The Influence of Management on Teacher Well-Being and the Development of Sustainable Schools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comfort and sustainability in the classroom is quite an interesting article. Well-being is therefore one of the priorities in the field of human resource management (HRM) in schools. In this context, this paper studies the relationship between HRM, well-being and performance, looking at the incidence of leadership skills and innovation in these relationships. The aim is to measure the extent to which it is necessary to encourage a sustainable environment that supports the well-being of teachers and thus students.

The article has a special division. Chapter 2 is a hypothesis and its theory and formulation. Three models are used here. The theoretical model is presented in FIG. 1.

Here is "psichological wellbeing", chapter 2.2.2 as well as 2.2.4 is - "Psychological wellbeing" In the text it is OK.

The literature shows mainly two dimensions of well-being: psychological and physical.

Chapter 3 is the research methodology and Chapter 4 is the findings. From the confirmatory factor analysis, 23 items were identified, which finally form a scale, and 6 dimensions were identified.

Convergent validity is demonstrated in two ways - first, because the load factors are significant and greater than 0.5, and second, because the mean deviation (AVE) for each of the factors is greater than 0.5. This is an illustration in tables. It's pretty confusing. This would help to highlight the findings in the graphs, for example - where the cut-off value would be shown by a line (0.5) and the findings in the columns. Alternatively, otherwise. This would give the article more clarity and attractiveness.

In Table 1 again "psichological wellbeing" (corrections!). In Table 5 it is O.K.

It is difficult to check the values ​​arrived at by the authors. This is a statistical evaluation.

The large amount of literature used (189) is a positive point. The authors cite many experts who have dealt with the issue. It should be noted positively that the work focuses on demonstrating the need to create a more sustainable environment that contributes to the well-being of the teacher, while also focusing on social sustainability.

Sustainable environment is also addressed in an article that should be cited. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106385

These are the views of three groups of people on the living environment. It would be good to display the results graphically similar to this article.

The discussion is rich and correct, referring to authors who have reached comparable or different conclusions. The results of the study have practical and theoretical consequences, which are justified in the discussion and conclusions.

I don't know if it's enough to write: Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally. If not, correct it!

I recommend publishing with changes that I leave to the discretion of the author. Graphical representations would help to better orient the reader of the article. In my opinion, the post is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper addresses an interesting topic. The introduction should better state the gap in the literature by mentioning some of the elements which are not properly addressed or are not addressed at all in the research literature. I think that a separate section of literature review is needed in which the papers discussing well-being in classroom should be discussed in terms of methods used and results obtained.

In section 2.1. the authors mention that they use the combination of 3 theories: please try to explain in short how you have used these theories. 

The hypotheses formulation is well described and in accordance to the literature. Please try not to cite so many papers

The questionnaire validation is hard to understand. Please use a table representation for all the items with the questions in the left side of the table and the construction in the top part of the table. On each row, one can find the factor loadings for each construction and on the last two rows, there are the AVE and CR. Replace Table 1 and Table 3 by creating this cumulative table. Please add the questionnaire as annex to the paper.

Also, in the paper is not mentioned how the evaluation of the questionnaire items has been made: have you used a Likert scale? If yes, with how many points?

Please provide descriptive statistics and a discussion related to the answers you have received for the relevant questions from each construction.

Please clarify why some of the questions use the second person ("you"), e.g. "you are sad", while others use he first person ("I"), e.g. "I am duly rewarded for my work".

All the three questions in the construction "Bach ache" seem too similar (especially the last two)- please try to avoid this situation.

Also, the "Emotional" construction seems to be part of the Physical well-being - why is this the case? Wouldn't it be part of the Psychological well-being?

What does the item "Lead with example." means? How was the question to which the respondents answered formulated in order to answer to this question?

I think that all the items used in the questionnaire should be double-checked for consistency.

Please add an analysis related to the results obtained in Table 5 on sub-categories (such as age, gender, income, etc). Are these results the same when such a variable separates the respondents' group?

Other observations:

• Please provide evidence and proper explanation for "AMO theory" mentioned in page 1 row 45.
• Please use "et al" instead of "et all" in the paper.
• Please reduce the citations by half - in the current form there are a series of places in which one reference was sufficient.
• please do not cite table 3 before table 1. Please place table 3 next to its first citation. The same observation for table 5 (page 9, row 401).
• please use "not supported" instead of "no supported"
• Use "Psychological" instead of "Psichological"
• Use "well-being" instead of "wellbeing"
• Please improve the English used in the paper.

Author Response

Point 1.  The paper addresses an interesting topic. The introduction should better state the gap in the literature by mentioning some of the elements which are not properly addressed or are not addressed at all in the research literature. I think that a separate section of literature review is needed in which the papers discussing well-being in classroom should be discussed in terms of methods used and results obtained.

Response 1. The following text has been added in the introduction to further explain the gap in the literature. considering that the study does not address the management of the classroom but of the center.

 

In addition, performance is often measured primarily in terms of student academic achievement rather than in organizational terms. On the other hand, there are few studies that address more than one dimension of well-being (physical and psychological) and for their measurement these mainly use self-reports instead of objective measures [15].

Finally, given the impact of school principals on teacher well-being, the study seeks to cover the need to expand existing knowledge about factors that can contribute to well-being in the workplace [16]

 

 

Point 2. In section 2.1. the authors mention that they use the combination of 3 theories: please try to explain in short how you have used these theories.

Response  2. The following paragraph is added at the beginning of section 2.1. to clarify this point.

 

These theories are used to explain the relationship between HRM and performance, and the mediating role of well-being in schools.

 

 

Point 3. The hypotheses formulation is well described and in accordance to the literature. Please try not to cite so many papers

Response 3. The number of citations has been reduced.

 

Point 4.  The questionnaire validation is hard to understand. Please use a table representation for all the items with the questions in the left side of the table and the construction in the top part of the table. On each row, one can find the factor loadings for each construction and on the last two rows, there are the AVE and CR.

 

Response 4. The following paragraph is added

 

This section is divided into three points. In the first one, the common method bias of the scales used is analyzed. In the second point, the dimensionality, reliability and validity of the wellbeing scale was analyzed. In the third point, in the case of wellbeing, the items sharing the same dimension were averaged to form composite measures. Composite measures of wellbeing were combinations of items to create score aggregates that are then subjected to confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) together with the rest of the scales considered in the study, in order to validate them.  Finally, at this point the causal relationships were analyzed to test the hypotheses.

 

 

Point 5. Replace Table 1 and Table 3 by creating this cumulative table. Please add the questionnaire as annex to the paper.

 

Response 5. The tables have been changed.

 

 

Point 6. Also, in the paper is not mentioned how the evaluation of the questionnaire items has been made: have you used a Likert scale? If yes, with how many points?

Response 6. The following paragraph is added to clarify this point

The items of the different constructs were evaluated using a Likert scale with values from 1 to 5 (see annex 1)

 

Point 7.  Please provide descriptive statistics and a discussion related to the answers you have received for the relevant questions from each construction.

 

Response 7. The tables have been changed.

 

Point 8.  Please clarify why some of the questions use the second person ("you"), e.g. "you are sad", while others use he first person ("I"), e.g. "I am duly rewarded for my work".

Response 8. The questionnaire is added to clarify this point (annex1)

 

Point 9. Also, the "Emotional" construction seems to be part of the Physical well-being - why is this the case? Wouldn't it be part of the Psychological well-being?

Response 9. In this case it refers to the psychosomatic symptomatology, characteristic of stress, anxiety and burnout.

 

Point 10 . What does the item "Lead with example." means? How was the question to which the respondents answered formulated in order to answer to this question?

Response 10. The questionnaire is added to clarify this point (annex1)

 

Point 11 . I think that all the items used in the questionnaire should be double-checked for consistency. Please add an analysis related to the results obtained in Table 5 on sub-categories (such as age, gender, income, etc). Are these results the same when such a variable separates the respondents' group?

Response 11. The following paragraph is added to clarify this point :

In addition to the previous analysis, the control variables of gender, age, years working in schools and whether management positions are held in the school were introduced into the model. The result obtained was that none of the previous variables significantly affect performance

 

Point 12 . Please provide evidence and proper explanation for "AMO theory" mentioned in page 1 row 45

Response 12. The following paragraph has been changed to clarify this point :

 

This is considered in some of the theoretical frameworks on which this article is based, such as the AMO theory, witch emphasis on the idea that the set of HR practices associated with HRM systems have an effect on individual and organizational performance, the model of labor demands and resources, which focuses on the analysis of employee well-being; and the theory of social exchange, which affects social exchange as an essential element in the relationship between HRM practices and performance

 

Point 13 . Please use "et al" instead of "et all" in the paper.
Please reduce the citations by half - in the current form there are a series of places in which one reference was sufficient.
please do not cite table 3 before table 1. Please place table 3 next to its first citation. The same observation for table 5 (page 9, row 401).
please use "not supported" instead of "no supported"
Use "Psychological" instead of "Psichological"
Use "well-being" instead of "wellbeing"
Please improve the English used in the paper

Response 13.  Corrections made

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a very well structured article. They clearly identify their purpose, highlight the contributions of their study and place their design within the framing of a theoretical background. The study encompasses a number of challenging variables and results in concrete and relevant contributions to the field. The authors also do a good job of setting the article against a broad understanding of sustainability.

The article is quite clearly written and follows a compelling argumentation. Despite this, small improvements are suggested in the document presented in annex, including a more distinctive and specific title, the correction of a few typos or less clear expressions. These are, however, minor aspects and mere suggestions.

In the section pertaining the limitations of the study I would also reference the fact that the type of school was not taken into consideration. Public and private schools were included in the sample, and these types of schools have very different leeway in terms of HRM and leadership. Teachers also tend to have different characteristics and job conditions which may impact the results indirectly. These aspects may be taken into account in future studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response 1. The title has been changed.

The influence of management on teacher well-being and the development of sustainable schools.

 

Response 2. We proofread the article

 

Response 3. The following paragraph has been added to conclusions: 

Future studies should also take into account the different types of schools (public private and subsidized), inasmuch as the room for maneuver differs in terms of HRM and leadership. In addition, teachers also tend to have different working conditions and settings that may influence results indirectly.

Reviewer 4 Report

As you noted in your final paragraph, there are limitations here that generate some concern: How many individuals did you seek out relative to the final sample? How representative is this sample? What is unique about this geographic area which might be different than many other areas?...etc

 

These concerns are not intended to take away the meritorious purpose of advocating for HRM consideration in dealing with secondary school teachers.

So, on balance, I found the research to be relevant especially in today's society.

Author Response

Response 1. The following paragraph has been changed to clarify this point :

Data for this work were obtained through a non-probabilistic sampling for convenience of 300 educational centers, public, subsidized and private, of secondary education. In order to include large, medium and small cities, the provinces of Madrid, Valencia, Malaga and Murcia in Spain were selected. This order represents the different sizes of the cities from larger to smaller. For the collection of data, we set up a link with access to a web questionnaire and sent it by email to teachers in order to guarantee anonymity. The final sample is made up of 315 secondary school teachers from 75 schools, of which 33% are men and 67% are women. With an average age of 43.34 years, the minimum age is 25 and the maximum is 65.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version and for improving some of the aspects mentioned through the previous round of review.

Still, there are aspects underlined in the previous review, which, reading the response letter seem to have been addressed, but when reading the paper, I couldn't find them. First, the questionnaire used in the paper is not added as an annex to the paper (it is true, some questions are within the paper, but the whole questionnaire is missing).

Second, and the most important, the validation of the questionnaire is not conducted as it is stated in the literature. As previously mentioned, there are important indicators that are missing: IFI, NFI, CFI, RFI, etc. The authors have added a NNFI indicator below one of the tables (I personally do not know what NNFI stands for, so please add explanations to the provided indicators and discuss them properly in the paper).

Third, the newly added columns in Table 1 and Table 3 do not bring any information related to the model's validity. They are not even discussed in the paper, so I do not understand why they have been added.

Please discuss the validation of the model in a proper manner and provide the path diagram you have obtained through the use of the software. Without a validation, the results have no value in my opinion.

Author Response

POINT 1. Still, there are aspects underlined in the previous review, which, reading the response letter seem to have been addressed, but when reading the paper, I couldn't find them. First, the questionnaire used in the paper is not added as an annex to the paper (it is true, some questions are within the paper, but the whole questionnaire is missing).

RESPONSE 1. We have included an annex with the complete questionnaire and corrected translation errors.

 

POINT 2. Second, and the most important, the validation of the questionnaire is not conducted as it is stated in the literature. As previously mentioned, there are important indicators that are missing: IFI, NFI, CFI, RFI, etc. The authors have added a NNFI indicator below one of the tables (I personally do not know what NNFI stands for, so please add explanations to the provided indicators and discuss them properly in the paper).

RESPONSE 2. We have included  the indicators and explained it in the text.

 

POINT 3. Third, the newly added columns in Table 1 and Table 3 do not bring any information related to the model's validity. They are not even discussed in the paper, so I do not understand why they have been added.

RESPONSE 3. We have added the columns because other reviewers have requested it.

 

POINT 4. Please discuss the validation of the model in a proper manner and provide the path diagram you have obtained through the use of the software. Without a validation, the results have no value in my opinion.

RESPONSE 4. A graphic has been included with the validation of the model.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version!

Please add in the annex the output from which you have obtained the following values for these indicators "Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index 515 (NFI)=0.941; Bentler-Bonett Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI)=0.994; Comparative Fit Index (CFI)=0.995; 516 Bollen's (IFI) Fit Index=0.995; Mcdonald's (MFI) Fit Index=0.939; Root Mean-Square Error of 517 Approximation (RMSEA)=0.017." and discuss them properly in the paper in terms of meaning.

Also, please repair the typo in "RMSEA is close to cero" --> "zero" - which is multiple times presented in the new version of the paper.