88
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.45.09.9
How to Cite:
Kundi, G.M. (2021). Relationship between quality of work-life and individual work performance: Moderating role of organizational
culture. Amazonia Investiga, 10(45), 88-98. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.45.09.9
Relationship between quality of work-life and individual work
performance: Moderating role of organizational culture
Received: August 15, 2021 Accepted: September 25, 2021
Written by:
Ghulam Muhammad Kundi31
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3082-1611
Abstract
The study aimed to find the contingent role of organizational culture upon relation and cooperation, and
facilities provided to employees at the workplace to enhance individual’s work performance. A cross-
survey approach was adopted. A total of 400 complete questionnaires were used in the analysis. SPSS-25
was used for the analysis of data. Hierarchical multiple regression was employed to test the hypotheses. It
was found that there is a significant moderating role of organizational culture upon relation and cooperation,
and facilities provided to employees to enhance individual work performance. The study finds that there is
an intense need to improve the quality of work-life and workplace of health professionals so they deliver
their best to achieve organizational objectives. The study recommends that there is a need to a supportive
culture because it plays an instrumental role in bringing the desired level of performance which ultimately
leads the organization to success. This study was conducted in healthcare organizations; the findings of this
study could only be generalized into the health sector.
Keywords: Facilities, Individual Work Performance, Organizational Culture, Quality of Work-Life.
SPSS-25
Introduction
Previously, the words happiness, well-being, and
health were used to denote “quality of life” but
these terms are now obsolete and have several
problems while defining them in an absolute
terminology since people were defining and
using them with varying meanings on different
occasions. Therefore, these words were
substituted by a more comprehensive and
absolute concept of “quality of work-life”. The
31
Department of Health Administration, College of Public Health and Health Informatics, Al-Bukayriyah, Qassim University, Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia.
concept was first coined by Pigou in 1920 in his
book “Economic Well-being”. Initially, this book
was overlooked and constantly ignored till the
end of World War II. After WWII, World Health
Organization (WHO) further refined, redefined,
and expanded the concept of health where social
wellbeing was included in the definition of health
inter alia the physical and psychological
concepts. Then after WHO popularized the new
Kundi, G.M. / Volume 10 - Issue 45: 88-98 / September, 2021
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
89
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
definition of quality of work-life (QWL) as an
aim of individuals aligned with cultural and
values system linked with hopes, living
standards, and interests (Allworth, & Hesketh,
1999). This definition includes the physical,
psychological, and social well-being of an
individual, that how an individual makes
relations with surroundings, and their level of
independence, etc. The concept of quality of
work-life got the attention of researchers,
academicians, and practitioners since mid of the
last century (Ruzevicius, 2012). Previously
quality of work-life and quality of life was
considered as material welfare and wealth but
later on the concept of values was also added into
the definition of quality of life and work-life thus,
the concepts were modified. Based on those new
models, theories, and instruments were
developed by the researchers to measure the
quality of work life. The quality of life was
studied in the past studies, even still the life at the
workplace was overlooked in these studies. This
study is an effort to fill the gaps in the theories
and models of quality of work-life (Ashford,
1986). The study is conducted to investigate the
contingent role of organizational culture upon
relation and cooperation, and facilities provided
to employees at the workplace to enhance
individual’s work performance.
Literature Review
Theoretical Framework Analysis (TFA) was
employed to review the existing sources of
literature related to the relationship between
quality of work-life (QWL), individual work
performance (IWP), and organizational culture
(OC) which suggest the use of several qualitative
analysis models like: ‘thematic network analysis’
by Attride-Stirling (2001); ‘Grounded-theory’ of
Glasser & Strauss (1967), ‘Framework-Analysis’
by Ritchie & Spencer (1994).
Quality of work-life
Quality of work life is linked with organizational
practices, it deals with enhancing a professional’s
mental health, satisfaction, and safety. An
increase in quality of work-life ensures the
retention of a highly productive workforce
(Almalki, Fitzgerald, & Clark, 2012). The
increasing complexities and challenges at the
workplace greatly influenced individual work
performance, for example, awareness and
knowledge management, rapid technology
change is making the work environment more
complex and difficult (Taher, 2013). With
emerging challenges and complexities, health
professionals are facing several issues related to
the quality of work-life, due to lack of
satisfaction, the individual work performance in
healthcare organizations has recorded a decrease
in their performance (Albejaidi, Kundi, &
Mughal, 2020).
In this study, the researcher used quality of work-
life as a predictor. Sirgy et al. (2001) have
categorized quality of work-life into two groups
i.e., higher-order needs and lower-order needs.
According to them, higher-order needs included
self-esteem, self-actualization, and aesthetic
needs, while lower-order needs consist of safety,
health, and wellbeing, etc. Later on, Zare et al.
(2012) divided quality of work-life into four
main attributes such as work-life balance, social
factors, economic factors, and job content
factors. Work-life balance includes fair and
flexible working hours, permission to perform
religious activities, the distance between
personal life and work life. While social factors
include social integration, social networking,
respect to employees, self-esteem needs,
likewise, economic factors include health, salary,
job satisfaction, wellbeing, insurance, health
services, and retirement, etc. Similarly, job
content factors include teamwork, training and
development, career growth, proper work
environment, facilities, autonomy at work, and
interpersonal relationship with colleagues and
supervisors, etc. (Malik, Cao, Mughal, Kundi,
Mughal, & Ramayah, 2020; Awan et al., 2014).
Before this model, Hsu and Kernohan (2006)
categorized the quality of the work-life model
into 56 attributes with six main themes. These
themes are demography, organizational aspect,
socio-economic aspects, self-actualization, work
aspect, and human relation aspect. In addition,
Deb (2006) divided quality of work-life into job
rotation, career development, job enrichment,
and participation in the decision-making process.
Based on the above discussion, this study used
work environment, relation and cooperation,
training and development, facilities, job
satisfaction, autonomy at work, salary, and
facilities as predictors of individual work
performance. On the other side, individual work
performance was taken as criterion variables in
the study. Azril et al. (2010) claimed a very weak
relationship between quality of work-life and
individual work performance, thus, there was an
immense need to add some contingent variable.
Relation and Cooperation
Every employee and every manager in one way
or the other are involved in some kind of
relationship in work settings. The relationship
90
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
and cooperation with each other are sometimes
positive and productive, while sometimes, it is
negative when influenced by nepotism,
favoritism, and cynical behavior, etc. is
practiced. People work individually as well as
collectively in groups to achieve some common
goals and objectives, the hallmark of
management Zare et al. (2012). A manager is
given authority and control over the resources.
By using these two things, they get the work done
by working with or working through the
employees through command and direction to
complete a specified task. A manager alone is
unable to complete the task, therefore, s (he) uses
human resources, here good and intimate
relations between leaders and followers become
significant and instrumental for managerial
success and enhanced performance (Akhtar,
Nazarudin, & Kundi, 2021a). Hsu and Kernohan
(2006) asserts that their cooperation with each
other in form of sharing knowledge, information
and extending help to each other help the
organization materializes its goals through timely
completion of the assigned tasks. Babalola,
Gbadegesin, & Patience, (2014) have reported
that usually, this relation falls under the vertical
category i.e., from manager-to-subordinate, also
called superior-subordinate relationship, or
master-servant relationship. The manager is
responsible to identify, control and rectify the
mistakes of employees at the workplace through
timely directions and guidance. And this is
possible only if effective communication is
employed, therefore, (Albejaidi, Kundi, &
Mughal, 2020). considered effective
communication skills as a prerequisite for good
and efficient management. Some managers have
direct communication with their subordinates
while others create power distance, both create a
unique mindset among the employees in the
organizations.
The concept of the subordinate-supervisor
relationship is deeply rooted in the concept of
leadership styles. Leadership is the process, and
a leader is a person who can motivate their
employees. A leader can come up with novel
ideas and instill those ideas in each member of
the team and motivate and satisfy them,
cooperate with them to achieve their personal as
well as organizational goals (Malik, Cao,
Mughal, Kundi, Mughal, & Ramayah, 2020;
Awan et al., 2014). According to Babalola et al
(2014), there are four dimensions of superior-
subordinate communication relationship, i.e.,
positive communication relationship, upward
openness communication, negative, and job-
related communication. The positive relationship
communication allows the employees to send
feedback and queries about work in the
organizations to the managers.
Managers are open to take feedback from
employees, listen to their problems, solve them,
and help them to participate in the decision-
making process (Akhtar, Nazarudin, & Kundi,
2021b). While upward communication
relationship allows the employees to agree and
disagree with their manager/supervisor. Negative
relationship communication is used by those
managers who do not leave any opportunity to
criticize the employees, likewise, job-related
relationships and communication include
information, rules, policies, and supervisor
feedback about the performance (Babalola,
Gbadegesin, & Patience, 2014). Those leaders
which allow their employees to participate in the
decision-making process, listen to them, and help
them to progress in their career are considered
the most effective leaders, this kind of
relationship and cooperation with employees
falls under the category of transformational
leadership styles.
Facilities
According to Asmui, Hussin, and Paino (2012)
facilities influence the mental and physical
capabilities of the workforce. Healthy workplace
such as human-centric office design,
arrangement of furniture, state-of-the-art
equipment, and provision of internet, Wi-Fi,
pleasant lighting arrangement, stationery, and
other facilities increase the productivity of
employees. It is found that proper provision of
needed facilities can reduce the level of physical
and mental stress among the employees. They
also argued that if organizations lack such
facilities as a result it will increase safety issues,
which also include stress, absenteeism, and
decreased productivity. Work stress is defined as
harmful emotional and physical responses, and it
occurs when job facilities do not match the
potential and capabilities of the employees.
Facilities deals with ergonomics, while the poor
practice of ergonomics will lead to poor
performance, thus, to deliver at their best, it is
essential to facilitate the employees with the best
working environment, conditions, and facilities.
An appropriate and comfortable human-centered
working environment and facilities help the
organizations to achieve the desired level of
performance (Akhtar, Nazarudin, & Kundi,
2021ab). The nonalignment between human
needs and facilities will lead to work-related
musculoskeletal disorders. Daubermann et al.
(2011) have reported 12 twelve ergonomics
principles to be followed by a health organization
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
91
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
to achieve the desired level of employee
performance against the standard and criteria.
These principles are (1). everything easy to
reach, (2) proper heights for work, (3) excessive
force must be reduced, (4) work in good postures,
(5) repetition must be reduced, (6) reduce fatigue,
(7) pressure on employees must be reduced,
(8) allow the employees to get adjusted to the
environment, (9) clearance and access,
(10) provide a comfortable work environment,
(11) improve understanding, (12) work
organization must be improved. Furthermore, the
physical work environment includes chairs,
lighting, working hours, and humidity, etc.
Individual Work Performance (IWP)
Individual work performance is an issue that has
exclusively keep the organizations worried
throughout the world, attracted the researchers to
put efforts to investigate the issues faced by
management related to wellbeing and employee
performance. Various studies on individual work
performance have been conducted with diverse
methodologies on work, commitment,
fulfillment, and identity of individual work
performance (Koopmans, Bernaards,
Hildebrandt, Schaufeli, de Vet Henrica, & van
der Beek, 2011. However, literature is replete
with varying approaches to study an individual
work performance and to make the individual as
productive as possible, likewise, organizational
psychologists studied the influence of work
engagement, satisfaction, and personality on the
individual work performance in healthcare
organizations. It is reported that individual work
performance differs from job to job, therefore
numerous measures have been used for the
individual work performance measurement
(Koopmans, Bernaards, Hildebrandt, Schaufeli,
de Vet Henrica, & van der Beek (2011). Since
work performance is a latent abstract construct
that could not directly be measured, therefore, it
is measured against its dimensions (Fay &
Sonnentag, 2009). The universally accepted
definition of work states that it is the behavior or
action related to the objectives of an organization
(Lennox & Mansfield 2011). The employee work
performance is distinct from the productivity of
work, whereas work productivity implies an
input divided by output, which means that work
performance is a broader concept than work
productivity.
Organizational Culture
Hofstede (1997) defined culture as values,
beliefs, traditions of the society, organizations, or
group of people and it plays a significant role in
the success of any organization for which
organizations needs culture must support the
business. The internal stakeholders, their values,
belief, and traditions greatly influence the
decision-making process (Acar & Acar, 2014).
According to Zeqiri and Alija (2016) culture also
has subcultures since all stakeholders come from
different backgrounds, i.e., doctors might belong
to cultures, where nurses come from other
cultures, and the paramedical staff from another
culture, once all these cultural differences met at
one place they influence the overall culture of the
organization in their way (Malik, Cao, Mughal,
Kundi, Mughal, & Ramayah, 2020).
Anthropologists consider culture as rituals and
customs, according to Zare et al. (2012), culture
is a set of beliefs, values, norms, and assumptions
that change the behavior of individuals, teams,
groups in the organizations (Gatseliuk,
Strelbitska, Herasymchuk, Pavlyshyn, &
Khrystiuk, 2021). Hofstede (1997) defined
culture as the programming of the mind which
distinguishes one group different from another
group. Organizations are made up of individuals
and groups who share some common values and
develop their own culture. Hofstede (1997)
developed a model of organizational culture with
six dimensions, which is widely considered by
the researchers as a reliable and authentic model
to understand the organizational culture. All
studies point that culture plays a significant
moderating role between the quality of work-life
and individual work performance (Awadh &
Saad, 2013).
Relationship between Quality of Work-life,
Individual Work Performance, and
Organizational Culture
The theory of social exchange states an exchange
is the trade of tangible and intangible activities
that could be rewarding or non-rewarding
between at least it involves two persons i.e., one
is party ‘A’, and second is party ‘B’. Social
exchange behavior describes that behavior of ‘A’
weakens or strengthens the behavior of ‘B’.
Cropanzano et al. (2017) state that this
relationship is based on reciprocal gains and
benefits, thus, in such a relationship, one party
might repay the good or bad deeds at the cost of
the other. Based on these notions therefore
researcher has based this study on the social
exchange theory recommended by (Bligh, 2017;
Busari et al., 2019). The organizational culture
moderates relationship between quality of work-
life and enhance individual work performance.
Cameron and Quinn employed the theory of
membership reaction in observing organizational
culture and argued that a positive relationship
92
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
exists between the quality of work-life and
individual work performance (Akhtar,
Nazarudin, & Kundi, 2021a).
Quality of work-life has the power to influence
the feelings and individual performance of an
employee in an organization. Studies enlist
several factors that determine the quality of the
work-life process of an employee like, the fair
and adequate financial and fringe benefits, and
opportunity for professional growth and
development, etc. (Wahlberg, Ramalho, &
Brochado, 2017). The relations between quality
of work-life, and employee performance were
studied by were Kanten and Sadullah (2012) they
analyzed the consistency of the instrument that
evaluates the quality of work-life. Similarly, a
study by Warrick (2017) found that to develop a
corporate organizational culture needs
cooperation, which requires the development of
leaders who undertake quality of work-life as a
vital task with understanding to the aligning
organization decision making with the cultural
ideals. Warrick (2017) reported the relationship
between organizational culture and components
of quality of work-life on employee the health
and safety of the workplace. Valizadeh and
Ghahremani (2012) have found a direct and
significant relationship between the quality of
employees' work-life and organizational culture.
Awadh and Saad (2013) investigated the
influence of organizational culture on employee
performance and found that it is a significant
predictor of job effectiveness. Furthermore,
Kwahar & Akuraun (2018). in their study also
reported a relationship between quality of work-
life and organization culture, employees' job
satisfaction. Malik, Cao, Mughal, Kundi,
Mughal, & Ramayah (2020) contend that if top
management ensures their commitments and
meets the employee’s expectations, this might
reinforce the employee’s good judgment for trust
and fairness in their organization and thus it
results in a positive psychological contract
between the employer and the employee.
Kanten and Sadullah (2012) also discussed the
relationship between quality of work-life and
individual work performance, organizational
culture through the application of the theory of
Quinn and Spreitzer membership relationship.
Zeqiri and Alija (2016) examined the perceived
organizational culture and its influence on the
employee’s performance concerning the quality
of work-life, yet they reported a weak
relationship. Parent & Lovelace (2018) studied
the connections between employee performance,
organizational culture, and an individual’s ability
to adapt to ongoing organizational change,
whereas Razak, Ma’amor, & Hassan (2016) have
reported that there is a relationship between
organizational culture and employee quality of
work-life and has a positive effect on the
individual’s performance.
Based on the well-documented relations between
qualities of work-life, individual work
performance, and organization culture, below
two hypotheses, have been proposed (Acar &
Acar, 2014).
H1: Organizational Culture has a significant
moderating effect upon relation & cooperation
and individual work performance.
H2: There is a positive significant moderating
impact of organizational culture upon facilities
provided at the workplace and individual work
performance.
Figure1. Framework of the study based on Literature Review.
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
93
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Research Methods
This study is explanatory, so a cross-sectional
quantitative research design was adopted.
Nonprobability convenience sampling technique
was used to collect through a structured. Since the
population was big, therefore, Krejcie and Morgan's
(1970) table was sued to select the sample size i.e.,
400.
Measures
The entire instrument was adopted in this study.
The quality of the work-life scale was adopted from
Swamy, Nanjundeswara, & Srinivas (2015). It has
10 items measured on a five-point Likert scale. Five
items for relation and cooperation and five for
facilities. Similarly, the instrument for
organizational culture was adapted from Lund
(2003). All the items ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Likewise, the scale
of individual work performance was adopted from
Koopman et al. (2011), all its items ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Results and Discussion
SPSS 25 was employed for data analysis.
Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics
including process file version 3 of Andrew, F.
Hayes were also used for the analysis of moderation
results. Cronbach alpha was used to check the
reliability of the scale while hierarchical multiple
regressions were used to test the hypotheses.
Table 1.
Demographic Information.
Variable
Characteristics
n
Percentage
Sector
Public
208
52
Private
192
48
Education
Master
187
46.75
M. Phil
142
35.5
PhD
71
17.75
Designation
Medical Superintendent
139
34.75
Assistant Director
115
28.75
Deputy Director
78
19.5
Director
68
17
Gender
Male
250
62.5
Female
150
37.5
Source: Primary Data Survey.
Analysis of the demographic characteristics of
the sample respondents in table 1 reveals that 208
(52%) were male respondents who participated
in the survey while 192 (48%) were women.
Moreover, 187 (46.75) respondents were having
master's degrees while 142 (35.5%) were having
MPhil degrees and 71 (17.75%) respondents
were holding doctoral degrees. This explains that
the majority of respondents working in health
organizations are young and having masters and
MPhil degrees. Furthermore, regarding
designation, the majority of the respondents 139
(34.75%) were medical superintendents,
followed by assistant directors i.e., 115
(28.75%), deputy directors 78 (19.5%), and
directors 68 (17%) out of a total of 400
respondents. The total 250 (62.5%) male
respondents who participated in the study were
250 (62.5%) while 150 (37.5%) were female.
Table 2.
Reliability Analysis.
Variables
No of Items
Items Deleted
Cronbach Alpha
Relation Cooperate
5
0
0.815
Facilities
5
0
0.798
Overall Individual Performance
20
3
0.800
Organization Culture
8
0
0.815
Source: Primary Data Survey
94
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 2 reports the results for Cronbach alpha,
the alpha score for relationship and cooperation
was 0.815 as could be seen in column 4, and for
facilities, it was reported 0.798. The Cronbach
alpha for individual work performance was
0.800, and for organizational culture, it was
0.815. Since all values were above the minimum
threshold value, therefore, it was decided that the
instrument has the internal consistency and
reliability to measure the responses.
Table 3.
Moderating Effect of Organizational Culture between Relation and Cooperation, and Individual Work
Performance.
D.V
I.V
R
2
R
F
T
β
p
LLCI
ULCI
IWP
CONSTANT
0.7263
0.527
110.14
80.19
2.98
0.000
RC
5.80
0.276
0.000
OC
8.38
0.291
0.000
RC*OC
2.30
0.091
0.021
0.0134
0.1698
∆F
5.314
0.0218
2
R∆
0.0085
Source: Survey Data
Table-3 shows moderating results for
organizational culture, relation and cooperation,
and individual work performance. Hayes process
file version 3 and model 1 for moderation were
used. The result shows that before adding
organizational culture as moderator R2=0.527,
52.7% variance was shown upon individual work
performance by relation and cooperation with the
goodness of fit F=110.14, p<0.05. Yet, after
adding organizational culture as a moderator in
the regression equation ∆R2=0.0085, mean
0.85% variance was shown and ∆F=5.314,
p<0.05, there was no zero between lower limit
confidence interval and upper limit confidence
interval and beta value of relation and
cooperation upon IWP β=0.276, p<0.01
explained that 27.6% change could be observed
in IWP due to 1 percent change in relation and
cooperation, While organizational culture
β=0.291, p<0.01, it means one percent change in
organizational culture could bring 29.1% change
in IWP, while interaction term β=0.091, p<0.05
means that 9.1% variation could be seen in IWP
and it is significant due to interaction term.
Therefore, it is evident that there is a significant
moderating effect as could be seen in table 3,
thus, H1 is accepted.
Figure 2. Moderation Graph RC, Culture, IWP, Source: Survey Data.
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
95
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The moderation graph was plotted one standard
deviation above and below the mean, the blue
line shows a low level of organizational culture
moderating effect, the red line moderate, and the
green line shows the high moderating effect of
organizational culture. The green, blue, and red
lines are going upward from left to right, this
explained that low, high, and moderate levels of
supportive culture could increase the relationship
between relationship and cooperation and
individual work performance. By providing a
supportive culture, better work performance
results will be the outcome, a more productive
workforce, and better individual work
performance. This means that three levels of
culture help in enhancing the relationship and
cooperation, and individual work performance in
healthcare organizations.
Table 4.
Moderating Effect of Organizational Culture between facilities and individual work performance.
D.V
I.V
R
R2
F
T
β
p
LLCI
ULCI
IWP
CONSTANT
0.7234
0.523
144.88
103.14
2.87
0.000
Facilities
5.97
0.205
0.000
OC
12.14
0.329
0.000
F*OC
4.65
0.132
0.000
0.0766
0.1888
∆F
21.62
∆R2
0.026
Source: Survey Data
Table 4 highlights moderating results for
organizational culture, facilities, and individual
work performance. Again, Hayes process file
version 3 and model 1 were used for moderation
analysis. Results indicate that before adding
organizational culture as moderator R2=0.523,
52.3% variance was shown upon individual work
performance, facilities, and the value for the
goodness of fit was F=144.88, p<0.05, but by
adding organizational culture as a moderator in
the regression equation ∆R2= 0.026, mean
0.2.6% variance was shown and ∆F= 21.62,
p<0.05, there was no zero between lower limit
confidence interval and upper limit confidence
interval and beta value of facilities upon IWP β=
0.205, p<0.01 explain that 20.5% significant
change could be observed in IWP due to 1
percent change in facilities. While organizational
culture β=0.329, p<0.01 means that one percent
change in organizational culture could bring
32.9% change in IWP, while interaction term β=
0.132, p<0.05 means that 13.2% variation could
be seen in IWP, and it is significant due to
interaction term. Therefore, table 4 reports a
significant moderating effect, thus H2 is
accepted.
Figure 31. Moderation Graph Facilities, OC & IWP, Source: Survey Data.
96
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Organizational culture significantly moderated
the relationship between facilities provided at the
workplace to health professionals’ which
ultimately enhanced the performance. The
moderating effect took place one standard
deviation below the mean. It means that increase
in the facilities to professionals will increase the
performance and vice versa. Green line has
higher steeper as compared to red and blue lines,
which shows that a high level of care and
facilities could result in high productivity and
performance.
The purpose of adding the moderator was to
strengthen the weak relationship among
predictors and the criterion as reported in the
previous studies by Kwahar & Iyortsuun (2018).
Organizational culture provides significant
moderating results between relationship and
cooperation, and facilities. The findings of this
study are consistent with Zeqiri & Alija (2016)
who reported a significant relationship among
predictors and criterion variables. Likewise, Acar
& Acar (2014) reported a significant moderating
impact of organizational culture upon the quality
of work-life and individual work performance in
healthcare organizations. Similarly, Wahlberg,
Ramalho, & Brochado (2017) also supported the
results that development, supportive, and
innovative culture enhances the quality of work-
life and individual work performance of
healthcare staff in healthcare organizations.
Conclusions
Based on the literature reviews and findings of
the study, it is concluded this model will help the
management of healthcare institutions to use the
results of this study with moderating effects of
organizational culture on the relationship
between QWL and IWP as a mean of developing
as an understanding and management
relationship. This study adds is an effort to test
the variables of QWL, IWP and OC found in the
literature to suggest a steadiness between QWL
and IWP. The connecting of these three variables
into a single construct is an expansion in the
theoretical comprehension and knowledge of
QWL, IQP and OC. It will nurture a better
relationship and will contribute to the inclusive
performance and experience. This study is new
in the context of health sector organization in
developing countries, earlier such study has not
been conducted in developing countries in the
sub-continent. Thus, study further concluded that
there is an intense need to improve the quality of
work-life and workplace of health professionals
so that employees deliver their best and help
organizations to achieve their objectives. Also,
there is a need to establish and highlight the
supportive culture at the workplace because
culture plays a very important role in bringing the
desired level of performance in the employees
which ultimately leads the organization to
success.
Bibliographic references
Acar, A.Z. & Acar, P. (2014) Organizational
culture types and their effects on
organizational performance in Turkish
hospitals. EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal,
3, 18-31.
Akhtar, R., Nazarudin, M.N., & Kundi, G.M.
(2021a). Empirical evidence on the mediating
role of job satisfaction, commitment, trust in
leadership, intention to leave between
leadership styles, performance appraisal, and
physical education teacher’s performance.
Psychology and Education, 58(4), 729- 38.
Akhtar, R., Nazarudin, M.N., & Kundi, G.M.
(2021b). Reversing the paradigm: Empirical
evidence of followership in shaping
transactional leadership style: The mediating
effect of trust, leader-member exchange
(LMX). Psychology and Education, 58(5),
422- 433.
Albejaidi, F., Kundi, G.M., & Mughal, Y.H.
(2020). Decision-making, leadership styles
and leadership effectiveness: An AMOS-
SEM approach. African Journal of
Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 9(1), 1-15.
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-
oriented biodata: capturing change related
and contextually relevant future performance.
International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 7(2), 97-111.
Almalki, M.J, Fitzgerald, G., & Clark, M. (2012).
Quality of work life among primary health
care nurses in the Jazan region, Saudi Arabia:
A cross-sectional study. Hum Resource
Health, 10(1), 30.
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback seeking in
individual adaptation: A resources
perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 29, 465-487.
Asmui, M., Hussin, A., & Paino, H. (2012). The
importance of work environment
facilities. International Journal of Learning
and Development, 2, 289-298.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks:
An analytic tool for qualitative research.
Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405.
Awadh, A.M., & Saad, A.M. (2013). Impact of
Organizational Culture on Employee
Performance. International Review of
Management and Business Research, 2(1),
168-175.
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
97
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Awan, K.Z., Qureshi, W., Akram, M.,
Shahzad, K. (2014). Mediation role of
organizational commitment in the
relationships of organizational politics and
job involvement and employee performance.
International Journal of Academic Research
in Economics Management Science, 3(6),
1–21.
Azril, M. S., Jegak, U., Asiah, M., Azman, A. N.,
Bahaman, A. S., Jamilah, O., & Thomas, K.
(2010). Can quality of work life affect work
performance among government agriculture
extension officers: A case from Malaysia.
Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 64-73.
Babalola, O., Gbadegesin, A., & Patience, E.
(2014). A Study of Superior-Subordinate
Relationship and Employees’ Commitment
to the Core Beliefs of Organization in Public
Universities of Southwest, Nigeria. American
Journal of Business and Management, 3(1),
28-38
Bligh, M. (2017). Leadership and Trust. In
Leadership today (pp. 21-42). Cham:
Springer, 10.1007/978-3-319-31036-7_2.
Busari, A.H., Khan, S.N., Abdullah, S.M., &
Mughal, Y.H. (2019). Transformational
leadership style, followership, and factors of
employees’ reactions towards organizational
change. Journal of Asia Business Studies,
14(2), 181-209.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E., Daniels, S., &
Hall, A. (2017). Social Exchange Theory: A
Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies.
The Academy of Management Annals, 11,
1-38.
Daubermann, D. & Tonete, V. (2011). Quality of
work life of nurses in primary health care.
Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, 25, 277-283.
Deb, T. (2006). Strategic approach to human
resource management: Concepts, tools, and
applications. 7th Ed. New Delhi: Atlantic
Publishers and Distributors.
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). A Look Back to
Move Ahead: New Directions for Research
on Proactive Performance and Other
Discretionary Work Behaviours. Applied
Psychology, 59, 1-20. 10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2009.00413.x
Gatseliuk, V., Strelbitska, L., Herasymchuk, O.,
Pavlyshyn, A., & Khrystiuk, V. (2021). The
influence of religion on the norms of criminal
law and process: an international-
comparative study. Amazonia Investiga,
10(42), 226-235.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.42.06.21
Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The
discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Culture and organizations:
Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-
Hill. Pp, 123124.
Hsu, M. Y., & Kernohan, G. (2006). Dimensions
of hospital nurses’ quality of working life.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, 120-131.
Kanten, S., & Sadullah, M. (2012). Empirical
research on relationship quality of work life
and work engagement. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 62, 360-366.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M.,
Hildebrandt, V.H., Schaufeli, W.B., de Vet
Henrica, C.W., & van der Beek, A.J. (2011).
Conceptual frameworks of individual work
performance: a systematic review. Journal of
Occupation and Environmental Medicines,
53(8), 856-66.
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970)
Determining Sample Size for Research
Activities. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Kwahar, N., & Akuraun, S. (2018). Determining
the underlying dimensions of quality of work
life (QWL) in the Nigerian hotel industry.
Entrepreneurial Business and Economics
Review, 6(1), 53-70.
Lennox, R.D., & Mansfield, A.J. (2001). A latent
variable model of evidence-based quality
improvement for substance abuse treatment.
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services &
Research, 28(2), 164-176.
Lund, D.B. (2003). Organizational Culture and
Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 18(3), 219-236.
Malik, S.Y., Cao, Y. Mughal, H.Y., Kundi, G.M.,
Mughal, M.H., Ramayah, T. R. (2020).
Pathways towards sustainability in
organizations: Empirical evidence on the role
of green human resource management
practices and green intellectual capital.
Sustainability (MDPI), 12(8), 1-24,
Parent, J.D., & Lovelace, K.J. (2018). Employee
engagement, positive organizational culture,
and individual adaptability. On the Horizon,
26(3), 206-214.
Razak, NA., Ma’amor, H. & Hassan, N. (2016).
Measuring reliability and validity
instruments of work environment towards
quality work life. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 37, 520-528.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative
Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research.
London: Routledge:
Ruzevicius, J. (2012). Management de la qualite.
Notion globale et recherche en la matiere.
Access from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28
1372752_Quality_of_Life_and_of_Working
_Life_Conceptions_and_Research
98
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., & Lee, D.J.
(2001). A new measure of the quality of
work-life (QWL) is based on need
satisfaction and spillover theory. Social
Indicator Research, 55, 241–302.
Swamy, D.R. Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., &
Srinivas, R.S. (2015). Quality of Work Life:
Scale Development and Validation.
International Journal of Caring Sciences,
8(2), 281-298.
Taher, A.M. (2013). Variations of quality of
work-life of academic professionals in
Bangladesh. European Journal of Training
and Development, 37(6), 580–595.
Valizadeh, A., & Ghahremani, J. (2012). The
relationship between organizational culture
and quality of working life of employees.
European Journal of Experimental Biology,
2 (5), 1722-1727.
Wahlberg, T.A., Ramalho, N., & Brochado,
A. (2017). Quality of working life and
engagement in hostels. Tourism
Review, 72(4), 411-428.
Warrick, D.D. (2017). What leaders need to
know about organizational culture? Business
Horizons, 60(3), 395-404.
Zare, H., Haghgooyan, Z., & Asl, Z. K. (2012).
Determining and prioritizing the criteria and
scales of Quality of Work Life (QWF) by
AHP Method. European Journal of Social
Sciences, 27(3), 346-359
Zeqiri, J., & Alija, S. (2016). The Organizational
Culture Dimensions: The Case of an
Independent Private University in
Macedonia. Babe-Bolyai University of
Economics, 61, 20-31.
