An Empirical Analysis of the Relationships among Participatory Decision Making and Employees’ Task Performance and Personal Growth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author, 

The article presents results within a continuously topical area. It shows how the study fits into the results of the previous research and, also, what is the novelty it is striving to bring into the field. 

However, it suffers from several deficiencies which need to be rectified prior to its publishing. 

Firstly, I recommend adding several other references (at least 5 to 10 sources published during the last 5 years, being indexed in renowned databases) to demonstrate that this research truly builds on the current state of knowledge within the area studied.

Secondly, a clear definition or description for the term “sustainable performance” should be added. This expression is only used in the title so its unified use in the whole article is recommended as well. The term must be defined by combining relevant literature sources and the author’s original synthesis and perspective. 

Language-wise, either the term “company” or “organization” should be used in a unified manner in the whole text. I also recommend changing the expression “member’s job meaningfulness” to “job meaningfulness perceived by the member”. Please, also elaborate on the idea on line 162 – what investment is in question? Investment of time, effort, energy?  Fully explain your angle in the line mentioned. Change to word “motives” to “motivates” (line 175). Plus, this section “Hypothesis 1 accepted”(line 288) misses a verb. 

In the methodology part, pertaining to the questionnaire survey performed, a description of the statistical population is missing. This needs to be followed by the calculation of the representative sample and its comparison with the sample collected. Either this procedure or a description of a deliberate selection of entities included in the research is needed. In the case of a deliberate selection, the impacts on the results’ generalization need to be included. In relation to this, please, rethink the statement: “Additionally, as data from employees of companies classified under various industries were used, the results can be generalized easily.“ (lines 355, 356). Add precise distribution of the respondents in relation to the sectors included in the survey and make a comment on it (Were all the industries represented evenly? If not, how does it change the possibility of making generally valid conclusions?) 

I appreciate showing that the questionnaire itself was based on the concepts of other authors and adding corresponding references. However, also a brief description of the SEM procedure selected could be included in the methodology section. This should include the initial model created for the actual testing and its possible alternatives based on the theoretical background. This would create a logical connection within the article with the final model and its coefficients presented in the results. 

The results section overall is too short. The interpretation of the results needs to be expanded. Take one step further beyond just stating that the hypotheses were accepted. Explain the consequences of these mathematical results for the area studied. You could also pay special attention to which of the relationships studied was detected as the strongest one, also focusing on the possible causes of this result. 

The analysis would also benefit from identifying differences based on the monitored demographic attributes included in the methodology (gender, age, education, tenure,) and the corresponding comments on the results achieved. E.g., can substantial differences be expected between men and women, or are the results universal? 

Finally, the practical implications need adding a few more specific points. These can be based on the practical aspects of the participatory decision-making established in the literature or inspired by a good practice from an organization having this element developed to a higher level. The current form of this section is quite vague. It would also benefit from identifying the possible risks related to the implementation of the participatory decision-making approach. 

I believe you can make all the necessary changes and improve the quality of your article so that I can give a recommendation for its publishing afterwards. 

Have a nice day. 

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see the report attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for your submission to Sustainability and for giving me the opportunity to review your manuscript on participation in decision-making and its effects on employees’ task performance and personal growth. Your three research questions are fundamental and worth investigating. Your results are interesting. The quality of your manuscripts is high. However, in the following, I report on several issues that can help to improve the manuscript:

Title

1. Whereas it seems attractive to use the term “sustainable performance” in the title, you actually assessed “task performance”. Therefore, you should change the title accordingly in order not to mislead readers.

Abstract

2. I would start with a short statement why participatory decision-making is becoming more important.

Introduction

3. At the end of the introduction, I would mention the contributions briefly.
4. You pay attention to two mediators, i.e. job meaningfulness, and job involvement. In the introduction, it should be expanded on why exactly these variables were picked, as there are many others that play a role in participatory in the decision-making context.

Theory and Hypothesis

5. In the headline, the plural, “hypotheses” should be used.
6. At the end of this section, you should show a model of your hypotheses, like your Figure 1, without the values but the hypothesis numbers.

References

7. The reference list needs to be expanded to meet the journal’s quality standards. In particular, more recent references should be included.

Whereas the manuscript has a good quality, I'm not sure if Sustainability is a suitable outlet as the manuscript does not touch sustainability issues directly. The title is a bit misleading in this regard. Maybe another MDPI journal, such as Administration Sciences or Businesses, is more suitable.

I hope you find my comments helpful. Good luck with your revision!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author, 

I have carefully checked all the alterations you made in the article. I must commend you on your thoroughness and incorporation of all my requirements from the previous report. 

I believe the article is now ready to be published after the editors' final decision and their final touches. 

I wish you the best of luck with your future research projects. 

Have a lovely day. 

Reviewer 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

I really appreciate your time and effort in consideration of my manuscript. Also, I am grateful to the reviewer for your insightful comments. 

Sincerely, 

Author

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

I really appreciate your time and effort in consideration of my manuscript. Also, I am grateful to the reviewer for your insightful comments.

Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the revised version of the manuscript:

1. Gender, age, education level, and tenure, are not the only factors that can impact (simultaneously) participation in decision-making and employees' task performance and personal growth. A review of the relevant literature allows to realize this easily. So controlling for these four variables cannot ensure to correct for the endogeneity issue. Options to correct for endogeneity would be to employ instrumental variables or a matching approach.

As a result, the author should remove from the manuscript any language suggesting that "participation in decision-making is exogenous" or that "the possible endogeneity issue has been handled" or that "the endogeneity issue is not serious" because this is not right, all the more since any formal test of exogeneity is conducted by the author.

I suggest to the author to acknowledge very clearly in the conclusion section of the manuscript, the following two things. First, a possible endogeneity issue of participation in decision-making is still present, and this is a limitation of the research conducted. Second, due to this possible issue and the methodology adopted in this paper, results are interpreted as "correlations" and not as "effects" or "impacts".

2. In view of the type of analysis conducted, I must say that including only four control variables cannot be considered as satisfactory. As I recommended in my previous report, the author should include more controls. Including three or four more control variables, based on the literaure review, could be good. Of course, the choice of these variables should be justified. The "why and how" of their potential correlations with employees' task performance and personal growth should also be explained.

3. I can see that language implying "effect" or "impact" is still present in the manuscript although I strongly recommended in a previous report to remove it, and to rather talk about "correlation" (or "association") in view of the methodology adopted in this study. See for instance, lines 325, 430, 431, 434, 451, 523, 576. This is very annoying and gives the impression that the review process is not progressing. The author should make the necessary corrections throughout the paper.

4. Correct the typo at the level of Kouakou (2022) ("formal" instead of "for-mal"). I already mentioned this in my previous report. Please, make sure you actually made the corrections that you claim in your response letter to have made. This is essential.

5. As I pointed out in the previous reports, one should write "0.AA" instead of ".AA", that is, for instance "0.93" instead of ".93" (see Table 4) or "p<0.01" instead of "p<.01". Please, take time to read your manuscript carefully and entirely, and make the necessary corrections.

6. Once again, my recommendation is to "include a section dedicated to the literature review on the effects of participatory decision-making on employees’ performance and well-being" (or add a subsection in section 2), and not to include a simple paragraph in the introduction section. This (sub)section is very important as it will help the reader to better appreciate the contribution(s) and originality of this paper with respect to previous research.

I strongly recommend to the author to take sufficient time to read the referee reports he/she receive, and to make efforts to properly and seriously address the issues raised by the referee. Once again this is important so that the review process can progress. It is particularly unpleasant for the referee to go back several times to suggestions made in previous reports. This gives him/her the impression of wasting his/her time.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thanks for the detailed advice to improve the paper.

I have answered according to the point by point.

Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has addressed the issues I raised.