The Relationship between Smart Working and Workplace Social Capital: An Italian Case Study on Work Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General Comments:

 

This manuscript uses the case of an Italian company to help diverse audiences better understand the connection between smart working and social capital in flexible work modalities during and after the pandemic.

Given that the Company is an innovation industry leader, the study is exemplary, and insights from this Company are particularly valuable and highly relevant to other companies with a strong focus on flexible work modalities, including remote and hybrid.

 

Specific Comments:

This manuscript is a highly valuable preliminary research that identified key themes and allowed the authors to refine their research methods before expanding to a larger sample. I would suggest a couple of notes of advice for the authors to revise some issues, including the following:

 

Generalizability:

The research findings from a single Italian company there is a risk that they are less likely to be generalizable to other organizations because of the Company's unique work culture and environment. However, this could be potentially resolved by including a truly diverse pool of participants.

 

Potential biases in defining a pool of participants:

The authors should have enrolled a diverse pool of research participants. In studies like this one, it is crucial to include an intersectionality approach to present perspectives of employees of different ages (not only 13 participants in their 40s), particularly younger workers(!). Also, make sure that the voices of workers with different ethnic/religious backgrounds, if they work in the Company, are not ignored.

 

Lack of use of a gendered approach:

It is also important to include gendered perspectives. How do women with kids manage their new remote work? Do their experiences differ from those of their male counterparts?

Should the Company use gendered policy approaches to address the specific needs of women (or men)?

 

Interviews quotes:

It would be essential to include quotes from the interviews as well.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, it is very good, yet it would be great to find a native speaker to polish the paper slightly.

Author Response

Comment 1: The research findings from a single Italian company there is a risk that they are less likely to be generalizable to other organizations because of the Company's unique work culture and environment. However, this could be potentially resolved by including a truly diverse pool of participants. 

Response 1: 

The case study as a qualitative approach does not aim to generalize knowledge but to delve into a specific context and process.

This case study is paradigmatic of the smart working process during and after the pandemic.

See integration in the lines 149-153

Context: due to this choice, the Company was able to partially revise the employee selection policies regardless of the place of residence. This is a paradigmatic factor of a strategic choice during a phase of organisational expansion.

See integration in the lines 168-170

Comment 2: 

The authors should have enrolled a diverse pool of research participants. In studies like this  one, it is crucial to include an intersectionality approach to present perspectives of employees of different ages (not only 13 participants in their 40s), particularly younger workers(!). Also, make sure that the voices of workers with different ethnic/religious backgrounds, if they work in the Company, are not ignored.    Response 2: 

One characteristic of the case study is that it includes the entire population of the investigated organization. In this case, all 13 employees (including the CEO) were included and interviewed. We have added more details regarding the participants' ages at the research time, which also show the presence of young people who, as explored in the results section, experience more difficulties in managing remote and smart working since they didn’t build relationships in presence before the pandemic.

See integration in the line 222

Comment 3. It is also important to include gendered perspectives. How do women with kids manage their new remote work? Do their experiences differ from those of their male counterparts? 

Should the Company use gendered policy approaches to address the specific needs of women (or men)? 

Response 3: 

By interviewing the entire population, we included the gender differences that represent the Company's population. However, to avoid biasing the responses, we decided not to explicitly ask about family composition. In some interviews, where the personal aspects impacted the positive or negative experiences of smart working, this was mentioned on the interviewees' initiative.   Comment 4: 

It would be essential to include quotes from the interviews as well. 

Response 4: 

We thank you for the suggestion, we have included them in the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a good, according to the ‘art’ of writing, prepared academic article. The research on remote working seems to be losing relevance, but the reference to social capital and smart working should be considered interesting.
I understand that a case study method was adopted. In my opinion, a qualitative study and several organisations would have been better.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

I understand that a case study method was adopted. In my opinion, a qualitative study and several organisations would have been better.   Response: 

Thank you for the suggestion, we have included it in the future implications.

 

See integration in the lines 478-480

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting and makes an important connection regarding working remotely or smartly and the importance of work-related social capital. The topic is important and the approach valuable. There is some information that would increase the quality of the work and the relevance of the contribution to the general knowledge:

-          Authors should explain a bit more the context of the research: the choice of the studied company, which were the questions asked, what was the language of the interview (and how was translation of results / codes operated to ensure fidelity), which was the average length of an interview?

-          One of my main concerns of the research is linked with the categories identified (changes, smart working and workplace social capital) – were these set from the beginning and the questions based on these, or determined based on responses? More, which is the relation between these categories as seen by interviews. The links are discussed in the light of the theory, but less regarding the respondents. This issue should be developed more in the analysis and/or discussion section.

-          Another concern is the fact that the research is focused only on the responses of employees of a company using smart work. The discussion is contextualized in the studied company, yet, is it possible that the employees who found the challenges of hybrid or remote work too hard left the company for an employer working on-site? A discussion of this topic (how are the advantages and disadvantages perceived) would enhance the relevance of the contribution.

-          The discussion of the categories is very brief and rather concluding. It would be nice to find extras from the interviews, especially on the links of the different categories.

Author Response

Comment 1: Authors should explain a bit more the context of the research: the choice of the studied company, which were the questions asked, what was the language of the interview (and how was translation of results / codes operated to ensure fidelity), which was the average length of an interview?

RESPONSE 1: 

Choice of the studied company: The Company was chosen as a paradigmatic study because, even after the pandemic, it decided to maintain a full remote work mode while continuing to grow in terms of business and resources.

 

The translation was carried out by the authors and subsequently reviewed by a professional editor, whose certificate of review is attached.

 

Interview’s questions are in the Appendix A.

The interview questions were guided by the initial objectives:

• Understanding the types of changes perceived by the members of the Company regarding their working methods.
• Exploring the perception of the members of the Company about the advantages and disadvantages of smart working.
• Investigating the Company members’ perception of the changes caused by smart working on the WSC.

  The language of the interviews was Italian, allowing the interviewees to express their viewpoints more effectively in their native language. The average duration of an interview was one hour.

  See integration in the lines 217-218

  COMMENT 2: 

  One of my main concerns of the research is linked with the categories identified (changes, smart working and workplace social capital) – were these set from the beginning and the questions based on these, or determined based on responses? More, which is the relation between these categories as seen by interviews. The links are discussed in the light of the theory, but less regarding the respondents. This issue should be developed more in the analysis and/or discussion section.

  Response 2: 

  Interview’s questions are in the appendix A.

  The structure of the questions explicitly shows how much we were guided by theory. In the hypotheses, we aimed to relate these two constructs, and in developing the questions, we considered them from the outset.

   

  See search objectives above. See integrations in lines 187-201.

   

  The categories are connected to each other in a way that is not unidirectional but mutually influential. The WSC as a theoretical model is closely linked to the perception of advantages and disadvantages of smart working and changes in the context.

  For example, the company's choice to introduce a virtual office (category “changes”) in the metaverse affects in a positive way the indicators of the category "disadvantages of smart working" such as social isolation and human contact; and aspects of “WSC” such as the relationship with colleagues and teamwork.

  See integration in the lines 427-473

  Comment 3:  Another concern is the fact that the research is focused only on the responses of employees of a company using smart work. The discussion is contextualized in the studied company, yet, is it possible that the employees who found the challenges of hybrid or remote work too hard left the company for an employer working on-site? A discussion of this topic (how are the advantages and disadvantages perceived) would enhance the relevance of the contribution Response 3: No employee left the Company during the period of the study. The paper reports the advantages and disadvantages of smart working in the lines 282-300
• Comment 4: 

  The discussion of the categories is very brief and rather concluding. It would be nice to find extras from the interviews, especially on the links of the different categories.

• Response 4: 

  We highlighted the connections between the three categories of thematic analysis by modifying the chart. Additionally, we clarified the links between the codes of different categories.

   

  See integration in the lines 427-473

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-What is the theoretical framework on which the article is based? It is not clear from the article.  A literature review is needed, for example, in the first paragraph of the introduction, lines 39, 40, 50, etc.

2- The qualitative methodology does not seem to be very well developed; it is explained in a cursory manner. It should be improved

 

3- The very general conclusions need to be made clearer

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: 

What is the theoretical framework on which the article is based? It is not clear from the article.  A literature review is needed, for example, in the first paragraph of the introduction, lines 39, 40, 50, etc.

Response 1: 

We referred to the theoretical frameworks related to smart working and Workplace Social Capital (WSC). Rather than choosing a single reference theory, we highlighted emerging issues related to these themes. Because we employ a qualitative, data-driven, approach we explored the two constructs: smart working as an emerging phenomenon – references 7,8,10-14 - and WSC – references 15-22 - as main theoretical foundation of this study: reference 23 synthesized a definition of WSC, reviewing the relevant literature and the different conceptualizations that emerged to determine its structure and dimensions.   Comment 2: 

The qualitative methodology does not seem to be very well developed; it is explained in a cursory manner. It should be improved.

Response 2: 

We further elaborated the qualitative methodologies of the Case Study and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) used to analyse the interviews.

See integration in the lines 149-153

See integration in the lines 187-201

Comment 3: 

The very general conclusions need to be made clearer.

Response 3: 

We deepened and clarified the key concepts in the conclusions.

See integration in the lines 427-473

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I’d like to thank the authors for thoroughly responding to my comments. The manuscript is greatly improved, and there is only one  comment for the title.

Please consider rephrasing it, for instance:

The relationship between smart working and workplace social
capital: An Italian case study on work sustainability.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

Please consider rephrasing the title, for instance: The relationship between smart working and workplace social capital: An Italian case study on work sustainability.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion, which we gladly accept.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It would be convenient to introduce the authors' justification in the conclusions in specifically from line 427 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: 

It would be convenient to introduce the authors' justification in the conclusions in specifically from line 427   Response 1: 

Thank you for you suggestion.

The motivation behind this research stemmed from the need to understand how new work modalities, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, impact both individual and organizational well-being. Existing literature has extensively covered the benefits and challenges of remote work, but there is a noticeable gap regarding its effects on workplace social capital within organizations.

The practical implications of our findings suggest that organizations should carefully design remote work policies that support social sustainability and mitigate potential negative effects on Workplace Social Capital. This approach not only enhances employee well-being but also contributes to achieving broader sustainability goals, such as those outlined in the UN's 2030 Agenda.

See integration in the lines 424-429; 435-437