Comparison of the Level of Personnel Work in the Czech Republic and Slovakia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors provide a clearly and logically conceived manuscript, which will contribute to the knowledge published so far.
Author Response
Thank you for the review for our article. We appreciate any insight that may raise the level of our research. We have read the opinions of all the opponents on the article carefully and we respect the mentioned comments and thank you for the inspiring suggestions. The whole article has been proofread. In response to the comments, we have made mainly the following changes:
1. In the introduction, we added the reasons that led us to examine the level of personnel work in companies in Slovakia and the Czech Republic and pointed out the fact that joint research on HRM processes has not yet been done. Thank you for recommending to mention research questions before moving to section 2. The changed structure of the paper has a higher logical order. We have divided the division of companies according to the number of employees and annual turnover into the Materials and Methods section.
2. In the theoretical section, we clarified the effects of centrally planned economy on the work of managers, especially directives in HRM companies from the centre with limited and almost no power of business managers to make decisions in personnel policy that would not be consistent with a nationwide unified personnel and personnel policy. In accordance with the opponent's recommendation, we accepted the proposal to include hypotheses at the end of the second part of the article and we also enriched the theoretical knowledge with the justification of hypothesis 3. We consider the proposal to be stimulating and justified.
3. In part 3 we deal only with the material, data of research methods and description of the sample of respondents.
4. Thank you for the proposal to state the level of personnel work in the comment. The survey showed that the level of personnel work in the Czech Republic is higher and corresponds more to the HRM stage, while in Slovakia the operative prevails as in the stage of personnel management. We will keep the title of the contribution due to the predominance of ≥249 employees in both countries in terms of the number of enterprises, although the economic benefits of large enterprises (≤250 employees) including MNCs may be higher, which leaves space for further research, but we characterized the results by processes rather in summary.
Team of authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for the provided opportunity in reviewing the paper.
My general comments include the following:
Introduction Section
-In the introduction, we would like to see a very clear outline of the research problem, the research question (s) and the element of novelty
-Please consider including the paper structure and organization before moving to section 2.
Theoretical background
-More information should be provided on how managers survive during the centrally managed regime.
-Countries specific information are given but in brief. Just from lines 176 until 182 provide specific country information on HRM practices. Please consider adding more details on this issue.
- The study aim can be mentioned only in the introduction section and no repetition is needed in the theoretical background section
-Based on the literature, please provide the study hypotheses. And the overall theoretical assumptions should be orientated towards those.
Materials and methods
The hypotheses developed should be based on the literature and be included in the theoretical section.
This section should emphases only materials, data and used methods.
Please mention the response rate of the participants and representativity of your sample.
Best,
The reviewer
Author Response
Thank you for the review for our article. We appreciate any insight that may raise the level of our research. We have read the opinions of all the opponents on the article carefully and we respect the mentioned comments and thank you for the inspiring suggestions. The whole article has been proofread. In response to the comments, we have made mainly the following changes:
1. In the introduction, we added the reasons that led us to examine the level of personnel work in companies in Slovakia and the Czech Republic and pointed out the fact that joint research on HRM processes has not yet been done. Thank you for recommending to mention research questions before moving to section 2. The changed structure of the paper has a higher logical order. We have divided the division of companies according to the number of employees and annual turnover into the Materials and Methods section.
2. In the theoretical section, we clarified the effects of centrally planned economy on the work of managers, especially directives in HRM companies from the centre with limited and almost no power of business managers to make decisions in personnel policy that would not be consistent with a nationwide unified personnel and personnel policy. In accordance with the opponent's recommendation, we accepted the proposal to include hypotheses at the end of the second part of the article and we also enriched the theoretical knowledge with the justification of hypothesis 3. We consider the proposal to be stimulating and justified.
3. In part 3 we deal only with the material, data of research methods and description of the sample of respondents.
4. Thank you for the proposal to state the level of personnel work in the comment. The survey showed that the level of personnel work in the Czech Republic is higher and corresponds more to the HRM stage, while in Slovakia the operative prevails as in the stage of personnel management. We will keep the title of the contribution due to the predominance of ≥249 employees in both countries in terms of the number of enterprises, although the economic benefits of large enterprises (≤250 employees) including MNCs may be higher, which leaves space for further research, but we characterized the results by processes rather in summary.
Team of authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting and has great cognitive value. It deserves a high substantive evaluation. Th ehypotheses have been corretly formulated, the goal adotped in the introduction has been achieved. The results of empirical research conducted by the authors are of particular value. It is recommended to continue research and compare changes in the area of human resource management in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Author Response
Thank you for the review for our article. We appreciate any insight that may raise the level of our research. We have read the opinions of all the opponents on the article carefully and we respect the mentioned comments and thank you for the inspiring suggestions. The whole article has been proofread. In response to the comments, we have made mainly the following changes:
1. In the introduction, we added the reasons that led us to examine the level of personnel work in companies in Slovakia and the Czech Republic and pointed out the fact that joint research on HRM processes has not yet been done. Thank you for recommending to mention research questions before moving to section 2. The changed structure of the paper has a higher logical order. We have divided the division of companies according to the number of employees and annual turnover into the Materials and Methods section.
2. In the theoretical section, we clarified the effects of centrally planned economy on the work of managers, especially directives in HRM companies from the centre with limited and almost no power of business managers to make decisions in personnel policy that would not be consistent with a nationwide unified personnel and personnel policy. In accordance with the opponent's recommendation, we accepted the proposal to include hypotheses at the end of the second part of the article and we also enriched the theoretical knowledge with the justification of hypothesis 3. We consider the proposal to be stimulating and justified.
3. In part 3 we deal only with the material, data of research methods and description of the sample of respondents.
4. Thank you for the proposal to state the level of personnel work in the comment. The survey showed that the level of personnel work in the Czech Republic is higher and corresponds more to the HRM stage, while in Slovakia the operative prevails as in the stage of personnel management. We will keep the title of the contribution due to the predominance of ≥249 employees in both countries in terms of the number of enterprises, although the economic benefits of large enterprises (≤250 employees) including MNCs may be higher, which leaves space for further research, but we characterized the results by processes rather in summary.
Team of authors
Reviewer 4 Report
Both the whole article and research the authors have described are – in my opinion – very interesting. The main subject of the research is “The comparison of HR systems existing in the enterprises in the Czech and Slovak Republic.
In the theoretical background there is no enterprise classes division aspect (i.e.: small and big companies or SMEs and LE (large enterprises sector) comparison). I think that the authors should underline this aspect in this part because it was discussed in the practical part of the article.
In paragraph 214 it is written: “We believe”. I propose to change it into: “The authors of this article have formulated the following thesis on the basis of their observation that “the development… “.
In table 1 there ought to be: “ ≥250” (there is: > 250 employees). The same comment refers to paragraph 187 (there ought to be written: “These are companies with up to 249 employees”).
In the Introduction section I would suggest stating the added value of the research and the whole article and at the end of it informing about other research possibilities.
The Authors ought to reconsider changing the title of the article or emphasizing the level of personnel work in micro, small, medium and large /local and multinational/ companies in the Czech and Slovak Republic in the conclusion of the article. They should also answer the question what kind of level it is (high, medium or low) ?
Author Response
Thank you for the review for our article. We appreciate any insight that may raise the level of our research. We have read the opinions of all the opponents on the article carefully and we respect the mentioned comments and thank you for the inspiring suggestions. The whole article has been proofread. In response to the comments, we have made mainly the following changes:
1. In the introduction, we added the reasons that led us to examine the level of personnel work in companies in Slovakia and the Czech Republic and pointed out the fact that joint research on HRM processes has not yet been done. Thank you for recommending to mention research questions before moving to section 2. The changed structure of the paper has a higher logical order. We have divided the division of companies according to the number of employees and annual turnover into the Materials and Methods section.
2. In the theoretical section, we clarified the effects of centrally planned economy on the work of managers, especially directives in HRM companies from the centre with limited and almost no power of business managers to make decisions in personnel policy that would not be consistent with a nationwide unified personnel and personnel policy. In accordance with the opponent's recommendation, we accepted the proposal to include hypotheses at the end of the second part of the article and we also enriched the theoretical knowledge with the justification of hypothesis 3. We consider the proposal to be stimulating and justified.
3. In part 3 we deal only with the material, data of research methods and description of the sample of respondents.
4. Thank you for the proposal to state the level of personnel work in the comment. The survey showed that the level of personnel work in the Czech Republic is higher and corresponds more to the HRM stage, while in Slovakia the operative prevails as in the stage of personnel management. We will keep the title of the contribution due to the predominance of ≥249 employees in both countries in terms of the number of enterprises, although the economic benefits of large enterprises (≤250 employees) including MNCs may be higher, which leaves space for further research, but we characterized the results by processes rather in summary.
Team of authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors took into consideration the requested recommendations.
I accept publishing the paper in this form.
