Estrés (desde la psicología funcional del ―si)

Over the last century, society’s views on the meaning of human life have changed, from a mere acknowledgement that we have it, to an affirmation that we should do our utmost to enhance its quality through healthcare programs, education and building community resilience (Koot & Wallander 2014). Similarly, there has been an evolution within the sphere of organisational theory, which has moved away from Taylorism and the

mechanistic workplace towards concepts of “quality of work life”. Thus, simply having a job does not guarantee a good standard of living (Burchell et al. 2014; Singhai & Garg 2014). People search for meaning in their work, as well as in their lives, in order to meet their short and long-term needs (Chitakornkijsil 2010).

Indeed, during the 1960’s there was a focus on the relationship between employees and their work environment (Singhai & Garg 2014). Employers, unions and policymakers in Sweden first moved towards humanising work. This trend moved across Europe in a less organised way and finally made its way to America, where Irving Bluestone of General Motors used the term ‘quality of work life’ to describe a program that helped develop and increase both job satisfaction and productivity (Martel & Dupuis 2006). This activity culminated in an international conference on quality of work life in 1972 (Martel & Dupuis 2006; Sundaray, Sahoo & Tripathy 2013). Linked with the research emerging on broader quality of life measures (Burchell et al. 2014) the International Council for the Quality of Working Life was established in 1973 to investigate health and working conditions (Martel & Dupuis 2006; Rai 2015). Nadler and Lawler (1983) also recognised that foreign

manufacturers’ managerial practices were producing more effective results related to this concept. In particular, the Japanese are known for decision-making by consensus, as well as for their high-quality output and efficient productivity. However, practices such as lean

manufacturing have, in fact, been criticised and deemed ‘management by stress’ (Babson 1995), because they increase management control and shift the power upwards, while reducing resources and worker control.

QWL researchers studied the links between employees’ perceptions of a good job and productivity. By the 1980s focus had turned to psychological health in the workplace, the nature of stress, control and participation. A decade later, attention shifted to work-life balance and time spent working (Burchell et al. 2014). In 1999 the concept of Decent Work was promoted by the International Labour Organisation. More recently QWL has been placed on the European Commission’s agenda, along with social inclusion (Royuela, López-Tamayo & Suriñach 2008).

4.3.2 Definition of QWL

Martel and Dupuis (2006) reviewed the literature from the late 1970s to the early 2000s and found six definitions, including Nadler and Lawler’s from 1983, that concentrate on the individual, organisation, society, job satisfaction, work environment, participation and the dynamic and temporal aspects of different roles, ages and career stages. After reviewing the literature on quality of life, they define QWL, based on the quality of life systemic inventory as follows:

“quality of work life, at a given time, corresponds to a condition experienced by the individual in his or her dynamic pursuit of his or her hierarchically organised goals within work domains where the reduction of the gap separating the individual from these goals is reflected by a positive impact on the individual’s general quality of life, organisational performance, and consequently the overall functioning of society” (Martel & Dupuis 2006, p. 355).

However, Nadler and Lawler (1983) identify six definitions, as shown in Figure 2, based on the evolution of QWL from the 1950’s to the 1980’s.

(Source: Nadler and Lawler 1983, p. 26)

The first sees QWL as a variable, the outcome of the reaction to, or consequence of, the experience of work, such as job satisfaction. The second is an approach used by

employees and employers to work collaboratively to improve joint outcomes. The third is a methodology whereby QWL is utilised as a tool to create increased productivity and satisfaction. The fourth reflects the emergence, in the late 1970’s, of QWL as a movement and an ideology with the ideals of participative management. In the fifth definition QWL appears as a complex global concept that incorporates ‘everything’ - a panacea for all productivity and quality issues. In reaction to the fifth definition, which will inevitably lead to failure, Nadler and Lawler (1983) asserts that QWL then becomes meaningless. Thus in the sixth definition it means ‘nothing’. Building on this history, Nadler and Lawler (1983) assert that QWL is concerned not only with productivity, but with how work can benefit the workers and their participation in organisational decision-making. They go on to extend their definition:

“… quality of work life is a way of thinking about people, work and organisations. Its distinctive elements are (1) a concern about the impact of work on people as well

as on organisational effectiveness, and (2) the idea of participation in

organisational problem solving and decision making.” (Nadler & Lawler 1983, p. 26) Clearly there are a plethora of definitions; the literature is limited and not based on a particular theory or technique, and the conceptualisation of QWL can vary depending on the sector or the organisational culture. In this study QWL is defined as incorporating:

 a concern about the impact of work on people as well as on organisational performance;

 the idea of participation in organisational problem-solving and decision-making; and

 the impact of work on the community in which the individual worker and organisation is situated.

4.3.3 Effect of QWL on Marginalised Workers

Employment is a key facet of life which provides financial and social benefits, along with opportunities for social inclusion (Rose, Daiches & Potier 2012). Those who are able to participate in employment can realise their potential, facilitate recovery from their

situations, gain acceptance and support from society and experience job satisfaction (Ho & Chan 2010). Good QWL leads to a broader life satisfaction in workers’ social, leisure and family domains and has an overall positive impact on mental and physical wellbeing (Tongo 2015; Villotti et al. 2012).

Job satisfaction is a dimension within the broader concept of QWL which has been defined as the “democratization of the workplace”, “worker protection”, “work environment

improvement” or the exchange relationship between employee and employer (Chitakornkijsil 2010, p. 215; Rai 2015). The literature reveals that job satisfaction generally has an impact on overall life satisfaction (Villotti et al. 2012). Pagán (2013) proposes that job satisfaction is a combination of various dimensions including “physical effort, time pressure, level of freedom, capability to develop new skills, support in the workplace, recognition of the work, salary, promotion prospects and job security” (Pagán

2013, p. 861). He then goes on to demonstrate that older workers with disabilities increase satisfaction in their employment when they receive recognition for good performance and support from within their organisation rather than from external providers such as job coaches. Good QWL encourages job satisfaction, which in turn enables employees to enjoy their life and has the benefit of fostering organisational efficiency and profitability (Sundaray, Sahoo & Tripathy 2013).

For workers who are experiencing social exclusion, QWL becomes more crucial. People living with a mental illness, like those with a physical disability, experience marginalisation due to the taboos and ignorance surrounding their condition. For example, Browne (1999) discovered that individuals with schizophrenia, who experienced good QWL, not only experienced improvement in their economic and social lives, but also found that it aided their rehabilitation more effectively than occupational therapy programs. A study by Lanctôt, Durand and Corbière (2012) found that people with mental health disorders who worked in social enterprises experienced a high QWL, which enabled longer job tenure. Further, their study identified themes of interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of QWL, including experiencing a sense of belonging, the feeling of being a good worker and positive relationships with supervisors and co-workers. The social model of disability argues that society creates social, environmental or attitudinal barriers, which prevent the participation of people with disabilities (Pagán 2013). Thus, workplace accommodations are solutions created for socially excluded individuals, to support their successful

participation in the work environment, and to generate equal access, benefits and privileges. Workplace accommodations, or workplace adjustments, are defined as modifications made to the work environment or to the duties of a role that enable socially excluded individuals to perform their work, or experience the benefits of employment (Dong & Guerette 2013; McDowell & Fossey 2014). These accommodations enable participants to maintain employment and to cope with stresses, illnesses or relapses. Such accommodations can include flexibility in hours, schedules and duties, training to assist with learning and having flexible and friendly supervisors and colleagues (Villotti et al.

2012). Pagán (2013) and Villotti et al. (2012) advance three factors which they deem critical for participant workers to succeed in the workplace, namely self-efficacy, or the persistence in the face of difficulties and challenges, recognition and being valued for work performed, and feeling supported by colleagues and supervisors, rather than by family or external support workers (Pagán 2013; Villotti et al. 2012). Social enterprises, as

discussed in detail in the previous chapter, appear to be well placed to enhance QWL through the provision of workplace accommodations for employees experiencing social exclusion.