Review Reports

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your research is fascinating I will recommend it to my colleagues.

Sustainability- Ambidextrous Leadership, Social entrepreneurial orientation, and Operational Performance

This article examines the concept of ambidextrous leadership and its connection to social entrepreneurial orientation, and how this affects operational performance. However, I believe a minor revision is necessary before resubmission.

Abstract

The abstract is well structured and covers the key ideas discussed in the article, as well as a brief outline of the main concept: ambidextrous leadership. Moreover, the used method (literature review) is as well mentioned.

Findings, originality and value

The topic is current and pertinent because the article examines a new leadership form, adjusted to the new knowledge era and new organization requirements. It presents as well how this new way of leadership affects operational performance in firms.

Introduction

The main topic of the paper is presented to the reader through a well-structured description of the information. Furthermore, both the purpose and structure of the manuscript are well exposed.

 However, In the first part of the introduction, the word “Entrepreneurship” is repeated too many times. A synonym or pronoun could be written instead in order to offer the reader a more consistent lecture.

Theory and hypotheses

 In line 96, another introductory sentence could be more suitable to start this paragraph rather than “By comparing these definitions…”, because the definitions are presented afterwards.

 The titles of tables and figures should be included in the same page as the table itself.  

Method

 Since it is a literatura review, it is not necessary to include a specific section for this part.

Conclusion and findings

Conclusions are complete and concise. Moreover, a subpart for the contribution is included, as well as study limitations and future lines of research.

Change titles that are at the end of a page to the following one.

Revise the spelling mistake in the following sentence:

This affirmation can encourage other companies to adopt strategies that include an social entrepreneurial orientation to improve performance.

References

The bibliography is sound, with relevant papers from the literature.

Spelling and grammar errors

I didn’t spot any gramatical or spelling mistake

Congratulations

Author Response

This article examines the concept of ambidextrous leadership and its connection to social entrepreneurial orientation, and how this affects operational performance. However, I believe a minor revision is necessary before resubmission. 

Abstract 

The abstract is well structured and covers the key ideas discussed in the article, as well as a brief outline of the main concept: ambidextrous leadership. Moreover, the used method (literature review) is as well mentioned.

Findings, originality and value 

The topic is current and pertinent because the article examines a new leadership form, adjusted to the new knowledge era and new organization requirements. It presents as well how this new way of leadership affects operational performance in firms. 

Introduction 

The main topic of the paper is presented to the reader through a well- structured description of the information. Furthermore, both the purpose and structure of the manuscript are well exposed. 

However, In the first part of the introduction, the word “Entrepreneurship” is repeated too many times. A synonym or pronoun could be written instead in order to offer the reader a more consistent lecture. 

Answer: We thank the referees for their helpful comments, which have certainly improved the quality of the paper. You are completely right. A synonym is used instead in order to give a more consistent view to the reader. 

Theory and hypotheses 

In line 96, another introductory sentence could be more suitable to start this paragraph rather than “By comparing these definitions...”, because the definitions are presented afterwards. 

Answer: We totally agree. We have adapted this sentence by another one much more suitable to the context.

The titles of tables and figures should be included in the same page as the table itself. 

Answer: We have adapted it to your suggestion. 

Method 

Since it is a literatura review, it is not necessary to include a specific section for this part. 

Conclusion and findings 

Conclusions are complete and concise. Moreover, a subpart for the contribution is included, as well as study limitations and future lines of research. 

Change titles that are at the end of a page to the following one. 

Answer: We have adapted it to your suggestion. 

Revise the spelling mistake in the following sentence: 

This affirmation can encourage other companies to adopt strategies that include an social entrepreneurial orientation to improve performance. 

Answer: Thank you for noticing and informing this error. 

References 

The bibliography is sound, with relevant papers from the literature. 

Spelling and grammar errors 

I didn’t spot any gramatical or spelling mistake 

Congratulations 

Answer: We really thank you for your detailed comments and appreciate your suggestions. According to your review, we have adapted and improved the quality of our manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of social entrepreneurship has become more actual according to present global environment.

According to context of the paper, authors used comparative qualitative research, but in the paper there is lack of research description, employed by authors. I recommend to add the research method's description.

From point of formal requirements there are two "errors" I would like to mention:

In the paper there are no quotation of references 24 and 25. All mentioned references must be cited.

Figure 2 needs to be redesign beacuase some parts are covered.

From whole point of view, the topic of the social entrepreneurship will reach higher interests because of the situatin in global society. I consider, that for purpose of the research is relevant to use qualitative research approaches, but for accepting paper as scientific it is fundamental requirement.

For accept recommendation there must be correct quotations of the sources and figure 2, and add description of the research method.

Author Response

The topic of social entrepreneurship has become more actual according to present global environment. According to context of the paper, authors used comparative qualitative research, but in the paper there is lack of research description, employed by authors. I recommend to add the research method's description. 

Answer:We thank the referee for the valuable contribution and we definitely agree to your proposal. Therefore, we have included a description of the method used in the manuscript (literature review).

From point of formal requirements there are two "errors" I would like to mention: 

In the paper there are no quotation of references 24 and 25. All mentioned references must be cited. 

Answer: You are completely right. Those references have been simply eliminated, since no citation was expressed in the text. 

Figure 2 needs to be redesign beacuase some parts are covered. 

Answer: A new design has been adapted in order to give the reader a clearer view of the concepts. 

From whole point of view, the topic of the social entrepreneurship will reach higher interests because of the situatin in global society. I consider, that for purpose of the research is relevant to use qualitative research approaches, but for accepting paper as scientific it is fundamental requirement. For accept recommendation there must be correct quotations of the sources and figure 2, and add description of the research method. 

Answer:We really thank you for your detailed suggestions. We have adapted the manuscript to every comment and improvement you have mentioned.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with an interesting research topic, with current relevance, so more investigation in the area is clearly welcome. Also, and considering the number of recent studies in the subject, a comprehensive compilation of results from a rigorous literature review is convenient. 

I have some minor suggestions for the authors to improve the manuscript:

1.In the Introduction, I suggest the authors to strengthen the explanation regarding the aim of the investigation, the gap in the literature they are trying to fill, including a brief description of the method they adopt to reach that objective (literature review)

2.In the Theoretical Framework, I suggest the authors to revise the structure and formatting of the section. In particular:

a.Formatting of Figure 2 should be revised

b.Formatting of subsection headers should be revised. For instance, headers of subsections 2.1 and 2.2. are not consistent

c.Numbering of subsection headers should be revised. For instance, subsection 2.2. is used twice (I guess the second one is meant to be 2.2.1)

3.Section 3 seems too short. Maybe, the authors should consider combining sections 3 and 4, with appropriate subsections.

4.In the Conclusions section, I suggest the authors to strengthen the guidelines for future research, especially from an empirical point of view.

Overall, I think this an interesting manuscript.

Author Response

The manuscript deals with an interesting research topic, with current relevance, so more investigation in the area is clearly welcome. Also, and considering the number of recent studies in the subject, a comprehensive compilation of results from a rigorous literature review is convenient. 

Answer: Thank you very much for your contribution. We really appreciate it. As we explain in the section “future lines of research”, there is much more to study and analyse in depth regardging this topic, since it is being increasingly relevant. 

I have some minor suggestions for the authors to improve the manuscript: 

1.In the Introduction, I suggest the authors to strengthen the explanation regarding the aim of the investigation, the gap in the literature they are trying to fill, including a brief description of the method they adopt to reach that objective (literature review) 

Answer: We agree with this statement, then the reader can get a deeper insight into the manuscript’s purpose and objective. Moreover, an explation of the used method was necessary. We have adapted this part to your suggestions. 

2.In the Theoretical Framework, I suggest the authors to revise the structure and formatting of the section. In particular: 

a.Formatting of Figure 2 should be revised 

Answer: A new design has been adapted in order to give the reader a clearer view of the concepts.

b.Formatting of subsection headers should be revised. For instance, headers of subsections 2.1 and 2.2. are not consistent 

c.Numbering of subsection headers should be revised. For instance, subsection 2.2. is used twice (I guess the second one is meant to be 2.2.1) 

Answer: Consistency among paragraphs and sections has been revisited in detail.

3.Section 3 seems too short. Maybe, the authors should consider combining sections 3 and 4, with appropriate subsections. 

Answer: That’s a very good point. We have merged both sections in one, according to your suggestion. 

4.In the Conclusions section, I suggest the authors to strengthen the guidelines for future research, especially from an empirical point of view. 

Overall, I think this an interesting manuscript. 

Answer: We really thank you for your detailed comments and appreciate your suggestions. We also believe the need for emphasizing the future lines of research from an empirical point of view. In light of your comments, we have made several changes, which in our opinion have notably improved the manuscript.