Dual Commitment to Leader and Organization: Alternative Models Based on the Employees’ Emotional Awareness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper focusing on a timely topic and aiming to bring conceptual clarity to a very popular work attitude: commitment. I like that the authors are looking at two models and comparing their validity.
However, the writing of the paper needs significant improvement. Many sentences are missing verbs or subjects and it is hard to make sense. Authors can start with correcting "focis"; the word "foci" is the plural of the word "focus" and hence there is no such word as "focis".
As for hypothesis 1, 2, and 3a, 3b, I can see separately the literature review of organizational commitment, and the literature review of emotional awareness. However, there is no clear argument connecting emotional awareness to organizational commitment (hypothesis 2) and neither is there an argument connecting emotional awareness to affective commitment to the leader (hypothesis 1). Why should we expect these relationships to be true? Authors need to make a clear cut case as to why these constructs must be related to each other.
For example, I may be an emotionally aware employee but that does not mean I will be committed affectively to my leader, and in fact just the opposite may be true.
The authors do not discuss hypothesis 2 for Model 1.
In Model 2, they switch the places of dependent variable and the mediator.
I am unclear which model is a better fit to data. So is Affective Commitment to leader a mediator or is organizational commitment the mediator? What is the statistical evidence of a mediation relationship?
The results section of the paper need to be re-written to be clear and concise. Currently, the reader cannot tell how the authors reached the conclusions they claim through their analyses.
The discussion section needs to focus on why model 1 is a better predictor model.
Further, in discussion section, under the section of Theoretical and Practical considerations, there is no discussion of emotional awareness, but the models include this variable.
Again, it is very hard to understand the English of the paper. There are several conceptual deficiencies and empirical vagueness that need to be addressed.
Author Response
This is an interesting paper focusing on a timely topic and aiming to bring conceptual clarity to a very popular work attitude: commitment. I like that the authors are looking at two models and comparing their validity.
R: Thank you for your positive words, we find also very interesting this topic and we have improved the original manuscript considering your comments and the others reviewer´s comments as well. We hope you will appreciate it.
All the changes are in green in the new version of the manuscript.
However, the writing of the paper needs significant improvement. Many sentences are missing verbs or subjects and it is hard to make sense. Authors can start with correcting "focis"; the word "foci" is the plural of the word "focus" and hence there is no such word as "focis".
R: Thank you for your alert, in the new version of the manuscript you can find the corrections.
As for hypotheses 1, 2, and 3a, 3b, I can see separately the literature review of organizational commitment, and the literature review of emotional awareness. However, there is no clear argument connecting emotional awareness to organizational commitment (hypothesis 2) and neither is there an argument connecting emotional awareness to affective commitment to the leader (hypothesis 1). Why should we expect these relationships to be true? Authors need to make a clear cut case as to why these constructs must be related to each other. For example, I may be an emotionally aware employee but that does not mean I will be committed affectively to my leader, and in fact just the opposite may be true.
R: Thank you for your analysis and advice. As you can see in the new version of the manuscript, we had into consideration your recommendations and we improved the theoretical framework that supports the hypotheses and link the logical sequence of this research, especially, the relationship between emotional awareness and the two foci of commitment.
The authors do not discuss hypothesis 2 for Model 1.
R: As you can see in the new version of the manuscript is now discussed the topic you refer to. However, the relationship between the independent variable with the two foci of commitment is the same on both models, once what changes is the mediator commitment foci. Also, we underline that this study aims particularly to compare two different models in order to identify the dynamic between the two foci of commitment (as suggested by many researchers of commitment. See van Rossenberg et al., 2022), from what we pretend to understand which has more explanatory power, and consequently more influence on employees’ commitment process. Emotional Awareness is an independent variable necessary (methodological and mathematically) to take this approach ahead and analyze the relationship between the constructs and their dimensions.
In Model 2, they switch the places of dependent variable and the mediator.
R: The objective of this study is to compare two different models to identify which of them has greater explanatory power, in order to understand which of them has a greater influence on employees’ commitment process. Following that, Model 1 reflects the Affective Commitment to the Leader influencing the Organizational Commitment. Model 2 reflects the Organizational Commitment influencing the Affective Commitment with the Leader. In other words, we aimed to understand if Affective Commitment to the Leader has a greater influence on employees’ Organizational Commitment, or the opposite, the employee’s Organizational Commitment has a greater influence on the employee’s Affective Commitment to the Leader. In this perspective, each model represents one alternative, and the dependent variable on Model 1 takes a new position on Model 2, passing from dependent to a mediator, to create the alternative model and make possible the comparison.
I am unclear which model is a better fit to data. So is Affective Commitment to leader a mediator or is organizational commitment the mediator? What is the statistical evidence of a mediation relationship?
R: In the study, we identified that both of them are mediators, but the Affective Commitment to the Leader has greater explanatory power on the process of commitment, as you can see in “Table 3” which compares the statistical evidence of both Models. As mentioned, findings suggested that Final Model 1 presents a more significant explicative influence on the process of commitment than Final Model 2, establishing even more structural relationships between employees’ emotional awareness and affective commitment to the leader influencing organizational commitment. In other words, employees’ commitment is stronger to the organization when they are affectively committed to the leader. However, when employees are committed to the organization not necessarily tend to commit affectively to the leader, and in that case, companies lost a focus of commitment that brings value on retaining talent.
The results section of the paper need to be re-written to be clear and concise. Currently, the reader cannot tell how the authors reached the conclusions they claim through their analyses.
R: Thank you for the feedback, we improved the results session and in the new version of the manuscript, you can find the changes in green.
The discussion section needs to focus on why model 1 is a better predictor model.
R: Thank you for the feedback, we improved the discussion session, and in the new version of the manuscript you can find the changes in green.
Further, in discussion section, under the section of Theoretical and Practical considerations, there is no discussion of emotional awareness, but the models include this variable.
R: Thank you for the feedback, we improved the Theoretical and Practical considerations, more specifically the emotional awareness, and in the new version of the manuscript you can find the changes in green. However, we underline that this study aims particularly to compare two different models to analyze the dynamic between these two foci of commitment (as suggested by many researchers of commitment), to understand which of them has more explanatory power and consequently more influence on employees’ commitment process. Emotional Awareness is an independent variable necessary (methodological and mathematically) to take this approach ahead and analyze the dynamic/relationship between these foci of commitment.
Again, it is very hard to understand the English of the paper.
R: Thank you for your alert, we made an extensive review of the manuscript. The new version is now improved according to your feedback.
There are several conceptual deficiencies and empirical vagueness that need to be addressed.
R: Thank you for your analysis and advice. As you can see in the new version of the manuscript, we had into consideration your recommendations, and we improved the conceptual perspective.
Relatively to the empirical aspect, we assume that your feeling is related to a contextualization need about the type of study, which can be crucial to facilitate the interpretation of empirical results. Improvements can be found in the new version. In terms of methodology, we used LISREL to perform structural equation modelling with a multidimensional approach to organizational commitment (which is rare and highly recommended, because usually, the studies focus only affective dimension of organizational commitment. (See van Rossenberg et al., 2022)). Moreover, we also analysed the dynamic between two different foci of commitment (what is rare and highly recommended once it is a gap in studies of commitment, as you can see in van Rossenberg et al., 2022). For this study, we follow all the recommendations for this type of study, which is the comparison of different models to identify the dynamics and structural relationships between the constructs.
Reviewer 2 Report
The English written expression needs to be improved. There are mistakes and sentences which are hard to understand which negatively impact the reader's ability to appreciate the findings and conclusions. Moreover, there is quite a bit of overlap between the Results and the Discussion sections - I think this overlap can be reduced for improved readability and coherence. The Limitations section should address the fact that only companies in Portugal were included in the study; while the companies are described as "multinational", no information is provided about the participants' nationalities which raises the questions: a) to what extent should we assume most participants are Portuguese, and b) to what extent is this a factor to consider?
Author Response
The English written expression needs to be improved. There are mistakes and sentences which are hard to understand which negatively impact the reader's ability to appreciate the findings and conclusions. Moreover, there is quite a bit of overlap between the Results and the Discussion sections - I think this overlap can be reduced for improved readability and coherence.
R: Thank you for your alert, we made an extensive review of the manuscript. The new version is now improved according to your feedback relatively to English and some mistakes. We also improved the results and the discussion sessions according to your feedback and in the new version of the manuscript, you can find the changes in green.
The Limitations section should address the fact that only companies in Portugal were included in the study; while the companies are described as "multinational", no information is provided about the participants' nationalities which raises the questions: a) to what extent should we assume most participants are Portuguese, and b) to what extent is this a factor to consider?
R: Relatively to the sample, we choose specifically a Portuguese and a French multinationals, from different sectors, (distribution: 3,000 employees and retail sectors: (14,000 employees), to ensure a diverse sample and to avoid cultural limitations. Also, we include in the study 107 respondents belonging to different companies.
According to the calculation of samples for finite populations, we can consider that the sample of 403 is representative of the population of 17,000 and sample error less than 5%.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting paper with research findings that are crucially important to organizations in this period where we are exciting COVID and in which employees are leaving companies because there are many other opportunities. It is also important in a time when the CEO longevity is shortening. A definition of leader may be important to future research since employees could align with leaders one level down from the CEO.
The paper needs a editor to correct grammatical and sentence structure errors as there are too many of them currently to be published.
A few examples:
toward a specific foci,
organization have been
trol. [50]. proposed
on the [47]. to the Portuguese population
For that reason, were established two 150 different models (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). For that reason, were established the hypoth-esis 3a (see Figure 1) and 3b (see Figure 2).
asked if y were performed
Author Response
This is an interesting paper with research findings that are crucially important to organizations in this period where we are exciting COVID and in which employees are leaving companies because there are many other opportunities. It is also important in a time when the CEO longevity is shortening. A definition of leader may be important to future research since employees could align with leaders one level down from the CEO.
R: Thank you for your positive words, we find also very interesting this topic, and we have improved the original manuscript considering your comments and the others reviewer´s comments as well. We hope you will appreciate it. All the changes are in green in the new version of the manuscript.
The paper needs an editor to correct grammatical and sentence structure errors as there are too many of them currently to be published.
R: Thank you for your alert, we made an extensive review of the manuscript. The new version is now improved according to your feedback.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have addressed my feedback thoroughly. Thank you.
