No Money, Poor Mental Health, and High Counterproductive Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Stress on Financial Threats and Job Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled "Financial Threats, Perceived Stress, and Job Performance: A Mediation Model" offers a valuable contribution to understanding how financial threats impact employees' job performance through the mediating role of perceived stress. By integrating theoretical concepts such as the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model and empirical evidence, the study illuminates the complex relationships between financial challenges, stress levels, and workplace outcomes.

The article effectively outlines the research objectives, methodology, and results, demonstrating a systematic approach to investigating the proposed mediation model. The theoretical framework presented in the study offers a solid foundation for understanding the mechanisms through which financial threats can influence job performance, contributing to the existing literature on organizational psychology and employee well-being.

While the article presents a thorough analysis of the data and discusses the implications of the findings for organizational management and employee welfare, there are opportunities for further exploration of practical implications and alternative theoretical perspectives.

 

 

The theoretical section could benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the underlying mechanisms through which financial threats lead to perceived stress and, ultimately, impact job performance. Providing a more detailed exploration of the psychological processes involved in these relationships would enhance the theoretical framework.

While the theoretical section references the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model and past studies, there is a lack of integration of other relevant theoretical perspectives or models that could offer additional insights into the relationships being examined. Broadening the theoretical scope and considering alternative frameworks could strengthen the theoretical foundation of the study.

It also could be more explicit in addressing the assumptions underlying the proposed mediation model. Clearly articulating the theoretical assumptions and potential limitations of the model would enhance the theoretical rigor of the study.

The theoretical section does not extensively discuss how contextual factors, such as organizational culture, industry-specific challenges, or individual differences, may influence the relationships between financial threats, stress, and job performance. Considering these contextual factors could provide a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play.

Strengthening the discussion of practical recommendations and considering a broader range of theoretical frameworks could enhance the relevance and applicability of the study to real-world settings. While the discussion briefly mentions practical insights for organizations, a more detailed discussion on actionable recommendations based on the research results could increase the study's relevance and applicability for practitioners and policymakers.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide comments to improve its quality. We share your view on the importance of using a theoretical framework to explain the relationships examined in our study. Therefore, we have applied the Conservation of Resources Theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989) to explain the relationship between financial threats and job performance, as well as between financial threats and perceived stress. Additionally, the Job Demand-Resource (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001) was used to elucidate the relationship between perceived stress and job performance. We believe that utilizing these two theories strengthens the theoretical assumptions of our model.

We also agree that contextual factors, such as organizational culture and individual differences, may influence the relationships among the three variables. This concern is addressed in the discussion of our study's limitations, where we emphasize the importance of considering secure organizational culture and coping strategies (see lines 383 to 389).

For practical implications, we suggest that organizations consider promoting lunch break autonomy (see lines 355 to 357), which has been shown to increase employees' positive emotions and help buffer the stress caused by financial threats.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract should be rewritten according to the suggestions, justification of hypotheses, results and discussion.

1. Introduction

Dear authors, I like the introduction because each statement is accompanied by a reference author. It is important to check if it is well referenced (Gallup, 2021). In this sense, Gallup (2021) focuses on the stagnation of overall employee engagement and their overall low well-being along with the effect this has on overall productivity.

The financial threats variable is well defined. The relationship between financial threats and perceived stress is well. I suggest defining perceived stress in this part since it is a study variable. I consider it necessary to improve the relationship between financial threats, perceived stress and job performance. I also do not see a clear definition of job performance.

In general, the introduction seems to me to be improvable. First, the main objective of the research should be stated after the formulation of the problem. In addition, the formulation of the problem should be related to the country of study as a matter of priority. In this case, Malaysia, what is happening in this emerging country, and are there contrast studies?

I would construct the introduction as follows. First, present the general context and associated literature. Second, to highlight the gaps in knowledge on the topic of study. Third, formulate the problem and its association with the country of study. Fourth, introduce the objective and its value in relation to other research. Fifth, briefly explain the methodology used. Sixth, the expected results and the knowledge gap to be filled, taking into account the existing literature on the subject.

1.1. The Relationship between Financial Threats and Job Performance

I would like you to elaborate on the economic and financial repercussions of COVID-19 especially in Malaysia and the effect on organizational changes. All the impact that financial threats can have seems to me to be well explained. I would think that the conservation of resources (COR) theory is not well cited. The classification of COR theory is well explained.

The example of Yun and Beehr (2023) is not well understood. What is the relationship between financial threats and social support? There are no studies that directly link financial threats to decreased job performance. The first hypothesis needs further development (theoretical framework).

1.2. The Relationship between Financial Threats and Perceived Stress

The relationship between COR theory and psychological stress is well established. It is true that there is a direct relationship between stress and loss of resources.

The studies they cite that relate financial challenges to mental health do so either positively or negatively (Adams et al., 2016; Alcover et al., 2022; de Miquel et al., 2022; Fiksenbaum, Marjanovic, Greenglass, & Garcia-Santos, 2017).

Similar to the previous relationship (Financial Threats and Job Performance), are there any studies in Malaysia that associate Financial Threats with Perceived Stress?

In this section they define perceived stress. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is better to define the three study variables in the introduction. The second hypothesis needs more development (theoretical framework).

1.3. The Relationship between Perceived Stress and Job Performance

I suggest that if you use in the two previous relationships the COR theory, do not include only in this relationship the JD-R theory. In any case, please relate both theories or justify the non-use of the COR in the relationship between perceived stress and job performance.

In general, the relationship is well established. Are there any studies in Malaysia that establish this relationship?

This third hypothesis is the best developed. Consider the suggested points.

1.4. Overview of the Study

The fourth hypothesis needs much more development. That is, to specify very well the theoretical mediation of perceived stress (financial threats and job performance).

I suggest that you include a theoretical model in this part, especially considering the novelty it represents and the knowledge gap that this study theoretically fills.

I believe that the context of the research should be explained in the introduction. We have to give a clear guiding thread to the potential reader. The importance of the study needs to have more academic support, i.e., relationships with other studies and the differences that this research provides. In addition, the practical implications need to go at the end of the discussion along with the limitations. You suggest many implications at the organizational level and that is very good.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

I would appreciate a better explanation of the on-line Monte Carlo power analysis calculator as it is a method, from my point of view, little used. Also the relationship between sample and power.

It is essential to specify the sampling method and the reason that led them to use it, why a non-probabilistic snowball sampling, did they use any inclusion or exclusion criteria, and a better description of the participants is missing.

2.2. Procedures

I would be grateful if you could include the ethical approval number (ethical committee) and the university that issued it. In addition to the ethical requirements that the university has. Actually, I have only seen a consent to participate, were participants able to withdraw voluntarily? Data protection?

What scale did they use in the survey?

2.3. Measurements

The scales are fine. I suggest that you include the Cronbach's Alpha of the original scales and if possible the AVE values.

2.4. Data Analysis

The DWLS approach and its characteristics are well explained.

3. Results

The whole process is well explained. The model fit is very good through different models eliminating items with low factor loadings.

Table 1 is fine.

In table 2 the McDonald coefficient should be explained (diagonal). Also, what does this coefficient measure, does it have anything to do with convergent and discriminant validity?

Within the results I suggest including a statistical mediation model.

Within the results it is essential to approve or not the hypotheses put forward. The results are clear but must be accompanied by the corresponding hypothesis. Finally, in the results they measure the three subscales of job performance: task performance, contextual performance and counterproductive performance. However, they make no reference to these subscales in the theoretical framework.

This result is different from the one in Table 3: (B = -0.17, SE = 0.14, t = -1.19, p = 0.234, 95 % CI [-0.36, -05]).

Table 3 is fine but should include the three subscales of job performance.

4. Discussion

Based on Table 3 only hypothesis 2 is validated. That is, Financial threat is positively associated with perceived stress. The rest of the hypotheses are not verified because the p-values are greater than 0.05 and in the intervals the value 0 appears between one interval and another. For example, (B = -0.10, SE = 0.13, t = -0.80, p = 0.423, 95 % CI [-0.30, 0.10]).

Including the three job performance scales in the discussion without their inclusion in the theoretical framework is very confusing. Moreover, they are not part of the hypotheses. For example, they could include the following hypothesis: Financial threats are positively related to counterproductive performance or perceived stress is positively related to counterproductive performance. The way they have stated the hypotheses they would have to reconstruct the discussion of results.

They mention in their discussion the JD-R theory but not the COR theory why, their theoretical framework is justified, at least in two hypotheses, through the COR theory.

It is not understood that they validate mediation based on the results in Table 3 as they are not significantly acceptable.

The discussion needs to be completely redone as does part of the justification of the hypotheses.

The practical implications need to be improved and expanded as do the limitations. I welcome future research.

5. Conclusions

They are not aligned with the results.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

First of all, thank you for your effort. They have done a good job. The introduction has been improved by including relevant literature and general context. Additionally, the research overview has also improved.

Hypothesis development has also improved. I understand and accept the justifications presented in your reply. The methodology is clearer. Thank you for explaining the Monte Carlo statistical tool in more detail. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are well specified.

Including ethical approval is key to the final value of the study. “The Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman Scientific and Ethical Review Committee has re-reviewed and approved the investigation procedure (Ref: U/SERC/24/2023)”

Thank you for including the AVE values. Expanding the support of the hypotheses is well done. It is crucial information.

The expansion of the discussion of results is a success. Limitations could be improved. The conclusions, in general, are good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for taking the time to review our revision and for the prompt response.

 

Comment 1: Limitations could be improved.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. We included three major limitations in the manuscript: the potential impact of removing measurement items, limited generalizability of the findings, and not considering other potential mediators in the model. As an extension of the last limitation, we also remind readers that future studies can explore methods to buffer the negative impact of financial threats on job performance. Following your suggestion, we added another recommendation to address this limitation. Specifically, we recommend that organizations consider both the suitability of the salary for the job position and the living costs in the local region. 

See lines 404 to 407 for details. The change is highlighted in light blue color.