Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
INTRODUCTION
activities and organizations (Lin et al., 2001). This concept can func-
tion in a great number of social and institutional contexts. All these
dimensions of social capital can be classified in two complementary
broad categories or conceptions: one considers it to be a quality of
individuals or groups; the other sees it as the value given to the
relationships between social actors. These two viewpoints actually
belong to the same relational reality.
In this article we shall address social capital in its broadest sense,
focusing on it as a quality of individuals and groups, and specifically
as confidence in others. This conception is partly cultural, partly
structural. It includes aspects such as submission to norms, social
integration and confidence in others and in institutions. Specifically,
it is a set of informal norms and values, shared by members of
a group, that permit cooperation. These shared norms and values
generate trust among the participants. In other words, it is the set of
cooperative relations between social actors that facilitate solutions
to collective action problems.
When considered as the set of informal norms and values shared
by the members of a group, social capital can be measured by
frequency of association, gathering, cooperation or levels of trust
and commitment generated in social groups. The fairly straightfor-
ward manner of operationalizing this concept is a clear advantage.
A quantitative measure of this meaning of social capital could
be, for example, the number of voluntary associations with free
participation.
It can also be measured by the level of trust between people that
interact with each other. This conception of social capital is present
in questions such as the degree of trust in political and economic
institutions, trust in co-workers, levels of camaraderie at work and
in other activities, etc. These sorts of questions can be found in
numerous surveys referring to the values and level of commitment
of individuals toward the social contexts in which they participate,
or in general towards the society to which they belong.
Social capital as generalized trust in others has multiple operative
applications for the analysis of social organizations, and especially
companies, which as organizations need the cooperation of their
members in order to successfully achieve objectives. This article
shall examine how certain aspects of social capital such as trust,
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 333
The data in this article are from the 2001 Survey on Quality of Life
at Work [Encuesta de Calidad de Vida en el Trabajo] (ECVT, 2001).
Spain’s Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has been carrying out
the ECVT research project since 1999. This yearly survey gathers
information on various aspects related to workers’ job settings in
Spain. It provides a panorama of the circumstances surrounding the
work environment, along with information concerning the worker’s
personal evaluation of the work environment and daily activities. As
a barometer of Spain’s quality of life at work,1 the data includes
information on work relations, degree of satisfaction with various
aspects of work, organization and division of labor, work integra-
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 337
Independent Variables
Social capital variables. These are the key variables of the analysis.
Several multi-item scales have been constructed linking social
capital variables to a set of related dimensions. All of them have a
good level of reliability. The five dimensions of the variable gener-
ically labeled “social capital” are trust, social relations, commit-
ment, communication and influence. Let us examine the items that
compose each dimension:
Trust: I have [much, some, little, almost no, no] trust in
management; In my company/organization people who work
together trust each other because that is the best and easiest way
to get the work done. (The internal consistency of the items that
compose this scale is measure by Cronbach’s alpha2 = 0.75.)
Social relations: Could you please tell me if you have strong
friendships with [all, most, some, almost none, none] of your
co-workers? (i.e., asking for a favor; going out to dinner or
coffee with them and/or their mate); In general how would you
338 FELIX REQUENA
Dependent Variables
Satisfaction and quality of life at work variables. The dependent
variables used in this research are the degree of job satisfaction and
the Index of Quality of Life at Work.
These both variables are difficult to measure because they are
hard to define. These terms may be understood in multiple ways
(Seed and Lloyd, 1997; Campbell et al., 1976; Türksever and Atalik,
2000). Difficulties arise when measuring either of these concepts
of job satisfaction (Hamermesh, 2000; Clark et al., 1998; Freeman,
1978) and quality of life at work (Krahn, 1992; Setien, 1993; Sirgy
et al., 2001).
This article attempts to maintain a balance between parsimony
and operationalization in the labor setting studied. Quality of
life involves both subjective aspects expressed by individuals and
objective aspects about which the subjects give a response.
Two indicators of personal well-being at work have been distin-
guished, a simple one – the satisfaction scale applied to work –
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 339
and a complex one – the index of quality of life at work. The job
satisfaction scale is a clear indicator providing direct information
on the level of general satisfaction that a worker derives from his
or her labor setting. On a scale from 1 to 10, 1 indicates lack of
satisfaction and 10 shows a high degree of satisfaction. This is a
subjective indicator.
The index of quality of life at work used by ECVT is a complex
measure referring exclusively to the worker’s job position. It is
composed of several items including subjective elements such as
personal job satisfaction and more objective elements such as the
worker’s shift and being required to work weekends. This indicator
is constructed to include both subjective and objective elements
affecting quality of life at work, and even though some aspects go
beyond labor, they are related to the job setting as they influence the
performance and well-being of workers.
In this index each of the following labor situations is scored with
a point:
Objective: independence in job position; not working on week-
ends; eating at home on work days; no overcrowding at home.
Subjective: demonstrating a high degree of satisfaction with the
work done (responses 8, 9, and 10 of a numerical rating scale
from 1 to 10, where 10 is the highest work satisfaction); work
environment is considered stimulating; work is not exhausting.
The scale varies from extremely low quality of work life at 0 to
extremely high quality of work life at 7. In order to facilitate its
use and comprehension, the indicator has been transformed into
a normal scale ranging from 0 to 10.
The validity of the quality of life at work index has been
insured by factor analysis (Table I). The index is composed of three
factors that cover the subjective and objective elements in the factor
analysis:
1. A factor referring to stimulating work. It is composed of the
following elements: (a) working with independence; (b) being
highly satisfied with one’s work; (c) having a stimulating work
environment.
2. A factor referring to exhaustion at work. It is composed of: (a)
not being exhausted at the end of the work day; (b) being able
to eat at home;4
340 FELIX REQUENA
TABLE I
Factor Matrix∗ of the Principal Components of the Quality of Life at Work Index
ANALYSIS
TABLE II
Descriptive Statistics of the Variables in the Regression Models
Family:
Head of household 4800 0 1 0.53 0.50
Married 4800 0 1 0.57 0.50
Separated or divorced 4800 0 1 0.051 0.22
Widower 4578 0 1 0.014 0.12
Dependent children 4800 0 1 0.51 0.50
cult to maintain between workers. This basically fits with Lowe and
Schellenberg’s (2001) data from Canada.
TABLE III
Mean Scores of the Social Capital Indexes by Demographic Variables
Gender
Male 3.77 3.77 3.19 3.55 3.32
Female 3.76 3.76 3.04 3.63 3.33
Age groups
16 to 19 3.74 3.84 2.75 3.02 2.71
20 to 24 3.74 3.77 2.93 3.37 3.14
25 to 29 3.79 3.85 3.09 3.63 3.39
30 to 44 3.75 3.74 3.12 3.62 3.35
45 to 54 3.78 3.73 3.28 3.64 3.38
55 to 64 3.88 3.86 3.34 3.74 3.41
65 and over 4.09 3.29 3.04 4.15 2.97
Educational level
Less than primary 3.86 3.63 3.02 2.90 2.78
Primary 3.77 3.78 3.09 3.19 3.05
Secondary 3.75 3.79 3.09 3.53 3.26
University 3.82 3.73 3.31 4.10 3.75
Monthly income∗
Less than 75 000 3.84 3.91 2.73 3.46 2.97
75 001 to 100 000 3.66 3.69 2.81 3.23 2.96
100 001 to 150 000 3.75 3.76 3.07 3.38 3.12
150 001 to 200 000 3.74 3.81 3.19 3.63 3.41
200 001 to 275 000 3.84 3.76 3.39 3.96 3.70
275 001 to 350 000 3.90 3.70 3.46 4.30 4.03
More than 350 000 3.91 3.75 3.79 4.50 4.16
∗ Income in Spanish Pesetas.
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 345
TABLE IV
Mean Scores of the Social Capital Indexes for Labor Variables
Shift schedule
Yes 3.65 3.74 2.99 3.35 2.95
No 3.80 3.78 3.17 3.65 3.41
TABLE V
Pearson Correlations of the Variables of the Social Capital Model for Job
Satisfaction
TABLE VI
Effects on Job Satisfaction
Independent variables Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
Independent variables Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
TABLE VII
Social Capital Effects on Job Satisfaction
Independent Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
variables
TABLE VIII
Effects on Quality of Life at Work
Independent Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
variables
Corporate variables
Size of company –0.064 –0.067 –0.067 –0.018
(–4.42)∗∗∗ (–4.69) ∗∗∗ (–4.73)∗∗∗ (–1.34)
Industry 1.164 0.965 0.927 0.829
(6.45)∗∗∗ (5.43)∗∗∗ (5.24)∗∗∗ (4.95)∗∗∗
Construction 0.515 0.580 0.559 0.568
(2.75)∗∗ (3.14)∗∗ (3.03)∗∗ (3.27)∗∗
Services 0.956 0.719 0.675 0.422
(5.48)∗∗∗ (4.19)∗∗∗ (3.95)∗∗∗ (2.60)∗∗
Private sector –0.501 –0.421 –0.422 –0.458
(–5.44)∗∗∗ (–4.58)∗∗∗ (–4.61)∗∗∗ (–5.46)∗∗∗
Working a shift –0.778 –0.626 –0.621 –0.433
schedule (–9.43)∗∗∗ (–7.69) ∗∗∗ (–7.66)∗∗∗ (–5.75)∗∗∗
Workplace variables
Weekly work hours –0.05 –0.047 –0.042
(–13.73) ∗∗∗ (–14.04) ∗∗∗ (–12.44)∗∗∗
Level in hierarchy 0.06 0.067 0.005
(0.69) (0.778) (0.06)
Supervisor 0.140 0.158 –0.111
(1.46) (1.66)∗ (–1.26)
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 353
TABLE VIII
Continued
Independent Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
variables
utes that most affect job satisfaction and quality of life at work are
the dimensions of social capital. This indicates that social capital is
one of the key determinants in generating personal well-being in the
workplace.
NOTES
problems that do not occur in a recursive one. In our model job satisfaction
depends on social capital, which in turn depends on job satisfaction, and so on
to infinity. So the question arises whether this infinite sequence of linear depend-
encies can be defined well in a relationship between job satisfaction and social
capital and the other variables of the model. This depends on the weights of the
regression. For some of the values of the regression weights, the infinite sequence
of linear dependencies will converge into a well-defined set of relationships.
In this case the system of linear dependencies is stable. In any other case it
is unstable. AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures) program can estimate the
regression weights of a population by the index of stability. If the stability index
falls between the range of –1 and +1 then the system is stable. In our case the
model is stable (as the stability index is 0.011 between social capital and job
satisfaction).
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J.L. and W. Wothke: 1999, Amos 4.0 User’s Guide (SPSS Inc, Chicago,
IL).
Brehn, J. and W. Rahn: 1997, ‘Individual-Level evidence for the causes and
consequences of social capital’, American Journal of Political Science 41,
pp. 999–1023.
Burt, R.: 2000, ‘The network structure of social capital’, in R.I. Sutton and
B.M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 22 (JAY Press,
Greenwich, CT).
Burt, R.: 2001, ‘Structural holes versus network closure as social capital’, in N.
Lin, K. Cook and R. Burt (eds.), Social Capital, Theory and Research (Aldine
de Gruyter, New York), pp. 31–56.
Campbell, A., P.E. Converse and W.R. Rogers: 1976, The Quality of American
Life (Russel Sage Foundation, New York).
Clark, A., Y. Georgellis and P. Sanfey: 1998, ‘Job satisfaction, wage changes, and
quits: evidence for Germany’, Research in Labor Economics 15, pp. 95–122.
Coleman, J.S.: 1988, ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American
Journal of Sociology 94, pp. s95–s12.
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 359
Sirgy, M.J., D. Efraty, P. Siegel and D.J. Lee: 2001, ‘A new measure of Quality
of Work Life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories’, Social
Indicators Research 55(3), pp. 241–302.
Türksever, A.N.E. and G. Atalik: 2000, ‘Possibilities and limitations for the
measurement of the quality of life in urban areas’, Social Indicators Research
53, pp. 163–187.
Department of Sociology
Faculty of Political Sciences
University of Santiago
Campus Sur
15782 Santiago de Compostela
Spain
E-mail: frequena@arrakis.es