Does Workplace Spirituality Foster Employee Ambidexterity? Evidence from IT Employees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper tackles a compelling and rich topic, bridging the connection between workplace spirituality and employee ambidexterity. It fills a gap in the existing research literature, which could have potential implications for theory and practice.

However, there are some issues to consider:

- The paper contains many acronyms, some of which are not explained in the text. An instance is on line 33 that requires checking. The references, for example, line 48, are incorrectly formatted. There's also confusion around the statement made on line 50.

- Key themes of the work, such as Workplace Spirituality and Employee Ambidexterity, are poorly explained. Understanding the introduction and the paper's objectives becomes challenging as each paragraph introduces a new concept. The concept of ambidexterity appears abruptly and is poorly defined. Its correlation to work is hard to comprehend. The introduction lacks focus. It would be advisable to rewrite it by centralizing the research question being addressed.

- There is a lack of care in text formatting. For example, it's unclear what line 141 represents. Is it a section? An item? Or a title?

- It is unclear what characteristics define a company that incorporates Workplace Spirituality practices. The characteristics observed for this selection should be detailed.

- Similarly, the target demographic of IT professionals isn't clear. The characteristics of this selection should be specified. It seems that stratified sampling within the IT sector was done. It would be helpful to present these data in a table format rather than merely percentages in the text, as this would aid data collection comprehension.

- Has the study been reviewed by an ethics committee? Where are the observed variables of the study? Can the questionnaire be found in supplementary material?

- The text is poorly formatted. Some references follow the journal's standard, while others present a different format. For example, lines 316 and 319.

- Once control variables are presented, it would be beneficial to provide more details. If these have little impact on the results, this segment could be included in the previous section. After all, it's only three lines for a subsection.

- It's vague to present sample items with the information provided, for instance, on line 324. Given that this material is already developed, it could be shared as supplementary material.

- More details about Cronbach's alpha should be provided, along with the tools used to calculate it, aiming for research reproducibility.

- It's recommended to present data collection and analysis in a table summarizing procedures, using text for detailing.

 

While the English language isn't poor, it's not excellent either. However, the text's formatting is poorly handled. Misplaced punctuation, inconsistently formatted references, poorly structured subtitles, etc., require attention. Greater care for the presentation of the paper would facilitate reading and reviewing and is crucial for the flow of the journal's readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Topic

The topic is interesting.

 

Introduction

Alluding to a gap is not enough.

What literature does this gap exist in?

What justifies conducting the study vis-à-vis the literature?

 

Literature Review

Better ground the connection between Social Exchange Theory and Workplace Spirituality.

It is important to reference the literature on Ambidexterity and the connection with Employee Ambidexterity.

 

Results

Section 6 should include Conclusions, limitations and future research directions.

No comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for submitting your paper. I have reviewed it carefully and found the topic of your study interesting. However, before resubmitting, I recommend that you consider the following points:

1.      Line 42, what is/are the source of the components of spirituality?

2.      Line 48, what was the previous research conducted in WS?

3.      Line 55, the word ‘estimated’ seems not to be appropriate since the data 2017 is the past data.

4.      Are there any statistics to demonstrate about job dissatisfaction, fatigue, and anxiety of IT employees?

5.      Indicate H1 to H4 in Figure 1.

6.      What is the reason to conduct the 5000-resample bootstrapping? Elaborate in the manuscript to let readers understand.

7.      Provide supporting reasons on the hypothesis 3 which was not supported by the analysis.

8.      Recheck the English writing style. There is a mix between American and British English.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I would like to acknowledge your efforts in conducting this research and the diligence shown in addressing the queries during the revision process. 

Your responses to the previously raised concerns and your revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. 

Moving forward, there are still a few suggestions that I believe could further elevate the manuscript. I look forward to your responses and the final version of the manuscript.

• Transitions: While the overall flow of the introduction has improved, some of the transitions between topics could be smoother to enhance readability and understanding

• Specific Context: You make several references to the specific context of their study, the IT sector in India, but do not fully explain why this context is particularly relevant to their research. Expanding on the unique challenges or characteristics of this industry and location could provide valuable context for their research.

• You have articulated your research questions well. However, you might want to consider making them more concise. For instance, RQ1 could be: "Does workplace spirituality foster employee ambidexterity in the IT industry?" Similar adjustments could be made to RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4.

• Be cautious about the assumption that happier employees are more productive. While there's some research suggesting a correlation, it's a complex relationship and it's not yet definitive if one directly causes the other. You may want to adjust your language to reflect this nuance.

 

 

 

• There are minor grammatical issues and sentences that could be structured better for improved readability. For instance, the sentence starting with "Despite this fact, we lack in-depth knowledge..." could be rephrased to "Despite this shift in focus, we still lack in-depth knowledge regarding the relationship between employee-level ambidexterity and workplace spirituality."

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Although I maintain my original opinion that the article should be resubmitted to one of the journals I mentioned in my initial review (for example, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion), I consider it suitable for publication in Sustainability after the revisions made, given the superior quality of the article and its acceptance by the editors of this Journal.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendation.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors did a substantial revision based on the comments. It is now ok for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendation.