WORK PLACE HAPPINESS FOR EMPLOYEES IN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IN TAMILNADU Dr.L.Sumathy, Assistant Professor and Head, Department of Business Administration, Thiru.V.Ka.Govt.Arts College. Triruvarur,Tamil Nadu. & Dr.R.Annadurai, Assistant Professor, Economics Wing, D.D.E., Annamalai University,Annamalainagar-608002 ABSTRACT Happy Workplace is one of the organizational development approaches adopted by many organizations. Happiness at the workplace refers to how satisfied people are with their work and lives. Happy people are productive people while those people who are unhappy may not pay full attention to any task. Organizations which are able to maintain long-term happiness at the workplace could probably increase and sustain productivity. Therefore, they should know what factors could affect employee happiness in order to effectively enhance happiness at the work place. Aristotle describes happiness as the highest of all goods achievable by human action. This study aimed to determine the work place happiness of employees working at private pharmaceutical industry in Cuddalore of Tamil Nadu. A random sample comprising 110employees are selected from various levels in different departments. Work Place Happiness is measured fifteen item scale of SWPH (Survey of Work Place Happiness) developed by Sarah Chiumento (2007).A quantitative method using ANOVA, t- test, Regression and Correlation analysis are used in the present study. The results revealed that there is significant influence on work place happiness in the organization. Further, among the demographic variables, gender and income are more influenced on work place happiness. Key words; Employees Happiness, Sustain Productivity, Work Place Happiness, Introduction Happiness means a good feeling that is derived from something extra ordinary, like achieving the goal for which one has put in lot of efforts; or receiving a great news; or it can just be obtained by helping someone; or from a plain sight of something, which instantly gives a good feeling and which one can remember, admire and become happy. Happy employees are more engaged, more motivated, provide better customer service, play more effective roles in teams and make better leaders. According to Martin Seligman Happiness is made up of three factors: positive emotions; being completely engaged; and feeling you are part of something meaningful. Work place happiness derives more benefit the company and ultimately drives the bottom line. They will likely be healthier and more satisfied with life in general. Further, they have the potential to be better parents, friends and citizens. According to Cropanzano and Wright (2001), less happy employees are more sensitive to threats, more defensive around co-workers, and more 197 P a g e
pessimistic. Conversely, happier employees are sensitive to opportunities, more helpful to co-workers, and more confident. Truly miserable employees, those who are depressed, are likely to display little energy or motivation, and, thus, accomplish little. Review of Literature Julia K. Boehm and Sonja Lyubomirsky (2010) suggests that happiness is not only correlated with workplace success but that happiness often precedes measures of success and that induction of positive affect leads to improved workplace outcomes. Judge and Ilies (2004) stated that happy people are also more satisfied with their jobs compared with unhappy people. Diener and Biswas- Diener, (2002) suggested that happy and satisfied individuals are relatively more successful in the workplace. A plenty of researches prove that employment status has significant relationship with happiness. Additionally, it is found that full time employment contributes to employee s happiness than unemployment and voluntary part time employers are happier than full time employees (Mohanty (2009); Nikolova and Graham (2014;Selim (2008)). Many researchers have proved individuals personal income affects their happiness (Biswas-Diener, Vitterso and Diener (2010) Knabe and Ratzel (2010) Angner et al. (2011) Campbell (2013, Hamilton (2007), Demir et al. (2011). Statement of the Problem In General, every pharmaceutical industry have more physical and mental work because they must be more productive and also have work hazards such as respiratory problems, skin diseases, allergy diseases, tuberculosis etc. Apart from these organizational factors such as poor benefits, poor relations, poor leadership etc, may also lead to unhappiness and thereby the employees cannot pay full attention on any task. In this situation, the study is chosen pharmaceutical industry to test the above said problems. Methodology The study was conducted on the employees working in a private pharmaceutical sector in Cuddalore of Tamil Nadu. The primary data were collected from the employees who were working in private pharmaceutical industry in Cuddalore through questionnaires. The variables identified were demographical factors age, gender, marital status and experience are independent variables and work place happiness is a dependent variable. A random sample comprising 110 employees are selected from various levels in different departments. Samples are selected on the basis of random sampling method. Work place Happiness is measured fifteen item scale of SWPH (Survey of Work Place Happiness) developed by Sarah Chiumen to and (2007) has been used to gather data. The fifteen items are grouped into two namely cognitive and organizational. A quantitative method using ANOVA, t- test, Regression and Correlation analysis was used. Results and Discussion Table.1.The level of Work Place Happiness in the Pharmaceutical Organization Level of happiness Frequency Per cent Low 21 19.1 Medium 62 56.4 High 27 24.5 Total 110 100 The above table inferred that the level of work happiness in the organization. It is found that majority (56.4 per cent) of the respondents are having medium level of happiness. 24.5 per cent of respondents are having high level of happiness and 19.1 per cent of happiness having low level of happiness. Table.2.Relationship between Workplace Happiness and Demographical factors Demographic Age Gender Marital qualification designation department experience Income variables status ork place happiness -0.142 0.249 -S -0.097 0.035 0.076 0.222-S 0.085 0.227 In order to know the relationship demographic factors and happiness, Peason s Correlation co-efficient test was applied and the results are presented in table 2. The test found that there was a significant positive relationship between genders, income and happiness. Further, it found that there was no relationship between age, marital status, designation, department and qualification. 198 P a g e
Work Happiness place Table.3. Respondents Work Place Happiness Based on Demographic Variables Demographic factors N Mean S.D F-value p-value Age Below 25 years 20 25.30 3.89 26 to 35 years 35 25.22 3.67 36 to 45 years 27 24.44 4.58 46 to 55 years 20 24.45 3.39 55 & above 8 24.12 2.29 Below 25 years 20 27.65 3.84 26 to 35 years 35 27.00 3.37 36 to 45 years 27 27.51 3.36 46 to 55 years 20 24.45 3.03 55 & above 8 29.25 3.57 Qualification Higher secondary 42 24.28 3.50 Diploma 13 22.15 3.18 UG degree 33 25.51 4.17 Professional 22 26.40 3.15 Higher secondary 42 27.61 3.57 Diploma 13 28.30 3.92 UG degree 33 25.81 3.04 Professional 22 26.54 3.88 0.353 0.841 3.982 0.005 4.459 0.005 2.367 0.075 Designation Managers 6 25.16 3.48 Assistant managers 8 28.62 2.38 Supervisors 20 23.00 4.40 Workers 76 24.88 3.49 Managers 6 27.66 3.20 Assistant managers 8 25.37 3.85 Supervisors 20 26.75 3.53 Workers 76 27.10 3.63 4.665 0.004 0.651 0.584 199 P a g e
Work place Happiness Demographic factors N Mean S.D F-value p-value Department Hr 5 22.00 1.87 Quality control 15 27.86 3.46 Finance 10 28.00 2.40 Production 70 24.38 3.38 8.886 0.001 Quality assurance 10 21.60 4.08 Hr 5 28.60 4.39 Quality control 15 26.53 3.52 Finance 10 25.20 2.89 Production 70 26.57 3.37 Quality assurance 10 31.10 2.76 Experience Below 5 years 18 24.22 3.07 6 to 10 years 17 23.64 3.85 11 to15 years 37 25.27 4.01 16 to 20 years 25 25.92 4.26 21 & above 13 23.84 2.51 Below 5 years 18 27.66 3.18 6 to 10 years 17 27.00 4.15 11 to15 years 37 26.54 3.03 16 to 20 years 25 25.60 3.32 21 & above 13 29.61 4.21 Income Below 10000 21 23.28 3.96 10001-20000 38 24.36 3.25 20001-30000 33 26.63 2.74 Above 30000 18 24.27 5.14 Total 110 24.83 3.79 Below 10000 21 26.71 3.70 10001-20000 38 26.15 3.41 20001-30000 33 27.33 3.24 Above 30000 18 28.16 4.28 5.085 0.001 1.408 0.237 3.200 0.016 4.329 0.006 1.473 0.226 Table 3 shows that work place happiness based on respondents demographic profile such as age, qualification, designation, department, experience and income. It inferred that from significant F and p- values of respondents opinion based on department inferred that both cognitive and organizational were significantly differing with department. Further, the study found that respondents age and experience were significantly differing with their organizational of happiness and there was no significant difference between their cognitive aspect of happiness with their age and experience. Further, it found that respondents qualification, designation and income were significantly differing with cognitive aspects of happiness and not differ with organizational aspect of happiness. Among them income was highly influenced than others. 200 P a g e
Work place Happiness Table 4: Respondents Work place Happiness Based on Gender and Marital Status Gender Demographic factors F-value p-value Male Female Mean S.D Mean S.D 24.90 3.73 2.647 0.008 24.77 3.85 26.29 3.28 28.00 3.86 2.379 0.041 Marital Status Married Unmarried Mean S.D Mean S.D 23.94 3.83 25.77 3.54 2.587 0.011 27.29 3.91 26.56 3.21 1.067 0.244 Table 4 shows that respondents work place happiness based on their gender class and marital status. It found that both cognitive and organizational of happiness were significantly differing with their gender. Further, it inferred that females are more influenced the work place happiness than males. In case of marital status, unmarried respondents had more cognitive dimension of work place happiness than their counterpart. Table.5. Factors Influencing of Work Place Happiness Independent Variables Dependent Variables B t R R 2 F P Constant Work place Happiness 64.09 15.33 0.348 0.121 7.378 0.001 Gender 2.912 2.91 0.004 Income 1.181 2.68 0.006 The Table 5 shows that the factors influencing work place happiness. A step-wise multiple regressions were applied. Here adjuster R 2 value was found to be 0.121 which implied that there was 12 per cent of variation in the level of work place happiness was explained. Among the independent variables the following three variables have been identified as significant variables gender and income which is influences happiness. The found that F-value 7.378 and p-values of gender is 0.004 and income is 0.006 respectively. Which was significant, it shows that independent variables gender and income had significant influence on the dependent variables. Results and Discussion The study aims to find the relationship between employees work place and demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status, qualification, designation and department.gender was found to be significant predictor of difference in happiness. No relationship was observed for the age of the respondent to their happiness and those who were unmarried to be happier than married people. Further it is found that higher income respondents are highly influenced on their work place happiness. The previous studies by Caporale, Georgellis, Tsitsianis and Yin (2009) confirmed that there was a strong relationship between a person s income and life satisfaction. Hopkins (2008) argued that income inequality could positively affect happiness of some competitive people who gained more income than others. This was because competitive people tried to make the difference between their own and others rewards (Brody, 2010). They might be happy with higher income even if it was unequal to those people (Hopkins, 2008). Conclusion Therefore, the study concludes that work place happiness in a particular manufacturing industry for which the selected variables of work place happiness are fairness, being valued, trust, meaning, utilization, autonomy, positive emotion, work engagement, rewarding relationship, challenge of work, sense of purpose, leader influence, work life balance, holistic approach and creativity taken into account. A survey was made, based on that data; the researcher has found that in Pharmaceuticals companies at Cuddalore district in Tamilnadu are varied depending on demographic factors, especially gender and income. Finally, it is recommended that the authorities facilitate the employees to provide appropriate facilities for improving their happiness in work practices sphere. Both cognitive and organization a variables are contributing to work place happiness and it contributes to productivity. The results of this research suggest a home like environment as a guideline for organization to use for the building of happiness in their workplace through every week, head of People & Values, takes the notes to the weekly staff meeting and meaningful conversations and makes sure that the management team acts on at least one issue.senior leaders should formally visit with one employee each week, the closer to the front lines the better. Finally happier employees could be effectively used by training internally to unhappier employees. Step to be taken to reduce generation gap. 201 P a g e
References 1. Angner, E., Hullett, S., & Allison, J. J. (2011). I ll die with the hammer in my hand : John Henryism as a predictor of happiness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 357-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011. 01.002 2. Biswas-Diener, R., Vittersø, J., & Diener, E. (2010). The Danish effect: Beginning to explain high well-being in Denmark. Social Indicators Research, 97, 229-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9499-5 3. Caporale, G. M., Georgellis, Y., Tsitsianis, N., & Yin, Y. P. (2009). Income and happiness across Europe: Do reference values matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 42-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008. 06.004 4. Hopkins, E. (2008). Inequality, happiness and relative concerns: What actually is their relationship? Journal of Economic Inequality, 6, 351-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10888-008-9081-4 5. Knabe, A., & Rätzel, S. (2010). Income, happiness, and the disutility of labour. Economics Letters, 107, 77-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2009.12.032 6. Nikolova, M., & Graham, C. (2014). Employment, late-life work, retirement, and well-being in Europe and the United States. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 3(5), 1-30. 7. 7.Nikolova, M., & Graham, C. (2014). Employment, late-life work, retirement, and well-being in Europe and the United States. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 3(5), 1-30. 8. Selim, S. (2008). Life satisfaction and happiness in Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 88, 531-562. http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9218-z 202 P a g e