[Downloaded free from http://www.ijeprjournal.org on Saturday, January 10, 2015, IP: 188.158.161.184] || Click here to download free Android application for this jou
Original Article
Relationship between quality of work life and
psychological empowerment by employees’
productivity (structural equations modeling)
Samaneh Salimi, Narges Saeidian1
1
Administration Shahid Chamran Ahvaz University, Ahvaz ,Iran. Islamic Azad University of Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran
ABSTRACT
Address for Correspondence:
Mrs. Samaneh Salami,
Shahid Chamran Ahvaz University,
Ahvaz, Khuzestan, Iran.
E‑mail: salimisamane89@yahoo.com
Aim: The purpose of this study was determining causal relationships and modeling structural
equations of relationships between quality of work life, psychological empowerment and employees’
productivity of Municipal Administration of Zahedan. Methods: The method of the study is
descriptive‑causal – correlative. Statistical population of the study included administrative employees
in municipality of center, district 1, 2, 3 of Zahedan in number of 257 people. Result: Findings of the
study showed that the relationship of each variable, quality of work life and psychological empowerment,
and employees’ productivity and also relationship between quality of work life and psychological
empowerment were signiicant (P ≥ 0.01). Discussion: Findings related to structural equations
model showed that quality of work life had a direct effect on boosting employees’ productivity, but
its indirect effect on employees’ productivity was more than its direct one which has played this
role by boosting employees’ psychological empowerment as an intermediate variable. Psychological
empowerment also inluences on employees’ productivity.
Key words: Employees’ productivity, psychological empowerment, quality of work life, structural
equations modeling
Introducion
Until early 1950s, it was believed that the main factor and
the root of backwardness in developing countries is lack of
physical and financial funds, due to such cogitation, these
countries tried to inflow funds by different ways, which
had additional side effects on increasing dependency
in such countries. Today, however, the importance of
human capital and improving the quality of workforce
is recognized as one of the main grounds in increasing
productivity and expediting economical growth in the
society.[1]
Today’s world, on one hand, is the world of evolutions
and transformations, a world full of changes, changes are
not completely but are created as the result of people’s
Access this article online
demands and determinations. Demands that result from
different and extended needs of people complicated
nature. In this age, these changes and transformations
constantly create threats and opportunities for different
organizations.
In the meantime, organizations are successful, which
adjust themselves with the resulting conditions and
changes. Organizations whose employees constantly
increase their abilities to gain desired results can do
such Skillful and expert manpower training is the most
important factor in any organization success facing with
environmental changes and this is the human who
can utilize tools and facilities to achieve organizations’
objectives and that is the productivity in workplace.[2]
Productivity is one of the factors which guarantees the
durability and performance of organizations in today’s
world of highly competitive.
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.ijeprjournal.org
DOI:
***
10
Dominance of productivity etiquette will result in
desired use of all financial and intellectual facilities
of an organization that constantly flourish the talent
and potential possibilities in the organization. The best
productivity could be gained through reproductive and
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches / Vol 1 / Issue 1 / January-March 2015
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijeprjournal.org on Saturday, January 10, 2015, IP: 188.158.161.184] || Click here to download free Android application for this jo
Salimi and Saeidian: Quality of work life, psychological empowerment, productivity
creative properties in achieving goals of the organization
without increasing existing technology and manpower.
Desired productivity will not be gained through change
in structure, increasing technology and preparing a
compilation of instructions. Human is the center of every
kind of personal social or organizational productivity.
Productivity is a word that is discussed both in macro and
micro level and it covers a range of personal to worldwide
productivity.[3]
Productivity is a word on executive scale that is meaningful
in all economic levels from shops to move toward skills
in national economic level. Without concerning the
importance of productivity whether extensively or in a
limited level there are a few studies which have analyzed
this word practically.[4]
From a specialized point of view, productivity means
measurement of received output from a fixed amount of
input. Furthermore, productivity can be interpreted as
the use of different resources in organizations to acquire
desired or planned (output) result.[5] Europe Productivity
Institution defines productivity as the degree and intensity
of effective use of every factor in productions and claims
that productivity is a kind of attitude by which everyone
can do his duty or job better than before. Believing in
improving productivity means to have a firm belief in
human progress. Productivity is defined by Davis as
acquired changes in the amount of production in lieu of
consumed resources. Quality and productivity center in
the United States of America defined productivity as the
equation below:
Price recycling × productivity = profitability.[6] Since the
key factor in productivity in organizations, and at the
most, in the society is manpower, undoubtedly every
society’s progress is closely connected to improving and
nurturing the human resources. And by this reason,
head of organizations supporting by experts of behavioral
science and human resources pay careful attention to
nurturing of the employees.
One concept that is brought up towards growth of human
resources is to empower employees.[7] Empowering employees
is one of the most effective techniques for increasing
employees` productivity and the optimal use of individual
and group abilities and capabilities toward organizations
objectives.[1] Spreitzer (1995) believes that empowering
focus on employees’ belief on their roles and its relation
with their organization.[8] From Graw’s point of view,
empowering is one of the concepts that each person feels he
understands it but the truth is that you would get different
responses when you ask them what the empowerment
is. Most authors including Gandz (1990) Kanger and
Cango (1988) pointed out that the empowerment means
that heads of the organization give decision control and
authority to employees.[9] Watson (2003) believes that the
empowerment make employees feel they have more control
and responsibility toward their jobs. In this respect, the
role of managers is to transfer full control to flexibility and
coordination in working process.[10] Esperits (1992) believes
that the psychological empowerment is a motivational
structure which is explained in four‑dimension:
• Competency
• Meaning
• Impact
• Self‑determining.
Mishra (1992) then added another dimension and called
it trust.[9] Gist and Bendora (1989) believed that the
competency means to do the job and responsibilities
skillfully and successfully. Hakman (1980) points out that
meaning in the job means opportunities which make an
individual feel they are following valuable and important
objectives.[11] Spreitzer (1995) suggest that the impact is
individual`s beliefs on their abilities to change toward
desired direction at a point of time.[12]
Bell and Store define self‑determining as to have
sufficient authority to start and go on a job and its
process and be responsible for its consequences. Weton
and Cameron (1998) define trust as to be confident about
being treated honestly and fairly.[13]
In the empowerment, we are not just dealing with
motivational issues, but it will influence on manger`s
performance and effectiveness.[14] And employees’ impact
and productivity.[15] Creating psychological empowerment
in employees demands some conditions and principles in
an organization. One of these conditions is grounds for
quality of work life in organization.
Quality of work life is a process by which all members
of the organization are involved in all decision, which
is particularly made on their job and generally made
on their workplace environment through means of
communication and as a result they develop more
cooperation and satisfaction. Furthermore, they feel less
workplace stress.
Quality of work life is the degree at which employees feel
comfortable and enjoy their work life. This degree points
to the desired situation, which is in an organization.
By work situation we mean satisfaction, motivation,
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches / Vol 1 / Issue 1 / January-March 2015
11
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijeprjournal.org on Saturday, January 10, 2015, IP: 188.158.161.184] || Click here to download free Android application for this jou
Salimi and Saeidian: Quality of work life, psychological empowerment, productivity
cooperation and commitment of people in work regarding
their life. In fact, it means a degree at which people are
able to satisfy their needs while they’re working in an
organization.
Walton (1973) believes that the quality of work life is a
kind of culture that creates a high level of commitment
between people and organizations. And as an objective, it
provides improvement in the organization’s performance
through job creation and a more satisfactory workplace
in all levels of organizations.[16] He took eight variables
into account as objectives for the promotion in quality of
work life. An important point which should be considered
is that these variables are related to each other and are
as follow:
• Adequate and fair compensation
• Safe and healthy work conditions
• Development of human capabilities
• Opportunities for continued growth and security
• Unity and social life work
• Constitutionalism in the work of organization
• Total life setting
• The social relevance of work life.[17]
If work life is viewed from instrumental perspective one
could say the quality of work life is one of the major
instruments for increasing the social responsibilities
of co‑workers.[18] Also, quality of work life is one of
progress techniques in an organizations which tries to
provide trilateral factors of motivation and satisfaction,
taking responsibility, and commitment toward work get
together and that means quality of work life is one of the
progress techniques in an organization, which is applied
as important performance of organization through more
democratic work place and direct involvement of employees
in decision making.[19] Quality of work life will influence
on most of the organization’s variable, but its main
impact in previous studies is productivity. Productivity
is the essence of organization’s development and cannot
merely be achieved through a salary increase, benefits
and other facilities. However, satisfaction and increase in
quality of work life is a major factor in increasing levels
of productivity.
High level of productivity and usefulness is a key factor to
increase the quality of work life.[20] Patanyak (2005), based
on research results, suggests that there is a meaningful
and positive correlation between the quality of work life
and quality of life.
Dolan Sholer assumes a correlation and a meaningful
relation among quality of work life plans, productivity
12
and other management activities on employees’ affair
and human resource such as finding an employee,
selection, job analysis, training, growth and planning on
manpower sanction and security and work relation. As it
is stated, quality of life relates to other employees’ work
life dimensions. Nonetheless the effect of quality of life
on empowerment can be investigated through different
dimensions, when employees have a good quality of
work life, they will be able to set realistic goals and relate
them with organization’s objectives. In these conditions,
they would share their experiences and would become
successful. In addition to a good workplace condition,
the potential talent of the employee will be flourished,
and they could achieve higher levels of performance. In
other words, through quality of work life enhancement
we could provide prerequisite and foundation necessary
for psychological empowerment.[21] Koberg (1990) also
suggested that understanding psychological empowerment
will provide an increase in job satisfaction, decrease
in leaving a job and productivity. In this respect
Fedriko (2004) admits that the goal of quality of work life
is application of abilities and capabilities. He declares that
the mission of quality of life is to create job satisfaction
and productivity for employees and assistance to the
organization for selection and confirming, which are key
factors in workplace.
If empowered employees believe that they have decision
control and authority they will try their best to do their
job and this will provide productivity in an organization,
therefore one of the most important methods to enhance
productivity is empowerment in employee.[22] Results gained
by Moradain’s study (2003) who investigated the effect of
quality of work life on employee performance is in line with
the mentioned points, since his results showed that every
eight factors in quality of work life influence productivity,
which means to stress the importance of quality of work life
in order to enhance the employee performance.
Results by Sozaneh (1997), which investigated the
relationship between levels of empowerment and quality
of work life also proved that all variables in quality of work
life are related to psychological empowerment.
Based on what we discussed, the following premises in
research theoretical framework are shown in Figure 1.
4XDOLW\RIZRUNOLIH
3V\FKRORJLFDO
(PSRZHUPHQW
(PSOR\HHV
SURGXFWLYLW\
Figure 1: Conceptual model of research
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches / Vol 1 / Issue 1 / January-March 2015
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijeprjournal.org on Saturday, January 10, 2015, IP: 188.158.161.184] || Click here to download free Android application for this jou
Salimi and Saeidian: Quality of work life, psychological empowerment, productivity
Concerning the role and importance of modeling
in organizations’ progress, the present study aims to
investigate the relationship between quality of work
life and psychological empowerment in Zahedan
municipality’s employee based on structural equation
modeling.
Methods
In the present study, a survey methodology of the
correlation type is used. Based on the topic and research
design it can be called a causal research which is based
on the analysis of the relationship among variables and
understanding of the causal relation as well.[23] In these
relations in addition to finding positive and negative
coefficients, the effect of variable on each other, and
power and structure of the model based on some of the
model indexes through structural equation modeling have
been shown.
From this population, 155 people were chosen randomly
according to the total number which was based on
Krejcie and Morgan sample size calculator equation. 155
questionnaires were distributed, and 144 of them were
given back and dropout rate was 10%.
Instruments
For data collection, the present study used standard
questionnaires like:
Quality of work life questionnaires
In order to measure quality of work life, Walton’s quality
of work life questionnaire was applied. The reliability of
the questionnaire was calculated and based on Cronbach’s
alpha, it was 0.75.
Psychological empowerment questionnaires
In order to measure psychological empowerment,
spreitzer (1996) questionnaire was applied. The reliability of
the questionnaire was calculated and based on Cronbach’s
alpha, it was 0.85.
Productivity questionnaires
In order to measure productivity, Hrsy and
Goldsmith (1980) questionnaire was applied. The
reliability of the questionnaire was calculated and based
on Cronbach’s alpha, it was 0.74.
Anaiyzing data
In this study, statistics was used in two descriptive
(Frequency, percentage and mean) and Inferential levels
of Pierson’s correlation test, step by step regression and
structural equations model to analyze data. Furthermore,
all analysis was performed using SPSS 16.5 and Lisrel 8.5
software.
Results
Hypothesis 1
There is a relationship between quality of work life,
psychological empowerment and employees’ productivity
of Zahedan Municipal Administration.
Pierson’s correlation coefficient has been used to answer
to the above hypothesis. The results show that there is a
positive relationship between the variables of work life,
psychological empowerment and employees’ productivity
of Zahedan Municipal Administration. This correlation
value is significant on the alpha level of 0.01. On the other
hand, the better staff’s work life is, the more psychological
empowerment increase within them. Also, the calculated
coefficient of determination (r2 = 0.36, r2 = 0.70) shows
that 70% of staff’s productivity can be explained through
the components quality of work life and 36% of staff’s
productivity can be explained through psychological
empowerment.
As it is seen from Table 1, there is a positive and significant
relationship between quality of work life, psychological
empowerment and staff’s productivity. It means that staff’s
productivity increases by increasing their quality of work
life and psychological empowerment.
Question 1
What and how is the causal model between quality of work
life and psychological empowerment with productivity of
employees?
Based on the results from Table 2. Quality of work life has
a direct effect on psychological empowerment (0.79). Also
according to the results, the effect of quality of work life
on psychological empowerment is meaningful (t = 9.05).
Results from the table also suggest that psychological
empowerment has a direct effect on productivity (0.76) and
the effect of psychological empowerment on productivity
is meaningful (t = 5.82). But based on Figure 2. Quality
of work life has some effects on productivity through
psychological empowerment. And psychological
Table 1: The results of correlation test between quality
of work life, psychological empowerment and staf’s
productivity
Quality of work life and
psychological empowerment
with productivity
Quality of work life
Psychological empowerment
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches / Vol 1 / Issue 1 / January-March 2015
R
R2
Signiicant
0.840
0.608
0.70
0.36
0.01
0.01
13
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijeprjournal.org on Saturday, January 10, 2015, IP: 188.158.161.184] || Click here to download free Android application for this jou
Salimi and Saeidian: Quality of work life, psychological empowerment, productivity
Table 2: The relationship between components of quality of work life, psychological empowerment and productivity based
on structural equation modeling
Direct effect
Indirect
effect
Total
effect
R2
t
SE
B
Test
result
0.79
0.27
0.76
0.60
0.79
0.87
0.76
0.63
0.76
0.98
9.05
2.62
5.82
0.37
0.24
0.024
0.79
0.27
0.75
+
+
+
Quality of work life with psychological empowerment
Quality of work life with productivity
Psychological empowerment with productivity
SE: Standard error
Table 3: Evaluation of structural equation modeling it index
−2 Ln (L) for −2 Ln (L) for x /df
the itted
the saturated
model
model
2
5491.553
5317.988
df
0.103 167
RMSEA
0.017
P
χ
2
0.347 173.56
RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation
empowerment is a mediator between quality of work
life and productivity. In fact, quality of work, life has
direct (0.27) and indirect (0.60) effect on productivity
through psychological empowerment.
Relationship between quality of work life and productivity
is meaningful as well (t = 2.62). According to Table 3
model indexes, show that the model has an acceptable
fit. It means Chi‑square is the indicator of value
173.56. The other criterion is root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA).
And the value < 0.1 is considered as fair and acceptable
fit. In this study, the value of RMSEA was 0.017, which
indicates fair fit. The other value criterion is c2/df and
value < 2 implies acceptable model fit and as it is shown
this value is 0.1 and indicates fair model fit.
Discussion
This study was designed to investigate the relationship (causal
and direct) between quality of work life and psychological
empowerment and employees’ productivity. Based on
our findings from the first hypothesis, a meaningful
relationship between quality of work life and employees`
productivity was confirmed. In this respect, it can be
said that productivity will not achieve merely through
salary and benefit and facility increase but productivity
is closely connected to providing ground for professional
improvement secure and hygienic work condition and
acceptance of job as a social responsibility and increase
in self‑esteem in work place.
These findings are in line with that of Salamzade (2008),
Sabookro et al., Farniya and Shojaei, and Mahdizadeashrafi
and Ilika. Based on research findings from the
second hypothesis, a meaningful relationship between
14
psychological empowerment and productivity was
recognized.[24‑27]
There is a firm belief that the human can influence the
outcomes by their activities. When in an organization,
conditions are such that employees feel they can control
the results and consequences of their work and feel
that they can make the consequences change by having
effect on the workplace, then they are empowered and
have strong motive to work in the organization and this
could increase productivity automatically. Based on this,
the results are in line with the findings of Etebarian
et al., Chang, Beginia et al., Sharifzade and Mohammadi
Moghdam, and Ahmadiyan and Shekari.[2,4,28‑30]
Based on the findings, the third hypothesis supports the
meaningful relationship between quality of work life and
psychological empowerment which indicates employees’
potential talents and capabilities will flourish and they
can achieve higher levels of performance in their work if
adequate condition in workplace be supported. In other
words, through quality of work life improvement necessary
grounds and prerequisites for psychological empowerment
will be provided, and through raising the feeling of job
meaning, feeling of impact, trust, self‑sufficiency and sense of
authority, significant accomplishment will be gained. These
findings support those of Suzanne and Mokhtarian et al.[21,31]
Based on the fourth hypothesis, among variables under
study in regression, the best predictive of employees’
productivity are continual opportunity for security and
improvement, unity and cohesion in work life, social
dependency of work life, capability development and
constitutionalism in organization, respectively.
Obviously as quality of work life increases, especially through
components like continual opportunities for security and
improvement, unity and cohesion in workplace, social
dependency of work life, capability development and
constitutionalism, and if the organizations can make
plans to achieve them, by the same token productivity
will increase. Moreover, results from the fifth hypotheses
indicate that among all variables in the regression, the
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches / Vol 1 / Issue 1 / January-March 2015
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijeprjournal.org on Saturday, January 10, 2015, IP: 188.158.161.184] || Click here to download free Android application for this jou
Salimi and Saeidian: Quality of work life, psychological empowerment, productivity
IDLUVDODU\
DQGEHQHILWV
$EL OLW\
5ROHFODULW\
K\JLHQLFDQG
VHFXUH
ZRUNSODFH
3URGXFWLYLW\
6XSSRUW
0RWLYDWLRQ
FRQVWLWXWLRQD
OLVPLQ
RUJDQL]DWLRQ
VRFLDO
GHSHQGHQF\
RIZRUNOLIH
OLIH
DWPRVSKHUH
XQLW\DQG
FRKHVLRQLQ
ZRUNOLIH
)HHGEDFN
9DOLGLW\
(QYLURQPH
QW
6HOI
HIILFDF\
3V\FKRORJLFDO
(PSRZHUPHQ
KXPDQ
FDSDELOLW\
GHYHORSP HQW
4XDOLW\RI
ZRUNOLIH
,PSDFW
FRQWLQXDO
VHFXULW\DQG
LPSURYHPHQW
RSSRUWXQLWLHV
6HOI
GHWHUPLQLJ
PHDQLQJ
7UXVW
Figure 2: The relationship between quality of work life, psychological empowerment and employees’ productivity (based on path coeficient)
best predictive of productivity is impact, trust, meaning,
and self‑determining, respectively.
Generally findings prove that conceptual model fits
data in an acceptable way so that quality of work life
directly has effect on employees’ empowerment (0.27)
and quality of work life indirectly influences productivity
through psychological empowerment (0.60). Psychological
empowerment has a direct effect on employees’ productivity
as well (0.76). The total effect of quality of work life on
productivity was (0.87). It can be implied that the direct
effect of quality of work life on productivity is less than
the indirect and total effect of it on productivity.
These findings suggest that in order to increase productivity
in organizations, the first priority is to increase quality of
work life in organizations, by doing so not only productivity
will increase but also psychological empowerment in
employees will be provided. And this will be a great help
for increasing productivity. Therefore, to have employees’
productivity it is necessary to have high quality of work
life since employees spend more than one‑third of their
life in workplace. Productivity will increase providing that
high quality of work life be there.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Khanalizade R. The relationship between empowerment and
organizational learning. Change Manag 2010;2:20‑45.
Sharifzade F, Mohammadi Moghdam Y. Empowering employees
with labor productivity lorestan province police command staff.
Secur Manage Stud 2009;4:5‑18.
Demeter K, Chikan A, Zsolat M. Labour productivity change:
Drives, business impact and macroeconomic moderators. J Prod
Econ 2011;8:215‑23.
Ahmadiyan E, Shekari GH. The Relationship Between
Psychological Empowerment Applying Agricultural Bank
Employee Productivity”, in National Conference on Challenges
and the Necessity of Administrative Reform in Iran, 2010, Islamic
Azad University of Ara; 2010.
Darab I. Relationship between productivity efficiency utilization
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches / Vol 1 / Issue 1 / January-March 2015
15
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijeprjournal.org on Saturday, January 10, 2015, IP: 188.158.161.184] || Click here to download free Android application for this jou
Salimi and Saeidian: Quality of work life, psychological empowerment, productivity
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
16
and quality. Work Stud 2000;49:97‑103. The current issue
and full text archive of this journal. Available from: http://www.
emerald‑library.com.
Alvani M, Ahmadi P. Designing a comprehensive model of factors
affecting the productivity of human resources management.
Modares 2010;5:19.
Torani S, Yazdi V. Empowerment with empowerment perceptions
in relation to climate of kerman teaching hospitals. J Health
Manag Res 2008;31:17‑26.
Indradevi R. Psychological empowerment and job performance in
industry. Int J Eng Manag Res 2011;1:2249‑585. Available from:
http://www.exclusivemba.com. [Last accessed on 2011 Sep]
Rehman SH. Employee empowerment through training: A
literature review. Gomal Univ J Res 2006;183:33‑48.
Molhem Y. The antecedents of customer – Contact employees
empowerment. Employee Relat 2004;26:332‑67.
Subrahmanian M, Anjani N. Constructs of quality of work life – A
perspective of textile and engineering employees. Asian J Manag
Res 2011;1: 229‑307. ISSN 2229‑3795.
Abtahi H, Abesi S. Employee empowerment, management
research and training institute affiliated to the ministry of energy.
Karaj: Institute for Research and Education Management MGCE;
2007. p. 303.
Spreitzer GM. Psychological empowerment in the workplace:
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad Manag J
1995;38:1442‑65.
Spreitzer GM, Doneson. Musings on the past and future of
employee empowerment. In: Cummings T, editor. Forthcoming
in the Handbook of Organizational Development. 2005.
Koberg CS, Boss RW, Senjem JC, Goodman EA. Antecedents
and Outcomes of Empowerment: Empirical Evidence From
the Healthcare Industry. Group and Organization Management
1999;1:71‑91.
Shekari N, Lashkarzade KH, Yosefpoormoghadam M.
Relationship between quality of work life and performance of the
entire prison staff in Tehran. J Educ Reform 2009;45:2‑7.
Gholami A. Factors affecting the quality of working life in the
organization. Hum Dev Mag Police 2009;6:79‑100.
Thalang W, Boonyarataphun P, Sirasoonthorn P. Quality of work
life indicators as a corporate social responsibility of electrical
and electronics private organization in Thailand. 4th Asian Rural
Sociology Association (ARSA) International Conference 2010.
Rose RC, See BL, Jegak U. An analysis of quality of work life
and career related variables science publication. Am J Appl Sci
2006;12:2151‑9.
20. Hoseinzade D, Mirzaee S. Quality of working life and its impact
on productivity. Management 2007;18:17‑22.
21. Mokhtarian F, Mohammadi R, Hossieni S. Impact on Improving
the Quality of Working Life of Employees, their Psychological
Empowerment. The First National Conference on Human
Resources Training Patterns Universities, Islamic Azad University,
South Tehran; 2012.
22. Jain P. Preceptions on empowerment and productivity in academic
and public libraries in Botswana. Libr Manag 1998;19:49‑58.
23. Gal M, Borg V, Gal J. Qualitative and quantitative research
methods in psychology and educational sciences, interpreter. In:
Nasr AR, editor. Tehran: Publications Beheshti University; 2010.
p. 1457.
24. Salamzade Y, Mansory H, Farid D. Relationship between quality
of work life productivity martyr Sadoughi hospital nurses. J Urmia
Nurs Midwifery 2008;6:60‑70.
25. Sabookro M, Vafaie M, Kashani S. Employee productivity and
quality of work life insurance companies in the light of emotional
intelligence. J Insur Ind 2010;25:179‑202.
26. Farniya M, Shojaei KH. Relationship between quality of work life
and productivity of managers in the city schools over the plains
in the academic year 2008‑2009. J Educ Sci 2009;6:161‑84.
27. Mahdizadeashrafi A, Ilika H. The relationship between quality of
work life and the practice of Islamic Azad University. Firoozkooh
Mag Manag 2010;7:1‑8.
28. Etebarian A, Salehizade S, Abzari M. Importance of the
relationship between psychological empowerment of employees
and human resources productivity in government organizations.
Eur J Econ Finance Adm Sci 2010;26:44‑56.
29. Chang LC. Employee empowerment, innovative behavior and
job productivity of public health nurses: A cross‑sectional
questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 2008;10:1442‑8.
30. Beginia A, Sardari I, Najarinejhad H. Cognitive empowerment of
employees to boost productivity of labor. Landsc State Manag
2010;1:79‑102.
31. Suzanne A. The Relationship Between the Level of Personnel
Empowerment and Quality of Work Life Among Psychological
Clubhouse Members and Consumer‑perated drop in center
Participants. 1997. p. 25‑32.
How to cite this article: Salimi S, Saeidian N. Relationship between
quality of work life and psychological empowerment by employees’
productivity (structural equations modeling). Int J Educ Psychol Res
2015;1:10-6.
Source of Support: Nil. Conlict of Interest: None declared.
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches / Vol 1 / Issue 1 / January-March 2015