Structural Changes of Organizational Maturity during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Lithuania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have carefully considered and read the manuscript entitled “Structural changes of organizational maturity during the COVID-19 pandemic: the case of Lithuania” and have the following observations:
Current COVID-19 pandemic posed more difficult challenges in the global markets. Organizations have faced multi spectral external and internal severities running on existing conditions. Hereby organizational maturity has become extremely important assumption for organizational resilience. Given this, authors assessed expression of organizational maturity before and during COVID-19 pandemic. This assessment has been covered from a sustainability perspective looking deeper into organizational maturity elements and sub-elements. The conceptual basis for the research is supported by the perspective that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on organizations and their activities has led to a response from organizations to find solutions that are sustainable and not only able to survive the economic downturn, but also to achieve / keep a higher level of organizational maturity. Based on this, authors used a qualitative research strategy using expert evaluation (experts’ interviews). The main aim of the research is to reveal changes in the organizational maturity structure during the COVID-19 pandemic. A pre-designed questionnaire was used to identify which indicators of organizational maturity elements and sub-elements occurred in the companies surveyed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample of experts in both studies consisted of 24 top executives from 24 companies, 12 at each stage before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research disclosed, that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the companies make sustainable decisions and companies greatly strengthened the hard areas related to technology, work processes, and contribution to the organization’s operations. Meanwhile, the soft areas related to employee competencies and behavioural processes, on the other hand, have become more vulnerable.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
This paper is needing enough clarity about the main theme of your manuscript. There are some spelling errors, and more clarifications and improvements are needed for reconsidering it for the publication in the Sustainability.
In addition to the above, I have a few points for the authors to consider before the publication of this work:
- The abstract has some issues. So, it is recommended that rewrite the abstract with clear and concise sentences without ambiguous illustrations.
- Please highlight your contribution and novelty of this manuscript with accuracy in the introduction part.
- Please update your literature with a few latest studies.
- At the end of the theoretical background, you have to present in a summative and concluding way
- Recheck the references and their style are according to the journal requirements, and in-text and end-text should be the same and vice versa.
- In the discussion section, some more related literature must be added to compare and contrast the key findings with the existing study.
- The conclusion should be based on your results and discussion. So, do consider it accordingly and improve this section.
- The acronyms should be defined at first appearance in the manuscript and then must be consistently used throughout the manuscript. Furthermore, the manuscript must be checked for typo errors and spelling checks.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank you for the very helpful and constructive comments that we have received in response to the submission of our manuscript. Please find below our response to your comments:
Point 1: This paper is needing enough clarity about the main theme of your manuscript. There are some spelling errors, and more clarifications and improvements are needed for reconsidering it for the publication in the Sustainability.
Response 1: Proofreading has been done. Additional editor check-up (software) has been used.
Point 2: The abstract has some issues. So, it is recommended that rewrite the abstract with clear and concise sentences without ambiguous illustrations.
Response 2: The summary has been corrected for greater clarity and specificity.
Point 3: Please highlight your contribution and novelty of this manuscript with accuracy in the introduction part.
Response 3: The introduction is supplemented with elements of scientific novelty and highlighting of the authors' contribution.
Point 4: Please update your literature with a few latest studies.
Response 4: The article is supplemented with literature both in recent studies and based on the theoretical conclusions of the article.
Point 5: At the end of the theoretical background, you have to present in a summative and concluding way
Response 5: The theoretical part has been redesigned to give it a clear structure. At the end of the theoretical part, the generalized result is emphasized, which is used as the basis for the empirical research of the article.
Point 6: Recheck the references and their style are according to the journal requirements, and in-text and end-text should be the same and vice versa.
Response 6: Adjustment has been done.
Point 7: In the discussion section, some more related literature must be added to compare and contrast the key findings with the existing study.
Response 7: Additional researches have been implemented into the article which increased reference list.
Point 8: The conclusion should be based on your results and discussion. So, do consider it accordingly and improve this section.
Response 8: The findings have been adjusted to further refine the results and present them according to the key elements of organizational maturity.
Point 9: The acronyms should be defined at first appearance in the manuscript and then must be consistently used throughout the manuscript. Furthermore, the manuscript must be checked for typo errors and spelling checks.
Response 9: The acronyms has been defined. Proofreading has been done. Additional editor check-up (software) has been used.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I read your article with great interest because it analyzes a global issue about structural changes of organizational maturity during the COVID-19 pandemic. This global problem is also the problem of Lithuania, the country that the authors analyze.
The article has a good structure. However, in the introduction the authors did not present the gaps in the literature and the novelty element. The authors talk about organizational maturity importance to organizations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and formulate 2 research internships with 24 top managers.
Also, the literature analysis requires some adjustments and improvements regarding the fluency and coherence of the analyzed theory. It is necessary to divide the text into subchapters in accordance with all three elements of organizational maturity (people, process, technology). The theory part ends abruptly. The reader is left in suspense and without understanding the essence of the information. Here, I recommend reviewing the approach of literature analysis with an emphasis on the clear presentation of theoretical mechanisms.
In the research methodology part we could not identify if the analyzed sample is representative. I recommend that you better explain the sample included in the analysis. Also here, I recommend that you include quotes and evidence regarding the size of the analyzed sample.
The analysis of the results is treated very generally, with brief and redundant explanations. Also, the obtained results can be analyzed and confirmed by the results from the literature. The information in Table 2 does not correlate with the information in Figure 1 and Figure 2. There is also redundancy in the interpretation of this information.
I recommend highlighting the results obtained for the 3 elements of organizational maturity.
Moreover, it is necessary to improve the bibliography with recent research. The bibliography is not formatted according to the recommendations in the authors' guide.
You can also see the following articles as a source of inspiration:
Butnaru, G.I .; Haller, A.-P .; Dragolea, L.-L .; Anichiti, A .; Tacu Hârșan, G.-D. Students ’Wellbeing during Transition from Onsite to Online Education: Are There Risks Arising from Social Isolation? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9665. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189665
Butnaru, G.I .; Niță, V .; Anichiti, A .; Brînză, G. The Effectiveness of Online Education during Covid 19 Pandemic — A Comparative Analysis between the Perceptions of Academic Students and High School Students from Romania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095311
That's all! Good luck!
Author Response
We would like to thank you for the very helpful and constructive comments that we have received in response to the submission of our manuscript. Please find below our response to your comments:
Point 1: The article has a good structure. However, in the introduction the authors did not present the gaps in the literature and the novelty element. The authors talk about organizational maturity importance to organizations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and formulate 2 research internships with 24 top managers.
Response 1: The introduction is supplemented by elements highlighting the scientific novelty and contribution.
Point 2: Also, the literature analysis requires some adjustments and improvements regarding the fluency and coherence of the analyzed theory. It is necessary to divide the text into subchapters in accordance with all three elements of organizational maturity (people, process, technology). The theory part ends abruptly. The reader is left in suspense and without understanding the essence of the information. Here, I recommend reviewing the approach of literature analysis with an emphasis on the clear presentation of theoretical mechanisms.
Response 2: The theoretical part has been redesigned to give it a clear structure. At the end of the theoretical part, the generalized result is emphasized, which is used as the basis for the empirical research of the article.
Point 3: In the research methodology part we could not identify if the analyzed sample is representative. I recommend that you better explain the sample included in the analysis. Also here, I recommend that you include quotes and evidence regarding the size of the analyzed sample.
Response 3: The sample size is based on the survey methodology section. The sample size requirements for qualitative research are referenced, with references to literature sources in which methodologists identify sample sizes. The selection of respondents using the criterion-based sampling method is also justified.
Point 4: The analysis of the results is treated very generally, with brief and redundant explanations. Also, the obtained results can be analyzed and confirmed by the results from the literature. The information in Table 2 does not correlate with the information in Figure 1 and Figure 2. There is also redundancy in the interpretation of this information.
Response 4: The analysis of the results has been adjusted to strengthen the discussion by including more comparisons of the literature and research results with existing research. The information in Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2 showed different results of the organizational maturity analysis. Table 2 showed the levels of all sub-elements of organizational maturity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The higher the sum of the ranks of the sub-element, the higher the maturity of the sub-element in relation to the whole sample. In Figures 1 and 2, the 5 sub-elements that reached the highest level of maturity were selected in both studies. The key indicators with the highest resolution for these sub-elements were also provided. This presentation of information allowed to compare the structure of sub-elements of organizational maturity at the level of indicators before and during the pandemic and to identify significant qualitative changes.
Point 5: I recommend highlighting the results obtained for the 3 elements of organizational maturity.
Response 5: The findings have been adjusted to further refine the results and present them according to the 3 elements of organizational maturity.
Point 6: Moreover, it is necessary to improve the bibliography with recent research. The bibliography is not formatted according to the recommendations in the authors' guide.
Response 6: The article is supplemented with literature both in recent studies and based on the theoretical conclusions of the article. The bibliography is organized according to the authors ’guide.
Reviewer 3 Report
Material & Methods need proper justification
The Research Sample: line 228:
- How you have selected 24 companies?
- What is your population size? (Public & Private Organization)
- Which sampling techniques you have used to draw your sample?
- 24 top executive from 24 companies, 100% response rate?
Author Response
We would like to thank you for the very helpful and constructive comments that we have received in response to the submission of our manuscript. Please find below our response to your comments:
Point 1: Material & Methods need proper justification. The Research Sample.
Response 1: The research methodology was supplemented with a more detailed disclosure of the methods used. The sample size is based on the survey methodology section. The sample size requirements for qualitative research are referenced, with references to literature sources in which methodologists identify sample sizes. According to the literature, the sample size ranges from 5 to 30 respondents, but some researchers suggest more specific sizes. According to Nielsen [65], a sufficient sample is 5 respondents. Other researchers recommend larger sample sizes: according to Neal [66], the sample size should be up to 15, Rudstam and Newton [67], from 20 to 30.
Point 2: How you have selected 24 companies?
Response 2: Data saturation was sought in the study and new sample units were pulled until the informativeness of the incoming data began to decline. Information saturation was observed after reaching a sample size of 12 companies at each stage of the study.
Point 3: What is your population size? (Public & Private Organization)
Response 3: The sample consist of 12 private sector organizations before Covid-19 pandemic and 12 private sector organization during Covid-19 pandemic. In total there are the sampling of 24 respondents.
Point 4: Which sampling techniques you have used to draw your sample?
Response 4: The critical case sampling method was used to select the respondents, when the respondents are selected according to precisely determined criteria. The companies represented by the experts were selected in such a way that they are in the private sector and were characterized by a diversity of size, type of activity and organizational maturity.
Point 5: 24 top executive from 24 companies, 100% response rate?
Response 5: Yes, the response rate was 100 %. 24 companies were represented by head of the company, HR, department or general (regional) manager and one deputy head of the company.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is very clear and interesting. The authors have done properly all the necessary corrections. The manuscript has considerably improved and so far, it is endorsed for final publication in Sustainability.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
We would like to thank you for the very helpful and constructive comments that allowed to improve the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I have read with great interest the improvements made to your article. In the article, the authors analyzed structural changes of organizational maturity during the COVID-19 pandemic for Lithuania.
The article has been improved and has a good structure. However, in the literature review, the authors introduce ideas about the pandemic of COVID-19 with aspects during the pandemic. I recommend entering quotes/citation to avoid speculative information.
Otherwise, I have no other recommendations and I recommend that it to be published in the Sustainability Journal.
Good luck!
Author Response
We would like to thank you for the very helpful and constructive comments that allowed to improve the paper. We also checked the citation in the literature review.
