QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE: PARAMETERS AND EVALUATION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

KLEIN, LEANDER L.; PEREIRA, BRENO A. D.; LEMOS, RICARDO B.

doi:10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG190134

LEANDER L. KLEIN Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leander L. Klein, Avenida Independência, 3751, Room 101 - Professor’s building, Vista Alegre, Palmeira das Missões, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, CEP: 98300-000. E-mail: kleander88@gmail.com

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), Palmeira das Missões, RS, Brazil.

Leander L. Klein, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas (PPGOP), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Breno A. D. Pereira, Management, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS); & Ricardo B. Lemos, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM). Leander L. Klein is now Professor of Management at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Breno A. D. Pereira is now Teacher of Management at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Ricardo B. Lemos is now Administrator in Coordination of promotion of extension actions at Universidade Federal do Pampa (Unipampa).

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6075-6107

BRENO A. D. PEREIRA

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, RS, Brazil.

Leander L. Klein, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas (PPGOP), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Breno A. D. Pereira, Management, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS); & Ricardo B. Lemos, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM). Leander L. Klein is now Professor of Management at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Breno A. D. Pereira is now Teacher of Management at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Ricardo B. Lemos is now Administrator in Coordination of promotion of extension actions at Universidade Federal do Pampa (Unipampa).

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7387-5033

RICARDO B. LEMOS

Universidade Federal do Pampa (Unipampa), Bagé, RS, Brazil.

Leander L. Klein, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas (PPGOP), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Breno A. D. Pereira, Management, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS); & Ricardo B. Lemos, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM). Leander L. Klein is now Professor of Management at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Breno A. D. Pereira is now Teacher of Management at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Ricardo B. Lemos is now Administrator in Coordination of promotion of extension actions at Universidade Federal do Pampa (Unipampa).

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9804-2134

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leander L. Klein, Avenida Independência, 3751, Room 101 - Professor’s building, Vista Alegre, Palmeira das Missões, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, CEP: 98300-000. E-mail: kleander88@gmail.com

Leander L. Klein, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas (PPGOP), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Breno A. D. Pereira, Management, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS); & Ricardo B. Lemos, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM).

Leander L. Klein is now Professor of Management at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Breno A. D. Pereira is now Teacher of Management at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM); Ricardo B. Lemos is now Administrator in Coordination of promotion of extension actions at Universidade Federal do Pampa (Unipampa).

Authors	Bases and understanding of QWL	Emphasis
Walton (1973)Walton, R. (1973). Quality of work life: What is it? Sloan Management Review, 15(1), 11-21.	Meeting needs and human aspirations, based on the idea of humanization and social responsibility of the company.	Humanization and social responsibility, focusing on the power of the company.
Hackman and Suttle (1977)Hackman, J. R., & Suttle, J. L. (1977). Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to organizational change. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.	Describes how much people in the organization are able to meet their personal needs considered important through their work and life experiences in the organization.	Basic dimensions of the tasks.
Lippitt (1978)Lippitt, G. L. (1978). Quality of work life: Organization renewal in action. Training and Development Journal, 32(1), 19-28.	Opportunity for the individual to satisfy the wide range of personal needs.	Work, personal growth, complete tasks, open systems.
Guest (1979)Guest, R. H. (1979). Quality of work life: Learning from Tarrytown. Harvard Business Review, 57, 76-87.	A process by which an organization tries to reveal the creative process of its personnel, involving them in decisions that affect their lives at work.	Improved productivity and efficiency, as well as self-realization and self-aggrandizement.
Westley (1979)Westley, W. A. (1979). Problems and solutions in the quality of working life. Human Relations, 32(2), 113-123. doi:10.1177/001872677903200202 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726779032002...	Efforts focused on the humanization of work, seeking to solve problems generated by the very nature of productive organizations.	Way of thinking involving people, work and organization.
Werther and Davis (1983)Werther, W. B. & Davis, K. (1983). Administração de pessoal e recursos humanos. São Paulo, SP: McGraw-Hill.	Efforts to improve the quality of life, seeking to make jobs more productive and satisfactory.	Valorization of positions, through analysis of organizational, environmental and behavioral elements.
Nadler and Lawler (1983)Nadler, D. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1983). Quality of work life: Perspectives and directions. Organization Dynamics, 7(11), 69-83.	Way to think about people including participation in problem-solving, enrichment of work and improvement in the work environment.	Humanistic vision in the work environment.

Variable	Alternative	Percentual
Sex	Male	50.80%
Sex	Female	49.20%
Age group	18 to 30 years	25.90%
	31 to 40 years	44.90%
	41 to 50 years	20.50%
	Over 50 years	8.60%
Education level	Medium	4.40%
	Graduate	17.10%
	Specialization	31.00%
	Master degree	18.80%
	Doctorate degree	28.70%
University service time	Up to 6 months	16.50%
	Up to 1 year	8.00%
	Up to 3 years	19.40%
	Up to 5 years	34.80%
	Above 5 years	21.30%
Total time in the public service	Up to 6 months	9.30%
	Up to 1 year	4.90%
	Up to 3 years	15.00%
	Up to 5 years	27.40%
	Above 5 years	43.50%
Holds a post of university management	Yes	21.90%
Holds a post of university management	No	78.10%

Items	Cronbach's α	Factor loadings
Factor 1 - Physical space	0.860
The workplace is comfortable		0.819	0.189	0.072	0.181	-0.01	0.065	0.107	0	0.131
The workstation is suitable for the tasks		0.811	0.131	0.136	0.114	0.019	0.067	0.081	0.038	0.053
The physical space to perform my work is satisfactory		0.756	0.154	0.088	0.129	-0.068	0.141	0.078	-0.035	0.05
The lighting level is sufficient to carry out the activities		0.728	0.089	0.108	0.117	0.188	-0.054	0.002	0.032	0.103
The room temperature is comfortable		0.693	0.083	-0.059	0.186	0.061	0.025	0.058	-0.001	0.046
The instruments of labor are sufficient to carry out the tasks		0.546	-0.002	0.14	-0.16	0.243	0.344	0.216	0.045	-0.115
Consumption material is sufficient		0.507	-0.063	0.074	-0.105	0.415	0.349	0.13	-0.011	-0.202
Factor 2 - Opportunities for professional growth	0.875
The university offers opportunities for professional growth		0.122	0.765	0.221	-0.014	0.235	0.054	0.095	0.082	0.072
The personal development is a real possibility in the university		0.12	0.747	0.299	0.125	0.151	0.101	0.156	0.024	0.103
There are incentives for career growth		0.175	0.71	0.261	0.049	0.199	0.055	0.179	0.087	-0.073
Management behavior is characterized by dialogue		0.207	0.573	0.12	0.223	0.11	0.28	0.101	0.052	0.275
Recognition by the institution where I work		0.145	0.535	0.307	0.224	0.477	0.117	0.04	-0.016	0.191
Factor 3 - Job satisfaction	0.882
At this university, the activities I do are sources of pleasure		0.117	0.184	0.756	0.153	0.072	-0.002	0.102	0.069	0.226
The time I spend at university makes me happy		0.121	0.268	0.735	0.246	0.086	0.1	0.094	0.001	0.157
I feel that my work at this university is good for me		0.153	0.241	0.71	0.257	0.137	0.109	0.18	-0.011	0.193
I like the institution where I work.		0.018	0.063	0.697	-0.065	0.181	0.112	-0.024	0.141	-0.01
Factor 4 - Relationship with colleagues	0.799
Coexistence in the work environment at the university is harmonious		0.249	0.098	0.194	0.683	0.087	0.115	0.061	0.078	0.097
There is trust among colleagues		0.165	0.077	0.177	0.68	0.2	0.215	0.148	0.115	-0.008
Conflict in the workplace is common.		-0.126	-0.213	-0.053	-0.68	-0.151	-0.051	-0.1	0.038	0.04
My working relationships with colleagues are harmonious		0.087	0.042	0.285	0.576	0.04	0.356	0.205	0.069	-0.013
My co-workers show a willingness to help me		0.144	-0.003	0.135	0.487	0.17	0.433	0.233	0.048	0.026
Factor 5 - Recognition for work achieved	0.860
The recognition of individual work is an effective practice in this university		0.118	0.345	0.122	0.182	0.622	0.1	0.148	0.112	0.103
In this university, the result obtained with my work is recognized		0.075	0.413	0.169	0.231	0.567	0.231	-0.026	0.076	0.276
The recognition of collective work is an effective practice in this university		0.143	0.374	0.131	0.29	0.566	0.069	0.222	0.104	0.066
In this university, my dedication to work is recognized		0.088	0.486	0.131	0.214	0.566	0.199	-0.036	0.038	0.203
Society recognizes the importance of my work.		0.034	0.131	0.396	0.109	0.552	0.005	-0.017	0.058	0.147
Factor 6 - Relationship with the leadership	0.835
My relations of work with the boss are cooperatives		0.088	0.175	0.148	0.217	0.043	0.8	0.032	0.086	0.083
My immediate boss is interested in helping me		0.166	0.162	0.081	0.312	0.092	0.785	0.097	0.099	0.089
In this university, I receive incentives from my boss		0.114	0.433	0.113	0.146	0.32	0.561	-0.036	0.102	0.17
Factor 7 - Execution of activities	0.796
I can perform my work without overloading tasks		0.138	0.141	0.054	0.167	0.006	0.033	0.822	-0.091	0.056
I can do my work without pressure		0.05	0.011	0.141	0.165	0.105	0.057	0.785	-0.133	0.167
At this university, I have the time to do my work with zeal		0.177	0.201	0.039	0.089	0.045	0.089	0.74	-0.009	-0.025
Factor 8 - Performance and results evaluation	0.682
In this university, there is a strong collection of results		-0.005	-0.032	0.012	-0.034	0.055	-0.007	-0.124	0.767	0.022
There is performance monitoring		0.053	0.172	-0.04	0.047	0.034	0.166	0.175	0.698	0.091
The norms to carry out the tasks are rigid		-0.06	-0.012	-0.005	0.161	0.102	-0.01	-0.092	0.685	-0.059
There is a collection of deadlines for the fulfillment of the task		0.07	0.108	0.259	-0.023	-0.032	0.092	-0.128	0.654	-0.095
Factor 9 - Freedom in the work environment	0.688
I have freedom in the execution of tasks		0.118	0.157	0.214	0.045	0.203	0.043	0.131	-0.104	0.756
I have the possibility of being creative in my work		0.033	0.098	0.411	-0.133	0.186	0.109	0.07	0.017	0.685
At this university, I have free access to the top management		0.192	0.484	0.03	0.114	0.024	0.128	0.038	0.052	0.491

QWL Factors	Mens		Women		T-Test
QWL Factors	Average	Deviation	Average	Deviation	Value	Sig
Physical space	3.39	1.05	3.50	0.99	-1.113	0.266
Opportunities for professional growth	3.18	1.10	3.37	1.00	-2.044	0.042
Job satisfaction	3.76	1.04	4.00	0.88	-2.852	0.005
Relationship with colleagues	3.70	0.92	3.87	0.76	-2.312	0.021
Recognition for work achieved	2.88	1.02	3.03	0.97	-1.628	0.104
Relationship with the leadship	3.73	0.97	3.91	1.00	-1.950	0.052
Execution of activities	3.64	1.01	3.68	1.02	-0.495	0.621
Performance and results evaluation	2.95	0.87	3.10	0.82	-1.937	0.053
Freedom in the work environment	3.82	0.91	3.80	0.91	0.228	0.820

QWL factors	Holds management position		Does not hold a management position		T-Test
QWL factors	Average	Deviation	Average	Deviation	Value	Sig
Physical space	3.53	0.99	3.42	1.03	0.978	0.329
Opportunities for professional growth	3.29	1.09	3.27	1.05	0.199	0.842
Job satisfaction	3.95	0.94	3.86	0.98	0.805	0.421
Relationship with colleagues	3.67	0.84	3.81	0.85	-1.511	0.131
Recognition for work achieved	2.99	1.01	2.94	1.00	0.440	0.660
Relationship with the leadship	3.87	1.00	3.81	0.99	0.567	0.571
Execution of activities	3.13	1.14	3.81	0.93	-5.621	0.000
Performance and results evaluation	3.01	0.83	3.03	0.86	-0.181	0.857
Freedom in the work environment	3.87	0.94	3.80	0.90	0.775	0.439

QWL factors	Mean age of respondents				F Test
QWL factors	18 to 30 years	31 to 40 years	41 to 50 years	More than 50 years	Value	Sig
Physical space	3.44	3.45	3.47	3.36	0.117	0.950
Opportunities for professional growth	3.19	3.21	3.42	3.50	1.722	0.162
Job satisfaction	3.68	3.90	4.02	4.10	3.186	0.024
Relationship with colleagues	3.83	3.81	3.66	3.76	0.886	0.448
Recognition for work achieved	2.95	2.89	3.05	3.03	0.708	0.548
Relationship with the leadship	3.78	3.77	3.96	3.85	0.876	0.454
Execution of activities	3.81	3.55	3.56	4.01	3.625	0.013
Performance and results evaluation	3.03	3.05	2.97	3.04	0.186	0.906
Freedom in the work environment	3.67	3.82	3.89	3.98	1.779	0.150

QWL factors	Average of education groups					F Test
QWL factors	Medium	Graduate	Specialization	Master degree	Doctor degree	Value	Sig
Physical space	4.03	3.68	3.74	3.30	2.98	14.918	0.000
Opportunities for professional growth	3.62	3.44	3.16	3.17	3.31	1.713	0.146
Job satisfaction	3.87	3.90	3.72	4.03	3.95	1.649	0.161
Relationship with colleagues	4.08	4.14	3.91	3.67	3.47	10.973	0.000
Recognition for work achieved	3.31	3.09	2.98	2.85	2.84	1.752	0.137
Relationship with the leadship	4.14	4.06	3.91	3.76	3.57	4.495	0.001
Execution of activities	4.32	3.85	3.86	3.58	3.28	9.745	0.000
Performance and results evaluation	3.05	3.09	3.00	3.10	2.96	0.522	0.719
Freedom in the work environment	3.76	3.70	3.75	3.80	3.96	1.497	0.202

QWL factors	Average of groups given length at IHE					F Test
QWL factors	Up to 6 months	Up to 1 year	Up to 3 years	Up to 5 years	Above 5 years	Value	Sig
Physical space	3.77	3.15	3.44	3.39	3.40	2.928	0.210
Opportunities for professional growth	3.73	3.47	3.32	3.00	3.24	7.070	0.000
Job satisfaction	4.08	3.96	3.75	3.84	3.88	1.840	0.120
Relationship with colleagues	4.18	3.91	3.83	3.66	3.59	7.166	0.000
Recognition for work achieved	3.24	3.18	3.02	2.72	2.96	4.646	0.001
Relationship with the leadship	4.14	3.96	3.80	3.67	3.78	3.240	0.012
Execution of activities	4.17	3.97	3.64	3.52	3.40	8.786	0.000
Performance and results evaluation	3.22	3.20	2.97	2.95	2.98	1.955	0.100
Freedom in the work environment	3.78	3.78	3.84	3.72	3.96	1.151	0.332

QWL factors	Average of groups given length in public service					F Test
QWL factors	Up to 6 months	Up to 1 year	Up to 3 years	Up to 5 years	Above 5 years	Value	Sig
Physical space	3.62	3.09	3.45	3.33	3.52	1.727	0.143
Opportunities for professional growth	3.68	3.35	3.46	2.98	3.30	4.885	0.001
Job satisfaction	4.08	3.93	3.98	3.74	3.89	1.325	0.259
Relationship with colleagues	4.11	3.88	3.96	3.74	3.67	3.644	0.006
Recognition for work achieved	3.16	3.16	3.07	2.77	2.96	2.147	0.074
Relationship with the leadship	4.17	3.75	4.00	3.70	3.77	2.624	0.034
Execution of activities	3.96	3.88	3.82	3.48	3.62	2.776	0.027
Performance and results evaluation	3.37	3.25	3.02	2.93	2.99	2.748	0.028
Freedom in the work environment	3.75	3.64	3.95	3.73	3.85	1.022	0.396

Hypotheses found in the work	Previous studies that corroborate the hypothesis found
1. The higher the server age, the better they evaluate them for job satisfaction items.	Herrera & Manrique (2008)Herrera, A. G., & Manrique, A. F. G. (2008). Condiciones laborales y grado de satisfacción de profesionales de enfermería. Aquichan, 8(2), 243-256. doi:10.5294/150 https://doi.org/10.5294/150... , Clark, Oswald & Warr (1996)Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 57-81. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00600.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996... , Almeida & Figueiredo (2002)Almeida, L., & Figueiredo. E., (2002). Satisfação no trabalho: Um estudo num grupo de trabalhadores de organismo público. Liberdade, 2(1), 67-95..
2. Women see greater opportunities for professional growth than men.	Campos (2016)Campos, N. M. (2016). Qualidade de vida no trabalho dos servidores técnico administrativos do Instituto Federal Sul Rio Grandense lotados em Pelotas (Master’s thesis). Universidade Católica de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS.; Bilgiç (1998)Bilgiç, R. (1998). The relationship between job satisfaction and personal characteristics of turkish workers. Journal of I nterdisciplinary and Applied Psychology, 132(1), 549-557. doi:10.1080/00223989809599287 https://doi.org/10.1080/0022398980959928...
3. Women perceive QWL better in relation to items and intrinsic characteristics of work, such as social life at work and social integration.	Moraes et al. (2003)Moraes, L. F. R., Pereira, L. Z., Souza, K. O., & Guzmão, L. V. N. (2003). Implicações do gênero na qualidade de vida e estresse no trabalho da Polícia Militar do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG: NEACO/CEPEAD/FACE/UFMG.
4. Individuals who hold management positions feel pressured and overburdened in their tasks.	Huse & Cummings (1985)Huse, E. F., & Cummings, T. F. (1985). Organization development and change (3rd ed.). St. Paul, UK: Ed. Minn.
5. The level of schooling is inversely proportional to the level of relationships, be it with colleagues or with bosses.	Argentero, Miglioretti & Angilletta (2007)Argentero, P., Miglioretti, M., & Angilletta, J. (2007). Quality of work life in a cohort of Italian health workers. Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia, 29(1), 50-54.; Batomé (1992)Batomé, S. P. (1992). Autonomia universitária: Cooptação ou emancipação. Revista Universidade e Sociedade, 2(3), 19-32.
6. The longer the time in the institution and/or the public service the less value is given to relationships at work.	Braga (1998)Braga, D. G. (1998). Conflitos, eficiência e democracia na gestão pública. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Editora Fiocruz, pp. 193.
7. Satisfaction with physical space is inversely proportional to the level of schooling.	New research finding
8. The perception of the opportunity for professional growth is greater in groups that have little time of institution and/or public service.	New research finding
9. The longer the time in the institution and/or the public service the greater the perception of the overload of tasks and the pressure to achieve.	New research finding
10. Recognition for individual and collective work is most recognized by the most recent employees in the institution.	New research finding
11. The perception of collection by results and deadlines and performance monitoring is greater for servers with little time in public office.	New research finding

[1] Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leander L. Klein, Avenida Independência, 3751, Room 101 - Professor’s building, Vista Alegre, Palmeira das Missões, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, CEP: 98300-000. E-mail: kleander88@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE: PARAMETERS AND EVALUATION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

Originality/value:

Design/methodology/approach:

Findings: