The Relationship between Creative Self-Efficacy, Achievement Motivation, and Job Burnout among Designers in China’s e-Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigates the relation between creative self-efficacy [CSE], achievement motivation (including motivation to approach success [MS], and motivation to avoid failure [MF]), and job burnout. Using the survey data from China e-market designers, the author(s) finds that MS is correlated with CSE and gives suggestions for the work design.

I think the topic is quite exciting and potentially valuable for many situations. Honestly, I am not familiar with the questionnaire survey design and the technical method used in this study, but I believe the author(s) did a decent job. However, from my perspective, I have the following concerns listed below.

i. The study claims that designers' high MS triggers CSE. However, according to the risk aversion theory, a compelling story is that the representative agent may be more reluctant to fail. Therefore, I think the author should explain the asymmetry effect more clearly.

ii. Following the last point, how about the characteristics of work or the people? Will the conclusion also hold if it was not e-designers or not in China? I believe that the designer as an occupation is more "creativity-oriented." If the work is, say, an accountant, will the result be the same?

iii. The writing needs to be improved.

Author Response

General comments:

This paper investigates the relation between creative self-efficacy [CSE], achievement motivation (including motivation to approach success [MS], and motivation to avoid failure [MF]), and job burnout. Using the survey data from China e-market designers, the author(s) finds that MS is correlated with CSE and gives suggestions for the work design.

Comment 1:

The study claims that designers' high MS triggers CSE. However, according to the risk aversion theory, a compelling story is that the representative agent may be more reluctant to fail. Therefore, I think the author should explain the asymmetry effect more clearly.

Response：

Thanks for the reminder. In the achievement motivation scale, MS and MF are two factors that are relatively independent and can represent two independent mental processes. The stronger the motivation to pursue success, the weaker the motivation to avoid failure (the correlation coefficient between the two is -0.602).

In addition, the stronger the MS, the weaker the MF. People with high MF are more inclined to engage in activities that are particularly easy to succeed or particularly easy to fail, while people with high MS tend to perform with a 50% success rate; appropriate risk-taking is a distinguishing factor for outstanding creative performance.

The revised part is in : P12, L452~457

Comment 2:

Following the last point, how about the characteristics of work or the people? Will the conclusion also hold if it was not e-designers or not in China? I believe that the designer as an occupation is more "creativity-oriented." If the work is, say, an accountant, will the result be the same?

Response:

Thanks a lot for the detailed comments. Designers should provide the possible features of new artifacts, such as the color, dimensions, materials, and decorations, through prototypes (Cross 1982). In addition, de-signers suggest a possible solution to a particular problem through reformation, conceptualization, and the transformation between divergent and convergent thinking. In particular, the shift between thinking processes is also an essential capacity for designers (Hu et al. 2021). The conclusion may not hold when it refers to other occupations. I addressed this point in the limitation part. The revised part is in:  P2, L84~100

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciated the opportunity to read your research entitled “The relationship between creative self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and job burnout among designers in China’s e-market”. Although the topic is interesting, however, I have several concerns and recommendations about the paper;

·      Abstract is too wordy with non-required text and details. The abstract should give an overview, not each hypothesis one by one. Also, P1/L11-12: “To enable better” this sentence doesn’t make sense and unify within a paragraph; the transition is required.

·      P2/L54: Research has indicated that CSE is the foundation for innovative behavior. Recent literature is available to support this statement; use recent citations than old ones from 2002.

·      Second, third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction need refinement in terms of conciseness, decency, connectivity among arguments (to-the-point talk), you-attitude approach for readers, and the latest literature work.

·      P2/L92: Kindly support your claim that job burnout is the opposite of CSE.

·      Introduction is distracting. On one hand, authors are claiming to contribute and analyze how CSE relates to job burnout and on the other hand, it claims to be the opposite. Overall, the introduction needs clarity that what is the motive and focus of the study. There is no connection and flow to understand easily what they aim to resolve. Restructure the introduction with the dependent construct, and the actual focus of the study, and align the later part step by step with the story and arguments. There is less need for hyperbole about total value, fiber optics, etc. Be specific after giving an overview of China’s rank in e-commerce and platform or market space. Also, emphasis more on contribution and novelty.

·      Avoid repeating the same literature that has been said in the introduction (e.g., the definition of CSE).

·      Theory and hypothesis part needs consistency in arguments with recent literature. Authors have cited much literature older than 5 years (e.g., from the mid-1900s to early 2000).

·      Model depicts more relationships, whereas authors end up with only two hypotheses.

·      Mention sample items of job burnout and achievement motivation scale as mentioned for creative self-efficacy.

·      Were only CSE and achievement motivation scales measured using the Likert scale, not job burnout? Also, how did the authors manage to deal with the 6-point Likert scale and 4-point Likert scale data collection and analysis? What was the options range for CSE’s 6-point Likert scale (completely agree/disagree)?

·      What is emphasized in the introduction is not the same as what is discussed. Avoid vague implications and repetition of the same and unnecessary text. 

·      Discussion and contribution are lengthy with unnecessary text and repeated sentences from the introduction and literature review. It needs to be more concise and specific with past studies supporting the present study’s outcomes. Also, this study’s theoretical and practical implications.

Recommended literature for extensive read to refine current study, support arguments, and update citation from 2017-2022;

1.     (2015) Rewards and employee creative performance: Moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control, Journal of Organizational Behavior

2.     (2022) Impact of Emotional Labour on Taking Charge to Predict Employee’s Creative and Task Performance: The Moderation of Performance-based Pay from the Lens of Self-Determination Theory, PloS one

3.     (2019) The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation and Synergistic Extrinsic Motivators on Creativity and Innovation, Frontiers in Psychology

4.     (2017) The effects of emotional labor on work engagement and boundary spanner creativity, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

5.     (2020) Intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing in the mood – creativity relationship, Journal of Management & Organization

6.     (2020) Examining the relationship between self-actualization and job performance via taking charge, International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science

7.     (2020) A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Role Stress and Organizational Commitment: The Moderating Effects of Occupational Type and Culture, Occupational Health Science

8.     (2017) Self-Efficacy and Psychological Ownership Mediate the Effects of Empowering Leadership on Both Good and Bad Employee Behaviors, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

9.     (2018) Impact of benevolent leadership on follower taking charge: Roles of work engagement and role-breadth self-efficacy, Chinese Management Studies

I hope my comments will help you to improve the content. Good luck!

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

General comments:

I appreciated the opportunity to read your research entitled “The relationship between creative self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and job burnout among designers in China’s e-market”. Although the topic is interesting, however, I have several concerns and recommendations about the paper;

Comment 1:

Abstract is too wordy with non-required text and details. The abstract should give an overview, not each hypothesis one by one. Also, P1/L11-12: “To enable better” this sentence doesn’t make sense and unify within a paragraph; the transition is required.

Response:

Thanks a lot for the advice, the abstract was rewritten entirely. See the below:

The e-market is prosperous in China, but the factors that stimulate or deter its development re-main unclear. This study focuses on designers (interaction, user interface, product, and user experience designers) in the Chinese e-marketplace to examine the relationship between creative self-efficacy (CSE), achievement motivation (including motivation to approach success [MS], and motivation to avoid failure [MF]), and job burnout. Eighty-two questionnaires and eight in-depth interviews were used to collect data. The designers were found to be experiencing intermediate levels of job burnout. However, their achievement motivation and CSE were relatively high, and achievement motivation acted as an overarching factor that triggered CSE. The study contributes to the field by providing theoretical evidence showing how achievement motivation and job burnout influence designers’ CSE. We show the value of the need to increase employees’ achievement motivation, which builds CSE naturally. To conclude, we suggest that achievement motivation may be more critical for firms, as employees will handle their work seriously with a higher sense of responsibility.

Comment 2:

P2/L54: Research has indicated that CSE is the foundation for innovative behavior. Recent literature is available to support this statement; use recent citations than old ones from 2002.

Response:

Thanks for the suggestion, new citations are added to the statement. See the below:

Research has indicated that CSE is the foundation for innovative behavior (Grosser et al. 2017; Newman et al.2018; Javed et al. 2021).

Comment 3:

Second, third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction need refinement in terms of conciseness, decency, connectivity among arguments (to-the-point talk), you-attitude approach for readers, and the latest literature work.

Introduction is distracting. On one hand, authors are claiming to contribute and analyze how CSE relates to job burnout and on the other hand, it claims to be the opposite. Overall, the introduction needs clarity that what is the motive and focus of the study. There is no connection and flow to understand easily what they aim to resolve. Restructure the introduction with the dependent construct, and the actual focus of the study, and align the later part step by step with the story and arguments. There is less need for hyperbole about total value, fiber optics, etc. Be specific after giving an overview of China’s rank in e-commerce and platform or market space. Also, emphasis more on contribution and novelty.

Response:

The revised introduction includes a clear statement of why selected the CSE, achievement motivation, and job burnout as the variables. Moreover, the motive and focus are more concise after moving an entire section. The contribution and novelty have also been mentioned. Please see the introduction session: P1

Comment 4:

P2/L92: Kindly support your claim that job burnout is the opposite of CSE.

Response:

I revised the statement, see the below:

Overall, Job burnout is relevantly considered an influential factor of CSE as CSE reflects job performance, creativity, confidence, successful problem-solving, and stimulating employee innovation(Huang et al. 2020; Newman et al. 2018). In particular, when encountering challenges, employees with high CSE take them as an opportunity to innovate instead of seeing them as a barrier (Newman et al. 2018).

Comment 5:

Avoid repeating the same literature that has been said in the introduction (e.g., the definition of CSE).

Response:

I eliminated all the literature mentioned in the introduction.

Comment 6:

Theory and hypothesis part needs consistency in arguments with recent literature. Authors have cited much literature older than 5 years (e.g., from the mid-1900s to early 2000).

Response:

I cited more literature within five years to support my arguments, please see the introduction and the hypotheses.

Comment 7:

The model depicts more relationships, whereas the authors end up with only two hypotheses.

Response:

We developed the hypotheses according to the literature review, and more relationships showed without our expectations. Thus, we offered more explanation about why the connection exists. Please see the discussion and the result part.

Comment 8:

Mention sample items of job burnout and achievement motivation scale as mentioned for creative self-efficacy.

Response:

Yes, I revised the description, please see the questionnaire section P 5, L 213~218.

Comment 9:

Were only CSE and achievement motivation scales measured using the Likert scale, not job burnout?

Response:

Job burnout also used the Likert scale.

Comment 10:

What was the options range for CSE’s 6-point Likert scale (completely agree/disagree)?

Response:

The option ranges from strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slight agree, agree and strongly agree.

Comment 11:

 Also, how did the authors manage to deal with the 6-point Likert scale and 4-point Likert scale data collection and analysis?

Response:

All the questionnaires used in this study are standard instruments, and the scores of the questions in the same questionnaire can do algebraic operations such as summation or finding the arithmetic mean and variance. They are equiprobable data and can be analyzed directly by parametric correlation and regression. I list some studies which used different Likert scales, but correlations and regressions have been conducted.

• (2017) Self-Efficacy and Psychological Ownership Mediate the Effects of Empowering Leadership on Both Good and Bad Employee Behaviors, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

7 and 5 Likert scale have been used in this study.

• (2018) Impact of benevolent leadership on follower taking charge: Roles of work engagement and role-breadth self-efficacy, Chinese Management Studies

6 and 5 Likert scale have been used in this study.

Comment 12:

What is emphasized in the introduction is not the same as what is discussed. Avoid vague implications and repetition of the same and unnecessary text. 

Discussion and contribution are lengthy with unnecessary text and repeated sentences from the introduction and literature review. It needs to be more concise and specific with past studies supporting the present study’s outcomes. Also, this study’s theoretical and practical implications.

Response:

The revised discussion included consistent and inconsistent studies to support the result. The conclusion and implications have been combined to make the content more concise.

The revised part is : P1

Comment 13:

Recommended literature for extensive read to refine current study, support arguments, and update citation from 2017-2022;

Response:

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate the reading list, and I cited 5 papers from the list.

1. (2015) Rewards and employee creative performance: Moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control, Journal of Organizational Behavior
2. (2022) Impact of Emotional Labour on Taking Charge to Predict Employee’s Creative and Task Performance: The Moderation of Performance-based Pay from the Lens of Self-Determination Theory, PloS one
3. (2019) The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation and Synergistic Extrinsic Motivators on Creativity and Innovation, Frontiers in Psychology
4. (2017) The effects of emotional labor on work engagement and boundary spanner creativity, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship(didn’t cite)
5. (2020) Intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing in the mood – creativity relationship, Journal of Management & Organization
6. (2020) Examining the relationship between self-actualization and job performance via taking charge, International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (didn’t cite)
7. (2020) A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Role Stress and Organizational Commitment: The Moderating Effects of Occupational Type and Culture, Occupational Health Science (didn’t cite)
8. (2017) Self-Efficacy and Psychological Ownership Mediate the Effects of Empowering Leadership on Both Good and Bad Employee Behaviors, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
9. (2018) Impact of benevolent leadership on follower taking charge: Roles of work engagement and role-breadth self-efficacy, Chinese Management Studies(didn’t cite)

Reviewer 3 Report

No any general comments, but how is the level of redundancy between three variables [self- ef., ach motivation and prof. burnout???]

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper reports on a mixed-methods empirical study of Chinese designers’ creative self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and burnout.

1.    The rationale for why the author(s) chose specifically creative self-efficacy, burnout, and achievement motivation is not yet very substantial. It needs to be reworked.

2.    In line 79, it is written that “Self-efficacy can be mediated by motivation”. This makes no sense. What is the mediator, the independent, and the dependent variable?

3.    I have never heard of self-efficacy as “confidence” in motivation (lines 110-111). Self-efficacy is confidence in capabilities to undertake successfully the completion of tasks.

4.    What does it mean to be creative? This should be explained before defining creative self-efficacy.

5.    Other things (e.g., self-regulation) beyond motivation are also needed to persist in a task. Motivation by itself is not sufficient (viz., explains less variance). Statements in lines 128-129 are too strong claims.

6.    It would be good to delineate self-efficacy from achievement motivation. Some researchers consider self-efficacy to be part of achievement motivation (e.g., 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-050720-103500).

7.    The author(s) refer to achievement motivation in general, whereas in other parts of the manuscript there is mention of intrinsic motivation, MS, and MF. Stick to achievement motivation definitions that suit the operationalizations made in the empirical part of the study.

8.    Achievement motivation is definitely not only MS and MF. This is a significant limitation of the study. You cannot go claiming that achievement motivation is MS and MF, where it could also be intrinsic motivation, performance and mastery goal orientations, expectancy values, etc.

9.    What is predicting what? Is achievement motivation predicting self-efficacy or the other way around? More literature on the links between these two is needed.

10. I am not sure that job burnout and (creative) self-efficacy are two ends of the same continuum. This is taken out of context from the Huhtala & Parzefall (2007) article. In that article, burnout reduces self-efficacy, which signifies that burnout is distinct from self-efficacy. The authors could write more arguments to persuade the substantial reader.

11. Devote a comment on the mental health consequences of burnout.

12.Lines 179-181 should be removed.

13.Give us some context. What exactly are the designers supposed to do? What is involved in this profession?

14.How is inclusion of participants from multiple professional pathways more appropriate for this research design? What are the limitations?

15.What are/is the author(s) comparing with in table 3? Is the null hypothesis: mean=0? Explain more.

16.Since sex was a significant covariate, it should be controlled for in all analyses. Sex should be included in the regression model as well as in the path model predicting the variables that differ significantly by sex.

17. Indirect and total effects should be calculated and reported since there were significant mediations in the path analysis.

18.Why does emotional exhaustion have no effect on CSE? This path should be calculated even if it is not significant.

19. Do(es) the author(s) need ethical approval for the data collection? If not, please explain how the research was conducted in an ethical manner (i.e., consent, voluntary participations, incentives, etc.)

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #4:

The paper reports on a mixed-methods empirical study of Chinese designers’ creative self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and burnout.

Comment 1:

The rationale for why the author(s) chose specifically creative self-efficacy, burnout, and achievement motivation is not yet very substantial. It needs to be reworked.

Response:

The revised introduction includes a clear statement of why selected the CSE, achievement motivation, and job burnout as the variables by adding more recent citations. And the motive and focus are more concise after moving an entire section, the contribution and novelty have been also mentioned.

Comment 2:

In line 79, it is written that “Self-efficacy can be mediated by motivation”. This makes no sense. What is the mediator, the independent, and the dependent variable?

Response:

The sentence has been removed.

Comment 3:

I have never heard of self-efficacy as “confidence” in motivation (lines 110-111). Self-efficacy is confidence in capabilities to undertake successfully the completion of tasks.

Response:

Thanks for the correction, I revised my statement.

In terms of the connection between achievement motivation and creative self-efficacy, they play an essential role in professional development. For example, self-efficacy refers to individuals’ belief in their capacity to execute the behaviors necessary to achieve their goals (Bandura 1977). It reflects an individual’s confidence in their motivation and the effectiveness of their behavior at the cognitive level. Meanwhile, achievement motivation involves individual commitment and engagement toward excellence, which is more action-oriented. Although self-efficacy is not the same as achievement motivation, both qualities involve the confidence to perform specific behaviors and excel. Accordingly, self-efficacy and achievement motivation positively correlate (Zhang et al. 2015), and self-efficacy influences achievement motivation (Alhadabi and Karpinski 2019; Jamil and Mahmud 2019)……. Please see the P4, L152~168.

Comment 4:

What does it mean to be creative? This should be explained before defining creative self-efficacy.

Response:

There are various descriptions of being creative. In the design context, creative activities refer to innovation initiation, facilitating problem-solving, and new product development with novelty and usefulness (Sarkar and Chakrabarti 2011). Novelty refers to products that are new to the market that must eliminate some existing features. Usefulness represents the design outcomes that customers can use.

The revised part is in : P2,L84~100

Comment 5:

Other things (e.g., self-regulation) beyond motivation are also needed to persist in a task. Motivation by itself is not sufficient (viz., explains less variance). Statements in lines 128-129 are too strong claims.

Response:

Thanks for the notes, I reorganized the relevant statements by using less strong language.

Comment 6:

It would be good to delineate self-efficacy from achievement motivation. Some researchers consider self-efficacy to be part of achievement motivation (e.g., 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-050720-103500).

Response:

Thanks a lot for the recommendation and the link. Self-efficacy and achievement motivation both play an essential role in professional development. Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ belief in their capacity to execute the behaviors necessary to achieve their goals (Bandura 1977). It reflects an individual’s confidence in their motivation and the effectiveness of their behavior at the cognitive level. Achievement motivation involves individual commitment and engagement toward excellence which is more action-oriented. Although self-efficacy is not the same as achievement motivation, both qualities involve the confidence to perform specific behavior and excel. Accordingly, self-efficacy and achievement motivation correlate positively (Zhang et al.2015), and self-efficacy influences achievement motivation (Alhadabi and Karpinski 2019; Jamil and Mahmud 2019). Moreover, improved self-efficacy stimulates achievement motivation (Benawa 2018).

Please see the P4, L152~168.

Comment 7:

The author(s) refer to achievement motivation in general, whereas in other parts of the manuscript there is mention of intrinsic motivation, MS, and MF. Stick to achievement motivation definitions that suit the operationalizations made in the empirical part of the study.

Response:

Thanks a lot for the guidance, I eliminated all the content related to intrinsic motivation, so the focus on achievement motivation can be highlighted.

Comment 8:

Achievement motivation is definitely not only MS and MF. This is a significant limitation of the study. You cannot go claiming that achievement motivation is MS and MF, where it could also be intrinsic motivation, performance and mastery goal orientations, expectancy values, etc.

Response:

Thanks for the reminder. There do have different definitions of achievement motivation and its features. For example, McClelland and his colleagues (1953) state that achievement motivation is competition with a standard of excellence. The key driver is the determination and commitment to excellence generated within individuals for doing some activities better than anyone else by evaluating outcomes  (Brunstein and Heckhausen 2018). In addition, Wigfield and Eccles (2000) highlight the personality trait among individuals due to their different tendencies of doing things such as finishing minimum requirements or completing with excellence. Moreover, it has been assumed that the tension between two opposing tendencies exists simultaneously when an individual tries to achieve the excellence of a challenge: the motivation to success and the motivation to avoid failure (Atkinson and Feather. 1966).

The revised part is in: P3, L129~151

Comment 9:

What is predicting what? Is achievement motivation predicting self-efficacy or the other way around? More literature on the links between these two is needed.

Response:

Please see my revised statement below:

In terms of the connection between achievement motivation and creative self-efficacy, they play an essential role in professional development. For example, self-efficacy refers to individuals’ belief in their capacity to execute the behaviors necessary to achieve their goals (Bandura 1977). It reflects an individual’s confidence in their motivation and the effectiveness of their behavior at the cognitive level. Achievement motivation involves individual commitment and engagement toward excellence which is more action-oriented. Although self-efficacy is not the same as achievement motivation, both qualities involve the confidence to perform specific behavior and excel in them.

Please see the P4, L152~168.

Comment 10:

I am not sure that job burnout and (creative) self-efficacy are two ends of the same continuum. This is taken out of context from the Huhtala & Parzefall (2007) article. In that article, burnout reduces self-efficacy, which signifies that burnout is distinct from self-efficacy. The authors could write more arguments to persuade the substantial reader.

Devote a comment on the mental health consequences of burnout.

Response:

Thanks a lot for the clarification. We carefully reread the paper you mentioned and have revised the statement about the connection between CSE and job burnout. See the below, and we highlight the part related to mental health.

Overall, Job burnout is relevantly considered an influential factor of CSE as CSE reflects job performance, creativity, confidence, successful problem-solving, and stimulating employee innovation(Huang et al. 2020; Newman et al. 2018). Particularly, when encountering challenges, employees with high CSE take them as an opportunity to innovate instead of seeing them as a barrier (Newman et al. 2018). Burnout is caused by long-term overwork, leading to energy loss and the cultivation of negative attitudes about work (Maslach and Jackson 1984). Consequently, job burnout causes three reactions toward work ( Maslach and Jackson 1981): Emotional exhaustion: being emotionally exhausted and having no passion for work…

The revised part is in the P$. L186~196

Comment 11:

Lines 179-181 should be removed.

Response:

Lines 179-181 are the hypothesis, the content is essential for the paper. Please clarify why the lines need to be removed. Thanks a lot.

H2: Job burnout in designers negatively affects their CSE.

Comment 12:

Give us some context. What exactly are the designers supposed to do? What is involved in this profession?

Response:

Designers should provide the possible features of new artifacts, such as the color, di-mensions, materials, and decorations, through prototypes (Cross 1982). In addition, de-signers suggest a possible solution to a particular problem through reformation, con-ceptualization, and the transformation between divergent and convergent thinking. In particular, the shift between thinking processes is also an essential capacity for designers (Hu et al. 2021).

The revised part is in the   P3. L84~100

Comment 13:

How is inclusion of participants from multiple professional pathways more appropriate for this research design? What are the limitations?

Response:

We mentioned the limitations that further investigation of other regions or other occupations is needed to avoid such bias as creativity is, of course, not exclusively needed by designers; it is also essential for managers, entrepreneurs, and researchers involved in product development (Sarkar and Chakrabarti 2011).

Comment 14:

What are/is the author(s) comparing with in table 3? Is the null hypothesis: mean=0? Explain more.

Response:

Comparison value is the standard from the questionnaires that should be used to compare with the result to confirm the level or performance of the participants. The level of achievement motivation was determined by comparing it with 0 (MF-MS). A score greater than 0 is strong achievement motivation, and a score less than 0 is weak achievement motivation.

The revised part is in the   P8, L342~346

Comment 15:

Since sex was a significant covariate, it should be controlled for in all analyses. Sex should be included in the regression model as well as in the path model predicting the variables that differ significantly by sex.

Response:

Thanks for your suggestion, We performed a linear regression analysis on the dependent variables of CSE and achievement motivation after transforming the gender variable as the independent variable. Sex did not enter the regression equation, and B value was only 0.067.

But, we do add the gender result in the discussion part. See the below:

Among other demographic variables, CSE was significantly influenced by gender. In particular, our findings indicate that men scored significantly higher than women on both MS (t = 2.536, p < 0.05) and CSE (t = 2.405, p < 0.05). When improving the working environment, companies should also consider personal differences among employees.

The revised part is in: P11, L 413~418

Comment 16:

Indirect and total effects should be calculated and reported since there were significant mediations in the path analysis.

Response:

This table mainly labels the pathways of the effects of each variable used in this study on CSE. Except for achievement motivation, which mediates the effect between reduced achievement and CSE in burnout, none of the other variables had a direct and significant effect on CSE.

Comment 17:

Why does emotional exhaustion have no effect on CSE? This path should be calculated even if it is not significant.

Response:

We have calculated the path between emotional exhaustion and CSE. We suggest that the CSE involves more cognitive processes, and primarily focuses on internal self-reflection. Emotional exhaustion, which is the main factor related to job burnout that emphasizes the emotional process that explicitly targets work tasks. They are two distinct psychological processes, and it is reasonable that the correlation does not exist.

The revised part is in: P11, L 428~432

Comment 18:

Do(es) the author(s) need ethical approval for the data collection? If not, please explain how the research was conducted in an ethical manner (i.e., consent, voluntary participations, incentives, etc.)

Response:

Thanks for the advice, I put the ethical session, see the below:

Every participant recruited in this study was informed regarding the purpose of it. The participants completed a consent form where the confidentiality of data was assured. Participation in the study was voluntary. Participants could withdraw at any time during the research process. Overall, the study was conducted following the ethical principles of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University to provide the respondent's anonymity and privacy.

The revised part is in: P5, L 240~247

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author(s),

Thanks for your immense efforts in revising the draft. I am highly impressed by your point-by-point response to my concerns and comments. I feel the manuscript is now in acceptable form after revision and giving sense while reading - specifically, it falls under the "you-attitude" approach.

Best wishes!

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed my comments sufficiently. No further comments.