Next Article in Journal
Strategic Human Resource Management, Innovation, and Social Dialogue in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: The Case of Greek Pharmaceutical Multinationals
Previous Article in Journal
To Stay or to Migrate: Driving Factors and Formation Mechanisms of Rural Households’ Decisions Regarding Rural–Urban Student Migration in China
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Employee Motivation and Job Performance of Non-Academic Staff in Chinese Universities

Societies 2025, 15(8), 227; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15080227
by Zhang Ce, Rossazana Ab-Rahim, Fadilah Siali * and Nuradibah Mokhtar
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Societies 2025, 15(8), 227; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15080227
Submission received: 10 May 2025 / Revised: 9 July 2025 / Accepted: 31 July 2025 / Published: 18 August 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript titled „Employee Motivation and Job Performance of Non-academic Staffs in China Universities“. The manuscript examines the impact of financial and non-financial incentives on the work performance of non-academic employees of Chinese universities with the aim of improving their performance and promoting the development of institutions.

However, I have following comments:

  • The main aim of the manuscript must be included in the abstract.
  • Methodology – what was the size of the basic set? What types of universities were included in the research (public, private)? What specifically was the reason for excluding the 175 invalid questionnaires?
  • Table 2 contains overlapping age categories (20-30; 30-35). It would also be appropriate for the age ranges to be more balanced.
  • Chapter 3 is divided into further subchapters, but does not contain text. Each chapter and subchapter should contain text.
  • It would be appropriate to characterize the research questionnaires used and their content in more detail.
  • The manuscript completely lacks a "Discussion" section and therefore lacks a comparison of the research results with other researchers.
  • Conclusion contains only summarized research results. I recommend completing this section with an emphasis on recommendations for practice.
  • It is also necessary to adjust the structure of the article according to IMRAD. It is not standard to present the research results in the "methodology" section.

I thank the authors and wish them success in their scientific research.

Author Response

  1. The main aim of the manuscript must be included in the abstract.

Response:

We have revised the abstract extensively; the main findings and the implications of the

study are added.

 

  1. Methodology – what was the size of the basic set? What types of universities were

included in the research (public, private)? What specifically was the reason for excluding

the 175 invalid questionnaires?

Response:

We have revised the Methodology section extensively. The basic set comprised non-

academic staff employed at public and private universities in China. A total of 531

individuals participated in the survey. Of the 531 responses received, 175 were excluded

because the respondents did not meet the inclusion criteria, such as working as

academic staffs and also the incomplete questionnaires, where more than 30% of items

were left unanswered. These exclusions ensured the validity and quality of the final

sample, which consisted of 356 usable responses, exceeding the minimum threshold for

SEM analysis as determined by G*Power.

 

  1. Table 2 contains overlapping age categories (20-30; 30-35). It would also be appropriate

for the age ranges to be more balanced.

Response:

The typo has been corrected; we have revised the age groupings in Table 2. The updated

age categories as follows:

  • 20–24
  • 25–29
  • 30–34
  • 35–39
  • 40 and above

 

  1. Chapter 3 is divided into further subchapters, but does not contain text. Each chapter

and subchapter should contain text.

Response:

We have thoroughly revised Chapter 3 to ensure that each subchapter now contains

appropriate narrative content.

 

  1. It would be appropriate to characterize the research questionnaires used and their

content in more detail.

Response:

We have revised the Methodology section to provide a more detailed characterization of

the research questionnaire and its content. The questionnaire used in this study was a

structured, self-administered instrument designed to measure the influence of monetary and non-monetary motivation on the financial and non-financial performance of non-

academic staff in private Chinese universities.

 

  1. The manuscript completely lacks a "Discussion" section and therefore lacks a

comparison of the research results with other researchers.

Response:

We have added a Discussion section to the revised manuscript.

 

  1. Conclusion contains only summarized research results. I recommend completing this

section with an emphasis on recommendations for practice.

Response:

We have revised the Conclusion section to include clear, actionable recommendations

for practice.

 

  1. It is also necessary to adjust the structure of the article according to IMRAD. It is not

standard to present the research results in the "methodology" section.

Response:

We have revised the structure of the manuscript to fully align with the IMRAD format

(Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion), in accordance with standard

academic publishing practices.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigates the link between motivation and job performance among non-academic staff in Chinese universities, focusing on how both monetary and non-monetary incentives impact financial and non-financial outcomes. The topic addresses important issues of organizational behavior, workplace relations, and human resources management within the education sector. Overall, the subject fits well within the scope and thematic interests of the Societies journal by MDPI.

 

Comment 1: The abstract correctly presents the general background and purpose of the study, as well as the methodology used (questionnaire and SEM). However, the main findings should be stated more specifically, with reference to key figures or results (e.g., which variables had strong effects and where the main differences were observed). Also, the final conclusions are rather general and could focus more on practical recommendations or implications. It is recommended that the authors add one or two sentences summarizing the most important results to improve the clarity and objectivity of the abstract.

 

Comment 2: The introduction gives a satisfactory background of the topic and shows why the study is important for Chinese universities. However, the novelty and the research gap are not made completely clear. The main research question is implied but it is not stated in a direct and specific way. It would be better if the authors add a paragraph or some sentences to make it more obvious what is new in this study compared to previous literature, and what is the main scientific gap they want to cover.

Comment 3: The literature review relies almost exclusively on old and classical theories (Maslow, Herzberg, McClelland), but does not include recent developments or modern theories in the field of work motivation or HRM studies. It is strongly suggested to update the theoretical background with new models and more recent literature, so the framework will be up-to-date and relevant for current needs.

Comment 4: There is too much emphasis on describing basic concepts, but the review lacks a critical perspective and does not discuss recent trends, such as self-determination theory, psychological empowerment, or public service motivation models. It would improve the review to integrate such theories, making the analysis more modern and complete.

Comment 5: The hypotheses are not justified enough with evidence from recent research and international examples. The authors should add updated references (from the last five years) and make a clear connection between these new findings and their hypotheses.

Comment 6: The methodology section includes a large amount of results (descriptive statistics, correlations, reliability and validity tables) that normally belong to a separate results section, which is missing from the paper. Merging results and methodology creates confusion for the reader and reduces the transparency of the analysis. It is essential to clearly separate the methods from the presentation of results.

Comment 7: The description of sampling and data collection is adequate, but there is not enough information about how potential bias was handled, the validity criteria for the sample, or how invalid questionnaires were treated. The authors should add more analysis here to strengthen the reliability of their approach.

Comment 8: Although the assessment of reliability and validity includes Cronbach’s alpha, AVE, composite reliability and HTMT, there is no reference to statistical assumption checks (like normality, multicollinearity, outliers), and also no mention of the Lacker-Fornell model, which is an international standard for discriminant validity in SEM. It is important to add these checks to ensure methodological quality and acceptance.

Comment 9: Several tables and descriptive figures (like correlation tables, descriptive statistics, HTMT) are presented without enough commentary or explanation in the text. The authors should ensure that every table and result comes with a short interpretation or discussion.

Comment 10: The reference to the software and statistical methods is clear, but more details are needed about the choice of SEM-PLS, parameter settings, and why this method was chosen over alternatives (for example, CB-SEM). It would help if the authors justify their methodological decisions and discuss possible limitations of the PLS approach.

Comment 11: The hypotheses are only loosely connected to the flow of the methodology and are not presented in a way that clearly results from the theoretical or methodological background. It is suggested to make this connection stronger, so the logic of the analysis becomes more convincing.

Comment 12: The presentation of the sample is done in general terms, but crucial details are missing about how participants were selected, the exact procedure of questionnaire collection, and the criteria for inclusion/exclusion. The authors need to add a more detailed description of these steps.

Comment 13: Figure 2 (path analysis diagram) is not clear in the file and it is difficult to evaluate the information shown. The authors should upload a higher-resolution figure or redesign it to ensure readability.

Comment 14: Throughout the paper, there is no distinct or detailed “Discussion” section. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are not really discussed, and the limitations or directions for future research are mentioned only briefly at the end, without deeper analysis or connection with international literature. It is strongly recommended to add a separate “Discussion” section, where results are interpreted, compared to previous studies, practical and policy implications are highlighted, and limitations and future research directions are analysed in more detail.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 It is recommended that the authors revise the text with the support of a native speaker or professional editor, so the clarity, terminology, and overall academic coherence can be improved.

Author Response

  1. Comment 1: The abstract correctly presents the general background and purpose of the

study, as well as the methodology used (questionnaire and SEM). However, the main

findings should be stated more specifically, with reference to key figures or results (e.g.,

which variables had strong effects and where the main differences were observed).

Also, the final conclusions are rather general and could focus more on practical

recommendations or implications. It is recommended that the authors add one or two

sentences summarizing the most important results to improve the clarity and objectivity

of the abstract.

Response:

The abstract has been revised extensively; the main findings have been highlighted. For example,

the performance-based pay and promotion opportunities had the most significant impact on

financial and non-financial performance, respectively. The conclusion is refined to focus on

practical recommendations, such as the need for universities to balance salary structures with

career development pathways to sustain motivation among non-academic staff.

 

  1. Comment 2: The introduction gives a satisfactory background of the topic and shows

why the study is important for Chinese universities. However, the novelty and the

research gap are not made completely clear. The main research question is implied but

it is not stated in a direct and specific way. It would be better if the authors add a

paragraph or some sentences to make it more obvious what is new in this study

compared to previous literature, and what is the main scientific gap they want to cover.

Response:

We have revised the Introduction section to clearly highlight the research gap and the novelty of

the study. Specifically, we have added a paragraph that identifies the lack of empirical research

focusing on non-academic staff motivation in Chinese universities, particularly in relation to the

combined effects of monetary and non-monetary incentives on both financial and non-financial

performance. While many existing studies emphasize academic staff or general employee

motivation, few have examined this issue.

 

  1. Comment 3: The literature review relies almost exclusively on old and classical theories

(Maslow, Herzberg, McClelland), but does not include recent developments or modern

theories in the field of work motivation or HRM studies. It is strongly suggested to update

the theoretical background with new models and more recent literature, so the

framework will be up-to-date and relevant for current needs.

Response:

We have thoroughly revised and updated the Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

sections to incorporate recent developments in work motivation and HRM theory, moving beyond

the exclusive reliance on classical models such as Maslow, Herzberg, and McClelland.

Specifically, we have integrated Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000) which

highlights the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in fostering intrinsic

motivation in education settings. The Psychological Empowerment Theory (Spreitzer, 1995) has

been added as well, Last but not least, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Bakker &

Demerouti, 2007) explains how the balance between institutional demands and available job

resources influences employee engagement and performance. Recent empirical studies from 2022 to 2025, particularly in the context of higher education and administrative human resources

in China and internationally have also been added.

 

  1. Comment 4: There is too much emphasis on describing basic concepts, but the review

lacks a critical perspective and does not discuss recent trends, such as self-

determination theory, psychological empowerment, or public service motivation

models. It would improve the review to integrate such theories, making the analysis

more modern and complete.

Response:

We have revised the Literature Review section accordingly, as explained in response to Comment

3.

 

  1. Comment 5: The hypotheses are not justified enough with evidence from recent

research and international examples. The authors should add updated references (from

the last five years) and make a clear connection between these new findings and their

hypotheses.

Response:

We have thoroughly revised the Hypotheses Development section by incorporating updated

references from the past five years (2020–2025), including both Chinese and international

studies, to support the relationships proposed in our model. The updated references include

empirical findings related to monetary and non-monetary motivation, psychological

empowerment, job satisfaction, and employee performance.

 

  1. Comment 6: The methodology section includes a large amount of results (descriptive

statistics, correlations, reliability and validity tables) that normally belong to a separate

results section, which is missing from the paper. Merging results and methodology

creates confusion for the reader and reduces the transparency of the analysis. It is

essential to clearly separate the methods from the presentation of results. There is too

much emphasis on describing basic concepts, but the review lacks a critical

perspective and does not discuss recent trends, such as self-determination theory,

psychological empowerment, or public service motivation models. It would improve the

review to integrate such theories, making the analysis more modern and complete.

Response:

We have restructured the manuscript to establish a clear separation between the Methodology

and Results sections, in accordance with standard academic practice. The Methodology section

now focuses exclusively on the research design, sampling strategy, data collection procedures,

instrument development, and data analysis techniques (e.g., PLS-SEM). All descriptive statistics,

reliability and validity assessments (Cronbach’s alpha, AVE, CR, HTMT, Fornell-Larcker), and

hypothesis testing results have been relocated to a newly created Results section, where each

table and figure is accompanied by concise interpretation and linked directly to the study’s

hypotheses.

 

  1. Comment 7: The description of sampling and data collection is adequate, but there is

not enough information about how potential bias was handled, the validity criteria for

the sample, or how invalid questionnaires were treated. The authors should add more

analysis here to strengthen the reliability of their approach.Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have substantially revised

the manuscript to provide a more detailed explanation of the procedures undertaken.

  1. Comment 8: Although the assessment of reliability and validity includes Cronbach’s

alpha, AVE, composite reliability and HTMT, there is no reference to statistical

assumption checks (like normality, multicollinearity, outliers), and also no mention of

the Lacker-Fornell model, which is an international standard for discriminant validity in

SEM. It is important to add these checks to ensure methodological quality and

acceptance.

Response:

All comments have been addressed accordingly.

 

  1. Comment 9: Several tables and descriptive figures (like correlation tables, descriptive

statistics, HTMT) are presented without enough commentary or explanation in the text.

The authors should ensure that every table and result comes with a short interpretation

or discussion.

Response:

We have revised the manuscript to provide clear commentary and interpretation for all key tables

and figures, including the correlation matrix, descriptive statistics, HTMT ratios, and other model

diagnostics.

 

 

  1. Comment 10: The reference to the software and statistical methods is clear, but more

details are needed about the choice of SEM-PLS, parameter settings, and why this

method was chosen over alternatives (for example, CB-SEM). It would help if the authors

justify their methodological decisions and discuss possible limitations of the PLS

approach.

Response:

We have provided a more detailed justification for selecting PLS-SEM.

 

  1. Comment 11: The hypotheses are only loosely connected to the flow of the

methodology and are not presented in a way that clearly results from the theoretical or

methodological background. It is suggested to make this connection stronger, so the

logic of the analysis becomes more convincing.

Response:

We have restructured the Hypotheses Development section to ensure that each hypothesis is

clearly and logically derived from the theoretical framework, supported by recent empirical

literature (2022–2025), and aligned with the research model and methodological approach.

 

  1. Comment 12: The presentation of the sample is done in general terms, but crucial

details are missing about how participants were selected, the exact procedure of

questionnaire collection, and the criteria for inclusion/exclusion. The authors need to

add a more detailed description of these steps.

Response:

We have expanded the relevant section in the revised manuscript to include a more

comprehensive explanation of the sampling strategy, questionnaire administration process, and

inclusion/exclusion criteria.

 

  1. Comment 13: Figure 2 (path analysis diagram) is not clear in the file and it is difficult to

evaluate the information shown. The authors should upload a higher-resolution figure or

redesign it to ensure readability.

Response:

Figure 2 (Path Analysis Diagram) has been redesigned.

 

  1. Comment 14: Throughout the paper, there is no distinct or detailed “Discussion”

section. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are not really

discussed, and the limitations or directions for future research are mentioned only

briefly at the end, without deeper analysis or connection with international literature. It

is strongly recommended to add a separate “Discussion” section, where results are

interpreted, compared to previous studies, practical and policy implications are

highlighted, and limitations and future research directions are analysed in more detail.

Response:

We have revised the manuscript to include a “Discussion” section that systematically interprets

the study’s findings and connects them to both domestic and international literature.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made sufficient edits, I recommend accepting the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

First, I would like to thank you for the revisions you did on your manuscript. The changes you made already cover an important part of the comments from the first round and improve the quality of your work. However, I would like to point out some extra remarks for further improvement:

a) I noticed that in the text, you use two different systems of references (APA and numeric form, e.g. [1]). You should select one uniform referencing system, according to the journal’s guidelines, and use it everywhere in the manuscript.

b) Figure 2 (Path analysis) should be moved to section 4.3, where the SEM modelling is analysed, so to make clear connection between the text and the figure.

c) In the manuscript, you mention many times the term SEM without more explanation. For accuracy and to avoid confusion, please use SEM-PLS everywhere, since this analysis is different from SEM-CB.

d) Some parts about methodology (for example, the analysis for Cronbach Alpha, HTMT, Forkell-Larcker, validity, VIF, convergence, data collection, and the advantages of SEM-PLS) are found in the results section. Please move them to the methodology, as they are about the description of process and not the findings. Especially for Forkell-Larcker, this point was already mentioned in the last round, but still it is not included.

I believe these remarks will further improve your paper and help the readers to better understand your research.

Kind regards,

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Back to TopTop