Keywords

Quality of Life, Employee Sustainability, Organizational Design, Social Sustainability, Work Environment, Sustainable Development

Introduction

Quality of Life (QoL) in an organization refers to systems and structures maintained by the management to make the workplace environment conducive to employees' maximum productivity. It results from Human Resource Management (HRM) efforts that enable employees to participate in shaping the organizational environment, methods, and outcomes (Strömberg, 2018). A design for QoL creates synergies between the policies and processes of an organization to enhance its business culture. This develops a supportive environment to enhance employee behaviors.

Sustainable development is an overarching objective of HRM in the current corporate dynamics as it affects the quality of an organization's relationship with stakeholders. Organizational management must design and implement systems to exploit its resources productively and sustainably (Craig, 2018). The concept of sustainability exists at the strategic and operational levels of organizations. It is perceived from the perspective of the triple bottom lines: the people-social equity bottom line, the planet-environmental bottom line, and profit-the economic bottom line (McDonald & Hite, 2018). Although all three bottom lines are important for the success of organizations, research excessively favors the economic and environmental aspects of sustainability, with minimal interest in social sustainability involving employees, customers, and local communities. From a business perspective, social sustainability refers to the understanding of the impact of corporations on people and the executive actions to maximize the positive effects and minimize or eliminate the negative ones.

This paper aims to investigate the organizational design for employee QoL and sustainability. The paper investigates the impact of QoL factors (i.e., human development, fair payments, value, and health and wellness) on employee sustainability factors (i.e., job performance, motivation, affective job commitment, and job retention). It also studies how employee QoL helps to maintain a sustainable workforce. Accordingly, six questions are developed:

1) What impact does QoL have on employee sustainability?

2) How does human development influence employee sustainability?

3) What influence do artifacts have on employee sustainability?

4) What impact does the fair payment have on employee sustainability?

5) What is the contribution of values to employee sustainability?

6) How do health and wellness influence employee sustainability?

A literature review about employee QoL and sustainability culminates in six hypotheses associated with human development, artifacts, fair payments, values, and health and wellness, then investigated through secondary and primary data collected from several private sector companies. The research results and conclusions are then discussed.

Literature Review

A theoretical background about employee QoL and workforce sustainability is presented to develop the logic for introducing the research hypotheses.

Employee QoL Factors

The goal of studying employee QoL is to reinforce the ability of organizations to improve their employee performance and commitment. QoL shapes employee attitudes towards the workplace environment, which influences the perception of their contribution to organizational performance (Sattar, 2018). QoL induces the feeling of intrinsic motivation among employees to increase their commitment to work (Oyomo, 2017; Yuh & Choi, 2017; Almarshad et al., 2019). Employee QoL is measured through several factors; these are discussed in the following sections.

Human Development

Employees, like their employers, desire to attain personal and career progression within a specified time horizon. For that, they need to work in an environment that promotes personal and professional growth (Torraco & Lundgren, 2019). Human Resource Development (HRD) implies that HRM practices in the modern workplace should entail a range of coordinated activities to achieve organizational short- and long-term goals. At the same time, a supportive environment should be maintained to enable employees to achieve their personal and career goals. HRD functions include recruiting competent workers, managing their productivity, and creating a strategic plan (e.g., developing criteria for training needs, creating learning opportunities, and creating a performance- and value-based promotion systems) to better progress. All these human development functions and strategies improve employee QoL in an organization.

Artifacts

The design and nature of artifacts in an organization demonstrate how much emphasis is laid on its culture to safeguard its principles, values, and systems. Artifacts within an organization involve both the tangible (e.g., employee interactions, organizational policies, reward systems) and intangible (e.g., expression, knowledge, skills) symbols that distinguish its organizational culture (Nguyen et al., 2018). Since artifacts also include leadership style, nature of the work environment, human relations, decision-making, and implementation, it is logical to argue that they sum up what constitutes the organizational culture (Carpenter et al., 2012). QoL depends on the leadership style and employee engagement approach (Warrick, 2017). Employees in a value-based organizational culture that emphasizes treating them with respect and dignity regardless of their position perceive the environment as supportive (Matkó & Takács, 2017). This leads to employees who are more likely to have sustainable performance, motivation, and commitment (Reda, 2018).

Fair Payment

Fair payment is an element of organizational compensation ethics that determine the values and integrity of the employer against discrimination. Fair payment is a reward scheme equal to employee efforts and contribution to performance outcomes (Samara & Arenas, 2017). Employees know their remunerable duties, responsibilities, and contribution; therefore, they are likely to notice any payment scheme that does not reflect fairness (Calvin, 2017). It is known that employees have an inherent behavior to compare their inputs and outputs in a given situation to those of referent others (Armstrong & Brown, 2019; Rajiah & Bhargava, 2021). The outcome of all these comparisons shapes employee perceptions of the fairness of the organization. Knowing this is critical to understanding employee attitudes in the work environment (Bao & Wu, 2017). The equity theory defines two types of pay inequities: two employees with similar qualifications, roles, and productivity receiving different salaries and/or two employees with different job descriptions and productivity receiving similar salaries (Daniel, 2019). Either one of these two forms frustrates employees, leading to poor outcomes for workforce sustainability.

Values

Values shape the organizational culture because they are the essence of identity, principles, beliefs, and philosophy, and they reflect the workplace environment. Values underpin the ethical bearing of an organization, thereby defining its behavior. Previous research shows a statistically significant relationship between organizational values and performance (Dermol & Širca, 2018). This relation is manifested through impacting work input, high commitment, job retention, and employee absence. Values can also impact performance outcomes (Titov et al., 2018). A study from Virtanen & Elovainio (2018) showed a statistically significant difference in performance among organizations that explicitly noted their values, those that implicitly expressed their values, and those that do not focus on organizational values. High-performance outcomes are more realizable in organizations that have a conducive environment for employees. Therefore, ethical appeal among employees is obtained when organizations note and protect their values as an integral part of the culture, which thus influences their decision-making.

Health and Wellness

Health and wellness programs in an organization improve the QoL of employees as they provide solutions to physical and mental health problems. Organizational-sponsored programs that enrich the knowledge of employees on occupational safety and stress and burnout avoidance and offer lower health insurance premiums can improve the overall health and wellness of employees (Jones et al., 2019; Kelly & Snow, 2019). The majority of employees who have participated in such programs recognize organizational efforts in creating a caring and supportive environment demonstrated by the initiative to enhance staff wellness (Amaya et al., 2017; Ledikwe et al., 2018; Das et al., 2019). Health and wellness programs improve the QoL in the workplace. The outcomes of such initiatives contribute to employee sustainability in terms of enhanced performance, job retention, reduced absence, and increased commitment.

Employee Sustainability Factors

Employees are the most important asset in every organization. Hiring competent and dedicated employees committed to the short- and long-term organizational goals is the main goal of human resource management. Maintaining a beneficial employer-employee relationship is considered the highest objective of human resource management strategies (Dam et al., 2016). Sustainable employment requires a supportive environment that optimizes employee job satisfaction, thereby invoking a desire to continue working for an organization. Management in a supportive working environment perceives employees as invaluable assets whose contributions shape the organization's future (Dam et al., 2017). Unsustainable employment comes from management viewing employees merely as resources that can be deployed and depleted to serve the employer's financial interests (Cappelli & Tavis, 2018). Among the actions that demonstrate the tendency of an employer to maintain a sustainable workforce are creating a culture that allows exploiting skills, talents, and energies of employees and being aware of their well-being needs, which promotes their work-life balance (Burrell, 2018).

Job Performance

Physical and behavioral environmental factors affect the job performance outcomes of employees. Studies exploring the workplace's impact on employee productivity indicated that the physical and behavioral factors of the environment impact employee health, thus influencing their job performance (McCleary, 2017; Burke, 2019). Workplace safety of physical hazards and psychological stressors optimizes employee physical and mental health outcomes (Dollard et al., 2017). Employees need to perceive a combination of an attractive, peaceful, and cooperative work environment to attain high-performance levels (Saengchai et al., 2019). Good health and wellness in a work environment translate to better QoL, which optimizes employee productivity.

Job Motivation

Employees have high morale to perform their duties when working for mindful employers. Employees who recognize the workplace as conducive to fair compensation, flexible schedule, supervisor attitudes, conflict resolution, and reasonable workload usually record-high job satisfaction (Sharma, 2017). Studies exploring the relationship between organizational social responsibility initiatives and employee intrinsic motivation show a significant impact (Casey & Sieber, 2016). They also show that social initiatives in an organization have no effect on extrinsic motivation, which is a subject of incentives, like compensations and development opportunities (Kunz et al., 2020). Therefore, the organizational commitment to social responsibilities should be leveraged to induce employee intrinsic, without compromising extrinsic, motivation.

Affective Commitment

A sustainable work environment elicits emotional attachment from an employee towards the organization. The result is an affective commitment, which refers to the extent of emotional attachment an employee develops with the organization. Affective commitment also refers to an employee's willingness to be involved in the activities of an organization. Apart from work engagement, perceived organizational support positively affects employee well-being and affective commitment (Guest, 2017). A positive work environment that is created when an organization embraces practices of sustainable employment increases work engagement. This creates a positive state of mind towards work, manifested in greater enthusiasm, dedication, and absorption (Casey & Sieber, 2016). Employees who have high affective commitment record better performance outcomes and have lower absence and turnover rates when compared to less committed colleagues (Saha & Kumar, 2018). A correlation between variables was established in a study examining the relationship between work environment, work engagement, and employee commitment (Teo et al., 2020). Employees develop an attachment with the workplace in which they are engaged in a way that makes them feel part of the organization's strategy.

Job Retention

Organizations with systems and structures for both social and environmental sustainability easily attract and retain talents. A survey by Harvard Business Review found that besides attractive compensations, employees prefer to work for organizations with good social benefits schemes and flexible work schedules like remote work (Jones, 2017). Paid leaves and vacation times are equally important to employees. An anonymous questionnaire for employees who quit their organizations found that over 71 percent of employees were willing to quit their jobs if they found an employer with a better work schedule (Bangwal & Tiwari, 2019). Organizations with fewer social initiatives for employees do not inspire employee commitment (Bhardwaj et al., 2018). Instead, employees remain as part of the workforce to sustain themselves.

Model and Hypotheses

Figure 1 shows the research model that is developed based on the above literature discussion. The model presents the hypothesized relations between employee QoL and performance sustainability factors. To investigate these relations, six hypotheses were following discussed.

QoL shapes employee attitudes towards the work environment, which influences the perception of their contribution to organizational performance (Sattar, 2018). Employees with a perception of a better QoL have higher productivity than those who do not (Leitão et al., 2019). Better employee performance can be motivated by leadership and managerial support, listening to employees' concerns, suggesting solutions to their issues and problems, and integrating into a positive work environment (Tastan, 2017; Park & Kim, 2020). Additionally, earning the respect of supervisors and colleagues at professional and personal levels means the work environment is supportive for employee productivity:

H1: Quality of life positively influences employee sustainability

Having human development principles as part of the organizational culture creates a caring and supportive environment as it facilitates employees' personal and professional growth. Human development in an organization refers to all employer-sponsored initiatives to optimize employee competencies (Jehanzeb, 2020). Competency level is at its peak when human resources are streamlined with technology skills. This is because organizations aim to leverage the power and efficiency of technology to improve productivity (Dachner et al., 2021). Studies that explore the impact of HRD practices on organizational sustainability show social empowerment to positively impact employee performance outcomes (Kweku et al., 2018). They also show that human development is necessary to achieve organizational sustainability (Aslam, 2018; Dumuid et al., 2018; Otoo et al., 2019; Mazur & Walczyna, 2020). Human development, thus, can be hypothesized to affect maintaining a sustainable workforce positively:

H1a: Human development positively influences employee sustainability

Studies on employee behavior show that the materiality of the work environment impacts employee adoption of organizational values. Employees hold good associate value by consenting to undergo stress and pressure to achieve the organizational strategic objectives (Klammer et al., 2019). Analyzing an organization's culture can only be constructed with the knowledge of its values, artifacts, and assumptions (Tan, 2019). Artifacts can positively affect employee outcomes when they are managed by competent leadership and supported by a cultivated culture. Existing cultural artifacts in an organization support old strategies; hence, management should modify and develop cultural artifacts to support new strategies (Mendes et al., 2018). HR design artifacts as symbols of progressive culture, and when these artifacts become embraced in effective HR, they demonstrate the employer and environment support practices. This generates favorable organizational results in terms of employee affective commitment (Grueso-Hinestroza et al., 2018). When management aligns cultural artifacts to create a sustainable workforce, the result is successful strategy execution. Material artifacts form the social experience of employees and provide them with shared values and frameworks for understanding:

H1b: Artifacts positively influences employee sustainability

The compensation ethics of an organization affect its organizational commitment. The perception of fairness in merit pay distinctively predicts whether employees may consider an equitable pay system as just (Bishnoi & Kapoor, 2020). Fair payment is equitable compensation offered to employees for their contribution to the organizational objectives. A critical aspect of unequal pay that may hurt employee sustainability is pay discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or any other aspect that spreads the feeling of injustice among employees (Kossek & Buzzanell, 2018). While organizations can promote fair payment by creating a compensation system for equal pay, performance outcomes dictate variations in rewards and incentives. Fair payment for a sustainable workforce is tied to other benefits apart from monetary forms of salaries and bonuses (Lynch et al., 2021). Providing fair payment to employees can promote their commitment and sustainability outcomes such as retention and motivation:

H1c: Fair payment positively influences employee sustainability

It is assumed that organizational values and employee attitudes are linked. Organizational values affect performance (Lim & Loosemore, 2017) as employees are more likely to exhibit positive organizational citizenship behavior when they perceive the management to be ethical (Marinova, 2018). Organizations that emphasize ethics and integrity tend to have a collaborative workforce, allowing higher task completion rates (Stone et al., 2007; Lim & Loosemore, 2017; Griep & Vantilborgh, 2018). Maintaining ethical organizational values can, therefore, derive enhanced employee sustainability and performance:

H1d: Values positively influence employee sustainability

Embracing employee health and wellness programs in an organizational culture is the hallmark of mindfulness from an employer. It demonstrates the utmost commitment to develop and maintain a fulfilling workplace for the employee (Huang et al., 2016). It also shows that the employer is interested in paying employees for their work effort and in maintaining a good employer-employee relationship (Mattke, 2016). Health and wellness programs help employees manage stressors in the workplace, such as burnout due to numerous job demands and struggling to keep a work-life balance and cope with deadline anxieties. Such stressors cost employers less efficient performance due to lost productivity, absence, and turnover (Yeung & Johnston, 2016). Eighty-nine percent of employees in organizations with good functional health and wellness programs would recommend their workplace for their friends and other prospective talents (Beheshti, 2019). This means employees feel highly fulfilled from employer-sponsored health and wellness programs because the workplace environment supports sustainable employment goals (Ott-Holland et al., 2019). Having organizational health and wellness programs, therefore, improves general employee well-being, which supports their sustainability:

H1e: Health and wellness positively influence employee sustainability

Having discussed the theoretical underpinning and associated hypotheses, the next section focuses on the methodological choices adopted in this research.

Methodology

Method and Design

This research paper adopts a quantitative survey design to investigate how employee performance sustainability is affected by the organizational focus on QoL aspects. The quantitative survey design provides a means to collect numerical, generalizable, and comprehensive data that allows testing the research hypotheses (Blumberg et al., 2011) and better understanding the underlying phenomenon.

Data Collection

After reviewing the literature and identifying related hypotheses, a questionnaire was developed to collect the primary research data. The questionnaire was administered via Microsoft forms and comprised forty statements divided into three main sections. The first section asked participants (employees) about their demographic information such as age, qualification, job position, and experience. The second section asked employees about QoL construct: Human Development (4 items), Artifact (4 items), Fair Payment (4 items), Values (4 items), and Health and Wellness (4 items). The third section asked about employees sustainability constructs: Job Performance (4 items), Job Motivation (4 items), Job Commitment (3 items), and Job Retention (4 items). All constructs were measured using a Likert-scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates "strongly disagree" and 5 indicates "strongly agree".

Before moving to the field, the questionnaire was peer-reviewed to reduce any ambiguities and ensure clarity, appropriateness, cohesion, and accuracy. The questionnaire was then distributed to a random sample of more than 300 different level personnel working in several Jordanian private sector companies. A total of 168 responses were returned, checked, and filtered against incomplete and invalid responses (Pallant, 2011). As a result, 116 valid questionnaires have made their way to analysis.

Empirical Framework

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation is used to conduct the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and test the research model (main hypotheses). The CFA using SEM uses the measurement model between the observed values (items) and their factors for each construct (Moussa et al., 2020; AlQudah et al., 2021). The SEM technique has several advantages over ordinary techniques, such as ordinary regression, as the former is more robust. The SEM technique was favoured due to having multiple model components; QoL consists of 5 factors, and employees sustainability consists of 4 factors. SEM also allows for correlations among variables; therefore, cause-effect relationships among variables can be inferred (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). This relationship between observed values (items) and factors (latent variables) should be significant with a loading factor (weight) of at least 0.2 (Holmes-Smith, 2001) loadings of variables (with more than 0.5 high reliability, between 0.3 and 0.5 is moderate, and poor if less than 0.3).

Empirical Analysis

Participant Demographics

Our sample consists of 116 participants. The participant characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Of the participants, 68.1% were males (97), and 31.9% (37) were females. The vast majority of our participants (75%) are 30 - 49 years of middle age group. Most of the participants are bachelor's degree holders (70.7%). All of them are in managerial positions, with almost the same percentage (around 30%) are managers, officers, and team leaders, and only 12% are directors. Most participants (52.6%) are with more than ten years of experience.

Table 1 Participant Characteristics
Variable	Category	N	%
Gender	Male	37	31.9
	Female	79	68.1
Age	Less than 30	22	19.0
	30 – 39 years	58	50.0
	40 – 49 years	29	25.0
	50 or more	7	6.0
Education Level	Bachelor	82	70.7
	Higher Diploma	6	5.2
	Master	17	14.7
	PhD	11	9.5
Position	Director	12	10.3
	Manager	36	31.0
	Officer	37	31.9
	Team Leader	31	26.7
Experience	10 or less	55	47.4
	11 – 15	26	22.4
	16 – 20	18	15.5
	21 or more	17	14.7

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations between the two constructs and their factors (i.e., employee QoL and employee sustainability). Employee sustainability overall average is 3.90 (Stdev=0.46). This means that the surveyed employees were positive towards their employment sustainability. Averages of factors of employees sustainability were very close to the overall average, ranging from 3.79 (commitment) to 4.1 (performance). Employees QoL overall average is 3.72 (Stdev=0.59). This average is less than the employment sustainability, but it still indicates that the surveyed employees positively value their QoL. There is also more variation in this construct (QoL), based on the standard deviation (Stdev=0.59), compared to employment sustainability (Stdev=0.46). This variation is reflected in the average range of the factors as the minimum average is 3.46 (Job payment) and the maximum is 3.83 (Artifact), which indicates that the surveyed employees are not as satisfied with their job payment as other QoL factors. It can be noted that the variation in QoL factors is slightly higher than employee sustainably factors (based on Stdev), with a maximum variation of 0.9 for human development.

Employee sustainability is positively and significantly correlated with employee QoL, with a correlation of 0.52. All factors of QoL are significantly and positively correlated with employee sustainability. The highest correlated factor from the employees QoL is fair payment (0.54), and the least factor is artifacts (0.27). Similarly, all employee sustainability factors are correlated with employee sustainability, with the highest correlated factor is Job retention (0.43). On the factor level, all employee sustainability and QoL factors are significantly and positively correlated, except artifact, which is not significantly correlated with motivation and commitment.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable	Mean	St. Dev	1	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	2	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.4
1. Sustainability	3.90	0.46	1
1.1 Performance	4.10	0.59	0.63**	1
1.2 Motivation	3.95	0.66	0.67**	0.40**	1
1.3 Commitment	3.79	0.67	0.73**	0.17	0.61**	1
1.4 Retention	3.80	0.66	0.77**	0.25**	0.42**	0.37**	1
2. Quality	3.72	0.59	0.52**	0.27**	0.31**	0.43**	0.39**	1
2.1 Human development	3.61	0.90	0.55**	0.26**	0.40**	0.46**	0.45**	0.88**	1
2.2 Artifacts	3.83	0.72	0.27**	0.11	00.05	0.22*	0.25**	0.65**	0.41**	1
2.3 Payment	3.46	0.76	0.54**	0.28**	0.40**	0.45**	0.41**	0.71**	0.69**	0.41**	1
2.4 Values	3.74	0.70	0.33**	0.21*	0.23*	0.31**	0.18	0.80**	0.61**	0.32**	0.49**	1
2.5 Well-being	3.72	0.63	0.47**	0.29**	0.27**	0.37**	0.34**	.85**	0.73**	0.36**	0.67**	0.66**

Measurement Model Estimation and Fit

Before conducting the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was conducted to check the sampling adequacy. Bartlett's test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) was also conducted to investigate the factorability of the data. Table 2 shows the suitability of the data for CFA and SEM, the KMO results of 0.805 (above 0.6 according to Pallant (2013)), and a significant statistic test of sphericity (p<0.001).

Table 3 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.		0.805
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	2529.970
	df	595
	Sig.	0.000

The confirmatory data analysis is conducted based on the proposed model confirming the number of constructs and the measured items loading. Using CFA to fit the results of our constructs, a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax Rotation was carried out, and the results are summarized in Table 4. The total variance explained for the model ranged from 53 to 75%. The factors with component values less than 0.4 were considered to have a weak correlation with the factor and were removed from the analysis. Only one item was removed. After deleting the weak items, the remaining factors showed sufficiently high results, as illustrated in Table 4. Results also show that the sign of the items is the same, which indicates the measure fits the data well. After removing the weak items (JR1), the reliability coefficients (Cronbach Alpha) for all dimensions were above the recommended value of 0.7 (Moore & Benbasat, 1991), ranging from 0.702 (job performance) to 0.891 (human development). The overall estimate of internal consistency was 0.85 for ES (16 items) and 0.92 for QoL.

Table 4 Percent of Variance, Cronbach's Alpha, and Component Loading Range
Dimension	Number of Items	Number of Removed Items	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	Cronbach's Alpha	Component Loading Range
ES	16	1	72.64	0.851
Performance	4	0	53.94	0.703	0.67 - 0.83
Motivation	4	0	58.01	0.734	0.50 – 0.89
Commitment	4	0	66.94	0.812	0.64 – 0.90
Retention	4	1 (JR1)	68.32	0.763	0.54 – 0.77
QoL	19	0	66.5	0.92
Human Development	4	0	75.88	0.891	0.52 – 0.88
Artifacts	4	0	65.55	0.820	0.57 – 0.77
Payment	4	0	64.15	0.815	0.66 – 0.87
Values	3	0	62.46	0.825	0.56 – 0.90
Well-being	4	0	53.63	0.744	0.51 – 0.85

The measurement model was also used as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the AMOS (Analysis of a Moment Structures) 25.0 version utilizing the maximum likelihood estimation method. This aimed to test if the items belong to their corresponding constructs, if the employee QoL is consisted of its five factors and if the employee sustainability is consisted of its four factors.

Table 5 shows the results of the measurement model for both job stability and employee quality. Regarding carbon strategy, it was found that all factors were highly significant at the alpha level of 0.01, except the first statement in job retention "My skills are highly sought after at the labor market". This is the only statement (item) removed from the analysis as it is not significant. This result is the same result obtained earlier using validity and reliability analysis in Table 4. Table 5 reports the goodness of fit for both constructs. The goodness of fit factors suggests that the hypothesized measurement model fits the data well as all factors were within the desirable and acceptable standard range. Overall, the measurement model results supported convergent, discriminant validities, and reliability of the measures used in the hypothetical study model.

Table 5 Statistics of Measurement Analysis
Constructs	Factor	Items	Standardized Weights	Construct	Factor	Items	Standardized Weights
Job Stability	Job Performance (JP)		1.000	Employee Quality	Human Development (HD)		1.000***
		JP1				HD1	0.556***
		JP2	0.288***			HD2	0.794***
		JP3	0.383***			HD3	0.836***
		JP4	0.456***			HD4	0.829***
	Job Motivation (JM)		1.906***		Artifacts (ART)		0.600***
		JM1				ART1	0.281**
		JM2	0.242***			ART2	0.316***
		JM3	0.346***			ART3	0.386***
		JM4	0.615***			ART4	0.430***
	Job Affective (JA)		1.920		Fair Payment		0.727***
		JA1	0.543***			FP1	0.594***
		JA2	0.431***			FP2	0.821***
		JA3	0.560***			FP3	0.753***
		JA4	0.690***			FP4	0.501***
	Job Retention (JR)		1.528		Values		0.967***
		JR1	0.069 (NS)			Val1	0.348***
		JR2	0.457***			Val2	0.556***
		JR3	0.539***			Val3	0.597***
		JR4	0.492***		Health and Wellness (HW)		0.477***
						HW1	0.619***
						HW2	0.771***
						HW3	0.671***
						HW4	0.337***
The goodness of fit factors		Acceptable standard fit		The goodness of fit factors		Acceptable standard fit
GFI	0.955	>0.90		GFI	0.955	>0.90
AGFI	0.900	>0.90		AGFI	0.900	>0.90
CFI	0.999	>0.90		CFI	0.999	>0.90
NFI	0.946	>0.90		NFI	0.946	>0.90
RMSEA	0.011	<0.07		RMSEA	0.010	<0.07

Structural Model Results and Hypotheses Testing

Table 6 presents the results of the structural equation model investigation of the main research hypothesis (H1). As can be seen, the goodness of fit indices were all well above the recommended values, suggesting that the structural equation model fits the data very well (Bandalos, 2012).

The structural model results show that employee QoL is positively correlated with ES (β= 0.381, p-value<0.001), suggesting that the greater the EQL, the greater the influence on ES and, hence, supports H1. The results also show that all factors of EQL (HD, ART, FP, Values, HW) are positively and significantly associated with EQL, suggesting that each factor of EQL is positively and significantly correlated with ES. This result implies that H1a - H1e are empirically supported. The model (QoL) explains 41.4% (R-Squared) of the total variation in ES.

Based on the standardized coefficients, HW, HD, and FP are the most contributing factors to EQL, with standardized coefficients of 0.887, 0.811, and 0.804, respectively. The least contributing factor to EQL is Values with a standardized coefficient β=0.452. Consequently, the highest association with ES would be (in descending order) HW, followed by HD and then FP, with almost the same importance as all coefficients are around 80% (0.8). ART coefficient is β=0.658. In the same way, the most contributing factors to ES (with almost the same coefficient) are JM and JA, followed by JP and JR with almost the same coefficient (0.5).

Table 6 Results of Structural Equation Models
Construct		Factors	Regression Weights	Standardized weights	Hypothesis	Goodness of fit factors
EQL à  ES			0.348	0.381***	H1	GFI	0.956	>0.9
	HD à EQL		1.000	0.811***	H1a	AGFI	0.914	>0.9
	ART à EQL		0.901	0.658***	H1b	CFI	0.994	>0.9
	FP à EQL		1.193	0.804***	H1c	NFI	0.943	>0.9
	Values à EQL		0.623	0.452***	H1d	RMSEA	0.029	<0.07
	HW à EQL		1.543	0.887***	H1e		0.414
ES (Employee Sustainability)
	JP à ES		1.000	0.534***
	JMà ES		1.465	0.775***
	JA à ES		1.439	0.772***
	JR à ES		0.842	0.501***

Discussion , Conclusion , and Recommendations

Discussion

The results of the study show the relations between the different factors of employee QoL and employee sustainability. Organizations are likely to improve employee sustainability by investing in the appropriate values, physical artifacts, and health and wellness programs. Organizations must ensure that their employees are well remunerated according to their qualifications to meet industry standards (Griffiths et al., 2017). Sharing the same values with employees can also encourage them to perform better. The way the workplace is organized influences how employees perceive their organizational commitment. Similarly, health and wellness programs help reduce the likelihood of employees being exposed to hazards that may cause unfortunate consequences (Abraham, 2019). Employees prefer working for employers who offer them adequate incentives such as monetary compensation. However, fair payment can only enhance employee sustainability if accompanied by other approaches to create an ideal work environment (Wang & Seifert, 2017). All these considerations highlight the need for organizations to adopt multiple approaches and tactics to promote employee sustainability.

Results further reveal that the key elements defining employee QoL affect their job performance, job motivation, affective job commitment, and job retention. Employees with access to a suitable work environment can better enhance their overall performance and productivity (Teo et al., 2020). Such employees are more likely to be highly motivated and committed to helping the organization achieve its objectives. Organizations that create ideal work environments for their employees can also benefit from having low turnover rates due to a lack of incentives (Kurniawaty et al., 2019). In the long term, such organizations can avoid the negative effects of high turnover rates, including the high costs of replacing employees and low morale within the workforce. Thus, the need for organizations to prioritize approaches that promote employee QoL is vital.

Conclusion

The need for organizations to create ideal work environments to foster employee sustainability has emerged as a profound priority in the modern business world. This paper investigated the primary factors influencing employee sustainability, including artifacts, human development, fair payments, value, and health and wellness. The paper also investigated employee sustainability by testing the significance of job performance, job motivation, affective job commitment, and job retention. The data was collected from private sector personnel via a quantitative survey and showed that organizations are likely to improve employee sustainability by investing in the appropriate values, physical artifacts, and health and wellness programs. At the same time, results indicated that the key elements defining workplace QoL directly affect employees. Accordingly, it is recommended that organizations adopt approaches to create suitable work environments to advance employee sustainability. These measures include designing proper artifacts, investing in health and wellness programs, providing sufficient payments, and helping employees advance their careers.

Recommendations

Organizations nowadays can use different methods to create and foster ideal work environments to advance employee sustainability. It is recommended that organizations ensure their offices and other artifacts are designed to reflect their cultural values. A well-designed workplace should contain all resources that employees require to efficiently perform their tasks (Sander et al., 2019). Management should adopt lead employees in a way that inspires them; for example, a participatory leadership approach that allows employees to participate in decision-making initiatives would create a highly committed and motivated workforce (Raziq et al., 2018). Indeed, employee QoL is contingent on factors such as organizational leadership and culture. Organizations should therefore ensure that these factors are considered and addressed to enhance employee sustainability.

Another approach that organizations could use to maintain a sustainable workforce is to invest in health and wellness programs. In particular, it is recommended that organizations develop internal programs to help employees manage their health needs. Such efforts include training employees on improving occupational safety and avoiding stress and burnout that could otherwise limit their productivity (Abraham, 2019). In addition, organizations could offer affordable health insurance premiums to their employees to help them access the resources they require to manage their health needs (Fink et al., 2020). When effectively implemented, these approaches and tactics can reduce employee absence while improving their commitment and performance. The benefits of having well-managed health and wellness programs are therefore significant.

Organizations should consider using practices that ensure fair payments. In so doing, they should offer monetary compensations that match employee skills and qualifications (Wang & Seifert, 2017). Employees are unlikely to seek employment elsewhere when they feel paid adequately and at per or above their peers across the industry. Organizations should engage employees with continuous professional learning and development opportunities (Teo et al., 2020). Employees who engage in professional learning and development are bound to be committed to their employers. Organizations, hence, should create suitable opportunities for their employees to develop their careers to achieve their goals, including job promotions, which positively contribute to employee sustainability.

References

Abraham, J. M. (2019). Employer wellness programs: A work in progress. JAMA, 321(15), 1462-1463.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Almarshad, S., Toukabri, M., & Yillah, M.S. (2019). Quality of work life as a determinant of social responsibility in the public sector: The case of the governmental sector of the northern borders region in Saudi Arabia. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1).

AlQudah, A., Bani-Mustafa, A., Nimer, K., Alqudah, A.D., & AboElsoud, M.E. (2021). The effects of public governance and national culture on money laundering: A structured equation modeling approach. Journal of Public Affairs.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Amaya, M., Melnyk, B.M., Buffington, B., & Battista, L. (2017). Workplace wellness champions: Lessons learned and implications for future programming. Building Healthy Academic Communities Journal, 1(1), 59.

GoogleScholar

Armstrong, M., & Brown, D. (2019). Armstrong's handbook of reward management practice: Improving performance through reward.

Aslam, U., Muqadas, F., Imran, M.K., & Rahman, U.U. (2018). Investigating the antecedents of work disengagement in the workplace. Journal of Management Development, 37(2), 149-164.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Bandalos, D.L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences; Guilford publications: New York, NY, USA.

Bangwal, D., & Tiwari, P. (2019). Workplace environment, employee satisfaction and intent to stay. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(1), 268-284. 

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Bao, J., & Wu, A. (2017). Equality and equity in compensation. Harvard Business School working paper series# 17-093. Bartlett, M.S. A note on multiplying factors for various chi-squared approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1954, 16, 296–298.

GoogleScholar

Beheshti, N. (2019).

Bhardwaj, P., Chatterjee, P., Demir, K.D., & Turut, O. (2018). When and how is corporate social responsibility profitable? Journal of Business Research, 84, 206-219. 

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Bishnoi, S.K., & Kapoor, S. (2020). A case study on fair compensation to hand embroidery workers in India. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 24(2), 97-110.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Burke, R.J. (2019). Creating psychologically healthy workplaces. In Creating psychologically healthy workplaces. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Burrell, L. (2018). Co-creating the employee experience. Harvard business review.

Calvin, O.Y. (2017). The impact of remuneration on employees' performance: A study of Abdul gusau polytechnic, Talata-Mafara and State College of Education Maru, Zamfara State. Nigerian Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 62(139), 1-10.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Cappelli, P., & Tavis, A. (2018). HR goes agile. Harvard Business Review, 96(2), 46-52.

Carpenter, M., Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Management principles.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Casey, D., & Sieber, S. (2016). Employees, sustainability and motivation: Increasing employee engagement by addressing sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Research in Hospitality Management, 6(1), 69-76.

Craig, W. (2018). The importance of creating sustainable employees in the workplace. Forbes.

Dachner, A.M., Ellingson, J.E., Noe, R.A., & Saxton, B.M. (2021). The future of employee development. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), 100732.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Daniel, C.O. (2019). Compensation management and its impact on organizational commitment. International Journal of Contemporary Applied Researches, 6(2), 26-36.

GoogleScholar

Das, B.M., Halloran, T.M., Kemble, C.D., Sartore-Baldwin, M., & DuBose, K.D. (2019). The impact of a workplace wellness program on employees in a University setting. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 51(6S), 857-857.

GoogleScholar

Dermol, V., & Širca, N.T. (2018). Communication, company mission, organizational values, and company performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 238, 542-551.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Dollard, M.F., Dormann, C., Tuckey, M.R., & Escartín, J. (2017). Psychosocial Safety Climate (PSC) and enacted PSC for workplace bullying and psychological health problem reduction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(6), 844-857.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Dumuid, D., Maher, C., Lewis, L.K., Stanford, T.E., Martín Fernández, J.A., Ratcliffe, J., … & Olds, T. (2018). Human development index, children's health-related quality of life and movement behaviors: A compositional data analysis. Quality of Life Research, 27(6), 1473-1482.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Fink, J., Zabawa, B., & Chopp, S. (2020). Employee perceptions of wellness programs and incentives. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(3), 257-260.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Griep, Y., & Vantilborgh, T. (2018). Reciprocal effects of psychological contract breach on counterproductive and organizational citizenship behaviors: The role of time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 141-153.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Griffiths, R., Lord, W., & Coggins, J. (2017). Project bank accounts: The second wave of security of payment? Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Grueso-Hinestroza, M.P., López-Santamaría, M., González, J.L., Salcedo, W., & Amaya, M. (2018). Organizational culture artifacts and compassionate human resources practices in a healthcare organization. Asian Social Science, 14(4), 90.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Gubbins, C., Harney, B., Werff, L., & Rousseau, D.M. (2018). Enhancing the trustworthiness and credibility of human resource development: Evidence-based management to the rescue? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(3), 193-202.

GoogleScholar

Guest, D.E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22-38.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Ha-Brookshire, J.E., & Goswami, S. (2020). Employees' attitude, perceived corporate hypocrisy and social sustainability. Sustainability in Fashion.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Ha-Brookshire, J.E., Jung, S., & Lee, S. (2020). Ripple effects of the deviation between employees' expectations toward corporate sustainability and perceived performance. Pivoting for the Pandemic.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Hafee, I., Yingjun, Z., Hafeez, S., Mansoor, R., & Rehman, K.U. (2019). Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: Mediating role of employee health. Business, Management and Education, 17(2), 173-193.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Holmes-Smith, P.(2001). Introduction to structural equation modelling using LISREL. Perth, ACSPRI-Winter training program.

GoogleScholar

Huang, H., Mattke, S., Batorsky, B., Miles, J., Liu, H., & Taylor, E. (2016). Incentives, program configuration, and employee uptake of workplace wellness programs. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 58(1), 30-34.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Jehanzeb, K. (2020). Does perceived organizational support and employee development influence organizational citizenship behavior? European Journal of Training and Development, 44(6/7), 637-657.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Jones, D., Molitor, D., & Reif, J. (2019). What do workplace wellness programs do? Evidence from the Illinois workplace wellness study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 1747-1791.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Kelly, R.K., & Snow, S. (2019). The importance of corporate wellness programs for psychological health and productivity in the workplace. In Creating Psychologically Healthy Workplaces. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Klammer, A., Grisold, T., & Gueldenberg, S. (2019). Introducing a 'stop-doing' culture: How to free your organization from rigidity. Business Horizons, 62(4), 451-458.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Kossek, E.E., & Buzzanell, P.M. (2018). Women's career equality and leadership in organizations: Creating an evidence-based positive change. Human Resource Management, 57(4), 813-822.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Kunz, J. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and employees motivation—Broadening the perspective. Schmalenbach Business Review, 72(2), 159-191.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Kurniawaty, K., Ramly, M., & Ramlawati, R. (2019). The effect of work environment, stress, and job satisfaction on employee turnover intention. Management Science Letters, 9(6), 877-886.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Kweku Otoo, F.N., & Mishra, M.M. (2018). Impact of Human Resource Management (HRM) practices on hotel industry's performance: The mediating role of employee competencies. Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies, 9(2), 17.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Ledikwe, J.H., Kleinman, N.J., Mpho, M., Mothibedi, H., Mawandia, S., Semo, B., & O’Malley, G. (2018). Associations between healthcare worker participation in workplace wellness activities and job satisfaction, occupational stress and burnout: A cross-sectional study in Botswana. BMJ Open, 8(3).

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Lee, S., & Ha-Brookshire, J. (2017). Ethical climate and job attitude in fashion retail employees' turnover intention, and perceived organizational sustainability performance: A cross-sectional study. Sustainability, 9(3), 465.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Leitão, J., Pereira, D., & Gonçalves, Â. (2019). Quality of work life and organizational performance: Workers' feelings of contributing, or not, to the organization's productivity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(20), 3803.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Lim, B.T., & Loosemore, M. (2017). The effect of inter-organizational justice perceptions on organizational citizenship behaviors in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 95-106.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Lynch, H.F., Darton, T.C., Levy, J., McCormick, F., Ogbogu, U., Payne, R. O., … & Largent, E.A. (2021). Promoting ethical payment in human infection challenge studies. The American Journal of Bioethics, 21(3), 11-31.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Marinova, S.V., Cao, X., & Park, H. (2018). Constructive organizational values climate and organizational citizenship behaviors: A configurational view. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2045-2071.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Matkó, A., & Takács, T. (2017). Examination of the relationship between organizational culture and performance. International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering, 8(1), 99-105.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Mattke, S., Liu, H., Caloyeras, J., Huang, C., Van Busum, K., Khodyakov, D., … & Broderick, M. (2014). Do workplace wellness programs save employers money?

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Mazur, B., & Walczyna, A. (2020). Bridging sustainable human resource management and corporate sustainability. Sustainability, 12(21), 8987.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

McCleary, K., Goetzel, R.Z., Roemer, E.C., Berko, J., Kent, K., & Torre, H.D. (2017). Employer and employee opinions about workplace health promotion (Wellness) programs. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 59(3), 256-263.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

McDonald, K.S., & Hite, L.M. (2018). Conceptualizing and creating sustainable careers. Human Resource Development Review, 17(4), 349-372.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Mendes, L.H., Mendes, L.C., Dos Santos, L.L., Senff, C.O., Veiga, C.P., & Duclós, L.C. (2018). An artifact for evaluating the quality of health service providers: Evidence from Brazil. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 55, 004695801879016.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Moussa, T., Allam, A., Elbanna, S., & Bani-Mustafa, A. (2020). Can board environmental orientation improve US firms' carbon performance? The mediating role of carbon strategy. Business strategy and the environment, 29(1), 72–86.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Nguyen, M., Phan, A., & Matsui, Y. (2018). Contribution of quality management practices to sustainability performance of Vietnamese Firms. Sustainability, 10(2), 375.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Otoo, F.N., Otoo, E.A., Abledu, G.K., & Bhardwaj, A. (2019). Impact of Human Resource Development (HRD) practices on pharmaceutical industry's performance. European Journal of Training and Development, 43(1/2), 188-210.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Ott-Holland, C.J., Shepherd, W.J., & Ryan, A.M. (2019). Examining wellness programs over time: Predicting participation and workplace outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(1), 163-179.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Oyomo, A.A. (2017). Quality of work life on performance management. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(13).

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill.

Crossref

Park, S., & Kim, E. (2020). Exploring linkages between unlearning and human resource development: Revisiting unlearning cases. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(2).

Rajiah, P., & Bhargava, P. (2021). Leadership lessons from equity theory: The interplay between radiologist compensation and motivation. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 18(1), 211-213.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Raziq, M.M., Borini, F.M., Malik, O.F., Ahmad, M., & Shabaz, M. (2018). Leadership styles, goal clarity, and project success: Evidence from project-based organizations in Pakistan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Reda, H.M. (2018). Organizational culture: A case study measuring the importance and presence of organization values at a higher education organization in Saudi Arabia. Engineering Management Research, 7(1), 56.

Crossref

Saengchai, S., Siriattakul, P., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). The mediating role of employee engagement between team and Co-worker relation, work environment, training and development and employee performance. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 23(4), 853-864.

Saha, S., & Kumar, S.P. (2018). Organizational culture as a moderator between affective commitment and job satisfaction. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(2), 184-206.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Samara, G., & Arenas, D. (2017). Practicing fairness in the family business workplace. Business Horizons, 60(5), 647-655.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Sander, E.L.J., Caza, A., & Jordan, P.J. (2019). Psychological perceptions matter: Developing the reactions to the physical work environment scale. Building and Environment, 148, 338-347.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Sattar, S. (2018). Relation of job related factors with different dimensions of quality of work life. World Journal of Public Health, 3(1), 16.

Indexed at

Schermerhorn, J.R., & Bachrach, D.G. (2014). Management. Wiley.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Sharma, P. (2017). Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: The role of age and gender. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 22(1), 35-48.

Crossref

Stone, D.L., Stone-Romero, E.F., & Lukaszewski, K.M. (2007). The impact of cultural values on the acceptance and effectiveness of human resource management policies and practices. Human Resource Management Review, 17(2), 152-165.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Strömberg, A. (2018). Definitions: Quality of life, health, and health-related quality of life. ESC CardioMed, 1754-1758.

GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Tan, B. (2019). In search of the link between organizational culture and performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(3), 356-368.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Tastan, S.B. (2017). Toxic workplace environment in search for the toxic behaviours in organizations with a research in healthcare sector. Postmodern Openings, 8(1), 83-109.

GoogleScholar

Tayeh, O.A., El-Hallaq, K., & Tayeh, B.A. (2018). The organizational culture of Gaza strip construction companies. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res, 8, 40-64.

Teo, S.T., Bentley, T., & Nguyen, D. (2020). Psychosocial work environment, work engagement, and employee commitment: A moderated, mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102-114.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Teo, S. T., Bentley, T., & Nguyen, D. (2020). Psychosocial work environment, work engagement, and employee commitment: A moderated, mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102415.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Titov, E., Virovere, A., & Kuimet, K. (2018). Conflict in organization: Indicator for organizational values. Organizational Conflict.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Torraco, R. J., & Lundgren, H. (2019). What HRD is doing—What HRD should be doing: The case for transforming HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 39-65.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Van Dam, K., Van Vuuren, T., & Kemps, S. (2016). Sustainable employment: The importance of intrinsically valuable work and an age-supportive climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(17), 2449-2472.

Crossref, GoogleScholar

Virtanen, M., & Elovainio, M., (2018). Justice at the workplace: A review. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 27(2), 306-315.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Wang, W., & Seifert, R. (2017). Pay reductions and work attitudes: the moderating effect of employee involvement practices. Employee Relations.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Warrick, D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business Horizons, 60(3), 395-404.

Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Yeung, O., & Johnston, K. (2016). The future of wellness at work. Global Wellness Institute.

GoogleScholar, Indexed at

Yuh, J., & Choi, S. (2017). Sources of social support, job satisfaction, and quality of life among childcare teachers. The Social Science Journal, 54(4), 450-457.

Crossref, GoogleScholar,

Received: 08-Feb-2022, Manuscript No. JLERI-21-10204; Editor assigned: 10-Feb-2022, PreQC No. JLERI-21-10204 (PQ); Reviewed: 23- Feb-2022, QC No. JLERI-21-10204; Revised: 07-Mar-2022, Manuscript No. JLERI-21-10204 (R); Published: 21-Mar-2022.