Revisiting Internal Marketing for the Determinants of Job (Dis)Satisfaction by Using Asymmetric Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The proposed article studies the important questions, “Revisiting the Determinants of Job (Dis)Satisfaction by Using Asymmetric Approach". The article is clear and well written. From the overall presentation I would say that an interesting research work has been done. The topic is also important for the readers of the journal.

From my point of view, there are some revisions the authors should consider to improve the paper.

• I suggest that the authors insert, at the end of the introduction section, a paragraph outlining the layout of the remainder of the manuscript.
• You should include some hypotheses taking into account that you analyze relationship between job (dis)satisfaction and five antecedents (e., task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics). Also, you should test them.
• The methods section is lacking information on the participant recruitment method, namely: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population.
• The research methods used are appropriate but have limitations, and this should be mentioned.
• The original contribution of the research has to be presented by focusing on the research results based on the research questions
• The discussion does not consider in detail about potential implications of the research.

Author Response

    I was very pleased to have received the opportunity to revise this manuscript for Sustainability. I greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and your insights, all of which provided excellent guidance as I prepared this revision. The reviewers pointed out several conceptual challenges that I needed to address. I have worked diligently to address their comments and I have made substantial changes to the manuscript to address each of their concerns. Based on the constructive comments, I have modified the manuscript. Following is a detailed response to your comments and suggestions.

Response to Reviewer 1:

The proposed article studies the important questions, “Revisiting the Determinants of Job (Dis)Satisfaction by Using Asymmetric Approach". The article is clear and well written. From the overall presentation I would say that an interesting research work has been done. The topic is also important for the readers of the journal. From my point of view, there are some revisions the authors should consider to improve the paper.

Author response: Thank you for your insightful comments in guiding revision of this manuscript. I am delighted that you consider the problem interesting and important. Following is a detailed response to your comments and suggestions.

1. I suggest that the authors insert, at the end of the introduction section, a paragraph outlining the layout of the remainder of the manuscript.

Author response: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments. We fully agree with the above comments. Based on the comment, this study had added a paragraph outlining the layout of the remainder of manuscript at the end of the introduction section. The revised paragraphs are shown as follows (Please see page 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript).

Specifically, this study comprises five parts. Part one illustrates the background, motivation, and purpose of the research. The remainder of the study is organized as follows. This study reviews the literature that is relevant to job satisfaction and relevant antecedents. Part three represents the empirical research design including the construct measurement and sampling design. Part four presents the results of data analysis. Part five further indicates the contributions of this study.

2. You should include some hypotheses taking into account that you analyze relationship between job (dis)satisfaction and five antecedents (, task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics). Also, you should test them.

Author response: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We are very grateful for the reviewer’s helpful feedback. Based on the comment, five hypotheses (i.e., H₁, H₂, H₃, H₄, and H₅) were developed for exploring relationships between antecedents and job satisfaction, as well as, H₆ and H₇ were developed for identifying causal combinations for achieving high job (dis)satisfaction (please see pages 5 to 7 in the revised manuscript). Further, results of structural equation modeling and fsQCA were shown in the section of result (please see page 9 and 10 in the revised manuscript). The revised paragraphs are shown as follows

(Please see pages 5 to 7 in the revised manuscript).

…Furthermore, the following hypothesis is developed.

H₂: Innovation-relate antecedent is associate with job satisfaction.

 …Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed.

H₃: Supervisor-relate antecedent is associate with job satisfaction.

H₄: Coworker-relate antecedent is associate with job satisfaction.

…Accordingly, the following hypothesis is developed.

H₅: Personal-relate antecedent is associate with job satisfaction.

 Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed.

H₆: Task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics can categorize into causal recipes for achieving high job satisfaction.

H₇: Task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics can categorize into causal recipes for achieving high job dissatisfaction.

(Please see page 9 and 10 in the revised manuscript).

In order to test hypotheses, this study used structural equation modeling (SEM) for path analysis and Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Regarding path analysis, the path coefficients of task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics influences on job satisfaction are -0.321** (H₁ was supported, t=-2.75, p-value <0.01), 0.303*(H₂ was supported, t=2.03, p-value <0.05), 0.276*(H₃ was supported, t=2.12, p-value <0.05), 0.344** (H₄ was supported, t=2.85, p-value <0.01), and 0.166*(H₅ was supported, t=1.97, p-value <0.05), respectively. In other words, task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics are associate with job satisfaction.

…Furthermore, task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics are present or absent in A1, A3, and B2. Therefore, H₁ to H₅ were supported. Task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics can categorize into three causal recipes for achieving high job satisfaction two causal recipes for job dissatisfaction. Accordingly, H₆ and H₇ were further supported by results of fsQCA…

3. The methods section is lacking information on the participant recruitment method, namely: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population.

Author response: Many thanks for suggesting this improvement. According to the comment, this study had added statement of participant recruitment method in section of sampling design. The revised paragraphs are shown as follows (Please see page 8 in the revised manuscript).

3.2. Sampling Design

This study contributes to understand how employees can achieve job satisfaction and dissatisfaction by conducting the quantitative study at first and then the follow-up qualitative study. Following the recommended procedure for fsQCA analysis [37, 60], this study chose a configurational approach to investigate the combinations of task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics for achieving employee’s job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. To assess the applicability of this conceptual model, this study develops a questionnaire distributed it to a sample consisted of employees of firms. We contacts with the employees of the target firms by e-mail to solicit their willingness of participating in the survey at first. To capture the response rate, this study sends out the reminder about three weeks and one month after they agreed to participate. This study focuses on employee’s job (dis)satisfaction based on perspective of internal marketing, and the recruitment date range was between August, 2019 and January, 2020. In order to understand how employees can achieve job (dis)satisfaction, working experience is the criterion for selecting the participants in this study to represent sustainable labor market. Eventually, this research obtained a final valid sample of 227 respondents from employees Table 1 represents the basic attributes of the respondents. More than 66% of the respondents were male, more than 73% of the respondents were married, more than 65% of the respondents were 36 to 45 years old, more than 53% of the respondents had college education, and about 68% of the respondents were 6 to 15 years of seniority.

4. The research methods used are appropriate but have limitations, and this should be mentioned.

Author response: Many thanks for your helpful feedback and suggestion. Based on the comment, this study had added the illustration of limitations at the end of the discussion section. The revised paragraphs are shown as follows (Please see page 11 and 12 in the revised manuscript).

There are some limitations associated with this study. First of all, this study focuses on explore relationships among task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, personal-related characteristics antecedent, and employee’s job (dis)satisfaction. Future research can explore other relevant antecedents, such as economic-related or environment-related characteristics. Second, this study applies questionnaire survey to collect primary data, and then future research can add in other data collection methods. Third, the period of the sampling process was between August, 2019 and January, 2020. Accordingly, future research can consider conducting a long-run analysis, such as couple years or decades. 

5. The original contribution of the research has to be presented by focusing on the research results based on the research questions.

Author response: Many thanks for your constructive review and positive assessment of our work. Based on reviewer’s comment, this study had revised sections of introduction (please see page 3 in the revised manuscript) and discussion (Please see page 11 and 12 in the revised manuscript). The revised paragraphs are shown as follows.

(Please see page 3 in the revised manuscript).

…To clarify, first research question of this study is what the major relevant antecedents of job satisfaction are. Second question focuses on identify sufficient conditions of high job satisfaction, and the third research question in this study is what are the sufficient conditions for managers to avoid low employee’s job satisfaction. Specifically, this study comprises five parts. Part one illustrates the background, motivation, and purpose of the research. The remainder of the study is organized as follows. This study reviews the literature that is relevant to job satisfaction and relevant antecedents. Part three represents the empirical research design including the construct measurement and sampling design. Part four presents the results of data analysis. Part five further indicates the contributions of this study.….

(Please see page 11 and 12 in the revised manuscript).

The first research question of this study is what the major relevant antecedents of job satisfaction are. Both results of SEM and fsQCA indicate that five hypotheses were supported. These results show that task-related (i.e., task stress and task complexity), innovation-related (i.e., product innovation and process innovation), supervisor-related (i.e., supervisor support), coworker-related (i.e., coworkers support), and personal-related (i.e., family/friends support) characteristics are associate with employ’s job satisfaction. According to second and third research questions, this study focuses to combine potential relevant antecedents, such as task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics antecedent, to explore the configurations for achieving high employee’s job satisfaction and dissatisfaction by conducting the quantitative study that focus on asymmetric data analysis uses fsQCA 2.5 software that available at the website fsQCA.com. fsQCA can produce causal conditions that are sufficient conditions for the outcome based on Boolean algebra [33]. The intermediate solution of fsQCA can identify three and two configurations found to be sufficient for high employee’s job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, respectively.

There are several potential implications for sustainable development of organizations associate with these configurations. Configuration A1 shows that even the level of supervisor support cannot improve and task-related (i.e., task stress and task complexity) cannot reduce in short-run, the managers much focus on innovation-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics at the same time. For example, managers can make employees work at home moderately through the use of online meetings in order to enhance innovative, coworkers support, and family/friends support. Configuration A2 shows that even the level of coworker support cannot improve, employee can achieve high job satisfaction by improving innovation and supervisor support, as well as reducing task stress and task complexity. This result implicates that manager can reduce workload, provide feedback on performance, and look out for employee’s personal welfare. Configuration A3 indicates that managers much focus on supports of supervisor coworker, and family/friends at the same time, for example, managers can look out for employee’s personal welfare and improve relationships among coworkers, family or friends. Path B1 and path B2 show that managers cannot allow high innovation, low boss support, and co-worker support coexist in order to avoid low job satisfaction of employees. In other words, managers must at least be able to reduce level of production innovation or process innovation, or increase supportive of employees.  

6. The discussion does not consider in detail about potential implications of the research.

Author response: Many thanks for your kindly suggestion. According to the comment, this study had added potential implications in section of discussion. The revised paragraphs are shown as follows (Please see page 11 and 12 in the revised manuscript).

There are several potential implications for sustainable development of organizations associate with these configurations. Configuration A1 shows that even the level of supervisor support cannot improve and task-related (i.e., task stress and task complexity) cannot reduce in short-run, the managers much focus on innovation-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics at the same time. For example, managers can make employees work at home moderately through the use of online meetings in order to enhance innovative, coworkers support, and family/friends support. Configuration A2 shows that even the level of coworker support cannot improve, employee can achieve high job satisfaction by improving innovation and supervisor support, as well as reducing task stress and task complexity. This result implicates that manager can reduce workload, provide feedback on performance, and look out for employee’s personal welfare. Configuration A3 indicates that managers much focus on supports of supervisor coworker, and family/friends at the same time, for example, managers can look out for employee’s personal welfare and improve relationships among coworkers, family or friends. Path B1 and path B2 show that managers cannot allow high innovation, low boss support, and co-worker support coexist in order to avoid low job satisfaction of employees. In other words, managers must at least be able to reduce level of production innovation or process innovation, or increase supportive of employees.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explores the determinants of Job (Dis) Satisfaction through the asymmetric thinking approach. Since there is a vast body of literature on Job Satisfaction, the author, in this version of the manuscript, does not sufficiently emphasize the innovative contribution, from the methodological point of view, of the asymmetric approach, compared to the state of the art. For this reason I believe that a major revision of the paper is advisable before its publication.
Here are some suggestions for improving the manuscript.

The introduction to the paper and the literature analysis provide a broad, comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the research topics. In order to facilitate reading and link the theoretical part with the empirical part, some research questions should be formulated.

The research method is sufficiently described, however, there is a lack of effective research design. For example, a "conceptual framework/model" is mentioned in the text, which could be the output of the literature review, but it is not described in the experimental part.

The results obtained with the fsQCA approach are described with a good degree of detail, however, there is a lack of a more robust link between the research results and the critical issues highlighted in the literature review.

It follows that the conclusions (strangely included in the discussion) do not sufficiently justify the results of the empirical analysis. For example, there is a lack of more detailed discussion of the managerial implications that the results may have. Moreover, the relationship with the issue of sustainability, which is the focus of this journal, is too weak.

 

 

Author Response

It is really my great honor to have received the opportunity to revise this manuscript for Sustainability. Thank you for your review of this manuscript. I am grateful for your comments and efforts to help me improve the paper. I have worked diligently to address your comments and I have made substantial changes to the manuscript to address your concerns. Based on the constructive comments, I have modified the manuscript. Following is a detailed response to your comments and suggestions.

Response to Reviewer 2:

1. This paper explores the determinants of Job (Dis) Satisfaction through the asymmetric thinking approach. Since there is a vast body of literature on Job Satisfaction, the author, in this version of the manuscript, does not sufficiently emphasize the innovative contribution, from the methodological point of view, of the asymmetric approach, compared to the state of the art. For this reason I believe that a major revision of the paper is advisable before its publication. Here are some suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Author response: Many thanks for your constructive review and positive assessment of our work. Your comments have been extremely helpful while revising the manuscript and during revision I managed to incorporate all your suggestions. I am delighted that you consider the problem interesting and important. Following is a detailed response to your comments and suggestions.

2. The introduction to the paper and the literature analysis provide a broad, comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the research topics. In order to facilitate reading and link the theoretical part with the empirical part, some research questions should be formulated.

Author response: Thank you for your insightful comments in guiding revision of this manuscript. Based on reviewer’s comment, this study had added research questions in sections of introduction (please see page 3 in the revised manuscript) and discussion had revised based on these research questions (Please see page 11 and 12 in the revised manuscript). The revised paragraphs are shown as follows.

(Please see page 3 in the revised manuscript).

…To clarify, first research question of this study is what the major relevant antecedents of job satisfaction are. Second question focuses on identify sufficient conditions of high job satisfaction, and the third research question in this study is what are the sufficient conditions for managers to avoid low employee’s job satisfaction. Specifically, this study comprises five parts. Part one illustrates the background, motivation, and purpose of the research. The remainder of the study is organized as follows. This study reviews the literature that is relevant to job satisfaction and relevant antecedents. Part three represents the empirical research design including the construct measurement and sampling design. Part four presents the results of data analysis. Part five further indicates the contributions of this study.….

(Please see page 11 and 12 in the revised manuscript).

The first research question of this study is what the major relevant antecedents of job satisfaction are. Both results of SEM and fsQCA indicate that five hypotheses were supported. These results show that task-related (i.e., task stress and task complexity), innovation-related (i.e., product innovation and process innovation), supervisor-related (i.e., supervisor support), coworker-related (i.e., coworkers support), and personal-related (i.e., family/friends support) characteristics are associate with employ’s job satisfaction. According to second and third research questions, this study focuses to combine potential relevant antecedents, such as task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics antecedent, to explore the configurations for achieving high employee’s job satisfaction and dissatisfaction by conducting the quantitative study that focus on asymmetric data analysis uses fsQCA 2.5 software that available at the website fsQCA.com. fsQCA can produce causal conditions that are sufficient conditions for the outcome based on Boolean algebra [33]. The intermediate solution of fsQCA can identify three and two configurations found to be sufficient for high employee’s job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, respectively.

3. The research method is sufficiently described, however, there is a lack of effective research design. For example, a "conceptual framework/model" is mentioned in the text, which could be the output of the literature review, but it is not described in the experimental part.

Author response: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We are very grateful for the reviewer’s helpful feedback. Based on the comment, five hypotheses (i.e., H₁, H₂, H₃, H₄, and H₅) were developed for exploring relationships between antecedents and job satisfaction, as well as, H₆ and H₇ were developed for identifying causal combinations for achieving high job (dis)satisfaction (please see pages 5 to 7 in the revised manuscript). Further, results of structural equation modeling and fsQCA were shown in the section of result (please see page 9 and 10 in the revised manuscript). The revised paragraphs are shown as follows

(Please see pages 5 to 7 in the revised manuscript).

…Furthermore, the following hypothesis is developed.

H₂: Innovation-relate antecedent is associate with job satisfaction. 

…Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed.

H₃: Supervisor-relate antecedent is associate with job satisfaction.

H₄: Coworker-relate antecedent is associate with job satisfaction.

…Accordingly, the following hypothesis is developed.

H₅: Personal-relate antecedent is associate with job satisfaction. 

Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed.

H₆: Task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics can categorize into causal recipes for achieving high job satisfaction.

H₇: Task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics can categorize into causal recipes for achieving high job dissatisfaction.

(Please see page 9 and 10 in the revised manuscript).

In order to test hypotheses, this study used structural equation modeling (SEM) for path analysis and Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Regarding path analysis, the path coefficients of task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics influences on job satisfaction are -0.321** (H₁ was supported, t=-2.75, p-value <0.01), 0.303*(H₂ was supported, t=2.03, p-value <0.05), 0.276*(H₃ was supported, t=2.12, p-value <0.05), 0.344** (H₄ was supported, t=2.85, p-value <0.01), and 0.166*(H₅ was supported, t=1.97, p-value <0.05), respectively. In other words, task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics are associate with job satisfaction. 

…Furthermore, task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics are present or absent in A1, A3, and B2. Therefore, H₁ to H₅ were supported. Task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics can categorize into three causal recipes for achieving high job satisfaction two causal recipes for job dissatisfaction. Accordingly, H₆ and H₇ were further supported by results of fsQCA…

4. The results obtained with the fsQCA approach are described with a good degree of detail, however, there is a lack of a more robust link between the research results and the critical issues highlighted in the literature review.

Author response: Many thanks for pointing out this inconsistency. Based on this commend, H₆ and H₇ were developed based on asymmetric thinking in data analysis (i.e., fsQCA). The revised paragraphs are shown as follows.

…Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed.

H₆: Task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics can categorize into causal recipes for achieving high job satisfaction.

H₇: Task-related, innovation-related, supervisor-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics can categorize into causal recipes for achieving high job dissatisfaction.

5. It follows that the conclusions (strangely included in the discussion) do not sufficiently justify the results of the empirical analysis. For example, there is a lack of more detailed discussion of the managerial implications that the results may have. Moreover, the relationship with the issue of sustainability, which is the focus of this journal, is too weak.

Author response: Many thanks for this helpful suggestion. According to the comment, this study had added potential implications in section of discussion. The revised paragraphs are shown as follows (Please see page 11 and 12 in the revised manuscript).

There are several potential implications for sustainable development of organizations associate with these configurations. Configuration A1 shows that even the level of supervisor support cannot improve and task-related (i.e., task stress and task complexity) cannot reduce in short-run, the managers much focus on innovation-related, coworker-related, and personal-related characteristics at the same time. For example, managers can make employees work at home moderately through the use of online meetings in order to enhance innovative, coworkers support, and family/friends support. Configuration A2 shows that even the level of coworker support cannot improve, employee can achieve high job satisfaction by improving innovation and supervisor support, as well as reducing task stress and task complexity. This result implicates that manager can reduce workload, provide feedback on performance, and look out for employee’s personal welfare. Configuration A3 indicates that managers much focus on supports of supervisor coworker, and family/friends at the same time, for example, managers can look out for employee’s personal welfare and improve relationships among coworkers, family or friends. Path B1 and path B2 show that managers cannot allow high innovation, low boss support, and co-worker support coexist in order to avoid low job satisfaction of employees. In other words, managers must at least be able to reduce level of production innovation or process innovation, or increase supportive of employees.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

Congratulations on the effort made in integrating the first version of your manuscript. In this new updated form I believe that the paper is well suitable for publication.

Best regards