1. Introduction
As interest in social services has increased in our society, the social welfare industry has been expanding in quantity and size. In addition, as the social welfare budget has been increased, work responsibilities is increased, and interest in job design and assignment is increased to improve the work performance of social workers. In order to improve the performance of social workers, it is necessary to study job distribution(Here, the concept of job distribution is the same as that of job characteristics.) In particular, it is required to discuss job distribution to improve service performance when the distribution system of service delivery is diversified in the organization, and the sales strategy and method are varied, too.
Job distribution refers to the characteristics of the work in which a member is responsible, and job distribution influences the attitudes and behavior of the members. It also affects workers’ job satisfaction, the absence rate, motivation, job satisfaction, and work performance(Turner & Lawrence, 1996). The measurement variables for job distribution are technological diversity, job importance, job identity, feedback, task integrity, job suitability, job challenge, peer relationship, and friendship. The job distribution in work performance of social workers affects their quality of life. In other words, it works to improve the social workers’ quality of life by identifying job distribution and improving their competency.
A high quality of life means that a person enjoys a good life. A subjective feeling is important to measure the quality of human life. Objective measurement of quality of life is conducted by social indicators or demographic factors. However, the objective measurement method has limitations that it does not consider the inner level of individual life. The quality of life is consisted of individual experience, value, health, social environment or mental, physical, and social conditions, and economic quality of life.
While, empowerment is considered as an important variable directly affecting quality of life(Kosciulek, 1999; Kosciulek & Merz, 2001). Empowerment is the process of assigning authority and responsibility to members in the organization's policy making and decision-making and taking responsibility for the results. Members who are not empowered have a negative attitude toward themselves and their organizations, with poor performance(Stewart, 1994). Spreitzer(1995) suggests that empowerment is the process of enhancing the competence of members by eliminating the feeling of helplessness. The elements of empowerment re meaning, competence, self determination, and impact.
A research on empowerment and social service workers’ job distribution should be conducted together to improve the quality of their lives. Because empowerment, particularly, affects the quality of life, so it should be taken a detailed discussion for empowerment improvement.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of job distribution on the quality of life for the employees of social welfare centers in JeonNam-province. Job satisfaction, job autonomy, functional diversity, and feedback are selected as the job distribution variables and their effects on quality of life are analyzed. This study also analyzes whether empowerment plays a intermediary role in the relationship between job distribution and quality of life.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Job distribution
Job connects individuals and an organization, and the organization achieve its goals through the performance of its members. Job serves for the harmony of an organization and its members. Job distribution refers to the nature of the job in which an individual is responsible and it is an important factor that influences the attitude and behavior of him/her(Lee, 2012; Eom & Yang, 2014).
Job distribution affects workers’ attitudes and behavior. Depending on the nature of the work they are engaged in, they are interested in the job and can be motivated and successful if they are satisfied with their job(Islam, Bangish, Muhammad, & Jehan, 2016). Turner and Lawrence(1965), who conducted initial research on job distribution, state that job factors affect job satisfaction and absence rate. They report that members preferred complex and challenging tasks. In addition, six factors such as diversity, autonomy, selective interaction, mandatory interaction, required knowledge and skill, and responsibility are chosen as constituent factors for motivation and job satisfaction(Yang & Tasnuna, 2013).
Discussion of job distribution is initially developed by Hackman and Oldham(1975). After that, Hackman and Oldham(1980) extend the measuring instrument for job distribution. As a representative study, Hackman and Oldham(1975, 1980) states that workers can experience pivotal psychology like a meaning of work, a sense of responsibility for job performance through the functional diversity, job identity, job importance, feedback, and autonomy, which are core characteristics of job. Hackman and Oldham(1975)'s job distribution model is based on the findings that the relationship between job distribution and job attitude, or job attitude and desire is inconsistent. As a contingency theory, the relationship between job assignment and job attitude is determined by individual differences(Oh, Choi, & Kim, 2016).
Task identity means how perfect it is. The importance of work means the impact of job on another people's activities or tasks. Job autonomy refers to the degree of iscretion of a worker in selecting and determining work procedures, work methods, and job schedules in performance. Functional diversity indicates the ability of members to utilize and demand various skills and knowledge in performing their duties. Feedback is the degree of providing direct and clear information about how effective the work performance is(Yang, Sun, & Park, 2015; Ryu & Lee, 2016; Jeong, 2017).
2.2. Quality of life
The members' quality of life should be discussed in order to provide effective services in social welfare organizations. The term, quality of life is used globally by qualité des lebens in Germany, quality of life in the United States and the United States, and qualite de vie in France. Quality of life means 'good life'. At present, the subjective feeling of personal life is important in measuring the quality of human life. The concept of quality of life itself is implicit, complex, and broadly encompasses psychological, physical, and social domains, including personal experiences. The quality of life is a relative concept that changes according to the level of development of society, economy, politics, and the customs and values of members in a society.
Research on the quality of life has been developed according to the perspectives of life and human beings. Early studies have focused on economic indicators and evaluated materially rich life as good quality life. The necessity of socio-cultural and psychological factors has gradually emerged and it has developed into the concept of 'happiness.' Quality of life is distinguished from material well-being by paying attention to subjective perception and evaluation of life(Campbell, 1981; Park & Kim, 2017)
Quality of life can be categorized in two ways. First, it is measured through objective data such as various demographic factors or social indicators. Second, it is measured through an individual subjective level. Measuring quality of life through objective data does not take into account the inner level of life and does not reflect subjective satisfaction level.
The the quality of life means how physical and mental factors are perceived. Here, psychological factors are individual subjective satisfaction and happiness. Physical factors are physical, socioeconomic satisfaction and happiness(WHOQOL-BREF, 1998; WHOQOL-100, 1995).
Johnson(1992) defines quality of life as an individual's perception in the mental, physical, and socioeconomic environment, and as an individual's judgment and subjective satisfaction. Yang and Longman(1983) describe the quality of life as satisfaction with current environmental conditions and classify it into physical, mental, and socioeconomic quality of life. Clipp(2002) defines quality of life as a diversity and a state of psychological, physical and social well-being, including personal experiences. The quality of life can be defined as the subjective satisfaction of life that an individual perceives in the areas of physical, social, psychological, and living environment. The purpose of this study is to define the quality of life as subjective happiness and satisfaction perceived by individuals in the fields of social, physical, and socio-economic environments.
2.3. Empowerment
The term empowerment is interpreted in various ways, such as authority delegation, authority grant, influence, enhancing capacity, competence development, etc. It has been introduced in political science and sociology since 1940, with the movement related to social changes such as civil rights movement, resistance movement, black voting rights, union activities, and civil rights groups.
Empowerment begins with the process of assigning authority and responsibility to the mid or lower-level members in the policy making and decision-making process of the organization and taking responsibility for the results(Spreitzer & Quinn, 2001). Empowered organizational members are motivated and act with confidence to enhance their performance and feel satisfied with their job. On the other hand, non-empowered organizational members are less able to perform due to their helplessness and passive attitudes, and show negative attitudes toward themselves and their organization. This is like the welfare services of the organization are not delivered properly to the customers just as the services are not provided to customers in a marketplace(Lee & Chang, 2017; Stewart, 1994).
Conger and Kanungo(1988) regard empowerment as a process by which leaders share decision-making authority with their subordinates. They emphasize the delegation of authority to the subordinates through sharing of decisionmaking powers or participatory decision-making. They also defines the concept of empowerment as relational and motivational one. The relationship perspective is a process by which empowerment gives authority and responsibility to the members of the organization and means that the organization is balanced by appropriately distributing the authority within the members of the organization. On the other hand, the motivational viewpoint is the internal psychological state that increases motivation by giving self-efficacy, which is the belief that each member is able to conduct work. According to Hartline and Ferrell(1996), empowerment means that managers provide the discretion to the employees to make their own decision.
Bowen and Lowler(1992) find that the components of empowerment are information about organizational behavior, compensation based on organizational behavior, decisionmaking power that influences direction of organization and behavior of members, each member’s knowledge and understanding about organizational behavior and task performance. Thomas and Velthouse(1990) have shown that the core concepts of empowerment are the ability to skillfully handle assigned tasks, the impact of their effort as an organization member on task achievement, the right to voluntarily determine job behavior, and the significance of their targeted goals in performance.
Spreitzer(1995), who developed Conger and Kanungo(1988)'s study, considered empowerment as a process of improving the capacity of organizational members by eliminating the powerlessness of them. He suggests the meaning, self-determination, competence, and impact of tasks as constituents of empowerment. Task significance means the degree to which an organization's job goal matches personal values and beliefs. Meaning indicates that members have confidence in their ability to self-efficacy for a specific task. Self-determination refers to the belief that individuals can control behavior voluntarily without interference. Impact is the degree to which an individual affects the performance of an organization. Kosciulek(1999) reports that empowerment is an important variable directly affecting quality of life(Kosciulek & Merz, 2001).
3. Research Method
3.1. Participants
This study was conducted through structured questionnaires for employees of social welfare facilities in Jeon-Nam province. The survey period was 26 days from January 5, 2018 to January 31, 2018. A total of 750 questionnaires distributed to workers in social welfare facilities and 732 of them were collected. Only 722 copies of the collected questionnaires are analyzed excluding missing values.
3.2. Research Model and Hypothesis
In this study, job importance, job autonomy, functional diversity, and feedback are selected as the job allocation variables like in the job distribution of Hackman and Oldham(1980). In the case of task unity, it means the degree of knowing the whole process and contents of the job. It is removed from the job allocation parameter because the workers are aware of the whole work contents and processes in their job. The composition of job assignment items consisted of 5 items of job importance, 4 items of autonomy of job, 5 items of functional diversity, and 5 items of feedback.
In the present study, the quality of life is divided into physical, mental, and socioeconomic quality of life based on WHOQOL-BREF(1998) and WHOQOL-100(1995)’s measurement instrument.
In addition, the empowerment of this study is based on the concept of Thomas and Velthouse(1990), and it is defined as an active motive in their work roles in the organizational environment. It also has the effect of voluntary control, including self-control as an intrinsic motive to exercise effective influence in the work performance. To measure empowerment, four sub-variables are selected. This study aims to examine the effect of job distribution on quality of life. In addition, we analyze whether empowerment plays a mediating role in relationship to job distribution and quality of life. The research model is shown in [Figure 1].
[Figure 1] Research mode
Followings are the hypothesis of this study.
[Hypothesis 1] Job importance will affect the quality of life.
[Hypothesis 2] Autonomy will affect the quality of life.
[Hypothesis 3] Functional diversity will affect the quality of life.
[Hypothesis 4] Feedback will affect the quality of life.
[Hypothesis 5] Empowerment will affect the quality of life.
[Hypothesis 6] Empowerment will have an intermediary effect on the relationship between job importance and quality of life.
[Hypothesis 7] Empowerment will have an intermediary effect on the relationship between job autonomy and quality of life.
[Hypothesis 8] Empowerment will have an intermediary effect on the relationship between functional diversity and quality of life.
[Hypothesis 9] Empowerment will have an intermediary effect on feedback and quality of life.
3.3. Instrument and Method
Following is the method of this study. First, in order to verify the structural relationship between the main variables, we analyzed the relationship between the parameters and the measured variables through confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, a structural model is constructed between verified variables to analyze the significance and validity of the path coefficients between the variables. In order to verify the validity of the variables, discriminant validity and intensive validity analysis were conducted.
Second, the influence of each variable was examined by measuring the path coefficient of the research model in order to grasp the concrete path of the structural relation between the variables. In addition, direct effects were analyzed to test [Hypothesis 1] ~ [Hypothesis 5] The adoption of the hypothesis is based on the standardized coefficient and the significance level. Third, through the Bootstrap test, the direct and indirect effects of the variables are analyzed and the intermediary effect is verified by analyzing the structural relations between the variables. The direct effect, indirect effect, total effect and significance level are used to determine the influence relationship between variables. In addition, the indirect effect verification through the Bootstrap test is performed by the Sobel test to supplement the limitations of the errors. In other words, we conducted both the indirect effect verification through Bootstrap Test and the intermediary effect verification through Sobel Test to confirm their consistency.
4. Results
4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
To examine the structural relationship among independent variables, intermediary variables, and dependent variables, in the first step, the relationship between the latent variables and the measurement variables was analyzed through confirmatory factor analysis. Here, latent variables are job importance, autonomy, functional diversity, feedback, empowerment, and quality of life. In the second step, we construct a structural model between the variables that are verified as conformity, and analyze the significance and validity of the path coefficients between the variables.
Conformity verification between variables is presented as a result of a confirmed factor analysis, such as the fitness index of the Measurement Model in [Table 1]. [Table 1] determined the conformity by using the absolute fitness index and the relative fitness index. [Table 1] shows the absolute fitness index as RMSEA and the relative fitness index as CFI. For verification of fitness, CMIN/DF is suitable for less than 2 and RMSEA is suitable for less than .05. GFI, NFI, IFI, and CFI are suitable more than .90 and closer to 1.0 are more suitable. However, since CFI is free because sample characteristics are not affected by inconsistency, CFI is presented as a verification criterion.
[Table 1] Confirmatory factor analysis
As a result of the goodness of fit index of the measurement model shown in [Table 1], the fitness of the final stage is higher than the initial stage between the latent variables and measurement variables.
At the final stage, GFI=.848, NFI=.883, IFI=.902, CFI=.902, and RMSEA=.080 are presented. Therefore, each variable is used in this study because the fitness is accepted in all criteria except GFI, NFI, and IFI at the final stage.
4.2. Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity
To verify the validity of the variables in this study, discriminant validity and convergent validity are analyzed. Convergent validity should be highly correlated between variables, and discriminant validity should be less correlated because it verifies variables’ independent construction without correlation between them.
Following is the method to verify the convergent validity: A method of setting the concept reliability value to 0.7 or more, a method of setting the average value of dispersion extraction to 0.5 or more, and a method of setting the standardization coefficient value to 0.5 or more. The result of the convergent validity of the extracted variables is shown in [Table 2], and the conceptual reliability value, the variance extraction mean value, and the standardization factor are all presented. The variance mean value of each variable was more than 0.5, the conceptual confidence value is more than 0.7, and the standardized coefficient value is more than 0.5, so it is valid in all methods of verifying intensive validity.
[Table 2] Convergent Validity
Note: JI=Job Importance, JA= Job Autonomy, FD=Functional Diversity, F=Feedback, E=Empowerment, QOL=Quality Of Life
In order to verify the discriminant validity of each variable, the results of confirming the variance extracted mean value and the conceptual reliability are shown as the same as the correlation coefficient and discriminant validity in [Table 3]. The mean value of the variance extracted and the value of the conceptual reliability are larger than the square of the correlation coefficient. Therefore, the discriminant validity of the variables can be acceptable for this study.
[Table 3] Correlation coefficient and discriminant validity
Note: JI=Job Importance, JA= Job Autonomy, FD=Functional Diversity, F=Feedback, E=Empowerment, QOL=Quality Of Life, CR=Construct Reliability
4.3. Structural equation model analysis
4.3.1. Result of Research Model Analysis
The research model is consisted of these independent variables: job importance, job autonomy, functional diversity, and feedback. The parameter is empowerment and the dependent variable is quality of life. The specific path of the structural relationship between these variables is shown in [Table 4] and [Figure 2].
[Table 4] Path coefficient analysis on Research model
Note: JI=Job Importance, JA= Job Autonomy, FD=Functional Diversity, F=Feedback, E=Empowerment, QOL=Quality Of Life
[Figure 2] Path coefficient analysis on Research model
In this study, nine pathways are established for the research model. As for the influence of each variable, 7 out of 9 paths are significant, and 2 paths are not significant. This will be described in detail as follows.
The significance of job importance and the path coefficient of empowerment(β=.131, CR=2.923) is significant(p<.01). And the path coefficient of job autonomy and empowerment(β=.408, CR=9.452) is significant(p<.001). In addition, the functional diversity and path coefficient of empowerment(β=.002, CR=.034) is not significant and the path coefficient of feedback and empowerment(β=.429, CR=10.077) is significant(p<.001).
The path coefficient(β=.142, CR=2.574) related to job importance and quality of life is significant(p<.05). And the path coefficient for job autonomy and quality of life(β=-.151, C.R=-2.848) is significant(p<.01). In addition, path coefficient related to functional diversity and quality of life(β=-.247, CR=-4.389) is significant(p<.001) The path coefficient for feedback and quality of life(β=.058, CR=1.004) is not significant. The path coefficients for empowerment and quality of life(β=.749, C.R=10.271) is significant(p<.001).
4.4. Analysis of Research Model
4.4.1. Direct Effect Results
[Table 5] shows the structural relationship of variables according to the results of this study. Followings are the explanation of the structural relationship of the variables based on the hypotheses.
[Table 5] Direct Effect Results
Note: JI=Job Importance, JA= Job Autonomy, FD=Functional Diversity, F=Feedback, E=Empowerment, QOL=Quality Of Life
[Hypothesis 1] The relationship between job importance and empowerment is adopted by the standardized coefficient of .131(CR=2.923, p=.003)
[Hypothesis 2] The relationship between job autonomy and empowerment is adopted by the standardized coefficient value of .408(CR=9.452, p=.000).
[Hypothesis 3] The relationship between task diversity and empowerment is rejected by standardized coefficient of .002(CR=.034, p=.972),
[Hypothesis 4] The influence of feedback and empowerment is adopted by standardized coefficient of .429(CR=10.071, p=.000),
[Hypothesis 5] The relationship between the empowerment and quality of life is adopted by standardized coefficient of .749(CR=10.271, p=.000).
4.4.2. Direct·Indirect Effect Results
In this study, we tried to verify the mediating effects by analyzing the structural relationship between the variables through Bootstrap test.
[Table 6] shows the direct and indirect effects of the variables by Bootstrap Test. The indirect effects between variables are as follows.
[Table 6] Direct·Indirect Effect Results(Bootstrap Test)
Note: JI=Job Importance, JA= Job Autonomy, FD=Functional Diversity, F=Feedback, E=Empowerment, QOL = Quality Of Life *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
In [Hypothesis 6], the direct effect is .142(p<.05), the indirect effect is .098(p<.01), and the total effect is .240 (p<.05) in the relationship between job importance and quality of life, indicating indirect effect.
In [Hypothesis 7], the direct effect is -.151(p<.01), the indirect effect is .306(p<.01), and the total effect is .155(p<.01) in the relationship between job autonomy and quality of life, indicating indirect effects.
In [Hypothesis 8], the direct effect is -.247(p <.05), the indirect effect is .001(p<.05), the total effect was -.245(p<.05)), in the relationship between functional diversity and quality of life, indicating no indirect effect.
In [Hypothesis 9], direct effect is .058(p<.05), the indirect effect is .321(p<.01), and the total effect is .379(p<.05) in the relationship between feedback and quality of life, indicating indirect effect.
However, the indirect effect verification through Bootstrap Test has a limit of possible errors in measuring the significance of parameters. To make up the shortcomings of Bootstrap test, Sobel test is performed.
The Sobel Test is analyzed by three steps, and uses the non-standardization coefficients and standard errors of the first and third steps. If the absolute value is 1.96 or higher, it is regarded that there is a mediation effect.
The results of the Sobel test are presented as the mediating effects of [Table 7]. The structural relationships of the variables are summarized according to hypotheses.
[Table 7] Mediation Effect Results(Sobel Test)
Note: JI=Job Importance, JA= Job Autonomy, FD=Functional Diversity, F=Feedback, E=Empowerment, QOL=Quality Of Life
In the relationship between job importance and quality of life, empowerment has a mediating effect(Z=2.807, p=.005). [Hypothesis 7] is related to job autonomy and quality of life, empowerment is found to have a mediating effect(Z=6.980, p=.000). In addition, there is no mediation effect(Z=.043, p=.966) on the functional diversity and quality of life of [Hypothesis 8]. The relationship between feedback and quality of life in <[ypothesis 9], empowerment is found to have a mediating effect(Z=7.215, p=.000).
In this way, the indirect effect verification through Bootstrap Test and the mediator effect verification through Sobel Test are consistent. Empowerment plays a mediating role in job quality, job autonomy, and quality of life. Therefore, empowerment should be considered when examining the relationship between job quality, job autonomy, and quality of life. However, empowerment did not play a mediating role in relationship of functional diversity and quality of life.
5. Conclusion
In sum, first, job importance, job autonomy, and feedback as job distribution variables influence the quality of life. Second, empowerment also affects quality of life. Third, empowerment plays a mediating role in job importance, job autonomy, feedback and quality of life. On the other hand, empowerment does not play a mediating role in functional diversity and quality of life.
The following is a discussion on how to improve workers’ quality of life in social welfare facilities. First, among the work distribution of social welfare facilities, job importance, job autonomy, and feedback are recognized as crucial while work diversity is relatively less important. It seems that social welfare workers tend to recognize the job importance as meaningful and try to maintain their job autonomy and feedback. On the while, functional diversity requires various knowledge and skill in work performance, so the development of various skill is needed. For functional diversity, it is recommended to carry out various tasks through rotation, or a regular training of external institutes to strengthen the competency of employees. In addition, institutional support is urgently needed to foster diverse knowledge and technical skills by enhancing individual competence through graduate schools. Market-oriented minds are also needed.
A market is driven by free competition between consumers and suppliers. In recent years, social welfare market has become more diverse in sales and distribution of social services. So it is important to learn the marketing minds from markets and to learn the salesmanship of services to diversify social welfare marketing.
Second, empowerment plays a mediator role in the relationship between job importance, job autonomy, feedback, and quality of life. It needs to build an organizational system that enables workers to clarify their task goals in social welfare facilities. The mission, vision, strategic goals and detailed enforcement objectives of a social services facility should be set by the participation of the members, such as setting up a company's sales strategy through consumers’ patterns of buying and consuming goods in a marketplace. In this way, the values and beliefs of individual members can be reflected in the goals of the organization, and the goals of the individual and the organization should be aligned through participation in goal-setting process.
Next, the work autonomy should be guaranteed. If job autonomy, which is a sub variable of job allocation, is guaranteed, it will be very helpful to improve self determination as a sub variable of empowerment. To do so, job clarification is needed. The entire organization's work assignments should be clearly documented, and the work assignment table should be formalized and communicated to workers at a social work facility. This enables the social workers to have the belief that they can control voluntary actions with discretion without interference from others.
Third, the quality of life will be enhanced with the empowerments of workers in social welfare facilities. Therefore, a bold delegation of powers and responsibilities are required through decentralization of organization. Social welfare organization does not distribute various products and service like department stores and large-scale marts. In terms of providing customized service to consumers, it should help the customers to conduct self-service. To do this, bold decentralization of the organization is necessary. Also, every work of the social welfare organization needs to be shared with the members. They need to recognize the right to make decision by themselves, and they can improve work performance through communication and interactions. Moreover, the efficiency of the work can be improved through survey of the members by establishing a training plan, by performing voluntary training, and by getting feedback on how the education and training has been helpful for their work. Finally, empowerment can not be improved in an authoritative culture. In order to make organizational culture into clan culture, manager's efforts are definitely required.
Cited by
- The Job Seekers Model: Comparison of the General Search Model and the Unified Approach Model vol.12, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.13106/jidb.2021.vol12.no1.7