From Work Satisfaction to Engagement: Understanding the Role of Quality of Working Life

From Work Satisfaction to Engagement: Understanding the Role of Quality of Working Life

Nur Hazilah Omar*

Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Sabah Branch, Kota Kinabalu Campus, MALAYSIA

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000628

Received: 20 August 2025; Accepted: 28 August 2025; Published: 24 September 2025

ABSTRACT

This conceptual paper explores the relationship between Quality of Working Life (QWL), job satisfaction, and employee engagement, drawing on established perspectives from organizational psychology and management. QWL is presented as a multidimensional construct that encompasses both external factors such as pay, job security, and workplace conditions and internal factors, including recognition, opportunities for growth, and meaningful work. Anchored in Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the paper argues that QWL should be understood as an organizational investment that enhances job satisfaction and, in turn, creates the psychological conditions necessary for engagement. While much of the prior literature emphasizes direct associations between QWL and engagement, relatively few studies have examined satisfaction as a mediating mechanism or considered the influence of boundary conditions such as digital transformation, hybrid work models, and demographic change. The contribution of this paper is twofold: theoretically, it advances the integration of SET’s reciprocity logic with Herzberg’s hygiene–motivator framework; practically, it underscores the importance of employee-centered approaches in human resource policies and leadership practice. Importantly, the paper identifies future research directions, emphasizing industry-specific applications in sectors such as healthcare, education, manufacturing, and banking, as well as cross-cultural validation and empirical studies including longitudinal surveys and case-based designs. These avenues are essential for translating the conceptual framework into actionable insights across diverse organizational settings.

Keywords: Quality of Working Life (QWL), Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, Social Exchange Theory, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

INTRODUCTION

Organizations today operate in an environment characterized by intensifying competition, rapid technological change, and global interconnectedness. These dynamics have altered the nature of work and created heightened pressures to not only achieve productivity gains but also to protect the employees’ quality of life. Against this backdrop, the concept of Quality of Working Life (QWL) has attracted renewed scholarly and managerial attention. QWL reflects the extent to which the workplace enables employees to meet material, psychological, and social needs through their work (Walton, 1973; Sirgy et al., 2001). The construct extends beyond the physical or contractual aspects of employment and incorporates dimensions such as job security, fair compensation, autonomy, supportive supervision, and opportunities for personal growth. This multifaceted approach acknowledges that enhancing QWL is vital for fostering job satisfaction, which in turn can lead to greater employee engagement and productivity.

Research has reliably demonstrated that elevated levels QWL foster favourable employee attitudes and behaviors, with outcomes that include lower turnover, greater organizational commitment, and improved individual and collective performance (Lee et al., 2020; Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy, 2015). Central to this relationship is job satisfaction, defined as employees’ affective evaluation of their job experiences (Locke, 1976). Satisfaction is often conceptualized as both an outcome of QWL and a mediating variable that links organizational conditions to broader outcomes such as motivation and performance. Without satisfaction, even generous organizational investments in pay, resources, or working conditions may not translate into deeper forms of commitment or engagement.Employee engagement, in contrast, represents a more active and sustained form of involvement, encompassing vigor, dedication, and absorption in work (Schaufeli et al., 2002).

Engagement has been described as a vital driver of organizational success in the twenty-first century, associated with higher productivity, creativity, and loyalty (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Importantly, engagement is not a spontaneous outcome; it develops through positive work experiences that generate satisfaction, which then channels employees’ energy and commitment toward their roles. To foster a culture of engagement, organizations must prioritize initiatives that enhance job satisfaction, recognizing its critical role in facilitating employee commitment and performance.

This paper therefore seeks to advance a conceptual framework that clarifies the pathways through which QWL influences engagement, with satisfaction positioned as the critical intermediary. The framework integrates two theoretical lenses: Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), which explains how employees reciprocate organizational support with positive attitudes and behaviors, and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), which distinguishes between hygiene factors that prevent dissatisfaction and motivators that generate satisfaction and intrinsic commitment. Taken together, these perspectives provide a robust foundation for understanding why and how QWL shapes employee outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is threefold:

1. To synthesize the multidimensional literature on QWL, work satisfaction, and engagement into a coherent, mechanism-focused account.
2. To theorize the mediating role of satisfaction using complementary lenses from SET and Herzberg’s framework; and
3. To propose a research agenda and practical implications for designing QWL in diverse global contexts, including technology-rich and hybrid work settings.

The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. The next section reviews key strands of literature on QWL, satisfaction, and engagement, with attention to sectoral and cultural variations. This is followed by the theoretical framework and proposed model, which outlines satisfaction as the mediating mechanism linking QWL and engagement. The discussion section elaborates on the implications for both theory and practice, while the conclusion identifies limitations and future research directions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Quality of Working Life (QWL): A Multidimensional Construct

The concept of Quality of Working Life (QWL) has undergone significant evolution since it was first introduced in the 1970s. Walton (1973) outlined one of the earliest frameworks, emphasizing dimensions such as fair compensation, safe working conditions, opportunities for human development, and a balance between work and personal life. Building on this foundation, contemporary definitions extend QWL beyond organizational boundaries to include holistic employee well-being that integrates psychological, social, and even societal dimensions (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Guest, 2017). QWL has increasingly been linked to a wide range of outcomes, including job satisfaction, productivity, retention, and employee engagement (Lee et al., 2020; Saraji & Dargahi, 2006). For example, in knowledge-intensive industries, organizations with stronger QWL initiatives report lower absenteeism and higher innovation outcomes (Hassan et al., 2019). In healthcare, QWL has also been identified as a predictor of organizational resilience, especially during periods of disruption such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Putri & Amran, 2021). Furthermore, the evolving nature of QWL emphasizes the importance of adapting organizational practices to enhance employee well-being, particularly in response to challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Job Satisfaction as an Outcome of QWL

Job satisfaction, defined as a positive emotional response to one’s job (Locke, 1976), frequently emerges as a direct outcome of QWL. Studies have shown that supportive conditions such as autonomy, recognition, and career development create the foundation for satisfaction, which subsequently drives motivation (Judge et al., 2001). Sector-specific evidence illustrates this relationship: in healthcare, nurses with higher QWL report greater satisfaction and lower burnout (Rosa et al., 2019); in manufacturing and agriculture, fair wages and safe working conditions remain the strongest predictors of satisfaction (Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy, 2015); and in higher education, autonomy, academic freedom, and institutional support enhance faculty satisfaction and commitment (Moghadam et al., 2017). These findings highlight the contextual nature of QWL and underscore the importance of tailoring HR practices to sectoral needs.

Employee Engagement and Its Link to QWL

Employee engagement, conceptualized as a state of vigor, dedication, and absorption in work (Schaufeli et al., 2002), is often viewed as a higher-order outcome of QWL achieved through satisfaction. Engagement has been empirically linked to higher productivity, stronger organizational citizenship behavior, and creativity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Saks, 2006). Moreover, engaged employees tend to exhibit greater resilience to workplace stressors and demonstrate stronger organizational loyalty (Shuck & Reio, 2014). Alqarni (2016) highlighted the mediating role of satisfaction in the QWL engagement relationship, arguing that while QWL establishes the foundation, satisfaction serves as the psychological bridge that leads to engagement. This interpretation aligns with Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), which emphasizes the principle of reciprocity. Employees who perceive organizational support are more likely to reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviors such as commitment and engagement.

Global and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on QWL

Globalization has introduced complexity into how QWL is understood and implemented. While some scholars have treated QWL as a universal construct, evidence suggests that contextual and cultural variations shape its application. Haar et al. (2014) observed that autonomy and recognition are valued across different contexts, whereas elements such as collective bargaining or work life integration differ significantly depending on cultural expectations (Hofstede, 2001). Comparative studies also reveal noteworthy contrasts. In European contexts, QWL is strongly associated with welfare policies and labor protections, while in developing economies, basic elements such as fair wages and job security remain the dominant concerns (De Bruyne et al., 2019). In Asian cultures, collectivist orientations place greater emphasis on social relationships and organizational harmony in shaping perceptions of QWL (Ali & Zaman, 2021). These differences suggest that although QWL contains universal dimensions, its practical implementation must remain sensitive to local contexts.

Technology, Digital Transformation, and QWL

The role of technology in shaping QWL has emerged as a double-edged issue. On one hand, digital platforms, remote work, and flexible arrangements can enhance autonomy and support work–life balance, thereby improving satisfaction (Wang et al., 2021; Ipsen et al., 2021). On the other hand, challenges such as digital fatigue, blurred boundaries between work and personal life, and reduced opportunities for social interaction have raised concerns about declining well-being (Tarafdar et al., 2019). For instance, a study of IT professionals by Day et al. (2012) found that digital overload negatively influenced QWL by increasing stress and reducing satisfaction. In contrast, organizations that implemented “digital well-being” strategies, such as mandatory offline hours, reported higher levels of satisfaction and engagement (Pflügner et al., 2021). These findings suggest that technology’s impact on QWL is not uniform but is contingent upon how organizations design policies and manage cultural adaptation.

Sustainability, QWL, and the Future of Work

Finally, QWL has been increasingly linked to sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Organizations that invest in employee well-being not only improve retention but also demonstrate resilience and ethical responsibility (Guest, 2017; Mujtaba & Cavico, 2013). Demographic and generational changes further amplify this need: younger cohorts prioritize flexibility, inclusivity, and meaningful work (Twenge, 2010). Organizations that fail to adapt may face disengagement and talent loss. Consequently, QWL must be positioned at the intersection of employee psychology, organizational strategy, and global labor trends.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of this study rests on Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). These theories provide an explanatory basis for understanding how Quality of Working Life (QWL) fosters Work Satisfaction, which in turn enhances Employee Engagement.

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

SET posits that relationships between employees and employers are based on reciprocal exchanges of resources, whether tangible (e.g., pay, benefits) or intangible (e.g., recognition, support) (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). When employees perceive that their organization provides fair rewards, career development opportunities, and supportive working conditions, they develop a sense of obligation to reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviors such as commitment, loyalty, and engagement. This reciprocal process is deeply rooted in trust, perceived organizational support, and fairness (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). In this study, QWL is conceptualized as an organizational investment in employees’ well-being. High QWL reflected in autonomy, safety, fairness, and developmental opportunities signals organizational support. Employees who perceive this support are more likely to experience higher Work Satisfaction, which then translates into stronger Engagement (Saks, 2006; Alfes et al., 2013). Thus, SET provides a theoretical justification for why satisfaction mediates the QWL Engagement relationship.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959) provides an important lens to understand how Quality of Working Life (QWL) influences employee outcomes. The theory distinguishes between hygiene factors, such as pay, job security, organizational policies, and working conditions, which prevent dissatisfaction but do not necessarily foster satisfaction, and motivators, such as recognition, achievement, responsibility, and growth opportunities, which directly enhance intrinsic satisfaction and drive engagement (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005; Sachau, 2007). Within the QWL–Satisfaction–Engagement framework, hygiene factors can be seen as the foundation that ensures employees are not dissatisfied with their work environment, while motivators serve as the true drivers of work satisfaction, leading employees to feel more valued and intrinsically motivated. When organisations provide both adequate hygiene conditions and enriching motivators, employees are more likely to experience higher levels of work satisfaction, which subsequently translates into stronger engagement behaviors. This perspective aligns with Social Exchange Theory, as employees who perceive organizational support through both extrinsic and intrinsic provisions are more inclined to reciprocate with positive attitudes and active involvement (Alshammari, 2017; Saks, 2006). Applied to QWL, hygiene factors such as fair wages and safe conditions ensure that employees do not experience dissatisfaction, while motivators such as career development and recognition foster positive psychological states and intrinsic satisfaction (Alshammari, 2017; Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). For engagement to occur, organizations must therefore go beyond hygiene needs and proactively invest in motivators that enrich jobs, inspire meaning, and stimulate commitment.

Integrating SET and Herzberg’s Theory

Integrating Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory provides a more holistic explanation of how Quality of Working Life (QWL) translates into employee engagement. From the perspective of hygiene factors, QWL reflects the organization’s commitment to meeting employees’ fundamental needs, such as fair pay, job security, and supportive working conditions. When these extrinsic provisions are adequately addressed, employees perceive fairness and reciprocity in the exchange relationship, as emphasized by SET, which reduces dissatisfaction and builds trust in the organization. At the same time, intrinsic motivators such as recognition, achievement, responsibility, and opportunities for growth play a critical role in fostering deeper work satisfaction. These motivators not only enrich employees’ experiences but also create a sense of value and purpose in their roles, thereby encouraging them to reciprocate with higher levels of engagement. Thus, while hygiene factors establish the foundation for a positive work environment, intrinsic motivators act as the true drivers that transform satisfaction into active and sustained engagement. In this integration, Work Satisfaction acts as the psychological bridge. Employees who feel supported (hygiene) and inspired (motivators) experience satisfaction, which consistent with SET triggers reciprocal positive behaviors such as commitment, discretionary effort, and engagement (Judge et al., 2001; Saks, 2006). This dual-theory approach ensures both extrinsic and intrinsic needs are met, offering a robust framework for understanding the QWL–Satisfaction–Engagement link.

Conceptual Framework

The model outlined here emphasises work satisfaction as central to how the Quality of Working Life (QWL) enhances employee engagement. Simply put, when employees feel supported at work through fair pay, opportunities to develop, a healthy work-life balance, and positive working conditions, they are more likely to experience job satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2020). This sense of satisfaction naturally encourages them to invest more energy, enthusiasm, and commitment into their work (Saks, 2006; Alqarni, 2016). Thus, satisfaction acts as a key link, transforming a supportive work environment into active engagement. Without genuine satisfaction, even the most effective workplace improvements may not lead to increased engagement, which underscores the importance of satisfaction in this process. From a theoretical standpoint, this model aligns with Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), which suggests that employees reciprocate favorable work conditions with positive attitudes and behaviors, and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959), which explains how intrinsic (e.g., recognition, achievement) and extrinsic (e.g., salary, work conditions) factors shape satisfaction and subsequent motivation. This aligns with prior findings that satisfaction often serves as the mechanism linking workplace factors with engagement outcomes (Alqarni, 2016; Saks, 2006).

By integrating SET and Herzberg’s theory, this study offers a holistic explanation of the QWL–Engagement link. It contributes to theory by emphasizing the mediating role of satisfaction and to practice by highlighting the need for both extrinsic and intrinsic job enhancements to cultivate engagement.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Linking Quality of Working Life, Work Satisfaction, and Employee Engagement

DISCUSSION

The conceptual model linking Quality of Working Life (QWL), job satisfaction, and employee engagement underscores the evolving dynamics of work in the twenty-first century. As organizations adapt to rapid technological change, global competition, and shifting workforce expectations, QWL emerges as a strategic asset rather than a purely human resource concern.

A central insight of the framework is the mediating role of work satisfaction. While many organizations invest heavily in engagement initiatives such as recognition programs or corporate culture campaigns, these efforts are unlikely to succeed if the foundations of QWL are neglected. Employees must first feel secure, fairly treated, and supported before they can experience the satisfaction that motivates genuine engagement. This suggests that engagement should be viewed not as a standalone initiative but as the cumulative outcome of a well-structured work environment. Generational shifts further highlight the importance of this approach. Millennials and Generation Z increasingly value autonomy, meaningful work, and organizational culture over traditional incentives such as pay alone (Twenge et al., 2019). For these cohorts, motivators such as recognition and career development opportunities are crucial for satisfaction and engagement. Conversely, for employees in contexts where basic security and fairness remain concerns, hygiene factors continue to dominate perceptions of QWL. This underscores the need for context-sensitive applications of the framework across industries, cultures, and economic environments.

The model also carries practical implications for organizational leaders. Initiatives such as flexible work arrangements, employee assistance programs, and hybrid work structures illustrate how QWL can be enhanced in contemporary workplaces. Importantly, these initiatives must address both extrinsic and intrinsic needs: providing fair and transparent reward systems while also ensuring opportunities for personal growth and meaningful contribution. Engagement, in this sense, is not simply an outcome but part of a reinforcing cycle, as engaged employees strengthen organizational climate, which in turn enhances perceptions of QWL (Schaufeli, 2017).

Furthermore, globalization and digital transformation present new challenges and opportunities for QWL. In high-income economies, debates often focus on autonomy, digital well-being, and work-life integration, while in developing economies, the priority remains job security, safe conditions, and fair wages. Digitalization adds complexity by simultaneously increasing flexibility and creating risks of fatigue, blurred boundaries, and isolation. Organizations that successfully manage these dualities—by establishing policies such as “right-to-disconnect” hours or wellness initiatives demonstrate that QWL can evolve to meet contemporary challenges while sustaining satisfaction and engagement.

Taking together, this discussion emphasizes that QWL should be conceptualized as a dynamic, context-dependent construct with both universal and culturally specific elements. Work satisfaction is positioned as the critical psychological state that transforms supportive work environments into active employee engagement. This reinforces the theoretical contribution of the framework and its practical utility for managers, policymakers, and HR practitioners who seek to design sustainable and people-centered workplaces.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The framework connecting Quality of Working Life (QWL), job satisfaction, and engagement provides useful guidance for both researchers and organizational leaders. The framework underscores the notion that a high-quality work environment, encompassing fair rewards, supportive leadership, autonomy, and opportunities for personal growth, serves as the foundation for job satisfaction. In turn, satisfaction becomes the driving force behind employee engagement, characterized by energy, commitment, and focus on organizational goals. This cascading relationship highlights the importance of viewing QWL not as an isolated construct but as a strategic enabler of organizational performance through its impact on satisfaction and engagement.

Theoretically, the paper deepens understanding of QWL by presenting it within a model where satisfaction acts as a mediator. Prior studies have often treated QWL and engagement as independent constructs; however, the inclusion of work satisfaction as a mediating variable provides a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms at play (Sirgy et al., 2001; Walton, 1973). Drawing from Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959), this framework illustrates how employees reciprocate organizational support with higher engagement when their intrinsic and extrinsic needs are met. In this way, the paper contributes to the literature by bridging established motivational theories with contemporary concerns around engagement.

From a practical perspective, the implications are profound. Organizations must recognize that enhancing employee engagement is not solely a matter of introducing engagement programs or initiatives in isolation. Instead, engagement is the outcome of a broader ecosystem where QWL and satisfaction are prioritized. Leaders should adopt employee-centered policies such as flexible work arrangements, fair and transparent reward systems, supportive supervision, and opportunities for continuous learning and development (Chib, 2016; Lee et al., 2019). These practices not only increase satisfaction but also foster a culture of trust, belonging, and commitment. When organizations invest in QWL, they are essentially investing in their long-term sustainability, as engaged employees are more likely to demonstrate creativity, resilience, and loyalty (Harter et al., 2002; Saks, 2006).

Moreover, in the context of an evolving workforce shaped by globalisation, remote work, and technological advancements, ensuring a high quality of working life has become increasingly critical (Krekel et al., 2019). Employees increasingly expect organizations to address not only their professional growth but also their overall well-being. By integrating QWL into strategic human resource management, organizations can differentiate themselves in the talent market, attract top talent, and retain skilled employees in an era of high mobility and turnover (Grawitch et al., 2006).

While the framework offers conceptual clarity, empirical validation is necessary to strengthen its practical relevance. Future research should pursue several directions. First, industry-specific studies can illuminate how QWL priorities differ across sectors for example, resilience and burnout in healthcare, academic autonomy in education, safety and wages in manufacturing, and work–life balance in banking. Second, cross-cultural validation is necessary to test the universality of the framework across diverse contexts, including comparisons between collectivist and individualist cultures, as well as across generational cohorts. Third, methodological diversification will enrich insights: longitudinal studies can trace how satisfaction and engagement evolve over time, mixed-methods approaches can capture both breadth and depth, and case studies can provide detailed evidence of how organizations successfully translate QWL into engagement. Future research also could explore moderating variables such as leadership style, organizational culture, or generational differences, as these factors may strengthen or weaken the QWL satisfaction engagement pathway (Alzyoud & Bani-Hani, 2015). Longitudinal studies could also provide insights into the dynamic nature of these constructs over time.

By pursuing these avenues, scholars can bridge the gap between conceptual models and applied practice. For practitioners, the message is clear: employee engagement cannot be achieved through isolated initiatives but must be cultivated through a holistic commitment to improving QWL. Organizations that invest in fair, supportive, and meaningful work environments are more likely to foster satisfaction, secure engagement, and build long-term sustainability in an increasingly complex world.

In conclusion, this paper reinforces the critical role of QWL as both a theoretical construct and a practical strategy for enhancing employee engagement. By positioning work satisfaction as the mediating link, the proposed framework offers a fresh perspective on how organizations can achieve sustainable performance. The message for practitioners is clear: employee engagement is not achieved in isolation but is cultivated through a holistic commitment to improving the quality of working life.

REFERENCES

1. Alfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Truss, C., & Soane, E. C. (2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.679950
2. Ali, A., & Zaman, T. (2021). Exploring the relationship between quality of work life and employee performance: Evidence from higher education institutions in Pakistan. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 9(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2021.92016
3. Alqarni, S. A. Y. (2016). Quality of work life as a predictor of work engagement among the teaching faculty at King Abdulaziz University. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(8), 118–135.
4. Alshammari, M. (2017). Quality of work life and organizational commitment in Saudi Arabia: The role of job satisfaction. European Journal of Business and Management, 9(19), 142–154.
5. Alzyoud, A. A. Y., & Bani-Hani, K. (2015). Social responsibility in higher education institutions: Application case from the University of Jordan. International Business Research, 8(5), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n5p130
6. Azeem, S. M., & Akhtar, N. (2014). The influence of work life balance and job satisfaction on organizational commitment of healthcare employees. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4(2), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v4i2.5667
7. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
8. Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929–943. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510627064
9. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
10. Chib, S. (2016). Quality of work life and organizational performance: An empirical study. Journal of Business and Management, 18(2), 44–52.
11. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
12. Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384.
13. Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012). Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employees: Scale development and relationship to job strain. Work & Stress, 26(4), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.727543
14. De Bruyne, K., Jorens, Y., & Claes, E. (2019). Quality of working life across the EU: Comparative perspectives. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 25(4), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959680119848990
15. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
16. Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.129
17. Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139
18. Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361–373.
19. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
20. Herzberg, F. (1959). The motivation to work. John Wiley & Sons.
21. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). Wiley.
22. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage.
23. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2001). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92.
24. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
25. Lee, S. M., Lee, D., & Kang, C. Y. (2019). The impact of high-performance work systems on employee satisfaction and engagement. Sustainability, 11(17), 4479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174479
26. Lee, Y. W., Dai, Y. T., & McCreary, L. L. (2020). Quality of work life as a predictor of nurses’ intention to leave units, organizations and the profession. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(3), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12972
27. Lee, Y., Kim, S., & Park, H. (2020). Quality of work life and job satisfaction in the digital era. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 10(2), 45–60.
28. Lee, Y., Kim, S., & Park, J. (2020). Quality of work life and organizational performance: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Sustainability, 12(9), 3890.
29. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.
30. Moghadam, H. A., Arizi, H. R., & Golparvar, M. (2017). The relationship between quality of work life and job satisfaction among faculty members. International Journal of
31. Mujtaba, B. G., & Cavico, F. J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability model for global firms. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(1), 72–87.
32. Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Swamy, D. R. (2015). Empirical research on the relationship between quality of work life and leadership styles. Journal of Management Research, 7(2), 17–35.
33. Pflügner, K., Maier, C., & Weitzel, T. (2021). The blessing and the curse of mobile business apps: A review and research agenda. Internet Research, 31(3), 889–921. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-09-2019-0399Business and Social Science, 8(10),
34. Putri, A., & Amran, A. (2021). Employees’ work-life balance reviewed from work from home aspect during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Management Studies, 28(2), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.32890/ijms2021.28.2.4
35. Richardson, K. (2024). An Analysis of the Great Disruption of COVID-19 Pandemic. Socioeconomic Challenges. https://doi.org/10.61093/sec.8(1).219-239.2024Rosa, E. M., Garcia, M. L., & Silva, P. (2019). Quality of work life and burnout in healthcare professionals. Journal of Occupational Health, 61(3), 221–229.
36. Sachau, D. A. (2007). Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307307546
37. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
38. Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Applying the job demands–resources model: A ‘how to’ guide to measuring and tackling work engagement and burnout. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 120–132.
39. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
40. Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., & Lee, D. J. (2001). A new measure of quality of work life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research, 55(3), 241–302. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010986923468
41. Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2019). The technostress trifecta – techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169130–136.
42. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2019). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142.
43. Walton, R. E. (1973). Quality of working life: What is it? Sloan Management Review, 15(1), 11–21.
44. Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59.