Content uploaded by Solveiga Blumberga
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Solveiga Blumberga on May 18, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION
Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume VII, May 22th -23th, 2020. 13-22
© Rēzeknes Tehnoloģiju akadēmija, 2020
http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol7.4915
PERSONNEL WORK LIFE QUALITY AND
ENGAGEMENT: EXAMPLE OF A NORDIC BUSINESS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPANY
Solveiga Blumberga
RISEBA, Latvia
Dace Akmene
RISEBA, Latvia
Abstract. Work life quality and engagement have been widely studied and terms are being used
in the context of working life. Together these terms have not been studied much. Although the
connection between these two has been proven as significant in various researches. The aim of
every company is to perform well and make a profit, or just one of these aims depending on the
type of enterprise and their business. The aim of the research is to determine personnel work
life quality and work engagement, their differences, and interconnection in a Nordic business
information technology company’s division in Latvia and Finland. Three research questions
were set: What is the evaluation of personnel work life quality and work engagement; Is there
a statistically significant connection between personnel work life quality and work engagement;
Are there statistically significant differences in results of work life quality and work engagement
in a Nordic business information technology company’s divisions in Latvia and Finland. The
following methods were used for data acquisition: work life quality questionnaire; Work
engagement questionnaire. Analysis of the results showed that the evaluation of work life
quality and work engagement is medium-high. There is a statistically significant correlation
between work life quality and work engagement. Statistically significant differences were found
between personnel work life quality and work engagement in both countries. Various work life
quality factors promote work engagement. For both divisions, the most challenging is
balancing work and private life of the employees. Employees in Finland would evaluate the
company’s inner communication higher if they felt more engaged in decision making.
Researches of differences reveal that employees of Latvian companies show higher results in
social integration and employer and company evaluation than personnel in Finland.
Keywords: work life quality, engagement.
Introduction
Work is, has been and will be an important part of people’s lives. It should
be noted that with time amount of working hours per week has increased in
comparison to, for example, 50 years ago (Connolly et al., 2017). Working a full-
time job people are subjected to various aspects of work life that influence their
lives both at work and outside it.
Blumberga & Akmene, 2020. Personnel Work Life Quality and Engagement: Example of a Nordic
Business Information Technology Company
14
Work life quality and engagement are widely studied terms in the context of
work life. Work life quality is a term that includes various conditions determining
the quality of work life. This notion shows to what extent employees can meet
their personally important needs while being employed (Srivastava & Kanpur,
2014). Work life quality can also be viewed as a strategy with the help of which
to retain employees and increase their job satisfaction (Monga & Verma, 2015).
Whereas engagement is a term that characterizes the employee’s attitude and
emotional state towards their work and employer. Or emotionally – a motivated
state of elevated energy in combination with high keenness and level of work
focus (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018).
Together these terms have not been studied much. Nevertheless, the relation
between both terms has been proven as significant in various studies (Kanten &
Sadullah, 2012; Alqarni, 2016). The topicality of the subject is determined by the
fact that the company concentrates on the promotion of engagement and research.
Considering that different companies show diverse engagement indicators, it is
necessary to understand what the main reasons for the difference in the evaluation
are. Work life quality factors have not been studied separately which will give the
possibility to overview and analyze opinions of employees on this topic.
Researching work life quality in the companies and its connection to
engagement will show the most important aspects of work life quality to
summarize them and give recommendations. Three research questions were set:
What is the evaluation of personnel work life quality and work engagement; Is
there a statistically significant connection between personnel work life quality and
work engagement; Are there statistically significant differences in results of work
life quality and work engagement in a Nordic business information technology
company’s divisions in Latvia and Finland.
The aim of the research is to study work life quality and engagement and to
develop suggestions for HR on promoting work life quality and engagement.
Latvian companies regularly show higher, but Finnish companies lower results as
the median score of the company. That is why it was decided to include both these
countries that regularly show the highest and lowest results in work engagement
studies.
Literature Review
Considering the importance of work life quality, it is being evaluated as one
of the most significant work aspects (Kawemba, 2010). Many authors for analysis
and study of work life quality have chosen Walton’s eight conceptual categories,
namely: adequate and fair compensation; safe and healthy working conditions;
use and development of human capacity; opportunity for continued growth and
security; social integration at work; constitutionalism in work organization; work
SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION
Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume VII, May 22th -23th, 2020. 13-22
15
and life space; social relevance of work life (Walton, 1973). Work life quality
works at the same time both for employee’s higher and basic needs (Srivastava &
Kanpur, 2014) as indicated by scope of different needs in Walton’s categories.
Work itself is an important part of work life quality. Work must be wider
including varied duties so that the employee would not spend long time on one
specific task (Srivastava & Kanpur, 2014). Companies without strict duties
indicate to applying this aspect in real action. It is also a good approach to do
employee rotation giving them chance to do completely different tasks thus
developing their skills and competencies (Srivastava & Kanpur, 2014).
Work life quality is considered as philosophy, a set of principles based on
the concept that people are the most important resource of the company (Reddy
& Reddy, 2010). Such approach indicates to necessity of work life quality
programma, organization’s understanding about different factors and
implementation strategy. Irrespective of where work life quality programmas are
developed: from management, employees or outsourced, these programmas prove
to be successful in various manifestations (Dixit & Pandiya, 2015). Work life
quality programmas give support in recruitment, encourage retention, increase
productivity, decrease absence and maximize use of human resource (Inda, 2013).
Engagement is a topical term among researchers and HR professionals who
consider this concept as one of the main promoters of success in companies
(Ababneh & Macky, 2015). High levels of engagement promote talent retention,
contribute to client loyalty and improve company’s performance (Lockwood,
2007). In the context of work importance, engagement is one of the main factors
together with job satisfaction, autonomy, work relations and continuing education
(Geldenhuy, Laba, & Venter, 2015). Definition of engagement overlaps with the
one of involvement which indicates to that often employees are more involved
with their work rather that their employer (Armstrong, 2006). Committed
employees perform 20% better and are 87% less likely to leave the company
(Corporate Leadership Council, 2004), not considering if employees are
committed to their work or their employer.
Work-place culture determines the tone of engagement (Lockwood, 2007).
Disengaged employees are not interested in generating new ideas or suggesting
creative solutions; whereas engaged employees consider creativity as part of their
job and generate new ideas and approaches (Sharma, Chaudhary, & Singh, 2018).
Often the age, function and position of the employee is linked with engagement,
but it has been proven that it does not determine level of engagement. Levels of
engagement are more determined by company’s strategies and policies rather than
characteristics of employees (Corporate Leadership Council, 2004). Level of
employee engagement directly indicates to their feelings about their manager
(Redmond, 2009). Managers have a crucial role in enabling and promoting
engagement (Corporate Leadership Council, 2004). Viewing work life quality and
Blumberga & Akmene, 2020. Personnel Work Life Quality and Engagement: Example of a Nordic
Business Information Technology Company
16
engagement as a whole, work life quality is being set as basis that determines level
of engagement and job satisfaction (Fatmasari, Mochammad, & Wulida, 2018).
Methodology
Sample:
In the companies included in the research, there are 334 employees, 188 of
which working in Latvia and 146 in Finland. Altogether 174 replies were
gathered, 103 respondents from Latvia and 71 respondents from Finland. Gender
balance among respondents is equal: 48% women and 52% men. The main part
of respondents, 44%, were aged 25 to 34 years, 31% - aged 35 to 44 years. In the
age group 45 to 54 years there were 9% of respondents but in the age groups 18
to 24 years and 55 and more – 8% each.
Measure:
Work life quality questionnaire (Walton, 1973; Timossi et al., 2008). Four
categories were chosen for the questionnaire: safe and healthy working
conditions, use and development of human capacity, social integration at work,
work and living space. Statements were taken from Timossi (Timossi et al., 2008)
questionnaire based on Walton’s eight categories.
Work engagement questionnaire (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Corporate
Leadership Council, 2004). The second part of the questionnaire consists of work
engagement statements developed based on UWES approach (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004) using three statements on engagement levels: energy, diligence,
and keenness. Additional to these statements there were more statements to
evaluate engagement based on engagement promoting factors developed in
another research (Corporate Leadership Council, 2004). In both questionnaires’
questions were adapted to the companies and research needs, all statements had
to be evaluated using 4-point Likert scale: disagree, rather disagree, rather agree,
agree. The questionnaire was developed in Latvian and English.
Procedure:
Before the acquisition of research data, a pilot research was done where
Cronbach’s alpha was verified, and it was above 0.7. Taking into consideration
the coefficient, authors of the research changed the questionnaire resulting in
repeated calculation of Cronbach’s alpha, getting above 0.8. Data was gathered
from 1st to 12th April 2019. Questionnaires were published and data gathered on
Webtool.
Research results
Looking at work life quality statement groups (Figure 1), one can see that
employees are the most satisfied with social integration at work. Considering
SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION
Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume VII, May 22th -23th, 2020. 13-22
17
statements under this group, it can be concluded that employees feel belonging
both to the company and their teams. Also, their ideas are taken into account and
they participate in events organized by the company. Work stress influences the
private lives of employees and some employees cannot rest not thinking about
work, which explains lower evaluation of work and living space statement group.
There are no statistically significant differences between the statement groups,
however, there is a tendency for differences. This applies to the work life quality
statement groups as well as for the work engagement statement groups.
Figure 1 Evaluation of work life quality scales
Whereas in statement group on work engagement (Figure 2) highest
evaluations were given to statements about colleagues, but lower – about
company and managers. Employees like to work with their colleagues and they
mostly have good relationships with at least one colleague. Regarding company
and managers employees state that at times they do not like internal
communication. This statement can be connected with another statement with
lower evaluation about that company does not involve employees in decision
making.
Figure 2 Evaluation of work engagement scales
Blumberga & Akmene, 2020. Personnel Work Life Quality and Engagement: Example of a Nordic
Business Information Technology Company
18
Performing Spearman’s correlation (test distribution is not normal) on work
life quality and engagement indicators (Table 1) it was established that there is a
statistically significant correlation between them (r=.64; p=.00). This correlation
proves previously viewed statement groups which corresponds to high evaluation
of social integration and positive evaluations about colleagues. It also explains
lower evaluation of statements about company and manager and work load of
employees which influences their private lives. Employees being in more stress
would not be satisfied with their company and manager. Nevertheless, it should
be noted that company and manager make social integration of employees, use
and develop human capacity and other positive manifestations.
Table 1 Spearman’s correlation of work life quality and engagement
Measure
Engagement
Work life quality
.644**
Note. N= 174. ** p< .01
Spearman’s correlation was done also to separate scales and the results
showed that there is a statistically significant correlation among all scales. Scales
with the highest correlation coefficients (Table 2) are Social integration at work
and Company and manager (r=.61; p=.00), Company and manager and Use and
development of human capacity (r=.60; p=.00).
Table 2 Highest correlations in work life quality and engagement scales
Measure
Company and manager
Diligence level
Safe and healthy work conditions
.499**
.398**
Use and development of human capacity
.597**
.528**
Social integration at work
.613**
.383**
Note. N= 174. ** p< .01
Mann-Whitney U test was done to clarify scales where there were
statistically significant differences between both countries. Results show
(Table 3) that main differences are in scales of Social integration at work
(U= 2111.5; p < .00), Company and manager (U= 2277.5; p < .00) and Use and
development of human capacity (U= 2323.5; p < .00).
SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION
Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume VII, May 22th -23th, 2020. 13-22
19
Table 3 Mann-Whitney U test for statistically significant scales between countries
U-criterion
Safe and healthy working conditions
2912.5
Use and development of human capacity
2323.5
Social integration at work
2111.5
Diligence level
2954.5
Company and manager
2277.5
Note. N= 174
Considering differences in median values of Latvian and Finnish scales,
there is a noticeable difference (Figure 3). Evaluations of Company and manager
are much lower of employees of Finnish companies than Latvian personnel
indicating that this aspect is problematic in Finland. Social integration at work is
much higher in Latvia, which can be explained with employees wish to participate
in event planning and attending them. In Finland lower evaluation is also given to
Use and development of human capacity which might explain lower evaluation
of Company and manager.
Figure 3 Differences in scales between countries
Employees of Finnish and Latvian companies have given different
evaluation in different age groups. Results of Latvian employees show statistically
significant differences in statement “Stress at work does not influence my private
life” where older employees more often disagree or rather disagree with this
statement. Employees of age group 55 and above gave the most negative
evaluation in almost all statements. It should be noted that in this age group more
than 90% are employees of Finnish companies.
Blumberga & Akmene, 2020. Personnel Work Life Quality and Engagement: Example of a Nordic
Business Information Technology Company
20
Looking at the results regarding seniority significant differences were found
in “Safe and healthy working conditions” scale where statistically significant
differences were among employees who have worked more than 10 years and
those who have worked less than one year and 2 to 5 years. It can be explained
with high demands for work environment. Also, significant differences were
found in evaluation of statement “My work load is adequate and well balanced”.
One half of employees with seniority reply that they disagree or rather disagree
with the particular statement. These results could be explaining with that longer
working employees have more duties and they are expected to be more productive
than employees with less experience in the company.
Discussion and conclusions
Work life quality and engagement measures of both countries included in the
research show positive evaluation from personnel which indicates that HR and
company management work positively for employees. As regards question of the
research about relation of work life quality and engagement results show that there
is statistically significant and positive relation between them. Various work life
quality factors influence engagement. Social integration at work and evaluation
of company and manager are the most connected.
Companies succeed the most with social integration of employees and as a
result almost all employees feel that they belong with the company and their team.
Teams comprise employees who understand each other and work well together,
unity is promoted with events.
For both countries the most challenging is balancing work and private lives
of employees. Work stress influences private lives of almost one third of the
personnel, and almost one fourth of them cannot rest not thinking about work. It
should be noted that work stress can be explained with shortage of workforce that
results in shortage of time to complete all tasks, respectively, creating more stress.
Authors suggest HR to organize a lecture on time management which would help
employees to plan their work day and use time at work more effectively, thus
reducing stress and being more productive. Employees with seniority in the
company indicate to higher stress at work and less possibilities to balance work
and private life. In this case it is suggested to give more responsible duties and
reduce the work load of employees with seniority. Companies in Finland are
suggested to work on personnel job specifics, change of duties when possible,
give interesting tasks with more responsibility. Team leaders together with HR
should organize meetings and improve these issues.
One fourth of employees in Latvia and one third in Finland disagree that
company involves them in decision making. Finnish employees would evaluate
inner communication higher if they felt more involved in decision making.
SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION
Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume VII, May 22th -23th, 2020. 13-22
21
Although companies in Finland have strategic approach to events and employee
participation, they lack structured feedback. HR is suggested to organize
employee involvement in decision making at times spreading short questionnaires
on solving some internal questions. Companies in inland should cognize and
improve internal communication. Companies of both countries should consider
publicly or privately discussing suggestions.
In the different statement of age groups most positive evaluations were given
by 18 to 24-year-old employees. Also, employees aged 45 to 54 consider their
work interesting and inspiring. The most negative evaluations were given by
employees aged 55 and more; 90% of them are Finnish. To prevent negative
feeling about different aspect of work and workplace HR of Finnish companies
are suggested to work more with older employees, consider their work load and
reduce work stress by finding out the stressors.
Employees who can use their capacity consider work more meaningful and
inspiring, and they spend their work hours more productively, they also have a
more energetic approach towards work and are more eager to come to work.
Social integration at work makes good relationship among colleagues and more
positive atmosphere in team. Meaningful work, team and colleagues, and
management decisions promote employee loyalty and liking of their work. It
should be noted that seniority is not connected with loyalty.
To maintain positive attitude of employees and improve problematic issues,
it is suggested to organize management meetings between countries to exchange
implemented measures and feedback. This could save money and time
introducing interesting and appropriate measures resulting in higher work life
quality and promoting engagement.
References
Ababneh, O.M.A., & Macky, K. (2015). The Meaning and Measurement of Employee
Engagement: A Review of the Literature. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/291698308
Alqarni, S.A.Y. (2016). Quality of Work Life as a Predictor of Work Engagement among the
Teaching Faculty at King Abdulaziz University. Retrieved from http://www.ijhssnet.com/
journals/Vol_6_No_8_August_2016/14.pdf
Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. London:
Kogan Page Limited
Bakker, A.B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: current trends. Career Development
International. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207
Connolly, D. et al. (2017). Work and life: a behavioral approach to solving work-life conflict.
Retrieved from https://www.ideas42.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/I42-863_RWJ_
Report_DesignSolution_final.pdf
Corporate Leadership Council (2004). Driving Performance and Retention through Employee
Engagement. Retrieved from
https://www.stcloudstate.edu/humanresources/_files/documents/supv-brown-
bag/employee- engagement.pdf
Blumberga & Akmene, 2020. Personnel Work Life Quality and Engagement: Example of a Nordic
Business Information Technology Company
22
Dixit, A.K., & Pandiya, S. (2015). Quality of work life- an overview on banking system.
Traverse City: Horizon Books.
Fatmasari, E., Mochammad, M., & Wulida, A.T. (2018). The Effect of Quality of Work-life and
Motivation on Employee Engagement with Job Satisfaction as an Intervening Variable.
Retrieved from https://rjoas.com/issue-2018-02/article_12.pdf
Geldenhuy, M., Laba, K., & Venter, C.M. (2015). Meaningful work, work engagement and
organizational commitment. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/266673028
Inda, S.S. (2013). Quality of Work Life. Toronto: Canadian Academic Publishing.
Kanten, S., & Sadullah, O. (2012). An empirical research on relationship quality of work life
and work engagement. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257716769
Kawemba, J.N. (2010). Quality of Work Life and Job Satisfaction of Academic Staff in
Publicuniversities of Uganda. Munich: Grin Publishing.
Lockwood, N.R. (2007). Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s
Strategic Role. SHRM Research. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
acc4/4ab3d4cb3c648cb2993fe705129984440ffe.pdf
Monga, O.P., & Verma, P. (2015). Understanding Quality of Work Life in Contemporary
World. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275829996
Reddy, L., & Reddy, M. (2010). Quality of work life of employees: emerging dimensions.
Retrieved from http://www.ipublishing.co.in/ajmrvol1no1/EIJMRS1063.pdf
Redmond, K. (2009). Leadership by Engagement: Leading Through Authentic Character to
Attract, Retain, and Energize. Ontario: Engagement Publishing.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Version 1.1. Retrieved
from https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_
manual_UWES_English.pdf
Sharma, N., Chaudhary, N., & Singh, V.K. (2018). Management Techniques for Employee
Engagement in Contemporary Organizations. Hershey: IGI Global.
Srivastava, S., & Kanpur, R. (2014). A Study on Quality of Work Life: Key Elements & It’s
Implications. Retrieved from http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jbm/papers/Vol16-
issue3/Version-1/H016315459.pdf
Timossi, L.S. et al. (2008). Evaluation of quality of work life: an adaptation from the Walton’s
qwl model. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285277309
Walton, R.E. (1973). Quality of work life: what is it? Sloan Management Review. Retrieved
from https://is.gd/HC2Luw
