Workplace Demands, Control, and Identification as Predictors of Job Satisfaction
, Giulia Foti 2, Gabriele Giorgi 2, Gabriela Topa 3 and Pablo Garmendia 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI had the pleasure of participating in the review process of a manuscript entitled "Workplace Demands, Control, and Identification as predictors of Job Satisfaction."
The study aimed to (1) investigate the relationship between job characteristics, organizational and workgroup identification, and job satisfaction and examine how job demands, control, and identification influence affective job satisfaction.
The present manuscript, like any scientific paper, is subject to improvement, and I request the authors to make necessary corrections before publication.
Please refer to the enclosed report for more details.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
|
Reviewer 1 Comment |
Authors' Response |
|
Abstract - I suggest providing a structured abstract according to journal guidelines (IMR@D format). |
Dear reviewer: Thank you very much for your valuable contributions. We proceed to implement your suggestions. |
|
The sentence in which you state the objective of the study should be reworded to avoid conceptual redundancy. Otherwise, I suggest combining the two sentences into one. Alternatively, you can divide the objective into primary and secondary. The choice is yours. |
Thank you very much for your comment. We have decided to reformulate the abstract following your indications. Additionally, for parsimony, we have decided to maintain the objective in a single sentence. |
|
Provide information about the participants (e.g., Mean age/SD, or other sociodemographic variables…). |
Agreed. We have included information on the mean age of participants, gender distribution, and educational level of our sample. Lines 16-22 |
|
Which types/methods of analyses were conducted? |
We agree with your observation. We have included information about the MIMIC model used to test the hypotheses. Line 22 |
|
When reporting results, I suggest that you provide relevant value results. |
Thank you for your observation. We have included the most relevant results in the abstract as you suggested. Lines 23-27. |
|
Introduction - The section is well structured and written with minor issues. |
Thank you very much for your comment. |
|
The first paragraph lacks references, please provide relevant ones. |
Thank you very much. We have added some references in the first paragraph, as you indicated. |
|
Theoretical framework - I recommend adding a paragraph on the rational of the study to provide how and why the authors chose such concepts to conduct their study. What's the gap in literature to be addressed by this study? |
Thank you very much. We completely agree. We have added a paragraph about the motivation for conducting the study, as well as the justification for including the variables. |
|
Materials and Methods - Please provide an explanation of the abbreviation of MIMIC analysis (Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes). |
Thank you very much. We have introduced the explanation of the MIMIC acronym in parentheses. |
|
I suggest that you move the sentence on MIMIC analysis to the statistical analysis subsection. |
Completely agreed. We have moved the information about the MIMIC model to the data analysis section. |
|
Provide the internal consistency of the Job Content Questionnaire, from the original version and within your participants. |
Done. The information has been added in the corresponding section. |
|
Procedure: the paragraph provided aims to explain the ethical procedures of the study and not the protocol. For this, I recommend adding a subsection for the ethical statements and enrich the existing subsection to talk about the steps of the study's protocol (duration/invitations requests/number of invitations sent…). |
Thank you for the comment. Unfortunately, we do not have data on the number of invitations sent. As this was a convenience and snowball sampling, we cannot access these data. We have included this in the procedure and discussed it in the study limitations. |
|
Data analysis: Provide references for the cutoff values and the thresholds of the fit indices' measurements. |
Thank you for your comment. We have included references to articles that suggest cutoff points for evaluating model viability. |
|
Results - The section is clear and relevant. |
Thank you for your comment. |
|
Discussion - I suggest starting the section by a reminder of the principal aim of the study. |
Thank you for your comment. We have begun the section by recalling the main objective of the research. |
|
The discussion is relevant to the results; however, I find the section quite short and does not cover a relevant discussion of the results with the literature. For this reason, I recommend that you consider a rigorous revision of this section. |
Thank you for your comment. |
|
Provide a practical and theoretical implications subsections from the results. |
Done. We have added two paragraphs in the discussion aligned with this suggestion. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Congratulations on your work and for the opportunity to read it. The article is well structured, concise and delimits the concepts it proposes to address. These are strengths that I think should be emphasised. Nevertheless, there're a few points that the authors should further develop. Below, I detail these points, which I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript.
1. On page 2 (lines 60 and 61), the authors stated that, "However, scientific literature demonstrated...". In my opinion, the authors should identify the research that corroborates this statement. This is not to say that I don't agree with the statement; quite the contrary, in fact, job satisfaction is not compatible with linear models.
2. On the same page, and following the authors' point on lines 60 and 61, the authors introduced two job resources in the equation of job satisfaction: organisational and group identification. My point here is: why do you select these variables? Ok, I recognise that the authors present bibliographical support for this option. But, for example, why don't you consider including contextual variables, i.e., variables related to the context and working conditions? I ask this because, in the next paragraph, the authors state that "job satisfaction requires a multi-level approach, considering not only individual aspects but also the social and organisational dynamics...". So, in this sentence, from my point of view, a very important component is missing when it comes to analysing job satisfaction and well-being: the concrete context of work, the organisation of work, and the conditions of employment. In fact, it is these conditions that largely determine job resources.
3. In the methods section (page 7), it is missing some key information. First, what kind of organisations were contacted? How many? How many of these companies refused to participate in the study? Second, the authors refer they took into account the type of employment and the educational background of the workers who agreed to participate in the study. However, what about workers' seniority? Seniority is a key proxy of the level of professional experience in a workplace, which, in fact, is not irrelevant when it comes to addressing the job resources of a worker, for example. Work psychology, activity-centred ergonomics and psychodynamic of work are fields that have long drawn attention to this, pointing out, for example, that job resources are specific to a work context, and mainly they are constructed (also) as each worker develops their expertise and experience. Third, the final sample consisted of 420 workers, but nothing is said about the sectors of activity of these workers. As such, and by looking at the information present in Table 1 (page 7) regarding the educational level, we could make certain inferences regarding this aspect, which is far from being a detail. For example, around half of workers say they have a university degree, which could lead us to assume that they work mainly in workplaces that are less restrictive from the point of view of the physical demands placed on them, or with more room to develop their competences. But, of course, this is an assumption that the reader can make. That's why, in my view, the authors should give more information about the sectors of activity and the professions of the participants.
4. On page 9, line 367, the year is missing from the bibliographical reference. The same goes for line 400. I recommend that the authors carefully review the referencing rules throughout the article, complying with the journal's rules and standardising the way they are referenced, as there are minor inaccuracies.
5. Also on page 9, the authors should identify the complete name of the Ethics Committee concerned.
6. In my opinion, it is missing a critical reflection in the discussion section. And this is to say that this is the main concern the manuscript raises when I was reading it. I understand the choice of using the JD-R model, but the authors refrain from developing a critical reading of their results. For example, there're more and more voices in the literature pointing out that the JD-R model should be understood as a heuristic and flexible model, since it allows for application to different work contexts. However, it also has several limitations - and this is the point that the authors did not develop in the discussion section. I'm talking about the explanatory power of this model, which is one of its weak points, especially because it doesn't integrate the specificities of work, but rather focuses on describing personal and job characteristics (although here it does so in a generic way, without considering contextual determinants). The authors could find a critical lens on this here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4. I'm not saying that the authors should include this reference in the article; I'm just suggesting a possibility for them to develop their reading of the results. Secondly, the JD-R model presents a mainly individual reading, which in addition to excluding contextual variables, as I mentioned above, also doesn't consider the possibility of collective resources (and this isn't about identification with workteam, but rather the sense of belonging to a collective, in which there is a sharing of the "rules of the trade", quality goals, safety protection, "tricks of the trade", learning strategies and transmission of knowledge between workers, and so on). On this, work psychology and activity-ergonomics offer important contributes with concepts like "worker collective" or even "operational leeway", what should not be interpreted as the latitude decision-making - if the authors consider to develop this issue, I suggest to explore, for example, the works of Fabien Coutarel on this topic: https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_TH_851_0003?lang=en.
Once again, congratulations on your work.
All the best.
Author Response
|
Reviewer 2 Comment |
Authors' Response |
|
On page 2 (lines 60 and 61), the authors stated that, "However, scientific literature demonstrated...". In my opinion, the authors should identify the research that corroborates this statement. |
Thank you for your comment. We have added citations already present in the previous text that are aligned with this statement. |
|
On the same page, and following the authors' point on lines 60 and 61, the authors introduced two job resources in the equation of job satisfaction: organisational and group identification. My point here is: why do you select these variables? |
Thank you for the comment. We selected organizational and group identity as important job resources due to empirical evidence on their impact in the organizational environment. Research such as that by Ellemers et al. (2014) and Riketta and Van Dick (2005) supports this perspective. |
|
Why don't you consider including contextual variables, i.e., variables related to the context and working conditions? |
Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that contextual variables could provide important information about job satisfaction dynamics. However, due to the scope and design of the present study, focused on individual perceptions of demands, resources, and identification, we decided not to include them. We have added this information in the limitations section, as well as the suggestion for future work. |
|
Methods (page 7): What kind of organisations were contacted? How many? How many of these companies refused to participate in the study? |
Thank you for your comment. Data collection was carried out by several researchers. However, we did not centralize or systematically record the total number of organizations. Additionally, since the sampling was by convenience and snowball, it is complex to make a detailed follow-up on this. In several cases, we received no response, and we cannot confirm whether this was due to lack of interest, the message not being received, or implicit refusal. This appears in the limitations section. |
|
The authors refer they took into account the type of employment and the educational background of the workers. However, what about workers' seniority? |
Thank you for your comment. We did not establish limitations regarding seniority to participate in the research. We collected this information, but decided not to include it because it did not show statistically significant relationships with the variables. Therefore, to avoid introducing more noise into the article, we removed it. |
|
The final sample consisted of 420 workers, but nothing is said about the sectors of activity of these workers. |
Thank you for your comment. In addition to employment type and educational level, we also did not place limitations regarding the work sectors of employees. Preliminary analyses showed that this information was not statistically significant and for the same reasons as seniority, we decided not to include it. |
|
Page 9, line 367: the year is missing from the bibliographical reference. The same goes for line 400. Review the referencing rules throughout the article. |
Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed and included it. |
|
Page 9: identify the complete name of the Ethics Committee concerned. |
Done. Thank you for your comment. |
|
Missing a critical reflection in the discussion section. |
Thank you very much. We have expanded the discussion section and added the information you kindly presented. |
|
The JD-R model has limitations not addressed in the discussion (e.g., lack of contextual integration, mainly individual reading). Consider literature such as: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4 |
Thank you for your interesting comment. We have incorporated your critique and raised it in the discussion section. Additionally, we believe that your perspective can help in future research when expanding the focus of attention and taking into account other contextual and organizational factors that may influence employee job satisfaction. Therefore, we also added a suggestion for future research. |
|
Consider developing concepts like "worker collective", "operational leeway", and other contributions from work psychology and activity-ergonomics (e.g., Fabien Coutarel: https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_TH_851_0003?lang=en) |
Thank you for your comment. We have added your suggestion in the article's discussion for future research. |
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper – Workplace Demands, Control, and Identification as predictors 2 of Job Satisfaction – is interesting and timely. The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field. The title accurately reflects the content and scope of the paper and the abstract effectively summarizes the research objectives, methods, key findings, and implications. The paper is well-structured, following a logical progression that facilitates understanding of the research.
The paper addresses an important organizational issue: balancing autonomy and performance pressure to sustain employee engagement and innovation. Contributions to the literature are clear.
The cited references are appropriate and generally up to date (about 50% published in the last 10 years). Self-citations are present but not excessive.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
The authors explain that task complexity and decision latitude did not significantly predict job satisfaction, but it would be helpful if they elaborated on why these factors may have been non-significant, despite theoretical expectations.
Since the data was collected online, it would be useful if authors would address potential sample bias due to digital access and self-selection.
While the constructs are generally well defined, authors should review the use of some terms such as "job resources," "control," "decision latitude," and "competency use" to ensure consistent use throughout the manuscript.
The conclusion could benefit from further development of practical recommendations for HR professionals and organizational leaders.
Author Response
|
Reviewer 3 Comment |
Authors' Response |
|
The authors explain that task complexity and decision latitude did not significantly predict job satisfaction, but it would be helpful if they elaborated on why these factors may have been non-significant, despite theoretical expectations. |
Dear reviewer. |
|
Since the data was collected online, it would be useful if authors would address potential sample bias due to digital access and self-selection. |
Absolutely agree with the comment. We have added reference to this limitation in the corresponding section. |
|
Authors should review the use of some terms such as "job resources," "control," "decision latitude," and "competency use" to ensure consistent use throughout the manuscript. |
Thank you very much. We have reviewed the terms and standardized them following your suggestions. Additionally, we have added some clarifications that help contextualize the reader. |
|
The conclusion could benefit from further development of practical recommendations for HR professionals and organizational leaders. |
Thank you for your comment. We have added a section on possible practical applications and another on theoretical implications. |
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 2 - Titel - Consider changing this to "Job" instead or workplace.
Line 93 - correct to Karasek’s Job Demand-Control Model
Line 124 - change to Job demand control
Line 167 - change to "Therefore, the current research aims to .......
Line 262 - This is not recent. This source is 23 years old. Please find a more recent source to corroborate the assertion and classical source.
Line 303 - change to "cross-sectional survey design..."
- please write MIMIC in full then you can use acronyms thereafter.
Lines 308 - 310 - Acceptable. Thank you for noting this.
Line 344 - 355 - Provide the reliability coefficient of the scale please.
Lines 347 - 348 - Sentence reads like it is incomplete. Please check and remove the additional full stops.
Line 373 - Write UNED in full please.
Lines 373-375 - Okay, but in lines 304 to 306 it is indicated that the researcher approached the organisations and they are the ones who sent out the link for the study to prospective participants and not the researchers. The recruitment of participants is not very clear and if the organisations determined who should be in the study, then this could cast some doubt on the ethical recruitment of participants.
Line 406 - Table 4 - Consider reducing the font size of the variable names.
Line 452 - Can you make this assertion if the study did not test for burnout?
Author Response
|
Reviewer 4 Comment |
Authors' Response |
|
Line 2 - Titel - Consider changing this to "Job" instead of workplace. |
Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for your interesting and valuable suggestions. We have carried out a thorough review of the work. Regarding your suggestion for the title, we consider that 'workplace' makes a more accurate reference to the idea we want to convey throughout the manuscript. Our intention is to reflect the demands of the workplace (those that occur at the work location), rather than work demands (which may occur outside the workplace). |
|
Line 93 - correct to Karasek's Job Demand-Control Model |
Done. Thank you for the contribution. |
|
Line 124 - change to Job demand control |
Changed. Thank you very much. |
|
Line 167 - change to "Therefore, the current research aims to ......." |
Changed. Thank you very much. |
|
Line 262 - This is not recent. This source is 23 years old. Please find a more recent source to corroborate the assertion and classical source. |
You are absolutely right. We have included a recent meta-analysis addressing the topic published in 2024. |
|
Line 303 - change to "cross-sectional survey design..." |
Done. We have modified the location of the statement and included it in the procedure and data analysis sections. |
|
Line 303 - please write MIMIC in full then you can use acronyms thereafter. |
Done. By changing the location of the sentence, we have relocated this information in the Data analysis section. |
|
Lines 308 - 310 - Acceptable. Thank you for noting this. |
Thank you for your comment. |
|
Line 344 - 355 - Provide the reliability coefficient of the scale please. |
Done. Thank you for your comment. We have added the reliability of the original scale and the scale used in our work. |
|
Lines 347 - 348 - Sentence reads like it is incomplete. Please check and remove the additional full stops. |
Thank you very much. We have reviewed these lines and rewritten them for improvement. |
|
Line 373 - Write UNED in full please. |
Done. Thank you very much. |
|
Lines 373-375 - The recruitment of participants is not very clear and could cast some doubt on the ethical recruitment of participants. |
Done. We have included information about the recruitment of participants and informed consent. |
|
Line 406 - Table 4 - Consider reducing the font size of the variable names. |
Done. Thank you for the contribution. |
|
Line 452 - Can you make this assertion if the study did not test for burnout? |
We have added a current citation from research that relates low levels of satisfaction with a higher probability of developing burnout. We consider, based on previous literature, that job satisfaction may have an inverse relationship with burnout. This is argued in the introduction and theoretical framework of this research. |
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version of the manuscript is suitable for publication.
