Quality of Working Life of Personnel of Mahamakut Buddhist University Isan Campus Muang District, Khonkaen Province

Abstract

The objectives of this article were : (a) to study the personnels’ individual factors, (b) to study the personnels’ socio-economic foundation, (c) to study the personnels’ quality of life, (d) to study the personnels’ quality of working life, (e) to compare the personnels’ quality of life under different individual factors and socio-economics, (f) to compare the personnels’ quality of working life under different individual factors and socio-economic foundation, (g) to compare the personnels’ quality of life with quality of working life and (h) to study the problems and recommendation of quality of working life by the use of questionnaire. All 62 personnels were the purposive sampling populations, only 58 personnels or 93.54 % were participated in this study. The data were analyzed and processed by computer for percentage, mean, standard deviation, one sample t-test and one-way ANOVA.

The results were found that:
1. On the whole, the personnels’ quality of life was good. Taking sectional differences into consideration, the research found that psychology and social relationship were good, physical health and environment were moderate.
2. As a whole, the personnels’ quality of working life was moderate. To consider in each section, the research found that development of human capacities, social integration and social relevance were good. Adequate and fair compensation, safe and healthy working condition, growth and security, constitutionalism and total life space were moderate.
3. Testing of Hypotheses. 1) Testing by one sample t-test at a significance level 0.05, the research found that the personnels’ quality of life was moderate. 2) Testing by one sample t-test at a significance level 0.05, the research found that the personnels’ quality of working life was moderate. 3) The personnels’ quality of life was different under difference of gender at a significance level 0.05. The quality of life was not
different under difference of age, marital status, level of education, kind of personnel and period of employment at a significance level 0.05. 4) The personnels’ quality of life was different under difference of extra money/mount and saving money/mount at a significance level 0.05. The quality of life was not different under difference of income/ mount, payment/mount and kind of residence at a significance level 0.05. 5) The personnels’ quality of working life was not different under difference of individual factors at a significance level 0.05. 6) The personnels’ quality of working life was not different under difference of socio-economic foundation at a significance level 0.05. 7) The personnels’ quality of working life was different under difference of quality of life at a significance level 0.05.

4. Recommendation of quality of working life. 1) It was at 34.48 % about this recommendation : university should set concretely the personnel development policy and plan, supporting the education and research scholarship. The personnel should be educated and supported for further studying according with their capacity. 2) It was at 22.41% about this recommendation : university should pay the fair compensation
according with level of education and works such as job assignment or work load, research work and academic article. 3) It was at 20.68 % about this recommendation : university should campaign for taking care of health and safety such as to campaign for wearing the helmet while riding motorcycle or fastening safety belt in the car and support the personnels to grow in profession seriously.