Effect of Contingent Workforce Management on Organizational Development in South East Nigeria

Peterson Nwokorie

doi:10.5281/zenodo.21754632

Effect of Contingent Workforce Management on Organizational Development in South East Nigeria

Authors: Peterson Nwokorie

Journal: Contemporary Journal of Management (CJM), ISSN 2766-1431

Citation: CJM 8(1): 13-24, 2026-03-08.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21754632

PDF: Download full-text PDF

Type: Original Research

Abstract

The study examined the effect of contingent workforce management on organizational development in South East Nigeria. The specific objectives were to examine the effect of employer commitment on organizational development and to evaluate the effect of employee retention on organizational development in South East Nigeria. A descriptive research survey design was adopted for the study. A structure questionnaire designed with a five-point Likert scale was used to collect data for the study. The collected data were coded and imported into SPSS for analysis. Descriptive statistics were then applied to analyze and describe the data, while hypothesis testing was performed using Multiple Regression analysis. The result revealed that employer commitment has a significant positive effect on organizational development, with a p-value of (0.000 < 0.05) that shows that when employers demonstrate strong commitment towards contingent workers through fair treatment, clear communication, creating capacity development opportunities (through training and re-training), timely and adequate remuneration etc. hence, organizations are more likely to experience continuous development improved growth, stability, and performance outcomes. Also, it was found that employee retention has a significant positive effect on organizational development with a p-value of (0.037 < 0.05) in South East Nigeria. The study concluded that contingent workforce management has a significant positive effect on organizational development in South East Nigeria. The study recommended among others that organizations should endeavor to implement continuous training and professional development opportunities for contingent workers. This fosters skills enhancement and encourages loyalty, resulting in a more committed workforce.

Keywords

Contingent Workforce Management, Organizational Development, South East Nigeria

Full Text

<h1 style="line-height: normal;">Introduction</h1>Globally, the contingent workforce has expanded alongside broader labour-market transformations. Digitalization, remote work, outsourcing chains, and the post-pandemic normalization of flexible staffing have accelerated the adoption of non-standard employment arrangements in many economies (ILO, 2024). The International Labour Organization notes that non-standard forms of work, such as temporary, part-time, and dependent self-employment, have become central to how organizations respond to uncertainty and competitive pressure, but they also introduce challenges around job quality, fairness, and social protection (ILO, 2024). For employers, the appeal of contingent labour lies in flexibility and access to specialized skills without long-term commitments; for organizational development, however, the consequences are more complex, because OD depends not only on headcount efficiency but also on learning, commitment, shared meaning, and coordinated change.Within the Nigerian context, the labour market has continued to exhibit persistent underemployment, informality, and a high incidence of precarious work arrangements, conditions that create both a supply of available contingent workers and incentives for firms to externalize labour obligations (NBS, 2023; ILO, 2024). In South East Nigeria, often described as a hub of small and medium-scale enterprise activity, trade networks, and emerging industrial clusters, the utilization of contract staffing, casual labour, and outsourced services is especially visible in sectors such as logistics, retail distribution, manufacturing (including food and beverage processing), construction, and private security. At the same time, the region's organizational landscape is shaped by a strong entrepreneurial culture, family-owned enterprises, and relationship-driven employment practices, all of which influence how contingent workers are integrated, supervised, and evaluated. These realities make it important to examine CWM not only as a cost-saving tool but as a determinant of whether organizations can build sustainable internal capacity.Conversely, weak contingent workforce management can constrain organizational development by fragmenting teams, lowering psychological safety, and weakening shared identity, particularly where contingent workers are treated as peripheral or excluded from communication and training. Poorly managed contingent systems can increase operational risk (compliance issues, quality defects, safety incidents), disrupt knowledge continuity, and reduce the effectiveness of OD initiatives that depend on collective buy-in and stable routines. Research suggests that extensive reliance on non-standard work when not accompanied by supportive HR systems can generate organizational duality: a “core” of permanent staff and a “peripheral” workforce, which may heighten inequality perceptions and reduce overall commitment (Kalleberg, 2009; ILO, 2024). In developing and emerging economies, where regulatory enforcement may be uneven and outsourcing chains complex, these problems can be amplified.In South East Nigeria, these dynamics are particularly salient because organizations are simultaneously pursuing growth and formalization while navigating local constraints, power supply instability, high logistics costs, security challenges on transport corridors, and limited access to long-term finance. In such conditions, contingent arrangements can become a default operating model rather than a deliberate strategy. That shift makes CWM a key organizational capability: firms require systems for vendor selection and oversight, standardized onboarding, role clarity, performance monitoring, grievance handling, and ethical/legal compliance. Inadequate management of these processes can undermine OD outcomes such as improved productivity, employee engagement, innovation, and sustainable change. Conversely, thoughtful CWM anchored in fair treatment, clear performance expectations, communication access, and learning pathways can turn workforce flexibility into a driver of organizational resilience and development.This study, therefore, situates contingent workforce management as a strategic lever that shapes organizational development in South East Nigeria. It emphasizes that the impact of contingent staffing is not uniform; rather, it depends on management practices and the extent to which organizations intentionally integrate contingent labour into their human resource architecture and development agenda. In practical terms, the introduction frames a central argument: while contingent labour can help organizations in the region respond to volatility and capability gaps, only strong CWM practices can ensure that this flexibility translates into long-term organizational development manifested in effective structures, adaptive culture, process maturity, and sustained performance improvement. By focusing on South East Nigeria, the study contributes to a more context-sensitive understanding of how global labour trends intersect with regional organizational realities.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Statement of the Problem</h2>Organizations across South East Nigeria increasingly depend on contingent labour — contract staff, casual workers, outsourced service personnel, and short-term specialists — to cope with volatile operating costs, fluctuating demand, and gaps in technical skills. While this staffing approach can improve flexibility and reduce fixed labour costs, it also creates a management challenge. It was observed that most times contingent workers are often hired through third parties, rotated frequently, and positioned outside the formal human resource architecture that supports performance management, learning, engagement, and culture-building. As a result, many organizations face a growing tension between the short-term efficiency promised by contingent staffing and the long-term capability development required for sustained organizational growth and competitiveness.In practice, contingent workforce management (CWM) in parts of the region is frequently characterized by inconsistent onboarding, unclear job roles, weak supervision structures, limited access to training, and uneven compliance with labour standards and contractual obligations. These gaps can produce operational disruptions (quality defects, delays, safety incidents, customer service failures) and reduce the effectiveness of change initiatives that depend on coordinated teamwork and shared commitment. Organizational development (OD), which relies on stable systems for communication, leadership alignment, continuous improvement, and knowledge retention, may therefore be undermined when a large segment of the workforce is weakly integrated into organizational processes. At the same time, where CWM is deliberate and well-governed, contingent labour may serve as a source of innovation, rapid scaling, and specialized expertise that strengthens OD outcomes. The problem is that many organizations in South East Nigeria do not have clear evidence-based guidance on which CWM practices can enhance OD and which practices may erode it.Despite the visible rise in contingent work arrangements in the region — manufacturing, construction, logistics, retail, banking, support services, and hospitality sectors — empirical research linking contingent workforce management to organizational development outcomes in South East Nigeria remains limited and fragmented. Much of the existing literature on contingent work is either generalized from advanced economies or focused on labour-market insecurity, leaving a gap in context-specific understanding of how CWM influences OD indicators such as organizational learning, employee commitment, culture cohesion, process maturity, productivity improvement, and change implementation capacity within the socio-economic realities of South East Nigeria.Therefore, the central problem this study addresses is the insufficient empirical clarity on how contingent workforce management practices affect organizational development in South East Nigeria, particularly regarding whether current CWM approaches are enabling organizational adaptability and performance improvement or instead creating fragmentation, weak knowledge continuity, and reduced capacity for sustainable organizational change. This gap limits managers' ability to design workforce strategies that balance flexibility with long-term development, and it constrains policymakers and practitioners seeking to promote decent work and organizational competitiveness in the region.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Objectives of the Study</h2>The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of contingent workforce management on organizational development in South East Nigeria. The specific objectives were to:i. Examine the effect of employer commitment on organizational development in South East Nigeria.ii. Evaluate the effect of employee retention on organizational development in South East Nigeria.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Hypotheses of the Study</h2>i. Employer commitment has no significant effect on organizational development in South East Nigeria.ii. Employee retention has no significant effect on organizational development in South East Nigeria.<h1 style="line-height: normal;">Review of Related Literature</h1><h2 style="line-height: normal;">Conceptual Review</h2><h3 style="line-height: normal;">Contingent Workforce Management (CWM)</h3>Contingent workforce management refers to employment relationships that are non-permanent, non-standard, and often project-based. These include temporary, contract, casual, and outsourced forms of labour. Scholars argue that while contingent work offers organizational flexibility, it often leads to employment insecurity and weakened psychological contracts (Guest, 2017).<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Employer Commitment</h3>Employer commitment reflects organizational actions that signal long-term concern for employees, including equitable treatment, timely payment of wages, access to training, health and safety provisions, and respectful supervision. Even in contingent arrangements, perceived employer commitment has been shown to foster trust, loyalty, and positive work attitudes (Eisenberger et al., 2016).<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Employee Retention</h3>Employee retention refers to the ability of an organization to keep its employees and maintain a stable workforce. It is a critical aspect of talent management, as retaining skilled and experienced employees can contribute to organizational success and competitiveness (Lee, 2024; Gallup, 2020). Employee retention is a strategic focus for organizations aiming to maintain a stable and committed workforce. It involves creating an environment where employees feel valued, supported, and motivated to stay with the company long-term (Ausat et al., 2024). High retention rates are indicative of a positive organizational culture and effective management practices, which can lead to enhanced productivity, reduced turnover costs, and sustained organizational performance (Huluka, 2024). The success of retention strategies depends largely on understanding and addressing employees' needs and expectations, including career development, work-life balance, and job satisfaction. Effective employee retention strategies not only reduce the costs associated with turnover, such as recruitment and training expenses, but also preserve institutional knowledge and maintain continuity in service delivery (Turner, 2024). Organizations that prioritize retention are better positioned to foster a loyal and engaged workforce, which can lead to improved employee morale, increased job satisfaction, and higher levels of performance. By implementing comprehensive retention strategies, companies can build a resilient workforce capable of driving long-term success and achieving strategic objectives.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Organizational Development</h3>Organizational development refers to the planned, systematic effort to improve an organization's effectiveness through interventions in processes, structures, human systems, and culture. OD draws heavily on organizational learning, leadership commitment, employee involvement, and continuous improvement. When contingent work becomes a significant portion of an organization's labour architecture, OD interventions such as culture change, performance management redesign, team development, process reengineering, or strategic capability building may be either strengthened or undermined depending on how contingent workers are managed. On the positive side, contingent staffing can support OD by enabling rapid scaling, bringing in specialized expertise for change initiatives, and reducing bureaucratic rigidity. It can also widen access to scarce capabilities (e.g., IT, engineering, project management) needed for modernization. Evidence from international research indicates that contingent workers can contribute to organizational performance when integration mechanisms, knowledge transfer practices, and clear governance structures are present (Kalleberg, 2009; Ashford, Caza, & Reid, 2018).<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Theoretical Framework</h2>Some of the theories that relate to this work are as follows:<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Social Exchange Theory (SET)</h3>Social Exchange Theory posits that workplace relationships are built on reciprocated exchange. When employers demonstrate commitment (fair treatment, support, opportunities), employees perceive this as valuable and reciprocate with positive work behaviours, including retention and organisational citizenship. In contingent workforce contexts where job security is uncertain, perceived employer commitment becomes especially salient in predicting retention behaviour. Authors: Blau (1964); Emerson (1976).<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Meyer & Allen's Three-Component Model of Organisational Commitment</h3>Meyer and Allen (1991) conceptualize organisational commitment as having three dimensions: affective (emotional attachment), continuance (perceived cost of leaving), and normative (obligation to stay). This model helps explain variations in retention among contingent workers, particularly how affective and normative commitment can emerge even without permanent contracts.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Job Embeddedness Theory</h3>Mitchell et al. (2001) argue that retention isn't driven solely by job satisfaction, but by how embedded employees are into their jobs and communities. Key constructs include fit (compatibility with job and environment), links (relationships with colleagues and organisation), and sacrifice (cost of leaving). This theory is particularly useful in contingent work studies where formal benefits are minimal, making informal psychosocial bonds stronger determinants of retention.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Affective Events Theory (AET)</h3>This work is anchored on Affective Events Theory. Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) propose that specific workplace events trigger emotional reactions that influence attitudes and behaviours. For contingent workers, affective experiences — such as recognition, inclusion, fairness, or exclusion — can shape their organisational commitment and retention decisions more strongly than traditional job features.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Empirical Studies Related to the Topic</h2>Kundu and Mor (2017) investigated workforce diversity and organizational performance of an IT industry in India. The study adopted a descriptive survey research design. The major statistical tools of analysis were factor analysis, correlation, analysis of variance (ANOVA), mean and regression. The result showed that employees' perception of promotion of gender diversity was found to be positively related to perceived organizational performance. The study concluded that employees, irrespective of their diverse backgrounds, positively acknowledged diversity and diversity management in the organization.Agbaeze, Nkwonta, and Obiefuna (2019) examined the effect of workforce diversity on the performance of manufacturing firms in South-East Nigeria. The study used a descriptive survey design. The result revealed that gender, language, and educational background had significant positive effects on diversity time, productivity, and output, respectively, of the employees of selected manufacturing firms in South-East Nigeria. The study concludes that workforce diversity is a vital dimension in the progress of manufacturing firms, and for an organization to succeed, it is important to know the benefits of having a diverse workforce.Huluka (2024) explored the impact of training programs on employee retention in Ethiopian public universities. Using a mixed-method approach, the study found that robust training and development frameworks were associated with higher retention rates, underscoring the importance of continuous professional development in academia.Smith and De Joy (2018) compared commitment levels between permanent and contingent workers in U.S. industries in their study on contingent workers and organisational commitment. It found that contingent employees with higher perceived employer support reported stronger organisational commitment and were more likely to intend to stay. This establishes the importance of perceived employer support in contingent work contexts.Ofoegbu and Nwosu (2019) examined retention strategies in Nigerian firms and their impact on organisational outcomes, finding that structured HR practices significantly improve retention regardless of employment status — linking retention to organisational outcomes within the Nigerian context.Adeyemi and Yusuf (2020) surveyed construction workers in Nigeria and found that organisational commitment mediates the relationship between HR practices and employee performance, with a focus on the construction sector though not specifically on contingent work.Lee, Huang, and Ashford (2019) researched job embeddedness across contingent and part-time employees and revealed that embeddedness significantly predicts turnover intentions beyond job satisfaction and commitment, establishing the theoretical utility of job embeddedness in contingent work.Chukwuma and Ume (2021) showed that retention strategies are positively associated with organisational performance metrics, including productivity and project outcomes, in Nigerian firms — providing further evidence of the link between retention and organisational outcomes.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Gap in the Literature</h2>Despite advances in organisational behaviour research, several gaps remain that justify the need for this study.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Lack of Integration Across Variables</h3>Most studies examine either organisational commitment, employee retention, or organisational performance independently. Few have empirically tested how employer commitment → retention → organisational development function sequentially within the same model, especially under contingent work arrangements.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Scarcity of Research on Contingent Work in Nigeria</h3>While global research on contingent work is growing, empirical studies in the Nigerian context are limited, with most focusing on permanent employment, public institutions, or service sectors — not project-oriented industries like construction.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Minimal Focus on the Construction Sector</h3>The construction industry's heavy reliance on contingent labour makes it an ideal setting for this inquiry, yet few studies target this sector specifically.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Regional Limitation</h3>A large share of research in Nigeria aggregates data nationally or focuses on the South West region. South East Nigeria remains under-researched, leaving a gap in understanding regional labour market nuances.<h1 style="line-height: normal;">Methodology</h1><h2 style="line-height: normal;">Research Design</h2>For this study, a descriptive survey design is utilized to detail the data and characteristics of the target population. This approach seeks to collect factual, precise, and well-organized information while offering insights into the subjects under investigation. It is particularly advantageous given the large population from which the data is sourced.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Population of the Study</h2>The population comprises ten registered indigenous construction companies from the South East. These include top construction companies active in South East Nigeria. Although the construction landscape in Nigeria often involves national firms partnering with local firms for projects, for this study the following firms form the population:1. Everstone Construction Limited: Operating in Aba, Abia State.2. Mark & Partners Ltd, also Abia State.3. Senatorch Limited: A top-rated construction and real estate company based in Awka, Anambra State.4. Ugodilins Building Construction Company Ltd: Located in Owerri, Imo State.5. Ferotex Construction Company, Anambra State.6. E.P.C Construction Ltd, Enugu State.7. Infrastructure Development Company, Ebonyi State.8. Oranto Construction Company, Owerri, Imo State.9. Akal Group Ltd: Based in New Haven, Enugu.10. UDOCROWN Construction Company: Based in Nnewi, Anambra State.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Sample Size Determination</h2>To arrive at the expected sample size, a stratified random sampling was conducted to pick one company from each state of the South East. At the end, five (5) construction companies formed the population, with a total number of 236 contingent workers, as shown in Table 1.Table 1: Construction Companies Sampled Across the Five States of South East Nigeria<table style="min-width: 100px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">S/No</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Company Name</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">State</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Population</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Mark & Partners Ltd</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Abia State</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">42 participants</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">2</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Ferotex Construction Company</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Anambra State</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">57 participants</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Infrastructure Development Company</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Ebonyi State</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">40 participants</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">E.P.C Construction Ltd</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Enugu State</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">44 participants</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">5</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Oranto Construction Company</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Imo State</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">53 participants</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Total</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">236 participants</td></tr></tbody></table>A lot of considerations were made in order to choose these companies. Based on common local understanding and operational policies, one construction company was purposively selected from each of the five states in South East Nigeria — Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu, and Imo State. The justification for this selection includes:1. Geographical Representation: Selecting one company from each state ensured adequate regional coverage and enhanced the generalizability of the findings within South East Nigeria.2. Industry Relevance: The selected companies are actively involved in medium- to large-scale construction projects and make extensive use of contingent labour.3. Operational Similarity: The firms share comparable organizational structures and employment practices, allowing for meaningful comparison.4. Accessibility and Data Availability: The companies granted the researcher access to employees and relevant information necessary for empirical analysis.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Data Collection Procedure</h2>Data collection involved appropriate tools such as questionnaires, interviews, and observation. The data for this study were collected using a questionnaire designed with a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was crucial for gathering primary data needed to analyze the relationships between variables. A total of 236 copies of the questionnaire were distributed; however, only 180 copies were completely filled and returned, representing a 76.3% return rate.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Reliability of the Instrument</h2>To evaluate the reliability of the instrument, a pilot test on 36 people was carried out by administering copies of the questionnaire twice within a three-week interval. When scored, the result yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.775, demonstrating a satisfactory level of consistency, and hence reliable.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Method of Data Analyses</h2>To ensure accurate recording of relevant aspects, the data underwent modification and coding. Descriptive statistics were then applied to analyze and describe the data, while hypothesis testing was performed using Multiple Regression analysis. Where the regression statistical measures fell below the α = 0.05 significance level, they were considered acceptable and significant.<h1 style="line-height: normal;">Data Presentation and Analysis</h1><h2 style="line-height: normal;">Data Presentation</h2><h3 style="line-height: normal;">Gender of Respondents</h3>The study sample size involved a greater number of males than females, as shown in Table 2.Table 2: Gender Distribution of Respondents<table style="min-width: 125px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Frequency</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Percent</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Valid Percent</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Cumulative Percent</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Male</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">107</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">59.4</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">59.4</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">59.4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Female</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">73</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">40.6</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">40.6</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Total</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">180</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr></tbody></table>Source: Field Survey, SPSS Output (2026)<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Age Distribution</h3>Table 3: Age Distribution of Respondents<table style="min-width: 125px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Frequency</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Percent</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Valid Percent</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Cumulative Percent</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Under 21 years</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">8</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.4</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.4</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">21–30 years</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">109</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">60.6</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">60.6</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">65.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">31–40 years</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">49</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">27.2</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">27.2</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">92.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Above 40 years</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">14</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">7.8</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">7.8</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Total</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">180</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr></tbody></table>Source: Field Survey, SPSS Output (2026)<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Location of Respondents</h3>Table 4: Distribution of Respondents' Location<table style="min-width: 125px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Frequency</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Percent</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Valid Percent</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Cumulative Percent</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Urban</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">117</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">65.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">65.4</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">65.4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Local</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">62</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">34.4</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">34.6</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Total (Valid)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">179</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">99.4</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Missing (System)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.6</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Total</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">180</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr></tbody></table>Source: Field Survey, SPSS Output (2026)<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Educational Level</h3>Table 5: Distribution of Respondents' Educational Level<table style="min-width: 125px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Frequency</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Percent</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Valid Percent</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Cumulative Percent</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Below High School</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">6</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.3</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.3</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">High School Graduate</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">31</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">17.2</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">17.2</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">20.6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">University Degree</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">131</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">72.8</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">72.8</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">93.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Master's or Higher</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">12</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">6.7</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">6.7</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Total</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">180</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">100.0</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr></tbody></table>Source: Field Survey, SPSS Output (2026)Tables 2–5 present demographic details about the respondents, including their gender, age, location, and educational background. The data indicates that most respondents are male, comprising about 107 individuals (59%). The largest age group falls between 21 and 30 years, with around 109 respondents (61%). In terms of geographical distribution, a majority of participants are from urban areas, accounting for 117 individuals (65%) of the total sample. Lastly, concerning educational qualifications, a considerable number of respondents — 131 individuals (72.8%) — hold a university degree.<h2 style="line-height: normal;">Test of Hypotheses — Multiple Regression Analysis</h2>Table 6: Multiple Regression Table<table style="min-width: 125px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Model 1</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Beta</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Std. Error</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">t-Statistic</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">P-value</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Employer Commitment (EC)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.71145</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.41319</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.72184</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.031</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Employee Retention (ER)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.22714</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.03241</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">7.00833</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Constant</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">2.90181</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.11028</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">26.3131</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Adj. R²</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.698</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr></tbody></table>Source: SPSS Version 28.0Table 6 displays the results of the multiple regression analysis for both hypotheses one and two. Conducted at a 5% significance level, this analysis indicates that all predictor variables significantly influence the outcome variable. Further details can be found in the following hypothesis testing.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Hypothesis One</h3>H₀₁: Employer commitment has no significant effect on organizational development in South East Nigeria.The regression model for Hypothesis One is specified as:OD = β₀ + β₁EC + εᵢ (1)where OD = Organizational Development, EC = Employer Commitment.Table 7: Regression Coefficient for Model 1<table style="min-width: 125px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Model 1</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Beta</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Std. Error</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">t-Statistic</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">P-value</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Employer Commitment (EC)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.71199</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.41319</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.72315</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.037</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Constant</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">2.90181</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.11028</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">26.3131</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Adj. R²</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.698</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr></tbody></table>Source: SPSS Version 28.0Table 7 shows the values of adjusted R-squared, unstandardized beta coefficient, standard error, t value, and P value. The value of adjusted R-squared is 0.698, meaning that 69.8% of the variation in Organizational Development (OD) is explained by Employer Commitment (EC), and the rest of the variation in organizational development is unexplained due to variables not considered in this model.Besides, the value of the unstandardized beta coefficient is 0.71199, which means that if Employer Commitment (EC) increases by one unit, then Organizational Development (OD) will increase by 0.71199 units. This effect is statistically significant, as the p-value is 0.037, which is less than 0.05 at a 95% confidence interval. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, and it can be said that there is a significant effect of Employer Commitment (EC) on Organizational Development (OD) in South East Nigeria.<h3 style="line-height: normal;">Hypothesis Two</h3>H₀₂: Employee retention has no significant effect on organizational development in South East Nigeria.The regression model for Hypothesis Two is specified as:OD = β₀ + β₁ER + εᵢ (2)where OD = Organizational Development, ER = Employee Retention.Table 8: Regression Coefficient for Model 2<table style="min-width: 125px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Model 2</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Beta</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Std. Error</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">t-Statistic</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">P-value</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Employer Retention (ER)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.22714</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.03241</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">7.00833</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Constant</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">2.90181</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.11028</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">26.3131</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Adj. R²</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.698</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"></td></tr></tbody></table>Source: SPSS Version 28.0Table 8 shows the values of adjusted R-squared, unstandardized beta coefficient, standard error, t value, and P value. The value of adjusted R-squared is 0.698, meaning that 69.8% of the variation in Organizational Development (OD) is explained by Employee Retention (ER), and the rest of the variation in organizational development is unexplained due to variables not considered in this model. Besides, the value of the unstandardized beta coefficient is 0.22714, which means that if Employee Retention (ER) increases by one unit, then Organizational Development (OD) will increase by 0.22714 units. This effect is statistically significant, as the p-value is < 0.000, which is less than 0.05 at a 95% confidence interval. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, and it can be said that there is a significant effect of Employee Retention (ER) on Organizational Development (OD) in South East Nigeria.<h1 style="line-height: normal;">Discussion of Findings</h1>The multiple linear regression results in Tables 7 and 8 suggest that, for hypothesis one, at a 5% level of significance, employer commitment has a statistically significant effect on organizational development in South East Nigeria. For hypothesis two, at a 5% level of significance, employee retention has a statistically significant effect on organizational development in South East Nigeria. This result is based on their respective p-values, which are below the threshold of < 0.05.<h1 style="line-height: normal;">Conclusion</h1>In conclusion, the study underscores that contingent workforce management is not merely an administrative response to labour flexibility, but a strategic driver of organizational development in South East Nigeria. The evidence indicates that when employers demonstrate strong commitment to contingent workers through fair treatment, clear communication, capacity development opportunities, timely remuneration, and inclusion in day-to-day work systems, organizations are more likely to experience continuous development, improved growth, stability, and performance outcomes. Employer commitment strengthens engagement and work quality, reduces operational disruptions, and supports the internal capabilities organizations need to adapt and remain competitive in the region's dynamic business environment.Furthermore, the findings reveal that employee retention has a significant positive effect on organizational development. Retaining competent contingent workers helps organizations preserve institutional knowledge, sustain productivity, and reduce the recurrent costs associated with frequent recruitment, onboarding, and retraining. In the South East Nigerian context, where business continuity often depends on reliability, trust-based relationships, and consistent service delivery, retention of skilled contingent labour contributes directly to stronger organizational structures, better execution of organizational goals, and long-term development.Overall, the conclusion drawn is that organizations in South East Nigeria can enhance their development outcomes by treating employer commitment and retention as deliberate management priorities within contingent workforce strategies. By investing in policies and practices that foster commitment and encourage retention, organizations are positioned to achieve sustained organizational development, improved workforce stability, and a stronger competitive advantage. The study concluded that contingent workforce management has a significant positive effect on organizational development in South East Nigeria.<h1 style="line-height: normal;">Recommendations</h1>Based on the observed effects of employer commitment and employee retention on organizational development, the following recommendations are proposed for enhancing contingent workforce management in South East Nigeria:i. Organizations should endeavour to implement continuous training and professional development opportunities for contingent workers. This fosters skills enhancement and encourages loyalty, resulting in a more committed workforce. They should also establish an effective, transparent communication framework that ensures contingent workers are informed about organizational goals, values, and expectations — engagement that can increase their commitment to organizational success.ii. Organizations should endeavour to offer attractive compensation and benefits to contingent workers, ensuring they feel valued. They should consider supplementary benefits such as health insurance, performance bonuses, and flexible working hours, and provide pathways for professional advancement for contingent workers. Initiatives such as mentorship programs or the possibility of transitioning to full-time roles can significantly enhance retention.<h1 style="line-height: normal;">References</h1>Abelson, A., Lyons, C., Decker, M., Ketende, S., Njindam, I. M., Fouda, G., et al. (2019). Lifetime experiences of gender-based violence, depression, and condom use among female sex workers in Cameroon. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 65, 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764019858646Adeyemi, T., & Yusuf, K. (2020). Organisational commitment in construction firms: Evidence from Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Management Studies, 12(2), 88–101.Agbaeze, E. K., Nkwonta, C. N., & Obiefuna, E. C. (2019). Effect of workforce diversity on performance of manufacturing firms in South-East, Nigeria. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 27(5), 400–416.Ahmad, S., & Rahman, F. (2019). Effect of workforce diversity on employees' performance in Allama Iqbal Open University of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning, 5(2), 85–100.Ahmed, A. (2024). The role of training frequency in enhancing employee retention in the banking sector. Journal of Banking and Finance, 45(3), 321–335.Ashford, S. J., Caza, B. B., & Reid, E. M. (2018). From surviving to thriving in the gig economy: A research agenda for individuals in the new world of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.001Ausat, A. M. A., Shafiq, M. A., Wafik, D., & López, N. A. S. (2024). The role of transformational leadership in improving employee psychological well-being: A review. Apollo: Journal of Tourism and Business, 2(1), 148–157.Barney, J. B. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustained competitive advantage: A comment. Management Science, 35, 1511–1513.Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage. Oxford University Press.Chukwuma, N., & Ume, C. (2021). Retention and organisational performance in Nigeria. Journal of Human Resource Management Research, 9(1), 45–60.CIPD. (2023). Resourcing and talent planning [Factsheet/insights]. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. https://www.cipd.org/Deloitte. (2024). Global human capital trends 2024. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/Gallup. (2020). The role of effective training and development programs in driving employee retention. Gallup Workplace Report, 19(1), 56–72.Huluka, A. (2024). The impact of training programs on employee retention in Ethiopian public universities. Journal of Higher Education Management, 38(2), 150–170.International Labour Organization (ILO). (2024). World employment and social outlook: Trends 2024. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400101Karimi, K. N. (2019). The influence of training and development practices on employee retention at Madison Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, Nairobi, Kenya [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi].Kundu, S. C., & Mor, A. (2017). Workforce diversity and organizational performance: A study of IT industry in India. Employee Relations, 39(2), 160–183.Lee, K. (2024). Business anthropology: An overview. International Journal of Modern Anthropology, 3(21), 36–57.Lee, T. W., Huang, S., & Ashford, S. J. (2019). Job embeddedness and retention among contingent and part-time employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(4), 421–438.Masoumeh, F., Barazande, S., & Eshraghi, H. (2015). The effect of employee commitment on organizational commitment in the social security organization (East Tehran General Department). Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(4), 1130–1141.Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: An introduction. In P. Warr (Ed.), Organizational and occupational psychology (pp. 219–229). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-509370-5.50005-8National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Labour force statistics: Unemployment and underemployment report. NBS. https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/OECD. (2023). The role of firms in wage inequality: Evidence and policy options. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/Ofoegbu, W., & Nwosu, C. (2019). Retention practices in Nigerian organisations. African Journal of Business Management, 13(6), 190–201.Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction and performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328–338.Riyanto, S., Endri, E., & Herlisha, N. (2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19, 162–174. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(3).2021.14Smith, V., & De Joy, A. (2018). Contingent workers and organisational commitment: A comparative study. Work, Employment and Society, 32(3), 512–530.Staffing Industry Analysts (SIA). (2024). Contingent workforce strategies / Workforce solutions buyer survey [Industry research]. https://www.staffingindustry.com/Turner, P. (2024). Effective employee retention strategies for reducing turnover costs. Journal of Organizational Management, 50(2), 150–169.

Published by Academic Ink Review Journal. Open Access under CC BY 4.0.