Review Reports - The New Management Imperatives: Culture, Connectedness, and Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “The New Management Imperatives: Culture, Connectedness, and Performance” demonstrates a deep understanding of contemporary management issues related to hybrid and remote work. It is richly sourced, logically organized, and well-aligned with current research trends in organizational behavior and human resource management. The tone is largely academic and objective, with appropriate citation use and strong transitions. However, to make this paper more publishable, there are a several areas that can be refined — particularly regarding its clarity, source consistency, and analytical depth.

Introduction

Include a more explicit research purpose or question. For example:

“This paper seeks to answer how organizations can sustain culture, connection, and performance in hybrid and remote contexts.”

Consider briefly explaining your approach or structure at the end of the introduction (e.g., “The following sections address…”)

2. Literature Integration

A short literature synthesis paragraph at the start of each section could make the paper more academic (e.g., summarize what previous research says, then show your contribution or interpretation).

3. Structure and Flow

A brief transition paragraph between sections would help the flow (e.g., before “New-Hire Onboarding” or before “Managing Performance”).
Consider a conceptual framework figure summarizing how culture, connection, and performance interact in hybrid environments.

4. Analysis and Argumentation

Strengthen critical commentary — show more evaluation of the evidence (e.g., “However, these strategies may not address cross-cultural differences in perception of connectedness…”).
Discuss limitations or gaps — what remains unclear or underexplored.
Integrate managerial implications explicitly: what should managers do differently, based on your findings?

5. Academic Style and Writing

Reduce minor repetition (especially in sections summarizing previous data).
Avoid conversational phrases like “Let us start by examining…” or “To that topic, we now turn.” — use more formal transitions:

“The following section examines…”
“This next section addresses…”

6. Conclusion

Add a forward-looking insight: what future research or managerial innovation might be needed?
Close with a unifying sentence that connects all three imperatives, e.g.: “Ultimately, sustaining organizational success in a hybrid era requires leaders to integrate culture, connection, and performance management into a coherent system of trust and accountability.”

Author Response

Thank you for a very thoughtful, constructive review.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion to include a more explicit research purpose or question, the last paragraph of p. 2 incorporates almost verbatim the reviewer’s suggested sentence: “This paper explores how organizations can sustain culture, connection, and performance in hybrid and remote settings.”
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, I explain the structure of the paper at the bottom of p. 2 as follows: “The next section discusses the long-term outlook for hybrid and remote work, followed by sections addressing organizational culture, onboarding new hires (both in person and virtually), and strategies to promote connectedness, collaboration, and seamless communication. The final sections explore performance management, including proximity bias, employee monitoring, and the role of artificial intelligence.”
In Point #2, the reviewer suggested adding a short literature synthesis paragraph at the start of each section to make the paper more academic. I did that for each of the following sections: Sn. 2, p. 4; Sn. 2.1, p. 7; Sn. 3, p. 10; Sn. 4, pp. 13 and 14; Sn. 4.3, p. 18; and Sn. 4.4, p. 20.
In Point #3, the reviewer suggested adding a brief transition paragraph between sections. I did that on p. 7 in the last two sentences before Section 2.1, and also on p. 13, in the last sentence before Section 4. The reviewer also suggested adding a conceptual framework figure summarizing how culture, connection, and performanceinteract in hybrid environments. See new Figure 1 inserted at the bottom of p. 2 (shown at the end of the MS. on p. 30).
In Point #4, the reviewer suggested strengthening critical commentary, discussing limitations or gaps that remain unclear or unexplored, and integrating managerial implications. I have tried to do that in each section of the paper, for example, p. 6, par. 2; p. 7, paragraphs 1 and 2; P. 14, par. 2; p. 15, second full par.; p. 16, second full par.; p. 20, last two sentences.
In Point #5, the reviewer suggested using more formal transitions, reducing conversational phrases, and reducing minor repetition. I have tried to do both, for example, see the bottom of p. 2, sentences 2 and 3.
The reviewer’s Point #6 suggests adding a forward-looking insight and closing with a unifying sentence. Thank you for this helpful suggestion. See the first two sentences on p. 24.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an interesting topic. However, it shows several weaknesses, mainly due to a lack of a clear scientific structure. Below are my comments: 1) The paper does not display elements of empirical research, nor shows features typical of a literature review. The discussion appears mainly descriptive. It is therefore not clear the originality of the work. What does it add compared to previous studies? What is the specific contribution of this research?
2) The paper does not explicitly state a research question or specify the research objectives. No research gap is identified that the authors aim to fill. Key questions thus remain open: What is your research question? What is the theoretical and/or empirical contribution of your work?
3) Which methodology was adopted, and what process led to the development of the paper? The research method adopted is not indicated.
4)The paper does not present a clear framework to help understand and connect the three managerial imperatives they proposed (culture, connection, and performance). Moreover, the paper's position in relation to the existing scholarly debate is unclear.
5) The article includes recent literature, but it also relies on grey literature, journalistic articles/websites. While such references can be usefu for contextualizing the topic, they should be consistent with the research objectives and used to support scientific rigor.
6) The conclusions mainly summarise what was presented in the previous paragraphs and do not provide a critical discussion of the findings. The paper lacks a clear articulation of its theoretical implications, and the managerial ones require further strengthening and clarification.

Author Response

This review, as noted in the introductory sentence, focuses on the paper's weaknesses. I hope the reviewer feels that I have addressed them adequately, and that the paper is now stronger because he/she highlighted them. I have tried to address each of the six comments below.

Point #1: “The paper does not display elements of empirical research, nor shows features typical of a literature review. It is therefore not clear the originality of the work. What does it add compared to previous studies?” I agree that the paper is not empirical or a typical literature review. In terms of the research question it seeks to answer and the value it adds, its purpose is to identify three critical management challenges in hybrid/remote work environments and offer research-based solutions. As noted in lines 3-4 in the final paragraph of p. 2, “This paper explores how organizations can sustain culture, connection, and performance in hybrid and remote settings.”
Point #2: lack of a research question or research objectives. My research objective is as stated in #1 above: “This paper explores how organizations can sustain culture, connection, and performance in hybrid and remote settings.”
Point #3: lack of a stated research method. This is not an empirical paper that is organized according to the sections of introduction, methods, sample, results, discussion, and conclusion. Rather, after citing studies that make the case that culture, connections, and performance management are critical management challenges in the hybrid/remote context, I searched for and cited relevant published literature in each of these three areas.
Point #4: The paper lacks a clear framework to help understand and connect the three managerial imperatives proposed (culture, connection, and performance). See new Figure 1. “Moreover, the paper's position in relation to the existing scholarly debate is unclear.” Thank you for this suggestion. I have tried to address that issue in each of the following sections: (a) the effects of AI on organizational culture, pp. 6, 7; (b) the lack of social connections, Section 3, pp. 11-13; (c) proximity bias, Section 4, pp. 14-16.
Point #5: inclusion of peer-reviewed and grey literature. I have added numerous additional peer-reviewed articles and also included articles from the business press and professional organizations. As the reviewer notes, the latter provide context and often report survey data that help reveal important differences in responses, such as between managers and employees, or between younger and older generations. The article now includes a total of 68 citations.
Point #6: The conclusions mainly summarize what was presented in the previous paragraphs and do not provide a critical discussion of the findings. Thank you for this comment. Section 5, beginning at the bottom of p. 21, is now labeled, “Summary and Conclusions”. It includes the kind of information you suggest. Regarding the need to create a consistent culture and also the onboarding process, see p. 22, the first two full paragraphs. Regarding virtual meetings, see lines 2-6, and regarding AI and performance management, see p. 24, first par.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript.

The abstract should be revised and include the aim, method, results, and suggestions of the study.

The introduction must explain the study's background and the reasons behind its conduct. This section is complex, encompassing three topics that lack a clear identification or connection to any specific aim, objective, or question. Therefore, we must include the study background gap and aim in this section, which requires a thorough revision. Following this, literature is provided; hence, it is not clear to which gap and research question/questions are answered with that. Prior to this point, the author(s) wrote, "The goal is to help readers create action plans suited to the work environments they face now and in the future. Let us start by examining the long-term prospects for hybrid and remote work." In my opinion, this sentence, along with many others in the manuscript, uses excessive academic jargon. Moreover, this subsection does not provide any academic viewpoint insight to readers. Following these, the literature is basic and there are missing citations in the text.

To be honest, this study cannot be evaluated and reviewed as an ARTICLE but as a literature review. There is no methodological approach provided. The research question and gap are not clearly articulated; however, the study's contribution is lacking.

If PRISMA or BIBLIOMETRIC reviews were utilised, it would be meaningful to compromise some of the findings of this review.

While reading the study, I tried to understand how it would contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Hence, the results, method, limitations, gap, research questions and the reason the existing literature is reviewed could not be understood.

Overall academic jargon must be taken into account.

Good luck.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. I have tried to address each one in an effort to strengthen the paper as you suggest.

Point #1: Revise the abstract and include the aim, method, results, and suggestions of the study. Include the study background, gap, and aim in the introduction. I revised the abstract to clarify these issues. In the introduction, survey data described on p. 2 illustrate gaps that lead to the identification of culture, connections, and performance management as critical management challenges in hybrid/remote working environments. As noted throughout the paper, the published, peer-reviewed literature in each of these areas is sparse. The aim of the paper is stated concisely in lines 3-4 of the final paragraph on p. 2: “This paper explores how organizations can sustain culture, connection, and performance in hybrid and remote settings.”
Point #2: Use of academic jargon and missing citations in the text. I have tried to rephrase any text that smacks of academic jargon, and I have checked each of the 68 citations in the text against the list of references. I found three missing references and fixed them.
Point #3: No methodological approach was provided. The research question and gap are not clearly articulated; the study's contribution is lacking.

My research objective is as stated in #1 above: “This paper explores how organizations can sustain culture, connection, and performance in hybrid and remote settings.”

This is not an empirical paper that is organized according to the sections of introduction, methods, sample, results, discussion, and conclusion. Rather, after citing studies that make the case that culture, connections, and performance management are critical management challenges in the hybrid/remote context, I searched for and cited relevant published literature in each of these three areas.

Point #4: How does this study contribute to the existing body of knowledge? As noted in the response to Reviewer #2, Point #1, “its purpose is to identify three critical management challenges in hybrid/remote work environments and offer research-based solutions.”

I agree that the paper is not empirical or a typical literature review. In terms of the research question it seeks to answer and the value it adds, its purpose is to identify three critical management challenges in hybrid/remote work environments and offer research-based solutions. As noted in lines 3-4 in the final paragraph of p. 2, “This paper explores how organizations can sustain culture, connection, and performance in hybrid and remote settings.”