Employee Readiness for Organizational Change in the SME Internalization Process: The Case of a Medium-Sized Construction Company
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
My main doubt is whether or not it is appropriate to make a study of a specific company. Perhaps it would be convenient to leave the name of the company anonymous.
Otherwise, it seems to me to be a solid, well-structured work. It presents sound hypotheses and offers satisfactory conclusions that help to understand the interest of the analysis.
Author Response
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for helping to improve the quality of our paper. Reviewer's suggestions have been accepted and incorporated in the paper.
Point 1: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Can be improved.
Response 1: The authors' opinion is that the content has been adequately described and contextualized concerning the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic of employee readiness for organizational change. The authors firmly believe that it would be out of the scope of this paper to elaborate more. However, if the reviewer deems it necessary, the authors would appreciate suggestions of some parts of the article or examples that should be better explained regarding the context of this research.
Point 2: My main doubt is whether or not it is appropriate to make a study of a specific company. Perhaps it would be convenient to leave the name of the company anonymous.
Response 2: The Authors would like to point out that the company permitted us to disclose their name in the paper and present obtained results to the general public. However, the authors will remove the company name from the title of the article if the reviewer considers that the name of the company should be removed. Moreover, the paper aimed to investigate how employees accept changes via the case study method on the medium-sized Croatian construction company. Therefore, the authors believe that presenting obtained results using a case study method is appropriate for this study. The authors agree with the reviewer that future studies should focus on investigating a larger sample of companies.
Here are just a few examples that used the same or similar approach as the authors did in this article:
- Matthysen, M., & Harris, C. (2018). The relationship between readiness to change and work engagement: A case study in an accounting firm undergoing change. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 1-11.
- Narayanamurthy, G., Gurumurthy, A., Subramanian, N., & Moser, R. (2018). Assessing the readiness to implement lean in healthcare institutions–A case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 197, 123-142.
- Neumann, J., Robson, A., & Sloan, D. (2018). Monitoring and evaluation of strategic change programme implementation—Lessons from a case analysis. Evaluation and program planning, 66, 120-132.
Reviewer 2 Report
The limitations that you too pointed out in the paragraph 5.2 are very relevant: in my opinion, to improve the quality of the paper, should be extend the analysis to a more companies. Moreover, it’s unclear how you have create the questionnaire and also when you say: “In addition to the subjective evaluation and the use of professional and scientific literature (face validity), the questionnaire was reviewed by a competent expert with long-term experience in the research process (content validity)”… How many people have evaluated the questionnaire? What are the results? critical issues have emerged? Furthermore, as you underlined, some points are not fully supported by literature and not could be compare with previous/similar research. Finally, Conclusion (par. 5.3) is poorly written and content doesn’t match/support body text.
Author Response
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments and helping to improve the quality of our paper. Reviewer's suggestions have been accepted where it was possible, and incorporated in the paper.
Point 1: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Must be improved.
Response 1: The authors' opinion is that the content has been adequately described and contextualized concerning the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic of employee readiness for organizational change. The authors firmly believe that it would be out of the scope of this paper to elaborate more. However, if the reviewer deems it necessary, the authors would appreciate suggestions of some parts of the article or examples that should be better explained regarding the context of this research.
Point 2: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Must be improved.
Response 2: In the context of this case study, the authors used well-known research knowledge, which the reader, if he so desires, can deepen through the accompanying references. The authors would appreciate it if the reviewer could be more specific regarding improving research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods that have been adequately addressed and explained.
Point 3: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved
Response 3: Authors would appreciate it if the reviewer could be more specific regarding this point, i.e., in what sense the arguments could be improved. A few examples are more than welcome.
Point 4: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Must be improved.
Response 4: After several re-readings of the article, the authors did not detect the need for clarifications. The authors would appreciate it if the reviewer could be more specific and explain how the authors could more clearly present the results. To add graphics, another layer of analysis…
Point 5: Is the article adequately referenced? Can be improved
Response 5: Authors have referenced 64 sources. The authors would appreciate it if the reviewer could specify which sources could be additionally referenced to improve the paper's quality.
Point 6: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Must be improved.
Response 6: Authors strongly believe that the conclusions in the Discussion part of the paper have been adequately supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in the secondary literature. Therefore, the authors would appreciate it if the reviewer could provide few examples in the text where the authors could further improve the quality of the paper.
Point 7: The limitations that you too pointed out in the paragraph 5.2 are very relevant: in my opinion, to improve the quality of the paper, should be extend the analysis to a more companies.
Response 7: Authors would like to thank the reviewer for pointing this out and would like to mention that the purpose of the paper was to investigate how employees accept changes via a case study method on the medium-sized Croatian construction company. Therefore, the authors believe that presenting obtained results by using a case study method focused only on one firm is appropriate for this kind of study. The authors agree with the reviewer that future studies should focus on investigating a larger sample of companies.
Here are just a few examples that used the same or similar approach as the authors did in this article:
- Matthysen, M., & Harris, C. (2018). The relationship between readiness to change and work engagement: A case study in an accounting firm undergoing change. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 1-11.
- Narayanamurthy, G., Gurumurthy, A., Subramanian, N., & Moser, R. (2018). Assessing the readiness to implement lean in healthcare institutions–A case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 197, 123-142.
- Neumann, J., Robson, A., & Sloan, D. (2018). Monitoring and evaluation of strategic change programme implementation—Lessons from a case analysis. Evaluation and program planning, 66, 120-132.
Point 8: Moreover, it’s unclear how you have create the questionnaire and also when you say: “In addition to the subjective evaluation and the use of professional and scientific literature (face validity), the questionnaire was reviewed by a competent expert with long-term experience in the research process (content validity)”… How many people have evaluated the questionnaire? What are the results? critical issues have emerged?
Response 8: The questionnaire has been created in a google doc and distributed to the company's employees. All questions related to each observed variable stem from previously published research, and all scales have been elaborated in section 3.3. ''Operationalization of the measured variables’’. Before distributing the questionnaire to the company's employees, authors wanted to double-check with an independent third-party researcher if the formulation of the questionnaire is of the highest academic standard and quality to which this independent third-party researcher has agreed and approved. The authors wanted to add another layer of validity, and the board member of the analyzed company was asked to provide his/her thoughts on the questionnaire structure and the questions that would be distributed to the employees. The board member also did not have any objections, after which the authors felt confident enough to send out the questionnaire. If the reviewer would prefer, authors could remove this wording from the text not to confuse or burden the reader?
Point 9: Furthermore, as you underlined, some points are not fully supported by literature and not could be compare with previous/similar research.
Response 9: Does the reviewer refer to this point regarding section 5.1. ‘’Theoretical and managerial implications''? If so, the authors wanted to imply that results and conclusions derived from this research could not entirely be generalized since many other factors influence employees' readiness to change. However, the authors would like to point out that all obtained results from this study have been cross-referenced and supported by the literature described in the first part of section 5. ‘’Discussion’’.
Point 10: Finally, Conclusion (par. 5.3) is poorly written and content doesn’t match/support body text.
Response 10: Authors would like to thank the reviewer for addressing this issue. The authors have added the following text to the conclusion (part 5.3.) to contribute more to the overall quality and understanding of the finding:
''This paper investigated how employees accept change in the medium-sized Croatian construction company, which has undergone numerous changes over the years. One of the most significant changes is related to the internationalization process of exporting products to foreign markets. The case study method focused on one company, and analyzing responses from 90 employees, empirical results showed that employees have a positive attitude towards change. More specifically, organizational commitment and career commitment, as the first-order variables, and job satisfaction as a second-order variable, positively affect employee readiness for organizational change. On the other hand, research determined that salary, promotion, emotional attachment, the feeling of pride, personal sense of obligation, job involvement, supervisor and peer relations, and training and skills development do not affect employee readiness for change.''
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The improvements made and the responses provided are satisfactory.
Thank you and good luck.
