搜索
AMR‐09‐0402.R2 Comments to editors and reviewers I have now received and considered the reviews of your revised manuscript submitted to AcademyofManagementReview“HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEMS AND HELPING IN ORGANIZATIONS: A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE” (Manuscript AMR‐09‐0402.R1). All three of your reviewers agree that your manuscript has made good progress and you’ve made a good effort to respond to their earlier concerns. We all appreciate the clearer focus on the linkages between HR systems and helping and recognize the time and energies you put into this revision. Your reviewers also agree that at this stage, several issues remain. I share the opinion that your revised manuscript is much improved and that you undertook great effort to be responsive to the earlier feedback. And, while I agree there are still some issues to address, I believe these issues can be addressed with relatively moderate additional effort and thus, I am pleased to conditionallyacceptyourmanuscriptforpublicationinAMRsubject to the changes below. Congratulations! I will not be returning your revised manuscript to the reviewers, but instead will be ensuring the remaining changes are made on their behalf. In terms of the remaining changes I’d like you to make, it is important that you consider all the comments made by the reviewers but I would like to highlight the primary factors that I believe are necessary to move forward. I would like you to focus your energies on the points I note below. DearProfessorLepak:Thankyouforthepositivefeedbackandconditionallyacceptingourpaper.Inthisroundofrevision,wefocusedoureffortsstronglyonthepointsmadeinyourletter.Below,wegroupedactionstakeninresponsetoyourcomments,organizedunderthemajorheadingssupplied.Asbefore,weattemptedtobesuccinctwhilefullyexplainingouractions.Althoughwereplieddirectlytoyouandfocusedourexplanationsonpointsraisedinyourletter,wetookseriouslyandaddressedinsomewayeachofthereviewercomments.GivenyourrequestforanAugust1deadlineandyourpatiencewaitingforourfirstrevision,wewantedtomakeeveryefforttoreturnthisrevisionaspromptlyaspossible.Sinceyouremailinquiringaboutourreturningtherevisionearly,mycolleagues’andmyschedulesalignedsuchthatwewereabletomakethisrevisionourtoppriority.Wehavedevotedmostofourworking(andnonworking)daystotherevision.Asaresult,weareabletoreturnthepaperearlierthanweestimated.Yourandthereviewers’commentshaveagainstimulatedchangeswefeelfurtherimprovedthepaper.Shouldyoufindthepaperrequiresfurtherclarificationorrevision,wemostcertainlystandreadytodoso.Bestregards,KevinMossholder Propositions.One of the more significant concerns that remain for the reviewers and myself relates to the propositions in your manuscript. For example, reviewer 1 (Comment 2) writes, “Thewayinwhichallthepropositionsarecurrentlystatedisclumsy,convoluted,andwouldbenefitfromsimplification.Ineachcaseyoumightremovetheintermediaryclimateinformation,asthisiscontainedintheprecedingparagraphs.Pleaseseethefollowingexamples:…P1a:InacomplianceHRsystem,helpingbehaviorismotivatedbyself‐interestandinstrumentality.(removethe“willleadtoamarketpricingclimateinwhich”)…P2a:InacollaborationHRsystem,helpingbehaviorismotivatedbyin‐kindreciprocityandmaintainedbybalancedexchanges(remove“willleadtoanequalitymatchingclimate”)…P1eisincomplete.Constrainedbywhatortowhat?” Reviewer 3 (Comments 4‐6) raises similar concerns and writes, “Theveryfirstpropositionregardinghelpingindicatesthathelpingwillbe“constrained.”Thisisnottestableasstated.Constrainedrelativetowhat?…AllofthepropositionsregardingriskwerewordedinawaythatIbelieverendersthemimpossibletotest(1c,2c,and3c).Iunderstandrisktobeoneofthedimensionsofrelationalclimate,soyoucannotsimplydeletethesepropositions.PerhapstheycouldberewordedtoindicatethatperceivedriskwillbegreaterforXthanforY?...Thecausalmodelofhrsystems‐relationalclimates‐helpingisneverpresented,andtheabstractevenhintsthatyouarenotproposingmediation.Iwouldthinkthatatleastpartialmediationisexpectedhere,andthatlogicshouldpermeatethemanuscript(abstract,introductiontobigpicturemodel,propositions,andperhapsevenafigure).Isthereareasonthatyouareshyingawayfromproposingmediation?” I’m not exactly certain as to what the best course of action is and I do not want to impose specific wording on how you structure your propositions. Having said that, I think it is imperative that you do address these concerns regarding the structure of your propositions. I believe this is doable with some effort to get to the essence of each proposition and to present clear and testable propositions. FollowingR1’ssuggestion,werewordedthe“a”through“d”propositionstoeliminatethephrasecontainingintermediaryclimateinformation.Wethinkthisrefinementimprovestheirclarity.Wealsoimprovedthewordingofthe“e”and“f”propositionsaswell.Wealsoalteredall“c”propositions(i.e.,thosedealingwithrisk)inresponsetoR3’scomment5.Whereasthepreviouswordingofthesepropositionssimplydescribedrisksassociatedwithhelpingineachclimate,therevisedwordingindicatesemployeeswillperceivehelp