Women’s Risk-Taking Behaviour during COVID-19 Pandemic: Will Work–Family Enrichment and Work Satisfaction Prevent Turnover Intention?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity of reviewing this paper, which I found very interesting and very well written. I appreciated the focus on Indonesia (a society that I don’t know much) and the use of non-Western references in the theoretical argumentation, which often colonize the scientific debate.

I think this is a very nice contribution for the study of the post-pandemic labor market gender inequalities and more generally, to the study of women’s motivation for their economic participation.

I suggest only some minor points that could be addressed for improving the paper:

Introduction

This is very well done, but a short paragraph introducing the main characteristics of Indonesian society. The author(s) refer to them in the course of the paper (e.g., with reference to the collectivist culture, stratified…).  This information would fit very nicely in the introduction so that any reader can more easily understand your arguments (and also the hypotheses etc).

Always in the introduction (and always to not give for granted that readers know in detail Indonesian society), details on the female economic participation could me more precise. For example, by adding rates when you talk about job losses (lines34-36) and the share of women working in the tourism sector (lines 37-39).this, which I often study

I found a bit redundant the repetition of the core research question (why women remain in the job), which is recalled about four times between 55 and 72.  Maybe this can be smoothed a bit.

As a Western scholar, I found extremely interesting the stress on family wellbeing which is put in relation with work-life balance. Not that this is not important in the West! But it is very often thematized as something that it is more an individual matter (so the woman, or the man that ahs to find the way to combine her/his multiple roles, then final goal is also family wellbeing (economic/moral..), but I think you are deeply right when stating that the individual part is much more prominent. I think this different perspective, which you already mention, can be more emphasized. For example, around line 89, when you start referring to previous contributions on work-life enrichment (a new way of conceptualize this for me, which I study this topic in the framework of “balance” or “re-conciliation”2, while other others use “conflict”), you can add a few lines explaining your approach and what it is different from the typical Western way of intending the relation between work and family, right because cultures are very different and prevailing values in society set different priorities in life and different ways of conceptualizing this crucial relation. On the topic of societal prevailing values, you can have a look ad Schwartz’ work (he started with human values, to expand his theory to cultural values)

Schwartz, S. (2006). A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2), 137–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Results and Discussion

No particular remarks

Material and Methods

I guess the position of this section at the end of the paper is due to the journal style, but it would fit very well also before the results section.

Regarding the methodology used, it would be good to add how the survey was administered (like: how did you get the respondents to answer/ how they got the link, did you contacted HR to get their contacts? Or the hotels forwarded to the respondents? (do you think that there was the risk of some sort of “filtering”, or they gave it to all of the employed women in their structures?).

 

Author Response

Dear Respected  Reviewer,

We  do our   best  to meet  your   request and hope  that our work  is satisfying.

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author (s)

Thank you for developing a manuscript in the area that needs further investigation. Review comments given below may help you to improve the manuscript. 

All The best!

Reviewer

 

 

Abstract

Please expand the term SEM.

Introduction section

The author should be more precise on the research gap, research question, and motivation of the study.

Please refer to P2: L-56-57: Please restructure the statement for better clarity.

P3-L128: Please review. However,…….as per …..

Results Section

The model seems rather very simple. The author may explain the reasons for using those specific variables in the study. The other interesting constructs like competitive psychological climate, perceived organizational support, organizational cynicism, employee attitude, and job pride have been left out.

Figure 1 is not clearly visible. The caption of the Figure in P-5 is missing.  

The study misses some recent papers on turnover intention and few others, the author may have to look at the following studies:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.006

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104429

Materials and Methods

In the current manuscript, this section is placed before the conclusion section. It should be placed after the “Introduction” section. The method should elaborate merits of using structural equation modeling (SEM). Please check some recent  papers which applied SEM: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1007959 ; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103409; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112941

The authors didn’t discuss the software used to validate the conceptual model. They are advised to do the needful.

 

 

Please elaborate on the sampling techniques used in the study.

Discussion

The discussion section should be linked with previous studies and future directions.

Conclusion

 

Please highlight the uniqueness of this study.

Author Response

Dear Respected  Reviewer,

We  do our   best  to meet  your   request and hope  that our work  is satisfying.

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for working on the suggestions to improve the manuscript. It is in much better shape. In the first round, I suggested placing 'Material and Methods' after the introduction section. Ideally, the analysis section should follow the material and methods section. The concern still remains unaddressed. Also, suggested papers on SEM were not referred to. Please do the needful to address the concerns given below:

Materials and Methods

In the current manuscript, this section is placed before the conclusion section. It should be placed after the “Introduction” section. The method should elaborate merits of using structural equation modeling (SEM). Please check some recent  papers which applied SEM: 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1007959 ;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103409;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112941

All the best!

Author Response

Dear  respected reviewers.

Thanks  for time to provide insight  for our paper betterment. We try to  address the things that are   still being   your   concern.

Hopefully  we  have accommodated  all the concerns.

 

Thanks,

 

Authors.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf