The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0972-7981.htm

The relationship between quality Thebetween

relationship
QWL
of work life and work life and WLB-
mediating role
balancemediating role of job stress,
job satisfaction and job
commitment: evidence from India Received 19 May 2020
Revised 3 June 2020
19 July 2020
Alex Aruldoss Accepted 23 July 2020
Department of Commerce (Bank Management) and Business Administration
(Computer Applications), St. Joseph’s College of Arts and Science (Autonomous),
Cuddalore, India, and
Kellyann Berube Kowalski and Satyanarayana Parayitam
Department of Management and Marketing, Charlton College of Business,
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between quality of work-life (QWL) and
work-life balance (WLB).
Design/methodology/approach – Using a structured survey instrument, this paper gathered data from 445
respondents in cosmopolitan city in southern part of India. First psychometric properties of the instrument
were tested, and then hierarchical regression was used as a statistical technique for analyzing the data.
Findings – The hierarchical regression results indicated that QWL is (1) negatively related to job stress, (2)
positively related to job satisfaction and (3) positively related to job commitment. The results also indicated that
(1) job stress is negatively related to WLB, (2) job satisfaction is positively related to WLB and (3) job
commitment is positively related to WLB. The results also show partial mediation of job stress, job satisfaction,
and job commitment in the relationship between QWL and WLB.
Research limitations/implications – Since the present research is based on self-report measures, the
limitations of social desirability bias and common method bias are inherent. However, sufficient care is taken to
minimize these limitations. The research has implications for human resource managers in work organizations.
Practical implications – This study contributes to both practicing managers and the literature on human
resource management. The study suggests that employers need to be aware of the importance of quality of
work-life and work-life balance in achieving organizational effectiveness.
Social implications – The study is expected to contribute to the welfare of the society in terms of identifying
the antecedents of work-life balance.
Originality/value – This study provides new insights about the effects of QWL on WLB through mediating
variables. This is a conceptual model developed and tested and first of its kind in India.
Keywords Quality of work life, Work life balance, Job satisfaction, Job stress, Job commitment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Two concepts receiving increasing attention by researchers in the field of organizational
behavior and human resource management are quality of work-life (QWL) and work-life
balance (WLB). Today’s organizations must compete for the best talent; for employees who
expect to be able to successfully manage both their work and nonwork roles. A better
understanding of QWL and WLB is thus important as they have been found to correlated Journal of Advances in
Management Research
with variables such as employee well-being, performance and organizational citizenship © Emerald Publishing Limited
0972-7981
behavior (Abdirahman et al., 2020; Pradhan et al., 2016; Singh and Chaudhary, 2019; Thakur DOI 10.1108/JAMR-05-2020-0082
JAMR and Sharma, 2019). Organizations that offer WLB initiatives and where employees are seen as
having a high QWL are more likely to be able to attract and retain workers (Beauregard and
Henry, 2009; Konrad and Mengel, 2000).
QWL is defined as “the quality of relationship between employees and the total work
environment” (Feldman, 1993). It is a multidimensional construct and includes job
security, training and career advancement, empowerment, reward systems and the overall
work environment. Essentially QWL is aimed at maintaining employee satisfaction, trust
in the organization, collegiality and cooperation among employees, recognition of
employees at work, and a safe working environment (Saraji and Dangahi, 2006).
Researchers contend that QWL is a favorable working environment that enhances
satisfaction by providing employees with rewards, job safety and security, and career
opportunities (Lau et al., 2001).
Extant research supports that QWL reduces employee turnover (Louis and Smith, 1990)
and increases organizational commitment (Bala et al., 2019; Daud, 2010). There is growing
research evidence that poor working conditions, increase in workload, imbalance of work,
lack of involvement in decision making, and poor relationships with supervisors are major
barriers in the improvement of QWL in organizations (Ellis and Pompli, 2002). Recent
research on QWL in many different countries, including Egypt (El Badawy, Chinta and
Magdy, 2018), Thailand (Dechawatanapaisal, 2017), UAE (Jabeen et al., 2018), Malaysia
(Surienty et al., 2014), Sri Lanka (Ramawickrama et al., 2019), Iran (Hashempour et al., 2018),
Ghana (Ojedokun et al., 2015), Nigeria (Kwahar and Iyortsuun, 2018), Philippines (Ong et al.,
2019) and India (Bala et al., 2019) support that QWL is very important and has positive
outcomes.

Literature review
Work-life balance (WLB) is another important construct that organizational researchers have
been addressing for over the last two decades. It has been defined as a balance between the
emotional, behavioral and time demands of both paid work and personal and family
responsibilities (Hill et al., 2001). A changing organizational landscape has resulted in a
growing interest in work-life balance. Further, changes in conditions in labor markets,
changes in demographic profiles of employees, increase in working hours, and conditions in
the home environment require employees to maintain a happy balance between work and life
(Helmle et al., 2014).
WLB is said to be achieved when there is harmony (not conflict) between work and life
(Lawson et al., 2013; Semlali and Hassi, 2016). Work includes all the activities performed by an
employee in organizations whereas life comprises all the activities not related to work that
include household chores, childcare, adult care and care of old-age parents and relations. It is
contended that employees are healthy and contribute to organizations by working long hours
when there is work-life balance (Joo and Lee, 2017; Nielsen et al., 2008).
Some researchers documented that QWL is significantly and positively related to
psychological well-being of employees (Hardjanti et al., 2017). A study by Chan and Wyatt
(2007) revealed that WLB is positively related to organizational commitment and employee
well-being. Grawitch et al. (2007) reported that when employees are satisfied with the
workplace, the positive outcomes included employee involvement, growth, development,
recognition and psychological well-being. It is also important to remember that
organizational commitment is also positively related to employee well-being (Jain et al.,
2009). Available empirical evidence suggests that individual well-being benefits both
organizations and society; benefits organization by increased motivation, productivity and
decreased absenteeism and turnover; benefits society because psychological health of The relationship
individuals results in family satisfaction (Burke, 2000; Grady et al., 2008). between QWL
and WLB-
Rationale and motivation for the present study mediating role
Despite considerable research QWL and WLB, the research linking these two is very sparse.
Most studies (Bhatt, 2018; Dechawatanapaisal, 2017; Surienty et al., 2014; Veeraiah and
Manchala, 2012) that have included both QWL and WLB have considered WLB a component
or dimension of QWL. More specifically, earlier researchers have researchers have studied
the antecedents of WLB and consequences of QWL of employees in organizations (Bataineh,
2019; Soomro et al., 2018). A thorough literature review reveals that there is no specific model
tying these two pieces together. Researchers have suggested that QWL is negatively related
to job stress, and positively related to job satisfaction and commitment (Guthrie, 2012). Some
documented that WLB results in employee socialization with community, enhances
productivity following the traditional hypothesis that “happy worker is a productive
worker” (Helme et al., 2014; Joo and Lee, 2017). Human resource management scholars also
contend that healthy employees work for long hours and contribute to the success of
organization (Nielsen et al., 2008). Available empirical evidence suggests that employees
experiencing higher quality of work-life feel less stress at work, which eventually enhances
job satisfaction and life satisfaction (Koubova and Buchko, 2013; Shaffer et al., 2016). While
the previous studies have discussed the importance and consequences of work-life balance,
there is considerable gap in connecting both constructs WLB and QWL. The present study is
aimed at bridging the gap examining the relationship between WLB and QWL by developing
and testing a conceptual model. More specifically, mediating role of three importance
variables, namely, job stress, job satisfaction and job commitment in the relationship between
QWL and WLB balance is examined.
Another motivation for our study is the focus on India. Most of the studies India dealt with
measuring various components of QWL and strategies for improvement such as self-
managed work teams, job redesign and enrichment, effective leader behavior, job security
and organizational justice (Harsish and Subhashini, 2014). The role of workplace flexibility
was emphasized to improve QWL in Indian context (Rastogi et al., 2018). Though studies
focused on the drivers of QWL in terms of working conditions, HR interventions,
organizational commitment, surprisingly no study to date has attempted to examine the
influence of QWL on WLB.
It is also important to note that majority of QWL and WLB studies were conducted in
reference to Western and European countries (e.g. USA, Netherlands, Turkey) there is a
dearth of studies to examine the relationships between QWL and WLB in Indian context
(Havlovic, 1991; Kanten and Sadullah, 2012; Janes and Wisnom, 2011). We wanted to explore
whether employees in India perceive the same constructs QWL and WLB in the same way as
employees in western world as the working conditions and environment in India is radically
different from other countries. In this sense, this is exploratory research. Finally, India, being
second most populated country with low wage rates, has attracted several western
companies to start their operations through outsourcing and it is necessary to study the
perceptions of QWL and WLB in the rapidly changing growth-driven economy. To sum up,
we developed and texted a conceptual model on employees in the public transportation sector
in India. The proposed model extends our current understanding of QWL and WLB in several
ways. First, instead of studying WLB as a component of QWL, the relationship between them
as two separate variables is examined. Second, theories and findings are used to explain the
relationship of QWL and WLB through three mediators, namely, job stress, job satisfaction
and job commitment. The theoretical background for the proposed model will be
discussed next.
JAMR Theoretical foundation of the research
The theoretical background for the present study comes from (1) need satisfaction theory and
(2) spillover theory. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954), achievement-motivation
theory (McClelland, 1961), two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1966) and existence-relatedness-
growth theory (Alderfer, 1972) are the basic foundations of the need satisfaction theory.
According to the need satisfaction theory, employees whose basic needs are fulfilled through
workplace experiences will derive satisfaction from the jobs they perform (Sirgy et al., 2001).
Spillover theory (Frischman, 2009) posits that one domain will have a spillover effect on other
domains. For example, if employees are satisfied at jobs, it may have a positive spillover effect
on health, family, friends, colleagues, etc. As Sirgy et al. (2001) explain, there are two types of
spillover, namely, horizontal and vertical. Horizontal spillover is concerned with the effect one
domain may have on the neighboring domains. A simple example is that the effect of job
satisfaction may be felt in life satisfaction. When we organize the domains in a hierarchy (life
satisfaction representing the upper domain, family, leisure, and community represent lower
domains), with the effect of one domain influencing the other domain vertically, it is called
vertical spillover. Spillover is “ubiquitous in the sense that the spillovers flow across and
within various interdependent systems (variables) in ways that are not easily observed,
appreciated and quantified. . .” (Frischman, 2009, p. 823).
Based on need theory and spillover theory, it can be postulated that QWL affects job
satisfaction and other variables which may affect other life domains such as family,
colleagues, finance and leisure (Sirgy et al., 2001). Applying these two theories, we have
developed a model (Figure 1) to explain the relationship of QWL and WLB as mediated by job
stress, job satisfaction and job commitment. We will now discuss each connection in
the model.
The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1.

Development of hypotheses
Effect of QWL on job stress
Stress of employees on the job has been an exhaustively researched area in the field of
organizational behavior (Cooper and Marshall, 1976; Ivancevich and Matteson ,1980). Job
stress, also known as occupational stress (Frone, 1990) or work stress, occurs when there is a
mismatch between an employee’s capabilities, resources and needs, and the job requirements.
Job stress is concerned with psychological and physiological reactions to the conditions in the
workplace which may have deleterious consequences on the health of individuals (Williams
and Hazer, 1986). Some of the adverse working conditions include overcrowding, excessive
noise and extreme temperatures (McGrath, 1976).

Job Stress

H1 H7a H4

H2
H5
Quality of Work Life Job Sasfacon Work Life Balance

H7b

H3 H6
Figure 1. Job Commitment
Conceptual model
H7c
 Previous researchers have identified several causes of job stress, namely, role conflict, The relationship
frequent downsizing by organizations, reduction of employee benefits, organizations between QWL
demanding the employees to work overtime to meet the targets within deadlines, and merger
activities of top management teams that may dislocate the employees (Cox and Griffiths,
and WLB-
1995). Additional reasons for job stress range from non-cooperation between the employees to mediating role
the ill-treatment of supervisors. Job stress also may result from an inconvenient work
environment, job conflict, role conflict and working conditions (Schuler, 1982). Employees
also feel stressed when they are asked to work overtime without any prior notice and expect
the employees to accept it unconditionally. Behr and Glazer (2001) reported that job stressors
such as working conditions, expectations from management, workload and non-collegiality
among employees adversely affect the health of individuals. Seibt et al. (2009) reported that
job stress can be reduced by improving working conditions in organizations. Enhancing the
QWL should lead to lower job stress. Based on the above, we hypothesize:
H1. Quality of work life is negatively related to job stress.

Effect of QWL on job satisfaction

In the fields of organizational behavior and applied psychology, job satisfaction is one of the
most widely studied variables (Lawler and Porter, 1967; Locke and Latham, 1990; Spector,
1997). Managers in organizations give priority to job satisfaction of employees (Y€ ucel, 2012).
From a utilitarian and humanitarian standpoint, it is very important that employees who are
satisfied on their jobs are expected to contribute to the organization (Abdallah et al., 2017;
Parvin and Kabir, 2011). Previous research has demonstrated that QWL has a positive effect
on job satisfaction in that individuals who have high level of QWL are likely to experience a
higher level of job satisfaction (Danna and Griffin, 1999). More recent research has confirmed
this relationship. Jabeen et al. (2018) found that QWL had a significant positive effect on job
satisfaction in a sample of Emiranti women employed in various public sector organizations
in the UAE. Results of a study exploring the association of job satisfaction with the QWL
factors of bank employees in India showed that the unconducive work environment had a
negative association with job satisfaction. Sirgy et al. (2001) contend that individuals consider
work-life as a psychological space wherein the experiences related to work are stored, and
these experiences will enhance job satisfaction. Based on previous research, we hypothesize:
H2. Quality of work life is positively related to job satisfaction.

Effect of QWL on job commitment

Another extensively researched variable in the organizational behavior literature is job, or
organizational, commitment. Commitment is a psychological state that binds an individual to
an organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). In their research, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002)
found that QWL is one of the most important antecedents of organizational commitment. In
fact, research through the years has documented that QWL has a significant positive effect on
organizational commitment (Anuradha and Pandey, 1995; Efraty and Sirgy, 1990; Fields and
Thacker, 1992; Huang et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2007). More recent research on diverse samples in
multiple countries has confirmed these findings. Ojedokon et al. (2015) found that QWL was
positively related to organizational commitment for public sector employees in Ghana. Using
Structural Equation Modeling, QWL was found to be a statistically significant antecedent of
organizational commitment for university teachers in India (Khan and Khan, 2017).
Additional positive relationships between QWL and organizational commitment were found
in samples of Iranian emergency nurses (Hashempour et al., 2018), Sri Lankan railway station
masters (Ramawickrama et al., 2019), Filipino public health practitioners (Ong et al., 2019) and
Indian university faculty members (Bala et al., 2019). Based on need satisfaction theory, Sirgy
JAMR et al. (2001) contend that employees who are high on QWL experience satisfaction of seven
needs, namely, health and safety needs, economic and family needs, social needs, esteem
needs, actualization needs, knowledge needs and aesthetic needs. Higher QWL leads to
positive feelings about the organization and employees tend to exhibit commitment. Based on
the previous research, we hypothesize:
H3. Quality of work life is positively related to job commitment.

Effect of job stress on WLB

The equilibrium between family and work has received attention since the mid-1960s when
Kahn et al. (1964) emphasized work-family conflicts as a significant source of job stress.
Organizations therefore attempt to reduce work-family conflicts by providing flexible work
schedules, childcare, parental leave and other initiatives (Emslie and Hunt, 2009; Hon and
Chan, 2013; Pasamar and Cabrera, 2013). In their research Helmle et al. (2014) found that
organizational initiatives of work-life balance have a negative correlation with job stress.
Previous researchers have found that family problems, financial crises and conflicts between
demands from company and home are potential stressors of employees at work (Weinberg
et al., 2010). It was documented that work-family conflicts lead to job stress, in addition to the
working conditions in organizations (White et al., 2013). Although most previous research has
examined the effect of WLB on job stress, there have been some studies that have examined
the effect of job stress on WLB. The results of a study on female faculties in central
universities of Delhi, India, indicate that there is a strong negative relationship between
occupational stress and work-life balance (Zaheer et al., 2015). Also, perceived job stress was
associated with poorer work-life balance, and increased conflict between academics’ work
and personal lives (Bell et al., 2012). As postulated in spillover theory, effects of one life
domain spillover into others, thus employees who feel more stress at work are more likely to
experience imbalance in the home and work. Based on the above, we hypothesize:
H4. Job stress is negatively related to work life balance.

Effect of job satisfaction on work-life balance

While previous researchers studied the effects of job satisfaction on employee performance,
the relationship between job satisfaction and WLB has been very rarely examined (Daud,
2010). Most of the previous research has focused on the effect of WLB on job satisfaction,
rather than the other way around. An exception being a study of the impact of work-life
balance on women doctors is India that found work-life balance has a positive impact on job
satisfaction (Anuradha and Pandey, 2016). Though it is very difficult to specify the exact
sequence of relationships between job satisfaction and WLB, it can be logically argued that
employees who are happy at work are quite likely to bring balance between work and home
than those who are not. Job dissatisfaction may have spillover effects on WLB as employees
tend to carry forward the feelings they encounter in organizations to the home and life.
Seventy years of research on the association between happiness of workers and productivity
in the workplace has not been confirmed. However, there is a consensus that a happy
employee will become more productive (Joo and Lee, 2017). By being productive, employees
generate more revenue and get financial benefits, in addition to intrinsic satisfaction from
jobs (Koubova and Buchko, 2013). Since WLB is concerned with an appropriate time-sharing
ratio between family and work, it is more likely that employees who are happy on the job are
likely to maintain a happy balance between work and life. Based on the above, we
hypothesize:
H5. Job satisfaction is positively related to work-life balance.
Effect of job commitment on work-life balance The relationship
The accumulated research on job commitment, or organizational commitment, over the last between QWL
seven decades has focused on the antecedents and consequences (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986).
However, very little research has been done to find the relationship between job commitment
and WLB-
and WLB. Most studies that have examined the job commitment WLB relationship have looked mediating role
at job commitment as a consequence of WLB not as an antecedent. For example, a study on
women in the US construction industry found that balance between work and personal time
had a positive effect on organizational commitment (Malone and Issa, 2013). Another study
found a positive correlation between work-life balance variables and organizational
commitment for bank employees in India (Vijaya and Hemamalini, 2012). Other studies have
tested for and found a mediating effect of organizational commitment on the relationship
between WLB and organizational citizenship behavior (Pradhan, et al., 2016) or organizational
performance (Oyewobi et al., 2019). Studies that have examined organizational commitment as
an antecedent of WLB have been limited. In their study on the mediation effects of
organizational commitment on the relationship of WLB and organizational performance,
Oyewobi et al. (2019), did also find that there was a positive relationship between WLB and
organizational commitment. We postulate that increased job commitment has a potential for
employees to maintain balance between work and life. Based on the above, we hypothesize:
H6. Job commitment is positively related to work-life balance.

Mediation effects of effect of job stress, job satisfaction, and job commitment
QWL plays a vital role in WLB of employees in organizations. Many studies examine the
direct effects of QWL on WLB and other outcomes. However, the effects of QWL are
predicated on the underlying processes that churn up in cognitive processes of individuals.
Based on need-based and stress theories, we propose that the effects of QWL on WLB will be
mediated by several variables. The most important variables, in our study, are job stress, job
satisfaction and job commitment. Recent studies have shown the importance of commitment
and job satisfaction as mediators (Bhola and Nigade, 2016; Miryala and Chiluka, 2012).
Roughly about two decades Sirgy (2001) demonstrated that there is a causal sequence of
quality of work-life to life satisfaction through job satisfaction. In one study conducted in
India, the relationship between the perception of QWL and WLB was positive and significant
in employees of electronic industry (Kumar and Udayasuriyan, 2008). Bilal et al. (2010)
documented that organizational policies reflected in terms of QWL are positively related to
job satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intentions and enhanced the WLB of
employees. Based on the above, we hypothesize:
H7a. Job stress fully mediates the relationship between QWL and WLB.
H7b. Job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between QWL and WLB.
H7c. Job commitment fully mediates the relationship between QWL and WLB.

Method
Sample: Data was collected from employees of a transport corporation in southern part of
India. For the purpose of this research a survey instrument was developed. The instrument
was distributed to bus drivers and conductors. In all, 610 survey questionnaires were sent to
the respondents. Out of these, one hundred were incomplete and sixty-five were re-submitted
without filling out any information. This gave the researchers 445 fully completed surveys,
which were used in data analysis.
JAMR Demographic profile of respondents
India, being agrarian economy, seventy percent of the people live in villages. Since India was
under British rule for over two hundred and fifty years, the transportation system in India
was primarily on the British system where people depended on public transportation. The
transportation sector plays a major role in providing conveyance to 1.37 billion people. India’s
transport sector is large and diverse and contributes to around 6% of nation’s GDP, of which
road transportation contributes the major share. Some of the challenges in road transport are
congested roads, poor maintenance, deterioration of roads, and high cost of maintenance. The
demand for transport infrastructure and services is ever increasing with the growing
population and urbanization. The employees in the transport sector encounter many
problems of adjusting their working hours to meet the growing demands and providing
emergency services during the festive season when Governments launch special buses to
transport pilgrims from one place to another.
The summary of demographic characteristics of respondents is presented in Table 1
A review of demographic profiles reveals that 61.1% of the respondents are drivers and
38.9% are conductors. As far as educational qualifications are concerned, 38% of the
respondents taken for the study are Senior Secondary school qualified, 28.8% are secondary
qualified, 12.8 diploma holders, 7% are post-graduation, 6.5% are undergraduates. In terms
of age, 44.3% of the respondents are in the age group 31–40 years, 25.4% are between 41 and
50 years, 16% are between 21 and 30 years, 14.4% are above 50 years. About 59.1% of the
respondents hold a permanent post, 35.3% are on contract basis, and 5.6% are part-time. As
for experience, 32.1% of the respondents have 5–10 years of experience, 24.9% have 15–20
years of experience, 19.6% have above 20 years of experience, 17.5% have between 10 and 15
years of experience, and only 5.8% have five years of experience. The analysis of income of
respondents reveals that 6.1% of the respondents earn an annual income up to Rs. 250,000
($3,500), 22.5% earn between Rs. 250,000 to Rs. 500,000 ($3,500 –$7,000), 11.5% earn between
Rs.500,000 to Rs. 1,000,000 ($7,500 to $15,000). Regarding marital status, 90.6% of
respondents are married, 6.7% are unmarried, 2.5% are single, and 0.2% are widowed. The
profile of the number of children of respondents in this study reveals that about 34.4% of the
respondents have five children, 23.8% have four children, 11% have three children, 13.9%
have two children, 11% have one child, and 5.8% have above five children.

Measures
The study included five main variables and four control variables. The measures were
previously used by researchers were modified to suit the context and purpose.
Quality of work-life: QWL was measured using 15 items adapted from Walton (1973) and
Sirgy et al. (2001) representing seven dimensions, namely, growth and development,
participation, physical environment, supervision, pay and benefits, social relevance, and
workplace integration. Some sample items read as: “I get cooperation from other
departments”; “I receive adequate and proper communication from my supervisors”;
“Relationship with immediate supervisors is good.” The reliability coefficient Cronbach’s
alpha for this measure is 0.724.
Job Stress: Job stress was measured using 12 items adapted from Judge et al. (1994), Shukla
and Srivastava (2016) and some sample items read as: “I do not get job-related diseases in
PRTC”; “Sound pollution does not affect the working maneuverability”; “Seat condition of the
PRTC buses is good.” The reliability coefficient Cronbach alpha for this measure was 0.750.
Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction was measured using 16 items. Some sample items read as:
“I am satisfied with my responsibility in PRTC”; I am happy about the work itself in PRTC”; “
I get recognition in my work at PRTC.” The reliability coefficient Cronbach alpha for this
measure was 0.832.
Variable Number %
The relationship
between QWL
Designation and WLB-
Drivers 272 61.1
Conductors 173 38.9 mediating role
Total 445 100
Region-wise distribution
Pondicherry 318 71.5
Karaikal 102 22.9
Mahe 13 2.9
Yanam 12 2.7
Total 445 100
Educational qualification
Post-graduation 31 7.0
Under-graduation 29 6.5
Diploma 57 12.8
ITI 31 7.0
Higher secondary 128 28.8
SSLC 169 38.0
Total 445 100
Age 21 to 30 71 16.0
31 to 40 197 44.3
41 to 50 113 25.4
Above 50 years 64 14.4
Total 445 100
Nature of employment
Permanent 263 59.1
Contract 157 35.3
Part-time 25 5.6
Total 445 100
Experience
5 years 26 5.8
5–10 years 143 32.1
10–15 years 78 17.5
15–20 years 111 24.9
Above 20 years 87 19.6
Total 445 100
Marital status
Married 403 90.6
Unmarried 30 6.7
Single 11 2.5
Widower 1 0.2
Total 445 100
Annual income
Up to Rs. 250,000 294 66.1
Rs. 250,000 to Rs. 500,000 100 22.5
Rs. 500,000 to Rs. 1,000,000 51 11.5
Total 445 100
Family structure
Nuclear 270 60.57
Joint 175 38.43
Total 445 Table 1.
Demographic profile of
(continued ) respondents
JAMR Variable Number %

Number of children
1 48 11.0
2 62 13.9
3 49 11.0
4 106 23.8
5 153 34.4
Above 5 27 5.8
Total 445 100
Age group of children
Less than 5 years 44 9.9
5–10 years 222 49.9
10–15 years 175 39.3
15–20 years 3 0.7
Above 20 years 1 0.2
Total 445 100
Elderly dependents
No one 241 54.2
One 160 36.0
Two 41 9.2
More than two 3 0.6
Total 445 100
Spouse occupation
Housewife 77 17.3
Private sector employees 54 12.1
Public sector employees 31 7.0
Government employees 27 6.1
Own business 7 1.6
Others 249 56.0
Total 445 100
Working hours per week
Up to 57 h 257 57.8
58–67 h 140 31.5
68–77 h 47 10.6
Above 77 h 1 0.2
Table 1. Total 445 100

Job Commitment: Job commitment was measured using 13 items adapted from Meyer et al.
(1993). Some sample items read as: “I am responsible for my duties”;”I am not taking leave
frequently”; “I am obeying the orders by superiors.” The alpha for this measure is 0.879.
Work-life balance: Work-life balance was measured using six items. Some sample items
read as: “I have an adequate time to spend with the family even if I work in PRTC”; “ I have
sufficient time to take care of my children even if I work in PRTC”; “ I have enough time to
take care of elderly dependents even if I work in PRTC.” The reliability coefficient alpha for
this measure is 0.911.
The psychometric properties of the instrument (confirmatory factor analysis),
standardized loadings, reliability, variance, and the variance extracted estimate are
presented in Table 2.
The goodness of fit index of CFA are: χ 5 219.599 (p < 0.001); RMR 5 0.042; GFI 5 0.927;
NFI 5 0.939; CFI 5 0.941. All these indices indicate significance of model fit.
 Reliability
The relationship
coefficient Average Variance- between QWL
Cronbach Standardized Reliability Variance Extracted Σ(λ2yi)/ and WLB-
Measure alpha Loadings (λyi) (λ2yi) (Var(εi)) [(λ2yi) þ (Var(εi))]
mediating role
Quality of Work-Life 0.72 0.60
I get cooperation from 0.77 0.60 0.40
other departments
I receive adequate and 0.79 0.63 0.37
proper communication
from my supervisors
Relationship with 0.71 0.51 0.49
immediate supervisors
is good
Grievance redressal 0.77 0.60 0.40
system is excellent
Training programs are 0.76 0.59 0.41
frequently conducted
in the PRTC
Training programs are 0.77 0.60 0.40
organized to improve
the quality of work-life
in PRTC
I get fringe benefits in 0.77 0.61 0.39
PRTC
Over time wages are 0.74 0.55 0.45
provided in PRTC
Rewards based on 0.81 0.67 0.33
performance are given
in PRTC
Compensation for night 0.74 0.55 0.45
shifts is available in
PRTC
Safety measures are 0.81 0.66 0.34
strictly followed in the
working environment
of PRTC
Health maintenance 0.80 0.64 0.36
programs are executed
systematically in PRTC
Life Insurance facilities 0.84 0.72 0.28
are available in PRTC
Total working hours 0.80 0.64 0.36
per week are
reasonable in PRTC
Over time Work is 0.69 0.48 0.52
optional during festival
seasons in PRTC

Job Stress 0.75 0.65

I do not get job-related 0.85 0.74 0.26 Table 2.
diseases in PRTC Results of
Sound pollution does 0.71 0.52 0.48 confirmatory factor
not affect the working analysis and
manoeuvrability measurement
properties (properties
(continued ) of measurement model)
JAMR Reliability
coefficient Average Variance-
Cronbach Standardized Reliability Variance Extracted Σ(λ2yi)/
Measure alpha Loadings (λyi) (λ2yi) (Var(εi)) [(λ2yi) þ (Var(εi))]

Seat condition of the 0.76 0.58 0.42

PRTC buses is good
Bus running condition 0.79 0.63 0.37
of PRTC buses is good
There is no 0.83 0.70 0.30
overcrowding in PRTC
buses
There is no chance of 0.80 0.65 0.35
Bus break down in
PRTC buses
A number of bus stops 0.82 0.68 0.32
do not create stress in
me
The PRTC will not take 0.84 0.71 0.29
action against me even
if I meet with bus
accident without my
mistake
Facing legal battle does 0.82 0.68 0.32
not create stress in me
Less amount of 0.83 0.70 0.30
compensation I receive
in PRTC does not
create stress
Disbursal of exact 0.84 0.71 0.29
tender during peak
hours does not create
pressure
Suspension instead of 0.72 0.53 0.47
termination does not
create tension

Job Commitment 0.87 0.71

I am working with Zero 0.75 0.56 0.44
accident motive in
PRTC
I am taking fuel-saving 0.84 0.71 0.29
measures in PRTC
I do regularly check up 0.84 0.71 0.29
on tyre pressure of my
bus in PRTC
I am paying immediate 0.88 0.78 0.22
attention to the repair
of the bus where I work
I am responsible for my 0.83 0.70 0.30
duties
I am not taking leave 0.80 0.65 0.35
frequently
I am obeying the orders 0.82 0.69 0.31
by superiors

Table 2. (continued )
 Reliability
The relationship
coefficient Average Variance- between QWL
Cronbach Standardized Reliability Variance Extracted Σ(λ2yi)/ and WLB-
Measure alpha Loadings (λyi) (λ2yi) (Var(εi)) [(λ2yi) þ (Var(εi))] mediating role
I am doing services to 0.86 0.74 0.26
the satisfaction of
passengers
I am responsible for the 0.86 0.74 0.26
safety of the
passengers
I am not smoking when 0.87 0.76 0.24
I am on duty
I am not consuming 0.87 0.76 0.24
alcohol when I am on
duty
I am not using a mobile 0.83 0.70 0.30
phone while I am on
duty
I am strictly following 0.86 0.75 0.25
the road traffic rules

Job Satisfaction 0.83 0.65

I am satisfied with my 0.76 0.58 0.42
responsibility in PRTC
I am happy about the 0.85 0.73 0.27
work itself in PRTC
I get recognition in my 0.84 0.72 0.28
work at PRTC
I find achievement in 0.81 0.66 0.34
my job at PRTC
I get a fair promotion in 0.79 0.63 0.37
PRTC
I am satisfied with the 0.83 0.69 0.31
use of my ability in
PRTC
I am satisfied with my 0.78 0.61 0.39
family life because of
my work in PRTC
I am happy with my job 0.84 0.71 0.29
security provided by
PRTC
I find growth because I 0.83 0.69 0.31
work in PRTC
I am satisfied with the 0.77 0.60 0.40
working condition of
the PRTC
I am satisfied with the 0.76 0.59 0.41
salary provided by
PRTC
I am satisfied with 0.84 0.71 0.29
PRTC
I get authority in my 0.76 0.58 0.42
job performance at
PRTC

(continued ) Table 2.
JAMR Reliability
coefficient Average Variance-
Cronbach Standardized Reliability Variance Extracted Σ(λ2yi)/
Measure alpha Loadings (λyi) (λ2yi) (Var(εi)) [(λ2yi) þ (Var(εi))]

I get co-operation from 0.80 0.64 0.36

PRTC
I find autonomy in my 0.79 0.63 0.37
job performance at
PRTC
I am satisfied with the 0.77 0.60 0.40
communication
received from the
superiors in PRTC

Work-Life Balance 0.91 0.74

I have an adequate time 0.87 0.76 0.24
to spend with the
family even if I work in
PRTC
I have time sufficient 0.86 0.74 0.26
time to take care of my
children even if I work
in PRTC
I have enough time to 0.86 0.74 0.26
take care of elderly
dependents even if I
work in PRTC
I am not missing 0.83 0.70 0.30
important social
occasions even if I work
in PRTC
I can maintain my work 0.88 0.79 0.21
and family with a
proper schedule even if
I work in PRTC
I have enough time to 0.83 0.70 0.30
take medical health
checkups even if I work
Table 2. in PRTC

For assessing discriminant validity of the instrument, the squares of inter-correlations are
compared to average variance extracted estimate (AVE). The variance extracted measure
explains the overall amount of variance in the indicators for the latent construct. AVE was
calculated using the formula:
X . h  i
Average Variance Extracted ¼ λ2yi λ2yi þ ðVarðεi ÞÞ

where λ2yi 5 reliability Var(εi) 5 variance

Since the AVE is greater than the squares of inter-correlations, discriminant validity is
established. For example, the inter-correlation between QWL and job stress is 0.69 and
significant. The AVE for QWL and job stress (0.60 and 0.65) is greater than 0.476 (the square
of 0.69), establishes discriminant validity. Similarly, for other inter-correlations we checked
for discriminant validity.
Results The relationship
The descriptive statistics means, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in between QWL
Table 3.
The preliminary analysis of correlations reveals that the maximum correlation between
and WLB-
the variables was 0.691 (between QWL and job stress) and the minimum correlation was mediating role
0.121 (between job satisfaction and work-life balance). Since correlations were less than 0.75,
multicollinearity is not a problem (Kennedy, 2008). To check multicollinearity between the
variables, we also checked variance inflation factor (VIF). For all the variables the VIF is less
than “2” which implies that multicollinearity is not a problem.
To test the hypotheses, we performed hierarchical regression. To test the hypotheses, we
performed hierarchical regression. Hierarchical regression is an appropriate tool for
analyzing the effect of predictor variable after controlling for other variables (Pedhazur
and Schemelkin, 1991). Researchers use hierarchical regression when variance on a criterion
variable is being explained by predictor variables that are correlated with each other and in
social science research it is very common (Aiken and West, 1991).
In the regression (Table 4), first control variables were entered. The control variables are
age, income, experience and occupation. It was necessary to include these control variables in
the regression equation because these may affect QWL directly. Of the control variables, age
and experience were significant. The beta coefficient of age was positive and significant
(β 5 0.103; p < 0.05). The regression coefficient of experience was positive and significant
(β 5 0.233; p < 0.001). The beta coefficients of income (β 5 0.089; p 5 0.058) and occupation
(β 5 0.014; p 5 0.757) were not significant. The control variables model explained 7.6% of
variance in QWL and the model was significant (R2 5 0.076; Adj R2 5 0.068;
F 5 9.10, p < 0.001).
The main independent variable, job stress, was entered into the regression equation in
step 2 (column 2). Of the control variables, the beta coefficient of age was not significant
(β 5 0.061; p 5 0.074); income (β 5 0.089; p < 0.05), experience (β 5 0.08; p < 0.05), and
occupation (β 5 0.065; p < 0.05), were significant. The beta coefficient of QWL on job stress
was negative and significant (β 5 0.675; p < 0.001). The model explained 50.1% of variance
in the job stress due to QWL, in addition to control variables, and the model was significant
(R2 5 0.501; Adj R2 5 0.495; F 5 88.035, p < 0.001; Δ R2 5 0.424; ΔF 5 372.47; p < 0.001).
These results support H1 that QWL is negatively related to job stress.
In the regression (Table 5), first control variables were entered. The control variables are
age, income, experience, and occupation. Of the control variables, age and income were
significant. The beta coefficient of age was negative and significant (β 5 0.137; p < 0.05).
The regression coefficient of income was positive and significant (β 5 0.166; p < 0.001). The
beta coefficients of experience (β 5 0.052; p 5 0.027), and occupation (β 5 0.015; p 5 0.745)
were not significant. The control variables model explained 4.9 % of variance in QWL and the
model was significant (R2 5 0.049; Adj R2 5 0.041; F 5 5.72, p < 0.001).

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Quality of Work-Life 3.27 0.65 1

2. Job Stress 2.70 0.61 0.69** 1
3. Job Commitment 3.94 0.75 0.19** 0.22** 1 Table 3.
4. Job Satisfaction 3.46 0.66 0.49** 0.45** 0.34** 1 Descriptive statistics:
5. Work-Life Balance 2.83 1.13 0.34** 0.38** 0.40** 0.12* 1 means, standard
Note(s):**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level deviations and
(2-tailed) correlations
JAMR Column 1 Column 2
Job stress Job stress
Variables Step 1a Step 2

Control variables
Age 0.103** (2.23; 0.026) 0.061 (1.79; 0.074)
Income 0.089 (1.90; 0.058) 0.089** (2.57; 0.01)
Experience 0.233*** (0.310; 0.000) 0.080* (2.24; 0.025)
Occupation 0.014 (0.310; 0.757) 0.065** (1.91; 0.05)
Main variables
Quality of Work-Life 0.675*** (19.31; 0.000)
R2 0.076 0.501
Adjusted R2 0.068 0.495
F- Value 9.10*** 88.035***
Δ R2 0.424
Table 4.
Hierarchical regression Δ F-Value 372.97***
results of effect of Df 4,440 5,439
quality of work-life on Note(s): Standardized regression coefficients are reported; “t” values, and “p” values are in parenthesis
a

job stress ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05

Column 1 Column 2
Job satisfaction Job satisfaction
Variables Step 1a Step 2

Control variables
Age 0.137** (2.91; 0.004) 0.104** (2.58; 0.01)
Income 0.166*** (3.49; 0.001) 0.165*** (4.06; 0.000)
Experience 0.052 (1.08; 0.27) 0.170*** (4.03; 0.000)
Occupation 0.015 (0.326; 0.745) 0.046 (1.147; 0.25)
Main variables
Quality of Work-Life 0.522*** (12.62; 0.000)
R2 0.049 0.303
Adjusted R2 0.041 0.295
F- Value 5.72*** 38.11***
Δ R2 0.253
Table 5.
Hierarchical regression Δ F-Value 159.41***
results of effect of Df 4,440 5,439
quality of work-life on Note(s): a. Standardized regression coefficients are reported; “t” values, and “p” values are in parenthesis
job satisfaction ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05

The main independent variable, job satisfaction, was entered into the regression equation in
step 2 (column 2). Of the control variables, the beta coefficient of age (β 5 0.104; p < 0.01),
income (β 5 0.165; p < 0.01) and experience (β 5 0.17; p < 0.01) were significant.
The regression coefficient of occupation was not significant (β 5 0.046; p 5 0.025). The beta
coefficient of QWL on job satisfaction was positive and significant (β 5 0.522; p < 0.001). The
model explained 30.2% of variance in the job satisfaction due to QWL, in addition to control
variables, and the model was significant (R2 5 0.302; Adj R2 5 0.295; F 5 38.11, p < 0.001; Δ
R2 5 . 0.253; ΔF 5 159.41; p < 0.001). These results support H2 that QWL is positively
associated with job satisfaction.
Job commitment as dependent variable was presented in Table 6.
 Column 1 Column 2
The relationship
Job commitment Job commitment between QWL
Variables Step 1a Step 2 and WLB-
Control variables mediating role
Age 0.190*** (4.54; 000) 0.172*** (4.334; 0.000)
Income 0.110*** (2.60; 0.01) 0.110** (2.73; 0.006)
Experience 0.440*** (10.34; 0.000) 0.504*** (12.15; 0.000)
Occupation -0.105** (2.53; 0.012) 0.072 (1.808; 0.07)
Main variables
Quality of work-life 0.283*** (6.98; 0.000)
R2 0.25 0.324
Adjusted R2 0.243 0.316
F- Value 36.57*** 42.06***
Δ R2 0.074
Table 6.
Δ F-Value 48.27*** Hierarchical regression
Df 4,440 5,439 results of effect of
Note(s): aStandardized regression coefficients are reported; “t” values, and “p” values are in parenthesis quality of work-life on
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05 job commitment

In the regression, first control variables were entered, and all control variables were
significant: age (β 5 0.19; p < 0.01), income (β 5 0.11; p < 0.01), experience (β 5 0.44;
p < 0.01), and occupation (β 5 0.105; p < 0.01). The control variables model explained 25 %
of variance in QWL and the model was significant (R2 5 0.25; Adj R2 5 0.243;
F 5 36.57, p < 0.001).
The main independent variable, job commitment, was entered into the regression equation
in step 2 (column 2). Except occupation, all the control variables were significant: the beta
coefficient of age (β 5 0.172; p < 0.01), income (β 5 0.11; p < 0.01) and experience (β 5 0.504;
p < 0.01) were significant. The regression coefficient of occupation was not significant
(β 5 0.072; p 5 0.07). The beta coefficient of QWL on job commitment was positive and
significant (β 5 0.283; p < 0.001). The model explained 32.4% of variance in the job
commitment due to QWL, in addition to control variables, and the model was significant
(R2 5 0.324; Adj R2 5 0.316; F 5 42.06, p < 0.001; Δ R2 5 . 0.074; ΔF 5 48.27; p < 0.001). These
results support H3 that QWL is positively associated with job commitment.
Hierarchical regression results of effect of job stress, job satisfaction, and job commitment
on work-life balance are presented in Table 7.
First control variables were entered into the regression equation. From Table 7, Step 1
(column 1) reveals that the regression coefficient of experience on work-life balance was
significant (β 5 0.459; p < 0.01) and other control variables were not significant. The control
variables model was significant and explained 22.5% variance in work-life balance
(R2 5 0.225; Adj R2 5 0.218; F 5 31.98, p < 0.001).
Step 2 (column 2) in Table 7 shows the regression results of the effect of main variables on
work-life balance. The regression coefficient of job stress was negative and significant
(β 5 0.387; p < 0.001), thus supporting H4. The regression coefficient of job satisfaction was
positive and significant (β 5 0.104; p < 0.01), thus supporting H5. The regression coefficient of
job commitment was positive and significant (β 5 0.434; p < 0.01), thus supporting H6. The
model was significant and explained 42.8% of variance in work-life balance because of these
three main variables, namely, job stress, job satisfaction, and job commitment (R2 5 0.428;
Adj R2 5 0.419; F 5 46.77, p < 0.001; Δ R2 5 . 0.203; ΔF 5 51.73; p < 0.001).
To test the mediation hypotheses, we followed the procedures outlined by Aiken and West
(1991). Three conditions are necessary to demonstrate full mediation. The first condition is to
JAMR Column 1 Column 2
Work-life balance Work-life balance
Variables Step 1a Step 2

Control variables
Age 0.070 (1.661; 0.09) 0.042 (1.13; 0.26)
Income 0.012 (0.29; 0.77) 0.008 (0.22; 0.82)
Experience 0.459*** (10.60; 0.000) 0.183*** (4.11; 0.000)
Occupation 0.000 (0.007; 0.99) 0.039 (1.06; 0.29)
Main variables
Job Stress 0.387*** (8.89; 0.000)
Job Satisfaction 0.104** (2.45; 0.01)
Job Commitment 0.434*** (9.56; 0.000)
R2 0.225 0.428
Adjusted R2 0.218 0.419
F- Value 31.98*** 46.77***
Table 7.
Δ R2 0.203
Hierarchical regression
results of effect of job Δ F-Value 51.73***
stress, job satisfaction Df 4,440 7,437
and job commitment on Note(s): Standardized regression coefficients are reported; “t” values, and “p” values are in parenthesis
a

work-life balance ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05

ensure that QWL and WLB are related. Second condition is that the mediating variables are
related to the WLB. Third condition is when mediating variables are included in the full
equation, the relationship between QWL and WLB is no longer significant.
The results of full mediation of job stress, sob satisfaction, and job commitment on work-
life balance are presented in Table 8.
The first column (Tale 8) has all control variables. In second column, the main
variable QWL was entered into the equation. The beta coefficient of QWL on WLB was
positive and significant (β 5 0.25; p < 0.001), thus satisfying the first condition.
Following the column 2 from Table 7, we can see that all three mediator variables are
related to WLB, thus satisfying the second condition. When mediators are variables (job
stress, job satisfaction and job commitment) are entered into the equation (column 3),
the beta coefficient of QWL was positive and significant (β 5 0.118; p < 0.05), and the
beta coefficients of job stress (β 5 –0.322; p < 0.001), job satisfaction (β 5 0.075;
p < 0.10), job commitment (β 5 0.44; p < 0.001) were significant. The model was
significant and explained 43.5 % variance in the dependent variable because of the
main and mediator variables (R2 5 0.435; Adj R2 5 0.424; F 5 41.89, p < 0.001; Δ
R2 5 0.151; ΔF 5 38.85; p < 0.001). These results support partial mediation of job stress,
job satisfaction, and job commitment in the relationship between QWL and WLB.
Therefore, H7a, H7b and H7c are not supported. These findings indicate that QWL
indirectly affects WLB through job stress, job satisfaction, and job commitment.
In addition to multiple regression, we checked for full mediation using structural
equation modeling and estimating the path coefficients; we found the SEM results
similar to the multiple regression results. The structural equation modeling approach
offered a fairly clean procedure to check for mediation (see Figure 2 for path diagram).
We assessed the overall fit of the model to the data using goodness-of-fit statistics. The
goodness-of-fit statistics supported the conclusion that the hypothesized model had
adequate fit to the data (χ 2 5 62.59, p < 0.05, CFI 5 0.91; NFI 5 0.90; GFI 5 0.95;
RMSEA 5 0.18). These results provide compelling evidence that job stress, job
 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
The relationship
Work-life balance Work-life balance Work-life balance between QWL
Variables Step 1a Step 2 Step 3 and WLB-
Control variables mediating role
Age 0.070 (1.661; 0.09) 0.086** (2.10; 0.04) 0.038 (1.01; 0.31)
Income 0.012 (0.29; 0.77) 0.012 (0.30; 0.76) 0.020 (0.52; 0.60)
Experience 0.459*** (10.60; 0.000) -0.402*** (9.42; 0.000) 0.168*** (3.72; 0.000)
Occupation 0.000 (0.007; 0.99) 0.029 (0.71; 0.47) 0.027 (0.73; 0.47)
Main variables
Quality of work- 0.25*** (5.97; 0.000) 0.118** (2.21; 0.03)
life
Mediator variables
Job Stress 0.322*** (6.14; 0.000)
Job Satisfaction 0.075* (1.68; 0.09)
Job Commitment 0.440*** (9.71; 0.000)
R2 0.225 0.283 0.435
Adjusted R2 0.218 0.275 0.424
F- Value 31.98*** 34.73*** 41.89***
Table 8.
Δ R2 0.058 0.151 Results of full
Δ F-Value 35.68*** 38.85 mediation of job stress,
Df 4,440 5,439 8,436 job satisfaction and job
Note(s): Standardized regression coefficients are reported; “t” values, and “p” values are in parenthesis commitment on work-
a

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10 life balance

Job Stress
–0.697*** –0.129***

0.565***
Quality of Job 0.477*** Work Life
Work Life Sasfacon Balance

Figure 2.
0.170*** 0.609*** Path diagram
Job
Commitment (empirical model)

satisfaction, and job commitment are mediators in the relationship between QWL and
WLB. The path coefficients corroborated the regression results. The empirical model is
presented in Figure 2.

Discussion
Our study is perhaps the first of its kind, to our knowledge, to study the relationship between
QWL and WLB. This study is relevant for several reasons. First, it provides support for the
importance of QWL in organizations. Previous researchers primarily focused on the
dimensions of QWL rather than identifying consequences. Antecedents of QWL were
recognized by prior researchers. Our study carries the investigation further into
consequences of QWL. Second, rather than examining the direct effects of QWL on WLB,
our study focused on three important mediators, namely, job stress, job satisfaction, and job
JAMR commitment. In addition, contrary to earlier researchers who documented that job
satisfaction, job stress, and job commitment were consequences of WLB we examined the
reverse causality. Though there is no a priori theoretical foundation for such reverse
causality, we used intuitive logic for such a relationship showing reverse causality.
Our results indicate that QWL influences WLB through job stress, job satisfaction, and job
commitment.
It is very important to discuss the results from the conceptual model we developed and
tested in Indian context. Since previous studies focused on western countries, we wanted to
examine whether the relationships hold good in the Indian context, considering that it is a
developing economy and work conditions are different. QWL is negatively related to job
stress among the employees in transportation sector. The bus drivers and conductors feel so
stressed because of traffic congestions, dealing with passengers during the rush hours, work
schedules etc. However, employees are committed and satisfied with their jobs. In India,
working in public transportation companies is liked by people because of the nature of job (i.e.
government job) which ensures job security. Unsurprisingly, the job satisfaction and
commitment are positively related to QWL. These results are not remarkably different from
the studies conducted in western countries. Secondly, job stress is negatively and
significantly related to WLB, as expected. Employees in transportation companies are able
to maintain balance in the work-life because of inflexible work schedules, and family
demands. Anecdotal evidences suggest that higher stress levels at work lead to lower
balances of work-life. Again, because of their job satisfaction and commitment levels are high,
employees are able to maintain WLB. Another important finding from this study is that job
stress, job satisfaction, and job commitments are partially mediating the relationship between
QWL and WLB. It is not surprising that QWL is also having positive and significant direct
effect on WLB, which is not contrary to what has been documented in studies from western
countries. Our results thus corroborate the existing research and despite cultural differences
between the countries the relationships hold good. Though we tested the model in
transportation sector, we expect that the results will be generalizable across all other sectors
in India.

Contributions
Our study contributes to both literature on human resource management and practicing
managers. The model we proposed and tested empirically adds to the literature. The findings
corroborate the results of existing studies in western countries and it is revealed that there are
no differences in the consequences of QWL in India. Though the working conditions are
different in India, the effects of QWL on job stress, job satisfaction and job commitment are
same as in western countries. The generalizability of results is added contribution of the
present research. However, it should be remembered that there may be other variables (such
as turnover, absenteeism, citizenship behavior) that can be considered in future studies of
QWL and WLB. Further, demographic factors such as age and income may have some
influence on the consequences of QWL as in some studies age was a potential moderator in
the relationship between job commitment and job satisfaction (Y€ ucel and Bektas, 2008).

Managerial implications
The findings from the present study are useful to practicing managers because they now may
realize that it is beneficial to invest in providing a better work climate, congenial collegiality,
pay structure and flexibility in working hours, which contribute to higher QWL, which in
turn would result in job satisfaction. Further, employees who are high in QWL are less likely
to experience job stress, which may help in balancing work and life. Finally, it is better for The relationship
managers to monitor the working environment periodically so that employees remain between QWL
committed to the organization. Companies may integrate new management practices with
social support, flexible work hours, and other perquisites so that employees feel less stressful
and WLB-
and happier at work. mediating role

Implications for society

The results from present study have implications for society. When employees feel good at
work and feel less stress are more likely to experience satisfaction at work and contribute to
the organization, which helps society in general. WLB is very important from the point of
view of society. As evidenced by the findings from the present study, QWL reduces stress,
increases job satisfaction and job commitment, which eventually leads to WLB. The
employees experiencing higher quality of WLB have positive attitude towards organization
and also positive outlook about society .When people are happy at work and also at home, the
psychological well-being of families has a positive impact on society. Low QWL results
higher levels of stress which results in increase in healthcare costs both for the organization
and for society. As organizations and individuals are part of society, WLB benefits the
organization in terms of commitment and productivity and QWL positively affects society in
terms of psychological well-being of families.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
The findings from the study need to be interpreted in light of limitations. First, as with any
survey research, the present study suffers from common method bias. The self-report
measures may raise legitimate concern for response bias. Because of lack of objective
measures, we had to depend on survey responses. However, to address the common method
problem we followed the procedures outlined by Podsakoff et al. (2003). We tested for
psychometric properties of the instrument by running Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
and tested the instrument for both convergent and discriminant validity. Another problem
with survey research is the social desirability. To address the problem, we ensured the
respondents that anonymity would be maintained so that the respondents did not show any
bias in providing responses. Third, overall generalizability of our findings may be limited
because the sample was selected from one industry, i.e. transportation. However, our
empirical model is applicable to industries in similar environments characterized by
ever-changing demands.
The present study provides several avenues for future research. First, future researchers
may study the effect of trust among the employees, trust between the employees and the
managers, and citizenship behavior on QWL and WLB. Second, it is important to study the
effect of WLB on the effectiveness of organization because work-life balance implicates that
attitudes and behaviors of employees are beneficial to organizations (Au and Ahmed, 2014).
Third, there are several methodological issues to consider for future research. Longitudinal
studies should be conducted to more definitively establish the ordering of variables in the
model. Multiple methods and sources should be utilized to collect data. This would help to
eliminate problems of common method variance. In depth qualitative research, in particular,
would allow for a deeper understanding of work-family interface on which to develop models
to be later tested quantitatively.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that QWL and WLB independent constructs and
that organizations need to be concerned about both. In addition, this research indicates that
affective and attitudinal concepts such as job stress, job satisfaction, and job commitment are
important variables in the relationship between QWL and WLB. It is hoped that this study
JAMR will stimulate further research on WLB to better our understanding on what organizations
can do to enable employees to better balance their work and family lives.

References
Abdallah, A.B., Obeidat, B.Y., Aqqad, N.O., Al Janini, M.N.K. and Dahiyat, S.E. (2017), “An integrated
model of job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a structural analysis
in Jordan’s banking sector”, Communications and Network, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 28-53.
Abdirahman, H.I.H., Najeemdeen, I.S., Abidemi, B.T. and Ahmad, R.B. (2020), “The relationship
between job satisfaction, work-life balance and organizational commitment on employee
performance”, International Journal of Information, Business and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 188-198.
Aiken, L. and West, S. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Settings,
Free Press, New York.
Anuradha and Pandey (1995), “Organizational commitment and QWL: perceptions of Indian
managers”, Abbigyan, Summer, pp. 39-77.
Anuradha and Pandey, M. (2016), “Impact of work-life balance on job satisfaction of women doctors”,
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 319-324.
Au, W.C. and Ahmed, P.K. (2014), “Sustainable people management through work-life balance: a study
of the Malaysian Chinese context”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 262-280.
Bala, I., Saini, R. and Goyal, B.B. (2019), “Impact of quality of work life on ehaviorional commitment”,
Sumedha Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 58-72.
Bataineh, K.A. (2019), “Impact of work-life balance, happiness at work, on employee performance”,
International Business Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 99-112.
Beauregard, A. and Henry, L.C. (2009), “Making the link between work life balance practices
and organizational performance”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Behr, T.A. and Glazer, S. (2001), “A cultural perspective of social support in relation to occupational
stress”, in Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C. (Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Wellbeing.
Volume 1: Exploring Theoretical Mechanisms and Perspectives, JAI Press, New York, NY,
pp. 97-142.
Bell, A.S., Rajendran, D. and Theiler, S. (2012), “Job stress, wellbeing, work-life balance and work-life
conflict among Australian academics”, Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 25-37.
Bhatt, H.C. (2018), “Leadership styles and quality of work life in small and medium scale enterprises of
Kumoun Region of Uttarakhand”, Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Bhola, S.S. and Nigade, J.J. (2016), “Relationship between work life balance, quality of work life and
quality of life of women working in service industry”, Pravara Management Review, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 30-46.
Bilal, M., Rehman, Z., M. and Raza, I. (2010), “Impact of family friendly policies on employees job
satisfaction and turnover intention: a study on work-life balance at workplace”, Interdisciplinary
Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 2, pp. 378-395.
Burke, R. (2000), “Do managerial men benefit from organizational values supporting work-personal
life balance?”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 81-87.
Chan, K.W. and Wyatt, T.A. (2007), “Quality of work life: a study of employees in Shanghai, China”,
Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 501-517.
Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (1976), “Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating The relationship
to coronary heart disease and mental ill health”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 49
No. 1, pp. 11-28. between QWL
Cox, T. and Griffiths, A. (1995), “The nature and measurement of work stress: theory and practice”, in
and WLB-
Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, E.N. (Eds), Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics mediating role
Methodology, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 783-803.
Danna, K. and Griffin, R.W. (1999), “Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of
the literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 357-384.
Daud, N. (2010), “Investigating the relationship between quality of work life and organizational
commitment amongst employees in Malaysian firms”, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 75-82.
Dechawatanapaisal, D. (2017), “The mediating role of organizational embeddedness on the
relationship between quality of work life and turnover: perspectives from healthcare
professionals”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 696-711.
Efraty, D. and Sirgy, M.J. (1990), “The effects of quality of working life (QWL) on employee behavioral
responses”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
El Badawy, T.A., Chinta, R. and Magdy, M.M. (2018), “Does ‘gender’ mediate the relationship between
‘quality of work life’ and ‘organizational commitment’?”, Gender in Management, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 332-348.
Ellis, N. and Pompli, A. (2002), Quality of Working Life for Nurses, Commonwealth Dept of Health and
Ageing, Canberra.
Emslie, C. and Hunt, K. (2009), “‘Live to work’ or ‘work to live’? A qualitative study of gender and
work-life balance among men and women in mid-life”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 151-172.
Feldman, P.H. (1993), “Work life improvements for home care workers: impact and feasibility”, The
Gerontologist, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 47-54.
Fields, M.W. and Thacker, J.W. (1992), “Influence of quality of work life on company and union
commitment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 439-450.
Frischmann, B. (2009), “Spillovers theory and its conceptual boundaries”, William and Mary Law
Review, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 801-824.
Frone, M.R. (1990), “Intolerance of ambiguity as a moderator of the occupational role stress—
strain relationship: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11,
pp. 309-320.
Grady, G., McCarthy, A., Darcy, C. and Kirrane, M. (2008), Work Life Balance Policies and Initiatives in
Irish Organizations: A Best Practice Management, Oak Tree Press, Cork.
Grawitch, M.J., Trares, S. and Kohler, J.M. (2007), “Healthy workplace practices and employee
outcomes”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 275-293.
Guthrie, V.M.J. (2012), “Management control of work-life balance. A narrative study of an Australian
financial institution”, Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 258-280.
Hardjanti, I.W., Noermijati and Dewanto, A. (2017), “Influence of quality of work life towards
psychological well-being and turnover intention of nurses and midwives in hospital”, Kesmas:
National Public Health Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7-14.
Harish, K. and Subashini, K. (2014), “Quality of work life in Indian industries – a case study”,
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3
No. 10, pp. 16799-16804.
Hashempour, R., Ghahremanlou, H.H., Etemadi, S. and Poursadeghiyan, M. (2018), “The relationship
between quality of work life and organizational commitment of Iranian emergency nurses”,
Health in Emergencies and Disasters Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 49-54.
JAMR Havlovic, S.J. (1991), “Quality of work life and human resource outcomes”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 469-79.
Helmle, J.R., Botero, I.C. and Seibold, D.R. (2014), “Factors that influence perceptions of work-life
balance in owners of copreneurial firms”, Journal of Family Business Management, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 110-132.
Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World, Cleveland.
Hill, J.E., Hawkins, A.J., Ferris, M. and Weitzman, M. (2001), “Finding an extra day a week: the positive
influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance”, Family Relations:
Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Hon, A. and Chan, W. (2013), “The effects of group conflict and work stress on employee
performance”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 174-184.
Huang, T., Lawler, J. and Lei, C. (2007), “The effects of quality of work life on commitment and
turnover intention”, Social Behavior and Personality: International Journal, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 735-750.
Ivancevich, J.M. and Matteson, M.T. (1980), Stress and Work, Scott, Foreman, Glenview, IL.
Jabeen, F., Friesen, H.L. and Ghoudi, K. (2018), “Quality of work life of Emirati women and its
influence on job satisfaction and turnover intention”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 352-370.
Jain, A.K., Giga, S.I. and Cooper, C.L. (2009), “Employee wellbeing, control and organizational
commitment”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 256-273.
Janes, P. and Wisnom, M. (2011), “Changes in tourism industry quality of work life practices”, Journal
of Tourism Insights, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 107-13.
Joo, B.K. and Lee, I. (2017), “Workplace happiness: work engagement, career satisfaction, and
subjective well-being, Evidence-based HRM”, A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 206-221.
Judge, T.A., Boudreau, J.W. and Bretz, R.D. (1994), “Job and life attitudes of male executives”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 767-782.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress,
Wiley, New York.
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 No. 24, pp. 360-6.
Kennedy, P. (2008), A Guide to Econometric, 6th ed., Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
Khan, M.A. and Khan, S.M. (2017), “Search for antecedents of organizational commitment: a structural
equation model”, Journal of Organisation and Human Behaviour, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 8-15.
Konrad, A.M. and Mengel, R. (2000), “The impact of work life program on firm productivity”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1225-1237.
Koubova, V. and Buchko, A.A. (2013), “Life-work balance: emotional intelligence as a crucial
component of achieving both personal life and work performance”, Management Research
Review, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 700-719.
Kumar, S.M. and Udayasuriyan, G. (2008), “The relationship between work-life-balance and the
perception of quality of work life of employees in the electronic industry in Chennai and
Bangalore (India)”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 2 Nos 1-2, pp. 23-31.
Kwahar, N. and Iyortsuun, A.S. (2018), “Determining the underlying dimensions of quality of work life
(QWL) in the Nigerian hotel industry”, Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 53-70.
Lau, T.Y.H., Wong, K.F., Chan and Law, M. (2001), “Information technology and the work
environment does it change the way people interact at work”, Human Systems Management,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 267-280.
Lawler, E.E. III and Porter, L.W. (1967), “The effect of performance on job satisfaction”, Industrial The relationship
Relations, pp. 20-28.
between QWL
Lawson, K.M., Davis, K.D., Crouter, A.C. and O’Neill, J.W. (2013), “Understanding work-family
spillover in hotel managers”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 33,
and WLB-
pp. 273-281. mediating role
Lee, D.J., Singhapakdi, A. and Sirgy, M.J. (2007), “Further validation of a need-based quality-of-work-
life (QWL) measure: evidence from marketing practitioners”, Applied Research Quality Life,
Vol. 2, p. 273.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Louis, K.S. and Smith, B. (1990), “Teacher working conditions”, in Reyes, P. (Ed.), Teachers and Their
Workplace: Commitment, Performance, and Productivity (23-47), Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Malone, E.K. and Issa, R.R.A. (2013), “Work-life balance and organizational commitment of women in
the US construction industry”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, Vol. 139 No. 2, pp. 87-98.
Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, The Free Press, New York.
McGrath, J.E. (1976), “Stress and behavior in organizations”, in Dunnett, M.D. (Ed.), In Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally College Publishing, Chicago.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 64-89.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension
and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78,
pp. 538-551.
Miryala, K.K. and Chiluka, N. (2012), “Work life balance among teachers”, The IUP Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J. and Brenner, S.O. (2008), “The effects of transformational leadership
on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: a longitudinal
study”, Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 16-32.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the
effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 492-499.
Ojedokun, O., Idemudia, E.S. and Desouza, M. (2015), “Perceived external prestige as a mediator
between quality of work life and organizational commitment of public sector employees in
Ghana”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Ong, J.F.B., Tan, J.M.T., Villareal, R.F.C. and Chiu, J.L. (2019), “Impact of quality of work life and
prosocial motivation on the organizational commitment and turnover intent of public health
practitioners”, Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 24-43.
Oyewobi, L.O., Oke, A.E., Toyin, D.A. and Jimoh, R.A. (2019), “Influence of organizational commitment
on work-life balance and organizational performance of female construction professionals”,
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 2243-2263.
Parvin, M.M. and Kabir, N.M.M. (2011), “Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of pharmaceutical
sector”, Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 113-123.
Pasamar, S. and Cabrera, R.V. (2013), “Work-life balance under challenging financial and economic
conditions”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 961-974.
Pedhazur, E.J. and Schmelkin, L.P. (1991), Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated
Approach, Taylor & Francis, New York.
JAMR Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Pradhan, R.K., Jena, L.K. and Kumari, I.G. (2016), “Effect of work life balance on organizational
citizenship ehavior: role of organizational commitment”, Global Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 15S-29S.
Ramawickrama, J., Opatha, H.H.D.N.P. and Pushpakumari, M.D. (2019), “Mediating role of
organizational commitment on the relationship between quality of work life and job
performance: a study on station masters in Sri Lanka Railways”, South Asian Journal of
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 7-29.
Rastogi, M., Rangnekar, S. and Rastogi, R. (2018), “Enhancing Quality of work life in Indian context:
the role of workplace flexibility”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 234-249.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Saraji, G.S. and Dangahi, H. (2006), “Study of quality of work life (QWL)”, Iranian Journal of Public
Health, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 8-14.
Schuler, R.S. (1982), “An integrated transactional process model of stress in organizations”, Journal of
Occupational Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 5-19.
Seibt, R., Spitzer, S., Blank, M. and Scheuch, K. (2009), “Predictors of work ability in occupations with
psychological stress”, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-18.
Semlali, S. and Hassi, A. (2016), “Work–life balance: how can we help women IT professionals in
Morocco?”, Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 210-225.
Shaffer, M.A., Reiche, B.S., Dimitrova, M., Lazarova, M., Chen, S., Westman, M. and Wurtz, O. (2016),
“Work and family role adjustment of different types of global professionals: scale development
and validation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 113-139.
Shukla, A. and Srivastava, R. (2016), “Development of short questionnaire to measure an extended set
of role expectation conflict, coworker support and work-life balance: the new job stress scale”,
Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Singh, S. and Chaudhary, N. (2019), “Quality of work life and dynamics of work-related wellbeing: an
exploratory study of textile employees”, International Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 77-84.
Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P. and Lee, D.J. (2001), “A new measure of quality of work life (QWL)
based on need satisfaction and spillover theories”, Social Indicators Research Vol. 55,
pp. 241-302.
Soomro, A.A., Breitenecker, R.J. and Shah, S.A.M. (2018), “Relation of work-life balance, work-family
conflict, and family-work conflict with the employee performance-moderating role of job
satisfaction”, South Asian Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 129-146.
Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction. Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Surienty, L., Ramayah, T. and May-ChiunTarmizi, L.A.N. (2014), “Quality of work life and turnover
intention: a partial least square (PLS) approach”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 119 No. 1,
pp. 405-420.
Thakur, R. and Sharma, D. (2019), “Quaility of work life and its relationship with work performance –
a study of employees of Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited”, Journal of Strategic
Human Resource Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 45-52.
Veeraiah, K. and Manchala, G. (2012), “Quality of work life in state bank of India, Hyderabad”,
Sumedha Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 83-91.
Vijaya, T.G. and Hemamalini, R. (2012), “Impact of work life balance on organizational commitment The relationship
among bank employees”, Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 159-171. between QWL
Walton, R.E. (1973), “Quality of working life: what is it?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1,
and WLB-
pp. 11-12. mediating role
Weinberg, A., Sutherland, V.J. and Cooper, C. (2010), Organizational Stress Management: A Strategic
Approach, Macmillan, Palgrave.
White, M., Hill, S., Mc Govern, P., Mills, C. and Smeaton, B. (2013), “High performance management
practices, working hours, and work life balance”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 175-195.
Williams, L.J. and Hazer, J.T. (1986), “Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment
in turnover models: a re -analysis using latent variable structural equation methods”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 219-31.
ucel, I. and Bektas, C. (2008), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment and demographic
Y€
characteristics among teachers in Turkey: younger is better?”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 46, pp. 1598-1608.
ucel, I. (2012), “Examining the relationships among job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
Y€
turnover intention: an empirical study”, International Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 7, pp. 44-58.
Zaheer, A., Ul Islam, J. and Darakhshan, N. (2015), “Occupational stress and work life balance: a study
of female faculties in central universities in Delhi, India”, Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-5.

Corresponding author
Satyanarayana Parayitam can be contacted at: sparayitam@umassd.edu

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