What is in the name? Content analysis of questionnaires on perceived quality of one’s work life

Many different terms are used to describe human quality of life (QOL), such as ‘well-being’, ‘happiness’ and ‘thriving’. Veenhoven identifies four meanings addressed using these terms, distinguishing between:

A combination of these two dichotomies yields a fourfold matrix which we present in Scheme 1.

Livability of the environment. The left top quadrant of Scheme 1 denotes the meaning of good living conditions. Often the terms 'quality-of-life' and 'wellbeing' are used in this particular meaning, especially by ecologists and sociologists. Economists sometimes use the term 'welfare' for this meaning. 'Livability' is a better word, because it refers explicitly to a characteristic of the environment and does not carry the connotation of Paradise. Politicians and social reformers typically stress this quality of life.

Life-ability of the person. The right top quadrant of Scheme 1 denotes inner life chances. That is, how well we are equipped to cope with the problems of life. This aspect of the good life is also known by different names. Doctors and psychologists especially use the terms 'quality of life' and 'wellbeing' to denote this specific meaning. There are more names, however. In biology the phenomenon is referred to as 'fitness' and this term aptly coveys the message that abilities must be seen in the context of environmental demands. On other occasions life-ability is denoted by the medical term 'health', in the medium variant of the word. In positive psychology, the term ‘eudaimonic’ happiness is often used to denote this meaning, particularly in juxtaposition to ‘hedonic’ happiness. This quality of life is central in the thinking of therapists and educators.

Utility of life. The left bottom quadrant of Scheme 1 represents the notion that a good life must be good for something more than itself. This presumes some higher value, such as ecological preservation or cultural development. In fact, there is a myriad of values on which the utility of life can be judged. There is no current generic for these external results of a life. Gerson (1976) referred to these kinds of results as 'transcendental' conceptions of quality of life. Another appellation is 'meaning of life', which then denotes 'true' significance instead of mere subjective sense of meaning. Veenhoven (2000) refers the simpler 'utility of life', admitting that this label may also give rise to misunderstanding. Moral advisors, such as pastors, emphasize this quality of life.

Satisfaction with life. Finally, the bottom right quadrant of Scheme 1 represents the inner outcomes of life. That is the quality of a life in the eye of the beholder. As we deal with conscious humans, this quality boils down to subjective appreciation of life. This is commonly referred to by terms such as 'subjective wellbeing', 'life satisfaction' and 'happiness' in a limited sense of the word. There is no professional interest group that stresses this meaning.

Veenhoven (2009) expands on the concept of satisfaction in a later publication and distinguishes four kinds of satisfaction, thus creating a sub-matrix within his earlier matrix of four qualities of life. Veenhoven distinguishes between:

Combining these distinctions produces the following fourfold matrix, shown in Scheme 2.

Instant satisfaction. The top left quadrant of Scheme 2 denotes passing pleasures, such as the enjoyment of a meal or appreciation of art. Kahneman (1999) calls it 'instant utilities’ and pleas for the measurement of these using techniques of multiple moment assessment.

Satisfaction with parts of life. The top right quadrant in Scheme 2 denotes enduring appreciation of parts of life. That can concern aspects of life, such as how exciting one’s life is and domains of life, such as one’s marriage. Although part-satisfactions depend on a continuous flow of instant satisfactions, they have some continuity of their own, one can remain satisfied with one’s marriage in spite of an incidental row.

Top experience. The bottom right quadrant in Scheme 2 represents the combination of passing experience and appraisal of life-as-a-whole. Top experience involves short-lived but quite intense feelings and the perception of being part of a wider whole.

Life satisfaction. The bottom-right quadrant in Scheme 2 denotes the combination of enduring satisfaction and appraisal of one’s life-as-a-whole. In Veenhoven’s terminology life satisfaction is synonymous with ‘happiness’. The above conceptual differentiations were in fact made to end up with a clear delineation of that concept.

As a last step in his conceptual specification of quality of life, Veenhoven (2009) argues that ‘when evaluating the favorableness of our life, we tend to use two more or less distinct sources of information: our affects and our thoughts’ and he refers to the sub-evaluations made by individuals on this basis as ‘components’ of an overall evaluation of a life. The affective component of life satisfaction is how well we feel most of the time and is called ‘hedonic level of affect’. The cognitive component is the extent to which we think that life brings us what we want and is called ‘contentment. This view is presented schematically in Scheme 3.

In Veenhoven’s (2009) theory of happiness, hedonic level of affect reflects the gratification of universal innate needs while cognitive contentment reflects the meeting of culturally variable, learned wants. Recent research has confirmed Veenhoven’s expectation that the affective component dominates in the overall evaluation of life (Kainulainen et al. 2018).

If we adapt Veenhoven’s matrix of the four qualities of life to the work setting, we obtain the matrix presented in Scheme 4.

The matrix differentiates between:

Livability of work conditions. The top-left quadrant of Scheme 4 denotes the work situation and includes the demands involved in the work tasks as well as physical and social conditions on the work floor and the social prestige of the job. This aspect of the quality of work life is typically stressed by trade unions and work safety agencies.

Work-ability of the worker. The top-right quadrant in Scheme 4 denotes the worker’s capabilities, such as his/her physical and mental health, technical knowledge and interpersonal skills. This aspect of the quality of work life is central for HR departments and occupational health services.

Utility of work. The bottom left quadrant in Scheme 4 is about what the work brings to a worker beyond profit to his or her wider environment and concerns the degree to which his or her products serve human needs and her or his social and ecological impact. This aspect of the quality of work is often addressed in motivational speeches and in ‘social impact reports’ of organizations. It is often difficult to discern rhetoric from reality.

Satisfaction with work. The bottom right quadrant in Scheme 4 refers to the inner outcome of work life on the worker in terms of satisfaction. This is a concern for the workers themselves in the first place and one of the drivers of their behaviour at work. It is for this reason that employers are keen to monitor the satisfaction in their workforce.

If we adapt the matrix of the four satisfactions to the work setting, we obtain the following matrix, presented below in Scheme 5.

Instant satisfaction at work. The left-top quadrant in Scheme 5 denotes passing satisfactions such as contact with colleagues or the feeling of accomplishment once a task is done. Bakker and Oerlemans (2016) refer to this matter as’ momentary happiness at work’. Instant satisfactions are not always positive, and also cover such things as irritations and tiredness.

Satisfaction with parts of work life. The top-right quadrant in Scheme 5 represents enduring satisfaction with parts of one’s work life. In addition to classical satisfaction with parts of one’s work life such as satisfaction with wages and satisfaction with management, there is satisfaction with aspects of work such as satisfaction with the meaningfulness of the work or the degree to which it encourages self-development.

Top experience at work. The left-bottom quadrant is about top experiences, that is, short-lived ‘highs’. States of extasis are not common on a work floor but less intense states of ‘flow’ are. Flow involves the experience of being immersed in one’s work and performing at one’s best. Flow occurs more during work than during leisure (Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre 1989).

Overall satisfaction with work life. The bottom-right quadrant in Scheme 5 denotes the combination of enduring work satisfaction and appraisal of one’s work life-as-a-whole. As, in Veenhoven’s (2009) terminology life satisfaction is synonymous with ‘happiness’, we could say that job satisfaction and overall satisfaction with work life are synonymous with happiness at work.

Analogous to the distinction made between components of life satisfaction in Sect. 2.1.3, we can distinguish an affective and a cognitive component in overall satisfaction with work life similar to that presented in Scheme 3. The affective component is called hedonic level of affect at work and the cognitive component contentment at work, see Scheme 6.

See Scheme 7.

‘I feel that I am realizing my potential as an expert in my line of work’ (Sirgy et al. 2001).

We categorized this item in the quadrant work-ability of the worker. This item does not tell us anything about the current job of a worker and its influence on the realization of the potential of the worker unlike the item in the same questionnaire ‘I feel that my job allows me to realize my full potential’; here a direct causal link is expressed from the work conditions to the realization of the worker’s potential. We also categorized the item ‘I feel that I’m always learning new things that help do my job better’ in the quadrant work-ability of the worker for the same reason.

‘A strong trade union is required to protect employees’ interests’ (Swamy et al. 2015).

We categorized this item as miscellaneous, i.e. outside the matrix. The item expresses a political opinion on the importance of trade unions in employees-employer relationship, and, as relevant this opinion can be, it does not give us any insight into the livability of work conditions inside the organization of a worker who responds to this item.

‘I am ready to take additional responsibilities with my job’ (Swamy et al. 2015).

We categorized this item in the quadrant work-ability of the worker. The item is not about the perception of the worker on the livability of his or her work conditions, but about his or her perception of his or her ability to take on new responsibilities.

‘I feel well at the moment’ (Van Laar et al. 2007).

We categorized this item as miscellaneous. There is no mention of the work setting in the item and no leading question that shows that the item falls within the work setting before the item. Thus, the item is about the psychological health of the person in general, not just at work. Items such as ‘Recently, I have been feeling unhappy and depressed’ and ‘I am satisfied with my life’ were categorized in a similar manner.

‘How do you feel about your job?’ with response options ranging from 1 (‘delighted’) to 7 (‘terrible’) (Andrews and Withey 1976)

We categorized this item in the quadrant overall satisfaction with work life. The word ‘work’ can be used in two ways: one to denote the job itself and two, to denote the job as a whole, i.e. the work life of a worker. We considered that the second meaning may be more appropriate. Andrews and Whitey use the expression ‘the job itself’ in another item, however, this item comes after the item we analysed here in their questionnaire.

‘How satisfied are you with your present job when you consider the expectations you had when you took the job’ (Bacharach et al. 1991)

We categorized this item in the quadrant contentment with work. Contentment with work is about the distance between one’s real work life and one’s idea of an ideal work life. Here the item deals with the distance between the workers’ expectations when hired and the reality of their job. We consider that the breath of meaning of this quadrant could, however, be broadened in light of this item and others such as ‘It seems that my friends are more interested in their jobs’ (Brayfield and Rothe 1951) and ‘How satisfied are you with your present job when you compare it to jobs in other organizations’ (Bacharach et al. 1991). The reason for categorizing the item in the quadrant contentment with work is that each of these items contains an idea of distance, comparison between the workers’ current job as a whole and jobs or other things.

‘All my talents and skills are used’ (Macdonald and Maclntyre 1997).

We categorized this item as miscellaneous, because the context of the item was not clearly stated. Talents and skills could be used in leisure time. An example of clear writing for this item would be ‘My work allows me to use all my talents and skills’.

‘I like doing the things I do at work’ (Spector 1985).

We categorized the item in the quadrant satisfaction with parts of work life. The item is about the tasks that a worker does at work and the verb used is ‘like’, like is used here as a mark of appreciation.

‘At my work, I remain inspired and try to inspire others as well’ (Singh and Aggarwal 2018).

We categorized this item as miscellaneous, because it is a double-barreled item. An item should have just one direction, and this can be divided into two items: ‘at my work I remain inspired’, and ‘at my work, I try to inspire others as well’. We would have classified the item ‘at my work I remain inspired’ as representative of the hedonic level of affect at work, and the item ‘at my work, I try to inspire others as well’ as representative of work-ability of the worker.

‘My organization provides all necessary training and information to complete work on time’ (Singh and Aggarwal 2018).

We categorized this item in the quadrant of the livability of work conditions, because it represents subjective appreciation of a worker’s work conditions. There is no degree of satisfaction explicitly stated in the item. An item about satisfaction with parts of work life would be: ‘I am satisfied with the training and information my organization provides me to complete work on time’.

Elizur and Shye (1990) developed a 16-item scale on QWL, based on the idea that QWL has two facets: one, mode of functioning, expressive, integrative, adaptive and conservative; and two, fields of functioning, psychological, physical, social and cultural.

Placed in the QWL matrix the 16 items of Elizur and Shye’s questionnaire appear to be all about the livability of work conditions.

Martel and Dupuis (2006) developed the Quality of Working Life Systemic Inventory (QWLSI), a 33-item scale on the QWL. In this work, each item is about satisfaction with a part of work life.

Placed in the QWL matrix all 33 items appear to be about satisfaction with parts of work life. In each item the respondents are asked how ‘happy’ they are with a specific domain of work life. Aspects of work life are understood in this questionnaire in a broad sense: facilities, i.e. day care, access to restaurants, parking, etc., and union relation are considered to be part of the work life.

Sirgy et al. (2001) developed a 16-item scale, named the Quality of Work Life Measure. The measure was designed to capture the extent to which the work environment, job requirements, supervisory behaviour, and ancillary programs in an organization are perceived to meet the needs of an employee.

Placed in the QWL matrix 13 items appear to be about the livability of work conditions, 2 items about the work-ability of the worker and 1 item about satisfaction with parts of work life.

Swamy et al. (2015) developed a 49-item scale on QWL with 9 dimensions: 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.

Placed in the QWL matrix 43 items appear to be about the livability of work conditions, 2 items about the hedonic level of affect at work, 1 item about the work-ability of the worker, and 1 about overall satisfaction with work life. Two items had to be categorized as miscellaneous, that is outside the QWL matrix.

Van Laar et al. (2007) developed the Work-Related Quality of Life scale. The scale contains 23 items and 6 dimensions: job and career satisfaction, general well-being, home–work interface, stress at work, and control at work and working conditions.

Placed in the QWL matrix the 9 items appear to be about the livability of work conditions, 3 items about the work-ability of the worker, 3 items about satisfaction with parts of work life, 2 items about the hedonic level of affect at work and 6 items had to be categorized as miscellaneous, outside the QWL matrix.

Andrews and Withey developed a 5-item questionnaire to measure overall job satisfaction, and Rentsch and Steel (1992) validated the psychometric properties of this questionnaire.

Placed in the QWL matrix 4 items appear to be about satisfaction with parts of work life and one item about overall satisfaction with work life.

Bacharach et al. (1991) developed a 5-item scale to put an emphasize on the match between expectations and perceived reality for broad aspects of a job taken as a whole.

Placed in the QWL matrix 3 items appear to be about contentment with work and 2 items about satisfaction with parts of work life.

Note: Bacharach et al.’s scale shows a limit of our approach. Contentment with work is about the distance between one’s real work life and one’s ideal work life. One item in Bacharach et al.’s scale is about the distance between the real job and jobs in other organizations, while another is about the distance between the worker’s expectations when hired and the reality of the job.

Macdonald and Maclntyre (1997) developed the Generic Job Satisfaction Scale, a 10-item and one-dimension scale on job satisfaction. The items are described as being focused on the employees’ feelings or reactions towards aspects of their jobs.

Placed in the QWL matrix 6 items appear to be about the livability of work conditions, 2 items about the hedonic level of affect at work, and 2 had to be categorized as miscellaneous.

Spector developed the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), a 36-item scale and a nine-subscale measure of job satisfaction. He states that this scale is applicable specifically to human service, public, and nonprofit sector organizations. The nine subscales are pay, promotion, supervision, benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work and communication.

Placed in the QWL matrix 26 items appear to be about livability of work conditions, 7 about satisfaction with parts of work life, 2 about hedonic level of affects at work and 1 about utility of work.

Weiss et al. (1967) developed the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Two forms exist, the long form that consists of 100 items and the short form that consist of 20 items. We studied the short-form questionnaire. The short-form questionnaire consists of three subscales: intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction and general satisfaction.

Placed in the QWL matrix all the items appear to be about satisfaction with parts of work life.

Salas-Vallina et al. (2016) consider happiness at work to be an umbrella concept mixing work engagement, job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment, and used three independent scales to measure happiness at work: the Utrecht Work Engagement¹ Scale (UWES—Schaufeli et al. 2002), the Job Satisfaction Index (JSI—Schriesheim and Tsui 1980), and the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS—Allen and Meyer 1990). The UWES was developed to measure work engagement and is made up of three dimensions: vigour, dedication and absorption. The JSI was developed to measure satisfaction with 5 job conditions and job satisfaction as a whole. The ACS was developed to measure one of the Meyer and Allen’s three-component model of organizational commitment, affective commitment. Together the three scales account for 31 items.

Placed in the QWL matrix 11 items appear to be about satisfaction with parts of work life, 6 items about work-ability of the worker, 5 items about instant satisfaction at work, 2 items about overall satisfaction with work life, 1 item about the livability of work conditions, 1 item about the hedonic level of affect at work and 1 item about utility of work. We also considered that 4 items may not belong to the large and integrative concept of QWL, and we categorized these items as miscellaneous.

Singh and Aggarwal (2018) developed the Happiness at Work Scale. The questionnaire has 12 items and 4 dimensions: flow and intrinsic motivation, work repulsive feelings, supportive organizational experiences, and unsupportive organizational experiences.

Placed in the QWL matrix 5 items appear to be about the livability of work conditions, 2 about the hedonic level of affect at work, 1 about the work-ability of the worker, 1 about utility of work, 1 about satisfaction with parts of work life work domain and 1 about overall satisfaction with work life. One item was classified as miscellaneous. Almost half of the items measure the livability of work conditions.

Common users of questionnaires on perceived QWL consist of researchers, HR departments, consulting firms and HR apps. It is important for researchers to select questionnaires that are adapted to their needs because the quality of their results and their research depends on the quality of the items of the questionnaires they have chosen. It is also important for HR departments, consulting firms and HR apps to select questionnaires that are adapted to their needs because the quality of the recommendations and the data-driven HR policies depends on the results obtained using the chosen questionnaire(s).

To select a questionnaire, users must, first, decide what information they need. The conceptual matrix presented here provides an overview of possible topics and can as such help a prospective user to get a clearer view of what information might be useful for them. Once they are more aware of these necessities, they can use the method to select the questionnaire that best meets these.

For researchers, the method presented here is just an additional technique that can be used to develop better questionnaires in conjunction with the usual psychometric techniques, preferably in the first stage of questionnaire development. For example, the item response theory (IRT) may help questionnaires developers develop items and can be used along with our approach, however, the IRT cannot bring the degree of semantic analysis present in our approach, as we argued in Sect. 3.4.

For HR departments, consulting firms and HR apps, that often do not use psychometric technique in questionnaire development, our method might be the major tool to devise questionnaires that meet their information needs.

One has to decide on which conceptual framework to orient to develop a new questionnaire in this way, such as on the matrix used in this paper. The next step is then to generate new items and, or use existing items when they fall within the framework chosen. The substantive contents of the questionnaire are then clear from the beginning; the psychometric properties come second in this process.