Can Decent Work Explain Employee-Level Outcomes? The Roles of Work–Family and Family–Work Conflict

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, for a point-by-point, we try to respond directly to general comments from reviewers, and then more detailed, specific comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read the manuscript entitled: „Can decent work explain employee-level outcomes? The roles of work-family and family-work conflict“. 

I have the following comments / suggestions to improve the manuscript:

1. „In line with recent literature [12,13]..“ – source 13 is from 2016 and therefore I do not consider it recent.

2. In the Introduction section, it would be useful to describe in more detail the main differences between the WFC and the FWC.

3. Chapter 3 is divided into other subchapters, but does not contain any text. Each chapter should contain text.

4. Missing more information about the survey - when did the survey take place? From which sectors were the employees of the participating organizations? Who exactly (what job positions) are understood in the article as white collars? Can we consider the sample to be representative? Depending on the added information, it is necessary to add specific information to the fifth chapter of the manuscript regarding the generalization of the results from the point of view of the group of people and other characteristics.

5. Complete the explanation of the information on lines 300 - 302. Every single respondent completed the questionnaire during the 30-minute interview?

6. Table 3, due to orientation and content, it is more appropriate to include in the appendix.

7. Unify the terms - once it is stated that it is a "paper", later it is stated as a "study".

8. The results of the study (paper) are rather a confirmation of findings from other research. Try to describe the added value of your research results in more detail.

 

I thank the authors for the submitted manuscript and wish them success in scientific research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, for a point-by-point, we try to respond directly to general comments from reviewers, and then more detailed, specific comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading your article. It is an interesting subject and based on good data. However, there are some parts of your paper that could be improved. The article presents several different hypothesis and analysis, and this make the article complex to readers.

Abstract: Please include Sample characteristics and Procedure information. Besides, include results (not the interpretation of results, this is part of discussion)

The introduction is well written and comprehensive.

The main objective is not clear, not completed and not represent all hypothesis presented. I did not understand the two references presented at the end of paragraph.

“We examine whether WFC and FWC conflict can play moderating roles and influence the magnitude and/or direction of the relationship between DW conditions and employee performance and intention to leave, respectively, under the JD–R model e.g., [8,24].

Methods:

Have you considered gender differences on the analyses? WFC and FWC have quite different determinants by gender. Gender is also a potential modifier effect variable

What is the representability of 227 employees of the sample? Do you analyze some bias of sample characteristics of volunteer’s participants? The loss was high.

In the measures section, some information is missing in the parenthesis, is the alpha de Cronbach? Please explain how these scales were categorized, for example continuous score, tertiles, or dichotomized, using some cut point.

Did you use the same covariates in all models? I mean, did you consider the same confounders for all models?

Please explain the statistic procedures used in analyses: CFA, path analyses, construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity, descriptive Statistics, etc. What were the criterion for best adjustment for all used procedures (Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Maximum Shared Variance (MSV), and Average Shared Variance (ASV). Reliability: CR > 0.7, Convergent Validity: AVE > 0.5, Discriminant Validity: MSV < AVE, Square root of AVE greater than inter construct correlations)? This is very confusing in the text. The results section is mixed with methods information, but results section need just present the results of the analyses. Please review all text.

In table 3: “Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s a) for the constructs are shown in parentheses on the diagonal”. Please review if this information is correct.

Discussion: Please add some comparison of results with other studies conducted, on the contribution and innovation of this study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, for a point-by-point, we try to respond directly to general comments from reviewers, and then more detailed, specific comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the effort in improve the article