The Relationship between Organizational Learning at the Individual Level and Perceived Employability: A Model-Based Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Findings need to be clear and make a clear contribution to theory
- Discussion of the results needs to improvements, comparing results with those of other authors/papers/studies.
- In Conclusion and Implications there is little interpretation as well as policy and managerial implications

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to say thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Adhering to the suggestions, we decided to improve our article by:

-explaining our research actions by statistical (back with citations) and not only contextual reasons,

-introducing several articles into discussion with other authors parts,

-improving the practical implication section of the article.

Best regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

congratulations. The topic you presented is important and well explained.

My only suggestion is to also refer to some theory in "Introduction" part, instead of pure literature review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to say thank you for your comment. We are glad that the article got your approval.

Best regards,

Sylwia Wiśniewska

Kamil Wiśniewski

Robert Szydło

Reviewer 3 Report

The interpretation of the SEM model could be improved (lines 392 - 403) The content reasons for omitting variables from the model are slightly confusing. Why do you include variables with a different meaning in EFA and then exclude them from the final model?

I suggest explaining the statistical support in the first place and only after provide the contextual interpretation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to say thank you for your comments and suggestions. You are perfectly right that the explanation we have provided is slightly confusing (lines 392 – 403). We decided to slightly change this part of the article. Right now, there is an explanation of omitting variables by statistical support (with 2 new literature positions) not only the contextual explanation – and we should focus on this from the beginning.

Best regards,

Sylwia Wiśniewska

Kamil Wiśniewski

Robert Szydło

Reviewer 4 Report

The article entitled: "The relationship between organizational learning at the individual level and perceived employability: a model-based approach" is interesting and well-elaborated. Despite the great efforts of the authors, I make a few comments and recommendations that can help improve the overall structure and quality of the paper.

Abstract: I recommend to remove the sentence (lines 19-20): "The statistical analysis of the study results was conducted using IBM Predictive Solution 6 and IBM AMOS for SEM."

1. Introduction: the introduction needs to be changed, the authors need to define sustainability, which should be the central theme of the paper. You also need to delete lines 74-81. VO and VH should follow from “2. Literature Review” and not from Introduction!

2. Literature Review: Figure 1 (page 5) contains yellow text (highlighted) please remove the highlighting.

3. Materials and Methods: I recommend the authors to shorten the text and change the structure. Lines 241-244. I personally recommend the authors to define individual generations by years of birth and not by current age (example: not Generation Z (19-22), but Generation Z (1996-2010) 4. Applied statistical methods: I recommend the authors to shorten and renumber this part to 3.1 Applied statistical methods Similarly, I recommend shortening the section: 5. Collecting data and research sample and renumber it 3.2 Collecting data and research sample These recommendations will help to shorten and simplify the paper.

7. Discussion and conclusions: I recommend the authors to supplement the practical benefits of their research. Is it really necessary to cite combined citations containing 6 sources? Example: lines 473-475 ("Based on hypothesis verification, it is important to state that not only lifelong learning [6,24,27,28,101,102] and general organizational learning [14,30] may strongly correlate with employability.")

8. Limitations and future research: I recommend that the authors consider to change the structure of the paper to: 7.1 Limitations of the research and 7.2 Future Research.

Overall assessment: In my opinion, the submitted paper is really well processed. However, the overall structure of the paper as well as its methodological processing requires minor adjustments to make the paper simpler and more attractive to the reader. The formal side of the article is good; it requires minimal (minor) corrections.

Good luck.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

At first, we would like to Thank You for Your suggestions – which were very helpful and directed us towards better form of our work.

We did implement the following changes:

1. We deleted the sentences about the statistical tools from abstract (from lines 19-20).
2. We deleted the sentences about research questions and hypothesis from introduction (from lines 74-81).
3. We defined sustainability in the introduction
4. In the literature review the figure 1 does not contain highlighted text
5. The structure of materials and methods applied statistical methods and collecting data and research sample were restructured – the numbers of sections were rewritten and the total length of the text was reduced for 59 lines in total – that we hope made the article more readable.
6. We supplemented the practical benefits of our research and improved citations.
7. Limitation and future research were changed int two separate, but short points.

We did our best to make our article more reader friendly and we hope that the present form of the article will be considered as a good and ready to accept work.

Best Regards,

Sylwia Wiśniewska

Kamil Wiśniewski

Robert Szydło

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

The relationship between organizational learning at the individual level and perceived employability: a model-based approach

The manuscript deals with the interesting issue of the impact of organizational learning on perceived employability. The general research framework is well presented.

But, the study lacs scientific rigorousness all the way. The crucial point is the missed link between theory and measurement model. Consequently, the measurement model could not be trusted. The other deficiencies of the manuscript are discussed below.

 Because of severe flows in the design and statistical analysis of the research, I must reject it.

1. Abstract

The abstract could be improved. At least, I suggest changing the order of presenting the results (EFA and structure first, then SEM.

1. Introduction

It provides a good overview of the general research framework and general research challenge. However, the former, given in the second paragraph, seems to be somewhat messy.  Similarly, the definition of the research questions and hypothesis lack clarity. The hypothesis assumes correlation, while the methods used indicate the analysis of the impact.

I recommend improving the second paragraph with a clear presentation of the conceptual model underpinning your research design. The research questions are, in my opinion redundant, you could omit them without harm for the clarity of the manuscript. I am missing a short presentation of the content.

1. Theoretical framework

The general theoretical framework is well explained. However, it includes some irrelevant facts (e.g., paragraph line 135). Besides, the authors do not provide a clear conceptual framework of the study.

I recommend adding a paragraph or two presenting the research's conceptual model, well supported by previous research.

1. Materials and Methods

In the first part, the section tries to present the concepts. However, there is no distinction between conceptualization (and operationalization (questionnaire, variables). Apparently, the research lacks solid conceptual ground that induces the fundamental questions about the measurement and its reliability and validity.

Without a clear conceptual framework operationalized in the questionnaire and statistical procedure, the study could not be treated as to be a scientific one.

The missing link between theoretical groud and empirical procedure (measurement, statistical analysis) needs to be established to overcome the lack of theoretical support.

1. Applied statistical methods

The section provides information on statistical methods used. The presentation is awkward as it deals in the am way with complex and important methods and less important simple measures or coefficients. The meaning and the role of the methods should be explained more clearly. Besides, it has to include a short presentation of structural equation modeling.

1. Collecting data and research sample

The section includes (too much) a detailed presentation of the sample's characteristics, while the representativeness of the sample is missing.

1. Results

The presentation of the characteristics of variables is merely technical, without any substantive comment. Doing EFA with PCA is a wrong choice. The detailed discussion on the differences between factors is redundant. Regression does not confirm CFA results. It is not clear what Individual level as a variable is.   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you very much for very detailed and constructive review. According to your suggestions we have made the following changes in our paper:

1. We improved the link between theory and measurement model.
2. In the abstract, we changed the order of presentation of the results - EFA and structure first, then SEM.
3. We have reworded the second paragraph of the introduction.
4. Due to the change in the research approach, we have clarified the hypothesis.
5. We have improved the introduction by clearly presenting the conceptual model on which our research project is based. We also added a short presentation of the content.
6. We have removed some irrelevant facts from the theoretical framework. We have presented more clearly the conceptual framework of the study. We presented the research’s conceptual model (We would like to emphasize that in the course of studies of the literature on the subject we did not come across a model based on determinants of employability constituting solutions from the individual level of organizational learning).
7. We developed the conceptual ground of research.
8. We have refined the conceptual framework to better fit the empirical research we have carried out.
9. We have explained more clearly the role of the statistical methods used.
10. We referred to the representativeness of the research sample.
11. We improved the form of presentation of the research results and the substantive commentary to the obtained research results.

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The relationship between organizational learning at the individual level and perceived employability: A model-based approach”

The paper aims at the determination of the possible correlation between the organizational learning solutions at the individual level and perceived employability. The study is based on a survey of 351 workers in Poland. The issue addressed is interesting for organizational development. However, the paper should be significantly improved to meet the standards of the Sustainability Journal.

Specific Comments:

1. The structure of the introduction seems awkward and needs rewriting since the authors give emphasis mainly on motivation and do not offer a summary of the literature on the issue. Furthermore, the authors do not present the aim of the paper, the methodology applied to address the research questions, and the key findings.
2. The literature review is unbalanced. They spend 130 lines for employability and only 37 lines for organizational learning which is according to the aim of the paper the value-added of the paper.
3. The authors do not set in a specific way the research hypothesis of the paper. Based on the empirical finding the research question is not only one but the authors could recognize more.
4. The authors employ the following definition for organizational learning at the individual level: lines 151-157. However, the learning solutions as presented in lines 189- 198 contradict this definition since including solutions that fit the team level and institutional learning.
5. The authors finely present the survey methodology.
6. The statistical analysis needs reorganization. The authors must present the rationale for the choice of the specific methodologies and not some others e.g. probit. It is not clear to me how they measure perceived employability. The authors use some variables' names without an explicit definition. The regressions at tables 4 and 6 are presented unusually and their readability is difficult. What is the dependent variable? E.g. what is the individual level?
7. The last section (7) is relatively poor and requires further development with emphasis on the policy implications.

General comments:

1. The paper even though uses extensive literature gives the impression of a statistical exercise.
2. The paper needs thorough editing.
3. Some references do not add value to the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you very much for very detailed and constructive review. According to your suggestions we have made the following changes in our paper:

1. We expanded the summary of the article.
2. We expanded the literature review on the subject in terms of organizational learning.
3. We have clarified the research hypothesis.
4. We have clarified the characteristics of solutions used at the individual level of organizational learning.
5. We have presented the methodological assumptions of the research in more detail.
6. We have discussed the practical implications – important for development employability of workers in organizations.

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors.

Thank You for a possibility to review Your paper, which is very well written.

According to the literature review I recommend to expand the competency section, Austrian School of Economics in particular. These articles (below) are focused on polish market and should be helpful. Be so kind and consider.

Jędruchniewicz, A. Metodologia austriackiej szkoły ekonomii. Argumenta Oeconomica Cracoviensia. 2016, Issue 14, p9-28. DOI: 10.15678/AOC.2016.1401

Janowski, A. Austrian School of Economics: Does it work for life insurance sector in Central Europe?, Economic Annals-XXI, 2015, 7-8(1), pp. 45–49

Kind Regards

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you very much for very detailed and constructive review. Thank you for your comments and for pointing out interesting literature sources. The solutions of the Austrian School of Economics will be a source of inspiration for further research.

Kind regards,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The relationship between organizational learning at the individual level and perceived employability: a model-based approach

The authors have made significant improvements. However, I strongly suggest considering:

- the title of figure 1 - Graphic presentation of the conceptual model underpinning your research design;

- to connect the conceptual model explicitly with underpinning theories;

- to improve the connection between conceptualization and operationalization, what means to provide a sound answer to the question of what the questionnaire measures;

- to improve the fourth section; the formulas for basic parameters are maybe redundant; the explanations for EFA, CFA, and SEM are somewhat simplified; I suggest adding at least a short explanation of the role of the statistical methods mentions in the research;

- in a strictly meaning, factor analysis does not comprise PCA as an extraction method (depicted in the text). Well, Table 2 mentions Extraction Method: Generalized Least Squares??

- what about paragraph (403 – 411) – the role of t-test in EFA??

- Figure 2 – the meaning of the values in the figure are not explained; besides, EFA has revealed two factors, with nine and two manifest variables respectively, while the first factor in the SEM model includes three manifest variables only ..

- the use of nonexpressive names of concepts Confirmed Factor 1 …..

- the parameters of the model are not discussed;

- and last but not least, please check the whole manuscript on errors and flaws …

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you very much for very detailed and constructive review.

According to your suggestions we have made the following changes in our paper:

1. We corrected the title of Figure 1.
2. We improved the connection between the conceptual model and underpinning theories. Within the conceptual model, we added references to specific solutions from the subject literature.
3. In order to improve the connection between conceptualization and operationalization, we indicated what exactly the questionnaire measures.
4. We added short sentences explaining EFA and CFA roles in this research - lines 273-274 and lines 287-288.
5. We changed the presented PCA formula in lines 269 – 274 for the one about GLS.
6. It was in order to check if there are significant differences within the factor 2 (same as Anova for factor 1), but we’ve decided to cut those lines and leave only the Cronbach-alpha value.
7. We‘ve explained the reason of cutting 6 manifested variables from factor 1 – it was based on the poor parameters of model fit when using 9 variables in factor 1. Also the information about the standardized estimates (values on figure) was added.
8. We have given more expressive names to the factors and variables in the model.
9. We have added a discussion of the model fit parameters (line 460-461). Other descriptions are between lines 450 and 459.
10. We checked the manuscript for errors and flaws. It was also under the proofreading procedure.

Kind regards,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest to consider yet:

• to move figure 1 to the end of action 2 or to the beginning of section 3
• explicitly give names to the factors
• the names of variables do not match (Table 2 / Figure 2)
• EFA should reveal the structure of a concept and EFA result should be in general confirmed by CFA, however in your case you reject six manifest variables for the first factor; you cannot simply reject them because of weak fit indices, you must provide some theoretical explanation
• I suggest proceeding EFA using maximum likelihood extraction. This way your EFA procedure will be more rigorous, still, you must explain why theoretical expectations are not met.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you very much for very detailed and constructive review. According to your suggestions we have made the following changes in our article:

1. We moved Figure 1 to the end of section 2.
2. We explicitly gave names to the factors revealed in EFA and CFA.
3. We improved the matching of the names of variables (Table 2 / Figure 2).
4. We explained the reason for rejecting 4 out of 9 variables in lines 421 - 429
5. We proceed EFA using maximum likelihood extraction, and as such we presented the model with 5 variables in Factor 1 and variables in Factor 2. In addition other changes were introduced in lines 435 – 460 in terms of results, and figure 3.

Kind regards,

Authors