Psychological Contract Breach and Union Commitment Revisited: Evidence from Chinese Employees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written. The hypothesis are rather simply-put, but they are researched by sophisticated empirical analysis. Despite very thorough statistical analysis, the result were clearly presented and easy to understand. The conclusions are also compelling and clear.

Author Response

Reviewer 2
The article is well written. The hypothesis are rather simply-put, but they are researched by sophisticated empirical analysis. Despite very thorough statistical analysis, the result were clearly presented and easy to understand. The conclusions are also compelling and clear.
Issue 2.1
Thank you for the comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reviewing your manuscript. The manuscript aimed to investigate the relationship between psychological contract breach, organizational cynicism, and union commitment, as well as the interaction effect of perceived union dual identity on the relationship between organizational cynicism and union commitment. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and has remarkably lucid language that is easy to read. However, the critical weakness of the manuscript in its current form is its relatively limited theoretical and managerial contribution. Results and discussion are generally well-written. Overall, the author(s) have made an attempt to contribute to the knowledge base. I hope the author(s) find my comments helpful as they continue to improve the manuscript.

Introduction: 

This section is generally well-written. The study is relevant and interesting and can stand the test of time. The introduction establishes the motivation of this study clearly. The author(s) have identified the gap and explained why it is important to address this gap.

Literature review: 

This section is detailed and adequately addressed. The constructs of the study need further explanation. The literature review is developed based on appropriate and relevant sources, however, some recent sources can be included. . The hypotheses logically flow from the literature. Although the author(s) have mentioned throughout the manuscript that they have developed the framework based on the social exchange theory, there is no discussion on this theory and how this theory links the variables in the study. I suggest the author(s) briefly discuss the theory and how it binds the variables while discussing the hypotheses.

Methods: This section is generally well-written but lacks rigor. how was the validity of the instrument tested? Adding some of these critical details can enhance the quality of the manuscript. 

Results: The analyses are appropriate and the tables are clearly presented.

Discussions and implications: There is room for improvement in this section. The author(s) provided logical and justifiable explanations of the major findings. However, the proposed theoretical and practical contributions are rather weak. The contributions have to be novel, influential, and impactful. I suggest the author(s) to further elaborate their theoretical and practical implications. The author(s) have acknowledged the limitations and directions for future research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments Thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled “Psychological contract breach and union commitment revisited” for Sustainability. We were very pleased with the positive and constructive feedback that we received from you. Thank you for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such helpful guidance; we highly appreciate that.
please find in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf