International Journal of Management (IJM)

Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2020, pp. 2286-2292, Article ID: IJM_11_08_199
Available online at https://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJM?Volume=11&Issue=8
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KHD5Q

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

QUALITY OF WORK-LIFE ON EMPLOYEE

RETENTION AND JOB SATISFACTION: THE
MODERATING ROLE OF JOB PERFORMANCE
Arul Ramanatha Pillai
Assistant Professor & Research Advisor, PG and Research Department of Commerce,
St. Joseph’s College (Autonomous), Affiliated to Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli,
Tamil Nadu, India. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9877-647X

Pradeep Kunjupilla Gopalakrishna Kurup

Ph.D Research Scholar (Full-Time), PG and Research Department of Commerce,
St. Joseph’s College (Autonomous), Affiliated to Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli,
Tamil Nadu, India. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3650-1443

ABSTRACT
Purpose: A work-life balance leads employees’ texture towards job satisfaction for
they can well-work whereas in the institutions; consequently they do not require to be
hampered by outside problems. In the recent competitive world, among the companies,
it is aggregate along with the global economic growth. This study intended to discover
the impact of quality of work-life on employee retention and job satisfaction with the
moderation of job performance.
Methods: This study has 383 as a sample by using a simple random sample
technique. A structured measurement scale was used. The researcher framed the
conceptual framework with the support of literature. Basic analysis was tested and
multiple linear regression was used to validate the constructed hypotheses.
Findings: The result found that there is an impact of quality of work-life on
employee retention and job satisfaction among the faculty members in higher education
institutions. Job performance plays a moderation role in the relationship among the
variables. Quality of the work-life and employee retention leads to better satisfaction
among the employees.
Key words: Quality of work-life, Employee Retention, Job satisfaction, Job performance, Higher
Education Institutions.
Cite this Article: Arul Ramanatha Pillai and Pradeep Kunjupilla Gopalakrishna Kurup, Quality
of Work-Life on Employee Retention and Job Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Job
Performance, International Journal of Management (IJM), 11(8), 2020, pp. 2286-2292.
https://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJM?Volume=11&Issue=8

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2286 editor@iaeme.com

 Quality of Work-Life on Employee Retention and Job Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Job
Performance

1. INTRODUCTION
A healthy quality of work–life is essential for an individual’s job satisfaction at the workplace,
where the employee performed well and wants to retain themselves in the institutions. An
employee needs to balance their role in work-family life. The psychological alteration in terms
of motivation, personality, perception, attitude, value, and knowledge is the most key aspect for
them to balance their role in workplaces and family. Hence, institutions require to focus on the
work and psychological phases of their experts, to encourage positive attitudes and behaviour
through self-esteem, self-worth, and positive personality in the working environment. Retaining
a quality of work-life or successfully monitoring job performance between workplace and
family situation (Grzywacz & Carlson 2007) is an essential aspect of the reciprocal connection
between an employee and the organization. Job satisfaction is nothing but the extent to which
individual satisfaction with the present workplace is associated with their job performance.
(Oosthuizen et al., 2016). Quality of work-life is defined as fulfillment and effective functioning
at the workplace and home with the minimum role conflict (Clark, 2000). Greenhaus et al
(2003) well-defined as the quality of work-life as the extent to which an individual’s
engagement and satisfaction equally with his or her job role and family role (Greenhaus et al.,
2003). In the comparison of work-life conflict is known as a lack of fitting between employees
and their accountabilities, and the goals of their institutions (Becker & Huselid, 1998).
Therefore, in some previous studies on the quality of work-life is deliberated as the non-
appearance of work-life conflict. While work-life balance and work-family balance are used in
the literature.
Quality of life is entirely different in the aspects of subjective and objective manners. This
study on quality of life among the faculty members in higher education institutions. When
employees are fully satisfied and feel good about their surroundings of them, automatically the
quality of work-life is measured as subjective, when employees’ satisfaction is attained through
the fulfillment of cultural and societal demands (Seashore & Yuchtman, 2016). Because
humans are composite organisms, an acceptable construction of the knowledge of human well-
being also be very complex.
Quality of work life is a significant subject for institutions, while the workforce is the most
essential subsystem. Institutions contemplate them as a significant priority (Chumg et al.,
2015). It could be explained as the satisfaction of an individual with their life, compared to their
supreme life where the assessment of the quality of life is based on a value system, social
system, and individual’s cultural environment (Johnson & Solon, 2016). Various terms are
given by various studies related to the quality of life which included the following parameters:
stratification and inequality, social inequality, wealth and income, poverty, socioeconomic
status, and others.

1.2. Objectives of the Study

• to examine the role of quality of work life among the faculty members
• to explore the relationship between job satisfaction and employee retention.
• to know the moderating effect of job performance among the faculty members in higher
education institutions.

2. LITERARY REVISED
2.1. Quality of Work Life
The theory of quality of work-life is a widespread term that contains work ethics and some
features of working environments, measures for working circumstances, employees’ job

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2287 editor@iaeme.com

 Arul Ramanatha Pillai and Pradeep Kunjupilla Gopalakrishna Kurup

satisfaction, and productivity. There are various definitions for the quality of work-life as the
quality of the connection between employees and their working circumstances, with human
proportions added to the standard technical and economic contemplations (Davis 1983). The
satisfaction with working conditions wages and describing the fundamentals of an effective
quality of work-life as a safe work environment, equal employment opportunities, equitable
wages, and chances for advancement (Mirvis & Lawler 1984). Also, a favorable working place
motivates and promotes satisfaction by offering employees high rewards, career growth, and
job security (Lee et al., 2007). This concept covers the feelings of an individual about each
dimension of work, way of thinking about persons, and organization that encompasses an
apprehension for employees’ well-being and their effectiveness. Employee Satisfaction with
different requirements through activities, resources, and results restricting from contribution in
the workplace (Sirgy et al., 2001).

2.2. Employee Retention

Employee retention is an important complication faced by employers because of the scarcity of
skilled employees and employee turnover. It is considered an essential challenge for the
Institutions. Johnson et al. (2000) defined retention as the capability to be committed to
workforces that the institution requires, longer than other institutions, thus it can be assumed
that retention is a long-term commitment between the employer and employees. Employee
retention is a significant tool for better job performance. Today, organizations are challenging
to retain employees for a long period. These institutions focus on inviting the best people,
selecting them, and then retaining skilled employees. To retain staff, employers must use
observes that assist both employers as well as employees and leads to high performance. To
create an intellectual of the relationship between employees and organizational values, it is very
essential to recruit the employees by perspectives and policies. If the supervisors render support
to their employees, they will feel more attached and linked to that particular institution and they
can help the institutions through retention.

2.3. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the key element of turnover, organizational commitment, absenteeism, and
burnout. Satisfaction is an amendable factor for attaining the requirements. During the
neoclassical period, theories supported the point that employees’ satisfaction directly impacts
productivity (Rilley, 2006). They thought that is a cause-effect relationship between
productivity and job satisfaction. This responded to the question of why institutions tried to
develop their productivity through the employees in several ways (Oosthuizen et al., 2016).
The two factors work-life balance and job satisfaction may have a negative influence on the
outcomes of working people and subsequently cause an additional cost to outlays of an
institution (Hallman, 1997). The present situation at the global level has exposed the necessity
of enriching work quality as well as productivity and offering safety and a healthy work
environment (Fayyazi, & Aslani, 2015). It is also an affecting orientation that an employee has
moved towards their work (Martin & Roodt, 2008). It can be treated as a complete emotion
about their job or related to the gathering of approaches about various phases of the job.

2.4. Job Performance

Performance is the execution of an assigned task restrained against pre-set identified ideals of
accuracy, cost, completeness, and speed. In a working place, employee performance is
estimated to be the implementation of a requirement in a way that releases the recitalist from
all obligations (Indermun, 2013). Is measures are used to monitor an organization's growth
against its strategic plan and particular goals for its performance. This is applied to individual
assignments to confirm that targets are met and cost-effective (Salim & Imran, 2014). In this

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2288 editor@iaeme.com

 Quality of Work-Life on Employee Retention and Job Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Job
Performance

study, the employee performance will be constructed on stakeholder satisfaction, employee

satisfaction, and institutional effectiveness.

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Data and Sample
This study is based on quantitative research to explore the relationship between quality of work-
life on job satisfaction and employee retention with the moderating effect of job performance.
The population is the faculty members of arts and science colleges in Kerala. Using a simple
random sampling method is to define the sample size. The sample size is 383 which is
considered a representation of the population. A structured measurement scale was used to
gather the data from the samples. To evaluate the conceptual model, descriptive statistics,
correlation, and multiple linear regression analysis were done to validate the constructed
hypotheses and found the reliability of the measures.

3.2. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 The Conceptual Framework of the Study

3.3. Hypotheses Development

The following are the hypotheses that are constructed based on the above-mentioned model:
H1: Quality of Work life is positively and significantly related to Job satisfaction
H2: Quality of Work life is positively and significantly related to Employee Retention
H3: Job performance moderates the relationship between Quality of Work-life and Job
satisfaction
H4: Job performance moderates the relationship between Quality of Work-life and Employee
Retention.

3.4. Measures
A structured measurement scale has five sections. The first section deals with the demographics
of the respondents. The second section consists of the quality of work-life that has 10-items
adopted from Hayman (2005). The third part deals with job satisfaction that has 6-items adopted
from Brayfield & Rothe (1951). The fourth section comprises employee retention has 12–items
adopted from Tomchin & Impara, (1992), and the final part deals with job performance it has
18–items adopted from Ramos-Villagrasa et al., (2019).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2289 editor@iaeme.com

 Arul Ramanatha Pillai and Pradeep Kunjupilla Gopalakrishna Kurup

4. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 1 Demographics of the Respondents
Category Item Respondents Percentage
Male 187 48.8
Gender
Female 196 51.2
Less than 30 74 19.3
31 – 40 89 23.2
Age (in years)
41 – 50 137 35.7
51 and above 83 21.7
Arts 168 43.8
Discipline
Science 215 56.1
Aided 176 45.9
Working as
Self - Finance 207 54.1
Less than 5 87 33.7
Experience 6 – 10 103 26.8
(in years) 11 – 15 124 32.3
16 and above 69 18.0
Source: Field Data
Above mentioned table – 1 displays, out of 383 respondents, 187 males and 196 females
have participated in this survey. 74 respondents opted to be less than 30 years old, 89
respondents opted to be 31 - 40 years old, 137 respondents opted to be 41 - 50 years old, and
83 respondents opted to be 51 and above years old. 168 respondents belong to the arts discipline
and 215 respondents belong to the science discipline. 176 respondents were working as an aided
professors and 207 respondents were working as self-finance professors. 87 respondents have
less than 5 years of experience, 103 respondents have 6 – 10 years of experience, 124
respondents have 11 – 15 years of experience, and 69 respondents have 16 and above years of
experience.

Table 2 Mean, Standard deviation, Correlation analysis, and Reliability of the variables
Variable Mean SD Alpha QWL JS ER JP
Quality Work Life 1.83 11.73 0.861 0.82*
Job Satisfaction 2.94 12.26 0.945 0.79** 0.741*
Employee Retention 1.72 1.93 0.794 0.07** 0.07** 0.94**
Job Performance 2.98 3.40 0.887 0.84** 0.62* 0.47* 0.74*
(Note: * represents significant at 0.05 level; ** denotes significant at 0.01level)
The above table displays that Cronbach's alpha value for the quality of work-life – 0.861,
Job satisfaction – 0.945, Employee Retention – 0.794, and Job performance – 0.887. The
correlation value of quality of work-life and job satisfaction (r=0.79) is significant at a 0.01
level. Hence, there is a positive relationship is exist between quality of work-life and job
satisfaction. The correlation value of quality of work-life and employee retention (r=0.07) is
significant at a 0.01 level.

Table 3 Regression Analysis

Variable β R2 R2 (Adj) f
Job Performance X (Quality of Work Life – Job 0.723** 0.49 0.19 72.8**
Satisfaction)
Job Performance X (Quality of Work Life – 0.451* 0.26 0.32 65.1**
Employee Retention)
(Note: * represents significant at 0.05 level; ** denotes significant at 0.01level)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2290 editor@iaeme.com

 Quality of Work-Life on Employee Retention and Job Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Job
Performance

The above-mentioned results show that regression analysis tests the moderating effect of
job performance. The results specify that satisfied the relationship between quality of work-life
and job satisfaction and quality of work-life and employee retention was significant interaction,
Therefore, the job performance moderates the relationship between quality of work-life with
job satisfaction, and the job performance moderates the relationship between quality of work-
life with employee retention.

Table 4 Summary of Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses Result
Quality of work life is positively and significantly related to Job Satisfaction Supported
Quality of work life is positively and significantly related to Employee Retention Supported
Job Performance moderates the relationship between Quality of work-life and Job Supported
Satisfaction
Job Performance moderates the relationship between Quality of work-life and Supported
Employee Retention

5. CONCLUSION
Quality of work-life has positive impacts on job satisfaction and employee retention and
simultaneously outcomes in optimized job performance. Therefore, the quality of work-life has
been already improved and organizational initiatives. This study also defined the relationship
between quality of work-life, job satisfaction, and employee retention. In addition, the literature
displays that job performance moderated the relationship between quality of work-life with job
satisfaction and employee retention. It can enable the success of an institution through the
acceptability of self-awareness, collaboration, a culture of synergy, and a sense of well-being
which enhances the level of employee retention. The findings expose the significance of
background in the resolve of circumstances where social support can inhibit negative valuations
about the work environment of individuals who are feeling a high rate of conflict between their
job role and their family. These results provide the literature on quality of work-life by
indicating under which situations that pursuing to study while employed are more exposed to
the quality of work life.

REFERENCES
[1] Grzywacz, J. & Carlson, D., 2007, ‘Conceptualizing work–family balance: Implications for
practice and research’, Advances in Developing Human Resources 9(4), 455–471.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422307305487
[2] Oosthuizen, R., Coetzee, M. & Munro, Z., 2016, ‘Work-life balance, job satisfaction and
turnover intention amongst information technology employees’, Southern African Business
Review 20(1), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.25159/1998-8125/6059
[3] Clark, S. C. Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations,
53, 747-770, (2000).
[4] Greenhaus, J., Collins, K. & Shaw, J., 2003, ‘The relation between work–family balance and
quality of life’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 63(3), 510–531.
[5] Seashore, S.E. and Yuchtman, E. (2016) Factorial Analysis of Organizational Performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 377-395.
[6] Chumg, H.F., Cooke, L., Fry, J. and Hung, I.-H. (2015) Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing
in the Virtual Organisation: Employees’ Sense of Well-Being as a Mediating Effect. Computers
in Human Behavior, 44, 70-80.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2291 editor@iaeme.com

 Arul Ramanatha Pillai and Pradeep Kunjupilla Gopalakrishna Kurup

[7] Johnson, B.G. and Solon, G. (2016) American Economic Association Estimates of the Direct
Effects of Comparable Worth Policy. The American Economic Review, 76, 1117-1125.
[8] Davis, L. E., & Cherns, A. B. (1975) The quality of working life: Problems, Prospects, and the
State of the Art (Vol. 1). New York: The Free Press.
[9] Mirvis, P. H. & Lawler, E. E. (1984). Accounting For the Quality of Work Life. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 5, 197-212.
[10] Lee D.J., Singhapakdi A. & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). Further Validation of a Need-based Quality of
Work Life (QWL) Measure: Evidence From Marketing Practitioners. Applied Research Quality
of Life, 2, 273-287.
[11] Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P. & Lee, D. J. (2001). A New Measure of Quality of Work Life
(QWL) Based on Need Satisfaction and Spillover Theories. Social Indicators Research, 55,
241-302.
[12] Riley, D., 2006, ‘Turnover intentions: The mediation effects of job satisfaction, affective
commitment and continuance commitment’, PhD thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New
Zealand.
[13] Oosthuizen, R., Coetzee, M. & Munro, Z., 2016, ‘Work-life balance, job satisfaction and
turnover intention amongst information technology employees’, Southern African Business
Review 20(1), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.25159/1998-8125/6059
[14] Martin, A. & Roodt, G., 2008, ‘Perceptions of organisational commitment, job satisfaction and
turnover intentions in a post-merger South African tertiary institution’, SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology 34(1), 23–31. https://doi. org/10.4102/sajip.v34i1.415
[15] Hellman, C.M., 1997., Job satisfaction and intent to leave’, The Journal of Social Psychology,
137(6), 677–689.
[16] Fayyazi, M. & Aslani, F., 2015, ‘The impact of work-life balance on employees’ job satisfaction
and turnover intention; the moderating role of continuance commitment’, International Letters
of Social and Humanistic Sciences 51, 33–41.
https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.51.3
[17] Indermun V, (2013). The job satisfaction- employee performance relationship: a theoretical
perspective, International Journal of Innovative Research in Management, 11(2), 1–8.
[18] Salim M. A. and Imran M. (2014). Relationship between job satisfaction and job performance:
a case study of universities of peshawar district (KPK) Pakistan, European Journal of Business
and Management, 6(31), 314–321,
[19] Hayman, J. (2005). Psychometric assessment of an instrument designed to measure work life
balance. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(1), 85-91.
[20] Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35(5), 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055617
[21] Tomchin, E.M. and Impara, J.C. (1992), “Unraveling teachers’ beliefs about grade retention”,
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 199-223.
[22] Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., Barrada, J. R., Fernández-Del-Río, E., & Koopmans, L. (2019).
Assessing job performance using brief self-report scales: The case of the individual work
performance questionnaire. Revista de Psicologia Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 35(3),
195–205. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a21

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2292 editor@iaeme.com