Work–Life Balance and Diversity Management: A New Approach to Old Problems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thanks for the possibility to read your manuscript. The manuscript addresses an important and timely issue, work-life balance and diversity management, with a comparative focus on the US and Italian contexts. The topic is relevant for academic and policy discussions, and the manuscript, after relevant modifications? can present an interesting egal and sociological analysis. The inclusion of legislative frameworks, theoretical discussions, and case studies  could add value to the paper.

I had the opportunity to read the first version of the manuscript as well as this updated version. The authors have made a number of edits that have improved the character of the manuscript. However, the manuscript has still significant issues related to language clarity, argument structure, methodological rigor, and citation consistency. While the theoretical framework is quite strong, the article would benefit from improved readability, reduction of redundancy, and engagement with critical perspectives on diversity management.

 

My recommendations and comments:

•  
• There is no clear transitions between sections; I recommend to improve it to enhance logical flow.
• The key concepts (“conciliation” vs. “work-life balance”) are used inconsistently and should be clearly defined at the outset.
• I strongly recommend to follow standard structure of scientific manuscript – introduction, theoretical ackgroud, methodology, resultzs, discussion. Methodology part of the manuscript is very weak. It is not clear how you elaborated the case studies (more systematic methodology for analyzing case studies should be described in detail), what is the reason for strong focus on legislative background, ...
• Discussion part must be intereconnected with previous research or theoretical background
• The paper primarily focuses on the benefits of diversity management but does not adequately discuss its limitations or critiques.
• Some references lack standard formatting, and citation styles are inconsistent (eg. (Patacchini, Ragusa and Zenou 2015), (Amorevole, 1999)

• The case studies on best practices (ENEL, Progressive Corp) are valuable but should be analyzed more critically and the impact of their practices on organizational outcomes should be further explored (generaly speaking, case studies are more descriptive than analytical).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors. Many sentences are too long and difficult to read. i suggest a proofreading language service would be beneficial.

Author Response

Comment 1: There is no clear transitions between sections; I recommend to improve it to enhance logical flow.

I improved this part through more connectors and a more logical flow

Comment 2: The key concepts (“conciliation” vs. “work-life balance”) are used inconsistently and should be clearly defined at the outset.

I clearly defined the different words used in the first part of the introduction section.

Comment 3: I strongly recommend to follow standard structure of scientific manuscript – introduction, theoretical backgroud, methodology, results, discussion. Methodology part of the manuscript is very weak. It is not clear how you elaborated the case studies (more systematic methodology for analyzing case studies should be described in detail), what is the reason for strong focus on legislative background, ...

I followed the suggestion and implemented the Methodology part, explaining why I focused on these companies, the keyword I used and the reason for a strong legislative background

Comment 4: Discussion part must be intereconnected with previous research or theoretical background.

I improved this part making more connections with the theoretical background

Comment 5: The paper primarily focuses on the benefits of diversity management but does not adequately discuss its limitations or critiques.

I changed the structure of the paragraph and added more crititiques and limitations of the diversity management approach

Comment 6:Some references lack standard formatting, and citation styles are inconsistent (eg. (Patacchini, Ragusa and Zenou 2015), (Amorevole, 1999)

I modified them

Comment 7: The case studies on best practices (ENEL, Progressive Corp) are valuable but should be analyzed more critically and the impact of their practices on organizational outcomes should be further explored (generaly speaking, case studies are more descriptive than analytical).

In the Discussion Section I examined them in a more critical way, linking them wo the Italian and American framework

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author:

After reviewing the manuscript, an improvement has been observed. However, I would like to make the following observations:

2. Theoretical framework

The following text has no citation: "This concept is transformed into the adoption of some 91 rules that require a sacrifice of the right of the employer to exercise freely his economic 92 initiative and to derive maximum profit from it, in favor of the attribution to the worker 93 of rights, whose exercise allows to free some time from work. This time that was freed 94 should thus be devoted to the satisfaction of the needs of the private life of the individual outside work". Another example: line 103 to 113.

I find some quotes without the year. Example: Cromton (line 160).

The parts of the manuscript that lack bibliographical citations should be carefully reviewed.

The Methodology section could be improved. It could be expanded, e.g. search criteria, dates, keywords used, etc.

Results

Dear author:

After reviewing the manuscript, an improvement has been observed. However, I would like to make the following observations:

Theoretical framework

The following text has no citation: "This concept is transformed into the adoption of some 91 rules that require a sacrifice of the right of the employer to exercise freely his economic 92 initiative and to derive maximum profit from it, in favor of the attribution to the worker 93 of rights, whose exercise allows to free some time from work. This time that was freed 94 should thus be devoted to the satisfaction of the needs of the private life of the individual outside work". Another example: line 103 to 113.

I find some quotes without the year. Example: Cromton (line 160).

The parts of the manuscript that lack bibliographical citations should be carefully reviewed.

The Methodology section could be improved. It could be expanded, e.g. search criteria, dates, keywords used, etc.

Discusion

The Discussion section requires modifications. The main purpose of the discussion is to compare the data obtained with those from other previous research and theories, establishing bibliographical citations.The main purpose of the discussion is to compare the data obtained with those from other previous research and theories.

I recommend a table with the articles reviewed and their main findings.

Discusion

The Discussion section requires modifications. The main purpose of the discussion is to compare the data obtained with those from other previous research and theories, establishing bibliographical citations.The main purpose of the discussion is to compare the data obtained with those from other previous research and theories.

Conclusion

The Conclusion section should clearly respond to the objectives set.

The bibliography needs to be updated. There are still a good number of citations that are quite old.

Author Response

Comment 1: 2. Theoretical framework

The following text has no citation: "This concept is transformed into the adoption of some 91 rules that require a sacrifice of the right of the employer to exercise freely his economic 92 initiative and to derive maximum profit from it, in favor of the attribution to the worker 93 of rights, whose exercise allows to free some time from work. This time that was freed 94 should thus be devoted to the satisfaction of the needs of the private life of the individual outside work". Another example: line 103 to 113.

I find some quotes without the year. Example: Cromton (line 160).

The parts of the manuscript that lack bibliographical citations should be carefully reviewed.

I modified all these parts.

Comment 2: The Methodology section could be improved. It could be expanded, e.g. search criteria, dates, keywords used, etc.

I improved it with search criteria, dates and keywords I used

Comment 3: Discussion

The Discussion section requires modifications. The main purpose of the discussion is to compare the data obtained with those from other previous research and theories, establishing bibliographical citations.The main purpose of the discussion is to compare the data obtained with those from other previous research and theories. I recommend a table with the articles reviewed and their main findings.

I expanded the discussion sections linking it with the theoretical framework

Comment 4: Conclusion

The Conclusion section should clearly respond to the objectives set.

The bibliography needs to be updated. There are still a good number of citations that are quite old.

I modified the conclusions and updated the bibliography

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article continues to be confusing and less than persuasive.

 

Its title suggests (as does some of the discussion in the opening section of the paper) that it will explore the relationship between diversity management and work-life balance policies.  But, it never really makes clear how and to what extent the two policies have been intertwined.  It does describe, in the two cases featured in the latter part of the paper, the fact that the two companies have incorporated work-life balance programs into their overall approach to diversity.  But, the comparison seems to show that the Italian company, facing an aging workforce, has focused more on supporting women who care for aging family members while the American company has focused more on demographic diversity.  It could, thus, be argued, that diversity management has come to have radically different meanings in the two contexts, a point that somehow never gets addressed in the discussion.   In other words, the relationship between diversity management and work-life balance policies has evolved very differently in the two contexts.

 

The opening section of the paper consists of a discussion of the emergence of the idea that employers should be required to implement measures that promote work-life balance and that this involves not simply accommodating female workers who have children, but should be extended to men as well and should go beyond the issue of child care.   This discussion, while interesting, is still somewhat rambling, a bit hard to follow, and at times confusing.  Part of the issue continues to be awkward English, part of it is repetitiveness.  I think this section can be tightened up and perhaps shortened with some careful editing.

 

It would make sense, after this introductory section, to present a history of the legislative actions taken in the EU and in Italy as the philosophical changes the author(s) describe occurred.  In other words, as attitudes to work-family/work-life balance evolved, how was this reflected in policy?  A table with key actions and a summary of their place on the spectrum of approaches to workplace flexibility would help the reader to follow what has been going on and whether policy has matched changing attitudes to the issue.  And, this should include a clear indication, on the time line, of when diversity management was not just introduced but came to be important to governments’ and employers’ approach to work-life balance.

 

p. 8 reference is made to a 1974-5 constitutional amendment (presumably the ERA?).  This amendment was never enacted, and the US’ failure to enact speaks volumes about the country’s reluctance to confront gender inequity head on.  This is not reflected in the discussion, which appears to suggest that the ERA was actually adopted (it was not).

 

The discussion of US policy focuses on the evolution of diversity management as an approach.  This discussion appears to suggest that the adoption of diversity management was more a function of corporate self-interest, not government action.  But, it could also be argued that anti-discrimination laws (such as Title IX) helped to stimulate this approach.  A more balanced discussion would comment on how policy and self-interest interacted to produce this outcome.  There is also not much comment in this section on how diversity management and work-life balance issues are related in the US.  Since the article says it intends to focus on this relationship, this is more than a little confusing.

 

The two cases studies in the latter section of the paper are interesting, but, it’s not really clear why these two companies should be the focus of a comparative study.  Are they typical in some way?  Or do they represent cutting edge practices?  Or what?  Mention is made of the role of unions in the Italian/European case, but this isn’t followed up with a discussion of how and whether that has actually shaped the employer’s approach.

 

Finally, and in some ways most importantly, discussion of policies is one thing, but discussion of actual outcomes is another.  If men are offered the opportunity to take advantage of flexibility policies, do they actually do so?  Are women who take advantage of maternity leave and/or part-time opportunities penalized informally for doing so?  We learn nothing about these kind of questions from the analysis in this paper, although much research on workplace flexibility and diversity policies has shown that the culture of workplaces is often at odds with the formal policies employers put on the books.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English continues to be awkward in many places and at times makes the meaning of what is being said unclear.

Author Response

Comment: 

This article continues to be confusing and less than persuasive.

Its title suggests (as does some of the discussion in the opening section of the paper) that it will explore the relationship between diversity management and work-life balance policies.  But, it never really makes clear how and to what extent the two policies have been intertwined.  It does describe, in the two cases featured in the latter part of the paper, the fact that the two companies have incorporated work-life balance programs into their overall approach to diversity.  But, the comparison seems to show that the Italian company, facing an aging workforce, has focused more on supporting women who care for aging family members while the American company has focused more on demographic diversity.  It could, thus, be argued, that diversity management has come to have radically different meanings in the two contexts, a point that somehow never gets addressed in the discussion.   In other words, the relationship between diversity management and work-life balance policies has evolved very differently in the two contexts.

Response: Thank you so much for these comments that really helped me writing again the article. I integrated these suggestions especially in the discussion and conclusion sections, making some personal considerations, thinking about the two case-studies.

Comment 2: The opening section of the paper consists of a discussion of the emergence of the idea that employers should be required to implement measures that promote work-life balance and that this involves not simply accommodating female workers who have children, but should be extended to men as well and should go beyond the issue of child care.   This discussion, while interesting, is still somewhat rambling, a bit hard to follow, and at times confusing.  Part of the issue continues to be awkward English, part of it is repetitiveness.  I think this section can be tightened up and perhaps shortened with some careful editing.

Response: I shortened this part, at the same pointing out the attention more on men and on the cocept of care in a broader sense.

Comment 3: It would make sense, after this introductory section, to present a history of the legislative actions taken in the EU and in Italy as the philosophical changes the author(s) describe occurred.  In other words, as attitudes to work-family/work-life balance evolved, how was this reflected in policy?  A table with key actions and a summary of their place on the spectrum of approaches to workplace flexibility would help the reader to follow what has been going on and whether policy has matched changing attitudes to the issue.  And, this should include a clear indication, on the time line, of when diversity management was not just introduced but came to be important to governments’ and employers’ approach to work-life balance.

Response: I didn't add a table but I added a paragraph on the legislative actions taken in EU and in Italy while the sociological models were changing. In the discussion and conclusion part I added some specific parts rergarding the applicability of DM.

Comment 4: 8 reference is made to a 1974-5 constitutional amendment (presumably the ERA?).  This amendment was never enacted, and the US’ failure to enact speaks volumes about the country’s reluctance to confront gender inequity head on.  This is not reflected in the discussion, which appears to suggest that the ERA was actually adopted (it was not).

Response: I made a clear reference to the ERA and added a part on its failure and the consequences it had.

Comment 5: The discussion of US policy focuses on the evolution of diversity management as an approach.  This discussion appears to suggest that the adoption of diversity management was more a function of corporate self-interest, not government action.  But, it could also be argued that anti-discrimination laws (such as Title IX) helped to stimulate this approach.  A more balanced discussion would comment on how policy and self-interest interacted to produce this outcome.  There is also not much comment in this section on how diversity management and work-life balance issues are related in the US.  Since the article says it intends to focus on this relationship, this is more than a little confusing.

Response: I wrote down your comments, as I totally agree with them, and developed a part on the intersection between Anti Discrimination policy, affirmative actions and diversity management. In the conclusion part I also added some modifications regarding the concept of work-life balance in the US

Comment 6: The two cases studies in the latter section of the paper are interesting, but, it’s not really clear why these two companies should be the focus of a comparative study.  Are they typical in some way?  Or do they represent cutting edge practices?  Or what?  Mention is made of the role of unions in the Italian/European case, but this isn’t followed up with a discussion of how and whether that has actually shaped the employer’s approach.

I expanded the Methodology part and explained why I selected them. In the discussion part and conclusions I did some considerations regarding the 2  countries and the employer's approach

Comment 7: Finally, and in some ways most importantly, discussion of policies is one thing, but discussion of actual outcomes is another.  If men are offered the opportunity to take advantage of flexibility policies, do they actually do so?  Are women who take advantage of maternity leave and/or part-time opportunities penalized informally for doing so?  We learn nothing about these kind of questions from the analysis in this paper, although much research on workplace flexibility and diversity policies has shown that the culture of workplaces is often at odds with the formal policies employers put on the books.

In the conclusion part I added some consideration on that and a road that companies could take.

Comment 8: The English continues to be awkward in many places and at times makes the meaning of what is being said unclear.

I Have revised the English to make it clearer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

I appreciate the improvements you made in the manuscript. The manuscript is better organised, with higher scientific value. 

Still, there are areas where you can improve your manuscript: 

• missing text (lines 632 and following)
• there is no reason to indicate limitations of the reserach as separate section (4. Limitations of the research ). I recommend to include limitations at the Conclusion section
• you put lot of effort to elaborate legislative sections (European level and Italy level). However, there is no clear interconnection of these sections with the analysed case studies. It is rather questionable why legislative sections are important for understanding specifics of case studies. I strongly recommend to clearly analyze case studies in connection with theoretical framework and legislative sections.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: missing text (lines 632 and following)

Response: Thank you so much, I modified it and added some references regarding work-life balance in the US

Comment 2: there is no reason to indicate limitations of the reserach as separate section (4. Limitations of the research ). I recommend to include limitations at the Conclusion section.

Response: Thank you so much, I changed it and included in the Conclusion section

Comment 3: you put lot of effort to elaborate legislative sections (European level and Italy level). However, there is no clear interconnection of these sections with the analysed case studies. It is rather questionable why legislative sections are important for understanding specifics of case studies. I strongly recommend to clearly analyze case studies in connection with theoretical framework and legislative sections.

Response: Thank you so much, I made clearer connections with the legislative framework in the discussion section.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I was my pleasure to read your manuscript. Interconnection between the work-life balance and diversity management is an interesting and up-to-date topic which deserves deeper interest. There are, however, several flaws in the manuscript:

-          Section Materials and Methods should be placed after the Theoretical framework. This section, however, is very week. It does not describe your step-by-step approach, does not allow replicability/reproducibility or even control of your findings.

-          There is no any justification for focusing on Italy

-          In the „Theoretical Framewor“ section there are several terms defined. However, the writing style is bullet-pointed, with no critical linking of the parts. The text has the character of a textbook rather than a scientific article.

-          In the abstract, comparative methodology is stressed. However, situation in Europe and US is purely descriptive, without real comparison between them

-          Best practices from Italy are interesting and they provide solid fundament for elaborating case study. However, they are provided only in very descriptive way, and i tis not possible to consider them as case studies (as one of the main approaches of the manuscript)

-          Interconnection between the theoretical framevork, results and discussion is not clear. Also in case of review article orarticle based on qualitative research, the discussion part should serve as a space to interpret the results and place them in a broader context. In the reviewed manuscript, „Discussion“ section focuses on almost independent topic without considering results/findings and comparing them with existing research

-          Topic of LGBTQI+ people in connection with well-being and work-life balance could be interesting and innovative. However, i tis not clear why you focuse on this cathegory in the discussion although there is no emphasis on this category of persons in the theoretical part or in the results

-          Limitations of the research and manuscript are not mentioned

 

In general, the submitted manuscript is innovative in terms of the idea of linking work-life balance and diversity management. Also, the idea of using a case study to document such a link could be beneficial and interesting. However, the submitted manuscript is written in a purely descriptive manner. The authors have not exploited the potential of the idea, and have stuck to description or historical cross-section. What is missing is a real comparison between Europe, the US, and Italy. The case studies presented are just a listing of examples, not a real worked out case study. In this form, I do not consider the manuscript suitable for publication in the Social Sciences journal.

Author Response

Comment 1:   Section Materials and Methods should be placed after the Theoretical framework. This section, however, is very week. It does not describe your step-by-step approach, does not allow replicability/reproducibility or even control of your findings.

Thank you for pointing this out. I changed the order and I took a deeper analysis of the issue and I didn't focus just on Italy.

Comment 2: In the "Theoretical Framework“ section there are several terms defined. However, the writing style is bullet-pointed, with no critical linking of the parts. The text has the character of a textbook rather than a scientific article.

I agree with your comment and I connected the single parts and explained more the various terms I mentioned.

Comment 3: In the abstract, comparative methodology is stressed. However, situation in Europe and US is purely descriptive, without real comparison between them.

I added a paragraph in the discussion section, following the examination of two case-studies in Italy and US.

Comment 4: Best practices from Italy are interesting and they provide solid fundament for elaborating case study. However, they are provided only in very descriptive way, and i tis not possible to consider them as case studies (as one of the main approaches of the manuscript)

Thank you for making me notice it, I changed this section and I focused more on two case-studies, highlighting the differences and similarities in the section dedicated to the best rpactices in Italy and US.

Comment 5: Interconnection between the theoretical framevork, results and discussion is not clear. Also in case of review article or article based on qualitative research, the discussion part should serve as a space to interpret the results and place them in a broader context. In the reviewed manuscript, „Discussion“ section focuses on almost independent topic without considering results/findings and comparing them with existing research.

As I said in the previous comment, I added a paragraph discussing the different result and I made some modifications regarding the future challenges of DM in Italy and US.

Comment 6: Topic of LGBTQI+ people in connection with well-being and work-life balance could be interesting and innovative. However, i tis not clear why you focuse on this cathegory in the discussion although there is no emphasis on this category of persons in the theoretical part or in the results.

Thank you for pointing this out, I left this topic as an open question and a matter on which both countries need to take further measures.

Comment 7: Limitations of the research and manuscript are not mentioned

I added a small paragraph.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issue you raise is of interest. However, I would like to make the following points:

1. Introduction

It is recommended to state more clearly the general objective of the work and the specific objectives. 

The structure of the work should be indicated.  

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology of the work should be expanded and better explained.

3. Theoretical framework

1. The concept of work- life balance: a review of the theoretical framework.

More recent literature should be included in this section. 

3. The diversity management in the US context.

It is recommended to give examples from the literature of different countries.

3. Results

The Results section should be rewritten. In my opinion, it should clearly reflect the results of the research carried out.  

4. Discussion

4.2. The future challenges of Diversity Management.

A section on Limitations of the work and future lines of research should be created.

The way of numbering the sections should be revised.

The added value of the work to the literature should be highlighted

References

The bibliography should be updated. Nearly 80% of the citations are more than 5 years old.

Here are some examples of articles that could be useful

·         Bettac, E. L., & Probst, T. M. (2023). National work-family policies: Multilevel effects on employee reactions to work/family conflict. Work, 74,3, 919. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-205010

·         Biedma-Ferrer, J. M., Medina-Garrido, J. A., Bogren, M., & Almeida, H. (2024). Work-family policies and perceived organisational support as drivers of well-being and satisfaction among employees in the tourism industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2024.2381241

·         Medina-Garrido JA, Biedma-Ferrer JM, Ramos-Rodríguez AR (2021) Moderating effects of gender and family responsibilities on the relations between work–family policies and job performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32:1006–1037

·         Chen, J.K.C. Perspective on the Influence of Leadership on Job Satisfaction and Lower Employee Turnover in the Mineral Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5690.

·         Recuero, L. H., & Segovia, A. O. (2021). Work-family conflict, coping strategies and burnout: A gender and couple analysis. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 37(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.5093/JWOP2021A5

Author Response

Comment 1: 

1. Introduction. It is recommended to state more clearly the general objective of the work and the specific objectives. The structure of the work should be indicated. 

Thank you so much for your suggestion, I changed it and added the general and specific objectives in a list and the structure of the work.

Comment 2: 2. Materials and Methods. The methodology of the work should be expanded and better explained.

Thank you for pointing this out, I expanded it in the section.

Comment 3: 3. Theoretical framework

1. The concept of work- life balance: a review of the theoretical framework. More recent literature should be included in this section. 

3. The diversity management in the US context. It is recommended to give examples from the literature of different countries.

3. Results. The Results section should be rewritten. In my opinion, it should clearly reflect the results of the research carried out.  

Thank you so much for these suggestions. I added more recent literature and from different countries; I rewrote the Results section as you suggested, in order to make a comparison between two companies I identified in Italy and US that reflects what I mentioned in the Theoretical framework and the origins of DM in Italy and US.

Comment 4:  4. Discussion.

4.2. The future challenges of Diversity Management. A section on Limitations of the work and future lines of research should be created. The way of numbering the sections should be revised. The added value of the work to the literature should be highlighted.

Thank you so much for this comment, I added the section and renumbered the sections. Furthermore, I left the paragraph regarding LGBTQIA+ community as an open question

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores the distinction between work/life balance as a matter of helping individuals “juggle” conflicting responsibility and gender equity, meaning creating conditions under which gender is not a determinant of one’s work opportunities.  It discusses various laws and codes that bear on this, although not in a particularly useful way – “this law implies this, that code implies that” –  the reader is not really given a sense of historical development.  Are societies moving towards one or the other approach?  What accounts for that movement, if it is occurring?  What effects, if any, has this had?

 

It is not really an empirical article, except in the sense that it reviews various laws, codes, policies etc. in the US and Europe bearing on these questions.  That review is not particularly well-described or systematic.  On p. 3, the article provides only a rather vague description of the materials used and the methods by which those materials were analyzed.  Just saying “meticulous” doesn’t tell the reader much about how the analysis proceeded or what the materials being analyzed were (and how  and why they were selected).

 

As a theoretical review, the article is rather murky and inconclusive.  Do the authors think that diversity management promotes the goal of gender equity (as opposed to simply aiding work/family balance?) or not?  One suspects that they’re saying it’s complicated, as the discussion of Italy appears to suggest that, in that context, diversity management actually hardens existing gender inequalities.  But, then, what exactly is the point the article is trying to make about diversity management’s potential?

 

More specific concerns:

 

The ”Results” section consists of a short discussion of a half dozen examples on experiences from Italy.  There is little information about how or why these examples were selected or the source of the information on which this discussion is based.  Nor do the authors explain how these examples relate to their larger theme regarding the movement from work/family balance  to gender equity via diversity management

 

The article sketches the transition from civil rights to diversity management in the US context in a rather superficial way.  For example, it asserts that the civil rights movement led to legislation abolishing segregation in schools.  A better way of saying this would be that it abolished formal LEGAL segregation in schools, as American schools remain highly segregated, perhaps even more segregated than they were in the past.  Moreover, the authors pay little attention to the backlash in the US against affirmative action, diversity and inclusion policies, etc., which, in recent years, has led organizations to back away from these approaches to some extent.

 

On p. 6, the article states that “unlike the US” there are many small and medium-sized companies in Europe?  What can this mean?  Are there no such companies in the US?  In fact, much employment law in the US explicitly acknowledges the existence of smaller enterprises, often excepting them from provisions which are felt to be too burdensome for small enterprises.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in this article needs significant editing.  There are many awkward, confusing constructions that make the authors' arguments difficult to follow.  

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I took into greater consideration your comments that made me understand the lacking points of the paper and gave me some inspirations. 

That's why I rewrote the article, also according to your suggestions regarding the content and the English language. I put more interconnections and chose two companies on which I focused my attention in Italy and US.

Greetings

Author Response File: Author Response.docx