Emotional Intelligence and Internal Marketing as Determinants of Job Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Life among Portuguese Professionals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the research topic is fascinating and rather relevant in current conditions. But there are some comments and recommendations:

-Abstract section might be improved. It’s rather long. It’s better not to describe the results but to specify the main goal of the study, objectives and methods.

-The structure of Literature review is complicated. Subsections might be combined. Moreover, some sources are not up-to-date.

-There are some typos and errors. The text and language must be checked.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the team of authors would like to thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. In order to improve the initial version of the manuscript, some changes have been incorporated (marked in "yellow" on the manuscript). The manuscript has a more competent structure and content, taking into account the improvements proposed by the reviewer. Some references have also been added at the end of the manuscript (marked in "yellow").

Dear authors, the research topic is fascinating and very relevant in today's conditions. However
However, there are a few comments and recommendations:
-The abstract section could be improved. It is quite long. It is preferable not to describe the results, but to specify the main aim of the study, the objectives and the methods.
Short summary
-The structure of the literature review is complicated. Subsections can be combined. In addition, some sources are not up to date. 
I have updated some sources
-There are some typos and errors. The text and language should be revised. 
English has been revised

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General issues:

The purpose of the paper is to study the influence that emotional intelligence and internal marketing have on job satisfaction and life satisfaction of professionals in Portugal [lines: 48-50]. A conceptual model of the relationship between the variables (Emotional Intelligence; Job Satisfaction; Satisfaction with life; Internal Marketing; Performance; Commitment and Labor Determinants) was developed, based on the theoretical foundation and adapted to the situation and context of professionals active in Portugal [lines: 282-284].

The following hypotheses were identified:

H1) Internal marketing has a direct and positive influence on job satisfaction and commitment. [lines: 302-303];

H2) Work determinants have a direct and positive influence on job satisfaction and commitment. [lines: 309-310];

H3) Job satisfaction has a direct and positive influence on employee commitment and loyalty. [lines: 316-317];

H4) Commitment, job satisfaction and intelligence have a direct and positive emotional influence on contextual performance and functional performance. [lines: 324-325];

H5) Job satisfaction, emotional intelligence and performance have a direct and positive influence on life satisfaction. [lines: 330-331];

The values of the adopted variables were obtained using various scales proposed in the literature on the subject [lines: 334-337]. A questionnaire was developed in electronic form and sent to Portuguese organizations using e-mail or social networks [lines:347-349]. To analyze the data collected, statistical techniques of a univariate, bivariate and multivariate nature were used [lines: 362-262]. The study sample comprises 1310 individuals [line 382].

Special issues:

Line 39: Unnecessary dot before "and", there should probably be a comma.

Lines 59-61: The authors point to two parts within the structure of the work and then point to one. Maybe it's better to end the sentence with "(…) is structured in two parts" and then start a new sentence.

Line 290: Figure 1 is difficult to read, individual connections overlap, some lines obscure the text.

Line 334: There are 8, not 7, variables in Figure 1 and the table.

Lines 396-397: What is "Toilet institution"? Why is the sample size reduced to 1305 and 1307 for several questions?

Lines 422, 429: No closing quotation marks.

Lines 423-442: It would be more clear to present the results in tabular form. Similarly, lines 443-464, e.g. in the form of Table 4 [lines 530-531].

Lines 465-466: Figure 2 is completely illegible, there is no legend to identify the variables. You should consider a different form of data presentation.

Line 466: "Source:" is not bold.

Line 471: Delete one dot.

Line 485: Unnecessary period.

Lines 530-531: What are H11, H12… In section 3.1. Hypotheses 1,2,.., 5 were indicated. Therefore, what hypothesis does the presented result support?

Summary:

An interesting study, but the presentation of the methodology and research results requires refinement. The research methodology should be better presented, in particular in terms of model presentation and data analysis methods. It is not indicated at what level of confidence the significance of the obtained results is assumed. What was the level of responses obtained in the survey? No reference to results in other countries. The obtained results are presented in a way that makes it difficult to comment on the conclusions. There are markings that have not been described. Additionally, there are hypothesis markings other than those indicated in the methodological part. The article needs refinement. It would also be worth including a questionnaire template in the annex.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the team of authors would like to thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. In order to improve the initial version of the manuscript, some changes have been incorporated (marked in "yellow" on the manuscript). The manuscript has a more competent structure and content, taking into account the improvements proposed by the reviewer. Some references have also been added at the end of the manuscript (marked in "yellow").

The aim of the article is to study the influence that emotional intelligence and internal marketing intelligence have on the job satisfaction and life satisfaction of professionals in Portugal [lines: 48-50].

A conceptual model of the relationship between the variables (Emotional Intelligence; Job Satisfaction; Life Satisfaction; Internal Marketing; Performance; Commitment and Work Determinants) was developed, based on the theoretical foundation and adapted to the situation and context of professionals working in Portugal [lines: 282-284].

The following hypotheses were identified:

H1) Internal marketing has a direct and positive influence on job satisfaction and commitment.

[lines: 302-303];

H2) Work determinants have a direct and positive influence on job satisfaction and commitment.

[lines: 309-310];

H3) Job satisfaction has a direct and positive influence on employee commitment and loyalty.

[lines: 316-317];

H4) Commitment, job satisfaction and intelligence have a direct and positive emotional influence on contextual performance and functional performance. [lines: 324-325];

H5) Job satisfaction, emotional intelligence and performance have a direct and positive influence on life satisfaction. [lines: 330-331];

The values of the variables adopted were obtained using various scales proposed in the literature on the subject [lines: 334-337]. A questionnaire was drawn up in electronic format and sent to

Portuguese organizations that use e-mail or social networks [lines:347-349]. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate statistical techniques were used to analyze the data collected [lines: 362-262]. The study sample consists of 1,310 individuals [line 382].

Special issues:

Line 39: Unnecessary dot before "and", there should probably be a comma.

done

Lines 59-61: The authors point to two parts within the structure of the work and then point to one. Perhaps it would be better to end the sentence with "(...) is structured in two parts" and then start a new sentence.

done

Line 290: Figure 1 is difficult to read, the individual connections overlap, some lines obscure the text.

Figure 1 has been improved.

Line 334: There are 8, not 7, variables in Figure 1 and the table.

Lines 396-397: What is "Health Institution"? Why was the sample size reduced to 1,305 and 1,307 for several questions?

We replaced the term "toilet" with private institution

A: It's not a question of reducing the sample, it's just the sociodemographic characterization of the respondents. Therefore, the few respondents who didn't answer the question about the type of work institution or whether their municipality of work was the same as their municipality of residence weren't excluded from the sample, because for the purposes of the study this lack of response doesn't affect the results. 

Lines 422, 429: No closing quotation marks.

The missing quotation marks have been inserted

Lines 423-442: It would be clearer to present the results in tabular form. Likewise, lines 443-464, for example, in the form of Table 4 [lines 530-531].

Lines 465-466: Figure 2 is completely illegible, there is no legend to identify the variables. You should consider a different way of presenting the data.

A: We agree with the difficulty of legibility of figure 2, however this figure is an output of the software that we consider important to include and the information from it is all included in the text and table 4, which thus complements the information that is more difficult to visualize in the figure.

Line 466: "Source:" is not in bold.

It has been placed

Line 471: Delete a point.

Delete point

Line 485: Unnecessary period.

Lines 530-531: What are H11, H12... In section 3.1. Hypotheses 1,2,..., 5 were stated. Therefore, which hypothesis does the presented result support?

These are the sub-dimensions of each variable, detailed to allow a better understanding of the contribution of each element of the dimension in influencing the dependent variable. The appropriate markings have been placed in the index to avoid H11 being read as H11.

Summary:

An interesting study, but the presentation of the research methodology and results requires refinement. The research methodology should be better presented, particularly in terms of the presentation of the model and data analysis methods. It is not indicated at what level of confidence the significance of the results obtained is assumed. What was the level of responses obtained in the survey?

No reference to results in other countries. The results obtained are presented in a way that makes it difficult to comment on the conclusions.

There are markings that have not been described. In addition, there are markings for hypotheses other than those indicated in the methodological section. The article needs refinement. It would also be worth including a questionnaire template in the appendix.

A: Thank you for your comments, which have been integrated into the reformulation of the article, namely in the presentation of the methodology and results (confidence level, questionnaire and hypotheses).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses very interesting topic. I hope below my comments would be helpful for authors to be improved of this quality of the paper.

 

• The introduction part starts with "Some studies", while there are no citations regarding studies. Line 40 to 45, The excerpt relies heavily on citations and lacks originality in its ideas. It would be strengthened by providing more concrete examples and evidence to support the claims made. Additionally, the relationship between employee satisfaction and specific organizational outcomes could be explored in more detail.

 

• L 48-69 While the topic is relevant, the text doesn't provide enough evidence of fresh insights or theoretical contribution. Emphasize how your study builds upon existing literature and offers a unique perspective. Provide more details about the specific dimensions within each variable and their interactions. Use diagrams or charts if helpful.

 

• Literature review: 2.1
• Some portions, like the impact of communication on relationships, feel redundant. Consider streamlining and focusing on key points. The transition between the definition of EI and its applications in the organizational context could be smoother. Add a sentence or two to bridge the gap. While the text mentions various sub-dimensions of EI (communication, decision-making), it doesn't delve deep into their specific role within the workplace. Add specific examples or studies to illustrate how these dimensions impact organizational outcomes.

 

• 2.2. The text touches on multiple aspects of internal marketing but lacks a central theme or argument. Consider focusing on a specific aspect (e.g., employee engagement, internal communication) and exploring its connection to your broader point.
• Phrases like "internal customers" and "promote healthy, lasting, and productive relationships" are used repeatedly. Consider varying your word choice for better readability and clarity.
• While several benefits are listed, the text doesn't explain the mechanisms or processes by which internal marketing achieves these outcomes. Add specific examples or research findings to illustrate how these strategies work in practice.

 

• 2.4
• While the text mentions contributors to work satisfaction (communication, knowledge sharing), it lacks details on specific actions organizations can take to foster them.
• Similar ideas are worded repeatedly ("affective response," "finding meaning"). Consider using synonyms and restructuring sentences for better flow.
• Mentioning sources is good, but extracting specific insights or data to support your claims would make the text more insightful.
• The text delves deeper into the concept of professional satisfaction than life satisfaction. Consider providing comparable explanations and research references for both aspects.

 

• Methodology:
• While mentioning adaptation of the model for the Portuguese context, you could elaborate on the specific changes made to enhance relevance to your target population.
• Definitions for some key variables (e.g., internal marketing, performance) are provided, but others (like labor determinants) need further explanation for clarity.
• Briefly explain the specific reasoning behind each hypothesis to strengthen its plausibility and connection to the theoretical framework.
• The text doesn't mention the chosen research method (e.g., survey, interview, experiment) or data collection process.

 

• Final Considerations:
• Some sections repeat similar points without adding new insights. Consider streamlining and rephrasing to be more concise and impactful.
• Claims like "a contribution to the literature on strategic management" could be more specific by mentioning specific concepts or frameworks your research informs.
• Statements like "organizations should adopt instruments" would benefit from stronger evidence from your own research or existing literature.
• While mentioning further study possibilities, consider specifying more precise research questions or hypotheses for future investigations.

•  

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the team of authors would like to thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. In order to improve the initial version of the manuscript, some changes have been incorporated (marked in "yellow" on the manuscript). The manuscript has a more competent structure and content, taking into account the improvements proposed by the reviewer. Some references have also been added at the end of the manuscript (marked in "yellow").

The article deals with a very interesting topic. I hope that my comments below will be useful to the authors in improving the quality of the article.

- The introductory part begins with "Some studies", although there are no quotes referring to studies. Line 40 to 45, The passage relies heavily on quotations and lacks originality in its ideas. It would be strengthened by providing more concrete examples and evidence to support the claims made. In addition, the relationship between employee satisfaction and specific organizational outcomes could be explored in more detail.

A few, more recent ones have been included.

- L 48-69 Although the topic is relevant, the text does not provide sufficient evidence of new insights or theoretical contribution. Emphasize how your study is literature-based and offers a unique perspective. Provide more detail on the specific dimensions within each variable and their interactions. Use diagrams or graphs if useful.

- Literature review: 2.1

- Some parts, such as the impact of communication on relationships, seem redundant.

Consider simplifying and focusing on the key points. The transition between the definition of EI and its applications in the organizational context could be smoother. Add a sentence or two to fill the gap. Although the text mentions several sub-dimensions of EI (communication, decision-making), it doesn't delve into its specific role within the workplace. Add specific examples or studies to illustrate how these dimensions impact organizational results.

The importance of EI in the organizational context and how communication is relevant in this regard was revealed.

- 2.2. The text addresses various aspects of internal marketing, but lacks a central theme or argument. Consider focusing on a specific aspect (e.g. employee engagement, internal communication) and exploring its connection to your broader point.

- Phrases such as "internal customers" and "fostering healthy, lasting and productive relationships" are used repeatedly. Consider varying your choice of words for better readability and clarity.

The terms have been replaced by others

- Although several benefits are listed, the text does not explain the mechanisms or processes by which internal marketing achieves these results. Add specific examples or research results to illustrate how these strategies work in practice.

(Studies that prove the relevance of internal marketing practices in the workplace have been added)

- 2.4

- Although the text mentions factors that contribute to job satisfaction (communication, knowledge sharing), it lacks details about specific actions that organizations can take to promote them.

- Similar ideas are formulated repeatedly ("affective response", "finding meaning"). Consider using synonyms and restructuring sentences for better flow.

- Mentioning sources is fine, but drawing out specific insights or data to support your assertions would make the text more insightful.

(The text has been shortened to make it more succinct)

- The text goes deeper into the concept of job satisfaction than life satisfaction.

Consider providing comparable explanations and research references for both aspects.

- Methodology:

- When mentioning the adaptation of the model to the Portuguese context, could you elaborate on the specific changes made to increase relevance to your target population.

Table 1 has been included, with the items adapted to the Portuguese context.

- Definitions are provided for some key variables (e.g. internal marketing, performance), but others (such as labor determinants) need further explanation for clarity.

- Briefly explain the specific reasoning behind each hypothesis to strengthen its plausibility and link to the theoretical framework.

- The text does not mention the chosen research method (e.g. survey, interview, experiment) or data collection process.

It has been placed in the text.

- Final considerations:

- Some sections repeat similar points without adding new insights. Consider simplifying and rewording the sentence to be more concise and impactful.

- Statements such as "a contribution to the literature on strategic management" could be more specific, mentioning specific concepts or frameworks that your research informs.

- Statements such as "organizations should adopt instruments" would benefit from a stronger approach to evidence from your own research or existing literature.

- When mentioning possibilities for further study, consider specifying more precise research questions or hypotheses for future investigation.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved in accordance with the recommendations.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank reviewer 1 for his largely positive and favorable comments.

"The manuscript has been improved in accordance with the recommendations." - thank you so much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General issues:

The authors used formatting that makes it impossible to make precise references and indicate line numbers.

The authors introduced some of the changes proposed in the original review, but many elements were not improved.

Detailed issues:

The title of chapter 1.3.1 refers to "Workplace determinants" while the model uses "labor determinants". The chapter itself constantly uses the concept of "work determinants". This point needs to be clarified. Will the analyzed variable be "Labor Determinants", "Workplace Determinants" or maybe "Work Determinants"?

Chapter 1.3.2. starts with the date in brackets, it should probably be "As Cunha et al., (2006) indicate (..)".

The variable is Life Satisfaction (as indicated in the introduction) or Satisfaction with life (as indicated in the literature review and methodology)?

The methodology indicates 7 variables, while previously 8 variables were indicated, and this number is also indicated in Figure 1. There is no "Loyalty" variable.

Figure 1 is still difficult to read, individual lines overlap and blur the whole.

Hypothesis H2 mentions the variable "work determinants", although it has not been defined. It should be unified whether we mean "Labour determinants" or "work determinants" or maybe "workplace determinants"?

In hypothesis H2, the variable "life satisfaction" is indicated, while previously it indicates the variable "satisfaction with life". This needs to be standardised.

Table 1 is difficult to read. It would be good to separate the individual dimensions with a line. Additionally, it would be good to mark individual items with some numbering.

Should the "Employee loyalty" dimension be included in table 1 or maybe in accordance with the adopted "loyalty" variable?

The text under Table 1 indicates that the first part of the questionnaire included "Professional Satisfaction", while, according to previous indications, it should have been "Job Satisfaction".

The question arises how the remaining 4 dimensions were examined since only Emotional Intelligence was included in the first part of the survey; Internal Marketing; Professional Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Life?

In Table 3, the results should be unified; Environment indicates "two", but should rather be "2".

It should be indicated why in Table 3 some of the results are lower than 1310 (1307 and 1305).

The path description contains quotation marks in the wrong places and many other incorrectly indicated characters, but due to the formatting used, line numbers cannot be indicated.

Variables other than those previously defined are indicated in the paths and their description.

The description of the paths in section 3.2 is difficult to read.

Figure 2 is completely illegible, it uses symbols that have not been defined.

Table 4 includes completely different hypotheses (e.g. H11, H12…) than those defined in the methodology. The methodology does not mention specific hypotheses.

How could hypothesis H5 be proven if the relationship between Functional performance and satisfaction with life is irrelevant? Similarly, hypotheses H1 and H2 were not proven.

Summary:

The authors introduced some of the changes proposed in the original review, but many elements were not improved. The obtained results are presented in a way that makes it difficult to comment on the conclusions. There are markings that have not been described. Figures and tables are illegible or difficult to read. Moreover, there are designations of hypotheses other than those indicated in the methodological part, where there is no indication of the existence of specific hypotheses. The authors indicate the demonstration of hypotheses which, according to the results, cannot be accepted as demonstrated due to the insignificance of the results. The article still requires refinement. Additionally, the authors used formatting that prevents precise references and line numbers.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank reviewer 2 for the valuable and careful review of our manuscript. The authors have corrected some of the mistakes that reviewer 2 mentioned (in particular, the divergence between "life satisfaction" and "satisfaction with life"). The authors also removed a table that was difficult to read. The hypotheses have been eliminated (some were excessive and unsubstantiated). The word "two" was replaced by "2". The authors acknowledge that the figure in the structural model is difficult to read. The model is complex and makes it difficult to read and understand. As such, the figure can be removed if the "mdpi" so wishes. At the same time, the authors also recognize that the manuscript should contain the "formatting" "lines" of the manuscript. However, in round 1, the authors (mistakenly) used the initial version of the manuscript (and not the mdpi version). As such, it will again be important to ask "mdpi" for some help in providing the version adapted to the "mdpi" template. The authors have also corrected a paragraph (which erroneously began without a citation, but only with the year).

The authors have corrected some shortcomings in the table relating to the sample size "1310". 

In summary, the authors would like to thank reviewer 2 very much for his detailed analysis and suggestions for improving the manuscript. Although we recognize that there may still be some flaws, the authors are incorporating reviewer 2 various comments into the final version.

Thank you so much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments very well. Now, the paper seems to be Well built and well based article both in theoretical, methodological and practical aspects. Me recommendation is to accept this article for publication,

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank reviewer 3 very much for his largely positive and favorable comments.

"Now, the paper seems to be a well-constructed and well-founded article both in theoretical, methodological and practical aspects. My recommendation is that this paper be accepted for publication" - thank you so much.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General issues:

The authors used formatting that makes it impossible to make precise references and indicate line numbers.

The authors introduced only some minor changes proposed in the second review. Many elements have not been improved.

Detailed issues:

The title of chapter 1.3.1 refers to "Work determinants", while the model and the parent chapter use "labor determinants". The chapter itself constantly uses the concept of "work determinants". This point needs to be clarified. Will the analyzed variable be "Labor Determinants" or maybe "Work Determinants"? The model uses the "Labor Determinants" variable. It may be worth clearly pointing out that the concept of "work determinants" is used in the literature, but according to the authors and the adopted nomenclature, the term "labor determinants" is more correct.

The methodology indicates 7 variables, while previously 8 variables were indicated, and this number is also indicated in Figure 1. There is no "Loyalty" variable. It is also necessary to determine whether the variable is "Loyalty" or perhaps "Employee Loyalty", which is indicated in the diagram.

Figure 1 is still difficult to read, individual lines overlap and blur the whole.

Hypothesis H2 indicates the "work determinants" variable, although it was not defined - "Labor Determinants" was defined as a variable. It should be unified whether these are "Labor determinants" or "work determinants".

Table 1 is difficult to read. It would be good to separate the individual dimensions with a line, because it is not known which elements refer to which dimensions. Additionally, it would be good to mark individual elements with some numbering, e.g. using the markings in Figure 2.

Should the "Employee loyalty" dimension be included in table 1 or maybe in accordance with the adopted "loyalty" variable?

The text under Table 1 indicates that the first part of the questionnaire included "Professional Satisfaction", while, according to previous indications, it should have been "Job Satisfaction".

The question arises how the remaining 4 dimensions were examined since only Emotional Intelligence was included in the first part of the survey; Internal Marketing; Professional Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Life?

In the path description, there are quotation marks in the wrong places and many other incorrectly indicated characters (e.g. "p <;0.01", or "p &lt;0.01", "Functional Performance → Satisfaction" with life), however, due to the formatting it cannot be indicate line numbers.

Variables other than those previously defined are indicated in the paths and their description. There is a lack of standardization in the description of the paths - sometimes the "Work Determinants" variable is used (which is not defined in the methodology), and sometimes "Labor Determinants". The path description indicated "p &lt;0.01" instead of p<0.01.

The description of the paths in section 3.2 is difficult to read.

Figure 2 is completely illegible, it uses symbols that have not been defined (e.g. ce, cs, m12, SS4, etc.). It is necessary to present a legend in which the symbols used will be described, or they may be introduced in the text or in Table 1. It is possible to leave it, however, an appropriate description is required and it cannot present undefined symbols.

How could hypothesis H5 (H5: Job satisfaction, emotional intelligence and performance have a direct and positive influence on satisfaction with life.) be proven if the relationship between Functional performance and satisfaction with life is irrelevant, which was clearly indicated in the text "Functional Performance → Satisfaction"with life do not show statistical significance"? In the discussion, hypothesis H5 suddenly takes a different form than in the methodology. Similarly, hypotheses H1 and H2 were not proven.

Summary:

The authors introduced only some of the changes proposed in the second review and deleted Table 4. Many important elements were not corrected. The obtained results are presented in a way that makes it difficult to comment on the conclusions. There are markings that have not been described. Appropriate legends should be prepared to explain the symbols used. Figures and tables are illegible or difficult to read. The authors indicate the demonstration of hypotheses which, according to the results, cannot be accepted as demonstrated due to the insignificance of the results. It is necessary to standardize the variables used. The article still requires refinement.

Author Response

General issues:

The authors used formatting that makes it impossible to make precise references and indicate line numbers.

The authors introduced only some minor changes proposed in the second review. Many elements have not been improved.

Detailed issues:

The title of chapter 1.3.1 refers to "Work determinants", while the model and the parent chapter use "labor determinants". The chapter itself constantly uses the concept of "work determinants". This point needs to be clarified. Will the analyzed variable be "Labor Determinants" or maybe "Work Determinants"? The model uses the "Labor Determinants" variable. It may be worth clearly pointing out that the concept of "work determinants" is used in the literature, but according to the authors and the adopted nomenclature, the term "labor determinants" is more correct.

R: The suggestion was accepted and Work determinants were changed to Labor determinants throughout the work.

The methodology indicates 7 variables, while previously 8 variables were indicated, and this number is also indicated in Figure 1. There is no "Loyalty" variable. It is also necessary to determine whether the variable is "Loyalty" or perhaps "Employee Loyalty", which is indicated in the diagram.

R: This is employee loyalty, which is why all work was rectified to maintain coherence.

Figure 1 is still difficult to read, individual lines overlap and blur the whole.

R: Figure 1 was changed in the previous review and considered readable by the 2 reviewers, we also consider that the information is readable in the current version.

Hypothesis H2 indicates the "work determinants" variable, although it was not defined - "Labor Determinants" was defined as a variable. It should be unified whether these are "Labor determinants" or "work determinants".

R: A point about this hypothesis was introduced in the theoretical framework and the concept was changed to the more correct designation, in accordance with your proposal (labour determinants).

Table 1 is difficult to read. It would be good to separate the individual dimensions with a line, because it is not known which elements refer to which dimensions. Additionally, it would be good to mark individual elements with some numbering, e.g. using the markings in Figure 2.

R: It was changed according to your suggestions.

Should the "Employee loyalty" dimension be included in table 1 or maybe in accordance with the adopted "loyalty" variable?

R: Employee loyalty was placed in table 1.

The text under Table 1 indicates that the first part of the questionnaire included "Professional Satisfaction", while, according to previous indications, it should have been "Job Satisfaction".

The question arises how the remaining 4 dimensions were examined since only Emotional Intelligence was included in the first part of the survey; Internal Marketing; Professional Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Life?

 

R: The survey included items relating to all dimensions as can be seen, regarding Professional Satisfaction or Job Satisfaction, it is the same concept, with some authors calling it Professional Satisfaction and others Job Satisfaction.

The designation was standardized throughout the work to Job Satisfaction.

In the path description, there are quotation marks in the wrong places and many other incorrectly indicated characters (e.g. "p <;0.01", or "p &lt;0.01", "Functional Performance → Satisfaction" with life), however, due to the formatting it cannot be indicate line numbers.

Variables other than those previously defined are indicated in the paths and their description. There is a lack of standardization in the description of the paths - sometimes the "Work Determinants" variable is used (which is not defined in the methodology), and sometimes "Labor Determinants". The path description indicated "p &lt;0.01" instead of p<0.01.

R: changes were introduced in accordance with the suggestions and errors detected by the reviewer. thanking you for the suggestion.

The description of the paths in section 3.2 is difficult to read.

Figure 2 is completely illegible, it uses symbols that have not been defined (e.g. ce, cs, m12, SS4, etc.). It is necessary to present a legend in which the symbols used will be described, or they may be introduced in the text or in Table 1. It is possible to leave it, however, an appropriate description is required and it cannot present undefined symbols.

R: The suggestion was followed, as Figure 2 is an output from the Amos software, the suggestions were included in Table 1, thus allowing a better reading of Figure 2.

How could hypothesis H5 (H5: Job satisfaction, emotional intelligence and performance have a direct and positive influence on satisfaction with life.) be proven if the relationship between Functional performance and satisfaction with life is irrelevant, which was clearly indicated in the text "Functional Performance → Satisfaction" with life do not show statistical significance"? In the discussion, hypothesis H5 suddenly takes a different form than in the methodology. Similarly, hypotheses H1 and H2 were not proven.

R: The authors agree that hypotheses 1 and 2 were partially validated, as was H5, since the performance did not present statistical significance in this study, so this information was included in the discussion.

 

Summary:

The authors introduced only some of the changes proposed in the second review and deleted Table 4. Many important elements were not corrected. The obtained results are presented in a way that makes it difficult to comment on the conclusions. There are markings that have not been described. Appropriate legends should be prepared to explain the symbols used. Figures and tables are illegible or difficult to read. The authors indicate the demonstration of hypotheses which, according to the results, cannot be accepted as demonstrated due to the insignificance of the results. It is necessary to standardize the variables used. The article still requires refinement.

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General issues:

The authors introduced most of the changes proposed in the previous review. In particular, the explanation of the symbols used in Figure 2, which is included in Table 1, should be assessed positively.

Detailed issues:

Line 290: Maybe the title of the subsection "Commitment and employee loyalty", since the term "employee loyalty" is used.

Lines 331-332: The 8th variable that is clearly indicated in Figure 1, "Employee Loyalty", is missing.

Line 335: The lines in Figure 1 overlap, it would be good to improve the connections between the model elements so that they do not overlap. The question is which way is the connection between "Emotional intelligence" and "Performance" - no arrowhead.

Lines 389-390: It would be good to separate groups of elements assigned to a given dimension with lines.

Line 392: proposes standardizing source descriptions for figures and tables, e.g. "Source: Own elaboration".

Line 482: remove unnecessary ";" at "p<;0.01".

Line 487: remove quotation marks x2.

Line 492: remove quotation marks x2.

Lines 476-520: Standardize the writing of variables, sometimes lowercase variables, sometimes all uppercase.

Lines 397-400: The question arises how the remaining 4 dimensions were examined since only Emotional Intelligence was included in the first part of the survey; Internal Marketing; Professional Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Life?

Summary:

Interesting article. The authors introduced most of the proposed changes. The article may be accepted for publication after taking into account the minor changes indicated above.

Author Response

The authors really appreciate the comments and suggestions of "reviewer 2" on this manuscript. Indeed, all the suggestions were very important throughout the 4 rounds and we were pleased to get positive feedback at this final stage of the manuscript. In the final version, the improvements made by the reviewer in the last evaluation (in particular, some inaccuracies) have been incorporated. The following improvements have been marked in "yellow":

Line 290: Perhaps the title of the subsection "Employee commitment and loyalty", since the term "employee loyalty" is used.

Lines 331-332: The 8th variable which is clearly indicated in Figure 1, "Employee Loyalty", is missing.

Line 335: The lines in Figure 1 overlap, so it would be good to improve the connections between the elements of the model so that they don't overlap. The question is what is the connection between "Emotional Intelligence" and "Performance" - there is no arrowhead.

Lines 389-390: It would be good to separate the groups of elements assigned to a given dimension with lines.

Line 392: proposes standardizing the source descriptions for figures and tables, e.g. "Source: Own elaboration".

Line 482: delete unnecessary ";" in "p<;0.01".

Line 487: remove the quotation marks x2.

Line 492: remove the x2 quotation marks.

Lines 476-520: Standardize the writing of variables, sometimes in lower case, sometimes in upper case.

 

Thank you so much.

Authors