAY CLASSIFICATIONS:

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIENCE OF

RESPONDENTS AND TRAINING PROGRAM CONDUCTED
BY THE ORGANISATION

AIM:

To test whether there is a significant relationship between the Experiences of

Respondents and Training program conducted by the organisation.

NULL HYPOTHESIS:

There is no significant relationship between the Experience of respondents and

Training program conducted by the organisation.
 ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS:

There is a significant relationship between the Experience of respondents and

Training program conducted by the organisation

51
Table showing the relationship between the Experiences of respondents
and Training program conducted by the organisation

TABLE 4.9.1

TRAINING PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY THE

EXPERIENCE OF ORGANISATION
RESPONDENTS TOTAL
AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE

<5years 15 14 8 4 41

5-10 years 14 15 6 4 39

11-20 years 14 12 9 4 39

>20 years 13 13 3 2 29

TOTAL 56 54 26 14 150
Correction factor = C = T²/N

= (150)²/16

C= 1406.25

52
Calculation of Total Sum of Squares (SST):

SST = ∑∑Xij – C

= [(15²+14²+14²+13²) + (14²+15²+12²+13²) + (8²+6²+9²+3²) + (4²+4²+4²+2²)] –

1406.25

= (786+734+190+52) – 1406.25

= 1762 – 1406.25

SST = 355.75

Calculation of Sum of Squares Between Rows (SSR):

SSR = ∑ (∑Xi) ²

j -C

nj
 = [(41)²/4 + (39)²/4 + (39)²/4 + (31)²/4] – 1406.25

= (420.25+380.25+380.35+240.25) – 1406.25

= 1421 – 1406.25

SSR = 14.75

53
Calculation of Sum of Squares Between Column (SSC):

SSC = [(56)²/4 + (54)²/4 + (26)²/4 + (14)²/4] – 1406.25

= (784+729+169+49) – 1406.25

= 1731 – 1406.25

SSC = 324.75

Calculation of total Sum of Squares Between Error (SSE):

SSE = SSC – SSR

= 355.75 – 324.75 – 14.75

SSE = 16.25
 54
Table 4.9.2
ANOVA TABLE:

SOURCES OF SUM OF DEGREE OF MEAN SUM OF VARIANCE

VARIANCE SQUARES FREEDOM SQUARE RATIO

Between
column C-1 = 4-1 MSC = SSC/C-1 F = MSC/MSE
(Training SSC = 324.75
program =3 = 324.75/3 = 108.25/1.81
conducted
by the = 108.25 = 59.81
organisation)

Between rows R-1 = 4-1 MSR = SSR/R-1 F = MSR/ MSE

(Experience of SSR = 14.75
respondents) =3 = 14.75/3 = 4.75/1.81

= 4.75 = 2.62
 (C-1)(R-1) MSE = SSE/(C-1)(R-1)

ERROR SSE = 16.25 = 3(3) = 16.25/9

=9 = 1.81

55
The level of significance = 5%

α = 0.05

(i). Degree of Freedom = V1 = C-1; V2 =(C-1) (R-1)

= 3; 9

Critical value = Fα (V2, V1)

= F0.01 (9, 3)

Fα = 3.86

|F| = 59.81. The table value of F for 3, 9 degree of freedom at 5% level of

Significance is 3.86

Decision:
|F| = 59.81; |Fα| = 3.86

|F| > |Fα|

59.81 > 3.86

56

RESULT:

.·. H0 is rejected.

INFERENCE:

There is a significant relationship between the Experience of respondents and

Training conducted by the organisation.

(ii). Degree of Freedom = V1 = C-1; V2 =(C-1) (R-1)

= 3; 9

Critical value = Fα (V2, V1)

= F0.01 (9, 3)

Fα = 3.86
|F| = 2.62. The table value of F for 3, 9 degree of freedom at 5% level of

Significance is 3.86

57
Decision:

|F| = 2.62; |Fα| = 3.86

|F| > |Fα|

2.62 > 3.86

RESULT:

.·. H0 is accepted.

INFERENCE:

There is a significant relationship between the Experience of respondents and

Training conducted by the organisation.

 58

CHAPTER-5
 FINDINGS:

• Majority of the respondents (30.67%) from the age group of 36-46 years.
• The male population is nearly twice (84%) as that of female population.
• Most of the respondents form the Diploma qualification is 41%.
• 58% of the respondents from the 11-20 years of Experience.
• Most of the respondents are from the Income level is more than 15,000 is 48%.
• 49% of the respondents are strongly agreed with the peer groups are friendly and
cooperative.
• 56% of them agreed that, there is a mutual understanding between the departments.
• 53% of the workers are satisfied with their working condition.
• 39% of the workers are dissatisfied with their quality of work life will not affect
their family.
• 35% of them are strongly agreed with a mutual understanding between superior and
subordinates.
• Majority of respondents 24% of them disagreed with their work stress in the
organisation.
• 31.67% of the respondents are agreed with the suggestions considered by their
superior.
• 47.34% of them agreed with their comfortable with their working shifts.
• 62% of the respondents are agreed with the training program conducted by the
organisation.
• Strongly agreed (66%) of the respondents are the superior is adjustable with
subordinates.
• 36% of the respondents are agreed that there is a influences the productivity in
quality of work life.

59

• 57% of the respondents are agreed that the superior encourages them for a job done
well.
• 42% of the respondents of them strongly agreed that their level of skills &
knowledge is matching their experience.

• 53% of the respondents are agreed that, there colleagues guiding them during
working hours.
• 52% of them agreed that their role is well defined.
• 33% are the most of the respondents agreed that the organisation is following the
safety regulation.
• 55% of them strongly agreed with the reward policy provided by the organisation
while they perform well.
• 32% are the most of the respondents agreed that, they treat their work as a
challenge.
• 46% of them strongly agreed that, they are satisfied with their work.
• 42% of them gave suggestions regarding quality of work life.
 60

CHAPTER-6
 SUGESSTION:

• An effective management program should be conducted to improve the quality of work

life.

• Still the should be improvement in the coordination between superior and subordinates.

• The mutual understanding between the workers and the staff should be increased.

• The job involvement of an employees is satisfied by them and also satisfied with there
wages.
 61

CHAPTER-7
 CONCLUSION:

The key factor in the success of extension organizations is improving their human
resources. This will help extension managers improve their human resource system. The
proper planning and implementation of the human resource system will result in overall
development of extension personnel. This will also enable extension organizations to adapt
to the rapid changes occurring in the extension environment of developing countries.
 62

CHAPTER-8
 BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BOOKS:

• P. Subba Roa; “PERSONNEL & HRM”; Himalaya publishing house;

Edition-2007.

• R.S. Dwivedi; “HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT”; UBS publishers

distributors private limited; (2007).

• C.R. Kothari; “RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, METHODS & TECHNIQUES”;

New age international publishers; (2008).

• R. Panneer selvam; “RESEARCH METHODOLOGY”; Prentice-hall of

Delhi(PHD) private limited; Edition-2007.

• P.N. Arora, S. Arora; “STATISTICS FOR MANAGEMENT”; S.Chand; Third

revised edition 2008.

WEBSITES:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_working_life
• http://www.kcp.co.in/Html/heavy_engineering.html

• http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5830e/w5830e0g.html

63

CHAPTER-9
 ANNEXURE

QUESTIONNAIRE ON QUALITY OF WORK LIFE OF

EMPLOYEES
Dear Sir,

I am Hemavathy.L.D. doing my MBA in Srinivasa Institute of Engineering

and Technology, Parivakkam, Chennai. I am doing this survey as a part of my
Curriculum and I promise you that, your name will not be mentioned at any instance.

1. Name :

2. Employee No. :

3. Designation :

4. Department :

5. Age :

a). 25-35 b). 36-45

 c). 46-50 d). >50

6. Gender :

a). Male b). Female

7. Qualification :

a). ITI b). Non-ITI

c). Diploma d). Others ……………….

8. Experience :

a).<5years b). 5-10years

c). 11-20years d). >21years

9. Monthly income :

a). 5,000-10,000 b). 11,000-15,000

c). 15,000-20,000 d). >20,000

10. Is your peer group friendly and cooperative?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

11. Do you agree that there is a mutual understanding between the departments?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

12. Do you satisfied with your working conditions?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

13. Does the quality of work life affect your family?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

14. Do you have a mutual understanding between you & superior?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

15. Do you find the work is stressful?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

16. Are your suggestions considered by your superior?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

17. Are you comfortable with your shifts?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

18. Do the training program conducted by the organization helped you to perform the
work effectively?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

19. Do you find the superior is adjustable with you?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

20. Do you agree that quality of worklife affect the productivity?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

21. Does your superior encourage you for a job done well?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

22. The level of your skill & knowledge is matching your experience?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

23. Are your colleagues guiding you during working hours?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

24. Is your role is well defined?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

25. Are you satisfied with your canteen facilities?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

26. Does the organization follow safety regulation?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagree

27. Is there any reward policy for your performance?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

28. Do you take / treat your work as a challenge?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

29. Are you satisfied with your work?

a). Agreed b). Strongly agreed

c). Disagreed d). Strongly disagreed

30. Give your suggestions to improve the quality of work life …