Managers’ Attitudes to Different Action Proposals in the Direction to Extended Working Life: A Cross-Sectional Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a relevant and interesting study, but somewhat understated. I would urge the authors to look into the EU Well-being initiative; https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/topic/health-and-well-being-at-work
This study fit well in line with this. I also look forward to read the authors conclusion of their study as to the future well-being.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- The authors investigated an interesting study to evaluate the managers’ attitudes of different organisational measures for extending working life beyond 65 years of age in their workplace. I have the following comments.
- The introduction is written well and sets out the aim and research question. But, then there is no literature review or theoretical background section to justify the factors with prior research. I believe authors should include this section 2.
- The other sections are conducted and written well. However, the survey questionnaire should be included in the Appendix.
- Below are some of the recent and relevant references authors want to include:
- Rehman, J., Hawryszkiewycz, I., Sohaib, O. and Soomro, A., 2020, January. Developing intellectual capital in professional service firms using high performance work practices as toolkit. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
- Rehman, J., Hawryszkiewycz, I. and Sohaib, O., 2018. Deriving High Performance Knowledge Sharing Culture (HPKSC): A Firm Performance & Innovation Capabilities Perspective. PACIS.
- Rehman, J.U.N.A.I.D., Hawryszkiewycz, I.G.O.R., Sohaib, O.S.A.M.A. and Namisango, F.A.T.U.M.A., 2020, December. Intellectual Capital Creates Value for the Organization: What About Other Stakeholders?. In International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The theme of this paper is interesting and innovative, and certainly useful for the reality of the European Union, but also for all other countries.
This paper could be very interesting for researchers looking for this Journal.
However, this paper has some weaknesses:
- The text presented in the Introduction (lines 57-67) is repeated in point 2. It is suggested that you simplify
- Also in the Introduction it is necessary to insert the methodology used and at the end present the structure of the article
- In line 112 "The participating managers belonged to the following sectoral work areas". It remains to be justified how you selected the areas.
- In line 127 "but a Human Resources officer stated that the results were comparable to the distribution in the total municipality". The fact that the Human Resources officer makes this statement does not justify its being valid and correct. Justify.
- In line 148 "The evaluation of this pilot process resulted in a few, very small reformulations of question statements". Explain which ones?
- The titles of the tables are too long. Simplify.
- At the end of each table there is still a need to analyze the contents
- Limitations, strength of the study and future research proposals (point 4.1) should be at the end of the article, after the conclusions
- Line 432 "A strength of this study was that all respondents had the same employer." In addition to being a strong point, it is alsoa weak point, because it did not know the other reality (not having the same employer). Justify.
- Point 5. Conclusions, presents very repeated ideas and does not make the great conclusions. Lacking.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In my opinion authors should improve/rethink:
- In Introduction - writing about a lack of scientific, published studies is improper. I suggest to write about the scarcity of literature; and to highlight clearly the novelty of research.
- The structure of the article could be added to Introduction
- Authors decided to drop the Literature Review section, however, although it is acceptable, a theoretical introduction to the topic should be included in the Introduction. Meanwhile, it is very general. Introducing general references to multiple items, eg "some managers hold negative and stereotypical attitudes towards senior employees, these studies identify ageism and age discrimination [1.9-19]" seems inappropriate. Authors should indicate the most important articles or show differences between opinions in many articles.
- The discussion, although very interesting, also contains a multiplication of literature references to single, very general sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All my previous comments are now addressed.
