The Impact of Collectivistic Values and Psychological Needs on Individual Performance with Conscientiousness Acting as a Moderator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
the paper aims to determine the impact of collectivist values and psychological needs on job performance, with conscientiousness acting as a moderator.
There are some concerns regarding the manuscript.
First, the introduction is confusing. it would help if you restructured it in such a way as to make it readable.
Second, what are the main goals of the study? What does this study add to the literature that others do not? What are the main implications?
Third, why consciousness? It seems a random choice rather than a justified option. It would help if you made a stronger case to support your options.
Fourth, the hypotheses are not well supported, and the description of the variables (e.g., consciousness) is not well done.
Fifth, how did you address the common method bias?
Sixth, the results should be more descriptive. For instance, Table 1 is super confusing.
Seventh, the results should be better discussed.
there are minor errors that should be corrected - for instance, see the hypotheses.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.
The manuscript has been updated according to your suggestions.
Thank you and kind regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Well, this is a complex model that you tested!
Two remarks.
First of all, a graphic representation of the results would help the reader. The model in Figure 1 only partly helps, as it contains not all constructs. And a representation of the final results, showing what influences what, would really help. Yes,all information is included in the tables, but it's hard to get an overview.
Secondly, please put more effort in describing what the results mean, for academics and for practice. As the result is pretty complex, A bit more perspective on how your paper makes a contribution is necessary. It's now a very data-driven paper, with little reflection on what the data mean.
And some detailed remarks:
- please be very consistent in the words you use in your model. 'commitment' is used in the text, but not in the model. Figure 1 is incomplete and should contain all key constructs. Another example in d=the discussion: " greater commitment and promote work performance"
- method says 394 respondents, data says 325 respondents.
- Table 1: standard deviation, not deviation
- no value for SE for VC→ Relatedness→ EP in Table 3? (bottom of the page).
And please check your list of references, so the style is consistent
- Table 4: "N = 325. Each column is a regression model that predicts the criterion at the top of the column. JP, Job performance; PN, Psychological needs; HC, horizontal collectivism; VC, vertical collectivism; C, conscientiousness. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. "
- Table 4, no values for b and t for effect of HC on extra role performance?
- Discussion "Regarding the first hypothesis, our findings revealed a positive relationship between 433 horizontal and vertical collectivism and the two sub-dimensions of workplace performance. " Not according to Table 2, please check.
no further comments
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.
The manuscript has been updated according to your suggestions.
Thank you and kind regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have read your manuscript and it sufficiently meets the conditions for publication.
You have followed the standard structure of an empirical paper, with very little theoretical justification and an extreme degree of detail in the data. I admit that I wouldn't say I like this kind of paper. It is as if someone built a house and talked to me about the quality of the materials, when what I am interested in is that she explains to me why she made the house and why she has distributed the rooms as she has done. But this is not your fault.
You have devoted pages of your paper to explain to me whether the statistical analysis is robust, and I would like you to explain the importance of the concepts you use. Please, don't take this comment personally: it is a rant of mine and is not a particular objection to your paper.
I have two observations to make:
- In some references -especially in the introduction and in the conclusions- you put the reference number directly without putting the authors' surnames: "according to [2]...", "is defined by [4]...". In other cases, you do put the reference: "According to Motowildo et al. [17]...", "Smith et al. [21] as well as...". Check this way of citing.
- In the conclusions, you end your article with two reflections that you do not know where they come from. "Enterprise management must eliminate discriminatory behaviors..." and "In order for the Enterprise management...". Please justify these conclusions better or eliminate them. Should you like to write an academically correct paper, then follow the usual practice of acknowledging some limitations of your paper and proposing some lines of future research.
Other than that, I repeat, your paper meets the standards for publication.
nothing to add.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.
The manuscript has been updated according to your suggestions.
Thank you and kind regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did a good job addressing the concerns made in the previous revision.
