A Study on Quality of Worklife of An

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 1. 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Industrial profile 1.3 Company profile 1.4 Importance of the study 1.5 Needs of the study 1.6 Objectives of the study 1.7 Scope of the study 1.8 Limitations of the study 2.

Review of literature

3.

Research methodology 3.1 Meaning 3.2 Research design 3.3 Data collection 3.4 Sampling design 3.5 Data analysis tools

PAGE.NO. 1 2 6 9 10 11 12 13 14-17 18 19 20 21 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. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

CHAPTER 4.1 Table showing department wise distribution of respondents 4.2 Table showing designation wise distribution of respondents 4.3 Table showing experience wise distribution of respondents 4.4 Table showing income wise distribution of respondents 4.5 Table showing influences of quality of work life on Productivity CHI-SQUARE 4.6.1 Table showing the relationship between experiences of respondents and work stress in the organisation: Observed frequency 4.6.2 Expected frequency 4.6.3 Calculation of Chi-square

PAGE.NO. 27 28 29 30 31

33 34 34-35

ANOVA (One way classification) 4.7.1 Table showing the relationship between the age of respondents in the organisation 4.7.2 ANOVA table

38 41

ANOVA (Two way classification) 4.8.1 Table showing the relationship between the age of respondents and working shifts in the organisation 4.8.2 ANOVA table

44 47

ANOVA (Two way classification) 4.9.1 Table showing the relationship between the experience of respondents and training conducted by the organisation 4.9.2 ANOVA table

52 55

LIST OF CHARTS S.NO.

CHAPTER

PAGE.NO.

1.

4.1 Chart showing department wise distribution of Respondents

27

2.

4.2 Chart showing designation wise distribution of respondents

28

3.

4.3 Chart showing experience wise distribution of Respondents

29

4.

4.4 Chart showing income wise distribution of Respondents

30

5.

4.5 Chart showing influences of quality of work life On productivity and respondents

31

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

1.2 INDUSTRIAL PROFILE:

Heavy engineering division Hydel power division

Cement division THE KCP

KCP technology Limited

KCP Vietnam 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 subsystems 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 jobrelated 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 wellbeing (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 workrelated 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 interrelationship 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 WorkRelated 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 Total number of respondents

2. Chi-square test= ∑ (O-E) 2

×100

E

3. ANOVA= variance between the samples Variance within the samples

×100

26

Table showing Department wise Distribution of Respondents TABLE 4.1

DEPATRTMENT

RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

Foundry

33

22

Fabrication

36

24

Machine shop

51

Quality Services

30

20

TOTAL

150

100

34

Chart showing Department wise Distribution of respondents CHART 4.1 PERCENTAGE 40

34

35 30 25

22

24 20

20 15 10 5 0 Foundry

INFERENCE:

Fabrication

Machine shop

Quality Services

PERCENTAGE

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 16%

Super Skilled 16% Super Skilled Highly Skilled Highly Skilled 19%

Skilled-II 21%

Skilled-I Skilled-II 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 20years TOTAL

RESPONDENTS 36 42 42 30 150

PERCENTAGE 24 28 28 20 100

Chart showing Experience wise distribution of Respondents CHART 4.3 EXPERIENCE 30

PERCENTAGE

28

25

28

24 20

20 15 10 5 0

0 1

2

0 3

4

0 5

6

0 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 5,000-10,000 11,000-15,000 16,000-20,000 >20,000 TOTAL

RESPONDENTS 30 40 38 42 150

PERCENTAGE 20 26.7 25.3 28 100

Chart showing Income Wise distribution of respondents CHART 4.4 PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE 30 25

26.7

25.3

11,00015,000

16,00020,000

28

20

20 15 10 5 0

5,00010,000

>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 5,00010,000.

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 Strongly agree Disagree Strongly disagree TOTAL

42 36 37 35 150

28 24 24.7 23.3 100

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 24.7

24

25

23.3

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

AGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

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

RESPONDENTS AGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

STRONGLY

TOTAL

AGREE

DISAGREE

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

Comfortable with their shifts.

Training program conducted by

14

15

disagree

6

4

39

31

the organisation.

13

13

3

2

15

14

8

4

41

14

12

9

4

39

56

54

26

14

150

Skills & knowledge is matching your experience.

Mutual understanding between superior & subordinates

TOTAL

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 Within

MSW = SSW/N-C

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

AGREE

STRONGLY 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

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

nj

-- C

150

= [(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 (working shifts

C-1 = 4-1

MSC = SSC/C-1

F = MSC/MSE

SSC = 22.25

in the

=3

= 22.25/3

= 7.42/0.25

= 7.42

= 29.68

organisation)

Between rows (age of respondents)

R-1 = 4-1

MSR = SSR/R-1

F = MSR/ MSE

SSR = 13.25 =3

= 13.25/3

= 4.42/0.25

= 4.42

SSE = 20.25

(C-1)(R-1)

ERROR

= 17.68

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

= 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

AGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

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

nj

-C

= [(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 (Training

C-1 = 4-1

MSC = SSC/C-1

F = MSC/MSE

= 324.75/3

= 108.25/1.81

= 108.25

= 59.81

SSC = 324.75

program

=3

conducted by the organisation)

Between rows (Experience of respondents)

R-1 = 4-1

MSR = SSR/R-1

F = MSR/ MSE

SSR = 14.75 =3

= 14.75/3

= 4.75/1.81

= 4.75

= 2.62

(C-1)(R-1) ERROR

SSE = 16.25

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

= 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 c). Diploma

b). Non-ITI d). Others ……………….

8. Experience : a).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 …