Pacific B usiness R eview I nternational

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management Indexed With Web of Science(ESCI)
ISSN: 0974-438X
Impact factor (SJIF):8.396
RNI No.:RAJENG/2016/70346
Postal Reg. No.: RJ/UD/29-136/2017-2019
Editorial Board

Prof. Mahima Birla
(Editor in Chief)

Dr. Khushbu Agarwal
(Editor)

Dr. Asha Galundia
(Circulation Manager)

Editorial Team

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Assessing Quality of Work Life of Teachers of Higher Education Institutions during Pre and Post COVID-19 Pandemic

Rashmi S

Assistant Professor,

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,

JSS campus, JSS Academy of Technical Education,

Uttarahalli-Kengeri Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Email:  rashmis@jssateb.ac.in

 

Swamy D R

Professor,

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,

JSS campus, JSS Academy of Technical Education,

Uttarahalli-Kengeri Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Email:  drswamydr@jssateb.ac.in

 

T S Nanjundeswaraswamy

Associate Professor,

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,

JSS campus, JSS Academy of Technical Education,

Uttarahalli-Kengeri Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Email : nswamy.ts@jssateb.ac.in

 

 

 

Abstract

With COVID-19 the entire trajectory of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) has witnessed a rapid change over to online modality that has resulted in increased work stress and imbalance between work and family lives.  Teachers must experience a healthy Quality of Work Life (QWL) to curate and deliver the pedagogy effectively to student community. High QWL is important for teachers of HEIs to improve the quality of education. The aim of the research is to assess the QWL of teachers of HEIs pre and post COVID-19 and also to explore the factors that affect their QWL. The study was surveyed based and data was collected from 218 teacher’s pre COVID-19 and 326 teachers of HEIs post COVID-19. It was found that, 48.62% of teachers were satisfied with their QWL during pre COVID-19 and 50.31% expressed satisfaction towards their QWL during post-COVID-19. We found that gender and monthly income are the strong predictors of QWL of teacher during pre-COVID-19 while the work experience was single most predictor of QWL of teachers during post-COVID-19.  The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results indicated that work environment, compensation and rewards, work life balance, relationship and cooperation were the major factors of QWL as perceived by teachers of HEIs during pre COVID-19. During post-COVID-19, job satisfaction and security, training and development, flexibility, autonomy of work and work load were the major QWL factors which shaped the QWL of teachers of HEIs. The present study highlights the status and dominant factors of QWL that shape the QWL of teachers working in HEIs during pre and post COVID-19 pandemic. Practically, the study sheds light on possible implications of low satisfaction of QWL and factors that management of HEIs must focus on for enhancing the QWL of teachers.

Keywords: Quality of Work Life, Higher Technical Institutions, Teachers, COVID-19, Confirmatory factor analysis

Introduction:

The outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19, has changed the lifestyle of people across the globe and as affected all the activities. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the socio-economic status of both developed and developing countries like India due to the lockdown situation. To overcome this impact, organizations from all sectors including educational sectors have migrated to Work from Home (WFH) concept (Dubey and Tripathi, 2020) to continue their functions in the absence of global connectivity. The Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) sectors are no exception. In India, HEIs play a vital role in the development of the cultural, social and economy of the country. Education is imperative but life and health are much more important. With lockdown being imposed across the country, the management and teachers of HEIs were forced to work from home to curb the spread of pandemic and to continue lessons for students. The traditional classroom teaching was ceased and it was replaced by online mode (Jena et al., 2020) to keep the students engaged. This has resulted in unprecedented challenges for management, teachers and students of HEIs. Although in today’s digital era, teachers and students are prone to many challenges such as lack of readiness of teachers and students; limited access to the right technological tools and skills to use equipment for online education, improper internet facilities and others has affected the teachers work life. This has caused a paradigm shift from teaching centric to learning centric system. The lockdown has caused professional setbacks for teachers and has also affected their personal life. Almost a century back, world had witnessed similar pandemic situation due to Influenza during 1981. The teachers then sent reading homework for students with less school work. But in 21st century, with access to various technological tools the teachers are required to design their own course material and effectively deliver the pedagogy to students to ensure continuous learning. Apart from regular teaching, faculty are involved in multiple activities related to institution.  During COVID-19, as work has shifted to home, many teachers are facing difficulty to differentiate between and balance their work and home lives. In total the COVID-19 has affected the Quality of Work Life (QWL) of teachers.  

 

The concept of Quality of Work Life revolves around balance between two important aspects of human namely work and family. Undoubtedly, work is integral part of human, the work, workplace and family life of an individual has a unique interdependence. The antecedents of QWL distinguish between the work life and family life.   The QWL is a strategic mechanism which HEIs must embrace for improving the relationship between teachers with their personal life and work life. The teachers are the key resources, as success of the academic institutions depends on their performance. In the same context, many researchers reported that quality of education depends on quality of teachers (Kaplan and Owings, 2002, Hay McBer, 2000, Sharplin, 2008, Manju, 2014) and it is directly associated with QWL of teachers (Singh et al., 2015, Bashir, 2017). QWL would increase the creativity and competency of teachers ( Bhatnagar and Soni, 2015) by improving their performance (Rose et al., 2006). The experienced and talented teachers can deliver the pedagogy effectively thereby improving student’s effectiveness and satisfaction and this can help educational institutions to gain competitive advantage (Fajemisin, 2002).  Hence, QWL is not just the responsibility of the educational institution but it’s a collective responsibility of teachers and society at large (Pugalendhi, 2010). The empirical studies in academia and other sectors, have acknowledged that QWL program can improve workers job satisfaction and self esteem (Hackman and Suttle, 1977) and enhances the effectiveness of employees and employers (Singh and Srivastav, 2012).

 

Teachers are bounded by the social responsibility of developing, equipping and nurturing the youths to cater to the needs of unpredictable world of tomorrow. Although the digitization has percolated into various sectors including academia, but HIEs across the globe largely believe in effectiveness of face to face blackboard teaching. Given the pandemic situation and declaration of lockdown, the teachers and students forced to connect digitally to continue the pedagogy delivery. Apart from regular teaching, teachers are involved in many academic activities and their roles went beyond teaching and this has affected the teachers’ personal life. This has caused imbalance in work life and personal life which has resulted in high stress levels, absenteeism, low performance and retention rate. In the era where technology is becoming cheaper and maintaining manpower is a costly affair, attracting and maintaining the skilled and experienced teachers is the important of HEIs. Further, the quality of education is dependent on highly qualified and experienced teachers, hence it is necessary for to motivate and maintain the teachers which can add more value for HEIs (Solomon et al., ,2015). With this background, this study has been undertaken to compare the QWL perception of teachers working in HEIs pre and post COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. From the literature it is evident that QWL is a multidimensional approach and many theories like Maslow's hierarchy theory, Herzberg two factor theory etc… argue that QWL is a dynamic dependent variable. For the present study the QWL scale developed by Swamy et al., (2015) was used for the present study.

 

Research Objectives:

The objectives of the present study includes assessing the perceptions of teachers of HEIs on their QWL status, to identify the association, if any, between teachers demographics and the perception of QWL and to compare the level of QWL satisfaction, find the QWL factors that influences teachers QWL during pre and post COVID-19 pandemic and finally to check if there any impact of COVID-19 on QWL of teachers working in HEIs.

Methodology:

The prime objective of this paper is to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the QWL of teachers working in the HEIs; an instrument is designed to enumerate the QWL of teachers for both pre and post COVID data collection. The study was exploratory in nature, the statistical techniques used were Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach with AMOS software to find the predominant dimensions and validate them separately for pre and post COVID pandemic. The Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to find the relationships between the QWL dimensions and Chi Square analysis to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on QWL of teachers.         

Data Collection:

The data was collected from teachers of HEIs pre and post COVID-19 lockdown using a survey instrument consisting of socio-demographic profile of respondents and nine QWL factors with 50 items The nine QWL factors are: Work environment, Organization culture and climate, Relation and co-operation, Training and development, Compensation and Rewards, Facilities, Job satisfaction and Job security, Autonomy of work and Adequacy of resources. All the QWL items were all on 5-point Likert scale, 5 being strongly agree and 1 indicated strongly disagree, respectively..  The data was gathered from teachers of HEIs pre and post COVID-19. Initially, for pilot-study, data was collected from 50 teacher’s pre and post COVID-19 using 9-QWL factors scale to collect the feedback about 50 QWL items, its appropriateness and to finalize the QWL scale. The unit of analysis for the present study is the teachers of HEIs. Considering the opinions from academicians and few senior teachers, the QWL survey instrument was finalized. The survey instrument was administered to teachers through by contacting personally each and every respondent and a total of 218 responses were collected pre COVID-19. For gathering the data during post COVID period, the survey instrument was administered using Google forms as it was a lockdown period. A total of 326 teachers took part in the post COVID QWL survey. The Table-1 presents socio-demographic information on the respondents who took part in the survey.

 

Table-1 Socio-Demographic Profile of Respondents

Demographical characteristics

 

Respondents distributions

Pre COVID(218)

Post COVID (326)

Number

%

Number

%

Work Experience of the Respondent

Less than 10 years

168

77.06

135

41.41

Between 11 to 20 years

40

18.35

128

39.26

More than 21 years

10

4.59

63

19.33

Gender of the Respondent

Male

134

61.47

190

58.28

Female

84

38.53

136

41.72

Designation of the Respondent

Assistant professor

198

90.83

124

38.04

Associate professor

10

4.59

22

6.75

Professor

10

4.59

16

4.91

Monthly Income of the Respondent

Less than Rs. 40000

10

4.59

-

-

Between

Rs. 41000-50000

128

58.72

82

25.15

Between

Rs.51000-60000

14

6.42

-

-

Between

Rs.61000-70000

14

6.42

-

-

Between

Rs.71000-80000

42

19.27

-

-

More than Rs. 80000

10

4.59

244

74.85

 

Table-1 provides the details on shows the socio-demographic and job characteristics of the respondents. Majority of the respondent’s age is less than 10 years, large numbers of the male employees were involved in the research, majority of the respondents were the in the cadre of assistant professor were involved in the study both in case of Pre COVID and Post COVID study.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA):

The reliability coefficient of items in the survey instrument was 0.875 Cronbach’s alpha value, which indicated that all nine-QWL factors had acceptable reliabilities (Kline, 1998). From the collected data, predominant factors were extracted through EFA using SPSS version 22 software, separately for pre COVID and post COVID data.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Pre and Post COVID-19

The 9 factors of QWL with 50 items on five-point Likert scale were subjected to EFA using SPSS software. Before conducting EFA, the adequacy of sample data collected for the study was checked using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test. The KMO test statistic indicated the value of 0.792 and 0.949 for pre and post COVID data sample respectively as indicated in the Table-2. This ascertains that the pre and post QWL data sample is adequate (Kaiser and Rice, 1974) for performing factor reduction technique EFA.

 

 

Table- 2 KMO and Bartlett's Test Statistics – Pre-COVID-19 data sample

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

Pre-COVID

Post-COVID

.792

.949

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

3006.368

5599.203

Df

351

465

Sig.

.000

.000

 

In the next level, the EFA was conducted on 9-QWL factors for pre and post COVID data separately to discover the underlying dimensions by grouping the variables logically. By employing Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used to find the essential QWL items for each factor. This process reduced the data into 8 QWL factors explaining a total variance of 70.858 for pre-COVID data and for post COVID data yielded           7 QWL factors with variance of 65.798. Based on Kaiser Criterion, the factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 with item loadings more than 0.5 on each QWL factors were considered and they are assigned with following names as presented in Table-3 along with item loadings and variances. The factor loading of individual items were represented in the Table-3. The QWL factors were named as Work Environment (WE), Compensation and rewards (CR), Organizational Culture (OC), Facilities (FA), Stress (ST), Autonomy of Work (AW), Work Life Balance (WLB) and Relationship and Cooperation (RC) with factor loading above 0.5. Therefore, these 8 QWL factors were assumed to be critical for further analysis. Similarly the EFA on post COVID data revealed 7 QWL factors as shown in the Table-4.  


Table-3 Factor loadings of QWL factors by EFA for pre-COVID

QWL Items

Item loadings

QWL factors

Eigenvalues

Variance

Cumulative Variance

I have an opportunity to develop my own special abilities

.778

Work Environment (WE)

7.900

13.846

13.846

The work environment is motivating

.727

All the departments in our college cooperate with each other

.694

In college there is a balance between stated objectives and resources provided

.684

I am satisfied with the working conditions provided by the college

.651

Conditions on my job allow me to be as productive as I could be

.564

I feel quite secure about my job

.838

Compensation and rewards (CR)

2.666

13.129

26.976

I feel comfortable and satisfied with my job

.755

My earnings are fair when compared to others doing the same type of  work            

.739

The job security is good

.706

I feel that my work allows me to do my best in a particular area

.573

My organization will pay salary by considering responsibilities at work

.733

Organizational Culture (OC)

1.849

10.246

37.221

Promotions are handled fairly

.725

Our college communicates to us the every new  change that takes place

.695

College does a good job of linking rewards to job Performance

.628

College provides with social security benefits  like EPF/Medical reimbursement 

.785

Facilities (FA)

1.639

9.511

46.732

Good transportation facilities are provided by our college.

.760

Safety measures adopted by the college  are good

.664

I feel that the training programs should be conducted more extensively

.648

I am unable to attend to my personal  needs due to      the demand made by  my boss/colleagues

.811

Stress (ST)

1.606

6.588

53.320

I find my work quite stressful

.771

In our job, we are involved in making decisions    that affect us

.743

Autonomy of Work (AW)

1.335

6.343

59.663

I am proud to be working for my employer

.683

We  need a strong  Teachers’ Association to  protect our  interests

.862

Work Life Balance (WLB)

1.131

5.696

65.359

Hard to take time off during work to take care of personal or family matters

.709

The relationships with my sub-ordinates are good

.765

Relationship &

Cooperation (RC)

1.005

5.499

70.858

Training programs helps improve my skills for performing the job efficiently

.602

 

Table-4 Factor loadings of QWL factors by EFA for post-COVID

QWL Items

Item loadings

QWL factors

Eigen

values

Variance

Cumulative Variance

I feel quite secure about my job

.793

Job satisfaction and Security (JSS)

12.609

25.299

25.299

The job security is good

.780

My earnings are fair when compared to others doing the same type of  work            

.748

The wage policies adopted by the college are good

.739

college provides us with social security benefits like EPF/Medial  reimbursement 

.686

I feel comfortable and satisfied with my job

.684

I am given adequate and fair compensation for the work I do

.671

Conditions on my job allow me to be as productive as I could be

.668

M y Overall opinion about college is excellent

.645

The procedure followed for job rotation is good

.641

Fringe benefits provided in this organization are good

.637

Promotions are handled fairly

.596

We  need a strong  Teachers’ Association to  protect our  interests

.594

In college there is a balance between stated objectives and resources  provided

.588

The relationships with my sub-ordinates are good

.755

Relation and Cooperation (RC)

1.713

11.260

36.559

The relationship with my immediate superior is good

.733

There is a harmonious relationship with colleagues at college

.679

All the departments in our college cooperate with each other

.639

There is a true sense of belongingness that   increases with cooperation

.608

The training programs help in improving  relationship among employees

.750

Training and development (T&D)

1.592

8.720

45.279

Training programs helps improve my skills for performing the job efficiently

.700

Have ample training opportunities that I need to do my job safely & competently

.603

I am  ready to take additional responsibilities with my job

.713

Autonomy of work (AW)

1.208

7.276

52.555

My job lets me use my skills and abilities

.657

I feel that my work allows me to do my best in a particular area

.578

I work at home as part of my job

.776

Flexibility (FLX)

1.198

4.932

57.487

I am allowed to change my starting and ending time on a daily basis

.773

It is hard to take time off during our work to take care of personal or family matters

.830

Work load (WL)

1.061

4.522

62.009

I am unable to attend to my personal  needs due to the demand made by  my boss/colleagues

.711

Good welfare measures/activities are provided  by our college

.772

Welfare and facilities (W&F)

1.016

3.789

65.798

Good transportation facilities are provided by our college.

.654

 

The EFA for post COVID extracted seven QWL factors and the factors were named based on the items grouped on each factors. The factors are: Job satisfaction & Security (JSS), Relationship and co-operation (R&C), Training and Development (T&D), Autonomy of work (AW), Flexibility (FLX), Work load (WL) and Welfare and facilities (W&F).  The item loadings and explained variances for each factor are indicated in the Table-4.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Pre and Post COVID-19

The CFA was conducted using evaluates the extracted factor from EFA and validate the same (Zakuan et al., 2009) based on variance co-variance matrix (Van Prooijen and Van Der Kloot, 2001). In order to validate the 8-QWL factors with 34 items resulted from EFA, the CFA through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) 22 software was performed with maximum likelihood method. During the analysis, all those items with loading coefficients less than 0.5 were eliminated. For the purpose of assessing the model fit the following model fit indices like Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were determined. According to Byrne, (2013) all the fit indices close to 1.0 and error approximation in data indicated by RMSEA must be below 0.08 (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). For the data sample of pre-COVID, the CFA confirmed 4-QWL factors model namely Work Environment (WE), Compensation and Rewards (C&R), Work Life Balance (WBL), Relationship and Cooperation (R&C) and for post-COVID data confirmed 5-QWL factors model namely Job Satisfaction and Security (JSS), Training and Development (T&D) Flexibility (FLX) Autonomy of Work (AW) and Work Load (WL) with satisfactory model fit as shown in Figure 2 and 3 respectively. The model fit indices for pre and post COVID data is presented in the Table-5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE-1 Path diagram for 4-factors QWL Model Pre COVID-19

FIGURE-2 Path diagram for 5-factors QWL Model Post COVID-19

Table-5 Model Fit Indices QWL Model Pre and Post COVID

Model Fit Indices

QWL FACTORS                Pre COVID

QWL FACTORs      Post COVID

Acceptable criterion range

χ2/df

2.635

1.475

Less than 3

GFI

.909

.911

Greater than 0.9

or

close to 1

 

AGFI

.921

.883

CFI

.999

.974

IFI

.901

.974

TLI

.968

.968

RMSEA

.077

0.038

Less than 0.08

 

From the Table: 5 the chi-square statistics χ2/df ratio, GFI, AGFI, IFI, TLI, CFI indices are > 9 which indicates good model fit and RMSEA=0.096 and 0.06 respectively for pre and post COVID data.  (Errors of approximation, smaller is better). From this it can be concluded that the CFA model of pre and post COVID QWL model indicated good fit. Hence, the WE, C&R, WLB and R&C are the key determinants of QWL of teachers working in HEIs during pre COVID. Whereas, JSS, T&D, FLX, AW and WL that are assumed to be the critical QWL factors of teachers of HEIs that shapes the perception of QWL of teachers during post COVID situation.

 

Status of QWL of teachers working in HEIs

The status of QWL of employees were determined based on the grand mean, many researcher like Anand, (2013); Srinivas, (2013) and Jerome, (2013), explored that for the Likert scale grand mean can be considered as a cut-off, for the present study the grand mean was 3.20 and 3.82 for pre and post COVID data sample respectively. The mean value above grand mean is considered as satisfied and below the grand mean is considered as dissatisfaction satisfied.   

Table-6 Status of QWL of Teachers working in HEIs

Status of QWL

Pre COVID

Post COVID

Number

%

Number

%

Satisfaction

106

48.62

164

50.31

Dissatisfaction  

112

51.38

162

49.69

 The Table-6 presents the QWL satisfaction scores of teacher working in HEIs pre and post          COVID. The satisfaction scores for pre COVID was 48.6% and for post COVID it was 50.31%.The mean satisfaction scores revealed that HEIs teachers are more satisfied during post COVID compared to pre-COVID.

 

Demographic factors and QWL of teachers Pre COVID-19 

In order to determine the influence of demographic characteristics and QWL of teacher’s pre and post COVID-19, the chi square analysis was conducted. The statistics of the chi square analysis for pre and post COVID is represented in the Table-7 and 8.

Table-7 Demographic Characteristics and QWL (Pre COVID-19)

Demographic Characteristics

 

Status of QWL

χ Tab value

χ Cal value

P-Value

Decision

SAT

DISSAT

Work Experience of the Respondent

Less than 10 years

80

88

5.99

4.210

0.121

NS

11 to 20

18

22

More than 21 years

8

2

Gender of the Respondent

Male

74

60

3.84

6.064

0.014

5%

Female

32

52

Designation of the Respondent

Assistant professor

92

106

5.99

4.828

0.089

NS

Associate professor

6

4

Professor

8

2

Monthly Income of the Respondent

Less than Rs. 40000

6

4

16.92

19.07

0.002

5%

Between

Rs. 41000-50000

54

74

Between

Rs.51000-60000

2

12

Between

Rs.61000-70000

10

4

Between

Rs.71000-80000

26

16

More than Rs. 80000

8

2

SAT- Satisfaction; DISSAT- Dissatisfaction

Table-7 present the chi-square analysis on demographic factors and QWL of teachers during pre COVID-19. The chi square analysis revealed that, the demographic factors like gender and monthly income of respondents have influence on QWL because the p value is less than 0.05. However work experience and designation of respondents had no influence on QWL of teacher working in HEIs. Similarly the chi-square analysis on demographic factors and QWL of teachers during post COVID-19 is shown in the Table-8.

 

Table-8 Demographic Characteristics and QWL Post COVID-19

Demographic characteristics

 

Status of QWL

χ Tab value

χ Cal value

P-Value

Decision

SAT

DISSAT

Work Experience of the Respondent

Less than 10 years

59

76

5.99

6.747

0.034

5%

Between 11 to 20 years

65

63

More than 21 years

40

23

Gender of the Respondent

Male

97

93

3.84

0.101

0.750

NS

Female

67

69

Designation of the Respondent

Assistant professor

118

124

5.99

1.171

0.557

NS

Associate professor

24

22

Professor

22

16

Monthly Income of the Respondent

Less than Rs. 50000

35

47

3.84

2.346

0.126

NS

More than Rs.100000

128

116

SAT- Satisfaction; DISSAT- Dissatisfaction

 

For post COVID sample, chi-square analysis revealed that the only work experience of teachers had influence on QWL while all other characteristics (gender, designation, monthly income) had no influence on QWL.   

  QWL of teacher’s pre and post COVID-19 pandemic To check if there was a difference in QWL of teacher pre and post COVID, chi-square analysis was conducted; a null hypothesis was designed and verified for the acceptance. The test statistics were represented in the Table-9.   

H0: There is no change in QWL of teachers of HEIs pre and post COVID-19

Table: 9 Impact of COVID-19 on QWL of teachers  

Status of QWL

Pre COVID

Post COVID

P Value

Decision

Number

%

Number

%

0.776

NS

Satisfaction

106

48.62

164

50.31

Dissatisfaction

112

51.38

162

49.69

 

The test statistics shows that p value is more than 0.05; this indicates that there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The chi-square analysis reveals that there is no change in QWL of teachers, pre and post COVID-19, at 5% level of significance. It means that COVID-19 had no influence on QWL of teachers.

Conclusion and Discussion

With the advent of COVID-19 pandemic the work life and home lives has come under one roof. The pandemic has created huge impact on all the sectors and its employees across the globe. Among them is higher education sector is one that has witnessed major impact wherein the black board teaching was transformed into online teaching. In order to continue educating and support the student fraternity to pursue their career the teachers have adapted to online educational resources during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The present study was conducted to compare the level of QWL during pre and post COVID-19 pandemic among the teachers working in HEIs and also to find the associated factors of QWL. This is imperative because as majority of teachers across the world are being forced to work from home due to pandemic situation. It is a guessing game as to how they are experiencing the new method of delivering the pedagogy using online tools by being at home. It is important for a teacher to strike a balance between work and family life else not it results in burn out. Hence it is necessary for HEIs to attract and retain the competent teacher who have a vital role to play in developing next generation engineers to rebuild the India post COVID-19. Additionally, a good QWL can improve teacher’s morale, effectiveness and recognition for institution. As teachers were not prepared for this current surge of online mode of work, it was necessary to study the impact of COVID-19 on QWL of teachers. As unfolded by the mean cutoff scores, 50.13% teachers expressed satisfaction during post COVID-19 while in pre COVID-19, only 48.16% of teachers expressed satisfaction towards their QWL. However, the level of QWL among academia seems to less compare to other sectors. The findings of the present study are substantiated the earlier studies in teaching environment from different parts of India that reported most of the teacher are not satisfied withs their QWL (Devi, 2006; Rao et al., 2013; Bashir, 2017).

This study indicated that the QWL among teachers of HEIs was influenced by gender and monthly income during pre COVID. In opposition, the study by Pugalendhi, (2010) reported that gender and monthly income is not associated with QWL of teachers. Although, teaching is female dominated sector, from the study it was found that majority of the female teachers expressed dissatisfaction (62%) towards their QWL and results corroborate with the study on QWL of teachers in private technical institution by Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy, (2013). The reason for this might be that females have combined responsibilities to manage home as well as job. The monthly income of respondents had a significant influence on QWL. About 70% of respondents reported less than Rs. 60000 as their monthly income. Majority of teachers reported that their monthly income was not adequate and apt given the nature of the job, knowledge and work experience. Generally, human basically depends on his monthly income to satisfy his needs and to afford a good standard of living. The results are in line with the results reported by Sturman, (2003) on QWL of teachers in England.  The work experience and designation of respondents had no influence on QWL. This is in line with the results reported on QWL of teachers in Mysore city by Manju, (2014).  The study findings revealed that mostly the teachers who were assistant professors expressed high level of dissatisfaction towards their QWL and it is corroborated by the study done by Rao et al., (2013) on teachers of Jammu University.

In case of post COVID sample, the QWL was influenced by experience of respondent. More specifically, teachers with less experienced were prone to dissatisfaction while senior teachers with more work experience reported high satisfaction towards their QWL. These findings are in line with the study conducted by Sturman, (2003) on QWL of teachers in England concluded that senior staff are more satisfied with their QWL. Additionally study findings revealed that teachers perceived that gender, designation and monthly income had no influence on their QWL. The findings were supported by the earlier study conducted by Bharathi et al., (2010) on QWL of technical education teachers in Tamilnadu state.

The current study demonstrated the impact of COVID-19 on QWL of teachers working in HEIs. It appears strange as the study findings indicated that there was no impact of COVID-19 pandemic on QWL of teachers. It means that teachers of HEIs were more flexible, well equipped and adaptive to the changes and managed the crisis very well.

Another important interpretation of this comparative study was that, the QWL factors perceived by the teachers during pre and post COVID were entirely different. The pre COVID sample revealed that a healthy work environment, fair compensation and rewards, good work life balance and the amiable relationship and cooperation shared with the peers and management are assumed to the significant QWL factors by the teachers of HEIs. The study findings are supported by many researchers who have acknowledged the importance of these QWL factors perceived by academia (Ishak et al., 2018).   

Whilst, during post COVID period, the teachers have attached more importance to job satisfaction and security, training and development, flexibility in work, the autonomy of work and the work load and how these factors have enhanced the QWL. The study findings are in line with the study by Sirgy et al., (2008) which reported that to job satisfaction and security, training and development, flexibility in work, the autonomy of work and the work load can improve the work life.  During COVID-19, the concept of work from home has ascertained a good QWL, as teachers were involved in self learning or training by trial and error attempts to use tech-tools to create the study materials and deliver the pedagogy. Additionally, remote working provided high level of work autonomy and flexi-time helped especially female teachers to manage/balance both work and household chores evidently with increased work load. All the factors would act as catalyst to increase the job satisfaction and security of teachers.

Post COVID-19, the HEIs have added responsibility to produce more effective, dynamic and skilful young minds to repair the damage caused by the pandemic and to rebuild the Indian economy.  A teacher is said to plays a critical role in developing, fostering and transforming the young minds into future human resource. Therefore, the HEIs should make ways for improving QWL of their teachers as highly qualified and dedicated teachers have a tendency to deliver their best by building a good rapport with student’s community thereby promoting a good teaching learning process. Such positivity expressed by teachers would enhance the commitment towards their institutions (Sirgy et al., 2001).  

It is important to ensure that teachers experience a good QWL as it helps them to realize their potential and contribute their best for the growth and development of the HEIs. To improve QWL of teachers, it is quintessential for management of HEIs to identify and satisfy those factors which teachers presume to be important during their stay at work (Ishak et al., 2018). The QWL dimensions are based on perpetual state of mind of human and it intend to vary based on given situation. The management of HEIs must focus identified QWL factors for the post COVID-19 sample and ensure that these factors are satisfied to improve teachers QWL.

Practical Implications
With the outrage of COVID-19 Pandemic runs its course, yet the management and teachers of many HEIs are forced to operate/function remotely by working from home for education continuity for the benefits of students. This has rapidly upended the normal working style of teachers and also caused teachers to migrate from conventional black board teaching to technology enabled teaching by designing and developing their own academic materials. 
This has caused many challenges for teachers due to issues pertaining to lack of technological facilities and space constraints with regard to family status at home to attend to work. Further, they often find it more difficult to distinguish between work life and home lives (Ramarajan and Reid, 2013). This would affect the teachers work life and low satisfaction of QWL can results in poor performance, detached work engagement, unauthorized leaves and frequently change of jobs (Efraty, et.al, 2000). During this crisis, it is important for HEIs to retain and motivate the teachers as they are vital resources for growth and success of the institution. As teaching is thought of to be a noble and valued profession as teachers play a significantly role in creating the future human capital. Hence it is important for management of HEIs must support their staff to enhance their lifestyle by periodically measuring the employees QWL (Duyan et,  al., 2013). Such periodic assessment will have a huge impact on improving the teacher’s commitment levels, productivity and to upload the image of the institution.

 

References

  • Anand, V. (2013). Quality of work life among employees in Indian textile industry–A pragmatic approach. Global research analysis, 2(5), 153-154
  • Bashir, B. Impact of Quality of Work Life on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of University Teachers in JandK.
  • Bharathi, P. S., Umaselvi, M., & Kumar, N. S. (2010) Quality of Work Life: Perception of College Teachers. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27868/.
  • Bhatnagar, T., & Soni, H. (2015). Impact of quality of work life on job satisfaction of school teachers in Udaipur City. IOSR journal of Business and Management17(3), 10-14.
  • Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  • Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. routledge.
  • Devi, V. R. (2006). Job Satisfaction among University Teachers. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, OctoberDecember, 3(4), pp. 87-94.
  • Dubey, A. D., & Tripathi, S. (2020). Analysing the sentiments towards work-from-home experience during covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Innovation Management8(1).
  • Duyan, E. C., Aytaç, S., Akyildiz, N., & Van Laar, D. (2013). Measuring work related quality of life and affective well-being in Turkey. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences4(1), 105-105.
  • Efraty, D., Sirgy, M. J., & Siegel, P. (2000). The job/life satisfaction relationship among professional accountants: Psychological determinants and demographic differences. In Advances in Quality of Life Theory and Research(pp. 129-157). Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Fajemisin, T. A. (2002). Quality of work life: A study of employees in West Africa. African Business Review13(4), 501-517.
  • Hackman, J. R., & Suttle, J. L. (1977). Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to organizational change.
  • Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. In: Marcin Pont and Lisa McQuilken (2002). Testing the Fit of the BANKSERV Model to BANKPERF Data. ANZMAG conference proceedings.865
  • Ishak, S. I. D., Abd Razak, N., Hussin, H., Fhiri, N. S., & Ishak, A. S. (2018). A literature review on quality teacher’s working life. In MATEC Web of Conferences(Vol. 150, p. 05094). EDP Sciences.
  • Jena, A. K., Bhattacharjee, S., Devi, J., & Barman, M. (2020). Effects of Web 2.0 Technology Assisted Slideshare, YouTube and WhatsApp on Individual and Collaborative Learning Performance and Retention in Tissues System. Online Submission8(1), 25-36.
  • Jerome, S. (2013). A study on quality of work life of employees at Jeppiaar Cement Private Ltd: Perambalur. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, 1(4), 49-57.
  • Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2002). The politics of teacher quality: Implications for principals. NASSP Bulletin86(633), 22-41.
  • Kline, R. B. (1998). Software review: Software programs for structural equation modeling: Amos, EQS, and LISREL. Journal of psychoeducational assessment16(4), 343-364.
  • Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and psychological measurement34(1), 111-117.
  • Manju, N. D. (2014). Emotional Intelligence of B Ed student teachers. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research3(4), 41-45.
  • McBer, H. (2000). A model of teacher effectiveness. Department for Education and Employment. Recuperado el15, 01-06.
  • Nazir, U., Qureshi, T. M., Shafaat, T., & Ilyas, A. (2011). Office harassment: A negative influence on quality of work life. African Journal of Business Management, 5(25), 10276.
  • Pugalendhi, S. B. (2010). Quality of work life: Perception of college teachers.
  • Ramarajan, L., & Reid, E. M. (2013). Changes in Work, Changes in Self? Managing our Work and Non-Work Identities in an Integrated World. European Business Review.
  • Rao, T., Arora, R. S., & Vashisht, A. K. (2013). Quality of work life: a study of Jammu University teachers. Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management2(1), 20.
  • Reena, G., & Jayan, C. (2012). Role of quality of work life on the job attitude and personal effectiveness of engineering college teachers. South Asian Academic Research Journals, Academicia 2 (6).
  • Rose, R. C., Beh, L., Uli, J., & Idris, K. (2006). Quality of work life: Implications of career dimensions. Journal of Social Sciences2(2), 61-67.
  • Sharplin, E., O’Neill, M., & Chapman, A. (2011). Coping strategies for adaptation to new teacher appointments: Intervention for retention. Teaching and Teacher Education27(1), 136-146.
  • Singh, M., Ingle, N. A., Kaur, N., & Yadav, P. (2015). Evaluation of knowledge and attitude of school teachers about emergency management of traumatic dental injury. Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry5(2), 108.
  • Singh, O. P., & Singh, S. K. (2015). Quality of work life of teachers working in higher educational institutions: A strategic approach towards teacher’s excellence. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, 3(9), 180-186.
  • Singh, T., & Srivastav, S.K. (2012). “QWL and Organization Efficiency: a Proposed
  • Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective(Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Sirgy, M. J., Reilly, N. P., Wu, J., & Efraty, D. (2008). A work-life identity model of well-being: Towards a research agenda linking quality-of-work-life (QWL) programs with quality of life (QOL). Applied Research in Quality of Life3(3), 181-202.
  • Solomon, R. P., & Daniel, B. J. M. (2015). Discourses on race and “white privilege” in the next generation of teachers. In Revisiting The Great White North?(pp. 193-204). SensePublishers, Rotterdam.
  • Srinivas, R., & Swamy, D. (2013). Quality Management Practices In Rural And Urban SMEs–A Comparative Study. International Journal for Quality Research, 7(4), 479-492.
  • Sturman, L. (2003). Survey of Quality of Working life in Teachers. –2003.[Electronic resource]–URL: http://www. nfev. ac. uk/research-areas/pimsdata/sum бзор качества трудовой жизни учителей.
  • Swamy, D. R., Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Rashmi, S. (2015). Quality of work life: scale development and validation. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(2), 281.
  • Van Prooijen, J. W., & Van Der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement61(5), 777-792.
  • (2016). Quality of Work Life of Muslim Women. International Journal of Indian Psychology 3(3), DOI: 10.25215/0303.033, DIP: 18.01.033/20160303.
  • Zakuan, N., Yusof, S. M., Saman, M. Z. M., & Shaharoun, A. M. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of TQM practices in Malaysia and Thailand automotive industries. International Journal of Business and Management5(1), 160.