Effects of Work–Family Conflict and Facilitation Profiles on Work Engagement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Effects of Work-Family Conflict and Facilitation Profiles on Work Engagement" provides valuable insights into the interplay between work-family dynamics and work engagement among university professors in Portugal.

- The study employs a rigorous methodology, including statistical analyses like confirmatory factor analysis and cluster analysis, to identify distinct conflict and facilitation patterns within work-family relationships.

- The findings reveal four clusters representing different conflict-facilitation profiles, shedding light on how these dynamics impact work engagement dimensions such as vigor and dedication.

- The article effectively discusses the practical implications of the results, suggesting interventions within the careers of university professors to improve work-family balance and work engagement. It also highlights the significance of considering work-family dynamics in organizational policies and decision-making processes within higher education institutions.

-The study contributes to the existing literature by focusing on a specific professional group (university professors) and exploring the nuanced relationships between work-family conflict, facilitation, and work engagement.

- While the article presents a comprehensive analysis of the research findings and offers valuable insights for both academia and organizational management, there are opportunities for further theoretical integration, comparison with existing literature, and explicit suggestions for future research directions. By addressing these aspects, the article could enhance its scholarly impact and provide a more robust foundation for advancing knowledge in the field of work-family dynamics and work engagement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would have liked to see more of the previous theoretical structures on work-life balance discussed in the literature review.  For example see Rothbard & Dumas (2006) "Research Perspectives: Managing the Work-Home Interface".  There are the three notable models of spillover, compensation, and segmentation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should include the most important results, including non-significant ones, in the abstract.

The aim of the study is clearly defined.  However, the authors should include a dedicate theoretical background section and describe the theoretical framework before presenting their hypothesis. More recent literature should be included into the manuscript.

I recommend that the authors include a graphical representation of their model just after the introduction section.

The sentence il line 121 “In this study, participated voluntarily 54 university professors”. The authors should write the right number of participants.

The authors mentioned that the scale was originally comprised by 92 items but was condensed to 25 items for this study. The authors should provide a detailed explanation of the process and rationale behind this decision.

The analysis used, the reason for their use, the procedure applied should be thoroughly presented in the data analysis section. Specifically, the K-means procedure should be described in detail, including why and how it was used. Additionally, the authors should explain why MANOVA was performed using a General Linear Model procedure.

It is recommended that the authors include Average Variance Extracted and Composite Reliability values to verify the convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs.

In the discussion section the findings should be compared with recent literature review. More studies should be cited to support the discussion. The contribution of their work to the existing literature should be clearly stated and related to previous studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

This paper is a valuable endeavour which addresses an important topic. The problem of work-family conflict is gaining relevance, and studying it in a specific population segment -i.e. in one profession - is promising.

However, it must be improved in order to fit the requirements towards a high quality scientific paper in social sciences.

Most importantly, the analysis does not make use of the valuable socio-demographic information, and thus makes the argumentation go full circle without any starting or endpoint. Without introducing socio-demographic aspects in the research, most results are tautological or philosophical, without any concrete use. The reader finds out that, for instance, profiles that showed less work-family facilitation were positively correlated with higher work engagement (line 231-233). So what? Which university professors are those affected? Men or women? Those with more children or with less children? Assistant professors or full professors? Without such information, it is precisely the core of the questions that is missing.

More minor issues:

Materials and Methods, Sample and procedures part: The authors should address the issue of response rate, the total number of professors in Portugal (how many are the 652 respondents out of the total number). If data is available, academic position should also be among sample characteristics.

Discussion: Statements are repeated from the Results section, but the implications of these results are not discussed. Only in lines 277-282 does it SEEM that there might be an explanation to the unexpected results, but the authors do not make the effort to link findings from the literature to the results.

Implications part: lines 287-288 present new findings, but it is too late to introduce new information here.

Lines 93-94: are you sure university professors are occupations with most conflict? I would not think so, please check carefully.

Attention on the word choice, for example: Table 1. Comprehensive breakdown of sample characteristics is not appropriate, or the first sentence of the abstract: achieving .... presents a holistic viewpoint - maybe raises the question or something similar. 

Please make the necessary completions and modifications to make the paper better suite the journal scope.

Best,

reviewer

 

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered to all my questions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!
Congratulations for the considerable improvement of this paper. It indeed was very much completed, it almost seems like a new paper. All points of the review were addressed, and completions were made where necessary.

Best wishes,

reviewer