The Effects of Employee Learning, Knowledge, Benefits, and Satisfaction on Employee Performance and Career Growth in the Hospitality Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addresses the relationship between human resources and the expansion of the service industry.

The authors are kindly requested to highlight their findings in the abstract and to indicate the novelty of their research in the introduction.

The methodology should be better organized.

Under the section Discussion, please argue on the H5 results. Is it reliable to reduce the benefits of the employee and keep satisfaction at the same level?

Conclusions: The authors should clearly state the contribution to the state of the art, as in the present manuscript the limitations seem to have a considerable impact.

Author Response

Note to the Reviewers:

Overall, the objectives were reduced to two objectives as suggested by the reviewer. The discussion (part 5) was totally removed, as suggested. The 6.1 was removed as suggested. The specific revisions were indicated below.

Respectfully,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Please find suggested corrections of your manuscript:

• title should be changed so it would not leave out some of the key research variables (benefits, satisfaction, career growth) - either mention them all or none. Additionally, it should indicate that it concerns only selected segments of hospitality industry
• introduction should not misguide the reader's attention by Thai tourism significance, but should rather focus on hospitality industry in terms what is it consisted of, so it would be clear hotels, airlines and spa are part of it. The best way to do it is to switch places of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Introduction, so this elaboration would be part of the new paragraph 2. The importance of selected segments could be demonstrated by their share in Thailand's GDP.
• Please delete the last sentence of current paragraph 3 in the Introduction, it doesn't belong there (you may use it in chapter 2.1. if you want)
• If you want this paper to be considered a scientific paper and not professional one, please remove your 3rd research objective
• In chapter 2.1., please delete sentences regarding authentic leadership, sustainability, employee perceptions, innovation and motivation. They are not directly relevant for learning and knowledge in terms of your research.
• please rearrange hypothesis - you can't have H4 stated before H3 and please try to state them more appropriately . You should state current H4 immediately after chapter 2.3. and state H6 immediately after chapter 2.2.
• it is not true that there is a limited research on benefits within HRM, as you state in chapter 2.3. Especially when you yourself start that same chapter by saying benefits are one of the most studied topics. Please consult enormous literature sources on total reward model regarding tangible and intangible benefits.
• In chapter 2.3. you have a sentence "In addition, the current research also investigates employee benefits...". It is not appropriate to say "in addition" when you start that very paragraph with that point.
• please delete everything regarding Blumen study on high-tech organizations from chapter 2.3., because it is not relevant for your study.
• you end chapter 2.3. with two references, out of which one concerns creativity. Please move it to chapter on creativity.
• your satisfaction chapter is not enough documented to be chapter for itself. Out of its content, please keep only sentences regarding relation to performance, but move them to chapter 2.5. Regarding relation of satisfaction to creativity and benefits you need additional references, but please include your findings on that in current chapters 2.2. and 2.3. That will also help you with immediate stating of hypothesis I suggested above. 
• From chapter 2.5., second paragraph should be moved to 4.Results, where you write about demographic factors.
• all of the hypothesis should be defined more precisely, so they would directly indicate that they relate to part of the Thai hospitality industry, and not in general. The best proof of that is H9, before which you say "Several studies have suggested a relationship between employee performance and career growth (50-53))." Why would you test it then by your own hypothesis if it's been already proven? Your contribution exists only if it is clear from the hypothesis that you test that relationship within a specific case. 
• The first sentence of the second paragraph in chapter 3.1. should be deleted, it's content has been said before
• from chapter 3.2. , the last two sentences should be moved to chapter 4.1., which is about Cronbach's alpha
• you write about development of your survey instrument in chapters 3.1., 3.2. and 3.2.. Please unite what you find important and fit it where you find it's the most adequate, but it should be all at one place.
• please remove all references from 3.3., it is enough if you say your questionnaire is based on relevant literature presented in your theoretical framework
• after figure 2 you summarize testing of hypothesis, but it should be even more shorter: your first sentence always says there is a relationship...and then your third sentence says there is a positive relationship. Please use only one sentence saying whether there is or there is nota (positive) relationship. Additionally, the last sentence in all those paragraphs for H1-H9 (positioned between Figure 2 and table 5)  should be deleted,  as they do not add value.
• please delete your current chapter 5. Discussion and rename your current chapter 4 Results and discussion. You do not need anything from current chapter 5 because it repeats findings from theoretical framework. What you need is a real discussion on H5 findings, the literature which might suggest such results or your own interpretation why does that result differs from what you stated in theoretical framework. It is pretty unthinkable that benefits do not influence performance.
• delete the entire chapter 6.1., because I suggested in the beginning you should remove your 3rd research objective, since this is a scientific and not professional paper. You may of course say, as part of the conclusion, that your results contribute beside academic society to professionals as well, but one or two sentences regarding that are enough. 
• please remove title on subchapter 6.1., because conclusion is usually without subchapters but written all in one. Also, delete the first two sentences from the second paragraph of current 6.1., they are not needed. 

Author Response

Note to the Reviewers:

Overall, the objectives were reduced to two objectives as suggested by the reviewer. The discussion (part 5) was totally removed, as suggested. The 6.1 was removed as suggested. The specific revisions were indicated below.

Respectfully,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, thank you for your paper I have enjoyed reading it. I think the topic the paper covered is very interesting from a management perspective, and particularly for tourism industry. However, I think some aspects needs to improve:

1) to clarify definitions. What we understand by knowledge and learning is not clear.

2) No relationship between literature review and hypothesis: employee learning imporves creativity is the second hypothesis but is not supported by the literature previously explained. The same happens with employee creativity and satisfaction, how to reach that  hypothesis is not justifed.

3) no explanation about the criteria for deciding the sample

4) no access to the questionnaires to know how the different constructs have been creaated. how are we measuring creativity, by asking employees if the think about themselves they are creative? The annex should have the questinonnarie

The articles needs to be updated, first line talks about number of tourists in 2018, when we are in 2021

Author Response

Note to the Reviewers:

Overall, the objectives were reduced to two objectives as suggested by the reviewer. The discussion (part 5) was totally removed, as suggested. The 6.1 was removed as suggested. The specific revisions were indicated below.

Respectfully,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors considered the recommendations made by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for accepting suggested corrections!

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for revising the paper according the suggestions made, I think the paper is now more accurate