High Performance Sustainable Work Practices: Scale Development and Validation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest developing a graphic diagram illustrating the study's stages and assigning the methods and techniques used to each step. It is necessary to explain why the selected methods and techniques were used and not others.

In line 396, the authors refer to Table 1, which is supposed to reveal the four aspects studied. Meanwhile, there are six items in Table 1. Is this an editing error?

The survey that was conducted only applies to Australian companies. This should be pointed out in the discussion section, and the need to expand the study to a broader range of countries presenting different cultural aspects of leading should be discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Hope my comments help you improve the manuscript. 

INTRODUCTION

·      Overall, the introduction is well-written.

·  Page 1, line 35-41. To make your points more clear, rephrase these two sentences. And why was only motivation-enhancing HRM mentioned? What about ability and opportunity enhancing characteristics?

 LITERATURE REVIEW

·  Section 2. This section should be named "literature review" rather than "background."

·      Page 4, line 204. Please provide the full term of EMS when it is mentioned for the first time in the text.

 METHODS

·    Section 3. This section should be named “Methods”, instead of HPSWP scale validation.

·   Section 3.1, line 236-237. The authors mentioned that they used theoretical framework of the deductive method of scale development to develop the items, but no further explanation was provided.

·    Section 3.1. It confused me a little. The authors stated that 23-items of work practices with sustainability characteristics were developed, which include employee selection, training and development, performance management, job design, and individual/group incentives. However, in the subsequent explanation, these practices were not mentioned in each of the HPSWP's pro-financial, social, and environmental characteristics. Please clarify.

·    Section 3.1. It is a necessary for the authors to put all 23 developed items in a table or at least provide the validated scale items as an appendix at the end of the paper. This information should not be omitted.  

·    Table 2. The results of sample 1 – CVR should not be combined with EFA results that based on N=197. It is very confusing.

·      Table 1. The outcome presented in this table was very confusing. It should not combine the results of two samples in a single table.

·    Why are there only six items in the table? Based on sample 2, all item loadings, not just six, should be presented in the table.

·      Table 1. Please confirm whether the number of CFA samples is 119 or 149.

Overall, please ensure that the table of findings is nicely formatted and systematically organized to clearly present the findings.

Author Response

Please see the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf