Women’s Promotion to Management and Unfairness Perceptions—A Challenge to the Social Sustainability of the Organizations and Beyond

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addresses an important issue regarding sustainable development (SD). Indeed, gender equality is a topic that still needs to be emphasized in the debates about SD. Despite the contributions, there are important issues to be considered:

The methodological procedures are not presented in the abstract. The data analysis procedures are only mentioned in section 4, in the main text.

The introduction should be improved. There are only two paragraphs focusing on contextualizing the research, showing its relevance and the gap addressed. Although the topic is underexplored by the literature, there are several relevant publications that could be used to better justify the relevance of the study.

As example, searching for documents in Topics option in Web of Science the combination "gender equality" AND (management OR companies OR "human resources"), there are 888 results.

The paragraph about gender discrimination must present references to base it (lines 54-57).

There is no reference from Sustainability journal in the references. This is important to show the connection between the paper and the journal. Authors should check if there are references from the journal that can contribute to the debates provided.

Authors should finish the introduction presenting the research goals. Findings, contributions and implications should be at the end of the paper.

In the text lines 170-174, the argument presented is valid and makes sense. However, to be presented in the theoretical background of the paper, it should be based on references and clearly connected to them.

Regarding the sample, the questionnaire was sent to all employees of the company? Were their responses anonymous? Please, add more details about data collection procedures.

Authors should present all the items presented in the questionnaire in a table or as an Appendix, but it is important to make the research more transparent.

Authors should summarize the validation (or not) of hypothesis in the end of results section (maybe through a table).  

Authors should review the discussion section. It is mixing conclusion and discussion aspects. The discussion should consider and debate the research findings in the light of the literature – this debate considering the literature is missing. In the conclusion section, authors should summarize the research (as it is presented in lines 473-479), and show the main findings of the research. Future research suggestions should be mentioned in the paper (conclusion section).

The subsections 6.1 and 6.2 should be subsections of the conclusion.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1.

The manuscript addresses an important issue regarding sustainable development (SD). Indeed, gender equality is a topic that still needs to be emphasized in the debates about SD. Despite the contributions, there are important issues to be considered:

The methodological procedures are not presented in the abstract. The data analysis procedures are only mentioned in section 4, in the main text.

We are grateful to the reviewer for this comment. We have included the main data analysis in the abstract.

The introduction should be improved. There are only two paragraphs focusing on contextualizing the research, showing its relevance and the gap addressed. Although the topic is underexplored by the literature, there are several relevant publications that could be used to better justify the relevance of the study.

As example, searching for documents in Topics option in Web of Science the combination "gender equality" AND (management OR companies OR "human resources"), there are 888 results.

We thank you for these comments regarding the research contextualization. We have improved the introduction by adding some paragraphs linked to the previous giving more detailed information to justify the gap addressed. We hope that the new introduction fits better to explain the context and the relevance of the study. We have also included more references to justify the research on this topic.

We completely agree with the reviewer there are a big number of references related to “gender equality and management or companies or HR”. When we are focused on these results, we find many regarding different specific topics such descriptive overview, wage gap, equality policies, sexism, gender barriers, stereotypes, etc. But references directly related to the influence and consequences for organizational results diminish. Anyway, as we have mentioned above, we have included new relevant references in the introduction.

The paragraph about gender discrimination must present references to base it (lines 54-57).

According the reviewer we have included references related to the paragraph about gender discrimination (now lines 122-124)

There is no reference from Sustainability journal in the references. This is important to show the connection between the paper and the journal. Authors should check if there are references from the journal that can contribute to the debates provided.

Thank you for calling our attention to the “importance to the connection between the paper and the journal”. We have checked again and we have included references from Sustainability journal.

Authors should finish the introduction presenting the research goals. Findings, contributions and implications should be at the end of the paper.

Following the suggestion of the reviewer, we had deleted the reference to specific results of our research, maintaining a brief mention of the potential contribution to this research topic.

In the text lines 170-174, the argument presented is valid and makes sense. However, to be presented in the theoretical background of the paper, it should be based on references and clearly connected to them.

Thank you for considering the argument presented in the text lines 274-276 (before 170-174) is valid. This paragraph is a presentation of the following arguments where there are some references to justify it. We consider this section as a whole is clearly connected.  

Regarding the sample, the questionnaire was sent to all employees of the company? Were their responses anonymous? Please, add more details about data collection procedures.

We have broadened and renamed sample section to procedure and sample. We have included all details of data collection in this section.

Authors should present all the items presented in the questionnaire in a table or as an Appendix, but it is important to make the research more transparent.

The items presented in our questionnaire belong to published questionnaires referenced in the paper. But we present all the items presented in the questionnaire in an Appendix to make the research more transparent.

The questionnaires are:

• Self-perceived performance (Abramis, 1994)
• Organizational Commitment (Cook & Wall, 1980)
• Organizational Justice (Colquitt, 2001)
• Gender Barriers (Ramos & al., 2021)

Authors should summarize the validation (or not) of hypothesis in the end of results section (maybe through a table).  

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have included a final paragraph to summarize main results.

Authors should review the discussion section. It is mixing conclusion and discussion aspects. The discussion should consider and debate the research findings in the light of the literature – this debate considering the literature is missing. In the conclusion section, authors should summarize the research (as it is presented in lines 473-479), and show the main findings of the research. Future research suggestions should be mentioned in the paper (conclusion section).

The subsections 6.1 and 6.2 should be subsections of the conclusion.

We really appreciate the suggestions of this reviewer. Accordingly, we are linked the comments included in the discussion section with the previous evidences mentioned in the literature review. In addition, we provide a short mention to the theoretical framework where organizational justice had been developed, the Social Exchange Theory. In addition, we have separated the discussion of results from the conclusion section, where we have included the subsections of implications (with a mention to future research options) and limitations. We are open to further develop the discussion if required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

This paper is a well-argued and valuable contribution demonstrating the empirical relationship between performance and barriers to women’s promotion in a financial group of Spain. The study investigates a moderated mediation model. This study contributes to the literature by identifying the fact that sustainability challenge would improve women’s situation in management and, at the same time, contribute to improving the results of the overall organization.

The paper is clearly structured and contains all the necessary elements. However, it has certain weaknesses that need to be carefully addressed in the manuscript:

1. In Abstract and Method, the sample size is written as 1304, while in Tables 1 and 2, different sample sizes have been mentioned. Please write the final sample size in all instances used for analysis, excluding incomplete responses.

Line 14-15: “Gender discrimination against women in managerial positions faces the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality.”

The word faces here should be replaced with ‘violates’, etc.

2. Section 3 is more related to the literature review than explicitly discussing the relationships (hypotheses development). It is suggested to develop the hypotheses to build up the case for the ‘theoretical model’.

Lines 270-273: “There is a lack of studies analyzing the relationship between gender barriers and work outcomes through perceptions of organizational justice, and the moderator role of gender in these relationships. In order to add to the previous knowledge, the present study tests the following hypotheses:”

Hypotheses are proposed based on arguments (theoretical and conceptual evidence or reasoning). Without providing some justifications for the hypotheses, we cannot simply test them. Provide arguments/evidence for the relationship between barriers and organizational justice. So, H1 should be replaced by four sub-hypotheses because each barrier is associated with organizational justice separately (arrows depict so). Moreover, the analysis has been performed on individual relationships.

Furthermore, indirect effects only make sense when there is another path (direct), telling us about partial or full mediation. Thus, connect predictors with the outcome as well. Figure 1 shows no mediation path, while figure 2 indicates that OC is a mediator in the model. Align diagram with the hypotheses developed for mediation.

Moreover, do not write the word barriers in boxes in figure 1.

4. In the section ‘Method’, the description of “sample” is alright but the procedure is missing: how data were collected, any screening question, which sampling technique was employed, and the reason for choosing the financial sector.
5. The procedure described in the results section concerning the single factor VS. seven-factor model (Harman’s single factor test), in fact, reveals the absence of common method bias (CMB). Being cross-sectional nature of the study, it may prone to CMB. Describe it in the ‘Method’ section before proceeding to the analysis. For a better understanding and shortcomings of Harman’s test, please refer to Podsakoff et al. (2003).
6. Overall, the language is satisfactory; still, some grammatical re-check is required throughout the document, for example,

Line 87: “…along with the labyrinth metaphor proposed by Eagly and Carli [12], continues to be valid at the present.”

“the’ before present should be removed.

Line 135: “In addition, women frequently state that they are valued less than men, they have to demonstrate their competencies.”

Semi-colon instead of a comma before “they” suits better.

6. Miscellaneous

• Put the captions below the figures (1, 2 and 3).
• Table 2:

Mention the complete paths for indirect effects, as described below.

• Please also re-check the indirect effect of WLB-OJ-OC-OP, it is 0.011 (a3*b1*c1)? Since all the mediating effects appear to be non-significant, It is suggested (but not mandatory) to take only one mediator (organizational justice) instead of two sequential mediators. It would improve the coefficients and their sig. values.

Best of Luck!

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

This paper is a well-argued and valuable contribution demonstrating the empirical relationship between performance and barriers to women’s promotion in a financial group of Spain. The study investigates a moderated mediation model. This study contributes to the literature by identifying the fact that sustainability challenge would improve women’s situation in management and, at the same time, contribute to improving the results of the overall organization.

The paper is clearly structured and contains all the necessary elements. However, it has certain weaknesses that need to be carefully addressed in the manuscript:

1. In Abstract and Method, the sample size is written as 1304, while in Tables 1 and 2, different sample sizes have been mentioned. Please write the final sample size in all instances used for analysis, excluding incomplete responses.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have eliminated participants with incomplete responses. Thus, 26 participants with missing data in the study variables were dropped out. This made a final sample size of 1278 participants. After that, we have re-estimated the descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability values, and replaced the information in Table 1. The description of the sample characteristics has also been modified accordingly. These changes have not affected the results of the moderated mediation model in Mplus, as the 26 participants with missing values were automatically excluded in Mplus in the analysis offered in the former version of the manuscript.

Line 14-15: “Gender discrimination against women in managerial positions faces the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality.”

The word faces here should be replaced with ‘violates’, etc.

We have replaced the word following the suggestion to reviewer 2.

1. Section 3 is more related to the literature review than explicitly discussing the relationships (hypotheses development). It is suggested to develop the hypotheses to build up the case for the ‘theoretical model’.

Lines 270-273: “There is a lack of studies analyzing the relationship between gender barriers and work outcomes through perceptions of organizational justice, and the moderator role of gender in these relationships. In order to add to the previous knowledge, the present study tests the following hypotheses:”

Hypotheses are proposed based on arguments (theoretical and conceptual evidence or reasoning). Without providing some justifications for the hypotheses, we cannot simply test them. Provide arguments/evidence for the relationship between barriers and organizational justice. So, H1 should be replaced by four sub-hypotheses because each barrier is associated with organizational justice separately (arrows depict so). Moreover, the analysis has been performed on individual relationships.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have replaced Hypothesis 1 by four sub-hypotheses: H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d. In addition, we had included a reference from recent developments on Social exchange theory that provide a general framework for the relationship between organizational barriers (as actions or faults from the company) and perceptions of organizational justice. The rationale from the different kinds of barriers includes specific references for everyone.

Furthermore, indirect effects only make sense when there is another path (direct), telling us about partial or full mediation. Thus, connect predictors with the outcome as well. Figure 1 shows no mediation path, while figure 2 indicates that OC is a mediator in the model. Align diagram with the hypotheses developed for mediation.

We appreciate the comment of the reviewer, but we do not agree with this viewpoint. The reviewer's comment aligns with Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure for testing mediation effects. This is a well-known procedure that has been traditionally used by researchers. However, some of its conditions and assumptions have been criticized (see LeBreton et al., 2009; Zao et al., 2010).

Following Baron and Kenny (1986), the first condition that should be met to test for a mediation effect is that the predictor (X) has a direct effect on the outcome (Y). If this condition is not met, then, there is no point to continue with the analysis. However, this first condition has been strongly criticized. According to Zao et al. (2010), many research projects have been terminated at early stages because the data did not conform to the first Baron and Kenny’s criteria. The procedure tells to start by establishing a basic effect: “Once you have the effect, then you can look for mediation.” But if the effect is not found, the project is abandoned. So that, misapplication of the Baron-Kenny procedure was causing authors to drop projects that might be promising.

Once the accomplishment of this first condition has been seen as unnecessary, we could conclude that the requirements to test (and support) an indirect effect, would be the following: 1) To show that there is a significant relationship between the predictor (X) and the mediator (M), call this path α; 2) To show that there is a significant relationship between M and the outcome (Y) controlling for the effect of  X on Y, call this path β; 3) To show that the mediated effect is statistically significant (the product αβ is significant).

More recently, authors, such as Hayes (2017) have suggested and claimed that for testing and supporting an indirect effect, there would be enough with finding that the mediated effect is statistically significant (that is, that condition 3) is met): “The more hypothesis tests one conducts in order to make or support a claim, the more likely one is going to make a mistake. It is better to minimize the number of inferential procedures one must employ in order to support a claim. A single inferential test of the indirect effect is all that is needed" (Hayes, 2017, p. 116).

Moreover, do not write the word barriers in boxes in figure 1.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have deleted this word for the two barriers were is unnecessary to understand the content of the variable. Nevertheless, we prefer to maintain this word for two kind of barriers where this deletion could produce confusion about the meaning of the variable included in the model.

1. In the section ‘Method’, the description of “sample” is alright but the procedure is missing: how data were collected, any screening question, which sampling technique was employed, and the reason for choosing the financial sector.

We appreciate the comment of the reviewer as it gave us the opportunity to include relevant information that was missing in the former version of the manuscript. We have renamed the section “sample” as “procedure and sample”, and we have included a paragraph offering more detailed information about the procedure.

1. The procedure described in the results section concerning the single factor VS. seven-factor model (Harman’s single factor test), in fact, reveals the absence of common method bias (CMB). Being cross-sectional nature of the study, it may prone to CMB. Describe it in the ‘Method’ section before proceeding to the analysis. For a better understanding and shortcomings of Harman’s test, please refer to Podsakoff et al. (2003).

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The CFA comparison among one single factor model and a 7-factor model was used with the purpose of providing evidence of distinctiveness (discriminant validity) among the variables included in our model. However, we completely agree with the reviewer that this technique can also be useful to address the issue of common method variance. We have also cited Podsakoff et al.´s (2003) article in the Journal of Applied Psychology, as it is indeed an excellent critical review of the sources of common method biases and also a source for understanding Harman´s test uses and shortcomings.

1. Overall, the language is satisfactory; still, some grammatical re-check is required throughout the document, for example,

Line 87: “…along with the labyrinth metaphor proposed by Eagly and Carli [12], continues to be valid at the present.”

“the’ before present should be removed.

Line 135: “In addition, women frequently state that they are valued less than men, they have to demonstrate their competencies.”

Semi-colon instead of a comma before “they” suits better.

Thank you for the detailed revision. We have corrected the mistakes reported by reviewer 2.

1. Miscellaneous

• Put the captions below the figures (1, 2 and 3).

We have changed the captions in the Figures from above to below.

• Table 2:

Mention the complete paths for indirect effects, as described below.

• Please also re-check the indirect effect of WLB-OJ-OC-OP, it is 0.011 (a3*b1*c1)? Since all the mediating effects appear to be non-significant, It is suggested (but not mandatory) to take only one mediator (organizational justice) instead of two sequential mediators. It would improve the coefficients and their sig. values.

We really appreciate this recommendation as the re-checking of the indirect effects allowed us to detect that Table 2 had several errata. Values have been corrected and replaced by the right ones. However, as it can be observed in the table, the conclusions do not change, as there are two indirect effects that are significant (the same as in the former version of the manuscript).

Best of Luck!

REFERENCES

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

LeBreton, J.M., Wu, J., & Bing, M.N. (2009). The truth(s) on testing for mediation in the social and organizational sciences. In C.E. Lance & R.J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 109-144). New York: Routledge.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G. Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197- 206.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all my comments from the previous round. Congratulations for the work.