Effects of Job Satisfaction on Job Performance of Sugar Industrial Workers: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Reviewer's comments on the manuscript entitled:

Effects of Job Satisfaction on Job Behavior of Sugar Industrial Workers: Job Performance Perspective

The author has made some corrections, as suggested, but not all:

1. Abstract has not been rewritten, but only a few sentences have been added. My suggestion was to rewrite the Abstract to better reflect the specifics of the sugar workers in Bangladesh. Since there are other sugar industries, e.g., in Europe, my other suggestion was to change

2. the title of the paper to mention the country, since job satisfaction may also be related to the policies of that country. The authors declined to change the title.

3. I still think that this paper gives valuable answers to several questions that should be considered in the study of job satisfaction, but the idea studied in the paper should be followed from the title through the abstract, the main body of the text, the results and the conclusions. Thus, if the authors studied the job satisfaction of employees in the sugar industry, this should be the focus from the beginning to the end of the paper. However, if they examined different aspects (lack of job satisfaction, risky work environment, lack of employment opportunities, low wages), this should be presented throughout the manuscript. I have reviewed the work again, and despite the scope of the study - 300 people from five sugar factories participated in the survey - there are still some inconsistencies.

Author Response

Reviewer comment 1.  Abstract has not been rewritten, but only a few sentences have been added. My suggestion was to rewrite the Abstract to better reflect the specifics of the sugar workers in Bangladesh. Since there are other sugar industries, e.g., in Europe, my other suggestion was to change

Our Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The abstract has been thoroughly rewritten as per your advice and we hope it will now better reflect specifics of the sugar workers in Bangladesh and explain the idea of the research.

Reviwwer comments 2. The title of the paper to mention the country, since job satisfaction may also be related to the policies of that country. The authors declined to change the title.

Our Response: We have significantly modified the research title as you suggested the title to: “Effects of Job Satisfaction on Job Behavior of Sugar Industrial Workers in Bangladesh: Job Performance Perspective”.

Reviewer comments 3. I still think that this paper gives valuable answers to several questions that should be considered in the study of job satisfaction, but the idea studied in the paper should be followed from the title through the abstract, the main body of the text, the results and the conclusions.

 Thus, if the authors studied the job satisfaction of employees in the sugar industry, this should be the focus from the beginning to the end of the paper.

However, if they examined different aspects (lack of job satisfaction, risky work environment, lack of employment opportunities, low wages), this should be presented throughout the manuscript.

 I have reviewed the work again, and despite the scope of the study - 300 people from five sugar factories participated in the survey - there are still some inconsistencies.

Reviewer comments: Thank you very much for your in-depth and inspiring comments. Our main focus is to identify the effects of job satisfaction on job performance. Thank you very much for your in-depth and inspiring comments. Side by side to measure job satisfaction level is the secondary objectives. Along with establishing the main objective, job satisfaction is highlighted. As per your suggestion we have added some new discussions related to job satisfaction in introduction (red color) part and already existed in conclusion part (see green highlighted). In Abstract, Analysis and Discussion section have clear discussion on job satisfaction. We didn’t examine lack of job satisfaction, risky work environment, lack of employment opportunities, low wages as different aspects that’s why we have deleted these words and rewritten modified the sentences.

For your kind information about sample selection of 300 people from five sugar mills, we selected sample size by calculating based on population size. We used a formula given by Yamane (1967:886).  Yamane (1967:886)[1] provides a simplified formula to calculate sample sizes. This formula is used to calculate the sample sizes are shown below.

A 95% confidence level and P = .5 are assumed for equation as;     

            N

n=----------------

        1+N(e)²

Where;

n is the sample size,

N is the population size, and

e is the level of precision, 0.05. When this formula is applied to the above sample, we get

Calculated sample sizes of selected sugar mills are 303 which will be rounded to 300 respondents for smooth collecting and analyzing data.

We hope, now everything is clear to you.

[1] Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics, An Introductory Analysis,(2nd Ed)., New Harper and York: Row.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I still think there are issues with the paper. Perhaps I'm not understanding, but Table 19 is not even clear to me if they did 1 regression, or 7 regressions. 

Author Response

Reviewer comments # I still think there are issues with the paper. Perhaps I do not understand, but Table 19 is not even clear to me if they did 1 regression, or 7 regressions. 

Our Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. For your kind understanding we discuss the above issue elaborately.

Stepwise regression is the step-by-step iterative construction of a regression model that involves the selection of independent variables to be used in a final model. It involves adding or removing potential explanatory variables in succession and testing for statistical significance after each iteration. The availability of statistical software packages makes stepwise regression possible, even in models with hundreds of variables.

Stepwise multiple regression analysis is a powerful technique used for predicting the unknown value of a variable from the known value of two or more variables- also called the predictors.

By Stepwise multiple regressions, we mean models with just one dependent and two or more independent (exploratory) variables. The variable whose value is to be predicted is known as the dependent variable and the ones whose known values are used for prediction are known independent (exploratory) variables.

In general, the multiple regression equation of Y on X₁, X₂, …, X_k is given by:

Y = b₀ + b₁ X₁ + b₂ X₂ + …………………… + b_k X_k

When a researcher wants to find out the individual contribution of different independent variables to a dependent variable, under this situation Stepwise Multiple Regression is applicable. Stepwise Multiple Regression was computed to find out the relative contribution of different independent variables to a dependent variable:

1. the relative contributions of some selected independent variables (pay, promotion, job status, job security, working condition, behaviour of boss, open communication, autonomy in work, recognition for good work, relation with colleagues and participation in decision making) on dependent variable job performance

For further getting knowledge you can see the following papers and chapters where the authors have done the Stepwise Multiple Regression calculations as like as ours.

file:///D:/Downloads/PerceptionsofManagersAppraisalProcessandtheirRelationtoEmployeesPerformanceinanon-WesternCulture-EvidencefromJordan.pdf

file:///D:/Downloads/grrrpg.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/stepwise-regression

https://www.ijcmas.com/special/9/Mohmmad%20Yunus%20and%20C.%20P.%20Desai.pdf

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534385.pdf

file:///D:/Downloads/Automation_Job_content_and_Underemployment.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

1.       At the end of the first section, it can add a paragraph explaining the structure of the remainder of the paper.

2.       The semicolon “;” in “Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses;” should be changed to a colon ”:”. Similarly, “Consequently, we postulate the following hypotheses;”

3.       “The Brayfield Rothe scale's (1951) reliability and validity values are.87 and.93, respectively.”, the data has no spaces between words. In addition, the "0" before the decimal point also need to have.

4.       The value of the last column of Table 1-3 is the same for all rows, so is it necessary to add this column?

5.       Table 1 is not referenced in the text before and after it, and the other tables are similar. Table 1 appears for the first time on page 8 and is cited for the first time in the text on page 12, and there is a link "-" between the table and the number, and other table citations are similar. Similarly, Figure 1 is not cited in the text.

6.       The font size below Table 19 is different from other sections, and in paragraph 2 of the discussion section, some fonts are also different.

Author Response

Reviewer comments 1.  At the end of the first section, it can add a paragraph explaining the structure of the remainder of the paper.

Our Response: Thanks for your advice. We have added structure of the remainder of the paper At the end of the first section. Please see page no, 5.

Reviewer comments 2.  The semicolon “;” in “Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses;” should be changed to a colon ”:”. Similarly, “Consequently, we postulate the following hypotheses;”

Our Response:  Thanks for your comments. We have addressed the issues and corrected in the manuscript.

Reviewer comments 3.   “The Brayfield Rothe scale's (1951) reliability and validity values are.87 and.93, respectively.”, the data has no spaces between words. In addition, the "0" before the decimal point also need to have.

Our Response: Well, we modified the related issues that you advice to correct.

 Reviewer comments 4.  The value of the last column of Table 1-3 is the same for all rows, so is it necessary to add this column?

Our Response:  Thanks.  The last column of table 1, 2 and 3 is needed to get clear concept about the sources of overview of different items of job satisfaction. This style is commonly used in many researches.

Reviewer comments 5.   Table 1 is not referenced in the text before and after it, and the other tables are similar. Table 1 appears for the first time on page 8 and is cited for the first time in the text on page 12, and there is a link "-" between the table and the number, and other table citations are similar. Similarly, Figure 1 is not cited in the text.

Our Response:  Thanks for your insightful observation. We have referred table-1, figure-1 in the text. We have corrected all mistakes regarding above issues.

Reviewer comments 6.  The font size below Table 19 is different from other sections, and in paragraph 2 of the discussion section, some fonts are also different.

Our Response:  Thanks for your comments. We have taken the necessary actions to follow same front style.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Author Response

Reviewer comments # The article concerns the important issue of the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction and presents interesting results of surveys among workers in the Bangladesh sugar industry I have a few comments about the article:- there is a wrong way of citing references (names and year instead of numbers in square brackets), Authors should follow the template.

Our Response: Thank you very much for your inspiring comments. According to journal template we have changed the way of citing references. [We have used numbers in square brackets].

Reviewer comments # - It is s not known how to understand the phrases: "As a result, the outcome somewhat verifies the null hypotheses (H1 and H2) and are rejected ", and " As a result, the current study's findings most likely endorse the null hypothesis (H3)”. Hypotheses should either be confirmed (or partially confirmed) or rejected.

Our Response: Thanks for your insightful observations and comments. We have rewritten the above mentioned paragraph for better understanding. (page-31, red color).

Reviewer comments # - On page 8 there should be a reference to table 2.

Our Response:  Well, we have addressed the issue your advice.

Reviewer comments # - It is not known (page 7) which statistical test was used for the reliability and validity assessment (The Brayfield Rothe scale's (1951) reliability and validity values ​​are 87 and.93, respectively).

Our Response: Thanks for your comments. Cronbach's consistency coefficient was employed in this study to examine the reliability and Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) convergent and discriminant validity test was used to investigate Brayfield-Rothe scale's ) reliability and validity. We have incorporated this test in the paper (page-14).

Reviewer comments # There are linguistic errors and incomprehensible sentences, e.g. „Although there is a lot of research on job satisfaction and job performance in the western world, research on the issues related to workers in the sugar industry in particular is insufficient, to a lesser extent. (????)”,  p.8 „Several researchers have argued that these to cover various but representative sections which were included in the questionnaire, that have an impact on employee behawior”, p. 9: „Does job satisfaction helpful in taking initiative?”,

Our Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. We have rewritten and corrected linguistic errors. (Please see page no. 5 and 14). Job satisfaction is helpful in taking initiative as a part of job performance. We proved in our study (table-16). However, if the components of job satisfaction are present and the workforce is happy with these factors, other areas of job performance including initiative become active. You can see some research papers how job satisfaction impact initiative as a part of job performance.

file:///G:/js-jp-14abababab.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1751495

https://high5test.com/job-satisfaction/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8753120/

Job Satisfaction and Job Performance in PT XYZ, Trikonomika Volume 14, No. 2, December 2015, Hal. 111-118

Reviewer comments # p.18 „Table-4 demonstrations that foremen have much greater experience and age than workers”, p. 18 „As a result, the outcome somewhat verifies the null hypotheses (H1 and H2) and (??) are rejected”,

Our Response: Thanks for your comments. We have modified and rewritten the above mentioned paragraph for better understanding. (page-31, red color).

Reviewer comments # p. 19 „ Therefore, the results of this investigation support and accepted the null hypothesis (H4)”. Present and Past Simple Tense at the same time in this sentence?

Our Response:  Thank you and we are sorry for our mistake. We have corrected the grammatical error of above sentence.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Yes, I am quite familiar with regressions, including stepwise regressions. Most statisticians I've talked to do not like stepwise regressions, because it can manipulate the p-values. Nonetheless, it is a legitimate statistical technique. The issue I have with Table 19 is that you somehow have an R2 value for each variable. The R2 is for each regression, not each variable. You'll notice in the papers that you cited using stepwise regression (at least the papers I had access to, I cannot access your downloads folder), they have an R2 value for each regression, not each variable. 

It's possible that Table 19 represents 7 different regressions, but then I don't know what the specification of each model is. Is each regression for one variable? If so, that is not a stepwise regression. Are you adding or substracting a variable as you go down the table? If so, the coefficient estimates don't make any sense and I would expect the R2 values to either be increasing every time or decreasing every time. 

For each regression, you should have a parameter estimate for each variable and 1 R2 value. But, for some reason you have 7 beta values and 7 R2 values. It is not at all clear what your model specification is in Table 19, or how to interpret the parameter estimates.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments: Yes, I am quite familiar with regressions, including stepwise regressions. Most statisticians I've talked to do not like stepwise regressions, because it can manipulate the p-values. Nonetheless, it is a legitimate statistical technique. The issue I have with Table 19 is that you somehow have an R2 value for each variable. The R2 is for each regression, not each variable. You'll notice in the papers that you cited using stepwise regression (at least the papers I had access to, I cannot access your downloads folder), they have an R2 value for each regression, not each variable. 

It's possible that Table 19 represents 7 different regressions, but then I don't know what the specification of each model is. Is each regression for one variable? If so, that is not a stepwise regression. Are you adding or substracting a variable as you go down the table? If so, the coefficient estimates don't make any sense and I would expect the R2 values to either be increasing every time or decreasing every time. 

For each regression, you should have a parameter estimate for each variable and 1 R2 value. But, for some reason you have 7 beta values and 7 R2 values. It is not at all clear what your model specification is in Table 19, or how to interpret the parameter estimates.

Our Response

Thanks for your advice. Table 18 (previous 19) has been developed newly and reinterpreted as per your suggestion (page no. 26, 27). Hope we have been able to meet your expectations. However, we are sincerely sorry that the calculation-direction in the previous table was wrong. We are impressed with your insight, expertise and experience along with your thoughtful opinions and statistics.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper examines the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance in the sugar industry in Bangladesh. Their surveys find a correlation between job satisfaction and job performance of .912, which is quite high. It is not surprising that these variables are highly correlated, however, I do have a concern that the causality is difficult to know. Line 736 of the paper seems to acknowledge this, but this is a limitation of the results.

The regression analysis is also difficult to follow. While a regression would potentially be used to find and control for intermediary factors for job performance, Table 19 does not have job satisfaction in the model. Also, it does not give standard errors for each variable and I do not understand why each variable has an R-squared value. Perhaps this is a type of statistical analysis I am not familiar with.

The writing could be more concise. For example, the paragraph starting on line 89 seems redundant. Also, the font seems to change in some places.

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript under review investigates the worker performance with respect to indicators related to job satisfaction. Case study and related data set is based in Bangladesh, specifically on sugar industry. Study has merit since the geography and industry under investigation heavily relies on labor force. Authors provide an extensive literature review on the topic. Results shed limited light on certain practices from organizational behavior point of view. However, I have major concerns on the following points.

 - I’m not familiar with Brayfield and Rothe’s Index of Job Satisfaction. The refrence is dated 1951. For readers like me, there must be more to justify the use of a 70 year old system. I see that authors provide lots of references but no details on up to date relevance on paper’s context (also for other studies from last paragraph of page 8).

- It seems that the refined performance items are provided on Table 3. I’m having hard time to understand how these related as performance items. Quantity of work is a quantitative measure, which must be collected by other means. Not thru questionnaires filled by workers. Quality performance of the worker must be judged by measurable units (or at least countable attributes). Without this, none of the finding are valid (obviously satisfaction responses are very high, as such biased responses are very common and expected)

- There is also no clear description of “Job Satisfaction” and how authors relate performance items to job satisfaction. If job satisfaction is an output then authors should consider evaluating the survey results by using logit regression etc.

- Results are also very limited. Use of the results as a decision support tool is a crucial part for these kind of case studies from Sustainability perspective. Without this, paper is not in the scope of this journal and authors should rather submit to a org. behavior journal.

- Hypotheses 1,2,3 (page  6-7) is not constructed properly. Word “significant” shouldn’t be in the hypothesis. Hypotheses also need to be phrased correctly so that decisive inferences can be made (e.g. equality for Hyp. 1). Results gathered from these hypotheses on page 20 should be reevaluated.

- Title of the paper does not seem adequate. Word “job” repeats itself 3 times. Also, use of “Effect” will be better instead of “effects”.

- Last 2 sentences of the abstract seem to be from another source and pasted rather careless. Last sentence also starts grammatically wrong…. Authors need to summarize the study, methodology and findings in a leaner manner (no need for reference here or mention of SPSS)

- I understand that many researchers involved in the study. However, contribution of each should be merged to main text carefully. Text does not flow smooth.

- I recommend to authors to upload the questionnaire to a cloud drive so that readers can make sense of how data is collected and which result table corresponds to which set of data.