Effects of Idiosyncratic Deals, Psychological Contract, Job Satisfaction and Environmental Turbulence on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript offers novel and interesting insights into human resource management topics, such as the unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB).

Literature review is relevant, comprehensive and up-to-date. Some references on Regulatory Focus Theory that is mentioned in the Limitations and Future Research section are necessary. Methods used are appropriate and adequately justified. Results are clearly presented and value-adding conlclusions are drawn.

Proof-editing is required to improve readability. Certain minor errors should be corrected as highlighted in the attached file. 

For example, the term "Psychology contract"  should be replaced by "Psychological contract". This term is included in the title and in the text, too.

The term "social cognition theory" used in the Abstract should be replaced by the term "social cognitive theory" that is used everywhere else in the text, to ensure consistency.

Additional editing remarks are included as pop-up notes in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the pdf, it has been a great help in revising the paper

 

Revised in 5.2. :
A misunderstanding has arisen due to a translation error, and research using focal point theory to demonstrate the relationship between personalised contracts and pro-organisational unethical behaviour is a direction for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for an interesting and sound piece of research I enjoyed reviewing. I herein report some minor adjustments that can render this paper ready for publication.

 

1. There are some important works that are relevant for the field of research that should be cited, primarily due to their similar contribution and research style to the paper presented by you. Additionally, they are recent research articles that can greatly increase how updated your paper results. The ones I would recommend studying are:

 

D. Wang, Q. Weng, A.Kiani, A. Ali (2022). "Job insecurity and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The joint moderating effects of moral identity and proactive personality", Personality and Individual Differences, 195, 111685.

Guo et al., 2020

L. Guo, H. Zhao, K. Cheng, J. Luo (2020). "The relationship between abusive supervision and unethical pro-organizational behavior: Linear or curvilinear?", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41 (3), pp. 369-381.M.

M. Mishra, K. Ghosh, D. Sharma (2021). "Unethical pro-organizational behavior: A systematic review and future research agenda", Journal of Business Ethics, 10.1007/s10551-021-04764-w

 

K.-H. Shaw, H.-Y. Liao (2021). "Does benevolent leadership promote follower unethical pro-organizational behavior? A social identity perspective", Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28 (1), pp. 31-44.

H. Yan, X. Hu, C.-H. Wu (2021). "When and how can organizational punishment stop unethical pro-organizational behaviors in hospitality?", International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102811.

L.L. Xin, J. Lu, H. Zhang, Y. Cai (2021). "Helping the organization but hurting yourself: How employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior predicts work-to-life conflict", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 167, pp. 88-100.

P. M. Tang, K.C. Yam, J. Koopman (2020). "Feeling proud but guilty? Unpacking the paradoxical nature of unethical pro-organizational behavior", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, pp. 68-86.

 

Proceeding with the research design, I am facing some doubts regarding the sample construction, which may be partially due to a lack of clarification and thorough presentation of the steps applied. In particular, most studies that focus on the topic here analyzed adopt a several week-period for data collection from respondents. I am not sure which precise method, if the same, was adopted by the authors of this paper, but I would prefer a clearer presentation of the data collection phase of the research.

 

Finally, minor linguistic corrections are required. There are some typos along the text, as well as some minor grammatical and syntax errors and omissions.

 

I hope my comments are received in the positive light they are intended, as I rather believe your work has great potential for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the Suggestions, it has been a great help in revising the paper.

Revised in 3.1 Sample and Procedure :
Sample and Procedure The process of data collection has been modified 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf