Nomadic, Informal and Mediatised Work Practices: Role of Professional Social Approval and Effects on Quality of Life at Work
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article focuses only on a section of employees in France. Due to the availability and accessibility of the information technology, maturity, culture and the elements use of analyses in other countries, the factors of the relevant data sample are not reflected into the article. The comparison with data from equally developed countries are lacking. Is it the survey in all France? The article is not indicate:
1. What it is the effects of one psychosocial factor...
2. What is the psychosocial factor ....
The structure of the paper is not standard and usual for the level of the paper. The use of statistic methods is not justified. Hypotheses are incorrectly described and labeled. It is not at all clear:
- What the enterprises are selected.
- Employees and their ages, knowledge etc.
The conditions for selection are not specified. The justification of the sample, time and its size is important in practical terms. I miss the user status (a worker and a manager), for them it is very different. How often are technologies (smartphone/mobile phone, laptop, tablet) working used at work? The article is the basis for further in-depth research. Nowadays, the article is practically not applicable in other cultures, regions and states. What is the clear demonstration missing that the own selected technologies (smartphone/mobile phone, laptop, tablet) can used the more appropriate practical application than IT-equipments provided from employers. Industry 4.0 has the significant impact on the employees and on the employers. How negatively (or positively) are the technologies influencing into employees at work (or factors are influencing on the employees) in the century Industry 4.0? The readers do not know something about the psychosocial factors, types of employees etc.
Author Response
1°) This article focuses only on a section of employees in France. Due to the availability and accessibility of the information technology, maturity, culture and the elements use of analyses in other countries, the factors of the relevant data sample are not reflected into the article. The comparison with data from equally developed countries are lacking. Is it the survey in all France?
This study was indeed carried out throughout the whole of France. Elements related to the accessibility of ICT, maturity, culture and elements of use of the analyses in other countries were effectively not taken into account due to the focus of the study on France and the absence of comparison with other countries, but these elements could definitely be the subject of future research. We thank you warmly for the input that the examination of these aspects could provide in relation to nomadic, informal and mediatised work practices. These considerations have been added to the discussion of the paper.
2°) The article is not indicate:
1. What it is the effects of one psychosocial factor...
2. What is the psychosocial factor ....
The psychosocial factor is the perceived social approval of the employees' work entourage. Its effects are described in the structural equation analysis and show that approval has an impact on the frequency of computer use within the context of work activities.
3°) The structure of the paper is not standard and usual for the level of the paper. The use of statistic methods is not justified. Hypotheses are incorrectly described and labeled.
Would it be possible to specify how the structure of the paper is not standard and usual for the level of the paper (so that it can be modified if it is not appropriate? As it stands, it follows the journal's recommendations)? Two statistical methods were used (see 3.4): structural equations to test the adequacy of our research model to reality and to describe the nature and intensity of the relationships between the variables, and multiple regressions to investigate some of the results relating to these observed relationships.
4°) It is not at all clear:
- What the enterprises are selected.
- Employees and their ages, knowledge etc.
The conditions for selection are not specified. The justification of the sample, time and its size is important in practical terms. I miss the user status (a worker and a manager), for them it is very different.
The sample is composed of French employees engaged in nomadic, informal and mediatised work practices. There was no prior selection of specific companies, since we focused on the work activity regardless of the type of organization involved (and these activities could be performed in any type of company). Similarly, as we did not aim to make a comparison between professional statuses, we did not specify whether the employees were managers or workers. However, our results underline the fact that the majority of employees are executives and that the sample is mainly composed of employees from small and medium-sized companies as well as from large companies, from the service sector and who have been involved in nomadic, informal and mediated work practices for about 8 years. In addition, the sample was constituted before the pandemic period as part of a more global thesis work, so employees with these work practices were more difficult to find. We have indicated the average age of the employees, but their knowledge of technology was indeed not part of our research questions, so we have not addressed it here. We thank you very much for this comment, which raises the possibility of further work on this topic in future studies.
5°) How often are technologies (smartphone/mobile phone, laptop, tablet) working used at work?
The frequencies of technology use are shown in Table 3 and in sub-section 3.3 (Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample and typology of nomadic, informal and mediated work practices).
6°) The article is the basis for further in-depth research. Nowadays, the article is practically not applicable in other cultures, regions and states.
This would indeed require further studies in other countries and comparisons that would be very interesting to investigate this question (again, we have added this observation to the discussion and thank you wholeheartedly for pointing out this possibility to enrich our results).
7°) What is the clear demonstration missing that the own selected technologies (smartphone/mobile phone, laptop, tablet) can used the more appropriate practical application than IT-equipments provided from employers.
We have indeed not checked whether the technologies belonged to the employees or were provided by their companies, as we were not interested in such data at the time of the study. There is also an opportunity here for complementary work that would enrich our current results focused on the effects of the frequency of use of technologies, and which we have therefore also added to the discussion of this paper. We thank you very much for pointing it out.
8°) Industry 4.0 has the significant impact on the employees and on the employers. How negatively (or positively) are the technologies influencing into employees at work (or factors are influencing on the employees) in the century Industry 4.0? The readers do not know something about the psychosocial factors, types of employees etc.
This study highlights the significant impacts of the frequency of use of the three technologies (smartphone, laptop and tablet) on the relationship with the organization, the perception of the positive effects of work life on "non-work" life, and addiction issues. Using the smartphone frequently leads to an increase in organizational commitment and perceived recognition at work. Laptop use increases the perception of the positive effects of work life on non-work life. Finally, using the tablet more often leads to an increase in commitment and in the perception of the positive effects of work life on non-work life, but also causes a rise in work and Internet addiction. These impacts are confirmed by the results obtained through multiple regressions. Consequently, and because of these results, technologies influence both positively the employees at work (in terms of relationship to the organization and perception of the effects of work life on "non-work life") and negatively (in terms of addiction phenomena and therefore health). Lastly, regarding the psychosocial factor studied, i.e. perceived social approval of the professional entourage, I refer you to my previous answer which focused on this topic. We have also specified more characteristics of our sample (average seniority, socio-professional category and type of executive - managing a team or not - as well as company size) in the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript deals with nomadic, informal and mediatised work practices. Although the paper is nicely written and easy to follow, there are several principal weak points that need to be addressed before publication.
- The introduction is a bit messy. Certain threads are repeated many times.
- Some of the theses are quite obvious, eg H1 (quite natural in the context of general changes in the way work is performed), H3a, H3b, H4a, H4b.
- A broader explanation in the context of the H2a thesis would be required (how the greater number of employees using mobile technologies would influence the involvement to their organization)
- Was multiple choice possible in the context of the frequency of use of technologies and work places (table 1)? If not - what was behind the researchers' decision? If yes - it would be required to add it in the text of the article.
- The scales presented in Table 2 require a more complete presentation. Although the authors provide the sources they used, for the reader of this article, a more detailed presentation of these scales would significantly facilitate reading (without the need to search for source materials)
- Why did the authors base the research on such a small research sample (only 380 people)? It seems that with proper research preparation, finding a larger research group should not be a problem. As a result, the article is more like a preliminary research report. The authors mention some limitations of the study, they are aware of its weaknesses
- When analyzing the Cronbach's alpha test result, the authors assume quite low acceptance thresholds. The generally accepted and recognized level is above 0.7, but the values of 0.8 or (preferably) 0.9 are considered good or very good. The use of such assumptions by the authors could affect the quality and credibility of the obtained results.
- Table 6, 7, 8, 9 - computer or laptop? The term computer usually refers to a stationary device. It is worth standardizing the nomenclature used in the article.
- Perhaps the study should have been more closely related to the specificity of the work performed, age, lifestyle, and the stage of family life. Thanks to this, it would be possible to analyze the obtained results more fully and in depth. Perhaps it would also allow to find relationships other than those presented in the article.
Author Response
1°) The introduction is a bit messy. Certain threads are repeated many times.
Corrections have been made and some redundant elements have been removed from the introduction accordingly, and we thank you very much for pointing it out as it enable us to improve our introduction.
2°) Some of the theses are quite obvious, eg H1 (quite natural in the context of general changes in the way work is performed), H3a, H3b, H4a, H4b.
These hypotheses are specific to nomadic, informal and mediatised work practices, which is a research object having been little studied so far, thus explaining their formulation. In addition, we must add that the study and the collection of the sample were conducted before the beginning of the pandemic crisis, at a time when the changes linked to remote work activities, although already initiated, were clearly less significant.
3°) A broader explanation in the context of the H2a thesis would be required (how the greater number of employees using mobile technologies would influence the involvement to their organization)
Here, the hypothesis is not about the number of employees, but about the frequencies of technology use. The wording of the hypothesis may have been awkward, and it has been revised accordingly. Thank you very much for pointing this out.
4°) Was multiple choice possible in the context of the frequency of use of technologies and work places (table 1)? If not - what was behind the researchers' decision? If yes - it would be required to add it in the text of the article.
Participants were asked to indicate the frequency of use of each technology on the four-point scale, but could only indicate one answer for each technology. This choice was motivated by our desire to understand which technologies were used most within the context of the work activity. Therefore, this answer was not a multiple choice as such, but the participants answered for each technology (so the plurality of uses is definitely considered, although not in a cumulative way).
5°) The scales presented in Table 2 require a more complete presentation. Although the authors provide the sources they used, for the reader of this article, a more detailed presentation of these scales would significantly facilitate reading (without the need to search for source materials)
Thank you very much for this comment: the presentation of the scales has been revised and expanded according to the suggestions.
6°) Why did the authors base the research on such a small research sample (only 380 people)? It seems that with proper research preparation, finding a larger research group should not be a problem. As a result, the article is more like a preliminary research report. The authors mention some limitations of the study, they are aware of its weaknesses
As described above, our sample was collected prior to the beginning of the pandemic, when such remote work activities were much less widespread due to the need for continuity of work despite Covid-19, and therefore more difficult to find. We added this clarification in section 3.2 (Identification of the population and establishing contact with participants). In addition, we were looking for a very specific type of practice, which was nomadic (involving multiple workplaces), informal (i.e., not contractualized with the employer), and mediatised (carried out via technology). Furthermore, we had as inclusion criteria a full-time professional activity. The combination of these conditions among employees is less frequent than, for example, formal remote work just at home or in a single workplace, which explains our small sample. Moreover, we have kept the study limited to France, and we thank you for this remark, as an opening of our inclusion criteria would undoubtedly allow us to collect more data.
7°) When analyzing the Cronbach's alpha test result, the authors assume quite low acceptance thresholds. The generally accepted and recognized level is above 0.7, but the values of 0.8 or (preferably) 0.9 are considered good or very good. The use of such assumptions by the authors could affect the quality and credibility of the obtained results.
Regarding alpha tests, we relied on the work of Mohammad and his colleagues (2015), who point out that alphas are acceptable from .60, and very correct from .70. Only 3 alphas are below (but very close = .69) the widely accepted threshold of .70. Alphas that are too high (>.90) have been identified as not necessarily statistically good, as they indicate scales that are too lengthy, parallel or redundant items, or a too narrow approach to the concept (or underrepresentation of the concept) (Panayides, 2013).
8°) Table 6, 7, 8, 9 - computer or laptop? The term computer usually refers to a stationary device. It is worth standardizing the nomenclature used in the article.
Laptop. The mistake was fixed accordingly and we thank you greatly for this remark.
9°) Perhaps the study should have been more closely related to the specificity of the work performed, age, lifestyle, and the stage of family life. Thanks to this, it would be possible to analyze the obtained results more fully and in depth. Perhaps it would also allow to find relationships other than those presented in the article.
The study of these variables will indeed have been very enriching in this research work, and could definitely help other studies on this topic. We thank you very much for this suggestion. The observation has therefore been added to the discussion.
