Purpose: The purpose of the paper is to investigate the predictors of employees’ commitment and also find out the critical dimensions of quality of work life (QWL) that engender commitment among in today’s employees in information technology (IT) firms. Further, the study analyses on the association of demographic variables with QWL and organizational commitment (OC). Design/Methodology/Approach: The sample size for the study consists of 618 employees (respondents) from 21 large-caps (large-capital) IT companies in India. Cronbach alpha to test the reliability and validity; Factor Analysis as a data reduction tool. Subsequently, the mixed model and multi-regression methods are applied to test the relationship between the said variables. Findings: The findings suggest that 13 variables of QWL play a key role in the work life of IT employees. The results show that there is a significant relationship between the qualification and number of dependents with QWL and OC both. Moreover, a substantial relationship between QWL and affective commitment of IT employees is found. The results further reveal that there exists a strong link between various dimensions of QWL with OC. Practical Implications: QWL will help in creating a healthy environment in the organization that will enhance the commitment of the employees towards their organization. Enhanced OC will stimulate individual’s attachment to the organization. Moreover, if QWL and OC are boosted, they will motivate employees to stay with the organization and enthusiastically work towards organizational objectives. Further, the escalation of OC will help in achieving growth, profit and market share at a greater pace. Originality/Value: This study focuses on the important variables for employees commitment in the terms of QWL.
With the world changing rapidly, managing an organization has become an increasingly complex act for the sustainable future and growth. The study provides an insight on how organizations develop and make changes in the QWL to get committed employees. Manager’s work on those variables which are significantly related to QWL and OC and these variables are also useful for the sustainable growth [
The concept of organizational commitment (OC) has been derived as a concept from industrial and organizational psychology [
IT sector is an emerging and continuously blooming sector. According to the NASSCOM report 2012 & Indian Times report 2017, IT sector has been continued to emerge as the prime engine of economic growth and contributing to nearly 13% of the Indian gross domestic product (GDP). IT sector gives the employment directly about 2.5 million people in India, so it is necessary to assess the quality of work life that enhance the organizational commitment i.e. affective, continuance and normative [
The aim of this study is to deliver the indicators based information that will enhance the performance of IT firms through exploring and assessing dimensions of QWL and predictors’ employees’ commitment. The study has been designed to attain the following objectives.
1) To understand the association of demographic variables of employees’ with quality of work life and commitment.
2) To understand the association of dimensions of quality of work life and organizational commitment.
3) To understand the predictors of affective normative and continuance commitment.
QWL, as an aspect, has evolved and affected a multitude of segments such as economic, technological and social era worldwide. To develop OC in employees, QWL should grow in companies. Past studies prove that QWL plays a vital role in generating the employee’s willingness to stay in an organization and cultivates a positive attitude towards the job and organization. OC is a psychological commitment of employees where employees attach themselves to the organization with long-term loyalty [
Researcher tried to identify various dimensions of QWL and their degree of influence towards OC. Past studies proves that there is significant relationship with the QWL and OC [
H01: There is no significant relation between QWL and OC;
H01a: There is no significant relation between dimensions of QWL and affective commitment;
H01b: There is no significant relation between dimensions of QWL and continuance commitment;
H01c: There is no significant relation between dimensions of QWL and normative commitment.
Past research stated that supervision, remuneration and welfare schemes are positively correlated with affective, nominative and continuance (alternative) commitment [
Based on the literature, it can be said that dimensions of QWL help in developing employee’s attachment towards the organization which propels the growth of an organization. After discussing literature review and noting identification of objectives following hypotheses were developed:
Association of demographic variables with QWL and OC
Demographic variable is an important factor that influences perception of individual’s towards QWL in the organization and build the commitment among employees. Past studies have proven that marital status, designation, gender and experience have a significant relationship with the QWL and OC [
H02: There is no significant relation between demographic variables of employees with QWL.
H03: There is no significant relation between demographic variables of employees with OC.
Sampling
A total of 618 samples are collected from employees working with the IT Firms in India. The total number of large-cap (large-capital) IT firms in India is 30 approximately. The authors have approached all the large-cap IT firms, but data could only be collected from 21 companies. Data are collected through systematic random sampling. The questionnaire is developed by the self-administered questionnaire development process [
For the survey, 1000 questionnaires are distributed amongst the respondents of which 700 filled questionnaires came back. However, from the returned questionnaires, 82 questionnaires are discarded as they are filled partially, and are not adequate for the analysis. The actual response rate is 70%. The sample consists of 618 questionnaires wholly filled by the IT sector employees.
In the study, the authors have chosen demographic variables such as gender, marital status, age, work experience, educational qualification, remuneration, designation, jobs changed, number of dependents and the spouse’s income of the employees in IT firms. All these qualitative variables play an important role in the performance of the employees. The frequency distribution of the demographics is shown in
The results of KMO and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity have been illustrated in
Category | Sub-Category | No. of Respondents | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male Female | 463 155 | 74.9 25 |
Age | Below 35 years 35 & above | 459 159 | 74.2 25.7 |
Marital status | Married Unmarried | 208 410 | 33.6 66.3 |
Educational Qualification | Graduate Post graduate | 318 300 | 51.5 48.5 |
Remuneration | Below 5 lakhs Above 5 lakhs | 361 257 | 58.4 41.6 |
Designation | Manager Executive Engineer Application developer Trainee Team Leader | 34 103 183 133 106 59 | 5.5 16.6 29.6 21.5 17.1 9.5 |
Work experience | Below 5 years Above 5 years | 321 297 | 51.9 48.1 |
Job changed | Less than 2 jobs More than 2 jobs | 402 216 | 65.05 34.95 |
Dependents | No dependents Dependents | 444 174 | 71.85 28.15 |
Spouse’s Income | Below 2.5 l Above 2.5 l | 536 82 | 86.73 13.26 |
Total | 618 | 100 |
KMO and Bartlett’s Test | ||
---|---|---|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy | 0.798 | |
Bartlett’s test of Sphericity | Chi-Square df Sig. | 8683.544 1653 0.000 |
The results demonstrate that the value of KMO is 0.798, which measures the sampling adequacy for conducting the study. Also, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity is significant (p < 0.001) here, which reveals the appropriateness of data for performing the factor analysis.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are used to perform the extraction of variables. The test extracted 13 factors with 44 items. 57% of the variance is explained by the 13 factors along the condition of the Eigenvalue.
The value of Cronbach’s alpha of total item is 0.854, which indicates a high level of internal consistency. This established adequate reliability with Cronbach alpha value greater than 0.70 [
It is found that 13 dimensions of QWL with 55 items cover all the aspects of the workplace. The details of the variables are given in
The possibility of the ordinary linear square model may not be appropriate, stems
Reliability Statistics | ||
---|---|---|
Cronbach’s Alpha | Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items | No. of Items |
0.854 | 0.845 | 55 |
Variables | Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items | Before Factor Analysis | After Factor Analysis | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Job security (JS) | 0.814 | 0.809 | 5 | 3 |
Participative management (PM) | 0.720 | 0.754 | 7 | 3 |
Peer relationship (PR) | 0.755 | 0.753 | 4 | 4 |
Superior relationship (PS) | 0.774 | 0.778 | 3 | 3 |
Work load (WL) | 0.729 | 0.727 | 4 | 3 |
Safety and harassment (SH) | 0.623 | 0.622 | 5 | 3 |
Rewards and recognition (RR) | 0.618 | 0.621 | 3 | 3 |
Career growth (CPD) | 0.701 | 0.702 | 3 | 5 |
Communication (C) | 0.718 | 0.721 | 3 | 3 |
Time pressure (TP) | 0.729 | 0.727 | 5 | 3 |
Pay (P) | 0.750 | 0.751 | 3 | 3 |
Work life balance (WLB) | 0.760 | 0.760 | 9 | 7 |
Fringe benefits (FB) | 0.765 | 0.765 | 12 | 12 |
Affective commitment (AC) | 0.702 | 0.704 | 4 | 4 |
Continuance commitment (CC) | 0.688 | 0.688 | 4 | 3 |
Normative commitment (NC) | 0.740 | 0.737 | 5 | 5 |
Total | 65 | 55 |
from the fact that, lumping together different companies may camouflage the heterogeneity (individual or uniqueness) that may exist among twenty-one companies. The difference may be due to unique features of a company such as human resource practices and policies. One way to take into account the heterogeneity that may exist among each company is to have its intercept.
Equation (1):
QWL / OC = α + β 1 gender + β 2 maritalstatus + β 3 age + β 4 qualification + β 5 workexperience + β 6 jobschanged + β 7 D 1 i + β 8 D 2 i + β 9 D 3 i + ⋯ + β 27 D 20 i + ε
where,
D 1 i , D 2 i , ⋯ , D 20 i = for organization (such as 1 for organization 1, 0 otherwise; 1 for organization 2, 0 otherwise; and so on)
QWL = score of quality of work life (QWL) and organizational commitment (OC)
α = intercept
β 1 , β 2 , ⋯ , β 27 = estimates of coefficient
ɛ = error
This can be done quickly by introducing different intercept dummies for each company. This method is known as only fixed effect model. In this case, 20 dummies will represent differentiated intercept dummy coefficient. In the study, the authors are treating the first organization as a benchmark or reference category although any organization can be chosen for that purpose. If we examine organizations different intercept dummies, we find that several of them are statistically highly significant, indicating heterogeneity among 21 companies. The model is known as a one-way fixed-effect model, which allows intercepting to differentiate between cross-sectional data.
The following hypothesis is developed:
H01: There is no significant relationship between demographic variables of employees and their perception towards OC.
The following hypothesis is developed (
H02: There is no significant relationship between demographic variables of employees and their perception towards QWL.
Linear regression model is used to find the effect of dimensions of QWL on overall commitment and predictors of various types of commitment. Three types of linear regression models are used in this study which is as follows (
Equation (2):
Model 1: OC = α + β 1 JS + β 2 PM + β 3 SR + β 4 PR + β 5 TP + β 6 WL + β 7 SH + β 8 RR − β 9 C + β 10 CPD + β 11 P + β 12 WLB + β 13 FB + ε
Equation model for Affective Commitment
Parameter Estimates | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | OC Normalized | ||||||
Parameter | B | Std. Error | T | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | Partial Eta Squared | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||||
Intercept | 57.591 | 2.803 | 20.547 | 0.000 | 52.086 | 63.096 | 0.417 |
Dummy gender | −0.697 | 0.928 | −0.751 | 0.453 | −2.518 | 1.125 | 0.001 |
Dummy age | −1.316 | 1.022 | −1.287 | 0.199 | −3.324 | 0.692 | 0.003 |
Dummy work experience | 0.530 | 0.922 | 0.575 | 0.565 | −1.280 | 2.341 | 0.001 |
Dummy qualification | 2.395 | 0.871 | 2.748 | 0.006 | 0.683 | 4.106 | 0.013 |
Dummy jobs changed | 1.169 | 0.965 | 1.211 | 0.226 | −.727 | 3.064 | 0.002 |
Dummy marital status | −1.068 | 0.968 | −1.103 | 0.270 | −2.969 | 0.833 | 0.002 |
Dummy dependents | −1.346 | 0.851 | −1.581 | 0.014 | −3.018 | 0.326 | 0.000 |
[org. 1] | 4.397 | 3.149 | 1.396 | 0.163 | −1.787 | 10.582 | 0.003 |
[org. 2] | 5.051 | 3.042 | 1.661 | 0.097 | −.923 | 11.025 | 0.005 |
[org. 3] | 6.651 | 3.046 | 2.184 | 0.029 | 0.669 | 12.634 | 0.008 |
[org. 4] | 4.245 | 3.377 | 1.257 | 0.209 | −2.387 | 10.878 | 0.003 |
[org. 5] | 5.755 | 3.239 | 2.777 | 0.016 | −.607 | 12.117 | 0.005 |
[org. 6] | 3.926 | 3.034 | 1.294 | 0.046 | −2.034 | 9.885 | 0.003 |
[org. 7] | −1.271 | 3.148 | −0.404 | 0.687 | −7.453 | 4.912 | 0.000 |
[org. 8] | 0.514 | 3.199 | 0.161 | 0.872 | −5.768 | 6.797 | 0.000 |
[org. 9] | 1.939 | 3.171 | 0.612 | 0.541 | −4.288 | 8.166 | 0.001 |
[org. 10] | 3.891 | 3.310 | 1.175 | 0.240 | −2.610 | 10.392 | 0.002 |
[org. 11] | 1.152 | 3.277 | 0.351 | 0.725 | −5.285 | 7.588 | 0.000 |
[org. 12] | 0.323 | 3.089 | 0.104 | 0.917 | −5.745 | 6.390 | 0.000 |
[org. 13] | 1.495 | 3.088 | 0.484 | 0.628 | −4.570 | 7.560 | 0.000 |
[org. 14] | 4.023 | 3.188 | 1.262 | 0.207 | −2.238 | 10.284 | 0.003 |
[org. 15] | 0.112 | 3.154 | 0.036 | 0.972 | −6.082 | 6.307 | 0.000 |
[org. 16] | −9.246 | 3.163 | −2.923 | 0.004 | −15.458 | −3.034 | 0.014 |
[org. 17] | −8.287 | 3.203 | −2.587 | 0.010 | −14.578 | −1.996 | 0.011 |
[org. 18] | −0.492 | 3.065 | −0.161 | 0.872 | −6.511 | 5.527 | 0.000 |
[org. 19] | 1.393 | 3.103 | 0.449 | 0.654 | −4.701 | 7.488 | 0.000 |
[org. 20] | −0.647 | 3.230 | −0.200 | 0.841 | −6.990 | 5.696 | 0.000 |
[org. 21] | 0a |
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant (Where B is the coefficient, sig. Is the probability or level of significance, t is t-statistics, Org. is organization).
Parameter Estimates | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable: | QWL Normalized | ||||||
Parameter | B | Std. Error | T | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | Partial Eta Squared | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||||
Intercept | 56.133 | 1.857 | 30.225 | 0.000 | 52.485 | 59.780 | 0.607 |
Dummy gender | −0.258 | 0.615 | −0.420 | 0.675 | −1.465 | 0.949 | 0.000 |
Dummy age | −0.927 | 0.677 | −1.368 | 0.172 | −2.257 | 0.404 | 0.003 |
Dummy work experience | 0.878 | 0.611 | 1.438 | 0.114 | −0.321 | 2.078 | 0.003 |
Dummy qualification | 1.315 | 0.577 | 2.278 | 0.023 | 0.181 | 2.449 | 0.009 |
Dummy jobs changed | 0.202 | 0.565 | 0.358 | 0.721 | −0.907 | 1.311 | 0.000 |
Dummy marital status | 0.861 | 0.639 | 1.347 | 0.179 | −0.395 | 2.117 | 0.003 |
Dummy dependents | −1.368 | 0.562 | −2.433 | 0.050 | −2.472 | −0.264 | 0.010 |
[org. 1] | 3.690 | 2.086 | 1.769 | 0.077 | −0.408 | 7.788 | 0.005 |
[org. 2] | 4.204 | 2.015 | 2.086 | 0.037 | 0.246 | 8.162 | 0.007 |
[org. 3] | 2.976 | 2.018 | 1.475 | 0.041 | −0.988 | 6.940 | 0.004 |
[org. 4] | 4.041 | 2.238 | 1.806 | 0.051 | −0.354 | 8.436 | 0.005 |
[org. 5] | 3.022 | 2.146 | 1.408 | 0.160 | −1.193 | 7.237 | 0.003 |
[org. 6] | 2.008 | 2.010 | 0.999 | 0.318 | −1.940 | 5.957 | 0.002 |
[org. 7] | 0.863 | 2.086 | 0.414 | 0.679 | −3.234 | 4.959 | 0.000 |
[org. 8] | −1.162 | 2.120 | −0.548 | 0.584 | −5.325 | 3.001 | 0.001 |
[org. 9] | 5.786 | 2.101 | 2.754 | 0.006 | 1.660 | 9.912 | 0.013 |
[org. 10] | 5.136 | 2.193 | 2.342 | 0.020 | 0.828 | 9.444 | 0.009 |
[org. 11] | 3.192 | 2.172 | 1.470 | 0.142 | −1.072 | 7.457 | 0.004 |
[org. 12] | 3.469 | 2.047 | 2.695 | 0.041 | −0.551 | 7.489 | 0.005 |
[org. 13] | 1.968 | 2.046 | 0.962 | 0.337 | −2.051 | 5.986 | 0.002 |
[org. 14] | 2.568 | 2.112 | 1.216 | 0.224 | −1.580 | 6.717 | 0.002 |
[org. 15] | 0.648 | 2.090 | 0.310 | 0.757 | −3.456 | 4.753 | 0.000 |
[org. 16] | −3.026 | 2.096 | −1.444 | 0.149 | −7.142 | 1.090 | 0.004 |
[org. 17] | −0.833 | 2.122 | −0.393 | 0.695 | −5.001 | 3.335 | 0.000 |
[org. 18] | 2.198 | 2.031 | 1.082 | 0.280 | −1.790 | 6.186 | 0.002 |
[org. 19] | 2.628 | 2.056 | 1.278 | 0.202 | −1.410 | 6.666 | 0.003 |
[org. 20] | 2.142 | 2.140 | 1.001 | 0.317 | −2.061 | 6.345 | 0.002 |
[org. 21] | 0a |
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant (Where B is the coefficient, sig. is the probability or level of significance, t is t-statistics, Org. is organization).
Variables | Model 1 Dependent Variable: OC Method: Linear Regression Method | ||
---|---|---|---|
Coefficients | t- stat | sig. | |
(Constant) | 16.674 | 4.585 | 0.000 |
JS | 0.003 | 0.094 | 0.925 |
PM | 0.02 | 0.698 | 0.485 |
SR | 0.008 | 0.257 | 0.797 |
PR | 0.079 | 2.624 | 0.009 |
TP | 0.113 | 4.198 | 0.000 |
WL | 0.118 | 4.476 | 0.000 |
SH | 0.038 | 1.259 | 0.208 |
RR | 0.051 | 1.653 | 0.099 |
C | −0.026 | −0.898 | 0.370 |
CPD | 0.154 | 4.624 | 0.000 |
P | 0.094 | 3.435 | 0.001 |
WLB | 0.085 | 3.653 | 0.000 |
FB | 0.001 | −0.012 | 0.991 |
R-squared | 0.300 | ||
Adjusted R-squared | 0.285 | ||
Durbin-Watson stat | 1.912 | ||
F-statistics | 19.873 | ||
Significance ( F-stat) | 0.000 |
a. Dependent variable: OC; b. Predictors: (constant), FB, SR, WLB, WL, JS, P, RR, SS, TP, C, PR, PM, CPD.
Model 1a: AC = α + β 1 JS + β 2 PM + β 3 SR + β 4 PR + β 5 TP + β 6 WL + β 7 SH + β 8 RR − β 9 C + β 10 CPD + β 11 P + β 12 WLB + β 13 FB + ε
Equation model for Continuance Commitment
Model 1b: CC = α + β 1 JS + β 2 PM + β 3 SR + β 4 PR + β 5 TP + β 6 WL + β 7 SH + β 8 RR − β 9 C + β 10 CPD + β 11 P + β 12 WLB + β 13 FB + ε
Equation model for Normative Commitment
Model 1c: NC = α + β 1 JS + β 2 PM + β 3 SR + β 4 PR + β 5 TP + β 6 WL + β 7 SH + β 8 RR − β 9 C + β 10 CPD + β 11 P + β 12 WLB + β 13 FB + ε
H03: There is no significant relation between dimensions of QWL and OC.
Equation (2). Model of OC
Model 1: O C = 16.674 + 0.003 J S + 0.02 P M + 0.008 S R + 0.079 P R + 0.113 T P + 0.118 W L + 0.038 S H + 0.51 R R − 0.026 C + 0.154 C P D + 0.94 P + 0.085 W L B + 0.001 F B + ε
The following null hypotheses are taken for the analysis:
H01a: There is no significant relation between dimensions of QWL and affective
Variable | Model 1a Dependent Variable: AC | Model 1b Dependent Variable: CC | Model 1c Dependent Variable: NC | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
coeff | t- stat | sig. | coeff | t- stat | sig. | coeff | t- stat | sig. | |
Constant | 22.295 | 4.101 | 0.000 | 20.442 | 3.468 | 0.001 | −4.212 | −0.789 | 0.43 |
JS | 0.085 | 2.064 | 0.039 | −0.047 | −1.053 | 0.293 | −0.016 | −0.4 | 0.689 |
PM | 0.012 | 0.282 | 0.778 | 0.053 | 1.173 | 0.241 | −0.003 | −0.075 | 0.940 |
SR | 0.044 | 0.949 | 0.343 | −0.01 | −0.201 | 0.84 | −0.014 | −0.306 | 0.760 |
PR | −0.029 | −0.646 | 0.518 | 0.167 | 3.419 | 0.001 | 0.148 | 3.338 | 0.001 |
TP | 0.106 | 2.621 | 0.009 | 0.021 | 0.486 | 0.627 | 0.25 | 6.326 | 0.000 |
WL | 0.046 | 1.178 | 0.239 | 0.189 | 4.424 | 0.000 | 0.134 | 3.469 | 0.001 |
SS | 0.057 | 1.259 | 0.209 | −0.016 | −0.334 | 0.738 | 0.059 | 1.317 | 0.188 |
RR | 0.119 | 2.581 | 0.010 | 0.074 | 1.479 | 0.140 | −0.014 | −0.305 | 0.760 |
C | −0.04 | −0.934 | 0.351 | −0.067 | −1.434 | 0.152 | 0.019 | 0.454 | 0.650 |
CPD | 0.19 | 3.816 | 0.000 | 0.075 | 1.395 | 0.164 | 0.2 | 4.085 | 0.000 |
P | −0.001 | −0.026 | 0.98 | 0.139 | 3.14 | 0.002 | 0.167 | 4.162 | 0.000 |
WLB | 0.004 | 0.122 | 0.903 | 0.065 | 1.725 | 0.085 | 0.195 | 5.677 | 0.000 |
FB | 0.036 | 0.825 | 0.410 | 0.032 | 0.69 | 0.491 | -0.03 | -0.72 | 0.472 |
R-squared | 0.126 | 0.148 | 0.336 | ||||||
Adjusted R-squared | 0.107 | 0.130 | 0.332 | ||||||
Durbin-Watson | 2.012 | 2.104 | 1.696 | ||||||
F-stat. | 6.681 | 8.086 | 23.51 | ||||||
Sig. | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Model 1a is the model of affective commitment, Model 1b is continuance commitment and model 1c is normative commitment.
commitment.
H01b: There is no significant relation between dimensions of QWL and continuance commitment.
H01c: There is no significant relation between dimensions of QWL and normative commitment.
The effect of dimensions on affective, continuance and normative commitment are shown in
Equation 3.1. Model of affective commitment
Model 1a: A C = 22.295 + 0.085 J S + 0.012 P M + 0.044 S R − 0.029 P R + 0.106 T P + 0.046 W L + 0.057 S H + 0.119 R R − 0.04 C + 0.19 C P D − 0.001 P + 0.004 W L B + 0.036 F B + ε
In the first model, there is 10% variation among the dimensions of the QWL. Time pressure, career promotions and development, rewards and recognition and job security are highly significant with the affective commitment than the other aspects of the QWL.
Equation 3.2. Model of continuance commitment
Model 1b: C C = 20.442 − 0.047 J S + 0.053 P M − 0.01 S R + 0.167 P R + 0.021 T P + 0.189 W L + 0.016 S H + 0.074 R R − 0.067 C + 0.075 C P D + 0.139 P + 0.065 W L B + 0.032 F B + ε
In the second model, there is 13% variation among the dimensions of the QWL. Peer relationship, workload, and career promotions and development are highly significant with the continuance commitment than the other dimensions of the QWL.
Equation 3.3. Model of normative commitment
Model 1c: N C = − 4.212 − 0.016 J S − 0.003 P M − 0.014 S R + 0.148 P R + 0.25 T P + 0.134 W L + 0.059 S H − 0.014 R R + 0.019 C + 0.2 C P D + 0.67 P + 0.195 W L B − 0.03 F B + ε
In the third model, there is 33% variation among the dimensions of the QWL. Peer relationship, work load, time pressure, pay, work-life balance and career promotions and development are highly significant with the normative commitment than the other dimensions of the QWL. So, the value of F given in the test rejects the null hypothesis.
The findings of the study reveals that variables of quality of work life such as: career progress and development, peer and superior relationship, rewards and recognitions, work life balance, peer relationship, superior relationship and job security, fringe benefits, plays a vital role in the IT firms in the current scenario after checking the validity and reliability of the variables.
On application of the general linear model, it is found that there exists a relationship between demographic variables and OC. The results show that lesser educational qualification and presence of dependents have a significant positive relationship with OC. Gender, marital status, age group, work experience, jobs changed and work experience does not have any significant association with OC. The coefficient of gender and age group is −0.697 and −1.316. It explains that average score of OC for a male employee is lower by about −0.697 units as compared to the average score of OC of female employees. In the case of age group, the average score of the OC for below 35 years of age employees is lower by −1.316 units as compared to the employees having age more than 35 years of age employees, but not significant. Employees who have 5-year work experience raise the average score of OC by 0.530 as compared to employees whose work experience is more than 5 years, but it is also not significantly correlated.
Similarly, it is found that there exists a positive association between demographic variables and QWL. The results show that educational qualification has a significant positive relationship with QWL. Gender, marital status, age group, dependent child, dependent adult, works experience do not have any significant association with the QWL [
The results show that the adjusted R² in the model is 0.285 which means that the linear regression explains 28.5% of the variance in the data. There are some predictors such as peer relationship, time pressure, workload, career promotion and development, pay and work-life balance which create high impact on OC. The results show that the value of F = 19.873 that explains there is a significant high association between the dependent and independent variables (predictors).
On performing the regression analysis between QWL and OC, it is found that there is a positive relationship between the two. The coefficient of peer relationship (0.79), time pressure (0.113), workload (0.118), career growth (0.154), pay (0.94) and work-life balance (0.85) are significant with OC. Time pressure, workload and career growth are the three predictors that play a vital role in the life of employees and develop an attachment towards the organization. Dimensions of QWL are found to be profoundly influencing the dependent variable OC and its aspects. Thus it can be seen in
There is a significantly positive correlation between QWL and types of OC of employees. Time pressure, workload and career growth are essential three predictors, which play a vital role in the life of employees to create attachment towards the organization [
This paper gives the important dimensions of QWL which creates commitment in today’s IT employees towards the organization. In the end, it can be seen that job satisfaction, rewards and recognition and career promotion and development are highly significant with the affective commitment at the level of 5% significance. Peer relationship, workload, and career promotions and development are positively substantial with the continuance commitment at the 2% significance level. Where, peer relationship, workload, time pressure, pay, work-life balance, and career promotions and development are highly significant with the normative commitment at the level of 1% significance.
QWL has become the most crucial factor in every sector. QWL has been developed as one of the mandatory dimensions for the publically listed companies which should be followed to improve the employee’s welfare and society at large. QWL will help in creating a healthy environment in the organization that will enhance the commitment of the employees towards their organization. Enhanced OC will stimulate individual’s attachment to the organization. Moreover, if QWL and OC are boosted, they will motivate employees to stay with the organization and enthusiastically work towards organizational objectives. Further, the escalation of OC will help in achieving growth, profit and market share at a greater pace.
The role of demographic variables is essential in the lives of employees to establish their association with QWL and OC. The educational qualification also plays a vital role in forming their perception towards things. At a workplace, educational qualification of the employees is highly significant with QWL and OC, where higher and better-educated employees do not perceive better QWL as compared to lesser qualified employees. The reason behind this could be the fact that the highly skilled employees expect more from the organization. Responsibility and care of the family is the necessity of the individual. If an employee has more dependent members, then the commitment of an employee towards the organization will increase, and the perception towards organization will improve because the decision of switching from the current organization may disrupt the life of the dependents. The finding of the study identifies that the educational qualification and the number of dependents are significantly related to QWL and OC.
This paper has found a positive and significant relationship between the dimensions of QWL and types of OC on a sample of employees from IT sector. Time pressure, workload, and career growth are essential three predictors, which play a vital role in the life of employees to create attachment towards the organization [
If an organization provides low QWL to its employees, then employees will inevitably not get attached to the organization, thus increasing the rate of burnout and eventually will move away from the organization. It has been clear from the findings that impact of QWL through factors like career progress development, peer and superior relationship, participative management, rewards and recognition, work-life balance, fringe benefits, safety, peer relationship, superior relationship and job security can attract the commitment of the employees towards the organization. The terms like burnout, attrition, etc. directly affects the cost and environment of the organization, which is detrimental to the organization regarding growth and competition.
QWL and OC affect the performance of the organization. The study fills the literature gap of QWL, OC and organizational performance. To get accurate information about the relationship between QWL, OC and organizational performance, other sectors of the industry should also be taken into consideration. The comparison should be done with other sectors or large-cap companies with medium capital (mid-cap) companies or small capital (small-cap) companies. The future studies should consider new variables that are not used in this study. The other variables that influence the perception of employees as well as affect QWL are technological changes, training, and development, grievances handling procedures, personality traits etc. The above said variables are yet to be researched to analyze QWL, OC and their impact on organizational performance.
There are always some shortcomings in the research work that cannot be removed. Though the researchers have taken due care in data collection, analysis, and interpretation but there are some shortcomings in the research. Firstly, both primary and secondary data sources are used in the study. Qualitative research is always time-consuming and quite expensive. Primary data collection method is the dominant method to get information directly from the employees, but it has some flaws as well. Sometimes employees do not feel comfortable with the researcher to share all the information related to them. Moreover, the views of the respondents in the study are the reflection of sample size chosen, but we cannot accurately say that it does not reflect the views of the universe. The interpretation and specification of QWL and OC that are empirically examined in the present study must be regarded as tentative.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Yadav, R., Khanna, A., Sengar, R. and Dasmohapatra, S. (2019) Affective, Normative and Continuance: Predictors of Employees’ Commitment of Large-Cap It Firms in Indian Context. Theoretical Economics Letters, 9, 1772-1791. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2019.96113