Spanning Cultural Boundaries: U.S. Return Migrants in the Indian Technology Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is of interest for publication in a journal dealing with on past, present, and future links between economic, political, social, and/or environmental issues, as the study examines workplace culture in Indian and U.S. technology companies through the perspectives of returning Indian migrants. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General feedback

All in all, I like this paper quite a bit. It is well-structured and easy to follow. The topic is interesting, and the findings relevant.

My only substantial issue with the paper is a lack of synergy between theory and discussion. A significant part of the theory is given over to Hofstede, but I can’t see this brought up in the discussion. The dimensions laid out on lines 85-98 also don’t seem to be explicitly used in the discussion. Here I think the paper needs another draft to bring the theory and discussion more in line with each other.

Specific comments

Line 28: The phrasing suggests that there is a unified and accepted definition of culture, which is not the case. Where you write “Culture is defined…”, I would suggest replacing with something like “Culture may be defined in many ways, but one example that is pertinent to this paper is…” or maybe simply “Hofstede defines culture as…”

Line 29: I would consider adding a sentence after this one, as I find the transition to national culture a bit abrupt. Something like “The term ‘group’ can operate at many levels, and we can speak of a friend-group culture, a city culture, a workplace culture, a national culture and so on”.  Something along these lines will set up that you are discussing different levels of culture.

Lines 103-106: Above, you have presented critism against Hofstede, and in these lines you write that it is nevertheless widely used and influential. I’m not trying to be flippant, but this paragraph can sound a little like “There are issues with Hofstede, but everyone else uses him, so we will too”.  Here, I would reframe the argument as to why Hofstede’s work is valid rather than influential. You write that it is used because of its “relevance to managers”. Maybe this point can be expanded on.

Lines 566-590: This is a large stretch of discussion with no references, despite there being multiple claims in here that should have citations, and which should be connected to the article’s theoretical framework.

Author Response

See the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The total sample is rather small (50 respondents), it can lead to incorrect and biased results. Therefore, limitations of the research must be clearly described. 
2. There is no description of how the authors checked the reliability and validity of the data obtained, can they fully trust respondents?
3. The text does not specify whether the return of respondents from the USA was voluntary or forced (e.g., due to the loss of employment opportunities in the United States). There is only a general statement that the decision to return was shaped by a combination of personal, professional, and structural factors, including improved economic and career opportunities in India. There is no detail on whether anyone returned due to visa restrictions or other compelling circumstances - this information could be clarified in the methodology. This impacts the reliability of their answers. It can be that some people, who failed to continue their contracts, may have a cognitive bias about USA.
4. The authors only present the percentages of respondents who mentioned a particular topic, but do not show the relationships between the topics (e.g., whether those who criticize communication also rate low productivity).
5. There is no analysis by subgroups: age, gender, length of stay in the US, type of company. This could provide deeper conclusions. There is practically no consideration of the gender aspect in interaction with other factors (e.g., whether women rate hierarchy or communication differently).
6. Some references are doubled, f.e. #23 and #25 - are the same, one of them should be deleted.
7. The conclusions are quite concise. I recommend adding specific examples from the empirical data (quotes from respondents) to make the conclusions more convincing. Show more clearly which aspects of the seven identified categories (work ethic, communication, structure, etc.) have the greatest impact on the success or failure of returnees. Indicate how the results can be applied to policy or management of technology companies. Also, I recommend discussing the limitations ot he research.
8. Maybe, the comparison with similar research in other countries will strengthen the work.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some policy recommendations should be added, how governments or societies can use the results obtained.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf