Demographic Variables As Moderators Between QWL and OCB: Mohit Yadav, Santosh Rangnekar and Anugamini Priya Srivastava
Demographic Variables As Moderators Between QWL and OCB: Mohit Yadav, Santosh Rangnekar and Anugamini Priya Srivastava
Demographic Variables As Moderators Between QWL and OCB: Mohit Yadav, Santosh Rangnekar and Anugamini Priya Srivastava
Introduction
The value of our employees can be witnessed by the fact that in today’s environment,
workplaces are designed to be fluid to give much-needed control of their working practice
and work outcome. As directed by Katz (1964), an organization’s survival and growth are not
only dependent on the employees’ clear understanding of their task and duties, but also to a
great extent on their willingness and also the capacity to provide voluntary innovative and
spontaneous actions to benefit the organization. The more complex the structure of the
organization, the more creativity will be required on the employee’s part. Van der Berg and
Martins (2013) stated “most individuals spend a great deal of their time participating in the job
or work-related activities and even plan their time, living standards and social interaction
around the demands of their work” (p. 8). Kotzé (2005) and Rathi (2009) found that people
use what they do at work in defining themselves, therefore making quality of work life (QWL) a
critical determinant of the quality of life of people. QWL was first introduced by Louis Davis,
developed in the First International QWL Conference (1972) in Toronto. The international
council for QWL was also established in the same year. Since then, QWL has become a way
of seeking more meaning to work and life. Serey (2006) defined QWL as “QWL includes (i) an
opportunity to exercise one’s talents and capacities, to face challenges and situations that
require independent initiative and self-direction; (ii) an activity thought to be worthwhile by the
individuals involved; (iii) an activity in which one understands the role the individual plays in the
achievement of some overall goals and (iv) a sense of taking pride in what one is doing and in
doing it well” (p. 7). QWL has become a necessity and a must for the survival of employees
Received 27 April 2018 rather than a privilege.
Revised 6 November 2018
8 June 2019 If we talk about outcomes of QWL, QWL has been linked as a contributor to work engagement
14 July 2019
Accepted 2 August 2019 (Gillet et al., 2013; Kanten and Sadullah, 2012); job performance (DinhTho et al., 2014); quality
PAGE 396 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019, pp. 396-408, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 DOI 10.1108/ICT-04-2018-0040
of life (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2012); career development (Yeo and Li, 2011); intention to leave
(Lee et al., 2013); absenteeism and turnover intentions (Philip et al., 2012); employee
perception (Bradley et al., 2010); job satisfaction (Koonmee et al., 2010); perceived
service delivery and productivity (Viljoen et al., 2014); and individual outcomes (Viljoen et al.,
2014). Studies have established organizational outcomes such as HRM practices (Yeo and
Li, 2011); human resource productivity (Barzegar et al., 2012); organizational effectiveness
(An et al., 2011); organizational commitment (Daud, 2010); and internal work environment (Viljoen
et al., 2014) as outcomes of QWL. Team spirit in a group (Koonmee et al., 2010)
has been predicted by QWL. As mentioned, QWL has been instrumental in predicting various
positive outcomes in an organization, but there is limited research on pro-social behaviour
in organizations.
Organ (1997) tried to clarify the organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) concept by saying that
OCBs are non-task-specific actions which may or may not lead to reward, and if so, the rewards
are most likely to be undefined at the time when OCB occurs. Borman (2004) further added that
OCBs are behaviours “that are not directly related to the main task activities but are important
because they support the organizational, social and psychological context that serves as the
critical catalyst for tasks to be accomplished”.
Organizations have started recognizing OCBs and try to reward it. There have been studies
showing that non-recognition and absence of reward do not deter employees from working
for beneficial outcomes for an organization such as effective knowledge management (Evans
and Davis, 2005); and organizational functioning improvements via resource efficiencies
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). But researchers have also found positive links between OCB and
positive performance appraisal, suggesting that rewarding OCB will enhance it happening
(Borman et al., 1995; MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Yadav and
Kumar, 2017). Based on this change in the working environment, many researchers have
tried to rethink the definition of OCB (Korsgaard et al., 2010). Snell and Wong (2007) defined
OCB as “Do more than is formally required in their job and contribute voluntarily to overall
effectiveness without immediate concern for formal rewards or recognition” (p. 886). Morrison
(1994) accurately noted that those behaviours which are considered as OCB for specific
position holders might be the part of in-role for individuals holding different positions
(generally higher positions).
QWL has been documented as an important variable affecting OCB. Hermawati and Mas
(2017) showed that a positive correlation was found between QWL and OCB on a sample in
Indonesia. Nair (2013), on a sample of college teachers in Kerala, India, measured the
influence of QWL on OCB behaviour using intermediate variables such as organizational
commitment. Although the sample size was small – 30 teachers – the results showed the
predicting role of QWL in enhancing OCB behaviour in employees. A similar study was
conducted by Ma et al. (2011) on hotel employees who proposed satisfaction from QWL spill
over to other employee behaviours; here the link was made between organizational
commitment and OCB. However, little research has been carried out to explore the direct
influence of QWL on OCB. Papi and Nuralizadeh (2014) conducted a study on 223 primary
school teachers in Iran and stated that QWL, along with its dimensions, has a positive relation
with OCB. Emphasizing QWL as a significant tool to attract and retain employees, Brahma
and Acharya (2014) conducted a study on hospital staff of Odisha, India and provided a
positive association between QWL and OCB in Indian organizations. However, the study was
limited to a single state of India, and hence had limited implications as the sample was also
quite small; it was not possible to generalize the results for the whole of India. Similarly, each
study showed a difference in the level of relationship between QWL and OCB and showed
context relevant justifications. This provides a gap in generalizing the results. Further, it
becomes more pertinent to examine this relation in the Indian setup. In Indian organizations,
whether private or public, most QWL initiatives are governed and presented based upon
labour legislation. Since legislation is prone to change due to environmental changes,
evaluation of the relationship between QWL and OCB becomes imperative. Thus, based on
the above discussion, the study proposes that:
H1. QWL will relate positively with OCB.
VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 397
Variations due to gender
After extensive research, a robust consensus has emerged for gender-related differences in
various job-related employee perceptions (Moncrief et al., 2000; Srivastava, 2000;
Venkatesh, et al., 2017). Kumar et al. (2015) established that not only was conduct
affected but also expectations of how each gender should behave are influenced by the
gender of a person. Based upon prejudices and perceptions surrounding the conduct of
respective genders, Indian workplaces stereotype the level and type of communication,
behaviour and conduct expected by male and female employees. Being a personal trait,
gender does impact on an employee’s perception about work, place of work and people
around them (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Yadav and Rangnekar, 2016). The interface between
prejudices and reality creates a lot of confusion and complexities in the workplace for both
genders. Srivastava (2000) stated that gender differences do exist in how job attributes are
perceived. Gilbert (1992) observed that because of societal and cultural expectations and
also parental responsibilities, females are more engrossed in family matters even at the
expense of their jobs, whereas males tend to place the job first, leading to role differences in
the workplace. Estiri et al. (2018) found a significant and positive impact of LMX and gender
on OCB but no moderation by gender between LMX and OCB. Hackett et al. (2018) found
that the positive relation between transformational leadership, LMX and OCB was weaker in
female than male employees. Also, the TL–OCB relation was mediated by LMX for male
employees only and not for their female counterparts. From a snowballed sample of 160
employees, Singh et al. (2017) found that gender positively moderated the impact of
high-quality relationships on identity freedom and OCB. These studies assert the importance
of gender in OCB studies as a moderator.
PAGE 398 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019
The present study acknowledges the importance of demographic factors in workplace
outcomes, and hence will try to test the significance of demographic factors, i.e. gender, position
and type of organization as moderators of the relationship between QWL and OCB:
H2. Gender moderates the positive relationship between QWL and OCB.
H3. Position moderates the positive relationship between QWL and OCB.
H4. Type of organization moderates the positive relationship between QWL and OCB.
Methodology
Respondents
The population of the study was drawn from employees of large Indian organizations with assets
of more than INR 1bn. The study involved male and female employees from junior, middle and
senior positions from private and public organizations, mainly from western, northern and central
parts of India. In total, 480 questionnaires were administered personally; 410 were returned
completed. In total, 35 questionnaires were found to be incomplete and therefore dropped,
leaving 375 suitable questionnaires for further analysis; this gave a 78.12 per cent acceptance
rate. The demographic profile of the sample is given in Table I.
The mean tenure of the respondents was 11 years, and the average age was 42.5 years. The
sample was male dominated with 73.33 per cent of the sample represented by male and only
26.67 per cent represented by females. The majority of the respondents held a middle-level
position in the organization (53.33 per cent), followed by junior position (27.2 per cent) and then
senior position (19.46 per cent). The majority of our participants were from public organizations
(66.4 per cent) with the remainder from private organizations (33.6 per cent).
Measure
The demographic information sections are comprised of age, gender, position, type of
organization and tenure. The responses were taken on categorical scales. Indication of gender
Age
21–25 35 (9.33%) 12 (3.2%) 23 (6.13%)
26–30 45 (12%) 26 (6.9%) 24 (6.40%)
31–35 61 (16.26%) 49 (13.06%) 17 (4.5%)
36–40 39 (10.4%) 31 (8.26%) 13 (3.4%)
40–45 51 (13.6%) 18 (4.8%) 13 (3.4%)
Above 45 144 (38.4%) 139 (37.06%) 10 (2.6%)
Organization
Public 249 (66.4%) 195 (52.8%) 54 (14.4%)
Private 126 (33.6%) 80 (21.3%) 46 (12.3%)
Position
Junior level 102 (27.2%) 61 (16.26%) 41 (10.9%)
Middle level 200 (53.33%) 170 (45.33%) 36 (9.6%)
Senior level 73 (19.46%) 45 (12%) 23 (6.2%)
Tenure
0–5 60 (16%) 33 (8.8%) 32 (8.5%)
6–10 63 (16.8%) 42 (11.2%) 26 (6.9%)
11–15 80 (21.33%) 57 (15.2%) 18 (4.8%)
16–20 90 (24%) 71 (18.9%) 14 (3.75%)
Above 20 82 (21.86%) 72 (19.2%) 10 (2.7%)
Note: Primary data
VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 399
was on a two-point scale with female represented by 1 and male by 2. A scale with options
varying from 1 (21–25 years) to 6 (above 45) was used to measure age. Tenure was also
measured with a range from 1 (0–5 years) to 5 (above 20 years). The type of organization was
shown using a two-point scale with private organization represented by 1 and public organization
represented by 2. Position was measured on a three-point scale with 1 representing the junior-
level position, 2 representing middle-level position and 3 representing the senior-level position.
QWL scale by McDonald (2001) with 53 items was taken to measure the level of QWL in the
study. The responses were shown on a five-point Likert scale with responses varying from
1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly agree”. The sample items are: “The feedback I
receive on my work from my manager/ supervisor is constructive”; “Relationships with work
colleagues are frequently a source of stress” and “I would like more opportunities to
contribute to decisions at work”.
OCB was measured on the scale adopted from Podsakoff et al. (1990); the scale consisted of 24
items. Some sample items of the questionnaire are “I help others who have heavy workloads”;
“I know how to report complaints and suggestions peacefully” and “I willingly help others who
have work-related problems”. The responses were taken on a five-point Likert scale with
responses varying from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly agree”.
Cronbach’s α values to represent the reliability of the measures of QWL and OCB were found to
be 0.825 and 0.892, respectively. As these values were both above 0.70, the measures were
considered as highly reliable with consistent responses.
Analytic approach
The analysis was performed with IBM SPSS 20. The Pearson correlation was used to determine
the relationships among variables. The Hayes (2013) SPSS PROCESS was used to check the
hypotheses under study. Model 1 of the Hayes (2013) PROCESS tool was followed to conduct
moderation analysis.
Findings
The correlation between QWL and OCB was found to be r ¼ −0.174, p o0.01. This showed that
the variables are weakly and negatively correlated with each other. Based on the correlation
result, direct effect regression analysis was conducted of QWL on OCB using SPSS 20.
Moderators
Gender
Position
Type of org.
QWL OCB
PAGE 400 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019
moderator on the dependent variable; and effect of interaction term, i.e. independent term ×
moderator on the dependent variable. Following these steps, moderation analysis was
conducted for H2–H4 using SPSS PROCESS plugin.
Confirming H1, QWL has a significant effect on OCB controlling position and type of organization.
In congruence with H2, gender significantly moderated the linkage between QWL and OCB
negatively (B ¼ −0.25, p o0.01) with ΔR2 of 0.33. This indicated that when the effect of gender is
higher, the effect of QWL on OCB declines. The conditional indirect effect for both female and
male is positive and significant at B ¼ 0.59, 95% CI [0.71, 1.27] and B ¼ 0.36, 95% CI [0.19,
0.52], respectively, showing moderation at both levels. Hence, H2 was supported. Figure 2
represents a graphical representation of this interaction, showing a clear difference in the slopes
of QWL and OCB based on gender difference, i.e. male and female (Table II).
4.6 Gender
Male
4.3 Female
4.0
OCB
3.7
3.4
3.1
2.8
2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.8
QWL
Table II Moderated model with OCB as dependent variable and gender as moderator
Model summary
R R2 F p
0.46 0.22 31.86 0.0000
Moderation model
QWL OCB 0.42 (0.30) [1.03, 2.12] 5.43***
Gender OCB 0.32 (0.56) [1.35, 3.55] 4.40***
QWL × gender OCB −0.25 (0.16) [−0.96, −0.32] −3.80**
R2 change F p-Value
QWL × gender 0.33 14.40 0.0002
VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 401
Table III shows QWL as a significant predictor of OCB (B ¼ 0.52, p o0.05) controlling gender and
type of organization. Inconsistent with the assumption for H3, position of the employees did not
moderate the connection between QWL and OCB. The insignificant interaction effect shown in
Table III showed that controlling gender and type of organization, the position of the employees
does not alter the relationship between QWL and OCB. Position of employee moderated the
relationship between QWL and OCB (B ¼ 0.07, p W0.05). Hence, H3 was not supported.
Table IV again shows QWL as a significant predictor of OCB (B ¼ 0.39, p o0.001) while
controlling the effect of gender and position of employees. In consistency with our assumption for
H4, type of organization positively and significantly moderated the relationship between QWL and
OCB as the interaction term QWL × type of organization derived a significant value (B ¼ −0.18,
po 0.01) with ΔR2 of 0.05. The conditional indirect effect for both private and public
organizations is positive and significant at B ¼ 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 0.61] and B ¼ 0.66, 95% CI
[0.46, 0.85], respectively, showing moderation at both levels. Hence, H4 was supported. Figure 3
represents a graphical representation of this interaction, showing a clear difference in the slopes
of QWL and OCB based on the type of organization, i.e. private and public.
Table III Moderated model with OCB as dependent variable and position as moderator
Model summary
R R2 F p
0.34 0.11 15.16 0.0000
Moderation model
QWL OCB 0.52 (0.20) [0.12, 0.92] 0.01*
Position OCB 0.07 (0.35) [−0.63, 0.76] 0.19
QWL × position OCB 0.00 (0.36) [−0.21, 0.20] −0.08
Test of higher order unconditional interaction
R2 change F p-Value
QWL × position 0.00 0.01 0.93
Notes: B ¼ coefficient; CI, confidence interval. *p o0.05
Source: Primary data
Table IV Moderated model with OCB as dependent variable and org. type as moderator
Model summary
R R2 F p
0.38 0.15 20.30 0.0000
Moderation model
QWL OCB 0.39 (0.26) [0.41, 0.59] 1.33**
Org. type OCB −0.18 (0.52) [−1.79, −0.22] −1.47**
QWL × type OCB 0.12 (0.15) [0.01, 0.59] 1.86**
Test of higher order unconditional interaction
R2 change F p-Value
QWL × org. type 0.05 3.48 0.0330
Conditional indirect effect of QWL at different values of org. type
Org. type Effect SE Boot 95% CI
Private 0.37 0.12 [0.14, 0.61]
Public 0.66 0.09 [0.46, 0.85]
Notes: B ¼ coefficient; CI, confidence interval. **p o0.01
Source: Primary data
PAGE 402 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019
Figure 3 Moderating role of type of organization in QWL–OCB relationship
4.4 Public
4.2
OCB
4.0
3.7
3.5
3.2
2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.8
QWL
Notes: OCB, organizational citizenship behaviour; QWL, quality of
work life
Discussion
The objective of the present study was to find the moderation effect of demographic variables,
i.e. gender, position and type of organization on the QWL–OCB relationship. Multiple regression
analysis was performed to assess the moderation level with the help of the PROCESS tool by
Hayes (2013).
VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 403
primarily expected to provide for the family. At higher QWL level, the female is afforded the space,
time and motivation to help others, whereas male employees, being transactional, perform OCB
generally to achieve something in return.
Implications
The present study signifies the importance of QWL for employees as well as the organization.
Specifically, satisfaction from QWL impacts an employee’s OCB behaviour. It has also been
demonstrated that male employees show better OCB at low QWL and female employees show
equal OCB behaviour with increased QWL experience. Also, public utility employees show better
OCB at high QWL and low OCB at low QWL, in comparison with employees from private
organizations. No significant change is found in OCB level of employees based upon variations
in QWL across levels of position. These results are undoubtedly helpful for practitioners in
providing the right kind of QWL environment so that they can encourage an employee to show
extra-role behaviour. Considering demographic variables in further amplifying and streamlining
the processes will help in providing the desired output. These demographic variables play a
PAGE 404 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019
significant role in the Indian context. A lot of debate has been generated around QWL in private vs
public organization and how this is perceived by employees. Gender, as in other parts of the
world, is also talked about at length in Indian organizations. The present study explains variations
in the QWL–OCB relationship based upon these demographics.
The study also draws some theoretical implications. Although various studies have focussed on
QWL in the Indian set-up, no study has yet focussed on how demographic differences could
affect the relation between QWL and OCB. Previous India centred research works have used
outdated research methodologies and hence have had limited impact. The present study has
used the latest moderation technique by Hayes (2013) for varied implications. Although QWL was
in focus a few decades ago, the research in it has reduced drastically. The present study is an
attempt to bring attention back to the topic by linking it with OCB.
Conclusion
The objective of the present study was to comprehend the moderating function of demographic
variables (gender, position and type of organization) on the QWL and OCB relationship. The
conclusions drawn from the findings of the study are as follows:
■ female employees are found to have lower OCB at lower QWL compared to male
counterparts but with high QWL, female employees took over male employees with high OCB
scores;
■ position failed to moderate the relationship between QWL and OCB relationship;
■ type of organization was found to significantly moderate the relationship between QWL and
OCB; and
■ public organization employees were found to have a high QWL–OCB relationship compared
to private organization employees.
References
An, J.Y., Yom, Y.H. and Ruggiero, J.S. (2011), “Organizational culture, quality of work life, and organizational
effectiveness in Korean university hospitals”, Journal of Transcultural Nursing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 22-30.
Barzegar, M., Afzal, E., Tabibi, S.J. and Delgoshaei, B. (2012), “Relationship between leadership behavior,
quality of work life and human resources productivity: data from Iran”, International Journal of Hospital
Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 60-9.
Blauner, R. (1964), Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and his Industry, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Borman, W. (2004), “The concept of organizational citizenship”, Current Directions in Psychological Science,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 238-41.
Borman, W.C., White, L.A. and Dorsey, D.W. (1995), “Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal
factors on supervisor and peer ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 168-77.
Bradley, L., Brown, K., Lingard, H., Townsend, K. and Bailey, C. (2010), “Talking the talk and walking the
walk: how managers can influence the quality of work-life balance in a construction project”, International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 589-603.
VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 405
Brahma, P.K. and Acharya, S.K. (2014), “A review on relationship between quality of work life and
organizational citizenship behaviour in healthcare sector”, EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Management Studies, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 105-19.
Chauhan, S.P. and Chauhan, D. (2007), “Emotional intelligence: does it influence decision making and role
efficacy?”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 217-38.
Crewson, P.E. (1997), “Public-service motivation: building empirical evidence of incidence and effect”, Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 499-518.
Daud, N. (2010), “Quality of work life and organizational commitment amongst academic staff: empirical
evidence from Malaysia”, 2010 International Conference on Education and Management Technology, IEEE,
November, pp. 271-5.
DinhTho, N., Dong Phong, N. and Ha Minh Quan, T. (2014), “Marketers’ psychological capital and
performance: the mediating role of quality of work life, job effort and job attractiveness”, Asia-Pacific Journal of
Business Administration, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-48.
Estiri, M., Amiri, N.S., Khajeheian, D. and Rayej, H. (2018), “Leader-member exchange and organizational
citizenship behavior in hospitality industry: a study on effect of gender”, Eurasian Business Review, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 267-84.
Evans, W.R. and Davis, W.D. (2005), “High-performance work systems and organizational performance: the
mediating role of internal social structure”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 758-75.
Gilbert, R.K. (1992), “Revisiting the psychology of men Robert Bly and the mytho-poetic movement”, Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 41-67.
Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Bonnaud-Antignac, A., Mokounkolo, R. and Colombat, P. (2013), “The mediating
role of organizational justice in the relationship between transformational leadership and nurses’ quality
of work life: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 50 No. 10,
pp. 1359-67.
Hackett, R.D., Wang, A.C., Chen, Z., Cheng, B.S. and Farh, J.L. (2018), “Transformational leadership and
organisational citizenship behaviour: a moderated mediation model of leader-member-exchange and
subordinates’ gender”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 617-44.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-
based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hegtvedt, K.A. and Markovsky, B. (1995), “Justice and injustice”, in Cook, K.S., Fine, G.A. and House, J.S.
(Eds), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 257-80.
Hermawati, A. and Mas, N. (2017), “Mediation effect of quality of worklife, job involvement, and organizational
citizenship behavior in relationship between transglobal leadership to employee performance”, International
Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 1143-58.
Kaiser, R.B. and Craig, S.B. (2011), “Do the behaviors related to managerial effectiveness really change with
organizational level? An empirical test”, The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-119.
Kanten, S. and Sadullah, O. (2012), “An empirical research on relationship quality of work life and work
engagement”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 62, pp. 360-6.
Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behavior”, Behavioral Science, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 131-46.
Koonmee, K., Singhapakdi, A., Virakul, B. and Lee, D.J. (2010), “Ethics institutionalization, quality of work life,
and employee job-related outcomes: a survey of human resource managers in Thailand”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 20-6.
Korsgaard, M.A., Meglino, B.M., Lester, S.W. and Jeong, S.S. (2010), “Paying you back or paying me
forward: understanding rewarded and unrewarded organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 277-90.
Kotzé, M. (2005), “The nature and development of the construct of quality of work life”, Acta Academica,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 96-107.
Kumar, R., Philip, P.J. and Sharma, C. (2015), “Energy efficient marketing through demographic
differentiation”, in Kumar, R., Kaushik, N., Solke, A., Firoz, M. and Jha, M.K. (Eds), Advances in Management
for Business Excellence, Manakin Press, New Delhi, pp. 436-41.
PAGE 406 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019
Lee, Y.W., Dai, Y.T., Park, C.G. and McCreary, L.L. (2013), “Predicting quality of work life on nurses’ intention
to leave”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 160-8.
McDonald, A.S. (2001), User’s Guide: Quality of Working Life, NFERNELSON, Berkshire.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Fetter, R. (1991), “Organizational citizenship behavior and objective
productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salesperson’s performance”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 123-50.
Ma, Y., Ma, Q.H., Yu, H. and Hao, J.J. (2011), “Quality of work life and employee outcomes: a survey of
employees in hotel business”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 171 No. 1, pp. 433-6.
Markovits, Y., Davis, A.J. and Van Dick, R. (2007), “Organizational commitment profiles and job satisfaction
among Greek private and public sector employees”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 77-99.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 370-96.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Moncrief, W.C., Babakus, E., Cravens, D.W. and Johnston, M.W. (2000), “Examining gender differences in
field sales organizations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 245-57.
Morrison, E.W. (1994), “Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the
employee’s perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1543-67.
Mumford, T.V., Campion, M.A. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “The leadership skills strataplex: leadership skill
requirements across organizational levels”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 154-66.
Nair, G.S. (2013), “A study on the effect of quality of work life (QWL) on organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) –
with special reference to college teachers is Thrissur District, Kerala”, Integral Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 34-46.
Nguyen, T.D. and Nguyen, T.T. (2012), “Psychological capital, quality of work life, and quality of life of
marketers evidence from Vietnam”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 87-95.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human Performance,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Page, C., Wilson, M., Meyer, D. and Inkson, K. (2003), “ ‘It’s the situation I’m in’: the importance of managerial
context to effectiveness”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 841-62.
Papi, A. and Nuralizadeh, R. (2014), “Investigating the relationship between the quality of work life and the
emergence of organizational citizenship behavior among primary school teachers in Andimeshk”, International
Journal on New Trends In Education And Literature, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 32-44.
Philip, P.J., Kumar, R. and Choudhary, N. (2012), “Relationship between organization citizenship behavior
and organization justice at work place”, Journal of Ninth AIMS International Conference on Management,
Vol. 1-4, pp. 1215-21.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 351-63.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviors
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-63.
Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J.K. and Pruitt, B. (2002), Beyond Work-Family Balance: Advancing Gender
Equity and Workplace Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rathi, N. (2009), “Relationship of quality of work life with employees’ psychological well-being”, International
Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Serey, T.T. (2006), “Choosing a robust quality of work life”, Business Forum, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 7-10.
Singh, B., Selvarajan, T.R. and Chapa, O. (2017), “This is who I am: role of identity freedom and gender in
relationship quality-OCB relationship”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2017 No. 1, pp. 15-21.
VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 407
Snell, R. and Wong, Y. (2007), “Differentiating good soldiers from good actors”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 883-909.
Srivastava, A.P. (2017), “Teachers’ extra role behaviour: relation with self-efficacy, procedural justice,
organisational commitment and support for training”, International Journal of Management in Education,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 140-62.
Srivastava, A.P. and Dhar, R.L. (2019), “Authentic leadership and extra role behavior: a school based
integrated model”, Current Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 684-97.
Srivastava, M. (2000), “Impact of age and sex on materialism”, in Dhar, U., Dhar, S., Srivastava, M. and
Rangnekar, S. (Eds), People Processes and Organisation: Emerging Realities, Excel Books, New Delhi,
pp. 31-6.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour”, in Worchel, S. and
Austin, W.D. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Van der Berg, Y. and Martins, N. (2013), “The relationship between organisational trust and quality of work
life”, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Venkatesh, V., Windeler, J.B., Bartol, K.M. and Williamson, I.O. (2017), “Person-organization and person-job
fit perceptions of new it employees: work outcomes and gender differences”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 525-58.
Viljoen, A., Kruger, S. and Saayman, M. (2014), “Understanding the role that quality of work life of food and
beverage employees plays in perceived service delivery and productivity”, Southern African Business Review,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 27-52.
Wharton, A.S. and Baron, J.N. (1991), “Satisfaction? The psychological impact of gender segregation on
women at work”, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 365-87.
Yadav, M. and Kumar, A. (2017), “An Indian outlook on role clarity, organizational citizenship behavior, and
gender relationship: multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) approach”, Jindal Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 63-75.
Yadav, M. and Rangnekar, S. (2016), “Role clarity and organizational citizenship behaviour: does tenure
matter? A study on Indian power sector”, Global Business Review, Vol. 17 No. S3, pp. 207S-24S.
Yeo, R.K. and Li, J. (2011), “Working out the quality of work life: a career development perspective with
insights for human resource management”, Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 39-45.
Further reading
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression, Sage Publishing, Beverly Hills, CA.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 51 No. 6, p. 1173.
Perry, J.L. and Rainey, H.G. (1988), “The public-private distinction in organization theory: a critique and
research strategy”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 182-201.
Wettenhall, R. (2003), “The rhetoric and reality of public-private partnerships”, Public Organization Review,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 77-107.
Wharton, A.S. and Baron, J.N. (1987), “So happy together? the impact of gender segregation on men at
work”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 574-87.
Corresponding author
Mohit Yadav can be contacted at: mohitaug@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
PAGE 408 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 7/8 2019