Exploring the Roles of Self-Efficacy and Technical Support in the Relationship between Techno-Stress and Counter-Productivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• P2, p3, and p4: Separate definition, causes and outcomes of technostress in theoretical background section.

• In entire manuscript: Use another term instead of side effect > for example: harmful effects or detrimental effects

• Specify what do you mean by information, what kind of information in introduction and theoretical background?

• Missing a theory to combine technostress and counterproductive behaviors. You need to show their connection via a solid theory or model. You may use this reference in theoretical background:

Belletier, C., Charkhabi, M., Pires de Andrade Silva, G., Ametepe, K., Lutz, M., & Izaute, M. (2019). Wearable cognitive assistants in a factory setting: A critical review of a promising way of enhancing cognitive performance and well-being. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(1), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00610-2

• Remove the word of “causal” from all your hypotheses. Revise hypotheses as below:

H-1. Techno-stress positively is associated with CWB.   

H-2. Techno-stress positively is associated with innovation resistance.

H-3. The association between techno-stress and counter-productivity is moderated by self-efficacy

H-4. The association between techno-stress and counter-productivity is moderated by Technical support

Description of scales is underdeveloped (3.4. Operational Definition of Variables). I highly suggest authors to rewrite this section. You may use this article as an example (you can also use this as a model of writing your moderating hypotheses):

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJWHM-01-2018-0008/full/html

At the moment your method section is vague. Your method section should include the following four sections:

• Participants
• Procedure
• Measures
• Data analysis

Also you need to give more details of your participants in terms of age, work record, gender and type of job, education level.

• Table 1 is not organized. It needs to be redrawn.
• I am wondering why authors did a factor analysis test? It does not need to be done! Normally if you adapt a scale in a new country a CFA would be enough. I suggest them to report only the result of CFA.
• In table 4 instead of T1, T2 and… write their extended name. Also, report Cronbach alpha and number of items for every component in separate columns
• Table 5 and 6 are not APA based
• The process of calculation of moderation is vague to me. I did not understand how the authors reached the results of table 6. I recommend them to follow this paper:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJWHM-01-2018-0008/full/html

• There is no discussion section where the results can be discussed and explained by previous studies or theories. Also, there is no implication or limitation section.
• Conclusion section is just repetition of results. Nothing new.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer’s Comments

All suggested comments are reflected as follows:

Reviewer 1 comments:

1. P2, p3, and p4: Separate definition, causes and outcomes of techno-stress in theoretical background section.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Divided two parts: definition and causes and outcomes (see p.3).

2. In entire manuscript: Use another term instead of side effect > for example: harmful effects or detrimental effects

 => Revision is made after reflecting comments in the whole sentences.  

3. Specify what do you mean by information, what kind of information in introduction and theoretical background?

 => Revision is made. Added a definition of information in business settings in introduction section. Such a definition applies to this study.   

4. Missing a theory to combine techno-stress and counterproductive behaviors. You need to show their connection via a solid theory or model. You may use this reference in theoretical background: Belletier, C., Charkhabi, M., Pires de Andrade Silva, G., Ametepe, K., Lutz, M., & Izaute, M. (2019). Wearable cognitive assistants in a factory setting: A critical review of a promising way of enhancing cognitive performance and well-being. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(1), 103-116.

 => Revision is made after reflecting comments. We had theoretical complementation especially the techno-stress and counterproductive behaviors (see pp. 3-6). Added 2.4. Relationship between Techno-stress and Counter-productivity. Cited Belletier et al. (2019).

5. Remove the word of “causal” from all your hypotheses. Revise hypotheses as below:

H-1. Techno-stress positively is associated with CWB.   

H-2. Techno-stress positively is associated with innovation resistance.

H-3. The association between techno-stress and counter-productivity is moderated by self-efficacy

H-4. The association between techno-stress and counter-productivity is moderated by Technical support

 => Revision is made after reflecting comments.

6. Description of scales is underdeveloped (3.4. Operational Definition of Variables). I highly suggest authors to rewrite this section. You may use this article as an example (you can also use this as a model of writing your moderating hypotheses): Morteza (2018).

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments and benchmarking Morteza (2018). Added the detail measures on scales and reliability (see p. 9, 11). Cited Morteza (2018) in the paper.

6. At the moment your method section is vague.Your method section should include the following four sections: Participants, Procedure Measures, Data analysis. Also you need to give more details of your participants in terms of age, work record, gender and type of job, education level. Also you need to give more details of your participants in terms of age, work record, gender and type of job, education level.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Added Table 2. Respondent Characteristics (see p. 10) and explained the rest at 3.3. Survey Design and Analysis Method (see pp. 9-10).

7. Table 1 is not organized. It needs to be redrawn.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments.

8. I am wondering why authors did a factor analysis test? It does not need to be done! Normally if you adapt a scale in a new country a CFA would be enough. I suggest them to report only the result of CFA.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Made Table 3 for CFA (see p. 11).

8. In table 4 instead of T1, T2 and… write their extended name. Also, report Cronbach alpha and number of items for every component in separate columns.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Regarding writing the extended name, we made a note below the table due to a space matter (see p. 12).

9. Table 5 and 6 are not APA based. The process of calculation of moderation is vague to me. I did not understand how the authors reached the results of table 6.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments and benchmarking Morteza (2018). Calculated again and Showed them at Table 5 and 6 (see pp. 13-15).

10. There is no discussion section where the results can be discussed and explained by previous studies or theories. Also, there is no implication or limitation section. Conclusion section is just repetition of results.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Suggested implications for theory and practice (see pp. 15-16).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “Exploring the roles of self-efficacy and technical support in the relationship between techno-stress and counter-productivity”. This study investigates the relationship between technostress and counter-productivity through counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and innovation resistance (IR). In addition, this paper explores the buffering effects of self-efficacy and technical support. I find this topic interesting, and I believe that this paper can bring to the literature but not in its actual format. I have outlined several issues that I detail hereafter. I hope you will find this helpful in improving your manuscript.

1. First, I wanted to point out that although I understand that Sustainability does not have strict formatting requirements, I found the formatting of this paper to be somewhat unusual (if not odd).

2. In the abstract, at l.12, I think that you mean that “Businesses should make organizational efforts to DECREASE counter-productivity. In addition, what do you mean by partial moderation (l.22)?

3. In the Introduction section, the paragraph p.2 l.47-51 is a bit difficult to understand what you mean...

4. There is no theoretical framework to explain why techno-stress leads to CWD and IR. Please provide a more theoretical argumentation on the relationship between techno-stress and counter-productivity.

5. Please provide stronger argumentations on the buffering effects of self-efficacy and technical support. In its current state, this section only presents empirical studies without providing strong theoretical argumentations. More fatal, we still do not understand why self-efficacy and technical support buffer the technostress-counterproductivity relationship.

6. You should examine whether there is a difference between IT and non-IT industries.

7. You should rely on CFA rather than EFA.

8. How do you explain the positive correlation between technical support and innovative resistance, and the negative correlation between CWB and IR?

9. You should use a bootstrapping procedure to examine the significance of the moderating effects.

10. You should plot your moderating effects.

11. I am afraid that the discussion is superficial. Currently, the discussion repeats the results. You should discuss your findings in more detail.

12. Please highlight the limits of your study.

Based on these above evaluations, I would like to see a better version after your careful revision. Good luck!

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer’s Comments

All suggested comments are reflected as follows:

Reviewer 2 comments:

1. First, I wanted to point out that although I understand that Sustainability does not have strict formatting requirements, I found the formatting of this paper to be somewhat unusual (if not odd).

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. A manuscript preparation guideline in Sustainability suggests as follows: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (optional). We benchmarked and prepared our manuscript as follows: Introduction, Theoretical background, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions.

2. In the abstract, at l.12, I think that you mean that “Businesses should make organizational efforts to DECREASE counter-productivity. In addition, what do you mean by partial moderation (l.22)?

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Revised the sentence because of being unnecessary.

3. In the Introduction section, the paragraph p.2 l.47-51 is a bit difficult to understand what you mean...

=> Revision is made after paraphrasing.

4. There is no theoretical framework to explain why techno-stress leads to CWD and IR. Please provide a more theoretical argumentation on the relationship between techno-stress and counter-productivity.

  => Revision is made after reflecting comments. We had theoretical complementation especially the techno-stress and counterproductive behaviors (see pp. 5-7).

5. Please provide stronger argumentations on the buffering effects of self-efficacy and technical support. In its current state, this section only presents empirical studies without providing strong theoretical argumentations. More fatal, we still do not understand why self-efficacy and technical support buffer the technostress-counterproductivity relationship.

 => Revision is made after reflecting comments. We had theoretical complementation especially the techno-stress and counterproductive behaviors (see pp. 5-7).

6. You should examine whether there is a difference between IT and non-IT industries.

 => Revision is made after reflecting comments. Added explanation (see p. 9). A statistical examination between two groups is not made because it is beyond this study scope. Mentioned in its future study.   

7. You should rely on CFA rather than EFA.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Made Table 3 for CFA (see p. 11).

8. How do you explain the positive correlation between technical support and innovative resistance, and the negative correlation between CWB and IR?

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Added explanation (see p. 12).

9. You should use a bootstrapping procedure to examine the significance of the moderating effects.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Added it (see pp. 13-14).

10. You should plot your moderating effects.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Added them Figures 1 and 2 (see pp. 14-15).

11. I am afraid that the discussion is superficial. Currently, the discussion repeats the results. You should discuss your findings in more detail.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Suggested implications for theory and practice (see pp. 15-16).

12. Please highlight the limits of your study.

=> Revision is made after reflecting comments. Suggested it (see pp. 16).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

P 5 in revised version:

"There is a negative influence relationship between techno-stress and job performance"  > influence i redudunt. Revise it plz. 

". Self-efficacy has an influence on human behavior ... " > instead of influence i suggest "impact". also add a reference for that sentence. 

P 6 : 

"Organizational support including technical support in the service industry" > change industry to "industries" 

 "... describe that support such as education of new working 265
technology and motivation for commitment to work .. "  > Instead such as use "in terms of .."

P 7: Why figure 1 consists of 2 figures?! check and revise it. 

check direction of this hypothsis: Techno-stress has a positive effect onpositively is associated with innovation resistance. > positively or negatively? 

P 8 & 9: The study measures should include more info such as Cronbach Alpha and each should presented in a separarte paraghrapgh under the same heading. I suggest to recheck the reference I introduced before. 

Statistical coefficients in tables very not very clear. I would like to see a final clean version (without track changes) once is ready. Moreover, Statistical coefficients in tables should be matched with the statistical coefficients within the text. Check this in entire text. 

P 17 : Limitation section: 

"This study does not have a strong theoretical basis for 
technostress and counter-productivity." >> I suggest to rewrite this sentence more moderately as it may undermine your study findings.  You may say that considerating the lack of suffiecient studies on this topic, this study provided some findings that can develop the current literature. Or something similar to this. 

General commnets: 

1) double check all references to ensure all have been listed in reference section. 

2) Ask a native english speaker to read/double check your manuscript  

Author Response

Attached please find a pdf file your your review. 

We try to reflect all your suggested comments. 

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my comments below:

1. I am sorry that I was not clear in my previous comment. The formatting of the introduction section was odd. By reorganizing the sub-section of the introduction, I now find that this is clearer and easier to read.

2. p7 => technostress is “POSITIVELY ASSOCIATED” with CWB. Same for H2

3. Most of my concerns were not well addressed (i.e.; theoretical framework, the superficiality of the discussion: What the results mean?, limitations of the present study: CMV, self-reported measures) etc.

4. It is difficult (if not impossible!) to review the results section with tracked changes...

5. p17 l.606-611: not providing a theoretical framework is not a limitation since it is necessary to understand the link between variables. As a result, the paragraph “There is some limitation (...) is logical and valid.” Should be removed from the manuscript!

Even this paper has many flaws, I still believe that it contributes to the current literature!

Author Response

Attached please find a pdf file your your review. 

We try to reflect all suggested comments. 

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf