Sustaining Employees’ Work Fulfilment through Multigenerational Diversity and Emotional Communication in Federal Civil Service Commission of Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, well developed and constructed. Appreciate the use of the path-analysis to determine the relationships beyond traditional correlational work.

Author Response

In attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

• In Abstract - main aim of the paper should be presented
• Fragments as „Employees will be happier if they receive exactly what they expected” are trivial and should be changed – it is scientific article!
• Introduction should provide (apart from the preparation of the background): a research gap and announcement the realized research, clearly indicating what is novel and why it is significant. At the same time, the introduction cannot be similar to a literature review - you cannot describe individual variables such as: workplace fulfillment or emotional communication – they are described in the next section. Introduction should start with the preparation of the background, i.e. the placement of research in the subject matter.
• Literature review -  the structure of the section is proper, however, the review is poor, the quantity of current sources used should be significantly increased. Many parts of the text are based on the same sources - this suggests compilation rather than a proper literature review.
• The part from line 164 to line 199 seems obvious and should be significantly shortened (if not removed)
• Section “Methodology” could be accepted, however, the period of the research is missing.
• It is typical for Discussion to provide a confrontation of the achieved results with previously published papers, present authors’ opinion of established differences, and their attitude to the results. The Discussion is not a description rather than a confrontation
• The subsection 4.1. Contribution to Knowledge should be rethought. In my opinion, authors should emphasize the view on stainable employees' work fulfillment from the perspective of multigenerational diversity. The remaining aspects seem to be widely described in the literature and it is difficult to indicate this as a contribution to knowledge. The authors also confuse the concept of results and the contribution to knowledge (point 5)
• Practical application of the research should be presented in Conclusion.

Author Response

In attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The article "SUSTAINING EMPLOYEES' WORK FULFILMENT THROUGH MULTI-1 GENERATIONAL DIVERSITY AND EMOTIONAL COMMUNICATION IN FEDERAL 2 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF NIGERIA" discusses some organisational aspects of human resource management.

I would like to thank the editors and authors of this article for the opportunity to review it. In my opinion the article presented is very comprehensive, as well as concrete and concise on a particular topic. I will only offer a few comments on their work that I believe may help to improve it.

In the introduction you define the factors that influence the happiness of employees in the work environment and therefore their job satisfaction. I think they could include some reference to what is called "psychological contract" (line 40) and "organisational commitment" (lines 57-72), as they are defining these two concepts but not naming them.

The research objective is well stated. In addition, the introduction and literature review correctly reflect the concepts used in the research, as well as the results of other studies on this topic.

Care should be taken to always define the meaning of any abbreviations used the first time they appear. For example: AARP (line 100).

The statement made in line 101: "In the next 20 to 30 years....", and following lines should be replaced by some bibliographical reference or previous study.

I congratulate you on the correct structure of the article. It is easy to read and provides a lot of detailed and ordered information. However, in the methodology section, I suggest that you reorder the information provided a little. At the beginning of this section they indicate that 416 cases were analysed (line 314), later they comment on The five-point modified rating scale (line 326). From line 334 onwards, they return to these points, providing more information, such as the size of the sample and the fact that a five-point Likert scale was used. I think the information in these paragraphs should be reordered.

Why does it appear in point 4 for the first time that these are employees of pharmaceutical companies? Is this a mistake?

The hypotheses, although low risk, are well stated and validated in the methodology and results. I think that section 4.1 could be improved a little, it is not just a matter of saying what has been done, I think that a small commentary on the most relevant results could be included, or at least give it a little more emphasis.

Regards

Author Response

In attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have improved their paper but revision could be more advanced.

Spelling mistakes should be eliminated.

In Introduction - not "main of this study" but "main aim of this study"

Author Response

In attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.