The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between FWAs and Turnover Intentions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has an interesting subject, but it needs improvements as follows:

The research ideas could have been more effective using elaborative and concise sentences. The abstract does not provide a concise account of the work and conclusion of the research study. It needs to be more structured and synthesized for research clarity. We suggest rewriting the abstract section and considering that it is too long, more than 350 words.

The Introduction section needs improvements. The authors should elaborate on relevant contextual ideas and background leading to research and additional literature and explain why it is important for this research study.

The sentence presented on p. 2, r. 75-76: „The authors used descriptive statistics and the PLS-SEM method in order to investigate proposed relations. The SMART PLS program has been used in the data analysis process.” it does not fit with the Introduction section because its place is better on Materials and Methods section.

The sentences presented on p. 2, r. 78-82: “Also, job satisfaction mediates the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions, in terms that it strengthens this relationship. Implementation of FWAs increases job satisfaction, and decreases turnover intentions, hence, provides possibilities for companies to retain their best employees, and create a modern working environment that will enable employees with more possibilities and more safety in the contemporary business environment.” are relevant for discussions or conclusions.

The Theoretical background section could have represented an engaged and lively foundation from which the study is derived, thus supporting the research findings. The two hypotheses do not logically flow from the literature.

It is essential to elaborate or add more details regarding the research data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results.

We suggest describing the methods of data employed and their application and appropriateness for data analysis.

The information related to the sample structure is double represented – in text and Table 1. Sample characteristics. You should rewrite this subsection 3.2. The sample, and to avoid the double representation of the same information.

The variables and their items are not presented, and their sources are not clearly mentioned. This information can be detailed on p. 4, r. 171-177.

The results must be interpretive rather than just descriptive and connect the research results with relevant literature citations for validity and reliability.

It is essential to correlate the results with the effects on improving existing knowledge.

The discussions are not well-presented and do not integrate with the results of the research to provide a coherent scholarly argument.

Section Discussion and Conclusion should be divided into two sections: one ‘Discussion’ and the second ‘Conclusions’. Both sections will need improvements. For example, the authors should include the critical focus of the study in the conclusion. The conclusion is essential to support the research data and indicate a more straightforward path for future studies.

 The authors should pay attention to the sentences' structure to improve their clarity and avoid irrelevant information.

The place of the source: Krstić, M.; Filipe, J.A.; Chavaglia, J. Higher education as a determinant of the competitiveness and sustainable development of an economy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6607. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166607 is not on p. 10, r. 347-348 “when digital business and digital strategies are becoming even more important [51,52],”.  We suggest arguing the affirmation or placing this source where it fits with the content.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for all the suggestions regarding our scientific article on the topic "The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions". My colleagues and I have made all the necessary changes and we hope that the work meets all the criteria listed. Please find attached the answers and changes that we have included in the paper.

Best regards, 

Dimitrije Gašić

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors
Thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled: “The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions”. In this paper, the authors examine the relationship between flexible working arrangements and turnover focusing the mediating role of job satisfaction. The reviewer agrees that an empirical analysis is required to examine the effect of FWAs because it provides a new workforce perspectives from changing generations as the authors described.

However, the current version of this manuscript has been found to be insufficient to be published. Detailed review results are reported below.

• The study was designed for the purpose of simply verifying the two effects, and the two hypotheses are being tested. However, if the model is simple like this, it should be able to explain the innovativeness of this research model while at the same time suggesting whether it is theoretically valid. The analysis of previous studies and hypothesis design parts that should include this content are very poor.
• There is no discussion of representativeness of the sample. In this regard, the authors obtained a relatively small number of 200 or so, but the period is relatively long(6 months). No explanation is given for possible biases in data collection. The samples for this study were obtained from Serbia. There is also no discussion of generality or specificity in this regard.
• There are quite a lot of expressions that do not fit the grammar throughout the paper (e.g., December 2020. to June 2021 in line 186; Common method (CMB) in line 274; etc). In addition, consistent use of terminology is required. e.g.) Composite Reliability, rho_A, CR, AVE, Convergent validity, Discriminant validity, discriminant validity, ets.
• There are quite a few problems with citation. e.g.) In line 88, According to Wheatley 2017; In line 117, Sandhya & Sulphey (2020) stated that; In line 128, Tsen et al. (2021) IJS investigated 16,920, etc
• In Discussion and Conclusion section, theoretical contributions should be made clear, given that it is a generalization of the study. Moreover, it does not suggest what kind of difference it is from existing studies and what kind of contribution or implication the difference creates.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for all the suggestions regarding our scientific article on The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions. My colleagues and I have made all the necessary changes and we hope that the work meets all the criteria listed. Please find attached the answers and changes that we have included in the paper.

Best regards,

Dimitrije Gašić

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well written and structured, the arguments are very well presented. The discussion of results is clear and adequate.

I do not think that this version of the manuscript needs to be improved except for explaining  if the sample of employees that form the survey is representative of the labour force in Serbia in terms of education, sector, age, etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for all the suggestions regarding our scientific article on the topic "The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions". My colleagues and I have made all the necessary changes and we hope that the work meets all the criteria listed.

Best regards,

Dimitrije Gašić

Reviewer 4 Report

First, I would like to thank the opportunity to read this study. This study adds to the literature by analysing the relationship between flexible working arrangements (FWAs) and turnover intentions of employees, and the mediating role of job satisfaction in explaining the relationship between FWA and turnover intentions. This model was tested in a sample of 219 employees from organizations in Serbia. In general, the authors used updated and relevant literature, and the method and results are adequate. 

Below, I just leave some comments hoping they contribute to the improvement of the paper.

• Abstract: The following sentence: “Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions, it strengthens this relationship.” If job satisfaction is hypothesized as being a mediator (as Figure 2 showed), it is better said this variable could be a mechanism that contributes to explaining the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions. Thus, despite the existence of other mediating variables, and a direct relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions, there is an indirect effect of FWAs on turnover intentions through job satisfaction. In other words, FWAs may contribute to increasing job satisfaction and, in turn, job satisfaction contributes to decreasing turnover intentions. See Baron and Kenny (1986).

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.

• Introduction and Theoretical Background: the authors used too many direct quotations. I would like to suggest reducing the direct quotations and writing the ideas translated in these direct quotations using the authors' own words.
• Theoretical Background, line 182-184: “Job satisfaction will strengthen this relationship, and employee that are offered with FWAs will experience lower level of turnover intentions when they are satisfied on the job.” I suggest rewriting this sentence as follows: Job satisfaction will mediate this relationship, and employees that are offered with FWAs will experience a lower level of turnover intentions when they are satisfied on the job.
• Materials and Methods, the questionnaire: please add a sample item/question for each standardized instrument used, i.e., FWAs, turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Also, describe the categories used to analyse the gender, education, and position in the company, and indicate that age was measured in years (or if it was measured in age classes).
• Results, line 339-342: «Regarding the effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between FWA and turnover intentions, a negative mediation relationship was found, where FWA had a negative impact on turnover intentions through job satisfaction (β = -0.195; T = 5.932; P = 0.000).» I suggest rewriting as follows: Regarding the mediating role of job satisfaction in explaining the relationship between FWA and turnover intentions, a negative mediation relationship was found, since the indirect effect of FWA on turnover intentions through job satisfaction was significant (β = -0.195; T = 5.932; P = 0.000).
• Discussion, line 346-348: In line with my previous comments the idea of job satisfaction “strengthening” the relationship between FWA and turnover intentions should be avoided as it implies suggesting the existence of a moderating and not a mediating role (as Baron and Kenny, 1986, noted).
• Conclusion: The authors suggest for future studies the inclusion of age and other variables as control variables. Since the authors have collected some demographics like age, gender and education, I believe it will be a “piece of cake” at least provide a correlation analysis of among control variables and the studied variables. This correlation matrix will allow providing some clues regarding whether the present study is or not in line with other studies suggesting the age is relevant concerning FWA and turnover intentions. I understand this is not the main goal of the present study, but it will be interesting to provide these results.

Author Response

Dear, 
Thank you sincerely for the feedback on the manuscript entitled "The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions"
We appreciate your comments and guidelines for preparing the final version of the paper. 
We have now had the opportunity to complete our revisions based on the feedback received from reviewers. Hereby we attach the new version of the manuscript. We have marked the changes in the text in red color.  
We appreciate the feedback and suggestions for the improvement of our paper indicated by the reviewers. We have carefully combed through our paper and endeavored to respond to each of the observations offered. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was improved, but still needs improvements as follows:

First, we should underline the revision of the structure of the sentences. We recommended, in our previous review that: The authors pay attention to the sentences' structure to improve their clarity and avoid irrelevant information.

From the Abstract section to Conclusion, the paper should be carefully revised concerning the sentences' flow. For example, p. 11, r. 420-422 "Besides   practical, important   theoretical   implications   lie   in   the   increased........"

The abstract does not provide a concise account of the work and conclusion of the research study. It needs to be more structured and synthesized for research clarity. We suggest rewriting the abstract section.

P. 2, r. 56-70 contain a citation that is not critically analyzed. For improving the originality of the paper, we suggest developing a critical dialog with the literature. 

The two hypotheses do not logically flow from the literature.  It is necessary to introduce these hypotheses as a result of literature and not at the end of section 2. Theoretical Background.

The information related to the sample structure is double represented – in text and Table 1. Sample characteristics. You should rewrite this subsection 3.2. The sample, and to avoid the double representation of the same information.

The variables and their items are not presented. For example, the content of the items is presented only as Abbreviations: FWA1, JS1, TI1....

The English should be seriously revised by a native speaker.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear, 
Thank you sincerely for the feedback on the manuscript entitled "The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions"
We appreciate your comments and guidelines for preparing the final version of the paper. 
We have now had the opportunity to complete our revisions based on the feedback received from reviewers. Hereby we attach the new version of the manuscript. We have marked the changes in the text in red color.  
We appreciate the feedback and suggestions for the improvement of our paper indicated by the reviewers. We have carefully combed through our paper and endeavored to respond to each of the observations offered. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Regarding the manuscript "sustainability-1609895", I recommended the "reject" at the first review.  This is because, despite the fact that the study is analyzing a parsimonious model, the logical link that must be followed in scientific research is very weak and the protocol is not followed.  The things specified in the review report does not explain what is necessary for improvement of the content, but lists the reasons for inappropriate publication in this journal.  

Author Response

Dear, 
Thank you sincerely for the feedback on the manuscript entitled "The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between FWAs and turnover intentions"
We appreciate your comments and guidelines for preparing the final version of the paper. 
We have now had the opportunity to complete our revisions based on the feedback received from reviewers. Hereby we attach the new version of the manuscript. We have marked the changes in the text in red color.  
We appreciate the feedback and suggestions for the improvement of our paper indicated by the reviewers. We have carefully combed through our paper and endeavored to respond to each of the observations offered. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

GOOD LUCK!