Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors attempted to unpack the impact of employers' responses to poaching on employee productivity, as well as the mediating role organisational agility in the link. A sufficient literature review was conducted, and six research hypotheses were developed. However, the authors need to address the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript: 

1. The title of the manuscript appears too lengthy "Unpacking the Impact of Employer Responses to Poaching on Employee Productivity: The Mediating Role of Organizational Agility in Technology Companies". The title must be concise or succinct. It could be finetuned as "Employer Responses to Poaching and Employee Productivity: Mediating Role of Organizational Agility in Technology Companies".

2. The population or target population of the study of the was not emphasised in the methodology section. Hence, this must be indicated in the methodology section. 

3. Line 382 shows that the sample size was 200, while the data reported in Table 1 indicated that 160 responses was analysed in the study. 

4. Judging from the conceptual framework and research hypotheses formulated for the study, regression analysis is inappropriate for the study. Please consider the use of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) for hypothesis testing and path analysis. SEM is required to establish the mediating influence of organisational agility on the relationship between employer responses to poaching and employee productivity in technology companies. 

5. The decision reached on each hypothesis was not established in the study. 

6. Discussion of findings was not adequately provided in the study. A separate heading for a thorough discussion of findings must be provided pointing out the theoretical contributions, as well as practical implications of the study. 

7. The authors need to follow the author guidelines to comply with the prescribed referencing style and correct the in-text citations accordingly. 

8. Please refer to the file uploaded for errors highlighted in yellow and effect changes. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Incorporation of Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We have incorporated the desired changes in the manuscript. please see them below

1. The title of the manuscript appears too lengthy "Unpacking the Impact of Employer Responses to Poaching on Employee Productivity: The Mediating Role of Organizational Agility in Technology Companies". The title must be concise or succinct. It could be finetuned as "Employer Responses to Poaching and Employee Productivity: Mediating Role of Organizational Agility in Technology Companies".

Response: changes has been made in the title of the article.

2. The population or target population of the study of the was not emphasised in the methodology section. Hence, this must be indicated in the methodology section. 

Response: changes has been made in the methodology section.

3. Line 382 shows that the sample size was 200, while the data reported in Table 1 indicated that 160 responses was analysed in the study. 

Response: changes has been made in the methodology section.

4. Judging from the conceptual framework and research hypotheses formulated for the study, regression analysis is inappropriate for the study. Please consider the use of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) for hypothesis testing and path analysis. SEM is required to establish the mediating influence of organisational agility on the relationship between employer responses to poaching and employee productivity in technology companies. 
5. The decision reached on each hypothesis was not established in the study. 

 

Response: The comparison has been provided in the result section.

6. Discussion of findings was not adequately provided in the study. A separate heading for a thorough discussion of findings must be provided pointing out the theoretical contributions, as well as practical implications of the study. 

Response: discussion has been provided in separate heading.

 

7. The authors need to follow the author guidelines to comply with the prescribed referencing style and correct the in-text citations accordingly. 

Response: The suggested changes have been incorporated in the manuscript.

8. Please refer to the file uploaded for errors highlighted in yellow and effect changes

Response: Errors have been improved

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Unpacking the Impact of Employer Responses to Poaching on  Employee Productivity: The Mediating Role of Organizational  Agility in Technology Companies

 

Abstract

The abstract is too long and  unattractive, it should follow the solid scientific work structure, I suggest that it be restructured and shortened  in a way that includes the following clearly:

 

·         The contextualization of the study

·         The main objective

·         The justification

·         The sample used

·         The methods used

·         The main findings and conclusions

·         The novel contribution

 

Introduction

1.The introduction needs to be made more clear and straight to the point by justifying soundly on the main objective the Impact of Employer Responses to Poaching on  Employee Productivity.  

2. What is the importance of this topic for the managers and experienced employees in Pakistan?

3) Could you indicate the importance and justification of exploring the impact of employee poaching on productivity in Pakistani firms.. 

4)  What is the role of the country's government in promoting this field under study.

5) State the method at the end of the introduction, as well as the study's novel contributions.

 

Literature Review

No comments .  

Methodology. 

First, in the first paragraph (Secondly, it facilitates accurate measurements and statistical analysis, which improves results. Data-driven companies need this (Kothari, 2004). Second, quantitative research may give a representative sample of the community). Please recheck.

Second, the authors go too far in describing quantitative research approach. There is no need for that as they should focus on the methodology procedure

Third, the authors dwell for too long in describing sample sizes. It should be straight to the point.

Fourth,  Please explain exactly how the authors persuaded the management  to conduct your research? How many times have the authors visited such places (The managers and experienced employees in  service sector companies like EFU Life Insurance, Allied Bank, Soneri Bank, DHA, Buch  Executive, City Hospital, Sapphire, Khaadi, Honda, ZTBL National Bank, Tehzeeb Restaurant, Tasty Gardens Restaurant, Multan Medical Dental College, Punjab College  Gholamiand and Bank Alfalah limited)? Explain how the survey was distributed. How did the authors contact the respondents? What is the response rate? Does the authors' sample represent the population? The authors need to justify how they tested the validity and reliability.

Fifth, the authors go deep in  describing SPSS. I suggest that methodology should be restructured and shortened in a way that includes the above clearly.

Results and discussion

First, The author underlines Results and Discussion under one heading. Why did the authors mix them together? It would be more clear had the authors separated the results, then moved to the discussion section and proven the six hypotheses. I suggest including a separate Discussion section.

 

Second, The discussions are somewhat broad and general. I can’t see the clear explanation behind this argument. I need to see a clear discussion to the six hypotheses.

 

The conclusions.

First, Some aspects of the discussion and the results are included under the Conclusions section.

Second, the conclusions section should be restructured and shortened  in a way that includes a clear theoretical implication, the practical implication of the research, future research, recommendations, and the limitation of the research.

References

1. The references are arranged alphabetically, not in order of presentation. This goes against the journal’s format.

2. Citation doesn't follow the journal format (inside the manuscript), the order of the references is wrong. Additionally, the references at the end are unnumbered.

3.The references are not updated. New references such as from 2021,2022 are not mentioned.

Others:           

The paper needs proofreading.

Good luck

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2 comments

 

Unpacking the Impact of Employer Responses to Poaching on  Employee Productivity: The Mediating Role of Organizational  Agility in Technology Companies

We have incorporated all the desired changes in the manuscript.

Abstract

The abstract is too long and  unattractive, it should follow a solid scientific work structure, I suggest that it be restructured and shortened  in a way that includes the following clearly:

 

• The contextualization of the study
• The main objective
• The justification
• The sample used
• The methods used
• The main findings and conclusions
• The novel contribution

Response: suggested Changes has been made in abstract.

 

Introduction

1.The introduction needs to be made more clear and straight to the point by justifying soundly on the main objective the Impact of Employer Responses to Poaching on  Employee Productivity.  

2. What is the importance of this topic for the managers and experienced employees in Pakistan?

Response: a paragraph highlighting the importance of the topic has been added at the end of the introduction.

3) Could you indicate the importance and justification of exploring the impact of employee poaching on productivity in Pakistani firms.

Response: a paragraph highlighting the importance and providing the justification of the topic has been added at the end of the introduction.

 

4)  What is the role of the country's government in promoting this field under study.

Response: a paragraph highlighting role of the country's government in promoting this field under study has been added at the end of the introduction.

 

 

5) State the method at the end of the introduction, as well as the study's novel contributions.

Response: a paragraph Stating the method at the end of the introduction, as well as the study's novel contributions has been added at the end of the introduction.

 

 

Literature Review

No comments .  

Methodology. 

First, in the first paragraph (Secondly, it facilitates accurate measurements and statistical analysis, which improves results. Data-driven companies need this (Kothari, 2004). Second, quantitative research may give a representative sample of the community). Please recheck.

Response: required changes have been made in the first para of the methodology.

Second, the authors go too far in describing quantitative research approach. There is no need for that as they should focus on the methodology procedure

Response: the description has been made concise.

Third, the authors dwell for too long in describing sample sizes. It should be straight to the point.

Response: the changes has been made

Fourth,  Please explain exactly how the authors persuaded the management  to conduct your research? How many times have the authors visited such places (The managers and experienced employees in  service sector companies like EFU Life Insurance, Allied Bank, Soneri Bank, DHA, Buch  Executive, City Hospital, Sapphire, Khaadi, Honda, ZTBL National Bank, Tehzeeb Restaurant, Tasty Gardens Restaurant, Multan Medical Dental College, Punjab College  Gholamiand and Bank Alfalah limited)? Explain how the survey was distributed. How did the authors contact the respondents? What is the response rate? Does the authors' sample represent the population? The authors need to justify how they tested the validity and reliability.

Response: suggested details has been added in the methodology.

Fifth, the authors go deep in  describing SPSS. I suggest that methodology should be restructured and shortened in a way that includes the above clearly.

Response: suggested changes have been made in the methodology.

 

Results and discussion

First, The author underlines Results and Discussion under one heading. Why did the authors mix them together? It would be more clear had the authors separated the results, then moved to the discussion section and proven the six hypotheses. I suggest including a separate Discussion section.

Response: Separate discussion section has been added.

 

Second, The discussions are somewhat broad and general. I can’t see the clear explanation behind this argument. I need to see a clear discussion to the six hypotheses.

Response: a separate para has been added at the end of discussion section.

 

The conclusions.

First, Some aspects of the discussion and the results are included under the Conclusions section.

Response:First para has been added in the conclusion section about above suggested changes.

Second, the conclusions section should be restructured and shortened  in a way that includes a clear theoretical implication, the practical implication of the research, future research, recommendations, and the limitation of the research.

Response: all the suggested changes has been added in the end of conclusion.

References

1. The references are arranged alphabetically, not in order of presentation. This goes against the journal’s format.

Response: referencing has been modified as per the journal standards.

2. Citation doesn't follow the journal format (inside the manuscript), the order of the references is wrong. Additionally, the references at the end are unnumbered.

Response: intext citations have been changed as per the journal style.

3.The references are not updated. New references such as from 2021,2022 are not mentioned.

Response:Updated references have been added

Others:           

The paper needs proofreading.

Response: the paper has been proof read thoroughly

Good luck

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of the concerns raised in the previous review were addressed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Good job