i UNIVERSITY OF GHANA PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT THE INFLUENCE OF PERCIEVED ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING, EMPLOYEES’ CREATIVITY AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS ON QUALITY OF WORK LIFE OF EMPLOYEES IN SELECTED GHANAIAN ORGANISATIONS BY PRISCILLA HANSON (10396715) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF M.PHIL. DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY 2014 ii DECLARATION I, Priscilla Hanson, hereby declare that, except for references to other people's work which have been duly acknowledged, this thesis is the result of my own research and has neither in part nor in whole been presented for any degree. Signature................................................. Date………………….. PRISCILLA HANSON (STUDENT) This research work was undertaken under the supervision of: Signature.................................................... Date…………………… DR. KINGSLEY NYARKO (PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR) Signature………………………………… Date……………………… DR. ROBERT AKUAMOAH BOATENG (CO-SUPERVISOR) iii ABSTRACT The study sought to find out the influence of organisational learning and employees creativity on the quality of work life among employees in Ghanaian organisations. The design of the study was a sequential explanatory mixed research design. The populations consisted of all employees in Ghanaian organisations. Samples were drawn from lecturers in University of Cape Coast, Educational Foundations Department, nurses from University of Cape Coast hospital, staff from Vodafone Ghana, Ghana post office, Ghana commercial bank, high street branch and staff from Global Brigade NGO. The respondents consisted of both female and male employees who had at least a minimum of a Higher National Diploma degree. A stratified, simple random (balloting) and convenience sampling procedures were used. A questionnaire measuring creativity, learning opportunity, quality of work life, stress risk and work demands were administered to the respondents. Data was analysed using Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficient, standard multiple regression analysis and hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Interview guide was developed based on the outcome of the study for further probing. A significant positive relationship was observed between the variables, (which are perceived creativity, perceived quality of work life, perceived organisational learning, perceived stress risk and perceived work demands). Creativity and learning was found to have a significant positive relationship with employees’ QWL. Learning at the organisational level was found to predict a significant portion of the variance in QWL than at the individual and team level. Furthermore, out of the various moderators proposed, only sex could not significantly moderate the relationship between learning and QWL. The relationship between creativity and QWL on the other hand was moderated by all the proposed moderators. The outcome of the study was discussed and recommendations made accordingly. iv DEDICATION I dedicate this work to My Dad in Heaven, Edward Antwi Danso, My parents; Joyce Mankata and Hoffman Hanson, My siblings, cousins and friends for their prayers and support in my education I love you all. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere thanks go to the Almighty God for His protection and guidance through the successful completion of the course. I would like to express my profound gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Kingsley Nyarko and Dr. Akuamoah-Boateng for their guidance and the time they spent on reading this thesis, criticizing where necessary and offering very good suggestions and pieces of advice. They are largely responsible for the success of this work and I am very much grateful. I also wish to thank Mr. Edward Antwi Danso for his great support. He really played a major role in making my master’s degree a possibility. To the Staff and Management of Ghana Commercial Bank, University of Cape Coast, Educational Foundations department, University of Cape Coast Hospital, Vodafone Ghana Limited, Tigo Company limited, Ghana Post Office and Global Brigade NGO, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to you for your support and co-operation, especially Mr. Francis Danyi, Mohammed Mipo, Daniel Asiedu and Daniel Kofi Arhin. My gratitude also goes to Teddy Kwakye, Naa Okailey Attoh-Okine, Matthew Ghansah, Richard Hanson, Mr and Mrs Anum, and all my family members who supported me when I needed them. I also wish to express my appreciation to all my colleagues and friends, especially George Ampratwum, Confidence Hommey, Ernest Darkwah and Esinam Ofori for all the support they gave me during my course of study and writing up this thesis. To everyone who have in diverse ways contributed to this work but their names have not been mentioned, I deeply appreciate you all. vi TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………………………ii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...iii DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………..v TABLE OF CONTENT…………………………………………………………………………..vi LIST OF FIGURS………………………………………………………………………………...x LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………….xi INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background of the study ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................ 9 1.3 Aims and Objectives of study ............................................................................................. 11 1.4 Relevance of the study ........................................................................................................ 12 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................................................................................... 14 2.1. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 15 2.1.1. Domain Individual Field Interaction Model of Creativity ................................... 15 2.1.2. Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory .............................................................. 16 Factors Affecting Job Attitudes as proposed by Herzberg (1959) ..................................... 17 2.1.3. Observe-Assess-Design-Implement-Cycle .......................................................... 19 2.2. Review of Related Literature ............................................................................................. 20 2.2.1. Creativity and quality of work life ....................................................................... 20 vii 2.2.2. Learning and quality of work life ......................................................................... 22 2.2.3. Learning and Creativity ........................................................................................ 26 2.3. Rationale of the study ......................................................................................................... 30 2.4. Statement of Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 31 CONCEPTUAL MODEL .............................................................................................. 33 2.5. DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................. 34 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 35 3.1. Population........................................................................................................................... 35 3.2. Sample and Sampling Procedure........................................................................................ 35 3.3. Sample size ......................................................................................................................... 36 3.4. Research Instruments ......................................................................................................... 38 3.4.1. Quality of work life scale ..................................................................................... 38 3.4.2. Creativity Scale .................................................................................................... 38 3.4.3. Orgnisational learning scale ................................................................................. 39 3.4.4. Work demands scale............................................................................................. 39 3.4.5. Stress Risk Scale .................................................................................................. 40 3.5. Piloting of Instruments ....................................................................................................... 41 3.6. Research Design ................................................................................................................. 43 3.7 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................. 44 3.8 Ethical considerations ......................................................................................................... 45 viii RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 47 4.1. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 48 4.2. Presentation of Results ....................................................................................................... 49 4.2.1. Preliminary Analysis ............................................................................................ 49 4.3. Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................................ 50 Hypothesis 1 ................................................................................................................... 52 Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................................................... 52 Hypothesis 4 ................................................................................................................... 54 Hypothesis 5: .................................................................................................................. 60 4.4. Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................... 66 4.5. Report on qualitative data .................................................................................................. 68 4.5.1. Results on qualitative data............................................................................................... 69 DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ................................................ 72 5.1. Discussion of Results ......................................................................................................... 72 5.1.1. Relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL ....................................... 72 5.1.2. Relationship between organisational learning and employees’ QWL ................. 75 5.1.3. Learning at the organisational level will predict a significant portion of the variance in QWL of employees than at the team and individual level. ......................... 77 5.1.4. The relationship between learning and QWL would be moderated by work demands stress risk, type of work and gender. ............................................................... 80 ix 5.1.5. The relationship between creativity and QWL would be moderated by work demands stress risk, type of work and gender. ............................................................... 84 5.2. Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 87 5.3. Strength .............................................................................................................................. 88 5.4. Practical Implication .......................................................................................................... 88 5.5. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 89 5.6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 90 QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................................... 111 ETHICAL APPROVAL ............................................................................................................. 120 SPSS OUTPUT ........................................................................................................................... 126 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1……………………………………………………….…………………………….33 Figure 2……………………………………………………………………………………..67 xi LIST OF TABLES CONTENTS Table1……………………………………………………………………………………....37 Table 2……………………………………………………………………………….……..50 Table 3…………………………………………………………………………….………..51 Table 4………………………………………………………………………...……………53 Table 5………………………………………………………………………..…………….53 Table 6……………………………………………………………………..………………..55 Table 7…………………………………………………………………..……….……….…61 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study The world is evolving and encountering unending changes, organisations as an open system are not exempted from these changes. Drucker (1999) rightly pointed out that business and technological changes are threatening organisational sustainability in the modern world and managers are facing many challenges as a result of these changes. Organisations are continually encountering competitive pressures and are forced to review and come up with new techniques in an era dominated by globalisation and dynamism. Consequently, contemporary organisations seem to be witnessing dramatic changes in their overall approaches to business. In the midst of the seemingly rugged business terrain, creativity and innovation are considered to be key factors for survival, success and excellence (Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonzalez, 2007). Scholars do agree that one way to ensure the development of these all important assets, human resource, is to create an environment supportive of learning and creativity. This implies that in order to survive and grow in this turbulent environment, organisations need to create work environments that will equip and enhance employees’ ability and willingness to drive the organisation to achieve its goals (Gupta & Chaudhary, 2012). According to Landey and Coute (2004), when Weber (1947) developed his theory of bureaucracy, he sought to depict a structured work environment necessary to achieve maximum effectiveness and success. However, because his model of organisation was associated with rigidity and irrational use of rules and procedures, it has been heavily criticized and negatively associated with creativity, one vital consideration as far as solutions to modern organisational problems is 2 concerned. Weber’s theory has therefore been challenged in favour of the contingency theory which asserted that there is no single best way to design organisational structures. The best way of engineering an organisation, is, however, based on, or contingent upon the internal and external situation of the company. With respect to organisational design, the contingency approach adjusts the design of the company to the sources of environmental uncertainties the organisation faces. The idea is to design an organisational structure that is flexible and hence can handle and adapt to uncertainties in the environment effectively and efficiently (Donaldson, 2001). Again, Agrell and Gustafson (1994) cited in Rasulzada (2007) have criticized the atmosphere in a structured work environment to be conservative, where new and different ideas are perceived as threat to the existing status quo. Although bureaucratic culture focuses on achieving success through structure, the rapid change, globalisation, technological advancement, foreign competition and several other variables that are so characteristic of the modern business scene make it next to impossible for organisations to survive by imposing orders and creating high levels of structure at the cost of organisational creativity (Rasulzada, 2007) and learning. Although this is not a recent development, the pace has accelerated hence the need to focus more research into learning and creativity in the work settings to come up with more and new ideas that could help organisations meet the demands of the environment. Critics have observed that the classical design does not give adequate attention to quality of working life, which often lead to the development of many difficulties. There have been observations of excessive division of labour and over dependence on rules, procedures and hierarchy deeply inherent in the design. For example, Aruns (2006) asserted that many specialised workers are often so deskilled that they lose pride in their work, and this is as a result of the routine and consistent nature of their job which demands the same skills all day. They therefore tend to do 3 the same job and apply the same skills each day to accomplish their task. The result has been high turnover and absenteeism, which have all, one way or the other, culminated in the decline of organisations’ growth and development. Research is continually revealing that most employees today, have a strong need for self-esteem, sense of belongings, high motivation and senses of growth and development. Without these factors being present at the work place most employees become detached, alienated, stagnant and at times even destructive. Although these can be achieved through employees’ relations and interactions and other factors in the organisation, it has been observed that in general, employees feel this is usually because of poor quality of work life (Aruns, 2006). Quality of Work Life was the term actually introduced in the late 1960’s. Kiriago and Bwisa (2013, pp. 291) indicated that “From that period till now the term is gaining more and more importance at the work place”. According to Walton (1985), quality of work life is the degree of psychological and physical comfort employees possess and feel as they execute their task in the organisation. Rethinam and Ismail (2008) defined QWL as the effectiveness of work environment that transmit to the meaningful organisational and personal needs in shaping the values of the employees that support and promote better health and well-being, job security, job satisfaction, competency development and balance between work and non-work life. Kashani (2012), also defined QWL as a philosophy or a set of principles, which holds that people are trustworthy, responsible and capable of making a valuable contribution to their organisation. Furthermore, Cummings and Worley (2005) asserted that QWL reflect the way of thinking about people, work and organisation involving a concern for employees’ wellbeing and organisational effectiveness. Arguing from the perspectives of Lawler (2005), this implies that prosperity and survival of organisations can be influenced by the way employees are treated. 4 Lal (1994) cited in Aruns (2006) asserted that quality of work life involves making the work environment convenient and a congenial place for the worker to work in. Thus quality of working life produces more humanized jobs for employees. The basic assumption of creating a humanized work for employees, according to Aruns, is that it is most advantageous when it provides a “best fit” among workers, jobs, technology and the environment. Furthermore, the rationale for considering quality of work life in designing jobs is to come up with excellent jobs for employees as well as production, with the aim of ensuring employees’ wellbeing. High quality of work life therefore, enables organisations to maximize their unique and diverse skills, and potentials of each employee (Aruns, 2006). It aims to serve the higher order needs of workers as well as their basic needs, bring out the higher skills of workers and also provide an encouraging work environment that supports the enhancement of employees’ skills. Furthermore, Rasulzada (2007) indicated that paying attention to employees wellbeing, and in that case, quality of work life (QWL), is crucial because of its ability to influence employees’ attitudes, behaviour, decision making and interaction with colleagues, and also, its ability to spill over to their family and social life. For instance, psychologically healthy individuals have been found to experience warm and trusting relationships, feel that they are developing as individuals, have a purpose in their lives, feel that they can shape the world around them to meet their needs, and feel capable to direct their actions from internal standards (Çeçen & Cenkseven, 2007). In addition, individuals who experience high well-being, tend to be superior decision makers, demonstrate well interpersonal behaviour and receive higher overall performance ratings (Wright & Cropanzanbo, 2004). Also, according to Warr (1990), employees who are satisfied with their lives and aspect of their work have been found to be more co-operative and helpful to their colleagues, more punctual, report fewer sick days and remain employed for longer period than more dissatisfied employees. 5 The review of literature on the definitions of QWL reveals some common variables such as the improvement of work environment and the treatment of employees to ensure their physical and psychological (mental) wellbeing as well as the economic health of the organisation. In view of this, organisations are expected to treat their employees in ways that would invoke their organisational commitments and loyalty. This study on the other hand focused on QWL as employees’ perceptions to which the organisational environment meets the full range of their needs for their psychological wellbeing at work. In spite of its relevance, the psychological wellbeing of employees may be at risk, especially in this contemporary world of work where the need arises for organisations to adapt to the numerous changes they encounter as a result of globalisation and technological advancement, a more focus on customers’ services and the likes (Kinnunen, Geurts & Mauno, 2004). If these changes are not dealt with, employees are likely to experience a lack of wellbeing, and negative stress, hence a perceived low quality of work life. Keyes, Hysom and Lupo (2000) explained employees’ psychological wellbeing as their perception and assessment of the quality work of life and the quality of their psychological and social functioning. Rasulzada (2007) citing Karesek and Theorell (1990) indicated that many of the dimensions that work to enhance organisational creativity had been found to relate with conditions necessary for the psychological well-being of employees. For example, dimension such as challenge, freedom, autonomy and low levels of conflict are essential to harness the psychological well-being of employees. In this case, when an individual experiences less opportunity to influence decision, less freedom in his or her work, and less control in situations where he or she encounters high 6 workload, stress is likely to be experienced, as a consequence, commitment and participation may decline and employees might no longer see their work as meaningful. Rasulzada (2007), in his study on creativity and psychological wellbeing, found that creativity and innovation in the organisation are means to improve employees’ psychological wellbeing. According to him, it is vital to increase organisational creativity and a climate for creativity not just to attain a competitive value and remain attractive in the market, but also for the individual to achieve a better psychological well-being. Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham (2004) indicated that creativity is a core competence for contemporary organisations that encounter changing consumer demands and ever-increasing performance standards because of globalisation, and rapid technology changes. Therefore, considering organisations quest to adapt and react to the constant changes facing the work environment, creativity is seen as a necessary condition for development (Runco, 2004). Zhou and Shalley (2003) highlighted in their study that where creativity is encouraged, it serves as a motivation tool that increases employees’ tendency to be curious, cognitively flexible, risk taking and persistent in the face of barriers. Creative individuals are thought to be happier, more committed and often strive to achieve self-actualization (Csikszentmihayi, 1997). Presently, creativity is no longer regarded as an innate quality that only a small number of individuals possess (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Rather, it is increasingly seen as a competence that can be improved or developed in most individuals through adequate experience and training (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). Although individual dispositions such as motivation and problem- solving style account for substantial variation in individual creativity, organisational context also has significant potential to cultivate creativity (Amabile et al., 1996). 7 The above literature reviewed depicts a relationship between creativity and psychological well- being, literature is very scarce in this field, and no study exist on the impact of creativity on employees quality of work life (Carr, 2005) and more especially in the Ghanaian context. In view of this, the present study expected to find a significant influence of creativity on employees’ quality of work life in Ghanaian organizations. Furthermore, focusing on Keyes, Hysom and Lupo’s definition of psychological wellbeing, it could be assumed that if creativity correlates positively with employees psychological wellbeing (Scottish Executive Social Research, 2005), then it is also expected to positively correlate with employees’ quality of work life. The present study sought to investigate this assertion. According to Kelley and Littman (2001) organisational creativity is hand in hand with organisational learning. From their perspective, organisational culture and a climate supporting openness and creativity are vital preconditions for a successful learning and innovation. Therefore where there is a demand for deep and more personalised learning, there is a demand for creativity. This implies that a work environment that requires and supports the acquisition and transfer of acquired knowledge, is more likely to demand and support creativity. Learning is undoubtedly a core concept of human resource development which focuses on various techniques for developing employees of an organisation that are knowledge management, learning organisations, training and development, management development and others. Organisational learning has been defined by Miller (1996) as the knowledge acquisition made by actors (individual and groups) when it can and are available to apply it in decision making process, or use to influence others within the organisation. Learning takes place in the organisation at the individual, team and organisational level. 8 Individuals make teams and teams are the building blocks of any organisation. It is an undeniable fact that every organisation needs individuals to put their best for making it successful, but more important is continuous learning of these individuals. These individuals are the employees of an organisation that accelerate the process of learning, and holistically an organisation grows. Individuals, who do not learn or acquire new skills according to dynamic business scenarios, ultimately prove to be a poor performer and burden on organisational resources (Pak, 2007). In the present world of hyper competition, those organisations who do not learn, adapt, or change their business process according to new trends or demands, cannot survive in today’s corporate world and this is the vital reason why management theories emphasise on continuous or incessant learning (Kim, 1993). Sharifi and Eslamiyeh (2009) emphasized that better and faster learning than competitors are the only source of strength and survival of organisations; hence, there are fewer chances to get success without learning continuously and acquisition of knowledge by the individuals of a firm. Therefore, in order for organisations to gain higher level of knowledge and skills, there is the need to promote the learning process at all levels (individual, team and organisational). Due to the continuous technological, economical and organisational changes, lifelong learning in the workplace has become almost compulsory, and enterprises are starting to see themselves as learning organisations. Organizational learning is a complex process that refers to the development of new knowledge, and has the potential to change behaviour (Huber, 1991; Slater & Narver, 1995). According to Kelley and Littman (2001), organisational learning is a process in which organisations make use of information from past events to adapt better to future events. It is a long established process that involves changing individual and organisational behaviour (Murray & Donegan, 2003). It has been observed that firms that have developed a strong learning culture are 9 good at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge and insight (Garvin, 1993; Huber, 1991). Jones (2000) stressed the importance of organisational learning for organisational performance. According to him, all organisations beyond the work sectors, such as health, financial, education, manufacturing, telecommunication and others, are affected by the vast changes occurring at both the national and international level as a result of globalisation, liberalisation and economic crisis impact. Therefore, in order to fine tune with the global changes, organisations must embrace and also create opportunity for learning and flexible environment where employees can bring on board new and novel ideas to problem solving which are tailored towards a better performance. Learning has been found to correlate with employees’ quality of work life. For instance, Darafs (2012) conducted a comparative study and found that there is a significant relationship between organisation learning and quality of work life. Sonnentag, Kuttle, and Fritz (2010) also observed that perception of the quality of work life can impact employees’ learning orientation. Research in the area of learning, creativity and quality of work life are very scarce in the Ghanaian context. It is in light of this that the study hones to investigate the influence of organisational learning and employees’ creativity on the quality of work life among employees in Ghanaian organisations. 1.2 Problem Statement According to Kiriago and Bwisa (2013), quality of work life in the past era focused on how employment affects the general wellbeing and the health of workers. Its focus has however changed in contemporary world, gearing toward the need for organisations to give good environment to their workers including financial and non-financial opportunities. The quality of work life approach is gaining much value in recent times due to its much focus on the need to regard and treat people as an asset to the organisation rather than as costs. the QWL approach believe that people perform better when they are allowed to participate in managing their work 10 and making decisions, by giving them a degree of autonomy in performing their task. It also seeks to motivate people by satisfying not only their economic and social needs, but also their psychological needs. This can be achieved where employees are given the opportunities to acquire new and novel ideas and knowledge, as well as the room to apply them to their job. When such opportunities are given to employees, it harnesses their sense of superiority over the task they perform. This tend to increase their self-esteem, job satisfaction and morale, motivation, efficiency and effectiveness, capacity to adopt new technologies and methods, adapt effectively to change and also reduce employee turnover, as well as enhance the image of the organisation. Furthermore, more opportunities for learning and creativity at the work place, helps optimise the development of human resource that helps the employee to achieve the individual as well as organisational goals (Benson, 2006). Some studies have also revealed that where learning is encouraged, it increases the job skills and knowledge of employees at all levels and expands the horizons of their intellect and their personality, helps in indicating the sense of team work, team spirit, and inter team collaborations, aids the employees to be more effective in decision making and problem solving, develop leadership skills , better attitudes, and other aspects that successful workers usually display (Price 2007; Bratton & Gold, 2003). Arguing from these perspectives, considering the relevance of learning and creativity in the organisation, it could be envisioned that the absence of these opportunities could be very detrimental to the wellbeing of employees as well as the organisation. Although several factors, (such as performance, commitment, motivation and others) have been researched on, there is limited study that link creativity and learning to employees’ QWL. Research in this area is non-existent in the Ghanaian context (Aryeetey & Sanda, 2012), meanwhile Ghanaian organisations are not exempted from these changes that are hitting the global 11 organisations from different angles. It is therefore more imperative for research to be conducted in this area to aid organisations in Ghana to improve the quality of work life of their employees. In light of this the study examined the influence of organisational learning and employees’ creativity on employees quality of work life, addressing them as opportunities for learning and creativity on the job and how employees perceive this as affecting their QWL. Furthermore, studies have revealed that some factors (such as gender, age, educational level, work demands, stress risk and others) have been observed to affect employees’ perception of QWL (Fonseca & Verma, 2001; Crouter, Bumpus, Head & McHale, 2001; Lai, Chang & Hsu, 2012; Scully, Kirkpatrick, & Locke, 1995; Bolhari, Rezaen, Bolhari & Zare, 2012; Tabassum, Rahman & Jahan, 2011). In view of this the study examined the extent to which age, gender, work demands and stress risk affected the relationship between learning and QWL and creativity and QWL. 1.3 Aims and Objectives of study The general aim of the study is to find if opportunity for learning and creativity at the work place can influence employees QWL. Specifically, the following objectives were examined:  To investigate the relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL.  To examine the relationship between learning and employees’ QWL.  To ascertain whether learning at the organisational level will predict employees’ QWL more than at the team and individual level.  To find out if work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender would moderate the relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL. 12  If work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender would moderate the relationship between learning and quality of work life. 1.4 Relevance of the study The study seeks to build on the existing knowledge of how these variables could harness quality of work life, thereby building on a comprehensive review of literature on employees ‘quality of work life in Ghana. Furthermore, the study aims at providing an opportunity to broaden the field’s knowledge about how learning opportunities and autonomy that gives room for employees’ creativity to bring their creative ideas on the job, may influence employees’ quality of work life, and how this relationship can be influenced by certain demographic factors such as gender and the type of work employees do. It will also add up to empirical studies in the study area as well as filling the gaps in the literature. In addition it will enlighten human resource managers and policy makers on how these variables influence employees’ quality of work life and also provide vital information to other researchers and students researching into this area. Normally, it is the concern of management to establish and meet certain expectations, whether relating to making a profit or delivering a service efficiently and cost effectively. This study will inform managers on the importance of harnessing employees’ quality of work life through the creation of learning and creativity opportunities for employees’, in order to meet the organisation’s goals in this era of change. To assist decision makers in identifying key workplace issues in order to develop strategies to address and improve the QWL in the organisation. Organisations can use the findings arising from 13 this study to programme for interventions in different areas such as working conditions and job designs. The findings of this research will significantly be of value to managers of various organisations especially the human resource managers. Although managers perceive the important links between quality of work life and organisational performance, they however face barriers to progress in this area. With the increased knowledge the study will provide, it will be easier for them to argue their case for taking action to improve the quality of jobs and work environment. Finally, the study will aim at developing a model that will help explain the relationships among the variables under study especially in the Ghanaian context. 14 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter presents a review of literature related to the study. The literature review focused on theoretical and empirical studies in relation to the study. The review is organized under the following sub headings:  Theoretical framework ◦ Systems approach to creativity- DIFI model ◦ Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory ◦ Observe-Assess-Design-Implement-Cycle  Review of related studies ◦ Learning and quality of work life ◦ Creativity and quality of work life ◦ Learning and creativity  Rationale of the present study  Conceptual model  Definition of terms 15 2.1. Theoretical Framework 2.1.1. Domain Individual Field Interaction Model of Creativity The Domain Individual Field Interaction (DIFI) model of creativity was used for the study. The model was developed by Csikszentmihalyi (1988). The DIFI model states that creativity is dependent on persons, processes, products and places. The three interrelated subsystems identified in the DIFI model are the domain, field and the individual. Domain refers to a structured knowledge system a person must access and become expert of in order to change its rules and to create something new. According to Moneta and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) fields are important and necessary to insure that ideas or products that do not qualify as creative do not pass as creative. However, fields can also have a limited effect, for example, they can be too conservative and as a consequence, creative ideas or product may not be allowed and as result development and growth of the individual and the organization can be hindered. Therefore the domain and field need to be well suited to recognize novel ideas. The function of the last sub system, individuals, is to produce novelty and to introduce variations within the field. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1999), creativity is brought jointly by these three sub systems. Work environment should be structured in a way that will give room for employees to acquire and transfer knowledge to their job and also generate new and novel ideas to solve problems related to their job. The basic theory of this study therefore is that when the work environment is structured in a way that creates the opportunity for employees to learn and transfer their knowledge on the job, and also gives room to employees to bring on board creative ideas to the job, their QWL will be ensured. This implies that, where learning and creativity is present and allowed, perception of QWL is established. 16 Although the Domain Individual Field Interaction (DIFI) model of creativity used for the study is obsolete, the idea depicted by the theory is still relevant in today and future organisations. In the present world of work, innovation, creativity, flexibility and so on has become the norm. Organisations now require employees to be creative on the job so as to enhance productivity (Allen, 2000). The theory is relevant as it enlightens management on how the work environment, the knowledge employees acquire and employees themselves interact to ensure a creative work environment. In spite of its obsolete nature, the idea and knowledge inherent in the theory informs organization on how they can sustain a creative work environment and since the present study seeks to enlighten management on how ensuring creative work environment could improve employee QWL, the theory proved relevant for the study. 2.1.2. Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Frederick Herzberg performed studies to determine which factors in an employee's work environment caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The aim was to better understand employees’ attitudes and motivation. He published his findings in 1959, in a book titled, “The Motivation to Work”. Using a qualitative study, he found that the factors which results in employees’ job satisfaction were different from the ones causing their job dissatisfaction. In the quest of explaining the findings of his study, he developed the motivation-hygiene. Herzberg called the satisfiers motivators and the dissatisfiers hygiene factors. According to him, hygiene denotes the maintenance factors that are necessary to avoid dissatisfaction which by themselves do not provide satisfaction. 17 The table below presents the main factors Herzberg identified as causing dissatisfaction and the top main ones leading to satisfaction, listed in the order of higher to lower importance. Factors Affecting Job Attitudes as proposed by Herzberg (1959) Causing Dissatisfaction Leading to Satisfaction Company policy Supervision Relationship with supervisor Work conditions Salary Relationship with peers Personal life Relationship with subordinates Security Status Achievement Recognition Work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth Herzberg explained that managing using hygiene factors is the process of providing incentives or a threat of punishment to cause someone to do something. He therefore argued that these provide only short-run success because the motivator factors that determine whether there is satisfaction or no satisfaction are intrinsic to the job itself, and not mere incentives. According to Herzberg there are two distinct human needs portrayed. First, there are physiological needs that can be fulfilled by money, for example, to purchase food and shelter. Second, there is the psychological need to achieve and grow, and this need is fulfilled by activities that cause one to grow. This study is reviewed in relation to Herzberg’s view on employees’ psychological need to achieve and grow. He further postulated that for motivation-hygiene theory to work, addressing hygiene factors are not enough to achieve satisfaction, factors that are intrinsic to the work itself and can lead to 18 employees satisfaction with their work must be considered and addressed accordingly. He regarded the latter to be the effective and best way to achieve a long term gain. Herzberg argued that job enrichment, a continuous management process, is an essential requirement to achieve intrinsic motivation. To achieve this, Herzberg asserted that:  The job should have sufficient challenge to utilize the full ability of the employee. The present study’s argument: In view of Herzberg’ assertion, the present study indicate that without opportunity for learning and creativity, employees cannot take up such challenging jobs. In that case, jobs cannot be well enriched to achieve intrinsic motivation, hence job satisfaction; an indicator of QWL (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EWON), 2002; Lokanadha & Mohan, 2010) cannot be achieved.  Employees who demonstrate increasing levels of ability should be given increasing levels of responsibility. The present study’s argument: in view of this, the present study indicates that employees can only demonstrate increasing levels of ability to perform their task if they are well equipped and have a full authority over their task. This can be achieved if they are given the room for growth and advancement (which can be achieved where employees are given the opportunities to acquire new knowledge and also transfer the acquired knowledge to the decisions and problem solving in relation to the task they perform).  If a job cannot be designed to use an employee's full abilities, then the firm should consider automating the task or replacing the employee with one who has a lower level of skill. If a person cannot be fully utilized, then there will be a motivation problem. 19 Although there are critics who say this model is simplistic and obsolete, it was useful for the present study. For instance  It helps to explain how learning and creativity opportunities (which leads to employees’ growth and advancement) improves employees’ QWL (as a result of derived satisfaction from their job). 2.1.3. Observe-Assess-Design-Implement-Cycle Learning is undoubtedly a core concept of human resource development which focuses on various techniques for developing employees of an organisation that are knowledge management, learning organizations, training and development, management development and others. Organisational learning has been defined by Miller (1996) as the knowledge acquisition made by actors (individual and groups) when it can and are available to apply it in decision making process, or use to influence others within the organisation. Kim (1993) presented the “Observe-Assess- Design-Implement-Cycle” for the individual learning. This cycle, he believed, is helpful for the individuals to concrete new experiences with the help of observing and learning. Although individual learn through various mechanisms and initiate self-learning at diverse stages of professional life, yet this individual learning is ineffectual for an organisation unless it is not been transformed in “institutionalisation” which transforms individual learning into organisational learning. He further stressed that an individual initiate self-learning (intuition) and finds his own meaning of real world (interpretation), then share these mental models in teams of individuals and integrates ideas to reach on mutual consensus (integration). This team learning leads to organizational learning when team mental models are being institutionalized in an organisation. It shows that foremost and imperative process is of team learning which proves to be a bridge 20 between individual and organisational learning. Teams are the building blocks of an organisation, which manage knowledge of human capital and accelerate organisational development. As Fauske and Raybould (2005) pointed out that basic essence of organisational learning lies in team learning, companies with hyper growth rate need to address team learning at every stage so that organisational learning can be achieved. The theory is, learning in the organisation is in a cyclical form, beginning from the individual level where individuals are given the opportunity to acquire new knowledge, then to the team level, where acquired knowledge is shared among the members, and then to the organizational level, where new knowledge acquired is transferred or institutionalised in the organisation. In view of this, it is theorized that merely acquiring knowledge, and or sharing of acquired knowledge among members, do not adequately boost employees satisfaction or wellbeing, unless there is an opportunity to transfer and see the effect of the acquired knowledge on the organisation’s growth and development. Therefore, learning at the organizational level is imperative if organisations seek to harness the QWL of their employees. Although the theory is obsolete, it helps explain how learning flows from the individual level, to the team level and the organizational level. This helps throw more light to one of the study’s objective, the quest to find out if individual level learning will improve employees QWL than at the team and organizational level. 2.2. Review of Related Literature 2.2.1. Creativity and quality of work life White and Bednar (1991) indicated that when employees perform jobs that are very interesting, it can have a positive impact on their attitudes. In this regard, employees’ work should not be 21 fragmented, deskilled, and tightly controlled, but must entail qualities, such as autonomy and variety, and also provide employees with opportunities for continued learning and development, career advancement, as well as employment and income security. According to a study presented by Right Management's research team at the World Economic Forum, organizations that promote employees health and well-being are three and a half times more likely to support and encourage creativity and innovation. In their study, Seventy-two percent of respondents who rated their organisation highly for actively promoting health and well-being also rated it highly for encouraging creativity and innovation. Their findings, as reported by Schmidt (2010) indicated that to organize a comprehensive organisational effectiveness program, organisations must involve a wellness initiative through creative opportunities on the job. In their study however, less than half of the nearly 30,000 workers who participated in the study reported that their organisations actively promote health and wellness (Schmidt, 2010) through creativity. Indicating that employees’ perception on organisation’s support and encouragement of creativity as a means of harnessing their wellbeing was low. Furthermore, Rasulzada (2007) conducted a study on creativity and psychological wellbeing and found that creativity and innovation in the organisation are means to improve employees’ psychological wellbeing. According to him, it is vital to increase organisational creativity and a climate for creativity not just to attain a competitive value and remain attractive in the market, but also for the individual to achieve a better psychological well-being. He pointed that for an employee to feel psychologically well, then he or she need to experience the organisation as creative and innovative. Review of literature revealed a very scarce study in the area of employees’ creativity and QWL, and none in the African context. In view of this, the study investigated the 22 relationship between employees’ creativity and QWL. The following hypothesis was therefore proposed: H1: There will be a significant positive relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL. 2.2.2. Learning and quality of work life In order to adapt to the global changes ‘hitting’ organisations from different angles across the globe, organisations must embrace and also create opportunity for learning and flexible environment where employees can bring on board novel ideas toward better performance. Learning has been found to correlate with employees’ QWL. Fonseca and Verma (2001) conducted a study and found that increasing workplace demands such as learning, even though necessary for achieving competitiveness, are not contributing to the QWL of employees. According to them, when learning demands are increased in the organisation, it tends to have a negative impact on the perception of work life balance which in turn affects the psychological wellbeing of employees, hence their QWL. Again, studies have found that it is essential that work environments support ongoing learning and continuous development, as well as the utilization of employees’ knowledge. This expands their thinking beyond training programs to consider how skills and knowledge are continuously renewed on the job, what is often termed as a “learning based work environment”. Such an environment enables the use of skills, knowledge, and abilities; ability to take initiatives and learning of new ways to do one’s job better” (Graham, 2006; Chenowthem, Jeon, Goff & Burke, 2006; Korst, Eusebio-Augeja, Chamorra, Aydin & Gregory, 2003), thereby enhancing employees’ wellbeing and QWL. 23 Furthermore Yeo and Li (2012) posited that employees’ perception of QWL has the potential to impact their learning orientation simply because they can rely on learning to help them seek new opportunities to improve their overall job satisfaction which in turn affects their life outside of work. Therefore, giving the opportunity and support, employees, are more likely to be more open to learning and training opportunities as it enhances their ability to take up new and challenging opportunities. Darafs (2012) on the other hand conducted a comparative study and found that there is a significant relationship between application of learning organisation components and QWL, however, he found that the strength of relationship was different between the two populations (India and Iran) he studied. This implies that QWL is perceived differently in different context and situations. The present study would be conducted in the Ghanaian context. The rational is to expand and bridge the knowledge gap in this area. Review of literature reveals an inconsistency in the relationship between learning and employees’ QWL. This study contributes to the literature by investigating more into the relationship between learning and employees’ QWL, assessing organisational learning at the individual, team and organizational level. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed: H2: There will be a significant positive relationship between organisational learning and employees’ QWL. Kim (1993) whiles explaining his Observe-Assess-Design-Implement-Cycle model, indicated that individual learning and team learning have a positive effect on organisational learning. According to him, individuals and teams bring on board their acquired knowledge and experiences to their 24 job which leads to organisational improvement. For example, individuals tend to share, support and exchange their ideas, knowledge, opinions, experiences and others with other members of their team when performing their task in the organisation. In view of this, Barker and Neailey (1999) indicated that team learning occur where sharing of knowledge among individuals leads to an expansion and improvement of the team members knowledge base and overall effectiveness in future problem solving and decision making. Furthermore Edmondson (2002) asserted that organisational learning on the other hand occur when opportunity is made available for new found or acquired knowledge to be transferred to other sections of the organisation. This he believed could be achieved through cross-functional team learning or inter-departmental learning. Furthermore, using a structural equation model to analyse a total of 200 cases, collected from 50 different Small and medium size enterprises, Song, Jeung and Cho (2011) found that individual learning process has a significant impact on team or group learning process, which in turn influences the overall organizational process sequentially. Since the study seeks to investigate learning at the individual, team and organisational level, the following hypothesis was proposed: H3: Learning at the organisational level will predict a significant portion of the variance in employees’ QWL more than at the team and individual level. Literature has revealed that learning opportunities and skills discretion have proven to have a positive influence on job satisfaction and reduced job stress which according to Scully, Kirkpatrick, and Locke, (1995) would lead to better QWL. With respect to learning, where employees are given greater autonomy on their job, it increases their acquisition and application 25 of knowledge whereas greater participation is held to promote cognitive growth via enhanced knowledge transfer among employees (Scully, Kirkpatrick, & Locke, 1995). Such a job environment expands knowledge base leading to a better understanding of how the job is related to other organisational practices and a greater ability to solve problems. “In such a situation, employees gain the cognitive and behavioural repertoire to predict, control or cope with uncertain demands thus decreasing the likelihood of poor QWL” (Rethinam & Ismail, 2008). In many European countries a risk-approach with regard to health and safety at work has been extended to the aspect of psychological well-being at work. For instance, according to the resolutions of European Parliament, “jobs that offer no opportunities to learn at and during work reduce workers to machines, that aren’t able to learn while working either. Such jobs must therefore be qualified as ‘inhuman work’ that inhibits the well-being of workers (reported by Kineke, 1991). It is therefore rational to argue that learning opportunities and stress risks in jobs goes hand in hand; hence the enhancement of one dimension of well-being involves the reduction of the other dimension. Also, the Dutch law described risks to well-being as:  work that overloads people psychologically. In this case, work leads to enduring stress reactions and strain.  work that provides insufficient chances to learn and develop oneself at and through work. In this case, work does not allow the employees to apply, maintain or develop their competences.” This depicts a close relationship between learning opportunities and stress risks. 26 In view of this the study sought to find the effect of perceived stress risk and job demands on the relationship between organisational learning opportunities and employees’ QWL. 2.2.3. Learning and Creativity “An idea or creative process that has at its foundation outdated, inadequate or incorrect knowledge is likely to disintegrate under the weight of reality, especially in today’s continuously changing and competitive environment. A sustained investment in learning and development ensures an organisation’s key resource, human capital, remains current and retains a prolonged shelf life” (Yousie & Harjee, 2013). Beyond that, they pointed that it is often the learning process that unleashes untapped creativity and potential through additional awareness, insight, and reflection. In spite of the interdependencies between learning, creativity or innovation, all flourish under very similar conditions which includes collaborative, empowering, open, and trusting environments where knowledge is easily shared, transferred, leveraged, and renewed. According to them, learning and creativity often does not follow a linear path and are enhanced through a social component such as discussion, debate, and interaction with others. In addition, both learning and creativity may also involve taking risks, demonstrating courage, challenging previous assumptions, or making connections through different perspectives. Tuomi-Gröhn (2003) pointed out that transferring learning and acquired knowledge to the job requires and employees innovative and original ideas, which according to Kerosuo and Toiviainen, (2011) can be expanded from workplace to multiple levels, involving both individual and organizational layers. Kelley and Littman (2001), found that organizational creativity is hand in hand with organizational learning. According to them, organisational culture and a climate supporting openness and 27 creativity are vital preconditions for a successful learning and innovation hence demands for deep and more personalised learning are in line with the demands for creativeness. This implies that opportunity for learning creates more room for creativity as it enable employees to reflect and apply the knowledge gain to come up with new and novel ideas to problem solving in the organisation. Literature suggests interdependence between learning and creativity; however, limited studies have focused on this area. The study therefore investigated the interaction effect of organisational learning and employees’ creativity on their QWL. This is vital as it helped to know if employees QWL would be more harnessed when given the opportunity both for creativity and learning, than when given only an opportunity for learning, or creativity. Lightening out the sole effect of learning and creativity on QWL in comparism to their interaction effect will inform managers on how best to utilize these variables in improving employees QWL. To the best of knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to describe the relationship between employees’ creativity and organisational learning especially in the Ghanaian context. Although others have made related arguments, they ignored the importance of learning and creative opportunities as a way to elaborate and expand organisational knowledge. Several studies have found that QWL of employees differ based on certain demographic variables. For instance, Hoque and Rahman (1999) conducted a study and found that workers of the private sector textile mills perceived significantly higher QWL than the workers of the public sector textile mills. Subsequently, Sadique (2003) conducted a study on the employees of sugar mills and explored a significant difference between the white collar and blue collar employees’ QWL. Hossain and Islam (1999) on the other hand found a positive relationship between QWL and job satisfaction among government hospital nurses in Bangladesh. Kanagalakshmi and Devei (2003) 28 conducted a study on perception of QWL among textile manufacturing workers and found that demographic factors such as age and educational level have a significant relationship with perception of QWL. Furthermore they found that work environment also had a significant relationship with employees QWL. They conducted their study using chi square and ANOVA focusing on five textile industries. Mandaviya (2013) replicated Kanagalakshmi and Devei (2012) study at Rajkot, Surat and Ahmedabad and found that demographic factors and work related factors have a significant relationship with perception of QWL. Their study also focused on the textile factories. In terms of gender differences in QWL, Wadud (1996) found that QWL was notably higher among the private sector women employees than their counterparts in the public sector. Furthermore, Kumar and Shanubhogue (1996) analyzed and compared the existing and expected QWL in universities and found a similar gap. Later on, Elias and Saha (2005) found in their research that female workers’ quality of working life was significantly lower than that of their male counterparts in the tobacco industry. Tabassum, Rahman and Jahan (2011) conducted a study on QWL among male and female employees and found a significant difference exist between male and female employees QWL. Again, replicating their study using a population of lecturers in the university, they found a significant difference between gender and QWL. However, Gupta and Hyde (2013) found no significant difference between gender and QWL when conducting a study on demographics and QWL in nationalized banks in India. Also, literature reveals that not all employees receive the same opportunities for learning in the workplace. Research by Rainband (2000) suggests that unskilled employees are the least likely to receive opportunities for learning. More specifically, part-time employees, many of whom are women, have less access to opportunities for workplace learning than full-time employees. 29 In view of the above, the following hypotheses would be proposed: The following hypothesis would therefore be tested: H4: The relationship between organizational learning and QWL would be moderated by work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender. H5: The relationship between creativity and QWL would be moderated by work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender. Literature in QWL seeks to study QWL based on its dimensions, however, none has specifically looked at the opportunities for knowledge acquisition and transfer to the work as well as the opportunity for employees to bring on new and novel ideas to execute task as an independent variable with the tendency to impact on employees QWL. In much the same way, literature in QWL tend to focus on either the relationship between learning and QWL, demographics and QWL, or creativity and employees wellbeing, none has sought to find how other work related factors and demographic factors affect these relationships and how they interact to affect employees QWL. Relationship established between learning and QWL are not consistent. Direction of the relationship has not been established. Furthermore, very limited study had studied organisational learning and employees’ creativity as opportunity given to employees to harness their QWL. Also studies in QWL seek to focus only on quantitative or qualitative methods. This study will however, combine the two thereby focusing on a mixed research design. These are but few gaps in the literature which this study seeks to fill. 30 2.3. Rationale of the study In Ghana, as in many developing economies, there is the need for firms to develop more flexible, democratic and effective forms of work organisation in order to meet environmental changes. However, there is no research evidence in the literature providing knowledge on the impact of performance-oriented programs such as quality of work life (Aryeetey & Sanda, 2012) on organizational factors in Ghanaian organisations. There is no doubt that organizations in Ghana, as it is with those in other developing economies, are encountering series of change, (for instance, technological advancement, changing values and expectations). It has therefore become very imperative for organisations to adapt effectively to this changing work environment in order to meet up with expectations and also survive in this competitive world economy (Abrahamson, 2004). Mainstream research on “quality of work life” tends to focus on either developed economies and or Western countries. A review of the literature has revealed that less focus has been shown to “quality of work life” research in developing economies (Mensah & Asamani, 2013). Nemerzitski (2012) recommended that a lot of study should be conducted in this area in order to bridge and expand knowledge from one domain to another. Ghana will therefore provide a unique context for this study, because of its uniqueness in terms of cultural values such a more focus on collectivist society and higher regard for authority (power distance) which influence people’s decision to conform to laid down standards hence hampers their ability to challenge the status quo. Creativity studies have been undertaken extensively in the literature, especially in the West, Far East, and Europe, however, not much has been done in Africa, and for that matter, Ghana as indicated by Nyarko, Asumeng and Atindanbila, (2012). For instance, a study was conducted by Mpofu, Myambo, Mogaji, Mashego, and Khaleefa (2006) on the perspectives of African on 31 creativity, using a sample size of 211 among Arab-Africans and Sub-Saharan-Africans. Although their target population was Africans, Ghana was exempted. Again the sample consisted of African indigenes, and not necessarily from any profession. In Ghana, empirical studies on creativity whether in organisations or schools are virtually non-existent. The little research that has been conducted in this area has been limited to academic settings (Gilson, 2008; Nyarko, Asumeng & Atindanbila, 2012). This study sought to bridge this gap by focusing on creativity not only in the academic settings, but also in the organisational settings. Furthermore, the present study addressed learning and creativity as an opportunity given to employees at work and not as a personality. Learning and creativity in this study is also addressed in relation to employees’ QWL, and other factors such as work demands, stress risk, gender and type of employees’ work, which are likely to affect learning, creativity and QWL. Considering how crucial employees quality of work life is, and the vital role opportunity for learning and creativity could play in its achievement, and the limited research done in this area, especially in the area of employees’ creativity (Rasulzada, 2007), it is deemed right to research into this area. 2.4. Statement of Hypotheses In view of the reviewed literature, the following hypotheses were be tested: H1: There will be a significant positive relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL. H2: There will be a significant positive relationship between organizational learning and employees’ QWL. H3: organizational learning at the organisational level will predict a significant portion of variance in the QWL of employees more than at the team and individual level. 32 H4: The relationship between organizational learning and QWL would be moderated by work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender. H5: The relationship between creativity and QWL would be moderated by work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender. 33 CONCEPTUAL MODEL Fig. 1. Hypothesized Conceptual relationships between the independent, moderating and dependent variables QUALITY OF WORK LIFE CREATIVITY LEARNING WORK DEMANDS STRESS RISK TYPE OF WORK GENDER 34 2.5. DEFINITION OF TERMS Organisational learning: Perceived opportunities given to employees to acquire and transfer knowledge to their job. Employees’ creativity: Perceived opportunities granted to employees to bring on board new, novel and creative ideas to resolve job related problems. Employees’ quality of work life: Employees’ perceptions to which the organisational environment meets the full range of their needs for their psychological wellbeing at work. Stress risk: Extent to which employees perceive risk in the course of performing their task in the organisation. Work demands: Extent to which employees' perceive their task at work to be very demanding and stressful. 35 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY The methodology focused on the description of procedures and techniques that was used in gathering data for the study. It also dealt with the research design, the population, sample and sampling techniques, sample size, tools for data collection, data collection procedure and their administration, and ethical procedures. 3.1. Population Sample for the study was derived from a population of both process oriented organisations (organization that recognize the need to increase flexibility and decrease structure so that change can be dealt with) and hierarchical organisations from both the public and private sectors in Ghana. The population specifically focus on the financial, educational, health and telecommunication organisations. This was to ensure a wide coverage of work sectors in Ghana. For convenience purpose, the study focused on only two regions in Ghana; Greater Accra and Central region. The target population was all banking staff in Ghana Commercial Bank Limited, high street branch, lecturers at University of Cape Coast, department of psychology, nurses in University of Cape Coast hospital, customer service and marketing staff at Vodafone Ghana and Ghana Post Office and all staff in Global Brigade Non-Governmental Organisation. 3.2. Sample and Sampling Procedure The stratified and simple random, specifically the balloting, sampling procedure was used in selecting the organisations for the study. The stratified sampling procedure was used to group organisations in Ghana into health, financial, education, telecommunication and non-governmental organisation. The balloting technique was then used to select the organisation for the study. Sample 36 was selected using convenient sampling procedure. Individuals in the selected organisation which met the inclusion criteria (for example, been a staff of the organisation for at least a year) and those who were willing to be part of the study were sampled for the study 3.3. Sample size Using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) formulae, the study focused on a sample size of 255. This comprised 48 staffs (bankers) from Ghana Commercial Bank Limited, 24 lecturers from University of Cape Coast, psychology department, 63 staff (nurses) from University of Cape Coast hospital, 56 customer service and marketing staff from Vodafone Ghana Limited, 52 staff customer service and marketing staff from Ghana Post Office and 12 staff from Global Brigade Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). Below is a table depicting the characteristics of the sample: 37 Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Participants (234) N % Sex Male 127 54.30 Female 107 45.70 Total 234 100 Type of work Teaching 24 10.30 Banking 45 19.20 Customer service/marketing(Vodafone) 48 20.50 Nursing 57 24.40 Customer service/marketing(PostOffice) 48 20.50 NGO 12 5.10 Total 234 100 Table 1 showed that the study comprised a total of 234 respondents of which 127 (representing 54.30% of respondents) were males whereas the remaining 107 (representing about 45.70%) were females. This implies that more males than females responded to the items. The table also revealed that out of the 234 respondents, 10.30% (representing 24 respondents) were teaching staff, 19.20% (representing 45 respondents) were banking staff, 20.50% (representing 48% of respondents) were marketing and customer service providers from Vodafone, 24.40% (representing 57 respondents)were nursing staff, 20.50% (representing 48 respondents) were marketing and customer service providers from Ghana post office and the remaining 5.10% (representing 12 respondents) were staff working for an NGO. 38 3.4. Research Instruments 3.4.1. Quality of work life scale A standardized questionnaire on quality of work life, developed by Karl Albrecht (2013), was used to measure employees’ quality of work life. The items were scored on a 5 point Likert scale, namely; strongly disagree (a point of 1), disagree (2), uncertain (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5). A higher grading indicated a higher perception of QWL. The instrument encompass items such as; “I believe the work I am assigned to do makes good use of my knowledge and skills”, “My physical work environment enables me to do my job effectively”, ‘The organization offers me opportunities to grow and learn new skills”, “I have a chance to move up to a better job if I do well in this job and Overall, I would say my morale on the job is high”. 3.4.2. Creativity Scale The creativity scale developed by Amabile (1996), (Cronbach alpha ranges from .66-.91), was used to measure employees’ creativity. The items were scored on a 5 point Likert scale, namely; strongly disagree (a point of 1), disagree (2), uncertain (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5). A higher grading indicated a higher perception of creativity opportunity. The creativity scale required respondents to response to items such as “Lack of funding to investigate creative ideas is a problem in this organization”, “This place seems more concerned with the status quo than with change”, “A person cannot do things that are too differently around here without provoking anger”, “The main function of employees in this organization is to follow orders which come down through channels” and “This organization is open and responsive to change”. 39 3.4.3. Orgnisational learning scale The DLOQ-A scale developed by Marsick and Watkins (2003) (coefficient alpha ranges from .71 - .91) was used to measure learning. It comprised three levels; individual, team and organizational levels. Individual level consisted of 11, team level consisted of 6 items and organisational level consisted of 22 items. The items were scored on a 5 point Likert scale, namely; almost never, (a point of 1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), often (4) and almost always (5). A higher grading indicated a higher perception of learning opportunity in the organisation. Items included in this instruments includes; “In my organization, people openly discuss mistakes in order to learn from them”, “In my organization, teams/groups have the freedom to adapt their goals as needed”, “My organization enables people to get needed information at any time quickly and easily”, “My organization supports employees who take calculated risks and In my organization”, “leaders generally support requests for learning opportunities and training”. 3.4.4. Work demands scale The work demands questionnaire used for the study was adapted from Jackson and Rothmann (2005), Job demands and Resource scale and Robert Karesek (1985), Job Content Questionnaire. The Job demands and Resource scale has about seven dimensions including organizational support (Cronbach alpha=0.88), job insecurity (Cronbach alpha=0.90), relationship with colleagues (Cronbach alph-0.76), control (Cronbach alpha=0.71), reward (Cronbach alpha=0.78), growth opportunities (Cronbach alpha=0.80 and overload (Cronbach alpha=0.75). the study adapted only the items related to overload, control and growth opportunities. Furthermore, the nine (9) questions were taken from Karesek's Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) which has a Cronbach alpha of 0.66. The items were scored on a 5 point Likert scale, namely; strongly disagree (a point of 1), disagree (2), uncertain (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5). A higher grading indicated a higher perception 40 of high work demands. The scale included items such as; “I have enough variety in my work”, “My job offers me opportunities for personal growth and development”, “My job offers me the possibility of independent thought and action”, “I can participate in the decision about when a piece of work must be completed” and “I am asked to do an excessive amount of work”. 3.4.5. Stress Risk Scale The stress risk assessment scale was adapted from Greaves (2012), stress at work risk assessment for managers’ scale. The scale has six (6) dimensions namely job demands, control, support, relationship, role and change. The items were scored on a 5 point Likert scale, namely; strongly disagree (a point of 1), disagree (2), uncertain (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5). A higher grading indicated a higher perception of stress risk at work. “I understand how my work fit into the overall aim of the organisation”, “My manager is accessible and approachable, especially if I have any work related problem”, “I feel I am using my skills to full effect”, “I am encouraged to use my own initiative”, and “My manager allows me to work as flexibly as possible, especially in times of workload pressures”, are some of the items found on the stress risk scale. After analysis of the quantitative data, it became necessary to collect qualitative data to support some of the hypothesis tested as a result of scarce literature in the field. Five (5) Human Resource Personnel and ten (10) employees conveniently selected form the various organisations were interviewed. Semi-structured interview guide was therefore developed based on the outcome of the research hypothesis tested. The interview guide contained questions such as; 1. Does your organisation support or encourage learning? 2. Do all employees have equal access to learning and creativity opportunities in your organisation? 3. Is access to learning and creativity opportunities dependent on the type of work one does? 41 4. How do male and female staff in your organisation differ in taking up such opportunities? 5. Does your organisation create learning opportunities at the individual, team and organisational level? 6. Which of the various levels of learning opportunities do employees prefer most? 3.5. Piloting of Instruments The instruments were piloted in the Ga West district in the Greater Accra region and Awutu Senya District (specifically Kasoa) in the Central region. Questionnaires were distributed to staff from Kasoa Polyclinic, Tigo Ghana, Kings University College, and Prudential Bank Limited. Reliability was established using the cronbach alpha. The rational was to test the instrument on respondents that have similar characteristics as the target populations. Quality of work life consisted of 34 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.94 was determined. Four (4) items (The organization offers fringe benefits that are valuable to me My supervisor provides the resources I need (equipment, materials, information, etc.) to do my job effectively, My supervisor shows appreciation for the contribution I make and My supervisor handles performance problems constructively), did not contribute much, hence they were removed. In view of this the QWL scale used consisted of 30 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.95 after the second piloting of the instrument. Creativity consisted of 20 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.50. Six (6) items (Around here, people are allowed to try to solve the same problems different ways, People around here are expected to deal with problems in the same way, There are adequate resources devoted to innovation in this organisation, this organisation gives me free time to pursue creative ideas during the workday , in this organisation, we tend to stick to tried and true ways, and assistance in developing new ideas is readily available) were removed as they contributed less to the cronbach alpha. Creativity scale 42 used therefore consisted of 14 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.77 after the second piloting of the instrument. Learning opportunities in the organisation consisted of 39 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.90. It comprised three levels; individual, team and organisational levels. Individual level consisted of 11 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.60, team level consisted of 6 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.74 and organisational level consisted of 22 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.93. Two (2) items (In my organisation, people help each other learn, and in my organisation, people are rewarded for learning) from the individual level, an item (In my organisation, teams/groups are confident that the organization will act on their recommendations) from the team level, and three (3) items (My organisation gives people control over the resources they need to accomplish their work, My organisation encourages people to think from a global perspective, and My organisation encourages everyone to bring the customers' views into the decision making process) from the organisational level, were removed from the questionnaires. The learning scale used therefore consisted of 33 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.96. Individual level consisted of 9 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.93, team level consisted of 5 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.76 and organisational level consisted of 19 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.94. Work demands consisted of 23 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.71. Eight (8) of the items (which are: My work puts me in emotionally upsetting situations, My job offers me opportunities for personal growth and development, My work gives me the feeling that I can achieve something, I have freedom in carrying out my work activities, I have influence in the planning of my work activities, My job requires working very hard, My job requires long periods of intense concentration, and waiting on work from other people or departments often slows me down in my 43 job) were removed. The work demands scale used therefore consisted of 15 and with a cronbach alpha of 0.82. Stress risk consisted of 19 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.86. Out of this, three (3) items (which are: I have sufficient training to do my job, I encounter problems with my work environment, my roles and responsibilities at work are clearly spelt out) were removed from the items. The stress risk scale used therefore consisted of 16 items and a cronbach alpha of 0.88. 3.6. Research Design The design adopted for the study was the mixed research design. In a broader sense, both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used. The Explanatory Sequential Design was used for the study. It is a two-phase mixed methods design. This design starts with the collection and analysis of quantitative data. This first phase is followed by the subsequent collection and analysis of qualitative data. The second, qualitative phase of the study is designed so that it follows from (or connects to) the results of the first quantitative phase. Because this design begins quantitatively, investigators typically place greater emphasis on the quantitative methods than the qualitative methods (Creswell, Plano, Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). Specifically, the follow up explanation model was employed. The follow-up explanations model is used when a researcher needs qualitative data to explain or expand on quantitative results (Creswell, Plano, Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). The rationale was to use the qualitative data to explain and expand the quantitative data. The researcher employed the mixed research method as a result of the following: 1. Since both quantitative and qualitative researches have their strength and weaknesses, combining them will help offset their weaknesses to draw on the strength of both approaches. 44 2. Employing both approaches will help bring together a more comprehensive account of the area under study as compared to employing a single approach. This is to ensure a total completeness of the study. 3. Employing both approaches will enhance the utility of the study. That is, adopting a mixed research method will make the study more useful for practitioners, researchers and others. 3.7 Data Collection Procedures The questionnaire was self-administered by the researcher to the respondents in the various work sectors. Permission was sought, and authenticated by letters of introduction which was obtained from the Department of Psychology. The researcher first introduced herself, seek consent and explain the purpose of the study to the respondents. Although the introduction of the questionnaire captured such areas as confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents, and how the information would be used, the researcher still assured the respondents that information they provide would be treated confidential and as anonymous as possible. The respondents were also informed about their right of free exit. The researcher further explains to the respondents about how the results of the study would be published, reported or used. After the respondents have given their consent to participate in the study, the researcher allotted about three days to each of them to complete the items in the questionnaire in order not to distract them from their work. This duration is to allow the respondents some comfort to respond accurately to the items in the questionnaire. As far as the interview is concerned, the researcher personally visited the interviewees in their work places where the interview took place during their free time, basically during their lunch break. 45 3.8 Ethical considerations The researcher ensured the following; Voluntary Participation / Withdrawal: respondents were not under any coercion to take part in this study. They were not under any pressure to take part in the study, to please the investigator or the research staff. They were free to participate in this research and withdraw at any time. There were not entitled to any penalty or loss of benefits they when they stop taking part in this study. The decision to participate or not to participate had no effect on their job status. Confidentiality: respondents study records were kept as confidential as possible. All information collected from the surveys was kept as confidential as possible. There was absolutely no names or signatures identifying the participants of the study which was to ensure confidentiality. However, there was the need for certain people to see the study records. By law, anyone who looked at these records must keep them completely confidential. The only people who were allowed to see these records were:  the research team, including the researcher and her supervisors.  certain government and university people who need to know more about the study. For example, individuals who provide oversight on this study may need to look at the records. This is done to make sure that the study is been done in the right way. They also need to make sure that respondents’ rights and safety are protected in the course of the study. These individuals include:  members of the ISSER ethical clearance board.  staffs of the department of Psychology, University of Ghana. 46 Risks or Discomfort: This research is considered to be of a minimal risk. This implies that the risks associated with this study are the same as what respondents tend to face every day. There are no known additional risks to those who take part in this study. 47 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS This chapter presents the result of the study. It consists of presentation and description of figures. The chapter is organised as follow. The first part presents a preliminary analysis of data, whereas the second part present results for testing hypothesis. The second part in turn is organised under three (3) sub sections; sub section one (1) presents results from a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (for testing hypothesis 1 and 2), sub section two (2) presents results from a standard multiple regression analysis (for analysing hypothesis 3) whereas sub section three (3) on the other hand presents results from a hierarchical multiple regression analysis (for testing hypothesis 4 and 5). These different approaches were employed since they were appropriate in testing the stated hypotheses. These sections were followed by the summary of the results and a conceptual model of the study’s outcome. The final part reports qualitative data collected. The study focused on 255 sample size selected from organisations across the Ghanaian work sectors, namely; education, health, financial, telecommunication and a Non-governmental organisation. Specifically the study was conducted at University of Cape Coast, Educational Foundations Department, University of Cape Coast, Hospital, Ghana commercial Bank, High Street branch, Vodafone Ghana, Head Office, Ghana Post Office, Head Office and Global Brigade NGO in the Central and Greater Accra region of Ghana. The study's units consisted of 24 lecturers of whom all 24 answered (100% response rate), 63 nurses of whom 57 answered (90.48% response rate), 48 banking staff of whom 45 responded (93.75% response rate), 56 staff from Vodafone Ghana of whom 48 responded (80.36% response rate), 52 staff from Ghana Post office of whom 48 responded (92.31% response rate) and 12 staff 48 from the Global Brigade NGO of whom all staff responded (100% response rate). Therefore, out of the total of 255 sample size, 234 respondents responded to the items, implying a total of 91.76% response rate. The analysis of the study was therefore based on the response rate. Most of the participants from these sectors had an academic background, a minimum of a Higher National Diploma and also included managers and supervisors. One common characteristics of the sample is that staff from each organisation directly provides customer services to their clients. Using Krejcie and Morgan's formulae of sample size selection, the distribution was a representative for the whole individual work unit of each organisation studied. 4.1. Data Analysis Data was analyzed quantitatively using SPSS version 21. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to determine the relationship between the variables. The rationale was to determine the relationship between the predictor variables and the criterion variables, as well as the relationship between the moderator variables and ant criterion variable. Hypothesis 1 and 2 were analyzed using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, the rationale was to determine the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable. Hypothesis 3 was analyzed using standard multiple regression analysis, the rationale was to determine the best predictor of the criterion variable among several predictor variables. Hypothesis 4 and 5 were analyzed using Hierarchical multiple regression analysis, the rationale was to determine the moderating effect of the moderator variables on the strength relationship between the predictor and criterion variables. In other words, the hierarchical multiple regression test was employed to determine the impact of the moderating variables on the strength of relationship between the predictor variables and the criterion variable. 49 Partial correlation was also computed to determine how genuine the relationships between the predictor variables and the criterion variable were. The qualitative data collected was analysed using content analysis. 4.2. Presentation of Results 4.2.1. Preliminary Analysis Statistical calculations were made in SPSS (version 21) for windows. The data was screened for missing value and violation of assumptions prior to analysis. There were no missing data. The occurrence of outliers in the solution was checked visually by inspecting the standardized residual of every case in each regression analysis. No major deviation in outliers was found. Review of scatter plot of the independent variables (creativity and learning) and the dependent variable (QWL) indicated linearity was reasonable. The assumption of normality was tested. The Q-Q plot and histogram also suggested that normality was reasonable. Durbin Watson statistics was computed to evaluate the independence of errors and it was 1.33, which is considered acceptable. This implies that the assumptions of independent errors were met. Scatter plot also provided evidence of homogeneity of variance. Data was also checked for multicollinearity. None of the tolerance values were close to zero (0) for all variables, implying no collinearity. Tolerance was greater than 0.10 (0.41) and the variance inflation factor (VIF) was less than 10 (2.45). Below is the presentation and description of figures: 50 Table 2: Summary of Descriptive Statistics, Skewness and Kurtosis of the Variables in the study (N=234). Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Skewness Kurtosis 1. QWL 109.61 23.70 46.00 139.00 -0.75 0.41 2.Creativity 47.80 12.33 22.00 105.00 0.40 0.41 3.Learning 113.75 31.22 48.00 189.00 -0.49 -1.05 4. Work Demands 53.73 11.57 29.00 110.00 0.44 1.46 5. Stress Risk 59.48 12.17 31.00 81.00 -0.19 -1.15 6. Sex 1.46 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.17 -1.99 7. Type of work 3.41 1.40 1.00 6.00 -0.08 -0.95 4.3. Hypotheses Testing Four (4) major statistical tests were used to analyse the hypothesis. The interrelationship between the independent variables, moderators and criterion variable in the study were explored using Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficient test. It was also used to test hypothesis 1 and 2. Standard multiple regression was used to test hypothesis 3 whereas hierarchical multiple regression, specifically, the procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) were used to test for the moderation effect (hypothesis 4 and 5). The results are presented in the table below: 51 Table 3: Pearson-Product Moment Correlation among the Variables in the study (N=234). VARIABLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. QWL 2.Creativity 0.73** 3.Learning 0.87** 0.77** 4. Work Demands 0.64** 0.53** 0.71** 5. Stress Risk 0.57** 0.59** 0.63** 0.71** 6. Type of work -0.54** -0.51** -0.55** -0.53** -0.76** 7. Gender -0.17* -0.16* -0.12* -0.08ns -0.06ns 0.01ns Statistical significance: *=p < 0.05, **=p<0.01, ns=Not Significant The results from table 3 indicated that all the variables (independent and moderators) significantly correlated with the criterion variable. The descriptors developed by Davis (1971) were used to interpret the magnitude of the relationship between the variables. The indicators are as follow:  0.70 or higher = very strong association  .50 -0 .69= substantial association  .30 -0.49 = moderate association  .10 – 0.29 = low association  .01 -0.09 = negligible association. 52 Partial correlation showed a significant relationship between learning and QWL (r=0.75) and creativity and QWL (0.55). According to Kenny (2009), for a moderation effect to occur, a significant relationship between the predictor variable and the criterion variable must be established. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 examined the relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL. It was therefore stated that “there will be a significant positive relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL”. A Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficient was used to test this hypothesis. The results are presented in the table 3 above. The result indicated that there is a significant positive relationship between creativity and QWL (r = 0.73, n= 234, p<0.01). This implies that where creativity is encouraged and supported, QWL of employees are improved. The hypothesis that “there will be a significant positive relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL” was supported. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 explored the relationship between learning and employees’ QWL. The hypothesis was stated as “there will be a significant positive relationship between learning and employees’ QWL. Results of a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, indicated that (from table 3) a significant positive relationship exist between learning and QWL (r = 0.87, n =234, p< 0.01). This implies that where learning opportunities are made available and supported, QWL of employees is improved. Therefore the hypothesis that “there will be a significant positive relationship between learning and employees’ QWL” was supported. 53 Hypothesis 3: Hypothesis 3 stated that learning at the organisational level (OL) will predict a higher QWL of employees than at the team (TL) and individual level (IL). This hypothesis was tested using the standard multiple regression analysis. The result is presented in tables 6 and 7 below; Table 4: Summary table of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation among Variables (N=234). Variables QWL IL TL OL QWL 0.84* 0.82* 0.84* IL 0.89* 0.88* TL 0.89* OL Statistical significance: p < 0.05 Table 5: Summary of a Standard Multiple Regression Model for the Predictive Ability of Creativity on QWL B SEB Beta t P F Variables 241.61* Constant 35.12 2.94 11.94 0.00 IL 0.99 0.20 0.39 4.89 0.00 TL 0.54 0.38 0.12 1.42 0.16 OL 0.53 0.10 0.40 5.11 0.00 R= 0.87; R2 =0.76; Adjusted R2 =0.76; p<0.05 *significant at p<0.05 54 Table 4 revealed the correlations of the predictor variables in relation to the criterion variable (QWL). It could be observed that all the predictor variables significantly correlated with the criterion variable. Tables 5 depicted a standard multiple regression analysis conducted to investigate the best predictor of QWL with regard to learning at the individual, team and organisational level. The model was statistically significant (F (3, 230) = 241.61, p<0.05). It could be observed from the table that individual learning and organisational learning significantly predicted QWL when all three variables were included (beta=0.39 and 0.40 respectively; p<0.05). However, organisational learning predicted QWL (beta=0.40; p=0.00) more than individual and team learning. The adjusted R2 value was 0.76%. This indicates that 76% of the variance in QWL was explained by the model. According to Cohen (1988) this is a large effect. The prediction that learning at the organisational level will predict employees QWL more than at the team and individual level was supported by the data. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 predicted that the relationship between learning and QWL would be moderated by work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender. This was tested using a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The moderating variables were addressed separately. The results are presented in the tables 6 below; 55 Table 6: Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Model for the Moderation Effect of Work Demand, Stress Risk, Type of work and Gender on Learning and QWL of Employees B SEB Beta t P Variables Step 1 Constant 34.54 2.90 11.89 0.00 Learning 0.66 0.03 0.87 26.80 0.00 Step 2 Constant 55.16 8.39 6.57 0.00 Learning 0.63 0.04 0.84 18.20 0.00 Work demands 0.10 0.09 0.05 1.05 0.30 Stress Risk 0.53 0.82 0.03 0.65 0.52 Type of work -1.56 0.65 -0.09 -2.41 0.01 Gender -1.54 0.77 -0.07 -2.00 0.05 Step 3 Constant 58.05 8.62 6.74 0.00 Learning 0.58 3.45 0.76 17.13 0.00 Work demands 0.22 0.09 0.11 2.48 0.01 Stress Risk 0.12 0.08 0.06 1.50 0.14 Type of work -2.43 0.66 -0.14 -3.70 0.00 Gender -1.57 0.77 -0.07 -2.04 0.04 Learning*Work demands -3.97 0.67 -0.19 - 5.93 0.00 Learning*Stress risk -4.90 0.91 -0.17 -5.39 0.00 Learning*Type of work 4.02 0.94 0.15 4.28 0.00 Learning*Gender 1.86 1.58 0.06 1.18 0.24 Note: p<0.05. DV=QWL, Step1, Predictors: (Constant), learning, Step 2, Predictors (Constant), learning, work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender, Step 3, Predictors: (Constant), learning, 56 work demands, stress risk, type of work, gender, learning*work demands, learning*stress risk, learning*type of work and learning*gender Table 6 depicted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis conducted to investigate the moderation effect of work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender on the relationship between learning and QWL. Moderating effect of work demands Table 6 showed the coefficient and model summary output of the hierarchical regression model. The beta value and its associated standard error, t value and its significance could be observed, as well as R2 change and its associated significant value. The significant beta value was recorded for each step of the model. Model one (1) which included only learning accounted for 76% of the variance (Adjuster R2=0.76) in QWL. The inclusion of work demands into the variance (at step 2 of the model) did not make a significant change in the variance (R2 change=0.00). The final model, that is model three (3) also included the interaction, and this accounted for an additional 3% 0f the variance, thereby accounting for 79% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.79) in QWL. It could also be observed that learning alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.87, p<0.05). The moderator, work demands, alone could not significantly predict QWL (beta=0.05, p>0.05). The interaction on the other hand significantly predicted QWL (beta= -0.19, p<0.05). The ANOVA results of the model summary table showed an overall significance of the model at each step. Model one (1), without interaction was significant, (F (1,232) =718.15, p<0.05). Model two (2) with the inclusion of work demands was significant (F (2,231) =356.77; p<005). Model three (3), with the interaction, was also significant (F (3,230) =287.08; p<0.05). The model was statistically significant. 57 Learning had a significant positive relationship (r=0.87, p=0.00) with QWL as shown in table 3. Following this, it was hypothesised that work demands will moderate the relationship (between learning and QWL). According to Kenny (2009), a moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction term is significant. This prediction was accordingly supported by the data. The interaction terms between learning and work demands on QWL was statistically significant (beta=- 0.19, t=-5.93, p<0.05). The interaction term accounted for 79% (adjusted R2 =0.79) of the variance in the criterion variable (QWL). According to Cohen (1988) this is a large effect. Moderating effect of stress risk Model one (1) which included only learning accounted for 76% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.76) in QWL. The inclusion of stress risk into the variance (in step 2 of the model) did not make a significant change in the variance (R2 change=0.00). The final model that is model three (3) also included the interaction, and this accounted for an additional 3% 0f the variance. It accounted for 78% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.78) in QWL. It could also be observed that learning alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.87, p<0.05). The moderator, stress risk, alone could not significantly predict QWL (beta=0.03, p>0.05). The interaction on the other hand significantly predicted QWL (beta= -0.17, p<0.05). The ANOVA results of the model summary showed an overall significance of the model at each step. Model one (1), without interaction was significant, (F (1,232) =718.15, p<0.05). Model two (2) with the inclusion of work demands was significant (F (2,231) =358.39; p<005). Model three (3), with the interaction, was also significant (F (3,230) =277.55; p<0.05). As indicated earlier, learning had a significant positive correlation with QWL as indicated in table 3. It was however, predicted that perceived stress risk will moderate this relationship (between 58 learning and QWL). According to Kenny (2009), a moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction term is significant. This prediction was therefore supported by the data. The interaction term between learning and stress risk on QWL was statistically significant (beta=-0.17, t=-5.39, p=0.00). The interaction term accounted for 78% (adjusted R2=0.78) of the variance in QWL. Moderating effect of type of work Model one (1) which included only learning accounted for 76% of the variance (Adjuster R2=0.76) in QWL. The inclusion of type of work into the variance (in step 2 of the model) resulted in an additional 1% (R2 change=0.01). The final model, that is model three (3) which included the interaction, accounted for an additional 2% 0f the variance, thereby accounting for 79% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.79) in QWL. It could also be observed that learning alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.87, p<0.05). The moderator, type of work, alone also significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.09, p>0.05). The interaction on the other hand significantly predicted QWL (beta= 0.15, p<0.05). The ANOVA results of the model summary. It showed an overall significance of the model at each step. It could be observed that model one (1), without interaction is significant, (F (1,232) =718.15, p<0.05). Model two (2) with the inclusion of type of work was significant (F (2,231) =369.45; p<0.05). Model three (3), with the interaction, was also significant (F (3,230) =270.89; p<0.05). The overall model was statistically significant. A significant positive relationship is observed between learning and QWL as shown in table 3. The introduction of type of work as a moderator supported the assertion that the relationship between learning and QWL will be moderated by type of work. The interaction term between learning and type of work on QWL was statistically significant (beta=0.15, t=4.28, p<0.05). The interaction term accounted for 79% (adjusted R2=0.79) of the variance in QWL. According to 59 Kenny (2009), a moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction term is significant. This hypothesis was therefore supported. Moderating effect of gender Model one (1) which included only learning accounted for 76% of the variance (Adjuster R2=0.76) in QWL. The inclusion of gender into the variance (in step 2 of the model) did not make a significant change in the variance (R2 change=0.00, p=0.05). The final model, that is model three (3) included the interaction, and this accounted for an additional 3% 0f the variance, however, the additional change was not significant (R2 change=0.03, p>0.05). It could also be observed that learning alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.87, p<0.05). The moderator, sex, alone could not significantly predict QWL (beta=0.07, p=0.05). The interaction on the other hand could not also significantly predict QWL (beta= 0.06, p>0.05). The ANOVA results of the model summary showed an overall significance of the model at each step. Model one (1), without interaction is significant, (F (1,232) =718.15, p<0.05). Model two (2) with the inclusion of gender was significant (F (2,231) =365.69; p<005). Model three (3), with the interaction, was also significant (F (3,230) =244.67; p<0.05). The overall model was statistically significant. A significant positive relationship exists between learning and QWL as has been recorded form table 3. However, the prediction that "the relationship between learning and QWL will be moderated by gender" was not supported by the data. This implies that the interaction term between learning and gender on QWL was not statistically significant (beta=-0.06, t=1.18, p>0.05). According to Kenny (2009), a moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction term is significant. 60 Therefore the hypothesis that the relationship between learning and QWL will be moderated by gender was not supported by the data. Hypothesis 5: Hypothesis 5 stated that the relationship between creativity and QWL would be moderated by work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender. This was tested using a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The outcome of the study is presented in table 7 below; 61 Table 7: Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Model for the Moderation Effect of Work Demand, Stress Risk, Type of work and Gender on Creativity and QWL of Employees B SEB Beta t P Variables Step 1 Constant 42.79 4.28 10.01 0.00 Creativity 1.40 0.09 0.73 16.14 0.00 Step 2 Constant 21.13 4.85 4.36 0.00 Creativity 1.04 0.09 0.54 11.27 0.00 Work demands 0.72 0.10 0.35 7.36 0.00 Stress Risk 0.41 0.11 0.21 3.90 0.00 Type of work -3.88 0.85 -0.23 -4.57 0.00 Gender -2.25 2.17 -0.05 -1.13 0.26 Step 3 Constant 23.97 4.52 5.31 0.00 Creativity 1.09 0.09 0.57 12.71 0.00 Work demands 0.69 0.09 0.34 7.53 0.00 Stress Risk 0.47 0.10 0.24 4.66 0.00 Type of work -5.34 0.81 -0.32 -6.59 0.00 Gender -2.43 2.15 -0.05 -1.12 0.00 Creativity*Work demands -6.46 -1.03 0.24 - 6.25 0.00 Creativity*Stress Risk -5.76 1.21 -0.20 -4.77 0.00 Creativity*Type of work 6.79 1.02 0.28 6.62 0.00 Creativity*Gender 4.58 2.18 0.15 2.10 0.04 62 p<0.05. * Significant at p<0.05. DV=QWL, Step1, Predictors: (Constant), creativity, Step 2, Predictors (Constant), creativity, work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender, Step 3, Predictors: (Constant), creativity, work demands, stress risk, type of work, gender, creativity*work demands, creativity*stress risk, creativity*type of work and creativity*gender Tables 9 depicted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis conducted to investigate the moderation effect of work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender on the relationship between creativity and QWL. Moderating effect of work demands Model one (1) which included only creativity accounted for 53% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.53) in QWL. The inclusion of work demands into the variance (in step 2 of the model) resulted in an additional 9% (R2 change=0.09). The final model, that is model three (3) also included the interaction, and this accounted for an additional 6% of the variance, thereby accounting for 67% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.67) in QWL. It was also observed that creativity alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.73, p<0.05). The moderator, work demands, alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.35, p<0.05). The interaction on the other hand significantly predicted QWL (beta= 0.24, p<0.05). The ANOVA results of the model summary showed an overall significance of the model at each step. Model one (1), without interaction was significant, (F (1,232) =260.40, p<0.05). Model two (2) with the inclusion of work demands was significant (F (2,231) =187.16; p<005). Model three (3), with the interaction, was also significant (F (3,230) =158.35; p<0.05). Creativity had a significant positive relationship with QWL (r=0.73, p<0.01) as indicated in table 3. Following this, it was predicted that work demands will moderate this relationship (between creativity and QWL). The data supported this prediction. The interaction term between the 63 creativity and work demands was statistically significant (beta=0.24, t= 6.25, p<0.05). The interaction term accounted for 67% (adjusted R2=0.67) of the total variance in QWL. According to Cohen (1988) this is a large effect. Moderating effect of stress risk Model one (1) which included only creativity accounted for 53% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.53) in QWL. The inclusion of stress risk into the variance (in step 2 of the model) resulted in an additional 3% (R2 change=0.03). The final model, that is model three (3) also included the interaction, and this accounted for an additional 4% of the variance, thereby accounting for 59% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.59) in QWL. It was also observed that creativity alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.73, p<0.05). The moderator, stress risk, alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.21, p<0.05). The interaction on the other hand significantly predicted QWL (beta= -0.20, p<0.05). The ANOVA results of the model summary showed an overall significance of the model at each step. Model one (1), without interaction is significant, (F (1,232) =260.40, p<0.05). Model two (2) with the inclusion of stress risk was significant (F (2,231) =145.75; p<005). Model three (3), with the interaction, was also significant (F (3,230) =113.90; p<0.05). The model was statistically significant. As indicated earlier, a significant positive relationship exists between creativity and QWL as shown in table 3. The introduction of a moderator, stress risk, with the prediction that stress risk will moderate the relationship between creativity and QWL was supported by the data. The interaction term between creativity and stress risk on QWL was statistically significant (beta=- 0.20, t= -4.77, p<0.05). The interaction term accounted for 59% (adjusted R2=0.59) of the variance in QWL. 64 Moderating effect of type of work Model one (1) which included only creativity accounted for 53% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.53) in QWL. The inclusion of type of work into the variance (in step 2 of the model) resulted in an additional 4% (R2 change=0.04). The final model, that is model three (3) which included the interaction accounted for an additional 7% of the variance, thereby accounting for 63% of the variance (Adjusted R2=0.63) in QWL. It was also observed that creativity alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.73, p<0.05). The moderator, type of work, alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=-0.23, p<0.05). The interaction on the other hand significantly predicted QWL (beta= 0.28, p<0.05). The ANOVA results of the model summary. It showed an overall significance of the model at each step. Model one (1), without interaction is significant, (F (1,232) =260.40, p<0.05). Model two (2) with the inclusion of type of work was significant (F (2,231) =151.82; p<005). Model three (3), with the interaction, was also significant (F (3,230) =134.61; p<0.05). The overall model was statistically significant. As indicated earlier on, a significant positive relationship exists between creativity and QWL (see table 3). It was predicted that the introduction of a moderator, type of work, will affect this relationship (between creativity and QWL). This prediction was supported by the data. The interaction term was observed to be statistically significant (beta=0.28 t= 6.62, p<0.05). The interaction term accounted for 63% (adjusted R2=0.63) of the total variance in the criterion variable (QWL). According to Kenny (2009), a moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction term is significant. The hypothesis was therefore supported. 65 Moderating effect of gender Model one (1) which included only creativity accounted for 53% of the variance (Adjuster R2=0.53) in QWL. The inclusion of sex into the variance could not significantly add to variance (R2 change=0.00). The final model, that is model three (3) which included the interaction accounted for an additional 1% (R2 change=0.01) of the variance in QWL. It could be observed that creativity alone significantly predicted QWL (beta=0.73, p<0.05). The moderator, sex, alone could not significantly predict QWL (beta=0.05, p>0.05). The interaction on the other hand significantly predicted QWL (beta= 0.15, p<0.05). The ANOVA results of the model summary showed an overall significance of the model at each step. Model one (1), without interaction was significant, (F (1,232) =260.40, p<0.05). Model two (2) with the inclusion of gender was significant (F (2,231) =130.78; p<005). Model three (3), with the interaction, was also significant (F (3,230) =89.95; p<0.05). The overall model was statistically significant. Perceived creativity had a significant positive relationship with QWL as indicated earlier (see table 3). Following this, it was hypothesised that sex will moderate the relationship between creativity and QWL. This prediction was accordingly supported by the data. The interaction term between creativity and sex on QWL was observed to be statistically significant (beta=0.15, t= 2.10, p<0.05). The interaction term accounted for 53% (adjusted R2=0.53) of the total variance in QWL. According to Cohen (1988) this is a large effect. 66 4.4. Summary of Findings The following were the finding of the study: 1. A significant positive relationship was found between creativity and QWL. This signifies that employees' QWL is perceived to improve where there are opportunities for creativity in the organisation as well as more room to access and use those opportunities in performing tasks. 2. A significant positive relationship was found between organisational learning and QWL, implying that where learning opportunities and room to access and use them are perceived, improved QWL is also perceived 3. Learning at the individual level significantly predicts employees QWL than at the team level but not at the organisational level. 4. The relationship between organisational learning and QWL is dependent on work demands and stress risk perceived by employees in the course of performing their task. 5. The relationship between creativity and employees' QWL is influenced by perceived work demands and stress risk in the organisation. 6. The relationship between organisational learning and employees' QWL is dependent on the type of work they do, but not dependent on the gender of employees. 7. Gender of employees and the type of work they do have a significant effect on the relationship between creativity and their QWL. 67 Fig. 2. r= 0.87 β= -0.17 β=0.15 β= -0.19 r=0.73 β= 0.15 β=0.28 β=0.24 β= -0.20 LEARNING CREATIVITY QUALITY OF WORK LIFE (QWL) WORK DEMA NDS STRES S RISK GEND ER TYPE OF WOR K MODERATORS PREDICTORS (IV) CRITERION (DV) 68 Fig.2. Observed model of the moderation effect of work demands, stress risk, sex and type of work on the relationship between learning and QWL and creativity and QWL. The observed model shows the relationship between predictor variables (creativity and learning) and the criterion variable (QWL). A significant positive relationship was observed. Furthermore, out of the various moderators proposed, only sex could not significantly moderate the relationship between learning and QWL. This implies harnessing employees QWL through learning opportunities is contingent on perceived work demands, stress risk and type of work. The relationship between creativity and QWL on the other hand was affected by all the proposed moderators. This indicates that harnessing employees QWL by giving room for creativity opportunities is dependent on perceived work demands, stress risk, type of work and sex of employees. 4.5. Report on qualitative data The qualitative aspect of the study sought to address the following questions 7. Does your organisation support or encourage learning? 8. Do all employees have equal access to learning and creativity opportunities in your organisation? 9. Is the access to learning and creativity opportunities in the organisation dependent on the type of work one does? 10. How do male and female staff in your organisation differ in taking up such opportunities? 11. Does your organisation create learning opportunities at the individual, team and organisational level? 12. Which of the various levels of learning opportunities do employees prefer most? 69 4.5.1. Results on qualitative data The following were reported; All the organisations from which the samples were selected gives opportunity for creativity and learning. For instance one of the HR stated that “for here, creativity opportunities and learning is open to everyone, no one is restricted based on a type of work. It is open to everyone. It is just that there is a level at which some people are limited.” Another also indicated that “at every level employees have access to put in novels ideas in solving problems at hand. For example, even employees at the account section although are limited in their ability to be autonomous, they are often required to come up with a new and convenient means of transacting business, making payments and all that.” An interview with the Human Resource Personnel of the selected organisations under study revealed that all employees are given equal access to learning opportunities but not creativity. It was further explained that the type of work one does determine whether he or she will be given creativity opportunity or not. Four out of the 5 Human Resource Managers interviewed used the financial department as an example. According to them, employees at the financial department (account, finance and audit) are required to operate strictly by the rules and regulations governing their operation. They further indicated that, where one comes up with creative ideas, vital in improving or facilitating their task, it must first be made known to management for further probing and approval before implementation. For instance, one manager said “employees at our financial department (account, finance and audit) are required to operate strictly by the rules and regulations governing their operation. Where one comes up with creative ideas, which is vital in 70 improving or facilitating their task, it must first be made known to management for further probing and approval before implementation”. The interview also revealed that both males and females equally take up learning and creativity opportunities, however this is dependent on the age and level of education of the employees. According to them, the younger ones take up these opportunities more than the older ones. Whereas the highly educated ones are less likely to take up learning opportunities as compared to the less educated ones. Furthermore, it was revealed that, males take up creativity opportunities more than females this however, is also dependent on educational level of employees. It was indicated that highly educated ones take up creativity opportunities more than the less educated ones. One manager said “the ladies like taking up learning opportunities than the males especially in this organisation. Well maybe because they believe they grow faster than males, and that they will someday be more occupied in the house when they get married, they tend to take up these opportunities earlier so that they can have time for the home. Males take up creativity opportunities than females, this is because most of the males in the organisation occupy positions that allows them more rooms for creativity. Besides I believe males are risk takers and will always want to explore unlike ladies who will always want to follow and stick strictly to what they know. But all these however applies to the younger ones than the old ones in the organisation”. All the organisations indicated that they provide learning at the individual, group and organizational level. For instance one of the managers said “yes, we give scholarship, allow study, and provide training opportunities and so on. These allows the individuals to learn. 71 At the team level, we organise group workshops for teams. In fact most of our programmes are organised at the team level.” It was observed that most of the employees prefer individual level learning than the organizational and team level. An interview with about ten (10) employees revealed that those who preferred individual level learning indicated that it builds them up and gives them a sense of authority over their work, and a sense of security in this era of change. Those who preferred organizational level learning indicated that although they prefer learning at the individual level, they feel no use of it if they are not allowed to transfer what they learn to their job. “One lady stated that “I like to develop myself a lot, but tell me, what is the essence of it all if after all the knowledge I acquire, I am not given the opportunity to employ them to my job. I will feel much better if I am given the opportunity to transfer the knowledge I have acquired from the numerous trainings, seminars, lectures, schools organised etc. to my job. At least in that way I will feel my effort is not wasted but rather helpful to the organization.” Another indicated that, he prefers organisational level learning because it helps him to appreciate the needs of the organisation and deliver to achieve the overall objectives. 72 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION This chapter presents discussion of the findings, the implications derived from the findings and the limitations of the study. Suggestions for future research are also discussed. 5.1. Discussion of Results 5.1.1. Relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL It was hypothesised that, there will be a significant positive relationship between creativity and employees’ QWL. This prediction was accordingly supported. Creativity opportunity in the organisation positively correlated with employees’ QWL. This implies that where a creative climate is perceived, QWL is also perceived. Innovation is quickly becoming the word du jour although it has been in existence since creation. For the longest time, it has simply been referred to as creativity. In the contemporary world, innovation has become the norm. In every business advertisement or commercials on the media, a careful observation reveals that it is at least mentioned once. Aside this, the word has managed to creep it way into many books, articles, both academics and business, as well as job titles in the organization. An example is a position like Chief Innovation Officer. Looking at its relevance, one question to ponder on is who should be involved in creativity (spotting problems and identifying new and different solutions) at the organization? In a more logical sense, it should be “every employee.” However, up until recently, creativity and innovation were typically viewed as the responsibility of a small number of people, usually those working in the Research & Development 73 department. In today’s world of work, the acknowledgement and rewarding of creativity in the organisation has become the norm for organisations that aspire to be successful. Efforts are now engaged by organisations to create a work environment which supports creativity and creates and give more room for creativity opportunities. Ensuring that creativity thrives in an organization can lead to even greater employee engagement, motivation, productivity; factors that could improve employees' QWL (Rasulzada, 2007; Shalley, Gilson & Blum, 2000). Where there is no creativity, stagnation is present, that is no new ideas and efficient and modern ways of doing things or working are encouraged. Encouraging creativity at the workplace involves giving employees the avenue to move away from the old ways of doing things, and from familiar environment to explore, sometimes, completely in uncharted areas, with the aim of coming up or discovering something new and better for the growth of the organization. This tends to boost employees self- esteem and self-awareness as well as their personal and professional development, more especially when employees excel in generating new and positive ideas that positively impacts the organization (Allen, 2000). The outcome of this study support a study conducted by Rasulzada (2007). He conducted a study on creativity and psychological wellbeing and found that creativity and innovation in the organization are means to improve employees’ psychological wellbeing. According to him, it is vital to increase organizational creativity and a climate for creativity not just to attain a competitive value and remain attractive in the market, but also for the individual to achieve a better psychological well-being. He pointed that for an employee to feel psychologically well, then he or she need to experience the organization as creative and innovative. Furthermore a study conducted by Lund (2003), revealed that organisational culture with innovation and flexibility results in a high level of employee job satisfaction, an indicator of QWL (Lokanadha & Mohen, 2010). 74 Organisations are now becoming abreast with the essence of creative opportunities at the work place to the employees. A practical example is Ghana Commercial Bank limited. Employees at the branch levels were tasked to do routine and boring task for a long period of time until one achieved a specific tenure. Currently, there is the introduction of job rotation which enables employees to change task within a period of time diminishing the routine nature of their job. Secondly employees are now made to solve customers' problems and issues (except critical ones that needs attention of managers and supervisors) using their own creative ideas, however, not outside the bank's code of conduct. Furthermore, a study presented by Right Management's research team at the World Economic Forum, throws more light on the outcome of the study. According to them, organisations that promote employees health and well-being are three and a half times more likely to support and encourage creativity and innovation. In their study, Seventy-two percent (72%) of respondents who rated their organization highly for actively promoting health and well-being also rated it highly for encouraging creativity and innovation. Their findings, as reported by Schmidt (2010) indicated that to organize a comprehensive organizational effectiveness program, organisations must involve a wellness initiative through creative opportunities on the job. In their study however, less than half of the nearly 30,000 workers who participated in the study reported that their organizations actively promote health and wellness (Schmidt, 2010) through creativity. This implies that employees QWL could be harnessed where there is a perceived organisation’s support and encouragement of creativity in handling task. 75 5.1.2. Relationship between organisational learning and employees’ QWL The next hypothesis which examined the relationship between perceived organisational learning and employees’ QWL predicted that there will be a significant positive relationship between perceived organisational learning and employees’ QWL. This assertion was supported by the data. This implies that employees will perceive an improved QWL in a work environment where opportunities to acquire and transfer new knowledge is supported and encouraged. In contrast to this outcome, Fonseca and Verma (2001) in their study found that increasing workplace demands, focusing on learning, even though necessary for achieving competitiveness, are not contributing to the QWL of employees. According to them, when learning demands are increased in the organisation, it tends to have a negative impact on the perception of work life balance which in turn affects the psychological wellbeing of employees, hence their QWL. Learning however has a great number of relevance to employees which the researcher personally hold strongly that Fonseca and Verma (2001) might have overlooked. Some of the importance of learning has been confirmed by studies to improve employees' QWL. For instance learning increases job satisfaction and morale among employees, employee motivation, increased efficiency and effectiveness, increased capacity to adopt new technologies and methods, adapt effectively to change, increased innovation in strategies and products, reduced employee turnover, enhanced company image. It also helps optimise the development of human resource that helps the employee to achieve the individual as well as organisational goals (Benson, 2006). Furthermore, where learning is encouraged, it increases the job skills and knowledge of employees at all levels and expands the horizons of their intellect and their personality, helps in indicating the sense of team work, team spirit, and inter team collaborations, aids the employees to be more effective in decision making and problem solving, develop leadership skills , better attitudes, and 76 other aspects that successful workers usually display (Price 2007; Bratton & Gold, 2003, Armstrong & Foley, 2003). Majority of these outcomes as have been mentioned earlier, have been confirmed by studies to improve employees QWL. For instance conducting a survey to determine the nature and construct of QWL, the European Foundation for improvement of living and working condition (EWON) (2002) identified dimensions such as job security, job satisfaction, competence development and others. Lokanadha and Mohan (2010) also found other dimensions such as job security, job satisfaction, competence development and others. Walton's eight (8) categories of QWL included immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacity, opportunity for continuous growth and security, social integration in the work organisation, constitutionalism in the work place and social relevance of work life. The outcome of this study was however, in agreement of Darafs (2012) study, conducting a comparative study and using Pearson correlation coefficient, he found that a significant positive relationship exist between learning and QWL. Furthermore Yeo and Li (2012) posited that employees’ perception of QWL has the potential to impact their learning orientation simply because they can rely on learning to help them seek new opportunities to improve their overall job satisfaction which in turn affects their life outside of work. Therefore, giving the opportunity and support, employees, are more likely to be more open to learning and training opportunities as it enhances their ability to take up new and challenging opportunities. Learning therefore equip employees to face and meet change as it occurs, this in a way assures them of their job security knowing they are not rendered obsolete. 77 5.1.3. Learning at the organisational level will predict a significant portion of the variance in QWL of employees than at the team and individual level. It was hypothesized that learning at the organizational level will predict a significant portion of the variance in QWL than at the team and individual level. This assertion was accordingly supported by the data. This result implies that where employees perceived learning opportunities at the organisational level, they are more likely to perceive QWL than at the individual and team level. Although literature is very scarce in this field, several studies have found a significant effect of organisational learning on job satisfaction, an indicator of QWL (Lokanadha & Mohan, 2010). For instance conducting a study on organisational learning culture’s influence on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intensions, Hsu (2009) found a positive effect of organisational learning and job satisfaction. Also, Tsai, Yen, Huang, and Huang (2007) asserted that workplace learning promotes a high level of job satisfaction among employees, when conducting their study on motivating employees’ learning commitment. Furthermore, whiles working on the role of organisational learning on emotional intelligence and job satisfaction, Chiva and Alegre (2008) posited that where there is a stimulating context, organisational learning develops employees’ competencies and their job satisfaction. Chang and Lee (2007) on the other hand, focusing on sample of employees from the financial, insurance, manufacturing and service industries, found a positive relationship between organisational learning and job satisfaction. This can be explained from Kim’s (1993) assertion. According to him, individual learning and team learning have a positive effect on organisational learning. He continued to explain that individuals and teams bring on board their acquired knowledge and experiences to their job which leads to organisational improvement. For example, individuals tend to share, support and exchange their ideas, knowledge, opinions, experiences and others with other members of their team when performing their task in the organisation. In view of this, Barker and Neailey (1999) indicated that 78 team learning occur where sharing of knowledge among individuals leads to an expansion and improvement of the team members knowledge base and overall effectiveness in future problem solving and decision making. In addition, Edmondson (2002) asserted that organisational learning on the other hand occur when opportunity is made available for new found or acquired knowledge to be transferred to other sections of the organisation. This he believed could be achieved through cross-functional team learning or inter-departmental learning. Furthermore, using a structural equation model to analyse a total of 200 cases, collected from 50 different Small and medium size enterprises, Song, Jeung and Cho (2011) found that individual learning process has a significant impact on team or group learning process, which in turn influences the overall organizational process sequentially. From this perspective, it can be argued that learning at the individual and team level is embedded in organisational level learning. The two interplay in a sequential manner to affect organisational learning. Hence individual learning and team learning in themselves cannot affect organisational learning. For instance Wang and Ahmed (2003) indicated that individual learning itself does not guarantee organisational learning, unless a transference process of knowledge among people with the purpose of institutionalisation occurs. According to Marsick and Watkins (1994), organisational learning was developed based on the prediction that organisations can learn. Although organisation in itself has no brains to enable it learn, it possess cognitive systems and memories, inherent in it members (employees). Organisations therefore learn through the opportunities given to employees to transfer acquired knowledge to problem solving and decision making in the organisation or making use of the knowledge new employees bring on board the organisation which the organisation previously did not have. In view of this, Hodgkinson (2000) defined organisational learning as coming together 79 of individuals to enable them support and encourage one another’s learning which will in the longer term be of benefit to the organization (p.157). The result was however in contrast with the outcome of the interview conducted. All the organisations interviewed, indicated that they provide learning at the individual, group and organisational level. It was however, observed that most of the employees preferred individual level learning to organisational and team level learning. An interview with about ten (10) employees revealed that those who preferred individual level learning indicated that it builds them up and gives them a sense of authority over their work, and a sense of security in this era of change. Those who preferred organisational level learning indicated that although they prefer learning at the individual level, they feel no use of it if they are not allowed to transfer what they learn to their job. “One lady made the following statement: “I like to develop myself a lot, but tell me, what is the essence of it all if after all the knowledge I acquire, I am not given the opportunity to employ them to my job. I will feel much better if I am given the opportunity to transfer the knowledge I have acquired from the numerous trainings, seminars, lectures, schools organised, etc. to my job. At least in that way I will feel my effort is not wasted but rather helpful to the organization.” 80 5.1.4. The relationship between learning and QWL would be moderated by work demands stress risk, type of work and gender. A significant positive relationship was established between learning and QWL, following this, it was hypothesized that work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender will moderate this relationship. These variables were addressed separately. It was found that work demands, stress risk and type of work moderated the relationship, however, the prediction the gender will moderate the relationship between learning and QWL was not supported. Work demands moderated the relationship between learning and QWL. This implies that the presence of perceived high work demands reduced the predictive ability of perceived learning opportunities on employees' QWL. This could be argued from the point of view of Fonseca and Verma (2001). According to their findings, increasing workplace demands, even though necessary for achieving competitiveness, does not contribute to the QWL of employees. According to them, when workplace learning demands are increased in the organization, it tends to have a negative impact on the perception of work life balance which in turn affects the psychological wellbeing of employees, hence their QWL. This implies that where learning is much encouraged, much is demanded or expected from employees, and where work demands are on a rise, employees tend to spend much of their time in the work place having little or no time for their family or personal life, a contributing factor to employees QWL (Lokanadha & Mohan, 2010; The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Condition (EWON), 2002). The study conducted by Rehinam (2004) provides evidence to this outcome. Using a regression analysis, they found that job demand was a significant predictor of QWL among Information System personnel. 81 Furthermore, the study was also supported by some earlier studies. For instance the study conducted by Crouter, Bumpus, Head and McHale (2001) resulted that workload is negatively related to QWL. This they believe is because workload affects employees’ family life and also leads employees to job burnout (Houkes, Janssen, De Jonge & Bakker, 2003), and increases job stress, turnover intention and mental stress. Therefore, higher work demand is believed to be a factor detrimental to QWL (cited by Lai, Chang & Hsu, 2012). Some researchers however found a positive effect of work load on QWL. For instance Elmuti (2003) conducted a study on IASM team (Internet aided self-managed team) and found that when the working time of IASM team increases, their QWL is also raised. In addition, the study of Moore (2000) on technology professionals suggested an inverse relation between workload and turnover intention, which further implies the possibility of a positive relationship between workload and QWL. Perceived Stress risk was found to significantly moderate the relationship between perceived oranisational learning and QWL. This implies that where employees perceive high stress risk, the effect of learning opportunities on their QWL is reduced. Literature has revealed that learning opportunities and skills discretion have proven to have a positive influence on job satisfaction and reduced job stress which according to Scully, Kirkpatrick, and Locke, (1995) would lead to better QWL. Perceiving a risk of stress in the organisation is very detrimental to employees’ wellbeing and QWL. The study of Bolhari, Rezaen, Bolhari and Zare (2012) confirm this assertion. They found a negative impact of stress on employees QWL. In addition, the study's outcome is evident in the Dutch law. In the quest to ensure the wellbeing and health of employees in the European Countries, the Dutch law attempted to describe the concept, risk to wellbeing. The description included any work that overloads people psychologically. This implies that it considered work overload as detrimental to the psychological 82 health of employees. The Dutch law further explained that, any work that leads to enduring stress reactions and strain is a risk to the wellbeing and health of employees (reported by Kineke, 1991). In view of this it could be argued that encouraging and supporting learning at the work place alone is not enough to establish employees QWL. Other stressors should be identified and minimized, if not be eliminated. The type of work done by employees moderated the relationship between learning and QWL. This implies that the type of work employees do has the ability to affect the predictive value of their perceived learning opportunities and on their QWL. This was supported by Sadique's (2003) study. He conducted a study on the employees of sugar mills and explored a significant difference between the white collar and blue collar employees’ QWL. It can therefore be argued that the type of work one does will determine one's ability to either take up and make use of learning opportunities in the organisation or not. Gender, on the on other hand did not moderate the relationship between learning and QWL. It can therefore be said that supporting and encouraging learning in the organisation at all levels can impact on the QWL of employees in spite of their gender. In contrast to this outcome, Wadud (1996) conducted a study and found significant difference in males and females QWL. Elias and Saha (2005) conducted a study and also found a similar result. Furthermore, Kumar and Shanubhogue (1996) analyzed and compared the existing and expected QWL in universities and found a similar outcome. In addition, Tabassum, Rahman and Jahan (2011) conducted a study on QWL among male and female employees and found a significant difference exist between male and female employees QWL. Again, replicating their study using a population of lecturers in the 83 university, they found a significant difference between gender and QWL. This could be as a result of different choice of statistical tools. The outcome of the study was however in line with a study conducted by, Gupta and Hyde (2013). They found no significant difference between gender and QWL when conducting a study on demographics and QWL in nationalized banks in India. Literature also reveals that not all employees receive the same opportunities for learning in the workplace. Research by Rainband (2000) suggests that unskilled employees are the least likely to receive opportunities for learning. More specifically, part-time employees, many of whom are women, have less access to opportunities for workplace learning than full-time employees. If this is so then sex should moderate the relationship between learning and QWL. However, this could be explained from the perspective of Rainband's assumption that majority of women are part time employees which according to him explains why they have less access to learning opportunities in the organisation. The present study however, focused on organisations where all employees, both women and men are full time workers, working as lecturers, nurses, cashiers, customer service and marketing staff. Furthermore, the outcome of the interview conducted revealed that both males and females are given equal access to learning opportunities in the organization and also both equally take up these opportunities, however it was indicated that, this is mostly dependent on the age and level of education of the employees. 84 5.1.5. The relationship between creativity and QWL would be moderated by work demands stress risk, type of work and gender. A significant positive relationship was found between creativity and QWL. Following this, it was predicted that work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender will moderate this relationship. It was found that all the moderators significantly moderated the established relationship between creativity and QWL. Work demand was found to have a significant effect on the relationship between creativity and QWL. This implies that in a creative work environment where perceived work demand is high, employees QWL are likely to decline. In much the same way stress also significantly moderated the relationship between creativity and QWL. In other words, stress risk affected the strength of relationship between creativity and QWL. This implies that where employees perceive high stress risk, the impact of a creative work environment on their QWL could diminish. In contemporary organisations, the quest of meeting up with demands to meet up with competition and the turbulent world of work, work demands and pressures are on the increase as a result organisations require their workers to be more innovative and creative, and at the same time more efficient; a real indicator of paralysis. This can be further explained by the assertion of Amal and Awan (2011). They posited in their study that having large piles of work in a given targeted time can results in employees becoming stressed out from their work as well as their organisation. According to them, when this happens, the motive of employees’ job becomes to achieve targets within an allocated time, which affect their ability to use up creative opportunities and hence diminish the creativity within the organisation. In effect, it is very difficult for employees to be creative when they feel stale. Employees' often require space and time to be creative or use up creativity opportunities in the organisations. However, where work demands are high and 85 employees feel overloaded and stretched, or have no discretionary time, their ability to be creative could be impacted significantly. From the outcome of the study, it could be said that this negatively impact on employees’ QWL as well. Encouraging and supporting employees’ creativity alone is not enough. Management must put measures in place such as giving more room and space for employees to make use of the creativity opportunities the organisation has made available to them if employees’ QWL are their concern. Alleviating high work demands and stress risk at the work place is therefore a critical concern to all organisations which intend to survive and adapt effectively to this competitive and turbulent world of work. The moderation effect of type of work on the relationship between creativity and QWL was in support of Hackman and Oldham (1976, 1980) job characteristics model. According to the theory, if employees will achieve high internal motivation, growth satisfaction, general job satisfaction and low absenteeism and turnover (some indicators of QWL (Lokanadha & Mohan, 2010; Walton, 1985), they need to experience some critical psychological states which can be achieved through skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. This implies that for employees to achieve high motivation and job satisfaction that could enable them work effectively; there is the need for management to enrich their task. That is to say, the task they perform should require them to employ variety of creative skills and talents, be autonomous, and complete a whole and identifiable piece of work with visible outcomes as well as to have a positive impact on the organisation. It can therefore be argued that task which do not require the employment of these skills are likely to diminish employees QWL as it could render employees monotonous as a result of performing repetitive and routine task which in turn can affect their sense of competence (Lunenburg, 2011). 86 The characteristics of employees’ jobs (the type of work employees do) can therefore influence their ability to take up creativity opportunities in the organisation. To the extent that it is possible, allowing employees to have a choice in the types of activities in which they participate enables them to enjoy a certain degree of autonomy. Employees who perceive that they have freedom or flexibility in how they perform their jobs are also likely to feel free to be creative. Employees who enjoy positive and complex challenges are more likely to be creative, unless the challenges become overwhelming. This was supported by the interview conducted. It was revealed that the type of work one does determine whether he or she will be given creativity opportunity or not. Four (4) out of the five (5) Human Resource Managers interviewed used the financial department as an example. According to them, employees at the financial department (account, finance and audit) are required to operate strictly by the rules and regulations governing their operation. They further indicated that, where one comes up with creative ideas, which is vital in improving or facilitating their task, it must first be made known to management for further probing and approval before implementation. The moderating effect of gender on the relationship between creativity and QWL could be explained by the outcome of earlier studies. For instance, Wadud (1996) conducted a study found significant difference in males and females QWL. Elias and Saha (2005) conducted a study and also found a similar result. Furthermore, Kumar and Shanubhogue (1996) analyzed and compared the existing and expected QWL in universities and found a similar outcome. In addition, Tabassum, Rahman and Jahan (2011) conducted a study on QWL among male and female employees and found a significant difference exist between male and female employees QWL. Again, replicating their study using a population of lecturers in the university, they found a significant difference between gender and QWL. It could be argued from the above literature that 87 if males and females differ in their level of QWL then there is a probability that gender will predict employees QWL. The interview conducted supported this result. It was revealed that although both male and females are given equal access of creativity opportunity, males take up creativity opportunities more than females. This was however, indicated to be dependent on the educational level of employees. The highly educated ones were reported to take up creativity opportunities more than the less educated ones. 5.2. Limitations Studies conducted in the form of a survey research in a natural setting are normally accompanied by multiple limitations. The following limitations have been identified.  First, the instruments were obtained from already validated measures. However certain items were eliminated from the scales, this was to improve upon the study reliability in order to suit the types of data required. This attenuation is likely to limit the reliability and the validity of the scale. To improve upon the instrument, a pilot test was done to minimize, and to a large degree, eliminate any undesirable and ambiguous statements that were likely to affect the results.  Second, the sample size and limited geographic location makes it impossible to accurately generalize the outcome of the study. The use of a cross sectional survey will also affect the ability to validly generalize the finding across situation and other conditions. Due to limited time and resources, this limitation could not be averted. 88 5.3. Strength In spite of the limitations, the study had the following as its strength  The focus of learning and creativity as opportunities made available for employees in the orgsnisation, makes this study unique from others as most studies addressed learning as a continuous development orientation, and creativity as a personality trait.  The use of gender, type of work, stress risk and work demand as moderators in the study made the study unique from others, expanding the scope of the literature. 5.4. Practical Implication In real life, QWL is an inevitable phenomenon and it exists in all kinds of occupational categories although the magnitude varies depending on varied factors. If the employees' QWL is left unresolved, it will have substantial negative impacts on the overall development of the organisation. The outcome of this study therefore informs organisations on the need to create learning and creativity opportunities for employees, giving room (considering factors such as perceived high work demands and stress risk as well as the type of work employees do, that are likely to prevent employees from taking up such opportunities) for them to employ and apply acquired knowledge and novel ideas in making decision and solving problem in the course of performing their task, as these serve as a tool to harness employees' QWL. 89 5.5. Recommendations Based on the findings of the study, the following are recommended:  Organisations are entreated to provide and create a conducive atmosphere of learning and creativity, and also provide a room for employees to make use of these opportunities in solving problems and making decisions about the task they perform.  As organisations attempt to support and encourage learning and creativity in the organisation, there is the need to put up measure to mitigate factors, such as work demands, stress risk, type of work and gender) that are likely to prevent employees from taking and making use of the opportunities created.  Other socio-demographic variables such as, age, educational level, total years of working experience, occupational category, work practices and years of operations were not considered in the analysis. It is, therefore, suggested that these personal and professional factors should be taken into account as other antecedents of QWL of employees.  Future research can focus on a comparative study comparing how different work sectors differ in the level of creativity, learning and QWL.  Future research can replicate this study in relation to Hackman and Oldman's job characteristics model. 90 5.6. Conclusion In order to adapt to the global changes ‘hitting’ organizations from different angles across the globe, organizations must embrace and also create opportunity for learning and flexible environment where employees can bring on board novel ideas toward better performance. Employees’ QWL experiences are limited not only to them, but are also a matter of concern for the employers as well. In order to survive and keep up in today’s competitive world of work, organisations need high quality personnel instead of merely capital, technology or long-lived products. In fact, employees are the soft assets and the hidden value of a company (Abdeen, 2002). Hence, if organizations are concerned about developing their human resources and gaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace, it deems necessary that they attend to one of their most precious assets, namely, human resources, by employing high-quality working-life experiences in consonance their various needs eliciting favourable job-related responses in return. In sum, in the 21st century era, there is no doubt that sometimes genuine innovation and creativity is needed to solve problems and satisfy stakeholders. In most organisational settings, leaders are expected to be able to think creatively and come up with innovative solutions to work-based problems. And they often do. But encouraging and supporting work place learning as well as fostering and harnessing the creative abilities of every employee is likely to produce an even richer selection of essential and efficient knowledge and creative ideas and solutions to work tasks and problems. This is because diverse group members collectively possess knowledge and a variety of perspectives not found in just one person. The selected working condition factors (creativity and learning) show that to some extent, they have influence on QWL. Organisational learning and employees’ creativity are the significant 91 predictors of QWL. Therefore, if these components of work environment are ignored by the management, they would have substantial impact on the QWL of their staff and hence the organisation as a whole. 92 REFERENCES Abdeen, T. (2002). Company performance: does quality of work life really matter? Management Research News, 25, 8–10. Abrahamson, E. (2004). Change Without Pain. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.. Agrell, A. & Gustafson, R. (1994). The team climate inventory (TCI) and group innovation: A psychometric test on a Swedish sample of work groups. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 143-151. Albrecht, K. (2013). Employee Quality of Work-life Survey (EQWLS). Karl Albrecht International. Allen, M. R. (2000). Why is creativity important in business? Retrieved from http://creativityfor life.com/why-is-creativity-important-in-business/ (accessed 1st Feb.2015) Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Staw M. B. & Cummings L. L. (Eds.). Research in Organisational Behaviour ,10,123- 167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. & Heron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39,1154−1184. Amal, A. M. & Awan, A. M. (2011). Moderating Effect of Workplace Spirituality on the Relationship of Job Overload and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI:10.1007/s10551-011-0891-0. Argentero, P., Miglioretti, M., & Angilletta, C. (2007). Quality of work life in a cohort of Italian health workers. Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia 29, 50-54. 93 Argote, L. & Ophir, R. (2002). Intra-organizational learning. In J. Baum (Ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, 181-207. Oxford: Blackwell Business. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organisational learning. Theory, method and practice. Reading. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading. MA: Addison Wesley. Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2008). “Factors Associated with Job Content Plateauing among Older Workers”. Career Development International, 13(7), 594-613. Armstrong, A. & Foley, P. (2003). Foundations for a learning organization: organization learning mechanisms. The Learning Organization, 10(2), 74-82. Aruns, S. (2006). A study on the influence of quality of work life on employees ‘productivity. SRM Institute of Science and Technology. Deemed University. Aryeetey M. & Sanda A. (2012). Understanding Employees perspective of QWL indicators in Ghanaian organisations. International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies, 3(3), 2156-7506. http://www.akpinsight.webs.com. Barker, M. & Neailey, K. (1999). From Individual Learning to Project Team Learning and Innovation: A Structured Approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(2), 60-67. Baron, R. & Kenny, D. (1986).The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173– 1182. Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy and its role in learning. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.). The international handbook of English language teaching, (2nd Ed.). Norwell, MA: Springer. Benson, P. (2006). Learner autonomy: Insider perspectives on autonomy in language teaching and learning. Dublin: Authentik. 94 Bolhari, A., Rezaeean, A., Bolhari,J., Bairamzadeh, S. & Soltan A. A, (2011). The relationship between QWL and demographic characteristics of Information Technology Staffs. International conference on Computer communication and management, 5. Bolhari, A., Rezaeean, A., Bolhari,J. & Zare F (2012). The Impact of Occupational Stress on Quality of Work Life among the Staff of e-Workspace. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 6, 07-22. Bontis, N. & Fitz-enz, J. (2002). "Intellectual capital ROI: a causal map of human capital antecedents and consequents". Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3), 223 – 247. Bratton, J., & Gold, J., (2003), Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, (3rd Ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Publishers. Brown, A. D. & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 102-120. Cameron, M. F. (1996). The role of creative action in organizational learning and change Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 54-62. MCB University Press, 0953-4814. Carr, J. (2005). Creative industries, creative workers and the creative economy: A review of selected recent literature. Scottish Government Social Sciences Research. Casey, A. (2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning. Management Learning, 36(2), 131-147. Chang, S. C., & Lee, M. S. (2007). A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employees’ job satisfaction. The Learning Organization, 14(2), 155-185. Chenoweth, L., Jeon Y. H., Goff, M. & Burke, C. (2006). Cultural competency and nursing care: An Australian perspective. International Nursing Review 53, 34–40. Chiva, R. & Alegre J. (2005) ‘Organizational Learning and Organizational Knowledge: Towards the Integration of Two Approaches’. Management Learning, 36(1), 47–66. 95 Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: The role of organizational learning capability. Personnel Review, 37(6), 681-701. Choi, N. J. (2007). Group composition and employee creative behaviour in a Korean electronics company: Distinct effects of relational demography and group diversity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 213-234. Choi, N. J., Anderson, A. T. & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual Inhibitors of Employee Creativity in Organizations: The Insulating Role of Creative Ability. Group & Organization Management. 34, 330. DOI: 10.1177/1059601108329811... http://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/3/330. Cohen, H. (1995). The further exploits of AARON, Painter. Stanford Education and Humanities Review, 4(2). Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.) New York: Academic Press. Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie C. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (p. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crouter, A. C., Bumpus, M. F., Head, M. R. & McHale, S. M. (2001). Implications of overwork and overload for the quality of men’s family relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 404-416. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–76. Csikszentmihalyi, M., (1997). “Happiness and creativity. “The Futurist, 31(5). 96 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg R. J. (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity, (pp. 313-335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cummings, T & Worley, C. (2005). Organization Development and Change, (8th Ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing. Darafs, H. (2012). Relationship between Learning Organization and Quality of Work Life. The IUP Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 11(4), 21-37. Davis, H. (1971). Human Behaviour at Work; Organizational Behaviour (5th Ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum De Sitter, L. U. (2000). Synergetisch produceren: Human resources mobilisation in de productie: een inleiding in structuurbouw, [Synergetic production: Human resources mobilisation in production]. Assen: Van Gorcum ( 3th Ed.). De Vaus, D. A. (1995). Surveys in social research. Melbourne, Vic: Allen &Unwin. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organisational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394. Dodgson, M. (2007). Organisational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures. Organization Studies, 14, (3), 375-394. Donaldson, L., (2001). The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. Harper Collins Publishers. Duncan, R. & Weiss D. (1979). ‘Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design’. Research Organisational Behaviour, 1(4), 75–125. 97 Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085-1113. Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R. & Gherardi, S. (1998). Organizational learning: Diverging communities of practice? Management Learning, 29(3), 259-272. Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group level perspective, Organization Science, 13, 128-146. Elias, M. S. & Saha, N. K. (2005). Environmental Pollution and Quality of Working Life in Tobacco Industries. Journal of Life Earth Science, 1(1), 21-24. Ellis, A., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., Porter, C., West, B. & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 821-835. Elmuti, D. (2003). Impact of internet aided self-managed teams on quality of work-life and performance. Journal of Business Strategies, 20(2), 119-134. European Commission (2003). Improving quality in work: a review of recent progress, COM 728. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2002). Annual review of working conditions in the EU. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound (accessed 20 February 2012). Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995).The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pre-training motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21, 1-25. Fauske, J. R. & Raybould, R. (2005). Organizational learning theory in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 22-40. Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C. & Kohles, J. C. (2007). Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group and Organization Management, 32, 465-499. Doi: 10.1177/1059601106293960. 98 Fonseca, M. & Verma, A. (2001). Learning and Work-Life Balance in Canada: Evidence from the General Social Survey. In Murray, G, Bernier, C., Harrison, D. & Wagar, T. (2001). Rethinking Institutions for Work and Employment. ISBN 2-6737-7889-5 French, W. L. & Bell, H. C. (1995). Organization development: Behavioural science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall. Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., Walters, S. & Quinn, M. (2003). The impact of informal learning at work on business productivity. London: Department of Trade and Industry. Ganguly, R. M. (2010). Quality of Work life and Job Satisfaction of a Group of University Employees. Asian Journal of Management Research, 209-216. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71, 78–91. Giesecke, J. & McNeil, B. (1999). “Core Competencies and the Learning Organization.” Library Administration & Management 13, 158–66. Gilson, L. L. (2008). The good, the bad, and the ugly of creativity and Innovation. Academy of Management; Anaheim, CA. Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E. & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521-531. Goldstein, I. & Ford, J. (2002). Training in organizations (4th Ed.). Wadsworth. Graham, S. (2006). Organizational stress. New York: Wiley. Greaves, L. (2012). Stress at work risk assessment guidance for managers. Health and Safety, 1. Retrieved from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/safety/media/po/racop–po.pdf. Gupta, A. & Chaudhary, P. (2012). A study on quality of work life among employees of BPO sector in NCR Region. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 2. 99 Gupta, B. & Hyde, M. A. (2013). Demographic study on QWL in Nationalised banks. Management Development Institute. 17(3), 223-231. Gupta, M. & Sharma, P. (2011). Factor credentials boosting quality of work life of BSNL employees in Jammu Region. APJRBM, 2(1), 79 - 89. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley. Herzberg, F. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-1- 56000-634-3 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471373893. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing. OCLC 243610. Herzberg, F. (1964). The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and Problems of Manpower. Personnel Administrator (27), 3–7. Hian, C. & Einstein, W. (1990). Quality of Work Life (QWL): What Can Unions Do? S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 55(2), 17-22. Hodgkinson, M. (2000). Managerial perceptions of barriers to becoming a learning organization. The learning Organization, 7(3), 156-166. Hoque, M. E. & Rahman, A. (1999). Quality of Working Life & Job Behaviour of Workers in Bangladesh: A Comparative Study of Private and Public Sectors, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(2), 175-184. Hossain, M. M. & Islam, M. T. (1999). QWL & Job Satisfaction of GVT Hospital Nurses in Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(3). 100 Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P. M., De Jonge, J. & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Specific determinants of intrinsic work motivation, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: A multi- sample longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 427-450. Hsu, Y. (2009). Organizational Learning Culture's Influence on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Turnover Intention among R&D Professionals in Taiwan during an Economic Downturn. (Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation) Graduate School, University of Minnesota. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing process and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. Jackson, L.T.B. & Rothmann, S. (2005). An adapted model of burnout for educators in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 25, 100–108. Jackson, L.T.B. & Rothmann, S. (2005). Work-related wellbeing of educators in a district of the North West Province. Ji, H. S., Jeung, C. & Cho, H. S. (2011). "The impact of the learning organization environment on the organizational learning process in the Korean business context", Learning Organization, 18(6), 468 - 485 DOI (Permanent URL): 10.1108/09696471111171312 Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Jones, G. R. (2000). Organizational theory (3rd Ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall. Kanagalakshmi, L. & Devei, N. B. (2003). A Study on Perception of Quality of Work Life among Textile Manufacturing Workers in Tirunelveli. Retrieved from http://www.123oye.com (accessed 10 Jan 2010). Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job Content Instrument: Questionnaire and User's Guide. Revision 1.1. University of Southern California. Los Angeles, California. 15. 101 Karasek, R. A. & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books. Kashani, H. F. (2012). A Review on Relationship between Quality of Work Life and Organizational, Citizenship Behaviour. Journal of Basic Applied Research. 2(9), 9523-9531. Kelly, T. & Littman, T. (2001). The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America's Leading Design Firm. New York: Currency. Kerosuo, H. & Toiviainen, H. (2011). Expansive learning across workplace boundaries. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 48–54. Keyes, C. L. M., Hysom, S. J. & Lupo, K. L. (2000). The positive organization: Leadership legitimacy, employee well-being, and the bottom line. The Psychologist Manager Journal, 4(2), 143-153. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37-50. Kineke, E. J. (1991). The EEC Framework Directive for Health and Safety at Work, 14 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 213. Retrieved on http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol14/iss1/10. Kinnunen, U., Geurts, S. & Mauno, S. (2004). Work-to-Family conflict and its relationship with satisfaction and wellbeing: A one year longitudinal study on gender differences. Work & Stress, 18, 1 – 22. Kiriago, N. A. & Bwisa, M. H. (2013).Working environmental factors that affect quality of work life among attendants in petrol stations in Kitale town in Kenya. International Journal of Academic research in Business and Social Science, 3(5), 2222-6990. Korst, L. M., Eusebio-Angeja, A. C., Chamorro, T., Aydin, C. E & Gregory, K. D. (2003). Nursing documentation time during implementation of an electronic medical record. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(1), 24-30. 102 Krejcie, R.C. & Morgan, D.V. (1970). “Determining sample size for research activities”, Education and Psychological Measurements, 30, 607-610. Kumar, H. & Shanubhogue, A. (1996). Quality of Work Life-An Empirical Approach, Manpower Journal, 32(3), 17-32. Landen, M. (1982). “The process of decision-making by stressed social workers: To stay or leave the workplace”. International Review of Psychiatry, 17, (5), 347-354. Landy, F. J & Conte, J .M (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Lai L. S., Chang J. &, Hsu, Y. L. (2012). Does Effect of Workload on Quality of Work Life Vary With Generations? Asia Pacific Management Review. 17, (4), 437-451. Lal, M. (1994). Quality management through Quality circle. Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation. Lawler, E. E. (1982). Strategies for Improving the Quality of Work Life. American Psychologist, 37(2), 486-493. Lawler, E. E. (2005). Creating High Performance Organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(1), 10-17. Li, J., & Yeo, R. K. (2011). Quality of work life and career development: Perceptions of part- time MBA students. Employee Relations, 33(3), 201-220. Lipshitz, R., Popper, M. & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A multifaceted model of organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behaviour Science, 38, 78-98. Lokanadha, R. M. & Mohan, R. (2010). Quality of work life of employees: emerging dimensions. Asian Journal of Management, 827 – 839. Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18(3), 219-236. 103 Lunenburg, C. F. (2011). Motivating by Enriching Jobs to Make Them More Interesting and Challenging. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration. 15(1). Mandaviya, M. (2013). A study on the perception of Quality of Work life among textile industry workers in Gujarat. International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management, 4(8), 89. Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative vision for HRD. Human Resource Quarterly, 5, 353-360. Marsick, V. J. & Watkins E. K. (2003). "Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire." Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132-151. Mensah, O. A, & Asamani, L. (2013). The Influence of Employees' Self-Efficacy on Their Quality of Work Life: The Case of Cape Coast, Ghana. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(2), 195 -204. Meyer, A. D. (1982). "Adapting to environmental jolts." Administrative Science Quarterly, 515-537. Miller, D. (1996). A preliminary typology of organisational learning: synthesizing the literature. Journal of Management, 22, (3), 485-505. Moore, J. E. (2000). One road to turnover: An examination of work exhaustion in technology professionals. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 141-168. Mpofu, E., Myambo, K., Mogaji, A. A., Mashego, T. & Khaleefa, O. H. (2006). African perspectives on creativity. In Kaufman C. J. & Sternberg J. R. (Eds.). The International Handbook of Creativity (p. 456-489). New York: Cambridge University Press. Murray, P. & Donegan, K. (2003). Empirical linkages between firm competencies and organisational learning. The Learning Organization, 10(1), 51–62. 104 Nemerzitski, S. (2012). “Development of creative and innovative organization – learning in organizational context as starting point: Comparison of Estonian and Finnish practices”. Nyarko, K., Asumeng, M. & Atindanbila, S. (2012). The understanding and origin of creativity among Ghanaian basic school teachers. Research Journal in Organizational Psychology & Educational Studies, 1(3), 149-154. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S. & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviours. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 27(3), 257-279. Oldham, G. R. (l996). Job design. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11, 33-60. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256657 Patterson, C. Individual and Organizational Creativity. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (Browning, 1888: lines 226-227). Pech, J. R. (2001). Reflections: Termites, group behaviour, and the loss of innovation: conformity rules! Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 559 – 574. Price, A. (2007). Human Resource Management in a business context. (3rd Ed.). London: Thomson Learning. Pugalendhi, S. B., Umaselvi M. & Nakkeeran, S. (2011). Quality of work life: Perception of College teachers. Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies, 2(1), 47-65. Raduan, C. R., LooSee, B., Jegak U. & Khairuddin, I. (2006). Quality of Work Life: Implications of Career Dimension. Journal of Social Sciences, 2, (2), 61-67. Rainband, H. (2000). Skilling the unskilled: access to web-based learning and the lifelong learning agenda. Journal of Education and Work, 13, (2), 183-197. 105 Rasulzada, F. (2007). Organizational creativity and psychological well-being. Contextual aspects on organizational creativity and psychological well-being from an open system perspective. (Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation). Department of psychology, Lund University. Rethinam, C. G. (2004). Work conditions and predictors of QWL of information system personnel, (Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation). University of Putra, Malaysia Rethinam, S. & Ismail, M. (2008). Constructs of Quality of Work Life: A Perspective of Information and Technology Professionals. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 58-70. Riggio, R. E. (1990). Introduction to industrial/ organizational psychology, Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687. Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In Sternberg, J. R. Grigorenko, E. L. & Singer J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (p. 2'-30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sadique, Z. (2003). Quality of Work Life among White Collar and Blue Collar Employees. Journal of the Institute of Bangladesh Studies, 26, 169-174. Santos-Vijande, M. L. & Álvarez-González, L. I. (2007). Innovativeness and organizational innovation in total quality oriented firms: The moderating role of market turbulence. Technovation, 27(9), 514–532. Schmidt, G. (2010). Well-Being to Innovation, Creativity. Hartford Business Journal. Schulz, M. (2002). Organizational learning. In Baum J. (Ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, (p. 415-441). Oxford: Blackwell Business. 106 Scott, S. G. & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behaviour: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580- 607. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256701. Scott, G., Lyle L. & Mumford M. (2004). “The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review” in Creativity Research. Journal; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scottish Executive. (2005). Social focus on deprived areas. National Statistics Publication, Edinburgh. Retrieved from www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005 (accessed 21 March 2006). Scully, J., Kirkpatrick, A. & Locke, E. (1995). “Locus of Knowledge as a Determination of the Effects of Participation on Performance, Affect, and Perceptions”. Organisational Behaviour Human Decision Making Process, 61, 276-288. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York, NY: Doubleday Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline field book: strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Serey, T. T., (2006). Choosing a Robust Quality of Work Life. Business Forum, 27 (2), 7-10. Shalley, C., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33-53. Shalley, E. C, Gilson, L. L. & Blum, C. T. (2000). Matching Creativity Requirements and the Work Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 215-223. Academy of Management Stable: Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556378 107 Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J. & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958. Sharifi, A. & Eslamiyeh F. (2009). An investigation into the relationship between organizational learning and information and communication technology in Garmsar Islamic Azad University in the academic year 86-87. New Approaches in Educational Administration, 1(2), 1-22. Sheel, S., Sindhwani, B. K. Goel, S. & Pathak, S. (2012). Quality of Work Life, Employee Performance and Career Growth Opportunities, A Literature Review. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2 (2), 291-300. Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P. & Lee, D. (2001). “A New Measure of Quality of Work Life (QWL) Based on Need Satisfaction and Spillover Theory.” Social Indicators Research, 55, 241-302. Slater, S. F. & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74. Sonnentag, S., Kuttle, I. & Fritz, C. (2010), Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: a multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 76 (3). Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C. & Ohly, S. (2004). Learning at work: training and development. International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 19, 249-289. Doi: 10.1002/0470013311.ch8. Su, S. S. (2006). Individual learning and organizational learning in academic libraries. In Khoo, C. Singh D. & Chaudhry S. A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice 2006 (A-LIEP 2006), Singapore, 3-6 April 2006 (pp. 247-251). Singapore: School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University. 108 Sun, H. C. (2003). Conceptual clarifications for “organizational learning,” “learning organization,” and “a learning organization.” Human Resource Development International, 6(2), 153-166. Swapna M. & Gomathi, S. (2013). A Study on the Interplay between the Constructs of Quality of Work life: With Special Reference to IT Professionals in Bangalore City. Asian Social Science 9(9), 107 - 122. Tabassum, A. (2012). Interrelations between Quality of work life dimensions and faculty member job satisfaction in private universities of Bangladesh. Tabassum, A., Rahman, T. & Jahan, K. (2010). Quality of Work Life among The Male And Female Employees of Private Commercial Banks in Bangladesh. Proceedings of The International Conference on Business Competencies in a Changing Global Environment, South East University, Dhaka. Tabassum, A., Rahman, T. & Jahan, K. (2011). A Comparative Analysis of Quality of Work Life among the Employees of Local and Foreign Banks in Bangladesh. World Journal of Social Science, 1(1), 17-33. Taylor, F. (1900). Scientific management. Westport (Conn.): Greenwood Press. Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 73-89. Tsai, P. C. F., Yen, Y. F., Huang, L. C. & Huang, I. C. (2007). A study on motivating employees ‘learning commitment in the post-downsizing era: Job satisfaction perspective. Journal of World Business, 42, 157-169. Tuomi-Gröhn, T. (2003). Developmental Transfer as a Goal of Internship in Practical Nursing. In Tuomi-Gröhn, T. & Engeström, Y. (Eds.). New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary-crossing (p.199-231). Amsterdam: Pergamon. 109 Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222-240. Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16(3), 203–224. Wadud, N. (1996). Job Stress & QWL Among Working Women‟. Bangladesh Psychological Studies, 6, 31-37. Walton, R. E. (1985). Quality of work life: what is it? Sloan management review. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wang, C. & Ahmed, P. (2003). Organizational learning: a critical review. The Learning Organization, 10(1), 8-17. Warr, P. (1990). `The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health', In Lorenz, C. (Ed.). Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193-210. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by Henderson, A. M. & Parsons, T. The Free Press. White, D. D. & Bednar, D.A. (1991). Organisational behaviour: Understanding and managing people at work. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Wright, T. A. & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being in job performance: A fresh look at an age-old quest. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 338- 351. Yeo, R. K. & Li, J. (2012). In pursuit of learning: Sense making the Quality of Work Life. European Journal of Training and Development, 37 (2), 136-160. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2046-9012, DOI 10.1108/03090591311301662. Yousie, K. & Harjee, N. (2013).Creativity the critical linkage. Retrieved from www.banffleadership.com 110 Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 422–423. Zhou, J. & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. In Martocchio J. (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resource management (p. 165–217). Oxford, England: Elsevier. 111 APPENDIX I UNIVERSITY OF GHANA DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY QUESTIONNAIRE I am an M.Phil. Student pursuing Industrial and Organisational Psychology in University of Ghana. This questionnaire forms part of a study being conducted as part of my academic project. The purpose of the study is to find out the influence of organisational learning and employees creativity on the quality of work life among employees in Ghanaian organisations. By answering the questions on this survey, you can contribute your opinion and impression regarding your organisation’s working conditions. This survey has a series of questions that relate to your experiences as a working member of your organisation. Please read each statement carefully and decide how much you agree or disagree with it. You are kindly requested to read through the items and respond to the questions as objectively as possible. Information provided shall be treated as confidential and used solely for academic purposes. Your anonymity will also be granted. SECTION A DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Sex: 1.Male 2. Female Name of organisation…………………………………………………………………….. Type of work…………………………………………………………………………….. 112 SECTION B This section seeks to examine employees’ perception of their Quality of Work Life in the organisation. PLEASE you are required to TICK (√) the appropriate option where SA – STRONGLY AGREE, A – AGREE, U- UNCERTAIN, D – DISAGREE AND SD – STRONGLY DISAGREE STATEMENT SD D U A SA 1. I get personal satisfaction from the work I do in my job. 2. I feel my work makes a valuable contribution to the success of the organization 3. I believe the work I am assigned to do makes good use of my knowledge and skills 4. The pay I receive for my job is appropriate, considering the work I am assigned to do 5. I believe I have a secure job with this organisation for the foreseeable future 6. My physical work environment enables me to do my job effectively 7. My supervisor regularly lets me know what is expected of me in doing my job effectively 8. My supervisor gives me the individual help and support I need to do my job effectively 9. The organisation offers me opportunities to grow and learn new skills. 10. I have a chance to move up to a better job if I do well in this one. 11. My work group has a sense of team spirit 12. People who work in this organisation try to cooperate and help each other. 13. Management keeps us generally informed of the latest "news" that affects our interests 14. People can speak up and voice their opinions frankly without fear of being punished 113 15. People have an equal chance to get ahead in this organisation regardless of sex, age, religion, racial or ethnic background, or other factors not related to their work performance 16. If I have a grievance or other personal problem in my work, I can usually expect to have it resolved fairly 17. There are people in the organisation I can go to for professional help if I am having personal, psychological, or health problems. 18. The union I belong to does a good job representing me. (If you don't belong to a union, please leave blank). 19. Alcohol abuse is low among the workers in my area of the organisation. 20. Drug abuse is low among the workers in my area of the organization 21. I feel physically safe in my work area. 22. I feel physically safe coming to and leaving my work facility 23. I am free from sexual, psychological, and physical abuse or harassment while working here 24. This organisation operates according to honest, ethical business values 25. The chief executive of this organisation is an effective leader 26. The top management team of this organisation provides effective leadership 27. I am optimistic about the future of this organisation 28. I am proud to be a part of this organisation. 29. Overall, I would say my morale on the job is high 30. I plan to stay with this organisation for the foreseeable future 31. Please write a few words to complete this sentence: "This would be a better organisation to work for if..." ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 114 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… SECTION C This section seeks to examine employees’ perception of the opportunities and support the organisation grants to its members to bring on board as well as apply their creative ideas in executing their task. PLEASE you are required to TICK (√) the appropriate option where SA – STRONGLY AGREE, A – AGREE, U- UNCERTAIN, D – DISAGREE AND SD – STRONGLY DISAGREE. STATEMENT SD D U A SA 1. Creativity is encouraged here 2. Our ability to function creatively is respected by the leadership 3. The main function of employees in this organisation is to follow orders which come down through channels. 4. Around here, a person can get in a lot of trouble by being different 5. This organisation can be described as flexible and continually adapting 6. The best way to get along in this organisation is to think the way the rest of the group does 7. This organisation is open and responsive to change. 8. The people in charge around here usually get credit for others' ideas 9. This place seems more concerned with the status quo than with change 10. There is adequate time available to pursue creative ideas here. 11. Lack of funding to investigate creative ideas is a problem in this organization 115 12. This organisation publicly recognizes those who are innovative. 13. The reward system here benefits mainly those who don't rock the boat. 14. A person cannot do things that are too differently around here without provoking anger. SECTION D This section seeks to examine employees’ perception of the learning opportunities the organization makes available to them at the individual, team and organizational level in the organization. PLEASE you are required to TICK (√) the appropriate option where AN – ALMOST NEVER, S – SELDOM, ST- SOMETIMES, O – OFTEN AND AA – ALMOST ALWAYS STATEMENT AN S ST O AA INDIVIDUAL LEVEL 1. In my organisation, people openly discuss mistakes in order to learn from them. 2. In my organisation, people identify skills they need for future work tasks. 3. In my organisation, people can get money and other resources to support their learning. 4. In my organisation, people are given time to support learning. 5. In my organisation, people view problems in their work as an opportunity to learn 6. In my organisation, people listen to others' views before speaking 7. In my organisation, whenever people state their view, they also ask what others think. 8. In my organisation, people treat each other’s opinion with respect 116 9. In my organisation, people spend time building trust with each other TEAM LEVEL AN S ST O AA 1. In my organisation, teams/groups treat members opinions with respect, regardless of rank, culture, or other differences 2. In my organisation, teams/groups have the freedom to adapt their goals as needed 3. In my organisation, teams/groups focus both on the group's task and on how well the group is working.. 4. In my organisation, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of group discussions or information collected 5. In my organisation, teams/groups are rewarded for their achievements as a team/group ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL AN S ST O AA 1. My organisation enables people to get needed information at any time quickly and easily). 2. My organisation maintains an up-to-date data base of employee skills. 3. My organisation creates systems to measure gaps between current and expected performance 4. My organisation makes its lessons learned available to all employees 5. My organisation measures the results of the time and resources spent on training. 6. My organisation recognizes people for taking initiative. 7. My organisation gives people choices in their work assignments 8. My organisation invites people to contribute to the organisation's vision. 9. My organisation supports employees who take calculated risks 10. My organisation builds alignment of visions across different levels and work groups. 11. My organisation considers the impact of decisions on employee morale. 12. My organisation works together with the outside community to meet mutual needs. 117 13. My organisation encourages people to get answers from across the organisation when solving problems 14. In my organisation, leaders generally support requests for learning opportunities and training. 15. In my organisation, leaders share up to date information with employees about competitors, industry trends, and organisational directions 16. In my organisation, leaders empower others to help carry out the organisation's vision. 17. In my organisation, leaders mentor and coach those they lead 18. In my organisation, leaders continually look for opportunities to learn. 19. In my organisation, leaders ensure that the organisation's actions are consistent with its values SECTION E This section seeks to examine employees’ perception of the work demands inherent in their roles and responsibilities at work. PLEASE you are required to TICK (√) the appropriate option where SA – STRONGLY AGREE, A – AGREE, U- UNCERTAIN, D – DISAGREE AND SD – STRONGLY DISAGREE STATEMENT SD D U A SA 1. I have too much task to do at work 2. I work under - time pressure 3. I have to be attentive to many things at the same time 4. I have to give continuous attention to my work 5. I have to remember many things in my work 6. I have to contact difficult people in my work 7. I do not have enough variety in my work 8. My job does not offer me the possibility of independent thought and action 118 9. I can participate in the decision about when a piece of work must be completed 10. My job requires working very fast 11. I am required to do an excessive amount of work 12. I do not have enough time to get the job done 13. I am free from conflicting demands that others make. 14. My tasks are often interrupted before they can be completed, requiring attention at a later time 15. My job is very hectic. SECTION F This section seeks to examine employees’ perception of the stress risk they encounter in the course of their work in the organization. PLEASE you are required to TICK (√) the appropriate option where SA – STRONGLY AGREE, A – AGREE, U- UNCERTAIN, D – DISAGREE AND SD – STRONGLY DISAGREE STATEMENT SD D U A SA 1. I feel I do not have just the right amount of work to do within my working hours. 2. I feel that I am not able to fulfil the task and responsibilities of my job. 3. I feel I do not have control over my pace of work 4. I am included to an adequate extent in decision making which impact my working practices and priorities 5. I feel I am not using my skills to full effect 6. I am not encouraged to use my own initiative 7. My manager does not encourages me to take up new, challenging work 8. My manager does not allow me to work as flexibly as possible, especially in times of workload pressures. 9. My manager is accessible and approachable, especially if I have any work related problem 119 10. I get enough support from my colleagues 11. I get enough support from my manager 12. I am not affected by any harassment at work 13. I feel I can talk to my colleagues about any work related problem 14. I feel that there are conflicting responsibilities in my job 15. I understand how my work fit into the overall aim of the organisation 16. I feel I can approach my manager if I have any concern about my responsibilities at work 17. How would you describe your overall stress level during the past 90 days? (Please leave blank if you do not want to supply this information.) 1. Very high 2. High 3. Moderately high 4. Fairly low 5. Very low 120 APPENDIX II ETHICAL APPROVAL UNIVERSITY OF GHANA OFFICE OF RESEARCH, INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Ethics Committee for Humanities (ECH) PROTOCOL CONSENT FORM Section A- BACKGROUND INFORMATION Title of Study: THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND EMPPLOYEES’ CREATIVITY ON THE QUALITY OF WORK LIFE AMONG EMPLOYEES IN GHANAIAN ORGANISATIONS Student Investigator: PRISCILLA HANSON Certified Protocol Number General Information about Research The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of organizational learning and employees’ creativity on employees’ quality of work life. Agreeing to take part of this study will require you to respond to a questionnaire and participate in an interview session in relation to the study conducted. The interview session will take place some few days after responding to the questionnaire. You are not required to indicate your name or signature on the survey; this is to ensure your anonymity as a participant in this evaluation. Official Use only Protocol number Section B– CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH 121 Benefits The potential benefits you are likely to get from participating in this study is that, the information you provide could help managers of your organization to help improve your quality of work life in the organization by focusing on creating more opportunities for advancement (creativity and learning). Risk of the study This research is considered to be of a minimal risk. This implies that the risks associated with this study are the same as what you face every day. There are no known additional risks to those who take part in this study. Confidentiality Your study records would be kept as confidential as possible. All information collected from the surveys will be kept as confidential as possible. There will be absolutely no names or signatures identifying the participants of the study which will ensure confidentiality. However, certain people may need to see your study records. By law, anyone who looks at your records must keep them completely confidential. The only people who will be allowed to see these records are:  the research team, including the researcher, supervisors and any other research staff,  certain government and individuals in the University of Ghana who need to know more about the study. For example, individuals who provide oversight on this study may need to look at your records. This is done to make sure that the study is been done in the right way. They also need to make sure that your rights and your safety are protected in the course of the study. These include:  Ethics Committee for Humanities (ECH), Institute of Statistics, Social and Economics Research(ISSER, IRB) Compensation Although you are not going to be paid for the time you volunteer while being in this study, the researchers will not cease to appreciate your effort and time. Withdrawal from Study You should note that you are not under any coercion to take part in this study. You should not feel that there is any pressure to take part in the study, to please the investigator or the research staff. You are free to participate in this research or withdraw at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits you are entitled to receive if you stop taking part in this study. Your decision to participate or not to participate will not affect your job status. 122 Contact for Additional Information If you have any question, concern or complaint about this study, you can contact Priscilla Hanson at the University of Ghana, Psychology Department. If you have questions about your rights as a participant in this study, general questions, or have complaints, concerns or issues you want to discuss with someone outside the research, call the Ethics Committee for Humanities (ECH), Institute of Statistics, Social and Economics Research (ISSER, IRB) on (233-032)512502 , +233 057-7699900/1/2. If you experience an unanticipated problem related to the research contact Priscilla Hanson on 0207647905 or priscillahanson@ymail.com. Section C- VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT "I have read or have had someone read all of the above, asked questions, received answers regarding participation in this study, and am willing to give consent for me, my child/ward to participate in this study. I will not have waived any of my rights by signing this consent form. Upon signing this consent form, I will receive a copy for my personal records." ____________________________________________ Name of Volunteer ____________________________________________ _____________ Signature or mark of volunteer Date If volunteers cannot read the form themselves, a witness must sign here: I was present while the benefits, risks and procedures were read to the volunteer. All questions were answered and the volunteer has agreed to take part in the research. ____________________________________________ Name of witness ____________________________________________ _____________ Signature of witness Date 123 I certify that the nature and purpose, the potential benefits, and possible risks associated with participating in this research have been explained to the above individual. ___________________________________________ Name of Person who Obtained Consent ___________________________________________ ______________ Signature of Person Who Obtained Consent Date 124 k_ _.,..•.. UNIVERSITY OF GHANA ETHICS COMMITTEE FOR THE HUMANITIES (ECH) P. 0. Box LG 74, Legan, Accra, Ghana My Ref. 0.................. Ms. Priscilla Hanson 4th March, 2014 Department of Psychology University of Ghana Legon PROTOCOL ECH 027 13-14: THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND EMPLOYEES' CREATIVITY ON THE QUALITY OF WORK LIFE AMONG EMPLOYEES IN GHANAIAN ORGANISATIONS This is to advise you that the above reference study has been presented to the Ethics Committee for the Humanities and the following actions taken subject to the conditions and explanation provided below: Expiry Date: 11/03/15 On Agenda for: Initial Submission Description: 15/01/14 ECH Action : Approved Please accept my congratulations. -----·- ·- ------ ···--·-··· Yours Sincerely, Rev Prof. J. 0. Y Mante ECH Chair CC: Director, ISSER Tel: +233-303933866 Emai l: ech@isser.edu.gh 125 126 APPENDIX III SPSS OUTPUT One-way ANOVA Table for the hierarchical multiple regression model Moderating Effect of Work Demands on Learning and QWL Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Step 1 Regression 98904.57 1 98904.57 718.15 0.00 Residual 31952.26 232 137.72 Total 130855.83 233 Step 2 Regression 99055.12 2 49527.56 359.77 0.00 Residual 31800.71 231 137.67 Total 130855.83 233 Step 3 Regression 103275.50 3 34425.17 287.08 0.00 Residual 27580.33 230 119.91 Total 130855.83 233 p <0.05 127 Moderating Effect of Stress Risk on Learning and QWL Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Step 1 Regression 98904.57 1 98904.57 718.15 0.00 Residual 31952.26 232 137.72 Total 130855.83 233 Step 2 Regression 98962.56 2 49481.28 358.39 0.00 Residual 31800.71 231 137.67 Total 130855.83 233 Step 3 Regression 102533.60 3 34177.87 277.55 0.00 Residual 28322.23 230 123.14 Total 130855.83 233 p <0.05 Moderating Effect of type of work on Learning and QWL Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Step 1 Regression 98904.57 1 98904.57 718.15 0.00 Residual 31952.26 232 137.72 Total 130855.83 233 Step 2 128 Regression 99690.28 2 49845.14 369.45 0.00 Residual 31165.55 231 134.92 Total 130855.83 233 Step 3 Regression 101990.22 3 33996.74 287.08 0.00 Residual 28865.61 230 125.56 Total 130855.83 233 p <0.05 Moderating Effect of Gender on Learning and QWL Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Step 1 Regression 98904.57 1 98904.57 718.15 0.00 Residual 31952.26 232 137.72 Total 130855.83 233 Step 2 Regression 99446.71 2 49723.36 365.69 0.00 Residual 31409.12 231 135.97 Total 130855.83 233 Step 3 Regression 99635-36 3 33211.79 244.67 0.00 Residual 31220.47 230 135.74 Total 130855.83 233 p <0.05 129 Moderating Effect of Work Demads on Creativity and QWL Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Step 1 Regression 69201.75 1 69201.75 260.40 0.00 Residual 61654.08 232 265.75 Total 130855.83 233 Step 2 Regression 80918.28 2 40459.14 187.16 0.00 Residual 49937.56 231 216.18 Total 130855.83 233 Step 3 Regression 88168.46 3 29389.49 158.35 0.00 Residual 42687.37 230 185.60 Total 130855.83 233 p <0.05 Moderating Effect of Stress Risk on Creativity and QWL Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Step 1 Regression 69201.75 1 69201.75 260.40 0.00 Residual 61654.08 232 265.75 Total 130855.83 233 Step 2 130 Regression 73003.69 2 36501.84 145.75 0.00 Residual 57852.14 231 250.44 Total 130855.83 233 Step 3 Regression 78209.87 3 26069.96 113.90 0.00 Residual 52645.96 230 228.90 Total 130855.83 233 p <0.05 Moderating Effect of Gender on Creativity and QWL Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Step 1 Regression 69201.75 1 69201.75 260.40 0.00 Residual 61654.08 232 265.75 Total 130855.83 233 Step 2 Regression 69486.89 2 34743.45 130.78 0.00 Residual 61368.94 231 265.67 Total 130855.83 233 Step 3 Regression 70645.54 3 23548.51 89.95 0.00 Residual 60210.29 230 261.78 Total 130855.83 233 p <0.05 131 Moderating Effect of Type of work on Creativity and QWL Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Step 1 Regression 69201.75 1 69201.75 260.40 0.00 Residual 61654.08 232 265.75 Total 130855.83 233 Step 2 Regression 74317.25 2 37158.62 151.82 0.00 Residual 56538.58 231 244.76 Total 130855.83 233 Step 3 Regression 83372.50 3 27790.83 134.61 0.00 Residual 47483.33 230 206.45 Total 130855.83 233 p <0.05