Sustainable Ergonomic Workplace: Fostering Job Satisfaction and Productivity among Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) Workers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First, I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read this paper. It is an interesting subject and also engaging, with potential of further development.

The abstract clearly presents the main idea of the paper and also, briefly, the results obtain by carrying out the research.

Although the first part of the paper presents very well documented information regarding the subject discussed, the Introduction part should be split into to sections, namely the Introduction and the Literature review. While the Introduction should explain general information on the subject, the Literature review should contain an in-depth analysis of the bibliographic sources that were used for documentation. This section regarding Literature review could be more extensive than the information currently presented, in order for the hypotheses proposed to be deduced easily.

Instead of being presented in the body of the paper, the Table referring to the Constructs and measurement items (table 1) could be included at the end of the paper, in an appendix.

The conclusion part could be extended with a more in-deph analysis.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Constructive feedback

The manuscript examines the relationships between job satisfaction, productivity, and physical, macro- and cognitive ergonomics in the Philipino outsourced call centers. The quantitative research method has been applied in the form of an e-survey, and PLS-SEM is utilized for testing hypotheses and further analysis. The introduction and literature review are logical and sequential.

Notwithstanding the positive aspects, the manuscript has space for improvement, particularly in terms of the developed Model clarification, and building a closer link between the literature review and the discussion section. The more detailed recommendations are listed below.

Major issues:

1. The abbreviation in the title should be changed with the full terms to provide better visibility and search opportunities for future readers.

2. The variable  “organizational commitment” presented in the Model (Figure 1, page 4 and throughout the text) requires more attention and substantiation. The casual relationships between the job satisfaction variable and the organizational commitment variable should be considered more precisely within Organizational Behavior theories, particularly, the Job Characteristics Model by Hackman and Oldham. Job satisfaction is an antecedent or prerequisite of organizational commitment since satisfied employees demonstrate organizational commitment proved by many research worldwide. However, in the Model depicted in the manuscript, the causal relationship raises questions as in compliance with it, organizational commitment is a precondition for job satisfaction. The authors cited previous studies supporting this idea but it is recommended to examine other research as well, make their comparative analysis, and provide logical and sequential connections between job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the Model and the text.

3. The Discussion requires reconsideration since there is almost no link with the conducted literature review, while numerous new references not covered in the literature review section are provided.

4. In the Discussion, the references to the mentioned preceding research should be inserted: “This shows that cognitive risk factors such as workload, fatigue, or burnout could not affect the overall productivity of BPO workers. This finding contradicts the existing body of research demonstrating the effect of workload, fatigue, and burnout on work productivity” (lines 514-517).

5. The number of respondents fluctuates throughout the manuscript: in the Material and Methods, 300 respondents (line 264) are stated, whereas in the Conclusion, 333 participants are declared (line 537).

6. It is recommended to emphasize the link between the findings and sustainable workplaces in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Minor issues:

1. In the job involvement section of the extract from the questionnaire (Table 1, page 9) there are the same statements that were given in the burnout section.

2. Several coauthors have been indicated at the beginning of the paper but in Section 3.2 the narration goes from one researcher.

 

3. The ordinal numbers for some resources are absent, particularly from 120 to 123 (lines 484-496). 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank you for your hard work and design of this research. I think it gives a contribution to the role that ergonomics has and still, some do not consider it. The limits are the ones you pointed out: the salary, etc.... even if the experience tells us that even if you are "overpaid" this changes your satisfaction and productivity only for a short time, so the "hard" elements are the ones you need to change if you what to improve definitely the problem.

Mine is not a comment on the quality of the English language, it is more on the repeating in the different sectors. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and structured.

Title.

1. Too generic.

Abstract

1. The method needs to be explained a bit further, especially the scope of the study, population and samples.

2. Typo in line 14.

Materials and methods

1. The scope and population of the study leading to the samples.

2. The reliability of the questionnaire should be tested with the Cronbach alpha analysis.

Discussion

1. Lack of discussion related to the demography of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made the recommended improvements of the paper.

Congratulations and good luck!

Author Response

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to the reviewer for the invaluable contributions that greatly improved the quality of our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Constructive feedback

The coauthors of the reviewed manuscript did a great job of revising their paper thoroughly and rapidly. The coauthors considered my concerns and comments and improved their manuscript, including the substantiation of the Organizational commitment independent variable and its causal relationships with job satisfaction and the expansion of the Discussion section with the involvement of those sources described in the Literature review.

Both major and minor issues covered in the first-round peer review were resolved for the benefit of the paper.

 

Minor issue:

In the appendix in the Job Involvement section, there is point JI2 "I live, eat and breath my job" which sounds somewhat artificial in English and might be considered for reformulation.

Sincerely,

 

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx