The Moderator Effect of Communicative Rational Action in the Relationship between Emotional Labor and Job Satisfaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main purpose of the study is to find if the communicative rational action has a moderator effect for the relation between the emotional labor behavior and job satisfaction

The paper is clear and well-structured. The references are appropriate. The theoretical background is very expanded. The emotional labor term is well defined, however more than four approaches to the problem (line 133) can be found in the literature (Yang & Chen 2021). Moreover, the is a wide analysis of effects of emotional labor on employees. Similar deep analysis is made for job satisfaction and factors affecting this term. Additionally, communicative rational action theory is explained. Finally, the relationships among all these concepts are analyzed.

Although some data about the method of investigation are missing,  the results are well described. Proper statistical tests were conducted. Figures and tables are appropriate and understandable.  According to my knowledge, no similar papers were published recently.

Detailed comments:

1. In the Introduction there is no references at all, even where other studies are mentioned (line 55)
2. There is very little known about the method of data collection. As the data collected were a.o.about job satisfaction, the information about anonymity assurance should be provided. Moreover, it is difficult to assess the validity of the study, as there is no information about the demographic structure of the investigated population (bank managers in Turkey)
3. Proper statistical tests were conducted, however the correlations among investigated variables are rather low. Therefore I am not fully sure, if the moderator effect of practical-rational action on the effect of emotional labor on job satisfaction is really significant
4. As the authors noticed, the results can be strongly affected by COVID pandemics, both by the situation of the respondents during the survey and by the way of data collection. There is no detailed information about the work style of respondents (remote or offline) in the very moment of data collecting. For sure this factor determines their results, especially in the field of emotional labor
5. Some minor findings: Typos: Minnesato Job Satisfaction Scale (line 275) instead Minnesota Job Satisfaction Scale, a lot of hyphenation errors.

Yang, C., & Chen, A. (2021). Emotional labor: A comprehensive literature review. Human Systems Management, 40(4), 479-501.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. In the Introduction there is no references at all, even where other studies are mentioned (line 55)

A: The mentioned expressions have been removed from the text as they do not affect the course of the text and the content.

2. There is very little known about the method of data collection. As the data collected were about job satisfaction, the information about anonymity assurance should be provided. Moreover, it is difficult to assess the validity of the study, as there is no information about the demographic structure of the investigated population (bank managers in Turkey)

A: The main population of the research consists of bank managers in Turkey. Since it is not possible to reach the whole of the main population, the scope of the research was determined as the managers of foreign-capital banks. In addition, the sample formed by stratified sampling method was used from many cities, mainly from the three big cities of Turkey (Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir). For this purpose, first of all, the number of bank managers in each province was determined and the share of these numbers in the population was calculated. In order to protect these shares in the sample, the number of managers who should be sampled from each province was calculated. The selection of the number of bank managers determined for each province was determined by deriving random numbers on the computer. Data were obtained by online and face-to-face contact methods between August 2, 2021 and August 31, 2021. While collecting the data, it was determined that 62% of bank managers work online and 38% work online due to the COVID-19 pandemic and curfews. This situation caused by the pandemic may have had an impact on the results. The questionnaire consists of demographic information such as gender, age and education, emotional labor scale, communicative rational action scale and job satisfaction scale. All of the questions in the questionnaire form are closed-ended. Gender, age and educational status variables are of categorical type. Emotional labor scale (19 questions), communicative rational action scale (21 questions), and job satisfaction scale (20 questions) are 5-point Likert scale questions. The link of the online questionnaire was sent to the remote bank managers via e-mail. The questionnaire was applied to the bank managers who are close to them through face-to-face interviews. 438 managers participated in the research, and 427 of these questionnaires were evaluated due to missing information.”

3. 
   Proper statistical tests were conducted, however the correlations among investigated variables are rather low. Therefore I am not fully sure, if the moderator effect of practical-rational action on the effect of emotional labor on job satisfaction is really significant.

A: As it is known, the correlations were calculated over the data. As you said, the correlations are small but statistically significant. However, the regression models in Table 3 are significant. In our opinion, changing the correlations of the data or giving different interpretations would be to manipulate them. We think it is appropriate that way. Thank you so much

4. As the authors noticed, the results can be strongly affected by COVID pandemics, both by the situation of the respondents during the survey and by the way of data collection. There is no detailed information about the work style of respondents (remote or offline) in the very moment of data collecting. For sure this factor determines their results, especially in the field of emotional labor.

A: This issue was clarified in the materials and methods section.

5. Yang, C., & Chen, A. (2021). Emotional labor: A comprehensive literature review. Human Systems Management, 40(4), 479-501.

A: It’s added into the context.

Thank you for your suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read and evaluate your article entitled “The Moderator Effect of Communicative Rational Action in the Relationship Between Emotional Labor and Job Satisfaction”. The study aims to determine whether emotional labor behavior has an effect on job satisfaction, and if there is an effect, to reveal whether communicative rational action has a moderator effect. Although you present interesting research and offer relevant insights to practice, there is still room for improvement, as I explain below.

Introduction

The introduction of your manuscript lacks references to previous literature. For example, you mention “many domestic and foreign studies” but never cite them. You should clearly state a research gap based on the literature. Moreover, it would help if you showed why the analysis you propose matters. It is not enough to say that your research is the first that analyzes the relationship. You need to support your statements with references published in 2020/2021/2022.

Literature review

Unfortunately, the literature review of your study is outdated, and several references are not in English. This prevents most readers from understanding your sources. Whether you want to increase the chances of your paper, you need to completely rewrite the literature review using recent papers and replace the papers published in non-English journals with papers published in international journals.

Moreover, the literature review is too long, and you don’t present the research hypothesis.  I recommend you to work on a focused literature review and present each hypothesis with solid support from previous literature.

Method

You don’t describe where the questions that composed your questionnaire came from. Have you used validated measures? Who validated the questionnaire? This information should be presented in the method section and not in the results.

Discussion

The discussion section doesn’t discuss the results based on the previous literature. Please note that you don’t have a single reference mentioned in this section. How do your results contribute to the literature? To which previous studies does your study add new insights? Do you confirm or confront the extant literature?

Conclusion

What are the theoretical and practical implications of your study? You should clearly state the novelty of your study. Besides the theoretical implication, you should explain how managers can benefit from your study, i.e. practical implications.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:1. The introduction of your manuscript lacks references to previous literature. For example, you mention “many domestic and foreign studies” but never cite them. You should clearly state a research gap based on the literature. A: The mentioned expressions have been removed from the text as they do not affect the course of the text and the content.2. Moreover, it would help if you showed why the analysis you propose matters. It is not enough to say that your research is the first that analyzes the relationship. You need to support your statements with references published in 2020/2021/2022.A: However, emotional labor has become a phenomenon that has been discussed a lot in recent times. As it is known, although job satisfaction is not very old as a concept, it has always been a subject that researchers have focused on in terms of content. As will be stated in the following sections of the study, there are studies on the link between these two cases. On the other hand, the phenomenon of communicative rationality put forward by the famous philosopher Habermas is newly channeled to these areas. The phenomenon of communicative rational action is a very serious argument that would provide motivation at the individual-firm level. However, applied studies proving this are very few in the literature. In this study, revealing whether communicative rational action has an effect in this context will contribute to filling this gap in the literature.

3. 
   Unfortunately, the literature review of your study is outdated, and several references are not in English. This prevents most readers from understanding your sources. Whether you want to increase the chances of your paper, you need to completely rewrite the literature review using recent papers and replace the papers published in non-English journals with papers published in international journals.

A: It’s done.4. Moreover, the literature review is too long, and you don’t present the research hypothesis.  I recommend you to work on a focused literature review and present each hypothesis with solid support from previous literature.

A: It’s done.

5. You don’t describe where the questions that composed your questionnaire came from. Have you used validated measures? Who validated the questionnaire? This information should be presented in the method section and not in the results.

A: It’s done.  

6. The discussion section doesn’t discuss the results based on the previous literature. Please note that you don’t have a single reference mentioned in this section. How do your results contribute to the literature? To which previous studies does your study add new insights? Do you confirm or confront the extant literature?

A: It’s done.

7. 
   What are the theoretical and practical implications of your study? You should clearly state the novelty of your study. Besides the theoretical implication, you should explain how managers can benefit from your study, i.e. practical implications.

A: It’s done.
Thank you for your comments!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

you can find my comments attached!

All the best!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

1. The surnames of the authors should be with lowercase letters.

A: its done.

2. The emails should be with black color and without underlining

A: It’s done.

3. The “Abstract” should be not indented
   A: It’s done.
4. The space between the abstract and keywords is too big

A: It’s done.

5. 5. The formatting is wrong in the whole article – the titles of chapters, subchapters are indented, the first lines of the paragraphs are not indented

A: It’s done

6. Line 87: “dis-play”

A: It’s done.

7. The citations should be corrected too. For e.g.: Line 193. You do not have to enumerate all the sources. It should be : [2,7,17-33]. Please check the full article!

A: It’s done.

8. There is no space between the last lines of the sub-chapters and between the new sub-chapters titles. (For e.g.: Line 228-229)

A: It’s done.

9. There is no space between the last lines of the sub-chapters and between the new sub-chapters titles. (For e.g.: Line 228-229)

A: It’s done.

10. Line 249 is not with italics (2.5. The Role of Communicative Rational Action in the Effect of Emotional Labor on Job Satisfaction)

A: It’s done.

11. I think the hypotheses should be numbered

A: It’s done.

12. No space above Table 1. Check all tables please.

A: It’s done.

13. Table 3 is centered – according to the page, but it should adjusted to margins. Also the items in the first column are very close to the left side of the cells.

A: It’s done.

14. The tables should be not halved (Like Table 3.)

A: It’s done.

15. Table 4 is not in the middle too.

A: It’s done.

16. It’s done.
17. It’s done.
18. It’s done.
19. I would welcome a presentation of demographic data with a table too (Lines 515-522).

A: It’s done.

20. The numbering of sources is wrong. You do not mention number 95 in the text, while you mention no. 94 as “Çamlı et al. [94].” while “Camli” is no. 95 in the “References”. I think you deleted one but forgot to remove from “References” so the numbers are not the same. Please check the whole article

A: It’s done

21. I advise you to use the research of Mura et al. (2021). They focused on the effects of emotional intelligence and ethics of SME employees. They stated that: “The main driving force of functioning company are the individuals, who cannot be treated as machines, determined for rational decision-making.” Individuals have crucial effects on knowledge sharing – since they came to the finding that the level of emotional intelligence influences the willingness to share knowledge. You can find more interesting results in this study.

A: It’s done

22: The Discussion and Conclusion parts should be stronger! You should mention more previous studies and compare the results. Confirm or refute these!

A: It’s done.

Thank you for your suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my comments below each topic:

Reviewer 2:

1. The introduction of your manuscript lacks references to previous literature. For example, you mention “many domestic and foreign studies” but never cite them. You should clearly state a research gap based on the literature. 

A: The mentioned expressions have been removed from the text as they do not affect the course of the text and the content.

Reviewer’s answer: Dear authors, thank you for sending the revised version. Although I see your efforts in improving the manuscript, there are still serious flaws that you need to solve. Please note that you don’t have references in your introduction. Writing a good introduction in four or five paragraphs requires a sort of sophistication: what do we know about the topic (first paragraph), what do we don’t know and why is it important – the research gap(second paragraph), what question do you want to answer and what is the research aim (third paragraph), which methodology you followed to answer the question and what are the main results (fourth paragraph). Readers want to go through these topics very quickly to decide whether the paper fits their expectations. Moreover, each paragraph requires references to support what you say. This is completely lacking in your text.

2. Moreover, it would help if you showed why the analysis you propose matters. It is not enough to say that your research is the first that analyzes the relationship. You need to support your statements with references published in 2020/2021/2022.

A: However, emotional labor has become a phenomenon that has been discussed a lot in recent times. As it is known, although job satisfaction is not very old as a concept, it has always been a subject that researchers have focused on in terms of content. As will be stated in the following sections of the study, there are studies on the link between these two cases. On the other hand, the phenomenon of communicative rationality put forward by the famous philosopher Habermas is newly channeled to these areas. The phenomenon of communicative rational action is a very serious argument that would provide motivation at the individual-firm level. However, applied studies proving this are very few in the literature. In this study, revealing whether communicative rational action has an effect in this context will contribute to filling this gap in the literature.

Reviewer’s answer: Your introduction needs to show the research gap with the support of previous literature. There are no references supporting your proposal. Although you may be right, the scientific literature advances based on previous studies, and the research gaps these studies recommend.  Please see other papers published in this journal and other well-ranked journals to verify this standard and improve your paper.

3. Unfortunately, the literature review of your study is outdated, and several references are not in English. This prevents most readers from understanding your sources. Whether you want to increase the chances of your paper, you need to completely rewrite the literature review using recent papers and replace the papers published in non-English journals with papers published in international journals.

A: It’s done.

Reviewer’s answer: Thank you for your efforts. What I don’t like is that in some sentences you add more than 20 references, while in many others you don’t have references. For instance, see line 210 where you cite more than 20 references. Please consider only the most relevant. The total number of references is not that important.

4. Moreover, the literature review is too long, and you don’t present the research hypothesis.  I recommend you to work on a focused literature review and present each hypothesis with solid support from previous literature.

A: It’s done.

Reviewer’s answer: The literature review is now longer than in the first version and the research hypotheses are not there. Why have you added them to the method? Please see other papers published in this journal and other well-ranked journals to verify how hypotheses should be presented and theoretically supported. So, here you have two important tasks: (1) reduce the literature review and write it in a simpler and more sophisticated form; (2) present the research hypotheses with theoretical support.

5. You don’t describe where the questions that composed your questionnaire came from. Have you used validated measures? Who validated the questionnaire? This information should be presented in the method section and not in the results.

A: It’s done.  

Reviewer’s answer: The items for your questionnaire (which should be an appendix of your study) come from an article (book?) published in Turkish which I, unfortunately, cannot follow (“The Emotional Labor Scale is a 19-item scale taken from Ö z's study [107]”). This prevents me from analyzing your research.

6. The discussion section doesn’t discuss the results based on the previous literature. Please note that you don’t have a single reference mentioned in this section. How do your results contribute to the literature? To which previous studies does your study add new insights? Do you confirm or confront the extant literature?

A: It’s done.

Reviewer’s answer: The discussion is still very weak. Please note that you cite a total of 113 articles in your paper but use only seven of them in the discussion. The discussion section is the most important since the results need to establish a conversation with the literature review.

7. What are the theoretical and practical implications of your study? You should clearly state the novelty of your study. Besides the theoretical implication, you should explain how managers can benefit from your study, i.e. practical implications.

A: It’s done.

Reviewer’s answer: ok

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

1. The introduction of your manuscript lacks references to previous literature. For example, you mention “many domestic and foreign studies” but never cite them. You should clearly state a research gap based on the literature. 

A: The mentioned expressions have been removed from the text as they do not affect the course of the text and the content.

Reviewer’s answer: Dear authors, thank you for sending the revised version. Although I see your efforts in improving the manuscript, there are still serious flaws that you need to solve. Please note that you don’t have references in your introduction. Writing a good introduction in four or five paragraphs requires a sort of sophistication: what do we know about the topic (first paragraph), what do we don’t know and why is it important – the research gap(second paragraph), what question do you want to answer and what is the research aim (third paragraph), which methodology you followed to answer the question and what are the main results (fourth paragraph). Readers want to go through these topics very quickly to decide whether the paper fits their expectations. Moreover, each paragraph requires references to support what you say. This is completely lacking in your text.

A: We tried to make the necessary arrangements in line with your comments and suggestions. Your contribution is really important to us. We think you have greatly improved our work. Thank you

2. Moreover, it would help if you showed why the analysis you propose matters. It is not enough to say that your research is the first that analyzes the relationship. You need to support your statements with references published in 2020/2021/2022.

A: However, emotional labor has become a phenomenon that has been discussed a lot in recent times. As it is known, although job satisfaction is not very old as a concept, it has always been a subject that researchers have focused on in terms of content. As will be stated in the following sections of the study, there are studies on the link between these two cases. On the other hand, the phenomenon of communicative rationality put forward by the famous philosopher Habermas is newly channeled to these areas. The phenomenon of communicative rational action is a very serious argument that would provide motivation at the individual-firm level. However, applied studies proving this are very few in the literature. In this study, revealing whether communicative rational action has an effect in this context will contribute to filling this gap in the literature.

Reviewer’s answer: Your introduction needs to show the research gap with the support of previous literature. There are no references supporting your proposal. Although you may be right, the scientific literature advances based on previous studies, and the research gaps these studies recommend.  Please see other papers published in this journal and other well-ranked journals to verify this standard and improve your paper.

A: We tried to make the necessary arrangements in line with your comments and suggestions. Thank you!

3. Unfortunately, the literature review of your study is outdated, and several references are not in English. This prevents most readers from understanding your sources. Whether you want to increase the chances of your paper, you need to completely rewrite the literature review using recent papers and replace the papers published in non-English journals with papers published in international journals.

A: It’s done.

Reviewer’s answer: Thank you for your efforts. What I don’t like is that in some sentences you add more than 20 references, while in many others you don’t have references. For instance, see line 210 where you cite more than 20 references. Please consider only the most relevant. The total number of references is not that important.

A: We tried to make the necessary arrangements in line with your comments and suggestions. Thank you

4. Moreover, the literature review is too long, and you don’t present the research hypothesis.  I recommend you to work on a focused literature review and present each hypothesis with solid support from previous literature.

A: It’s done.

Reviewer’s answer: The literature review is now longer than in the first version and the research hypotheses are not there. Why have you added them to the method? Please see other papers published in this journal and other well-ranked journals to verify how hypotheses should be presented and theoretically supported. So, here you have two important tasks: (1) reduce the literature review and write it in a simpler and more sophisticated form; (2) present the research hypotheses with theoretical support.

A: It’s done, thank you.

5. You don’t describe where the questions that composed your questionnaire came from. Have you used validated measures? Who validated the questionnaire? This information should be presented in the method section and not in the results.

A: It’s done.  

Reviewer’s answer: The items for your questionnaire (which should be an appendix of your study) come from an article (book?) published in Turkish which I, unfortunately, cannot follow (“The Emotional Labor Scale is a 19-item scale taken from Ö z's study [107]”). This prevents me from analyzing your research.

A: Its done, thank you

6. The discussion section doesn’t discuss the results based on the previous literature. Please note that you don’t have a single reference mentioned in this section. How do your results contribute to the literature? To which previous studies does your study add new insights? Do you confirm or confront the extant literature?

A: It’s done.

Reviewer’s answer: The discussion is still very weak. Please note that you cite a total of 113 articles in your paper but use only seven of them in the discussion. The discussion section is the most important since the results need to establish a conversation with the literature review.

A: We improved. Thank you!

7. What are the theoretical and practical implications of your study? You should clearly state the novelty of your study. Besides the theoretical implication, you should explain how managers can benefit from your study, i.e. practical implications.

A: It’s done.

Reviewer’s answer: ok

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors!

Thank you for the opportunity to read your article! All of my concerns were adressed and corrected.

Just one thing : the referencing is still not appropriate in some cases. 

- Line 207: should be ...19-35] and .... 36-38]

- Line 210: ...change to ...47-62]

- Line 428: [90-92]

- Line 466: ...96-98]

- Line 467: ...98-100]

Check the full article please.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Thank you for the opportunity to read your article! All of my concerns were adressed and corrected.

Just one thing : the referencing is still not appropriate in some cases. 

- Line 207: should be ...19-35] and .... 36-38]

- Line 210: ...change to ...47-62]

- Line 428: [90-92]

- Line 466: ...96-98]

- Line 467: ...98-100]

A: We tried to make the necessary arrangements in line with your comments and suggestions. Your contribution is really important to us. We think you have greatly improved our work. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx