Are All Service Interactions Created Equal? Employees’ Perceptions of Attribution and Justice of Clients’ Emotional Demands and Employee Well-Being

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I truly appreciate the significant time and effort invested in crafting what is undoubtedly an interesting study, I must point out that there are few minor issues that need to be addressed before this paper can meet the standards required for publication

• The introduction section currently contains lengthy sentences with minimal citations to relevant literature. While there is some effort to contextualize the topic, it is insufficient to robustly justify the foundation of the study. It is strongly recommended to revise the introduction by breaking down long sentences for clarity and incorporating more recent and relevant scholarly references to strengthen the rationale and demonstrate a well-grounded understanding of the existing body of knowledge.
• It is recommended that the authors expand the description of key constructs such as service interactions, emotional well-being, employees’ perceptions, and clients’ emotional demands. Providing clearer definitions, supported by recent and relevant literature, will enhance the conceptual clarity of the paper and help position the study within current research perspectives. This will also strengthen the theoretical foundation and offer readers a deeper understanding of how these constructs are interrelated in the context of the study.
• Page 3, line 113-114 which reads (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) emphasize the. Use Bakker & Demerouti (2007) instead.
• There should also be the implications section refereeing to the broader consequences or ramifications of a study's findings, extending beyond the immediate results. which must explain what is required and what needs to be done. The implications need to be consistent with the findings of the paper.
• Highlight some limitations which you think you couldn’t cover up like ‘limited to six focus groups in a single sector or region’ and future research avenues for the prospective researchers.

Best of luck authors

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction section currently contains lengthy sentences with minimal citations to relevant literature. While there is some effort to contextualize the topic, it is insufficient to robustly justify the foundation of the study. It is strongly recommended to revise the introduction by breaking down long sentences for clarity and incorporating more recent and relevant scholarly references to strengthen the rationale and demonstrate a well-grounded understanding of the existing body of knowledge
Authors’ answer 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have tried to simplify many long sentences of the introduction in order to simplify the text and increase comprehension (all changes are marked in red in the manuscript). In addition, some new and recent references have been added to improve the theoretical foundation of the introduction. For example, Yagil, (2020), Grandey & Melloy (2017), Kim & Wang (2018) and others.

Comments 2: It is recommended that the authors expand the description of key constructs such as service interactions, emotional well-being, employees’ perceptions, and clients’ emotional demands. Providing clearer definitions, supported by recent and relevant literature, will enhance the conceptual clarity of the paper and help position the study within current research perspectives. This will also strengthen the theoretical foundation and offer readers a deeper understanding of how these constructs are interrelated in the context of the study.

Authors’ answer 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that expanding the definitions of key constructs enhances both the conceptual clarity and the theoretical foundation of the paper. In response, we have revised the manuscript to include clearer and more detailed definitions of service interactions, employees’ perceptions, and clients’ emotional demands, each supported by relevant literature.

Comments 3: Page 3, line 113-114 which reads (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) emphasize the. Use Bakker & Demerouti (2007) instead.

Authors’ answer 3: Fixed.

Comments 4: There should also be the implications section refereeing to the broader consequences or ramifications of a study's findings, extending beyond the immediate results. which must explain what is required and what needs to be done. The implications need to be consistent with the findings of the paper. Highlight some limitations which you think you couldn’t cover up like ‘limited to six focus groups in a single sector or region’ and future research avenues for the prospective researchers.

Authors’ answer 4: We have added an implications section addressing the broader consequences of our findings, consistent with the study’s results. We also acknowledge key limitations, such as the focus on six focus groups within a single sector and region, and outline directions for future research. We think these additions strengthen the paper’s practical relevance and academic rigor. Thanks for your comments.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the role of perceived attribution of responsibility in the process of emotional labor and the severeness of the outcomes on employees' well-being for frontline service employees, utilizing qualitative research methods. The manuscript presents high-quality work overall, and I want to highlight the following strengths:

1. The paper presents a very clearly written theoretical framework in the introduction. The key theoretical frameworks were comprehensively reviewed and explained, and the rationale for conducting the present research was also logical and straightforward. 
2. The quantitative study design and analysis methods were rigorous and clearly described in the paper. Despite being mostly qualitative, the authors still provided some quantitative statistics to support the reliability of their coding and analyses, which adds to the strength of the study.
3. The present of the results and the discussion of research implications are clear and easy to understand. I especially appreciate the discussion about roles of the company and/or supervisor of the employees in the process of emotional labor and their impact on the final outcomes. Despite being outside the original scope, the authors took efforts to note and discuss this theme that emerged from the focus groups, which provided valuable insights for future research.

Overall, I think the paper is of high quality and level of completion. I would recommend the editor to accept it. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging comments. We truly appreciate your recognition of the clarity and rigor of our theoretical framework, methodological approach, and the integration of quantitative elements to support our qualitative findings. We are also glad that the discussion on the roles of companies and supervisors resonated with you and added valuable insights beyond the initial scope. Your positive evaluation and recommendation mean a lot to us. Thank you again for your careful review and support.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides useful insights into emotional labour and addresses its impact on frontline roles. This coverage has wisely taken a few different contexts into account and made clear the purpose of the study. The research has taken a different perspective than that of performance management and is therefore a good addition to the body of knowledge in this space. It also covers the practical issue of challenges in the workplace and the emotional cost of these challenges from an employee’s point of view. This is something that readers will find useful and is likely to have practical applications as well as opportunities for further research. The literature on triggering events could be expanded and given some further context in explaining how this study relates to earlier work, though this is not significant enough that it should affect the publication of this paper. 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful feedback. We agree that including an implications section—clearly outlining the broader ramifications of our findings, as well as practical steps and recommendations—is essential to enhance the contribution of the paper. In response, we have expanded the manuscript to include an explicit section on implications, ensuring that they are directly grounded in our results.

Thank you again for your careful review and support.