Organisational Climate, Diversity Climate and Job Dissatisfaction: A Multi-Group Analysis of High and Low Cynicism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is suitable for the special issue. The logic and analysis performed are in line with the aim and scope of the Journal. In general, the paper is a good example of well-designed research with appropriate theoretical background. However, some important notes should be considered by authors.
(1) Introduction should contain more sufficient information - see requirements: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions. Particullarly, authors should briefly mention the main hypotheses and conclusions. In the given form this section is rather the start of the Literature review. Besides, the paper is devoted to the important issue of the management of organizations. So, I find inappropriate authors' trials to link the object of the research with global sustainable development goals in the first paragraph. The introduction should be more aimed at the general aim.
(2) The authors should revised the terminology used in different hypotheses. Particularly, in H1a-b they write about "directed effect". In all other hypotheses one can read about "direct/indirect effect". As "directed" is closer to impact on smth. opposite to the links (which are investigated when "direct" used), It seems from the next text that authors study the links or relationships, so, the terminology used in H2-11 is more appropriate and supported by theoretical model presented in Figure 1.
(3) The main drawbacks of the research are inconsistencies in methodology description, particularly, in p.4.1. In this regard, authors have to explain - does this sample reflect the population accurately, especially considering the structure of the Italian public administration employees? Besides, authors collected their data between January 2020 and November 2021. Such long period of data collection should be justified as there is a risk of incompatibility of data.
(4) Authors use essential number of references. However, the majority of 134 sources is outdated, especially to investigate such dynamic object. The main emphasis should be done on recent publications indexed in Scopus and WoS (at least from 2019). Besides, some citations in the text are too generalized, like [102-109], [88-92]. It creates impression of a superficial literature review.
(5) Technical revision is required in order to avoid some typos and misunderstandings like [Italian ad. 115] (line 380), 'It is in this framework that ..." (line 48), "Results revealed that: Diversity... " (line 16), "the groups. when cynicism" (line 591) etc. The article should be read and revised carefully. Proofreading is advisable.
Author Response
Report (Reviewer 1)
We thank the reviewer, we appreciate his suggestions that we have tried to apply throughout the text. We answer point by point below.
The paper is suitable for the special issue. The logic and analysis performed are in line with the aim and scope of the Journal. In general, the paper is a good example of well-designed research with appropriate theoretical background. However, some important notes should be considered by authors.
- Introduction should contain more sufficient information - see requirements: Particullarly, authors should briefly mention the main hypotheses and conclusions. In the given form this section is rather the start of the Literature review. Besides, the paper is devoted to the important issue of the management of organizations. So, I find inappropriate authors' trials to link the object of the research with global sustainable development goals in the first paragraph. The introduction should be more aimed at the general aim.
Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have tried to improve this part by removing unnecessary parts, summarising the key concepts and referring to the main hypotheses of the study.
- The authors should revised the terminology used in different hypotheses. Particularly, in H1a-b they write about "directed effect". In all other hypotheses one can read about "direct/indirect effect". As "directed" is closer to impact on smth. opposite to the links (which are investigated when "direct" used), It seems from the next text that authors study the links or relationships, so, the terminology used in H2-11 is more appropriate and supported by theoretical model presented in Figure 1.
Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have aligned the terminology in the assumptions and in the rest of the text.
(3) The main drawbacks of the research are inconsistencies in methodology description, particularly, in p.4.1. In this regard, authors have to explain - does this sample reflect the population accurately, especially considering the structure of the Italian public administration employees? Besides, authors collected their data between January 2020 and November 2021. Such long period of data collection should be justified as there is a risk of incompatibility of data.
Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. since ours is a sample of convenience, we have added all the possible information in our possession to improve the description with respect to the representation of the population of public administration workers in Italy. Regarding the data collection period, we thank the reviewer because we did not notice a typo. The starting date is in fact January 2021 and not 2020, we have corrected in the text.
(4) Authors use essential number of references. However, the majority of 134 sources is outdated, especially to investigate such dynamic object. The main emphasis should be done on recent publications indexed in Scopus and WoS (at least from 2019). Besides, some citations in the text are too generalized, like [102-109], [88-92]. It creates impression of a superficial literature review.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out. We have accurately revised the paper and identified the most appropriate references, also based on your fair observations.
(5) Technical revision is required in order to avoid some typos and misunderstandings like [Italian ad. 115] (line 380), 'It is in this framework that ..." (line 48), "Results revealed that: Diversity... " (line 16), "the groups. when cynicism" (line 591) etc. The article should be read and revised carefully. Proofreading is advisable.
Answer: we fixed the terminology as the reviewer pointed out to us and had a native speaker review the document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, thank you very much for inviting me to review the article entitled “Organisational climate, diversity climate and job dissatisfaction: a multi-group analysis of high and low cynicism”. The authors tried to understand the effects of the organisational climate more specifically the mediating role of diversity climate and moderating role of cynicism.
After reading the paper, some comments are provided.
The paper is quite interesting with adequate background literature provided – however they are quite dated, please update to include more recent literatures – seminal literature are fine, however should be supported by more recent findings.
Would aid if the author provide conceptual diagrams with corresponding hypothesis labeled for better understanding of the different direct and indirect relationships.
For the measures, one of two sample items can be provided to reader better grasp the scale being measured. ELVN have some sample items, the rest are lacking.
Suggest to incorporate the AVE and CR values into the correlation table.
Line 465 - All Cronbach alpha is the same as Mcdonald’s omega for all variables? Just curious then both are used? Could benefit in explaining (using a sentence or two). Perhaps …. if the assumption of tau-equivalence is violated, then omega would be preferable…. (with reference citations to Hayes)
Line 433 – should include group comparison – using chi-square test of differences – within the data analysis
A direct effect table would help. For the discussion – this can be improved by further expansion and not by simply repeating the findings. Should go back to the theoretical model. Implications are weak.
In general, the study is adequate in terms of the statistical analysis the paper is okay, however, discussions and conclusions are also very important.
Author Response
Report (Reviewer 2)
We thank the reviewer, we appreciate his suggestions that we have tried to apply throughout the text. We answer point by point below.
First of all, thank you very much for inviting me to review the article entitled “Organisational climate, diversity climate and job dissatisfaction: a multi-group analysis of high and low cynicism”. The authors tried to understand the effects of the organisational climate more specifically the mediating role of diversity climate and moderating role of cynicism.
After reading the paper, some comments are provided.
- The paper is quite interesting with adequate background literature provided – however they are quite dated, please update to include more recent literatures – seminal literature are fine, however should be supported by more recent findings.
Answer: Done. Thank for pointing out. We have accurately revised the paper and identified the most appropriate and recent references, also based on your fair observations.
- Would aid if the author provide conceptual diagrams with corresponding hypothesis labeled for better understanding of the different direct and indirect relationships.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We add in the Figure 1 our hyphotheses.
- For the measures, one of two sample items can be provided to reader better grasp the scale being measured. ELVN have some sample items, the rest are lacking.
Answer: done
- Suggest to incorporate the AVE and CR values into the correlation table.
Answer: done
- Line 465 - All Cronbach alpha is the same as Mcdonald’s omega for all variables? Just curious then both are used? Could benefit in explaining (using a sentence or two). Perhaps …. if the assumption of tau-equivalence is violated, then omega would be preferable…. (with reference citations to Hayes)
Answer: Dear reviewer, given that alpha is based on rather restrictive assumptions in empirical research, i.e. one-dimensionality, essential tau-equivalence (loaded with equal factors) and unrelated errors, we thought for greater peace of mind as it is a scale of multi-item measurement to also calculate the omega index. If the assumptions are satisfied, it is of course possible to use alpha. If the tau equivalence hypothesis is violated, omega would be preferable. However, when the factor loads are not the same but rather high, alpha generally leads to a similar reliability value compared to omega. Omega and alpha will yield the same result if the assumptions of alpha are not violated by the data. We thank you for suggesting that we explain it in the text, we have reported a couple of sentences both in the comment to the data, and in the paragraph of the data analysis, we have quoted the Hayes manuscript of 2020.
- Line 433 – should include group comparison – using chi-square test of differences – within the data analysis
Answer: added
- A direct effect table would help. For the discussion – this can be improved by further expansion and not by simply repeating the findings. Should go back to the theoretical model. Implications are weak.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for all, we have expanded the conclusion by referring back to the theoretical model and already deepened the suggestions, but we did not feel like adding a table of direct effects because the betas are already present in the figure and we are already afraid of the document which is already very long and loaded with graphs and tables.
- In general, the study is adequate in terms of the statistical analysis the paper is okay, however, discussions and conclusions are also very important.
Answer: We thank the reviewer, we worked on the discussion and conclusions to improve them.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper sets out to investigate the connection between organisation climate and several other organisational constructs. The study has a weak design using a convenience sample for statistical analysis. Below are some suggestions for improvement and questions that need to be more clearly addressed and explained in the paper.
Summarize the different definitions from the literature of diversity management in a table. It will be easier to understand for the reader. (Line 50-66)
Check your English, both grammar and wording. This is especially important when formulating the hypotheses.
Methods: please motivate why a non-randomised sampling technique was used! In addition, how were the limitations of this sampling technique addressed and what are the consequences of the chosen sampling technique? For example, why did you not use cross-validation through a sample-split?
Discuss the finding with the use of theory. Compare the findings with theory in order to shed light on the specific results. What do your results mean? What is the interpretation of the results?
Limitations: this is merely a list of limitations; you need also to make explicit how these limitations were addressed and the consequences for the interpretation of the results.
Author Response
Report (Reviewer 3)
We thank the reviewer, we appreciate his suggestions that we have tried to apply throughout the text. We answer point by point below.
The paper sets out to investigate the connection between organisation climate and several other organisational constructs. The study has a weak design using a convenience sample for statistical analysis. Below are some suggestions for improvement and questions that need to be more clearly addressed and explained in the paper.
- Summarize the different definitions from the literature of diversity management in a table. It will be easier to understand for the reader. (Line 50-66)
Answer: Thank you very much for the suggestion. In light of the changes and improvements that we made in this part, we chose to delete and revise this paragraph. Thank you, because your comment has led us to this reflection.
- Check your English, both grammar and wording. This is especially important when formulating the hypotheses.
Answer: Thank you so much for the suggestion. We asked to a English native speaker to help us with the revision.
- Methods: please motivate why a non-randomised sampling technique was used! In addition, how were the limitations of this sampling technique addressed and what are the consequences of the chosen sampling technique? For example, why did you not use cross-validation through a sample-split?
Answer: Dear reviewer, we have divided the sample with respect to the variable cynicism to carry out the moderation by splitting it into high and low cynicism. In fact you are right because in the text it is evident only in the paragraph of moderation, while it had to be explained also in the method section. We have thus added the method we used in the data analysis paragraph and in the participants and procedure paragraph we have better explained and deepened our sample. We thank you for your observation.
- Discuss the finding with the use of theory. Compare the findings with theory in order to shed light on the specific results. What do your results mean? What is the interpretation of the results?
Answer: we added links to reference theory in the final discussion and tried to answer the questions suggested by the reviewer
- Limitations: this is merely a list of limitations; you need also to make explicit how these limitations were addressed and the consequences for the interpretation of the results.
Answer: Thank for the suggestion. We improved this section in to the text. We hope that we have succeeded in clarifying and improving our paper and that we have met your requirements. Thank you anyway for your work and valuable advice.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments are considered, and the paper is acceptable in its present form. The authors revised the manuscript accurately.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for inviting me to review the revised version of this paper, going over the authors' reply and revisions reflected on the paper, the current version is already adequate for publication. However, some minor typo are still found within the paper.
Author should recheck.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for adhering to my comments! The paper is now ready to be published.
