Rethinking Performance Evaluation: Strategic Alignment in the Service Sector Through a Case-Based Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

his research is of good quality. However, it is necessary to include the triangulation method applied in the case-based study.
In addition, the mapping of industries in Portugal should be explained. Finally, detailed information about the selected service sector should be provided.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our document. We appreciate your insightful comments and advice that have improved the presentation and content of the article. We hope that your suggestions are duly reflected in the new, revised version of the manuscript. The article has been greatly altered, but we will try to address individually each of the comments/suggestions made.  Below, we will try to provide a more detailed response to your comments, in the same order in which they were presented. We hope that the new revised article is now suitable for publication in this special issue of your journal.

Referee Comments

Thank you for your valuable comments. We hope that this new version meets your expectations.

2.1. “…his research is of good quality. However, it is necessary to include the triangulation method applied in the case-based study.

In addition, the mapping of industries in Portugal should be explained. Finally, detailed information about the selected service sector should be provided..”

 

Thank you for your suggestion.

We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work and for the constructive suggestions. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point raised:

1. Triangulation Method in the Case Study - We agree that this aspect required clarification. The Materials and Methods section has been revised to explicitly describe the triangulation process. Data were obtained from three complementary sources: (i) a systematic literature review, (ii) internal organizational documents (policies, performance reports, and records), and (iii) employee responses to the qualitative questionnaire. This triangulation increases the robustness of the findings by allowing cross-verification of perspectives and reducing the limitations inherent to any single data source.
2. Mapping of Industries in Portugal - In response to the suggestion, we added contextual information on the Portuguese service sector, highlighting its economic weight and structural characteristics. This provides readers with a clearer understanding of the sector’s relevance, both nationally and in the context of performance appraisal practices.
3. Detailed Information on the Selected Service Sector - We expanded the description of the case organization and its service subsector. The revised text clarifies the type of services provided, organizational structure, and workforce profile. This information enables a more precise understanding of the context in which the performance appraisal system is being analyzed and developed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thanks for your submission. I hope my comments are helpful.

1. The abstract claims that a mixed-method approach was applied, yet the paper does not clearly explain how each method was implemented and integrated.
2. The introduction does not convincingly articulate the research gap or originality of the study in comparison with prior literature.
3. The paper dedicates about 11 pages to the introduction and literature review, which is excessive and unbalanced relative to the methodological and empirical parts.
4. The literature review is largely descriptive and lacks a critical, analytical perspective; it mainly summarizes definitions without synthesizing debates.
5. Despite being positioned in the service sector, the literature review does not adequately address service-specific aspects of performance evaluation.
6. The research methodology is vague and lacks sufficient detail to ensure replicability by other researchers.
7. The process of conducting and structuring the literature review is not clearly explained.
8. The population, sample, and questionnaire items are described ambiguously; no evidence of validity and reliability testing is provided.
9. Data analysis and the statistical techniques employed are not transparent; the paper does not specify how results were derived.
10. The questionnaire design and measurement development are insufficiently described, raising concerns about instrument quality.
11. The sample size of 12 participants is very limited, making the findings weak in terms of generalizability and even questionable for qualitative adequacy.
12. The findings section is mainly descriptive, with little analytical depth or connection back to the theoretical framework.
13. The proposed PAS model is based heavily on the perceptions of one organization’s employees and lacks strong theoretical grounding or comparison with established frameworks.
14. The conclusion section does not provide clear theoretical or practical implications; recommendations remain generic.
15. The limitations and future research section is superficial and does not adequately reflect the methodological shortcomings of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our document. We appreciate your insightful comments and advice that have improved the presentation and content of the article. We hope that your suggestions are duly reflected in the new, revised version of the manuscript. The article has been greatly altered, but we will try to address individually each of the comments/suggestions made.  Below, we will try to provide a more detailed response to your comments, in the same order in which they were presented. We hope that the new revised article is now suitable for publication in this special issue of your journal.

Referee Comments

Thank you for your valuable comments. We hope that this new version meets your expectations.

2.1. “…I hope my comments are helpful.

1. The abstract claims that a mixed-method approach was applied, yet the paper does not clearly explain how each method was implemented and integrated.
2. The introduction does not convincingly articulate the research gap or originality of the study in comparison with prior literature.
3. The paper dedicates about 11 pages to the introduction and literature review, which is excessive and unbalanced relative to the methodological and empirical parts.
4. The literature review is largely descriptive and lacks a critical, analytical perspective; it mainly summarizes definitions without synthesizing debates.
5. Despite being positioned in the service sector, the literature review does not adequately address service-specific aspects of performance evaluation.
6. The research methodology is vague and lacks sufficient detail to ensure replicability by other researchers.
7. The process of conducting and structuring the literature review is not clearly explained.
8. The population, sample, and questionnaire items are described ambiguously; no evidence of validity and reliability testing is provided.
9. Data analysis and the statistical techniques employed are not transparent; the paper does not specify how results were derived.
10. The questionnaire design and measurement development are insufficiently described, raising concerns about instrument quality.
11. The sample size of 12 participants is very limited, making the findings weak in terms of generalizability and even questionable for qualitative adequacy.
12. The findings section is mainly descriptive, with little analytical depth or connection back to the theoretical framework.
13. The proposed PAS model is based heavily on the perceptions of one organization’s employees and lacks strong theoretical grounding or comparison with established frameworks.
14. The conclusion section does not provide clear theoretical or practical implications; recommendations remain generic.
15. The limitations and future research section is superficial and does not adequately reflect the methodological shortcomings of the study.”

 

Thank you for your suggestion.

We are very grateful to the reviewer for the comprehensive and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in refining and strengthening our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response, indicating how each comment has been addressed.

1. Mixed-Method Approach in the Abstract - We agree that the earlier version of the abstract created confusion. The study does not apply a mixed-method design; it is based on a qualitative single case study approach. The abstract and Materials and Methods section have been revised to clarify that the research combines literature review, document analysis, and a qualitative questionnaire survey, with the sole aim of capturing employees’ perceptions in their real organizational context.
2. Research Gap and Originality in the Introduction - The Introduction has been restructured to articulate the research gap more convincingly. We now emphasize the lack of integrated and adaptable performance appraisal frameworks tailored to service-sector dynamics and new work arrangements (e.g., telework, employee well-being, digital tools). This clarifies the originality and relevance of our study compared with prior literature (ex. Kalogiannidis et al., 2025).
3. Balance Between Literature Review and Other Sections - We agree with the reviewer’s observation. The Introduction and Literature Review have been streamlined to avoid excessive length and redundancy. This allowed us to expand the Methods, Findings, and Discussion sections, ensuring a more balanced structure between theoretical and empirical parts.
4. Critical Perspective in the Literature Review - The literature review was revised to move beyond descriptive summaries. We now critically compare different perspectives and explicitly discuss limitations of existing approaches, particularly their limited applicability to service-sector organizations. The revised version includes only 3 main sections aligned with the objective of the study.
5. Service-Specific Aspects of Performance Evaluation - We have enriched the literature review with sources focused on performance appraisal in service-sector contexts, addressing aspects such as customer interaction, teamwork, and service quality.
6. Research Methodology Detail - The Materials and Methods section has been expanded to ensure transparency and replicability. We now clearly explain the qualitative case study design, the rationale for its use, and the triangulation of data sources (literature, documents, and questionnaire responses).
7. Process of Conducting the Literature Review - The process is now explicitly described, including the systematic identification of key concepts, the criteria for document selection, and the synthesis procedure. This clarifies how the literature review was structured and integrated into the study design.
8. Population, Sample, and Questionnaire Validity - We have clarified the description of the study population (employees of the organization under study), the sampling procedure (simple random sampling of 12 participants), and the questionnaire design. The questionnaire was tested with the general director to ensure clarity and appropriateness. While formal psychometric testing was not feasible given the exploratory case study design, we explicitly acknowledge this limitation.
9. Data Analysis and Statistical Transparency - The analysis was conducted qualitatively, using thematic coding of open-ended responses aligned with the conceptual framework. Simple charts with absolute values were added only to improve readability for the reader. Percentages and statistical calculations have been removed to avoid misinterpretation.
10. Questionnaire Design and Measurement Development - The process of questionnaire construction has been expanded, with reference to established methodological guidelines (e.g., Pardal & Correia, 1995). Open-ended, closed, and multiple-choice questions were included, aligned with the research objectives and conceptual framework. This addition clarifies instrument quality and development.
11. Sample Size of 12 Participants - We acknowledge the limitation of the small sample size and explicitly address it in the Limitations The case study design does not aim for statistical generalization but for analytical insights into organizational practice in a specific organizational context. The concept of theoretical saturation (Guest et al., 2006; Saunders et al., 2018) supports the adequacy of the sample for exploratory purposes. The concept of informational power (Malterud et al., 2016) justifies the adequacy of the sample for this exploratory study
12. Findings Section and Analytical Depth - The Findings section has been revised to strengthen links with the conceptual framework. Rather than presenting descriptive data only, we now interpret employee perceptions in light of theoretical dimensions of performance appraisal.
13. Proposed PAS Model and Theoretical Grounding - The proposed model has been refined and is now explicitly linked to established frameworks from the literature, while also reflecting the empirical insights from the case study, ensuring stronger theoretical grounding. The model combines employee perceptions with insights from the literature review and document analysis, making clear that it is exploratory and tailored to the service-sector context.
14. Conclusion Section - The Conclusion has been rewritten to include clearer theoretical contributions (integration of performance appraisal dimensions into a service-sector framework) and practical implications (guidelines for managers in similar contexts). Recommendations are now more specific and actionable.
15. Limitations and Future Research - This section was expanded to explicitly acknowledge the methodological constraints: qualitative design, small sample, reliance on a single organization, and absence of formal instrument validation. We also propose directions for future research, including replication in other service organizations, larger samples, and complementary qualitative methods such as interviews.

We are grateful for the reviewer’s detailed critique. The revisions undertaken address all major concerns, resulting in a clearer, more rigorous, and better-balanced manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and quite readable. However, I have a few comments for improvement.

Suggestion: reduce the number of keywords, please structure them better, leaving only the most essential ones. On the other hand, readers searching for articles by keywords are led too far afield, i.e., it becomes difficult to find the topic they are looking for.

The aim of the study in the Abstract and Introduction sections a bit confusing. My recommendation would be to reinforce these positions methodologically in the article.

There is a lack of a clearer scientific problem justification and a well-constructed fundamental research question in the INTRODUCTION section. I would suggest that the authors of the article consider this and make the proposed corrections.

It is not clear what is missing in the work of other researchers, why the authors of this article are analyzing a phenomenon that is certainly not new. Where is the gap?

The article should present the conceptual framework in a more clearly structured form (I would recommend presenting it in the form of a figure), and the research instrumentation should be better substantiated.

The number of participants in the study is too small to draw general conclusions.

When there are so few participants in the study, would it not have been better to conduct interviews, i.e., use a different research method?

Perhaps other similar companies should be included in the sample; this would make the results of the study more meaningful.

Calculating percentages from such a sample is hardly methodologically correct.

The authors have set themselves an ambitious goal—a model—but the scientific construct itself is not presented in this analysis. (Line 79-80): 

This study aims to contribute to the development of an effective, objective, and adaptable performance appraisal model.	79

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our document. We appreciate your insightful comments and advice that have improved the presentation and content of the article. We hope that your suggestions are duly reflected in the new, revised version of the manuscript. The article has been greatly altered, but we will try to address individually each of the comments/suggestions made.  Below, we will try to provide a more detailed response to your comments, in the same order in which they were presented. We hope that the new revised article is now suitable for publication in this special issue of your journal.

 

Referee Comments

Thank you for your valuable comments. We hope that this new version meets your expectations.

3.1. The article is interesting and quite readable. However, I have a few comments for improvement.

Suggestion: reduce the number of keywords, please structure them better, leaving only the most essential ones. On the other hand, readers searching for articles by keywords are led too far afield, i.e., it becomes difficult to find the topic they are looking for.

The aim of the study in the Abstract and Introduction sections a bit confusing. My recommendation would be to reinforce these positions methodologically in the article.

There is a lack of a clearer scientific problem justification and a well-constructed fundamental research question in the INTRODUCTION section. I would suggest that the authors of the article consider this and make the proposed corrections.

It is not clear what is missing in the work of other researchers, why the authors of this article are analyzing a phenomenon that is certainly not new. Where is the gap?

The article should present the conceptual framework in a more clearly structured form (I would recommend presenting it in the form of a figure), and the research instrumentation should be better substantiated.

The number of participants in the study is too small to draw general conclusions.

When there are so few participants in the study, would it not have been better to conduct interviews, i.e., use a different research method?

Perhaps other similar companies should be included in the sample; this would make the results of the study more meaningful.

Calculating percentages from such a sample is hardly methodologically correct.

The authors have set themselves an ambitious goal—a model—but the scientific construct itself is not presented in this analysis. (Line 79-80): 

This study aims to contribute to the development of an effective, objective, and adaptable performance appraisal model.

79

 

Thank you for your suggestion.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback provided, which has been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, methodological rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript. Below, we address each comment in detail and indicate the corresponding modifications made to the article.

1. Keywords - We have reduced the number of keywords, retaining only the most essential ones directly aligned with the study’s focus. The keywords have also been restructured to ensure precision and improve searchability for readers.
2. Aim of the Study (Abstract and Introduction) - We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding clarity in the aim of the study. Both the Abstract and the Introduction have been revised to reinforce the aim with a more precise methodological articulation. The purpose of the study is now explicitly stated and consistently aligned across both sections.
3. Scientific Problem Justification and Research Question (Introduction) - The Introduction section has been expanded to present a clearer justification of the scientific problem. A well-defined research question has been formulated and positioned at the end of the section to guide the study and provide a stronger foundation for the analysis.
4. Research Gap - We have strengthened the discussion of the research gap by highlighting what is missing in the work of previous researchers. In particular, we emphasize the lack of integrative approaches to performance appraisal models that balance objectivity, adaptability, and employee well-being, especially in contexts affected by digitalization and new work arrangements. This clarifies the rationale for analyzing a phenomenon that, while not new, still presents unresolved challenges.
5. Conceptual Framework and Instrumentation - In response to the recommendation, we now present the conceptual framework in a clearly structured figure, which provides a visual summary of the theoretical foundations and their interconnections. Additionally, the description of research instrumentation has been expanded and more robustly substantiated, with references to the methodological literature.
6. Sample Size and Methodological Approach - We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation regarding the limited number of participants. In response, we have clarified in the Materials and Methods section that this research adopts a single case study design, which is particularly suited for exploratory purposes and for addressing “how” and “why” questions within their real-life organizational context (Yin, 2009). Rather than seeking statistical generalization, the study aims for analytical generalization by combining literature review, document analysis, and field data collection.

The small sample of 12 participants was defined based on the principle of theoretical saturation (Saunders et al., 2018; Guest et al., 2006; Boddy et al., 2015), ensuring informational adequacy for the exploratory aims of the study. To enhance credibility, the questionnaire was carefully constructed and pre-tested, and triangulated with organizational documents and existing literature.

We recognize the limitations of a small sample and have explicitly addressed this in the Limitations section. The study does not claim statistical representativeness; instead, its strength lies in capturing the complexity of organizational dynamics through a case study approach. We also highlight that future research should expand the sample, possibly incorporating multiple organizations, or apply complementary qualitative methods such as interviews to deepen insights.

7. Inclusion of Other Companies - We agree that extending the sample to include similar companies would enhance generalizability. This limitation has been acknowledged, and a suggestion for future studies has been included, recommending replication across diverse organizational contexts.
8. Use of Percentages – We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the treatment of data. This study is primarily qualitative, and the graphical elements included (e.g., frequency counts and simple charts) were not intended to imply statistical generalization. Rather, they serve as visual aids to illustrate the distribution of responses and to facilitate the reader’s understanding of employee perceptions within the case study. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, all graphs have been revised, replacing percentages with absolute values, to ensure consistency with the qualitative nature of the study and to avoid any misleading interpretation. This clarification has been added to the Materials and Methods and Limitations sections, emphasizing that the figures should be read as exploratory illustrations rather than as inferential statistical evidence..
9. Ambitious Goal of Developing a Model (Lines 79–80) - We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the ambition of the study’s stated goal. The revised manuscript now presents the scientific construct of the proposed model more explicitly, both in textual explanation and through the inclusion of a visual representation. This ensures that the ambition of developing a performance appraisal model is methodologically supported and clearly integrated into the analysis.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your comprehensive revisions and detailed response. After reviewing the updated manuscript, I find that the overall quality of the paper has improved considerably. The research design is now clearly defined as a qualitative single case study, the introduction articulates the research gap and originality more convincingly, and the structure of the paper is more balanced with a streamlined literature review and expanded methodology, findings, and discussion. The revised literature review demonstrates greater critical depth and better integration of service-specific perspectives, while the methodology section provides enhanced transparency and rigor through clearer explanations of case study design, triangulation, and questionnaire development. The limitations are now explicitly acknowledged with appropriate justification for sample adequacy, the findings are more strongly connected to the conceptual framework, and the proposed PAS model is better grounded in established literature while retaining its exploratory contribution. Finally, the conclusion presents clearer theoretical contributions alongside more specific and actionable practical implications.

Overall, the revisions have substantially strengthened the clarity, analytical depth, and academic value of the manuscript, and I am pleased to recommend its acceptance for publication.

Sincerely

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank you for your time to review our work which we hope is accepted for publication. 

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our manuscript. 

We also inform we have addressed all the new suggestions by the editor which we believe will be valuable for the publication process.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), my suggestions are duly reflected in the new, revised version of the manuscript. 

I want to  state that the author(s) have corrected the manuscript. Evaluated my critical observations in the Abstract section, main structure of this article, methodological section and method description and interpretation of results of this study.
 
The article can now be published.

Sincerely.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank you for your time to review our work which we hope is accepted for publication. 

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our manuscript. 

We also inform we have addressed all the new suggestions  which we believe will be valuable for the publication process.