INTRODUCTION:

Quality of work life (QWL) can be viewed as an effort undertaken by the organization to improve the productivity of employees. These efforts range from providing good working conditions, rewards, learning and satisfaction to the employees. The main aim of QWL program is to improve human dignity and growth. This is possible through a range of activities from providing good compensation to greater participation by the employees.

QWL has garnered attention from both academics and industry as it is viewed as a source of competitive advantage. Many studies have established relationship between QWL and organizational outcomes like job satisfaction, employee turnover, trust, turnover intention and organizational citizenship behaviour. Organizational commitment (OC) is a highly popular and widely researched area because of its influence over other important variables like individual performance, job satisfaction, turnover intention and organizational performance. Morrow and Writh (1989) defined organizational commitment as a psychological state that includes an individual’s belief in and acceptance of the value of his or her chosen job, and a willingness to maintain membership in that job. Indian health care industry is making a significant contribution to the economy by providing employment opportunities to a large section of qualified persons. Despite this there is immense scope for improvement in this sector because of problems like high attrition rate, under employment and growing customer complaints. In this backdrop present study was undertaken to find out the relationship between QWL and OC. An attempt was also made to find out the difference in these two variables on the basis of various demographic factors.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

The review of literature has two sections. It deals with quality of work life and organizational commitment.

Quality of work life (QWL):

Quality of work life is an important construct to both employees and employers. Popularity of the concept began in the late 1960s when organizations started giving priority to the relationship between worker and the work environment. QWL is a process by which an organization responds to employee needs by developing mechanisms to allow members to share fully in making decisions that design their lives at work (Robbins, 1998). The first popular definition of QWL in the literature is the one which was given by Richard Walton (1974). He proposed eight factors which determine QWL such as adequate and fair compensation; safe and healthy environment; immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacities; future opportunity for continued growth and security; social integration in work organizations; constitutionalism in the work organization; work and the total life space; and the social relevance of work life. In the same vein Glaser (1976) also highlighted factors such as job security, good working conditions, adequate and fair compensation that influence QWL. Researchers like Taylor (1979) viewed QWL as a holistic approach that includes basic extrinsic job factors of wages, hours and working conditions, and the intrinsic job notions of the nature of the work itself. He also viewed other aspects to be equally important such as; authority exercised by employees, employee participation in decision making, fair and equal approach at work, social support, utilizing one’s present skills, self -growth, a relevant scope of future at work, social relevance of the work or product, effect on extra work activities.

Mirvis and Lawler (1984) also studied about QWL and found safe work environment, equitable wages, equal employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement were the important elements. Other important researchers who identified components of QWL were May et al (1995) and Newstom and Davis (1995). While the former highlighted reward, job security and growth opportunity, latter placed emphasis on exciting workplace, concern for individual, creativity and innovation and democratization of work place. Study conducted by Considine and Callus (2002) affirmed that quality of work life embraces job security, reward systems, training and career advancement opportunities, and participation in decision making. It is a pointer of the overall quality of employee’ experiences in the work place. Tabassum et al., (2012) through their study conducted among faculty members of private Universities in Bangladesh found social relevance of work life, safe and healthy working condition and social integration in the organization as important positively perceived dimensions of QWL.

Organizational Commitment (OC):

OC is an important and highly popular construct in organizational behaviour literature. It denotes the strength of an employee’s involvement in and identification with the organization. Morrow and Writh (1989) defined OC as a psychological state that includes an individual’s belief in and acceptance of the value of his or her chosen job, and a willingness to maintain membership in that job. Meyer and Allen (1997) define OC as the psychological condition that relates the criteria in the employee relationship in the organization and the implications on the decision to remain in the organization. According to Caught and Shadur (2000) OC is the employees’ state of being committed to assist in the achievement of the organization’s goals, and involves the employees’ levels of identification, involvement, and loyalty.

Studies conducted by Meyer and Allen (1990) describes about three types of OC such as affective, normative and continuance commitment. Affective commitment is the result of emotional involvement and personal responsibility on the part of employees. This will happen if the employees’ tightly hold the values and goals of the organization. Employees having high affective commitment exhibit positive attitude, superior job performance and low turnover intention. Normative commitment is the onus to continue in the employment because of loyalty and obedience. Continuance commitment is grounded on the employees’ cognizance about the costs of leaving the organization. Here employees stay in the organization for the sake of benefits to be obtained or lost if they were to leave.

Extant literature shows that organizational commitment is influenced by a number of individual as well as organizational factors. Gender, age, education, experience and locus of control represents the individual factors whereas Quality of work life, Organizational climate, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour, socialization and person-organization fit are the major organizational variables that affects the organizational commitment.

Relationship between Quality of work life and organizational commitment:

Loscocco and Roschelle (1991) in their study revealed organizational commitment as an important attitudinal outcome of the goodness of the QWL. Baba and Jamal (1991) in their study highlighted the indicators of QWL. They found that organizational commitment is also an indicator of QWL along with job satisfaction and job involvement. Hossain (1997) explored the relationship between QWL and OC. He had carried his research among the industrial workers in Bangladesh and found a significant relationship between the two variables. In the same vein Dex and Smith (2002) also studied QWL policies and affirmed that QWL has a small positive impact on workers’ commitment. Nia and Maleki (2013) in their study among the faculty members established a positive relationship between QWL and OC. They recommended enhancement of QWL in University work setting for increasing the OC. Khan (2015) also studied about the relationship between QWL and OC among the clerical staff of Aligarh Muslim University. He found a positive significant relationship between the two variables. The study also found that QWL is a significant predictor of OC. Chandrasekar and Rani (2016) measured the relationship between QWL and OC among the shop floor employees of automotive industry in Chennai and established a strong relationship between the two variables.

Eren and Hizar (2016) assessed the QWL and OC of nurses working in University hospital and concluded that nurses experience only moderate level of QWL and they also have moderate level of OC. Through the study a significant positive relationship between the two variables was affirmed. Diraviam (2016) studied the relationship between dimensions of QWL and OC among health care professionals in Tamil Nadu. He had found that a significant relationship exists between the variables. He had also established positive predictive power of QWL on OC. Hashempour et al (2018) studied about the QWL of Iranian emergency nurses and found a significant positive correlation between QWL and OC. With regard to different types of organizational commitment such as emotional, normative and continuance commitment and QWL, they could establish relationship between all the variables. The strength of relationship is more between QWL and emotional commitment compared to normative and continuance commitment. Karaaslan and Aslan (2018) also studied QWL and OC among the nurses working in prisons in Turkey and reported a moderate level of QWL and OC. They further explored the relationship between the variables and found that OC is affected by QWL and 20% of the variance in OC is explained by QWL.

Majority of these studies were conducted in European countries, US, Middle East, Thailand, Turkey and Malaysia. The relationship between QWL and OC is some-what limited in health care industry in the developing countries. This is still scarce in a country like India. Considering the importance of health care industry and its potential to generate large employment opportunities both inside and outside the country, it is pertinent to conduct a meaningful study between these two variables in Indian context. Therefore an attempt was made to study the relationship between QWL and OC in Indian health care industry. The study is important for a country like India where citizen and governments are giving priority to this sector. Thus the first hypothesis of the study was framed as:

H1: QWL positively impacts OC

Demographic variables and Organizational commitment:

Literature mention studies about demographic variables such as gender, age, experience, marital status and OC. Many inconsistencies were reported in these studies conducted over a period of time. For instance Karrasch (2003) and Schwartz (1989) in their study established a significant difference in OC between male and female employees, with male employees having greater OC compared to female. However when Meyer et al. (2002) and Riketta (2005) studied about OC and gender, they found no significant difference. Considering these inconsistencies about gender and OC, for a generalization especially in Indian context it was decided to study gender based difference in OC. Thus H2 is the following:

H2: There is no significant difference in OC between male and female nurses.

Scholars studied about the difference in OC with respect to marital status of employees and presented mixed results. For example Tsui et al. (1994) and John and Taylor (1999) through their study established a significant difference in OC between married and unmarried employees with married employees having higher level of OC. In the same vein Irfanullah et al. (2013) Yuen-Onn et al. (2013) also reported a significant difference in OC with regard to marital status of employees. However Akhtar et al. (2013) in their study found no difference in OC levels on the basis of marital status. In view of these opposing viewpoints it was proposed to study the difference in OC between married and unmarried nurses working in Kerala. Therefore the third hypothesis is as follows:

H3: There is no significant difference in OC between married and unmarried nurses.

With respect to other demographic variables like age, experience and its association with OC, few studies were reported in the literature. Karsh et al (2005) conducted a study among nursing home employees and established a significant difference in OC with respect to age. Salami (2008) and Hulpia et al. (2009) in their study also found that OC among the older employees is very high compared to younger employees. This finding was negated by Mahnaz (2012), he established that there is no significant difference in OC among employees belonging to different age group. Studies about experience and OC also produced mixed results. For example Kolbert and Kwon (2000) and Jena (2015) in their study found a significant difference in OC with respect to the experience of the employees. Contradictory results were obtained when Konya et al. (2016) found a very weak relationship between experience and OC. Considering these contradictions, it was decided to analyse the difference in OC with respect to age and experience of nurses working in Kerala. Thus H4 is as follows:

H4: There is no significant difference in OC with respect to age and experience of nurses.

Demographic variables and QWL:

Literature about QWL also highlights the studies about impact of demographic variables on the concept. But the studies were limited especially in Indian context and contradictory results were also presented. For instance Ahmad (2017); Jnaneswar (2016) and Bhuvaneswari (2012) in their respective studies found no significant difference in QWL between male and female employees. Mehrotra and Khandelwal (2015) in their study reported a contradictory result, with female employees having high QWL compared to male. Similar is the case with marital status and QWL, were contradictory results can be seen. For instance Aarthy and Nandhini (2016) found a significant difference in QWL between married and unmarried employees. But the same was negated by Ganesha and Siddiq (2017) and Kelbiso et al.(2017) in their respective studies. Considering these contradictory results and the importance of QWL and gender and marital status it was decided to further explore the relationship between these variables. Thus H5 and H6 are as follows

H5: There is no significant difference in QWL between male and female nurses.

H6: There is no significant difference in QWL between married and unmarried nurses.

Inconsistent results are also there in QWL literature with respect to other demographic variables like age and experience. Abdeen (2002); Bolhari et al. (2011) and Jnaneswar (2016) found a significant difference in QWL among employees belonging to different age groups. This was not supported by Geetha et al. (2018) as they established no significant difference in QWL between younger and older employees. Similarly Gupta (2015) and Jnaneswar (2016) reported significant difference in QWL among employees having different years of experience but study by Hossain (1997) established no difference in QWL among employees with varied years of experience. These inconsistencies calls for more studies in QWL with different employees and in different context. Therefore H7 is as follows:

H7: There is no significant difference in QWL with respect to age and experience of employees.

MATERIALS AND METHOD:

Nurses working in both government and private hospitals in Kerala participated in the study as respondents. A two stage sampling technique was adopted for the collection of data. This comprised the simple random sampling and convenient sampling techniques. Simple random sampling was used to select the hospitals from south, central and north regions of Kerala that served the population setting. 20 hospitals were selected for the study. 204 nurses working in these 20 hospitals were selected using convenient sampling technique for administering the questionnaire. Of these 92 were male and 112 were female nurses who participated as respondents. Among them 123 were married and 81 unmarried. 29.9% of respondents belong to the age group 20-30, 29.4 % belongs to 31-40, 21.1 % belongs to 41-50 age group and the remaining 19.6% were above 50 years. With respect to the experience of the respondents, 43.6 % have work experience of 0-10 years, 32.4 % have 11-20 years and 24% have more than 20 years of work experience. In the case of monthly income of respondents, 39.2% have monthly income in the range of Rs20,000-30,000, 31.4% have greater than 30,000 and 29.4% have monthly income between Rs10,00-20,000. With regard to the type of hospitals, 55.9% of respondents were from private hospitals and remaining 44.1% were from the government hospitals in Kerala.

Measures:

Two structured questionnaires were used for the study. The sections of the questionnaire are detailed below:

Quality of work life:

In the present study, QWL was measured by using the scale developed by Richard E Walton (1975). This instrument which has thirty five statements to measure the QWL is still popular and is widely used in empirical research. The instrument contain 8 major conceptual variables of QWL such as (1) adequate and fair compensation, (2) safe and healthy working conditions, (3) immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacities, (4) opportunity for continued growth and security, (5) social integration in the work organization, (6) constitutionalism in the work organization, (7) work and total life space and (8) social relevance of work life. The respondents were asked to rate each item by assigning a value of 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher the score, higher is the level of QWL.

Organizational commitment:

OC was assessed by using the scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The questionnaire consists of twenty four statements on a 7 point scale. These statements measure the affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. The typical statements from the scale include “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization”, “I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it” and “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me”. The scale was anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). A higher score in the scale is the representation of more commitment to the organization.

Reliability of the Tool:

A pilot study was conducted to test the reliability of the questionnaires. A sample of 50 respondents were selected for the pilot study. Both the questionnaires’ Cronbach’s alpha value were found to be greater than 0.7 (QWL: 0.918, OC: 0.805). Thus reliability of the tool was tested and found to be good.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The frequency distribution (mean and standard deviation) pertaining to the two variables are presented in Table 1

Table 1 Mean and Standard deviation of the variables

	Quality of work life	Organizational commitment
Mean	3.2433	4.3213
Standard deviation	0.5614	0.5545

Source: Primary data

In order to test the hypothesis for the impact of QWL on OC, correlation and simple linear regression were conducted. The results are presented in Table 2 and 3

Table 2 Correlation between the variables studied

	Organizational commitment	Quality of work life
Organizational commitment	1	.518(**)
Quality of work life	.518(**)	1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, Source: Primary data

From the analysis it was found that significant correlation exists at 0.01 level between OC and QWL (0.518). There is a perfect positive correlation between the two variables which indicate that if an organization is able to provide QWL in the organization then the level of OC from the employees will also be high. This result was in resonance with a number of earlier findings. Earlier studies by Hossain (1997); Huang et al (2007); Daud (2010); Karji and Moslem (2018); Geisler and Berthelsen (2019) established a significant relationship between QWL and OC. QWL takes care of all the things which an employee expects from the organization. This ensures the achievement of diverse needs of an employee to a large extent. High level of QWL results in high level of commitment and a sense of belongingness from the side of employees.

A significant regression equation was found (F (1,202) = 73.900, p<0.001), with an R² of .268. That is 26.8 % of OC variance can be predicted by QWL. The regression analysis revealed positive regression between QWL and OC. Quality of work life was found to be statistically significant in predicting organizational commitment (β = 0.518, sig<0.05). Results are presented in Table 3.

Moreover, as a result of regression analysis, it is possible to predict the OC by the equation as follows:

Organizational commitment = 2.663+0.511(quality of work life)

Thus for each one unit increase of QWL, OC increases by 0.511. These results also provide support for H1. Result of this study supports some of the earlier studies reported in the literature. The studies conducted by Dex and Smith (2002); Farid et al (2015); Swapna (2015); Rostiana (2017); Hidayah and Windijarto (2018 established the predictive power of QWL on OC. The present finding strengthens the argument that QWL impacts OC to a great extent.

Gender and OC:

To test H2, independent t test was used. Table 4 presents the t-value of the respondents based on gender.

Table 4: OC-Data and t value of respondents based on gender

Gender

Mean

Standard

Deviation

t value

Organizational commitment

Male

4.2550

0.56082

1.553*

Female

112

4.3757

0.54588

*Not significant, Source: Primary data

It can be seen that there is no significant difference in OC between male and female nurses (sig>0.05). There is only a marginal difference in mean and standard deviation between male and female nurses. This finding accepts H2. This is in resonance with some of the earlier studies conducted by Thorsteinson (2003); Salami (2008); Pourghaz et al (2011); Rabindarang et al (2014) and Nizamettin (2014). Male and female nurses exhibiting the same level of OC reveals non-discriminatory HR practices by the hospitals. Hospitals in Kerala are providing equal opportunities to both male and female nurses. This fact needs to be appreciated.

Difference in OC with respect to marital status of nurses:

Independent t test was used to test H3. The results are presented in Table 5

Table 5: OC-Data and t value of respondents based on marital status

Marital status

Mean

Standard

Deviation

t value

Organizational commitment

Married

123

4.3720

0.55352

1.614*

Unmarried

4.2443

0.55068

*Not significant, Source: Primary data

The study thus established that there is no significant difference between married and unmarried nurses with respect to OC (Sig>0.05). Here also the mean and standard deviation did not reveal any pattern, and the difference is only marginal. This supports H3. Present result is in line with previous studies conducted by Nartgun and Menep (2010); Alhawajreh (2013); Rabindarang et al. (2014) and Sepahvand et al (2017). The present result reiterates the non- discriminatory HR practices of hospitals.

Difference in OC with respect to age and experience:

To test H4, one way Anova was used. The results are shown in Table 6 and 7.

Table 6: Anova- Organizational commitment and age group

Organizational commitment	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	0.840	3	0.280	0.909	0.438*
Balance Within Groups	61.594	200	0.308
Total	62.434	203

*Not significant, Source: Primary data

Table 7: Anova- Organizational commitment and Experience

Organizational commitment	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	0.450	2	0.225	0.730	0.483*
Balance Within Groups	61.983	201	0.308
Total	62.434	203

*Not significant, Source: Primary data

No significant difference was found among the employees belonging to different age group and having different years of experience with respect to OC (sig>0.05). The result supports H4. Previous studies were also reported in the literature which supports the present finding. This include the studies conducted by Hawkins (98); Colbert and Kwon (2001); Khatibi et al (2009);Iqbal (2010); Seyedin et al (2013) and Sepahvand et al (2017). They all established no significant difference in OC with respect to age. Similarly studies by Abd El-Fatah (2002); Pala (2008) and Alhawajreh (2013) also reported no significant difference in OC with respect to experience. This also supports the present finding.

Gender difference in QWL:

To test H5, independent t test was used. Table 8 presents the t-value of the respondents based on gender.

Table 8: QWL: Data and t value of respondents based on gender

Gender

Mean

Standard

Deviation

t value

Quality of work life

Male

3.2096

0.52733

0.775*

Female

112

3.2709

0.58897

*Not significant, Source: Primary data

There is no significant difference in QWL between male and female nurses working in Kerala (Sig>0.05). It may be noted that female is having slight higher mean but the difference is not significant. Thus H5 is accepted and this is in line with earlier studies conducted by Gupta and Hyde (2003); Bolhari et al (2011); Jnaneswar (2016) and Shoeb Ahmed (2017). All of them reported no significant difference in QWL with respect to gender. No significant difference in QWL is because both male and female nurses have same perception about the good HR practices and policies of hospitals.

Difference in QWL between male and female nurses:

Independent t test was used to test H6. The results are presented in Table 9

Table 9: QWL: Data and t value of respondents based on marital status

Marital status

Mean

Standard

Deviation

t value

Quality of work life

Married

123

3.2850

0.56262

1.311*

Unmarried

2.1799

0.55274

*Not significant, Source: Primary data

Result indicates that there is no significant difference between married and unmarried nurses in Kerala with respect to QWL (Sig>0.05). The finding of the study provides support for H6. This finding was in resonance with the earlier studies conducted by Yaghoubi et al (2010); Namazzi (2011); Mohammad Amin et al (2013); Francis (2014) and Jnaneswar (2016). The same perception about QWL shared by married and unmarried nurses indicates that hospitals show no discrimination with respect to various parameters like compensation, training, growth opportunities and good working environment between male and female nurses.

Difference in QWL with respect to age and experience:

To test H7, one way Anova was used. The results are shown in Table 10 and 11.

Table 10: Anova- Quality of work life and age group

Quality of work life	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	1.521	3	0.507	1.623	0.185*
Balance Within Groups	62.478	200	0.312
Total	63.999	203

*Not significant, Source: Primary data

Table 11: Anova- Quality of work life and Experience

Quality of work life	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	0.417	2	0.208	0.659	0.519*
Balance Within Groups	63.582	201	0.316
Total	63.999	203

*Not significant, Source: Primary data

No significant difference was found among the employees belonging to different age group, and possessing different years of experience with respect to QWL (sig>0.05). The result accept H7. This finding is in line with the previous studies conducted by scholars like Aarthy and Nandhini (2010); Kelbiso et al (2017); Geetha et al (2018) and Hashempour et al (2018) (with regard to experience); Hossain (1997) and Kelbiso et al. (2017) (with respect to age).

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The results of the study have important managerial implications. In the study it was established that QWL is a significant predictor of OC. Employees who perceive high QWL in an organization is more committed to that organization. This commitment will result in a sense of belongingness and a feeling of oneness from the employees. This will ultimately culminate in more passion, dynamism and motivation from the employees. If an organization ensures high QWL to its employees, then they may be more committed to the organization. Managers at all levels shall keep this fact in mind when they design various HR policies and practices. All the areas like work environment, training, performance management, compensation, career development comes under QWL. In the study it was found that there is no difference in both QWL and OC with respect to various demographic factors. This may be the egalitarian attitude adopted by the organization. Such an approach shall be continued by the organizations for ensuring sustained success.

Limitations Of The Study And Scope For Further Research:

One of the main limitations of the present study is that it is cross sectional and not longitudinal. Longitudinal studies establish more causality compared to cross sectional ones. Lack of time and access to the organizations are other limitations of the present study. Despite the popularity of the concepts few empirical studies were reported in Indian context. Therefore there is scope to extend the study to other industries for more generalizations. In addition to this the influence of other variables like organizational trust, culture, employee enlightenment, job satisfaction can be included in the study for developing a good model for organizational commitment as some of these concepts can act as either a moderator or a mediator.

CONCLUSION:

Empirical studies about the relationship between QWL and OC is sparse in Indian context. The present study tried to address this research gap. Through the study a relationship between the two variables was established. No demographic difference with respect to the two variables was also established in the study. The findings of the study offers many research and practical implications. It suggest a framework for managers in ensuring a committed and passionate work force.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

Author would like to acknowledge the support extended by all the HR managers of hospitals for collecting data from nurses.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The author declare that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES:

1. Abd El Fatah, M. (2002). "Impact of Organizational Features of work Environment on quality of nursing care and Nurses Commitment in Critical Care Units in Selected Hospital within Cairo governorate". Unpublished dissertation. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Nursing Cairo University.

2. Alhawajreh MK. Exploring the relationship between occupational stress and organizaitional commitment among nurses in selected Jordanian hospital. Dirasat: Administrative sciences. 2013;40(1):127–43. doi: 10.12816/0000638

3. Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

4. Baba, VV and Jamal, M (1991) Routinisation of job context and job content as related to employees quality of working life: a study of psychiatric nurses. Journal of organisational behaviour. 12. 379-386.

5. Barkha Gupta (2015), An Empirical Study of Impact of Demographic Variables on Quality of Work Life among Insurance Sector Employees in Indore Division, Pacific Business Review International Volume 8, Issue 1, PP. 24-32.

6. Bhuvaneswari, P et al (2012). A study of quality of work life among employees in Neyeli Lignite Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu. The International Journal –Research journal of commerce and Behavioural Science, 1(4), 29-32.

7. Bolhari A, Rezaeean A, Bolhari J, Bairamzadeh S, Soltan AA (2011) The relationship between quality of work life and demographic characteristics of information technology staffs. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer communication and management, CSIT, vol 5, pp 374–378

8. Caught, K. and Shadur. (2000). The measurement artefact in the organizational commitment questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 87, 777-788.

9. Chandrasekar, T., and Rani, K. J. (2016). Reconnoitering the Relationship between the Quality of Work-Life and Organizational Commitment among the Employees Working in Automotive Industries, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(11), 1056. doi:10.5958/2249-7315.2016.01252.1

10. Considine, G., Callus R. (2002): The Quality of Work Life of Australian Employees – the development of an index. University of Sydney

11. Daud, N. (2010). Investigating the Relationship between QWL and Organizational Commitment amongst Employees in Malaysian Firms. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(10),75-82

12. Diraviam, D. A. (2016). A Study on Relationship between Qualities of Work Life on Organizational Commitment among Health Care Professionals. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 18(09), 76–85. doi:10.9790/487x-1809037685

13. Eren, H., and Hisar, F. (2016). Quality of work life perceived by nurses and their organizational commitment level. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 1123. doi:10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3440

14. Farid, H., Izadi, Z., Ismail, I. A., and Alipour, F. (2015). Relationship between quality of work life and organizational commitment among lecturers in a Malaysian public research university. The Social Science Journal, 52(1), 54–61. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2014.09.003

15. Francis C, U. (2014). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Demographic Factors among Oil Workers in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(8), 87–95. doi:10.9790/0837-19858795

16. Geisler, M., Berthelsen, H., and Muhonen, T. (2019). Retaining Social Workers: The Role of Quality of Work and Psychosocial Safety Climate for Work Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance, 43(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/23303131.2019.1569574

17. Gupta, B., and Hyde, A. M. (2013). Demographical Study on Quality of Work Life in Nationalized Banks. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 17(3), 223–231. doi:10.1177/0972262913496727

18. Hashempour R, Hosseinpour Ghahremanlou H, Etemadi S, Poursadeghiyan M. The Relationship Between Quality of Work Life and Organizational Commitment of Iranian Emergency Nurses. Health in Emergencies and Disasters Quarterly. 2018; 4(1):49-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.32598/hdq.4.1.49

19. Hidayah, T. N., and Windijarto, . (2018). Job Motivation, Quality Work of Life and Organization Citizen Behavior toward Organizational Commitment. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School. doi:10.5220/0007551107690773

20. Hossain, J.A. (1997). Quality of working life of industrial workers in Bangladesh: A case study. Islamic University, Bangladesh.

21. Hulpia, H., Devos, G., and Rosseel, Y. (2009). Development and validation of scores on the distributed leadership inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(6), 1013-1034

22. Jnaneswar, K. (2016). A study on the level of Quality of Work Life experienced by the Employees of Public Sector Units in Kerala, The Journal of Institute of Public Enterprise, 39 (1and2), 51-61

23. Karaaslan, A., and Aslan, M. (2018). The Relationship Between the Quality of Work and Organizational Commitment of Prison Nurses. Journal of Nursing Research, 1. doi:10.1097/jnr.0000000000000286

24. Karji, S. A., and Moslem, B. L. (2018). Quality of Work Life and its Impact on Organizational Commitment. Iraqi Administrative Sciences Journal, 2(1), 296–326. doi:10.33013/iqasj.v2n1y2018.pp296-326

25. Kelbiso, L., Belay, A., and Woldie, M. (2017). Determinants of Quality of Work Life among Nurses Working in Hawassa Town Public Health Facilities, South Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Nursing Research and Practice, 2017, 1–11. doi:10.1155/2017/5181676

26. Khatibi, A., Asadi, H., and Hamidi, M. (2009). The relationship between job stress and organizational commitment in national Olympic and Paralympics academy. World Journal of Sport Sciences, 2(4), 272278.

27. Loscocco, K. A. and Roschelle, A. R. (1991), “Influences on the quality of work and non-work life: two decades in review”, Journal of Vocational Behavior 39(2), 182–225.

28. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. (1997): Commitment in The Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

29. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., Topolnytsky, L. (2002): Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, pp. 20-52.

30. Mirvis, P. and Lawler, E. (1984). Accounting for the quality of work life. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 5, 197- 212.

31. Mohammad Amin, B., Razieh M., Saeed H. G. and Arefeh, D. T. (2014). Relationship between Organizational Perceived Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior among an Iranian hospital’s employees. Electronic physician; 6 (2)

32. Morrow, P C and Wirth R E (1989). “Work Commitment among Salaried Professionals,” Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 34(3), 40-56.

33. Nartgun S, Menep I. The analysis of perception levels of elementary school teachers with regard to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Sciences. 2010;7(1):122–31

34. Nizamettin, D. (2014). Relations between organizational commitment and demographic factors: a research in banking sector. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 10, 103–115. doi:10.7336/academicus.2014.10.08

35. Pala, F. (2008). The Effects Of Demographic Characteristics On Organizational Commitment And Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Study On Turkish Health Care Staff. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources, 10(2), 54–75. doi:10.4026/1303-2860.2008.0073.x

36. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358–384

37. Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational Behavior. 8 edition. New York: Prentice Hall.

38. Salami, S. O. (2008). Demographic and psychological factors predicting organizational commitment among industrial workers. Anthropologist, 10(1), 31-38.

39. Sepahvand, F., Atashzadeh-Shoorideh, F., Parvizy, S., and Zagheri Tafreshi, M. (2017). The relationship between some demographic characteristics and organizational commitment of nurses working in the Social Security Hospital of Khorramabad. Electronic Physician, 9(6), 4503–4509. doi:10.19082/4503

40. Seyedin H, Zaboli R, Malmoon Z, Azami S. The relationship between ethical values and organizational commitment of staff in public and non-public hospitals. Iranian Journal of Health Sciences. 2013;1(1):1–7. doi: 10.18869/acadpub.jhs.1.1.1.

41. Shoeb Ahmad (2017), The co-relation between QWL and Demographic Factors of Private University Employees in India, International Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Issue 2, pp. 286-305.

42. Swapna, M. (2015). Quality of Work Life Metrics as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: A Study with Special Reference to Information Technology Industry. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s2p170

43. Taylor, R (1979). “Career Orientations and Intra-Occupational Choice: A Survey of Engineering Students,” Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(1), 41-52

44. Tsui, K., Leung, T., Cheung, Y., Mok, H., and Ho, W., (1994): The relationship of teacher’s organizational commitment to their perceived organizational health and personal characteristics in primary schools. CUHK Journal of Primary Education, 4 (2), pp. 27-41.

45. Walton, Richard, E., 1974, Improving the quality of work life, Harvard Business Review

46. Walton, R. (1975), “Criteria for the quality of work life. In L.E. Davis and R.L. Cherns (Ed.)”, The Quality of Working Life: Problems, Prospects, and the State of the Art Vol. 1 (pp.12- 54). New York: Free Press.

47. Yaghoubi M, Karimi S, Javadi M, and A., Hassanzadeh. (2010). A Survey on Relationship between Job Stress and Three Dimensions of Organization Commitment among Nursing Managers. Scientific Journal of Hamadan Nursing and Midvifery Faculty., 18(1), 5-15.

48. Yaghoubi, M., Yarmohammadian, M.H., Raeisi, A.R., Javadi, M., Saghaiannejad, S. and Isfahani, S. (2010), The Relationship between the Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Medical Records Staffs of Selected Hospitals of Isfahan. Health information management, special issue, pp. 506-515.

Received on 21.08.2019 Modified on 28.08.2019

Asian Journal of Management. 2019; 10(3):255-262.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2019.00040.4