Sculpting Leadership on Employees’ Craft: The Conceptual Framework and Measure of Crafting Leadership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First the paper is well written and makes a very good contribution  to the literature on leadership styles. I love the development of a new leadership style and how this was tested.  I want to suggest some areas of minor revision as detailed below.

 

The Introduction section is well crafted and brings out the contribution of the study

The literature section is well written

 

Materials and method

 

A little bit of discussion on the research design, research area, population, sampling, sample size and data collection method and how data was collected. In addition, a little additional detail of how common method variance was handled will improve the study

 

I am satisfied with the results and discussion sections

I want to advise that the last section should be titled conclusion and different sections created for  theoretical contribution, practical implications and limitations and future research

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The Introduction section (1) should be combined with the Theoretical Framework section (2) or the Literature Review section should be added (instead of Theoretical Framework). The review should be supplemented with literature from 2022-2024). Enter the elements of the Introduction: the significance of the problem (literature background and reference to the research topic); research gap; clear research objectives. Literature Review - enter the databases you used and when. Too extensive theory, which causes the purpose of the study to be lost sight of.

2. Methods section: add information about the comparison of the validated questionnaire with another similar questionnaire (already validated). Clearly enter the purpose of the study and the research problem. Enter the method of selecting the research sample. Was a random or non-random sampling used? Clearly enter the data.

3. Enter the Conclusions section. Clearly state whether it was confirmed that the validated questionnaire is a tool with high measurement validity and reliability. Determine the diagnostic value of the developed questionnaire.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your manuscript. I find it excellently developed and presented. Wishing you good luck with your further research!

I have several small editorial comments:

1) Please read once again the whole text carefully for apparently incomplete sentences, such as:

·         Lines 184-185: “Given the exponential increase in leadership models (Bormann and Roswold, 2018), reviewing all of them within the scope of this article.” – is this meant to be “is not within the scope ..”?

·         Lines 438-439: “..if these are than .80 there is no evidence of discriminant validity problems;..” – is this meant to be “if these are less than .80 there is no evidence of discriminant validity problems; ..”?

2) Study 1 and Study 2:

·         Adding the time/period when data were collected (Study 1 and Study 2) could help contextualise the analysis performed. Was there a time gap between the two studies (potentially the same people answering both questionnaires) – and if so, does that impact in any way the results?

·         There seems to be a discrepancy in the number of respondents in Study 1: Table 2 says n=2173 (also Abstract, Tables 5,6 and 7, Supplementary Materials note) while in Table 3, ESEM group n=1071 and in Table 4, CFA group n=1066 (summing up to 2137). Is there a typo in Table 2 (and the subsequent mentions of the number of respondents) and these should read n=2137? If not, where does the difference come from?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept clarifications and corrections. Author's additions are convincing.