Influences of Start-Up’s Financial Intermingling on Entrepreneurial Stress in Sustainable Family Businesses: Mediation Effect of Work–Family Balance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I read this paper with great interest. I think there is merit to it. But it still requires a lot of work. Below are my primary concerns:
- In the abstract, the Authors should clearly describe the topic they are investigating in the abstract. The country they used to examine the research question and who triggered their work should be mentioned.
- The authors should mention more about the influence of the creative economy on the economy of the Republic of Korea. This connection will give additional added value to their work. Finally, the authors should enrich the literature review with relevant papers such as Konstantakopoulou (2023).
- The text should be coherent, and the authors should explain in detail in the introduction the methodology they use and the differentiation of the work in relation to previous studies. What is a methodological innovations in their studies? How do they overcome the methodological issue in the previous research?
- The authors should explain in detail the econometric methodology they use in a separate section.
- The policy implications are not discussed.
References
Konstantakopoulou, I., (2023). Do exports of creative goods lead to economic growth?, Applied Economics Letters, DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2023.2187035
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are very thankful for your comments and suggestions for this manuscript. We have given serious thought to all the points that the reviewers made and believe that those comments have definitely helped to improve the quality of the paper. Below, you will find revisions and replies to the comments made in response to the manuscript. We assigned numbers to the comments (in Italic) to make sure we appropriately addressed and cross-referenced each specific issue/comment/question. Within the manuscript and response letter, changes are in red. We hope the changes we made are satisfactory to you.
Reviewer #1 Comment 1: In the abstract, the Authors should clearly describe the topic they are investigating in the abstract. The country they used to examine the research question and who triggered their work should be mentioned.
Response: In lines 12-14 of the abstract, the country of South Korea and what triggered the work is mentioned. It reads:
“This study examines the effects of intermingling financial resources on the quality of life of families operating businesses in South Korea. Based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2022 assessment, which ranks South Korea ninth out of 51 economies, South Korea emerges as a promising area for scholarly research in this area.”
Reviewer #1 Comment 2: The authors should mention more about the influence of the creative economy on the economy of the Republic of Korea. This connection will give additional added value to their work. Finally, the authors should enrich the literature review with relevant papers such as Konstantakopoulou (2023).
Response: Thank for introducing us to Konstantakopoulou (2023) paper on the creative economy. We added a few sentences about the creative economy to lines 34-39. It now reads:
“A study of seventy-one economies found that creative goods exports are positively associated with economic growth and that all stakeholders should collaborate to strengthen the creative economy to achieve sustainable development [4]. The Republic of Korea has placed a significant emphasis on promoting a "creative economy" by diversifying its industries beyond traditional sectors like manufacturing and heavy industries [5].”
Reviewer #1 Comment 3: The text should be coherent, and the authors should explain in detail in the introduction the methodology they use and the differentiation of the work in relation to previous studies. What is a methodological innovations in their studies? How do they overcome the methodological issue in the previous research?
Response: Thank you for the comments. However, another reviewer advised us to relocate the explanations related to methodology into the methods section. Thus, we stated the methodological descriptions in the methods section, responding to another reviewer’s comments. Regarding the methodological innovations, we just utilized the general methods applying the deductive approach because this is not a study on methodology, it is an article about the effects of financial intermingling between family and business start-ups. To our knowledge, not every study needs to apply innovative methodologies.
Reviewer #1 Comment 4: The authors should explain in detail the econometric methodology they use in a separate section.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. This study adopted the psychometric methodology, not econometrics. Specifically, we adopted the structural equation modeling, a multivariate statistical analysis technique that is used to analyze structural relationships between constructs. This technique is also one of the most used methods in the social science academic field. We added the details of the technique in the methodology section in lines 340-345. If the reviewer requires more details for this, we will willingly provide this. However, we think the current form is enough because this is not a study on exploring a new methodology.
“An empirical analysis was performed using SPSS 28.0 and AMOS statistical packages for a total of 241 data sets. Specifically, utilizing the method proposed by Anderson and Gerbing [61], which involves a two-phase process, the authors first carried out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the measurement model. Subsequently, they used structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation to validate the suggested research model and its hypotheses.”
Reviewer #1 Comment 5: The policy implications are not discussed.
Response: In the last paragraph of the conclusion and discussion section, we discussed how the Korea Institute of Startup & Entrepreneurship Development (KISED) and the Korea Venture Investment Corp (KVIC) could incorporate educational initiatives into the startup incubators and accelerators that they oversee. Please see lines 460-471:
“South Korea has recognized the importance of fostering a vibrant startup ecosystem and has implemented various policies and initiatives to support entrepreneurship. Organizations such as the Korean Institute of Startup & Entrepreneurship Development (KISED) and the Korean Venture Investment Corporation (KVIC) have established incubators and accelerators across the country to provide startups with mentorship, networking opportunities, resources, and education to develop their business ideas into viable products and services [65,66]. These government organizations could potentially direct their attention towards fostering education and training initiatives within the domain of family entrepreneurship, particularly concerning family-run enterprises. This endeavor could encompass a comprehensive exploration of entrepreneurial stress and the formulation of precise strategies to mitigate the convergence of familial and business financial domains.”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Reviewer #1 Comment 6: Moderate editing of English language required.
Response: The whole manuscript has been proofread, and the errors in this paper were fixed by professional English editor.
Reviewer 2 Report
This study investigates the impact of financial intermingling between family and business start-ups on entrepreneurial stress, mediated through work-family balance. The paper is engaging and well-presented overall. However, the reviewer recommends addressing the following comments before acceptance:
1. Ensure the hypothesis is established after the literature review in section 2.
2. Provide clarity on the sampling method and how the questionnaires were distributed to 300 entrepreneurs.
3. Discuss how representative the sample is of the population of interest.
4. Relocate the description "Using AMOS and SPSS statistical packages..." from the Introduction to the Methods section.
5. Elaborate on how the item description was modified to suit the purpose of this paper (Line 206).
6. Explain the rationale behind adding one item to the work-family balance construct without literature support (Line 228).
7. Provide a more detailed explanation of the unstandardized coefficients in Table 1.
8. Clarify the potentially misleading explanation of the family-to-business and business-to-family intermingling construct on lines 213-217.
1. Here are suggestions in the conclusion and discussion and limitation and future studies sections that may require moderate editing.
2. There is a Korean word present in Table 4. The authors need to address the quality of the paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are very thankful for your comments and suggestions for this manuscript. We have given serious thought to all the points that the reviewers made and believe that those comments have definitely helped to improve the quality of the paper. Below, you will find revisions and replies to the comments made in response to the manuscript. We assigned numbers to the comments (in Italics) to make sure we appropriately addressed and cross-referenced each specific issue/comment/question. Within the manuscript and response letter, changes are in red. We hope the changes we made are satisfactory to you.
Reviewer #2 Comment 1: This study investigates the impact of financial intermingling between family and business start-ups on entrepreneurial stress, mediated through work-family balance. The paper is engaging and well-presented overall. However, the reviewer recommends addressing the following comments before acceptance:
Response: Thank you for the comments and feedback. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise this manuscript for Sustainability and feel that responding to your comments has made the paper stronger.
Reviewer #2 Comment 2: Ensure the hypothesis is established after the literature review in section 2.
Response: We added the hypotheses in Section 2.3 titled Hypotheses Development. Please see lines 201-270.
Reviewer #2 Comment 3: Provide clarity on the sampling method and how the questionnaires were distributed to 300 entrepreneurs.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We extended the sampling procedure in lines in 274-279, and the sampling method now reads:
“For this study, a survey was conducted with 300 small businesses in Seoul, Korea, for 2 months in April and May 2022. A total of 264 surveys were collected, and 241 were analyzed after excluding 23 incomplete or inaccurate questionnaires. Specifically, the respondents to this study were those who had operated their businesses for under seven years and had visited a South Korean government financial institution to secure corporate funds.”
Reviewer #2 Comment 4: Discuss how representative the sample is of the population of interest.
Response: Thank you for the comment. Given that the sample aligns with the traits of South Korean startup small businesses, the research topic and analysis outcomes can be considered generalizable. In lines 279-280 we added
“Given that the sample aligns with the traits of South Korean startup small businesses, the research topic and analysis outcomes can be considered generalizable.”
Reviewer #2 Comment 5: Relocate the description "Using AMOS and SPSS statistical packages..." from the Introduction to the Methods section.
Response: The use of AMOS and SPSS has been modified and placed in lines 340-345. It now reads:
“An empirical analysis was performed using SPSS 28.0 and AMOS statistical packages for a total of 241 data sets. Specifically, utilizing the method proposed by Anderson and Gerbing [61], which involves a two-phase process, the authors first carried out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the measurement model. Subsequently, they used structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation to validate the suggested research model and its hypotheses.”
Reviewer #2 Comment 6: Elaborate on how the item description was modified to suit the purpose of this paper (Line 206).
Response: For the purpose of this paper, to investigate the effect of financial mix on entrepreneurial stress, it has been modified to entrepreneurial stress to help respondents understand and amended lines 300-303.
“Based on the items used in Werbel and Danes’ research [17] the measurement tool consisted of the following. Each query was measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was modified as entrepreneurial stress for the purpose of this paper.”
Reviewer #2 Comment 7: Explain the rationale behind adding one item to the work-family balance construct without literature support (Line 228).
Response: We added lines 325-326 to explain this.
“Items applied in the studies of Kopelman et al. [60] and Gudmunson et al. [48] were utilized.”
Reviewer #2 Comment 8: Provide a more detailed explanation of the unstandardized coefficients in Table 1.
Response: Thank you for the comment. In order to we now provided both unstandardized and standardized coefficients’ in Table 1. In addition, we addressed the meaning of the statistics in the text. In the revised manuscript, in lines 348-356 it reads:
“4.1. Evaluating Measurement Model
Results of confirmatory factor analysis are shown in <Table 1> and <Table 2>. In regard to the convergent validity of the measures, the factor loadings, ranged from 0.636 to 0.949, are all significant, and the least value of the AVEs (0.520 ≤ AVE ≤ 0.690) exceed the criterion of 0.5, which implies the convergent validity is established. In addition, all the square root of AVEs are greater than those corresponded correlation coefficients, which demonstrates the discriminant validity is established. Thus, construct validity of the measures, validated by convergent and discriminant measures, met the verification criteria [62].”
Reviewer #2 Comment 9: Clarify the potentially misleading explanation of the family-to-business and business-to-family intermingling construct on lines 213-217.
Response: Thank you for noticing that error. Lines 314-315 have been corrected to clarify the structure of family-to-business and business-to-family interconnections.
“The measurement tool for business-to-family intermingling consisted of the following four questions”
Reviewer Comments on the Quality of English Language
Reviewer #2 Comment 10. Here are suggestions in the conclusion and discussion and limitation and future studies sections that may require moderate editing.
Response: The whole manuscript has been proofread, and the errors in this paper were fixed by a professional English editor. Additionally, the Conclusions and Discussion and Limitations and Future Work sections were fully edited and expanded to improve both these sections. Please see the red in those sections. that added a new paragraph and expanded on other paragraphs. This can be seen in lines 454-465 and 471-491.
Reviewer #2 Comment #11. There is a Korean word present in Table 4. The authors need to address the quality of the paper.
Response: The Korean words in Table 4 have been converted to English. Please see table 4, line 409.
Reviewer 3 Report
Introduction
· line 59 to 65: it is not clear why if “Government institutions, such as tax authorities, require that entrepreneurs 61 correctly record household and company fund transactions and keep separate family and 62 business financial”, could occur an “intermingling of finances between the family and business.”
· In the introduction section, before stating the research questions and the objectives, should be highlighted the gap in the existing literature which the research is aimed to fill. Moreover, the data collection method could be mentioned just after the research objectives or stated.
· In the end of the introduction, I suggest being described the content of the rest of the sections.
Literature review and hypothesis development
· Line 131 to 133. When is cited a certain portion of the of text from a previous work it should be also mentioned the page in the within text reference
· The Work-family balance theory is mentioned both in section 2/1 and 2/2. Please decide to keep it only in one of those two.
· In this section it should be provided arguments for each hypothesis the authors propose. Currently, even the section is named hypotheses development, no such development is included in it. Please revise the section accordingly.
Methods
· Line 221: there are not two variables, but eight.
· Under table one, please make a note to explain the meaning of SE, CR, AVE, …. So on. The same for the other tables.
· Line 251-252: P value cannot be less then 0.000. Please review the statement.
· Line 259-260: was do you mean saying the Other goodness of-fit indices were above or near the baseline.? Near above or near under? If under, how much under? ... and in this conditions, what are the arguments to consider the model to be suitable for data analysis for hypothesis verification?
· In the methodological section should be added information about the research population (including including and excluding criteria) end sampling procedure.
· Also, it should be clearly mentioned which were the statistical methods and software packages used for each part of data analysis. This has consequences on the way the results are reported and then I bought the seats are tested in the next section.
Results
· Since is mentioned the path coefficients, I suppose that the structural equation modeling was further used to test the research hypothesis. In such case, for the structural model should be also reported the fit indices to prove that the model is reliable and valid.
· Again, depending on the method used to test the research hypothesis, there are available different ways to prove the significance of the indirect effect. Please provide specific methodological information in this respect (with appropriate references) in order to prove that the indirect effects were significant.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are very thankful for your comments and suggestions for this manuscript. We have given serious thought to all the points that the reviewers made and believe that those comments have definitely helped to improve the quality of the paper. Below, you will find revisions and replies to the comments made in response to the manuscript. We assigned numbers to the comments (in Italics) to make sure we appropriately addressed and cross-referenced each specific issue/comment/question. Within the manuscript and response letter, changes are in red. We hope the changes we made are satisfactory to you.
Reviewer #3 Comment 1: line 59 to 65: it is not clear why if “Government institutions, such as tax authorities, require that entrepreneurs 61 correctly record household and company fund transactions and keep separate family and 62 business financial”, could occur an “intermingling of finances between the family and business.”
Response: We rewrote this paragraph to give it more clarity. Please see lines 70-78
“Regulatory bodies, such as tax authorities, require entrepreneurs to meticulously document transactions involving personal and corporate funds, and maintain separate financial records for the familial and business domains. Moreover, the convergence of financial transactions between familial and business spheres bears the adverse consequence of potentially deferring bill settlements for either one or both domains, thereby jeopardizing the continuity of business operations and the equilibrium of familial financial allocations [10,11].“
Reviewer #3 Comment 2: In the introduction section, before stating the research questions and the objectives, should be highlighted the gap in the existing literature which the research is aimed to fill. Moreover, the data collection method could be mentioned just after the research objectives or stated.
Response: In this study, the gap with the existing literature was corrected in lines 110-113
“The current research on Korean entrepreneurship has yielded valuable insights in relation to the creative economy, startups in the high-tech industry, and the effectiveness of the startup ecosystem. However, there exists a distinct gap in research pertaining to the dynamics of family businesses [5,7].”
Additionally, the data collection method and contents edited and moved to the methods section. Please see lines 274-279
“For this study, a survey was conducted with 300 small businesses in Seoul, Korea, for 2 months in April and May 2022. A total of 264 surveys were collected, and 241 were analyzed after excluding 23 incomplete or inaccurate questionnaires. Specifically, the respondents to this study were those who had operated their businesses for under seven years and had visited a South Korean government financial institution to secure corporate funds”
Reviewer #3 Comment 3 In the end of the introduction, I suggest being described the content of the rest of the sections.
Response: The description of the contents was added in lines 118-120
“In particular, this study looks at the importance of maintaining separate accounts between households and companies, achieving family balance, and realizing the importance of spousal commitment”
Reviewer #3 Comment 4:Literature review and hypothesis development
Response: We added the hypotheses in Section 2.3 titled Hypotheses Development. Please read the full section in lines 201-270.
Reviewer #3 Comment 5:· Line 131 to 133. When is cited a certain portion of the of text from a previous work it should be also mentioned the page in the within text reference
Response: The specific quote was unnecessary for the study, so it was deleted.
Reviewer #3 Comment 6: The Work-family balance theory is mentioned both in section 2/1 and 2/2. Please decide to keep it only in one of those two.
Response: The work-family balance theory has been deleted in section 2.1 and kept in part 2.2
Reviewer #3 Comment 7:· In this section it should be provided arguments for each hypothesis the authors propose. Currently, even the section is named hypotheses development, no such development is included in it. Please revise the section accordingly.
Response: We added the section called Hypothesis Development in Section 2.3. Please see lines 201-270 to read the full section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The new version of the article has been improved.
Despite this, good proofreading is needed throughout the text. In addition, the authors have added references to the paper without adding them to the references section.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your final comments.
Please see the red writing, representing the edited version of the paper. We hired a professional editor proofread the paper thoroughly.
Secondly, we found the missing reference now updated and fixed as [51]
Kidwell, R.E.; Kellermanns, F.W.; Eddleston, K.A. Harmony, Justice, Confusion, and Conflict in Family Firms: Implications for Ethical Climate and the “Fredo Effect.” J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 106, 503–517, doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1014-7.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please include the same number of decimals in tables and display the zero before decimals, where necessary
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the changes made to the tables in red. The decimals were fixed by adding a zero before the decimals and keeping the decimal points consistent throughout the article.
Thank you for your final suggestions.
