The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Digital Transformation of Workplace: The Social Representation of Home-Office

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study aims to identify how Human Resources professionals in Brazil made sense of the home office policy adopted by their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic，based on the Social Representation Theory. The paper is well written and easy to follow. It consolidated our understanding of the role of the home-office in a scenario of social isolation.

Author Response

REVIEWER #1

 

We present our response below.

In cases in which we beg to differ with some comment made, a rebuttal is provided.

Once again, thank you for your feedback.

The Authors.

==

 

This study aims to identify how Human Resources professionals in Brazil made sense of the home office policy adopted by their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic，based on the Social Representation Theory. The paper is well written and easy to follow. It consolidated our understanding of the role of the home-office in a scenario of social isolation.

 

Thanks for your comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper delves into the implementation and perception of workplace digitization during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on a manager's perspective. The pandemic forced many companies to adopt remote working practices, transforming the traditional offline workplace into a digital realm.

 

The advent of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) facilitated remote work through internet connectivity, allowing employees to work from home with the aid of telecommuting technology. This shift effectively separated work from the conventional office space, marking a transition toward a more online and digitized workplace.

 

It's worth noting that this paper primarily examines the viewpoint of managers rather than employees. From a human resources perspective, the focus tends to be on organizational effectiveness and productivity.

 

Here are four suggestions for modification: (1) It is suggested that the paper could focus on the similarities and differences between the views of HR professionals and academic researchers on homework during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2) The research should not only focus on the theoretical level but also focus on empirical evidence and interviews with HR professionals to understand the actual situation. (3) The methodology used in the text and the purpose of the research are not well articulated and clearly stated. The role of the research methodology should be more clearly explained. (4) The abstract represents the dimensions of the social representation of the home office and analyzes the correlations but does not explore the reasons behind the correlations. It is recommended to improve the understanding of the results and to explore the mechanisms behind the correlations.

yes. it is fine and just need slight improvment.

Author Response

REVIEWER #2

 

We present our response below.

In cases in which we beg to differ with some comment made, a rebuttal is provided.

Once again, thank you for your feedback.

The Authors.

==

 

This paper delves into the implementation and perception of workplace digitization during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on a manager's perspective. The pandemic forced many companies to adopt remote working practices, transforming the traditional offline workplace into a digital realm.

 

The advent of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) facilitated remote work through internet connectivity, allowing employees to work from home with the aid of telecommuting technology. This shift effectively separated work from the conventional office space, marking a transition toward a more online and digitized workplace.

 

It's worth noting that this paper primarily examines the viewpoint of managers rather than employees. From a human resources perspective, the focus tends to be on organizational effectiveness and productivity.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

Here are four suggestions for modification:

 

(1) It is suggested that the paper could focus on the similarities and differences between the views of HR professionals and academic researchers on homework during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Thanks for your comment.

That was done, consolidated and presented at Table 9 in the work.

In fact, both in that table and in the comments below it, we compare the views of HR professionals with those of academic researchers on working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. After that table, in section 5.1, we discuss the relevant categories extracted from the scientific literature that had no appreciable mention in the evocation of words undertaken in the research.

 

Thanks again.

 

(2) The research should not only focus on the theoretical level but also focus on empirical evidence and interviews with HR professionals to understand the actual situation.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

As the work was developed during the social isolation imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, we were unable to focus our research on empirical evidence and in-depth interviews with HR professionals to better understand the real situation.

 

Indeed, open and closed questions were asked to the respondents. The open questions were used to collect the five evocations that came to the minds of them, the reason for choosing the first evocation, as well as their current position and respective e-mail - the last three questions being optional. The closed-ended questions were used to collect the sample demographics.

 

We based our analysis only on the expressions evoked by HR professionals, as very few of them set forth the reasons for choosing their first evocations (as optionally requested). Because of this, we were unable to triangulate the results obtained with a content analysis associated with the interviewees' statements.

 

We made that clear in subsection 6.2 (Research Limitations) in section 6 (Conclusions).

Thanks again.

 

(3) The methodology used in the text and the purpose of the research are not well articulated and clearly stated. The role of the research methodology should be more clearly explained.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

We better articulate the objective of the research with the methodological procedure adopted and better explain the role of the research methodology used - see the Introduction and Methodological Procedures sections in the revised version of the article.

 

Thanks again.

 

 

(4) The abstract represents the dimensions of the social representation of the home office and analyzes the correlations but does not explore the reasons behind the correlations. It is recommended to improve the understanding of the results and to explore the mechanisms behind the correlations.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

It was done in the limited space allocated for the abstract.

 

Thanks again.

 

Thanks for your comments, which help us to improve our work very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

A well written and interesting paper. The presentation of the results stands out as a more novel aspect on a topic that has been covered in the literature. 

The practical implications are a little limited and cover old ground. Please consider some implications that go beyond existing studies. 

Author Response

REVIEWER #3

We present our response below.

In cases in which we beg to differ with some comment made, a rebuttal is provided.

Once again, thank you for your feedback.

The Authors.

==

A well written and interesting paper. The presentation of the results stands out as a more novel aspect on a topic that has been covered in the literature. 

Thanks for your comment.

 

The practical implications are a little limited and cover old ground. Please consider some implications that go beyond existing studies. 

Thanks for your comment.

 

It was done. See the subsection 6.1 (Research Implications) of the revised version of the paper.

 

Thanks again.

 

Thanks for your comments, which help us to improve our work very much.

Reviewer 4 Report

.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER #4

We present our response below.

In cases in which we beg to differ with some comment made, a rebuttal is provided.

Once again, thank you for your feedback.

The Authors.

1. Originality: The study aimed to investigate how Human Resources (HR) professionals in Brazil perceived and made sense of the implementation of the home office policy by their companies in response to the pandemic. The research utilized the Social Representation Theory, specifically through the words evocation technique and implicative analysis, to gain insights into HR professionals' views. The results suggest that HR professionals in Brazil generally had a positive view of the home office policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there were uncertainties regarding its impact on productivity.

Thanks for your comment.

 

2. Scientific Quality: The manuscript’s quality from the scientific viewpoints is given by the mention of a potential gap between academic literature and practitioner perspectives that it adds an interesting dimension to the study.

Thanks for your comment.

 

3. Relevance to the Field(s) of this Journal: The paper is matching the field(s) covered by this journal.

Thanks for your comment.

 

4. General Comment: The study's focus on HR professionals in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic is timely and relevant, given the global impact of the pandemic on work arrangements. It provides insights into how organizations and HR departments adapted to the crisis.

Thanks for your comment.

 

5. Abstract: The abstract effectively sets the stage by mentioning the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic by the World Health Organization and the subsequent prescription of social isolation measures. It highlights the response of companies by implementing remote work policies using Information and Communication Technology. This context is crucial to understanding the study's relevance. The abstract clearly states the research objective, which is to understand how HR professionals perceived the home office policy during the pandemic. It also mentions the methodology used, which is the Social Representation Theory, words evocation technique, and implicative analysis. This provides insight into how the research was conducted. The abstract presents some of the key findings of the study, indicating a positive view among HR professionals regarding the adoption of home office policies. It mentions that flexibility and quality of life were the dimensions most associated with the social representation of home office, which suggests that these professionals viewed these aspects favorably. However, it also notes that the productivity dimension showed mixed and inconclusive results, suggesting some uncertainty or variation in their perceptions. The abstract identifies a potential gap between the scientific literature and the understanding of HR professionals. It mentions that certain challenging aspects related to home office work, as discussed in academic literature, were not mentioned by the respondents. This highlights an interesting disconnect or difference in perspective between academic research and practitioners in the field. The study's focus on HR professionals in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic is timely and relevant, given the global impact of the pandemic on work arrangements. It provides insights into how organizations and HR departments adapted to the crisis. The abstract is well-structured, with clear and concise language, making it easy for readers to grasp the research objectives, methodology, and key findings.

Thanks for your comment.

 

6. Introduction: Usually, first phrase of Intro is the claim of the paper, so is needed to be completed. So, what is the claim of the paper? In Introduction are explored the key components of your research, as mentioned in your research paper's title, that means: Covid 19 Pandemic, digital transformation of workplace, social representation of home office. But your paper develops, first, in lines 24 to 44 ICT which is more to general…. reorganize as to follow your topics. Combine the components and relationship into a single sentence that captures the essence of your research. Briefly describe the study design, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques employed. Provide a rationale for the chosen research approach or methodology. Emphasize the appropriateness of the chosen methods in addressing the research question. Outline the potential contribution or significance of the research findings.

Thanks for your comment.

 

We revised the Introducti0n section accordingly.

 

However, we left in the Methodological Procedures section the detailing of how the study was conducted (data collection and analysis, sampling, etc.).

 

Besides, the research findings and contributions are presented and discussed in sections 5 and 6 respectively.

 

Thanks again.

 

7. Literature Review: Structure your literature review based on a logical flow that is aligned with your research question. Conclude the literature review by summarizing the main findings and their implications for your research.

Thanks for your comment.yu

 

The section 2 (Theoretical Background) was revised accordingly.

 

In Table 2, we summarized the main findings accrued from the literature review carried out on home-office and the like.

 

Thanks again.

 

8. Methodology: Explain the rationale behind your choice of study design. Include relevant details such as inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size determination, and sampling method. Justify the sample size and explain how it relates to the research question and study design.

Thanks for your comment.

 

The section was revised accordingly. Please, see the section 1 - Introduction (choice of study design) and section 3 - Methodological Procedures (the other issues) in the revised version of the paper.

 

Thanks again.

 

9. Results: oK
10. Discussions: OK
11. Conclusions: OK
12. References / Bibliography: The references / bibliography are not following the appropriate format MDPI, reorganize using numbers in order of appearance in text. Use template!

Thanks for your comment.

 

The references were formatted accordingly.

 

Thanks again.

 

13. Figures: Could be improved!

Thanks for your comment.

 

The figures were revised.

 

Thanks again.

 

14. Tables: Could be improved!

Thanks for your comment.

 

The tables were revised.

 

Thanks again.

 

15. Reviewer’s Decision Comment: 2 Please rate the following: (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor)

Thanks for your comments, which help us to improve our work very much.