The Moderating Roles of Remote, Hybrid, and Onsite Working on the Relationship between Work Engagement and Organizational Identification during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with the reconfiguration of presentiality and work engagement in the COVID-19 crisis.
In the introduction, the relationship between sustainability and the reconfiguration of work is briefly discussed, but this relationship should be given more importance and argued more extensively.
At the end of the introduction, the objective of the study should be clearly specified.
The theoretical section is extensive and correct, as is the hypothesis statement.
I do see room for improvement in the methodology. For example, the use of structural equations is not mentioned until the last point of the methodology; I would opt for a classic structure of the methodological approach: research design, data collection and data analysis.
The results and conclusions seem to me to be ideal.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The article deals with the reconfiguration of presentiality and work engagement in the COVID-19 crisis.
Response 1: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 2: In the introduction, the relationship between sustainability and the reconfiguration of work is briefly discussed, but this relationship should be given more importance and argued more extensively.
Response 2: Discussion about the relationship between sustainability and the reconfiguration of work is expanded in the conclusion. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 3: At the end of the introduction, the objective of the study should be clearly specified.
Response 3: The objective of the study is added as a separate sentence at the end of the introduction. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 4: The theoretical section is extensive and correct, as is the hypothesis statement.
Response 4: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 5: I do see room for improvement in the methodology. For example, the use of structural equations is not mentioned until the last point of the methodology; I would opt for a classic structure of the methodological approach: research design, data collection and data analysis.
Response 5: We used Sustainability Journal template, and according to this template and in almost all published articles in this journal, Subsubsections of “2. Materials and Methods” follows as we’ve written, so that’s why the information about the data analysis exists at the last part of this main section “2. Materials and Methods”. If you find it appropriate, we would like them to take place as they are. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 6: The results and conclusions seem to me to be ideal.
Response 6: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
These also exist in a seperate document as a MS Word File, Please see the attachment.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE AND INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS WHICH HAVE ASSISTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PAPER BY TAKING YOUR VALUABLE TIME.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article provides quite interesting presentation and analysis of the topic related to the job engagement.
There are few very good points which are pointed out by the author and bring following related questions. I could appreciate very much the fact, that the author works with quite wide range of the references, so the article is supported by sufficient literature background.
The only weak part of the article id the Conclusion, which is quite short and basically too general.
The scientific soundness is quite high, but without any doubt it brings lot of interest from the side of the non-expert readers.
There are very many authors opinions and suggestions, which brings higher scientific standards for the article quality.
Overall merit is very good, and this article is ready to be published even without any prolongation of the conclusion.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: This article provides quite interesting presentation and analysis of the topic related to the job engagement.
Response 1: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 2: There are few very good points which are pointed out by the author and bring following related questions. I could appreciate very much the fact, that the author works with quite wide range of the references, so the article is supported by sufficient literature background.
Response 2: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 3: The only weak part of the article id the Conclusion, which is quite short and basically too general.
Response 3: The conclusion part of the article has been expanded. More recommendations for future research have been added. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 4: The scientific soundness is quite high, but without any doubt it brings lot of interest from the side of the non-expert readers.
Response 4: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 5: There are very many authors opinions and suggestions, which brings higher scientific standards for the article quality.
Response 5: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 6: Overall merit is very good, and this article is ready to be published even without any prolongation of the conclusion.
Response 6: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
These also exist in a seperate document as a MS Word File, Please see the attachment.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE AND INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS WHICH HAVE ASSISTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PAPER BY TAKING YOUR VALUABLE TIME.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
- The suggestion is to write the hypotheses in the present tense.
- Was there a possibility in the questionnaire for unfilled answers? Is it a case of prematurely giving up solving the questionnaires before the very end or is there some other reason why 300 questionnaires are not valid for analysis?
- It would not be bad to divide the age groups into higher classes.
- Classes or categories in demographic characteristics overlap (for example 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, etc.) so it is necessary to change that.
- Does the question related to work practice refer only to the research period, or is it also about work practice that is normally applied in the organization where the respondent is employed?
- It may be a bit clumsy to claim that people are "motivated by a high level of work engagement".
- In conclusion, it is not desirable to make statements related to other variables that were not observed in the paper, such as, example, burnout or exhaustion at work, commitment and the like, because it is about accumulated knowledge or a reference used, and it is about variables that are not in the research focus of this paper. It's fine to write about it in a theoretical review, but the conclusion should still focus on the research results and the associated implications.
- In several places in the paper, it is stated that job engagement is a behavior, but this is quite debatable, so it is necessary to analyze the theory about how much it is about behavior and how much about attitude, namely, job engagement precedes engagement behavior, but these are not identical concepts
- It is recommended to include more open questions for future research in the conclusion
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The suggestion is to write the hypotheses in the present tense.
Response 1: In the context of continuing the flow of the study in general, the hypotheses are written in the future tense. If you find it appropriate, we would like them to take place as they are. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 2: Was there a possibility in the questionnaire for unfilled answers? Is it a case of prematurely giving up solving the questionnaires before the very end or is there some other reason why 300 questionnaires are not valid for analysis?
Response 2: We think that there’s no possibility in the questionnaire for unfilled answers just because as you mentioned it is a case of prematurely giving up solving the questionnaires before the very end. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 3: It would not be bad to divide the age groups into higher classes.
Response 3: When we look at the age groups of the sample, the weight is close to 40 years old. That’s why we classified the ranges of age groups in this way. If you find it appropriate, we would like them to take place as they are. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 4: Classes or categories in demographic characteristics overlap (for example 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, etc.) so it is necessary to change that.
Response 4: Indeed, classes or categories in demographics do not overlap, and no one is left out in the classification. For example, when we say 0-5 years, Over 5 years-10 years, Over 10 years-15 years, Over 15 years-20 years, Over 20 years, for example, an employee with 10.5 years of sector experience will be included in the class of Over 10 years-15 years. What we specifically specify here is for example over 5 years-10 years and over 10 years-15 years in these classifications first category includes 5.1-10 years and second category includes 10.1-15 years, therefore we eliminate a possible overlap and/or exclusion that we use the word “over”. Otherwise, if we had made a classification such as 5-10, 11-15, 16-20, then for example, an employee with 10.5 years of sector experience would not be included in any of these classifications. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 5: Does the question related to work practice refer only to the research period, or is it also about work practice that is normally applied in the organization where the respondent is employed?
Response 5: In public companies, till the onset of the pandemic, they used traditional employment conditions namely onsite working. But, this pandemic forced them to change employment conditions, their business models, structures, processes and policies. As a result, flexible working practices i.e. remote & hybrid working practices have become commonplace for public sector companies with the onset of this pandemic. Therefore, when it comes to the answer to your question, while there was no flexible working practices before the pandemic, that is, until March 2020, now it has become commonplace especially in the post-pandemic period, out of necessity. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 6: It may be a bit clumsy to claim that people are "motivated by a high level of work engagement".
Response 6: This sentence has been corrected and rewritten in the first paragraph of the conclusion. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 7: In conclusion, it is not desirable to make statements related to other variables that were not observed in the paper, such as, example, burnout or exhaustion at work, commitment and the like, because it is about accumulated knowledge or a reference used, and it is about variables that are not in the research focus of this paper. It's fine to write about it in a theoretical review, but the conclusion should still focus on the research results and the associated implications.
Response 7: In order to indicate the importance of all the variables in the model in the context of organizational outcomes, they are included in the conclusion by referring to the relevant studies. Especially, in order to discuss about the importance of job engagement, we also mentioned other related types of work-related subjective well-being (e.g., job satisfaction, workaholism, and burnout, etc.) Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 8: In several places in the paper, it is stated that job engagement is a behavior, but this is quite debatable, so it is necessary to analyze the theory about how much it is about behavior and how much about attitude, namely, job engagement precedes engagement behavior, but these are not identical concepts.
Response 8: As you mentioned, there are different perspectives on job engagement as well as for many variables in the organizational behavior literature. However, as explained by almost all authors in the literature and as we stated in the article, one of the three dimensions of job engagement is its behavioral dimension namely vigor. We think that that’s why job engagement is defined by many authors as a positive behavior or a state of mind that leads to positive results in the work, when the definitions of job engagement are taken into consideration especially its behavioral dimension. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 9: It is recommended to include more open questions for future research in the conclusion.
Response 9: The conclusion part of the article has been expanded as more open questions and recommendations for future research have been added. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
These also exist in a seperate document as a MS Word File, Please see the attachment.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE AND INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS WHICH HAVE ASSISTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PAPER BY TAKING YOUR VALUABLE TIME.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper aims to provide an interesting analysis of the issue of how job engagement impacts organizational identification under the moderating roles of different working practices, namely during the Covid 19 pandemic. The study uses the case of 23 random employees of companies in the public insurance industry in Turkey, forming the 24 research samples.
The subject treated is original and innovative, and the authors indicate their contribution to actual knowledge.
Previous works on the same topic are well mentioned.
The article is clear from the beginning and is free of doubtful or controversial arguments.
The demonstrations are carried out logically and accessible to a non-specialist on the subject.
The text submitted to my review does not show evidence of errors.
The article's title is well chosen, short enough yet clear enough, and highlights the purpose of the study and its potential applications.
The abstract summarizes well the main points treated in the article.
The introduction is a good presentation of the treated subject.
The conclusion is correct, and the demonstration justifies it.
All tables and diagrams are necessary and are all called in the text.
I suggest a little review of the language.
Please do better fig. 1
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: The paper aims to provide an interesting analysis of the issue of how job engagement impacts organizational identification under the moderating roles of different working practices, namely during the Covid 19 pandemic. The study uses the case of 23 random employees of companies in the public insurance industry in Turkey, forming the 24 research samples.
Response 1: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 2: The subject treated is original and innovative, and the authors indicate their contribution to actual knowledge.
Response 2: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 3: Previous works on the same topic are well mentioned.
Response 3: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 4: The article is clear from the beginning and is free of doubtful or controversial arguments.
Response 4: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 5: The demonstrations are carried out logically and accessible to a non-specialist on the subject.
Response 5: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 6: The text submitted to my review does not show evidence of errors.
Response 6: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 7: The article's title is well chosen, short enough yet clear enough, and highlights the purpose of the study and its potential applications.
Response 7: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 8: The abstract summarizes well the main points treated in the article.
Response 8: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 9: The introduction is a good presentation of the treated subject.
Response 9: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 10: The conclusion is correct, and the demonstration justifies it.
Response 10: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 11: All tables and diagrams are necessary and are all called in the text.
Response 11: Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 12: I suggest a little review of the language.
Response 12: All text has been reviewed and spelling mistakes have been corrected. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
Point 13: Please do better fig. 1.
Response 13: We developed our theoretical model which is depicted in Fig. 1 in line with the discussions and hypotheses as we stated in the text. If you find it appropriate, we would like it to take place as it is. Thank you for your review and evaluation.
These also exist in a seperate document as a MS Word File, Please see the attachment.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE AND INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS WHICH HAVE ASSISTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PAPER BY TAKING YOUR VALUABLE TIME.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
