Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Job Satisfaction, Perceived Performance and Work Regime: What Is the Relationship Between These Variables?

Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 175; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15050175

by Angelie Pinheiro and Ana Palma-Moreira^*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 175; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15050175

Submission received: 29 March 2025 / Revised: 29 April 2025 / Accepted: 5 May 2025 / Published: 8 May 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic in organizational psychology and human resource management—namely how different work regimes (face-to-face, hybrid, remote) affect job satisfaction and perceived performance. The article is interesting, well-structured, and generally clear in its writing.

However, there are some areas that require further development and clarification. Below I provide detailed suggestions for improvement.

INTRODUCTION

The general introduction provides a useful overview of the shift to remote and hybrid work modes. However, it currently completely lacks scientific references and should be more clearly anchored in the literature. In particular, I recommend citing empirical studies that have examined the positive and negative effects of remote work on employee well-being and performance.
For example, the following sentence should be supported by references and mechanisms: "However, a remote working model that does not consider individual needs can have the opposite effect, resulting in demotivation, decreased performance and even burnout."

This statement would benefit from citing the studies that found these relationships and explaining the underlying factors (e.g., lack of social support, blurred boundaries, work overload).

In addition, I suggest using the introduction to position the study more explicitly in terms of its original contribution: what theoretical or empirical gap does this study intend to fill? This would improve the clarity and relevance of the research objectives.

HYPOTHESES

The literature review is comprehensive and well-cited.

While the hypotheses themselves are clearly stated, the theoretical justification behind them is not sufficiently articulated for H4 and H5.

In particular, Hypothesis 4 assumes that the work regime moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and performance. However, the manuscript does not clearly explain why or how different work arrangements (face-to-face, hybrid, remote) would alter the strength or direction of this relationship. It would be important to reference theoretical frameworks or empirical studies that suggest such moderation is plausible.

Similarly, Hypothesis 5, which posits a mediating role of job satisfaction between work regime and performance, could benefit from a clearer articulation of the psychological or organizational mechanisms that justify this mediation. The literature cited shows associations among these variables, but a mediation hypothesis requires a clear process-based explanation.

Overall, I recommend strengthening the conceptual foundations of these two hypotheses by clearly linking them to theoretical models and articulating the psychological mechanisms involved.

METHODS

The methodology is well-structured and adequately described. The sampling strategy (convenience and snowball sampling) is clearly presented; however, the authors could describe in more detail the potential limitations associated with this approach, such as self-selection bias and limited generalizability, in the limitations section.

In addition, the relatively small number of participants in the fully remote group (n = 21) may raise concerns about the statistical power of detecting differences in this subgroup. This could be briefly emphasized here and discussed more fully in the section on limitations.

RESULTS

Regarding Hypothesis 1, I suggest that the authors briefly acknowledge in the results section that the R² of .08 represents a small effect, to provide a more balanced interpretation of the findings.

Hypothesis 4 is not supported. While this is appropriately acknowledged, the authors could expand their reflection on possible reasons for the lack of moderation—such as the situational nature of remote work experiences or other unmeasured contextual factors. Or add a sentence such as "Possible explanations for this null effect will be addressed in the discussion section."

Hypothesis 5 is supported with clear reporting of indirect effects and confidence intervals. The identification of a partial mediation is helpful, and the use of bootstrapping enhances the robustness of the result. However, the relatively small indirect effect (B = .04) could be briefly commented on to avoid overstating the mediation strength.

Overall, the results section is sound, but I recommend that the authors adopt a more critical tone when interpreting effect sizes, particularly for non-significant or marginal findings.

DISCUSSION

I encourage the authors to address the non-significant result of Hypothesis 4 more explicitly. The lack of a moderation effect may be due to contextual or methodological factors (e.g., small sample size for the remote group, limited statistical power, or the situational activation of the job satisfaction–performance link), and these possibilities should be acknowledged.

Regarding H5, I recommend adding a brief acknowledgment of the small size of the indirect effect (B = .04), to offer a more balanced interpretation. Additionally, since the mediation is partial, the authors could note that other mechanisms may also be at play in explaining the link between work regime and perceived performance.

In conclusion, this is a well-executed study that can contribute to the literature. By addressing some improvements, the manuscript would be significantly strengthened.