Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting article, but it has serious flaws. I miss the elaboration of definitions of important concepts as ‘knowledge’, ‘knowledge sharing’, ‘knowledge hiding’ and ‘sustainable performance’, ‘employee ambidexterity’. I also miss constructs as ‘tacit knowledge’ and ‘explicit knowledge’, which are also important constructs concerning this study.

Specific comments

Line 53: ‘However, within the domain of knowledge-based research, most studies focus on knowledge sharing (KS) with knowledge hiding (KH), which is meant to interrupt this transfer [11,12]’. Can you please explain this sentence, because it is not clear to me (studies which focus on knowledge sharing with knowledge hiding’?)

Line 69: The two research questions are closed questions, which can be answered with yes or no. Research questions can better be formulated as open questions.

Line 105: The authors write ‘A considerable number of studies regarding knowledge sharing toward sustainable performance in different context is shown in Table 1’. But it is not clear to me why al these studies have to be mentioned, so what the aim is of this table in this article.

Lines 123 and Line 144: what is the difference between ‘effects’ and ‘affects’?

Line 205: I have some problems with this conceptual model. When dealing with knowledge sharing, and measuring this construct with a Likert scale between 1 and 5, a ‘1’ would mean not knowledge sharing. To me, this could mean also ‘not knowledge sharing = knowledge hiding’. In that case, I do not see why ‘knowledge hiding’ would be a moderating variable. So, please be also very carefully with the elaboration of the definitions of the constructs, as I mentioned before.

Line 214: Please, write in full what is meant with the abbreviation SDG.

Line 306: I think Table V must be table 5 (Also see line 384)

Line 342: I think Table IV must be table 4 (Also see line 384)

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

Respected Reviewer

Thanks for your useful comments and constructive suggestions for the revision. As per your suggestion, we revised/corrected the paper.

 

Comment 1: I miss the elaboration of definitions of important concepts as ‘knowledge’, ‘knowledge sharing’, ‘knowledge hiding’ and ‘sustainable performance’, ‘employee ambidexterity’. I also miss constructs as ‘tacit knowledge’ and ‘explicit knowledge’, which are also important constructs concerning this study.

Our response: We added details operational definitions as per the guidelines in research framework.

 

Comment 2: Line 53: ‘However, within the domain of knowledge-based research, most studies focus on knowledge sharing (KS) with knowledge hiding (KH), which is meant to interrupt this transfer [11,12]’. Can you please explain this sentence, because it is not clear to me (studies which focus on knowledge sharing with knowledge hiding’?)

Our response: We addressed these issues and add their relevant texts.

 

Comment 3: The two research questions are closed questions, which can be answered with yes or no. Research questions can better be formulated as open questions.

Our response:  Thank you so much for constructive suggestions. We accordingly revised research questions.

 

Comment 4: The authors write ‘A considerable number of studies regarding knowledge sharing toward sustainable performance in different context is shown in Table 1’. But it is not clear to me why al these studies have to be mentioned, so what the aim is of this table in this article.

Our response: We agreed with reviewer and found very little relevance with the preceding and succeeding sections.

 

Comment 5: Lines 123 and Line 144: what is the difference between ‘effects’ and ‘affects’?

Our response:  We addressed these issues at both places and replaced later with effects for sounding same.

 

Comment 6: Line 205: I have some problems with this conceptual model. When dealing with knowledge sharing, and measuring this construct with a Likert scale between 1 and 5, a ‘1’ would mean not knowledge sharing. To me, this could mean also ‘not knowledge sharing = knowledge hiding’. In that case, I do not see why ‘knowledge hiding’ would be a moderating variable. So, please be also very carefully with the elaboration of the definitions of the constructs, as I mentioned before.

Our response: We specify the operational definitions as per the guidelines in research framework. Additionally, we cleared in the definition that knowledge (not)sharing is not similar to knowledge hiding.

 

Comment 7: Line 214: Please, write in full what is meant with the abbreviation SDG.

Our response: We addressed these issues, added their relevant texts and justification also.

 

Comment 8: Line 306: I think Table V must be table 5 (Also see line 384)

Our response: We specify and corrected it.

 

Comment 9: Line 342: I think Table IV must be table 4 (Also see line 384)

Our response: We responded it.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors address in interesting theme. However, I have some concerns about the article, which I will describe below:

Lines 38-40: I do not understand the sentence. The authors should define the concepts which are addressed along the text, such as “sustainable performance”, “knowledge sharing” or “knowledge hiding” or “employees explorative and exploitative behavior”. Furthermore. Knowledge sharing is one dimension of knowledge management (KM) and, in my opinion, KM should be better explored. The concept of “ambidexterity” and its link with knowledge is not clear to me. Sometimes the authors write employees’ ambidexterity while other times write organizational ambidexterity… The theoretical background is somewhat poor and should be strengthen. It has only 2 paragraphs!!! For example, in lines 103-105 it is claimed that “Specifically, this study proposes that knowledge hiding will moderate the relationship between knowledge sharing and employee ambidexterity.” However, in the theoretical background I do not see any literature addressing such relationship. Furthermore, this and other relations are “condensed” in a table (1). The authors should not go through such “easy way”. They should mention the relevant literature and relate it with the study and the research questions.

Suggestion: merge sections 2 and 3. Why do the authors distinguish theoretical background from literature review?

The conceptual framework should be better supported theoretically. Once again, most concepts are not objectively explained. The authors justify the use of the banking sector with the digital transformation. It is not clear to me what the digital transformation has to do with the paper or even the SDG. In fact, the digital is not mentioned in the literature review. I do consider that the in the banking sector, human resources and knowledge management are critical. Line 225: Where is Appendix A-1? In line 247 the authors write “After an ample review of extant literature, and interviews”. Why did the authors conduct interviews? What type of interviews? Were they recorded? transcribed? The authors should explain. It is strange that H1 is not supported. Perhaps the chosen items are not the best ones. Is there any conceptual problem regarding “sustainable performance”? The conclusion is composed by only a paragraph!!!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

Respected Reviewer

Thanks to reviewer (2) for valuable time and encouraging comments. We appreciate your comments to improve the merit of the paper. As per reviewer’s suggestion, we revised/corrected the paper.

 

Comment 1: Lines 38-40: I do not understand the sentence 10.

Our response: We revised the texts for making the sentence comprehensible.

 

Comment 2: The authors should define the concepts which are addressed along the text, such as “sustainable performance”, “knowledge sharing” or “knowledge hiding” or “employees explorative and exploitative behavior”.

Our response: We addressed these issues by providing operational definitions of each construct.

 

Comment 3: The concept of “ambidexterity” and its link with knowledge is not clear to me. Sometimes the authors write employees’ ambidexterity while other times write organizational ambidexterity…

Our response: We addressed these issues at their relevant texts.

 

Comment 4: The theoretical background is somewhat poor and should be strengthen.

Our response: We addressed it at their relevant texts (Theoretical background of the study).

 

Comment 5: For example, in lines 103-105 it is claimed that “Specifically, this study proposes that knowledge hiding will moderate the relationship between knowledge sharing and employee ambidexterity.” However, in the theoretical background I do not see any literature addressing such relationship.

Our response: Thank you so much for this comment. We noticed the problem now and addressed these issues as pre your guideline.

 

Comment 6: Furthermore, this and other relations are “condensed” in a table (1), The authors should not go through such “easy way”

Our response: We observed serious concerns from other reviewer too. Hence, we deleted the table and cite the related literature in hypothesis development and literature review.

 

Comment 7: They should mention the relevant literature and relate it with the study and the research questions.

Our response: We addressed these issues at their introduction part.

 

Comment 8: Suggestion: merge sections 2 and 3. Why do the authors distinguish theoretical background from literature review?

Our response: We merged section 2 and three together.

 

Comment 9: The conceptual framework should be better supported theoretically. Once again, most concepts are not objectively explained. The authors justify the use of the banking sector with the digital transformation. It is not clear to me what the digital transformation has to do with the paper or even the SDG. In fact, the digital is not mentioned in the literature review. I do consider that the in the banking sector, human resources and knowledge management are critical.

Our response: We addressed these issues at their relevant justification (Research design and method part).

 

Comment 10: Line 225: Where is Appendix A-1? In line 247 the authors write “After an ample review of extant literature, and interviews”. Why did the authors conduct interviews? What type of interviews? Were they recorded? transcribed? The authors should explain.

Our response:  It was error mentioning on Appendix A-1.  Additionally, we took no interview.

 

Comment 11: It is strange that H1 is not supported. Perhaps the chosen items are not the best ones. Is there any conceptual problem regarding “sustainable performance”? The conclusion is composed by only a paragraph!!! 

Our response: It was not strange. Since there is a full mediation effect of employees’ ambidexterity of the influence knowledge sharing on sustainable performance, it is obvious that direct influence of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance turns into insignificant.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper addresses an interesting and very timely research area, investigating the influence of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance. The authors draw on some prior studies, but a much more critical literature analysis is needed to strengthen the paper’s argument and draw out the (theory) gaps they seek to address. Also, the paper needs to be present much stronger discussion and conclusion sections in order to offer value to the reader (with regards to theoretical and practical implications). Overall, the manuscript makes some interesting points and I realize that a lot of work went into this study. Nevertheless, I see room for improvement that will help to enhance clarity, readability, practical and theoretical contributions. The following paragraphs address each section of the paper in more detail and provide suggestions on how to revise the paper.

 

Major concerns:

Introduction:

While the authors establish some links to some extant literature, authors need to establish a more coherent framework for the overall paper. That means, the introduction should clearly indicate the need for this paper in relation to extant research studies. For instance, what do we know (do not know) about knowledge sharing/hiding and its impact on sustainability. Also, the authors need to explain in more detail the link to ambidexterity. Overall, more detailed insights with regards to gaps in extant literature are vital to draw out in this section.

Conceptual background & Theoretical development:

The authors need to establish some clearer links to extant studies. There needs to be a clear link to the vast majority of studies investigating knowledge sharing (hiding) and sustainability before delving deeper into performance implications (please see the studies by Grosvold, Hoejmose, Roehrich, Schaltegger, Walker on this topic – some references are mentioned below). This would help to establish clearly the basis of this paper, before delving deeper into your core concepts. The authors should then clearly draw out the gaps in prior literature. This should then be linked to the discussions around the factors affecting sustainable performance. Plaining stating that knowledge sharing does impact sustainable performance is not sufficient. You need to bring out how and to what degree. Also, which type of knowledge and performance are you measuring/focusing on?

Which theoretical lens would help to explain and bound your research efforts (e.g. KBV, capabilities). The link to ambidexterity isn’t clear at all and needs further clarification (Please see the study by Tamayo-Torres and others as a starting point. Overall, a much clearer positioning of the current study will help to further guide the reader and draw out gap(s) in extant studies.

Methods and Results:

Most methodological issues are addressed, but some further improvements are needed:

# Why was a bank/banking industry selected as the study’s context?; How generalizable are the results given the industry/country context?

# Access to the survey instrument would help to understand better the questions that were asked.

# Results are clearly presented.

Discussions and Conclusions:

Derived from a conceptual background section which did not clearly draw out the gaps the paper seeks to address, the discussion and conclusion sections do offer very little additional value to the reader as it stands. The authors need to offer more fine-grained results here and discuss what they intended to find out in the introduction section (overall aim of the paper). Overall, the authors need to clearly draw out what the theoretical contributions are and how they add to the existing body of knowledge. This section also needs to clear link back to extant studies to offer some clear value to the reader.

Useful references:

Grosvold et al. (2014). Squaring the circle: Management, measurement and performance of sustainability in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 292-305.

Roehrich, J.K. et al. (2017). Driving green supply chain management performance through supplier selection and value internalisation: A self-determination theory perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 489-509.

Tamayo-Torres, J. et al. (2017). Organizational ambidexterity, manufacturing performance and environmental dynamism. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 282-299.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Respected Reviewer

Thank you so much for your comments to improve the merit of the paper. We made revision according to your feedbacks:

 

Comment 1: While the authors establish some links to some extant literature, authors need to establish a more coherent framework for the overall paper. That means, the introduction should clearly indicate the need for this paper in relation to extant research studies. For instance, what do we know (do not know) about knowledge sharing/hiding and its impact on sustainability. Also, the authors need to explain in more detail the link to ambidexterity. Overall, more detailed insights with regards to gaps in extant literature are vital to draw out in this section.

Our response: We added details to support it as per the guidelines in introduction.

 

Comment 2: The authors need to establish some clearer links to extant studies. There needs to be a clear link to the vast majority of studies investigating knowledge sharing (hiding) and sustainability before delving deeper into performance implications (please see the studies by Grosvold, Hoejmose, Roehrich, Schaltegger, Walker on this topic – some references are mentioned below)

Our response: We revised theoretical part and updated references from recent papers.

 

Comment 3: The authors should then clearly draw out the gaps in prior literature. This should then be linked to the discussions around the factors affecting sustainable performance. Plaining stating that knowledge sharing does impact sustainable performance is not sufficient. You need to bring out how and to what degree. Also, which type of knowledge and performance are you measuring/focusing on?

Our response: We responded it and showed in introduction part.

 

Comment 4: Which theoretical lens would help to explain and bound your research efforts (e.g. KBV, capabilities). The link to ambidexterity isn’t clear at all and needs further clarification (Please see the study by Tamayo-Torres and others as a starting point. Overall, a much clearer positioning of the current study will help to further guide the reader and draw out gap(s) in extant studies.

Our response: We added details to support it as per the guidelines in theoretical background and theoretical implications. Particularly, we used Human capital theory, social exchange theory, psychological ownership theory, and self-determination theory to grip the model.

 

Comment 5: Most methodological issues are addressed, but some further improvements are needed:

Our response: We improved this part.

 

Comment 6: Why was a bank/banking industry selected as the study’s context? How generalizable are the results given the industry/country context?

Our response: We responded it at research design and methods.

 

Comment 7: Access to the survey instrument would help to understand better the questions that were asked.

Our response: We eliminated survey instrument to reduce the similarity index.

 

Comment 8: Derived from a conceptual background section which did not clearly draw out the gaps the paper seeks to address, the discussion and conclusion sections do offer very little additional value to the reader as it stands. The authors need to offer more fine-grained results here and discuss what they intended to find out in the introduction section (overall aim of the paper).

Our response: In accordance with the comments, we made major changes in theoretical underpinning, discussion, added theoretical implications.

 

Comment 9 Overall, the authors need to clearly draw out what the theoretical contributions are and how they add to the existing body of knowledge. This section also needs to clear link back to extant studies to offer some clear value to the reader.

Our response: We responded it and highlighted theoretical contributions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a lot with my comments. There is one minor thing to which still attention can be given. Line 86 and further: I see first, second and fourth, but where can I find third?

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

Respected Reviewer

Thanks for your useful comments and constructive suggestions for the revision. As per your suggestion, we revised/corrected the paper.

Comment 1: There is one minor thing to which still attention can be given. Line 86 and further: I see first, second and fourth, but where can I find third?

Our response: Thank you so much for this comment regarding our inadvertent mistake. We added third contribution as per your clarification.

 

Please feel free to contact us for any further concern regarding the paper.

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Best regards,

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made some improvements to the article. However, I still have some concerns about it:

Lines 38-40: I still do not understand the sentence, namely “archiving sustainable performance of competitive advantage”. In the introduction, the concept of “ambidexterity” still is not clear to me. See lines 65-66 in the introduction: “Additionally, ambidexterity pertains to the knack of people's capacity to use their both hands equally at work”. Although the efforts which were made, in the introduction section the research questions address concepts and relationships which are not previously clarified. For example, in the introduction section, the authors are not explicit about what they mean by sustainable performance. Also, see lines 83-85: “there is a lack of research to investigate the relationship between knowledge sharing and employees' ambidexterity concerning sustainable performance”. As I wrote before, such relationship should be better depicted. The concept of Knowledge Management (KM) should be better explored. Again, knowledge sharing (KS) is one of the various processes pertaining to KM. Therefore, KS should be framed in a KM context. As suggested, the authors defined several concepts. However, they inserted all definitions right in the beginning of the literature review, without worrying with the text fluidity. Suggestion: insert such definitions in the introduction to better clarify the reader. The theoretical background is still poor, namely regarding to H4. Try to show how the mediation occurs.

7. Regarding the conclusion section, it is still poor. Suggestion: Merge 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 in the concluding remarks. Isolate the discussion section.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

Respected Reviewer

Thanks to reviewer (2) for valuable time and encouraging comments. We appreciate your comments to improve the merit of the paper. As per reviewer’s suggestion, we revised/corrected the paper.

 

Comment 1: Lines 38-40: I still do not understand the sentence, namely “archiving sustainable performance of competitive advantage”.

Our response: We revised the texts for making the sentence comprehensible.

 

Comment 2: In the introduction, the concept of “ambidexterity” still is not clear to me. See lines 65-66 in the introduction: “Additionally, ambidexterity pertains to the knack of people's capacity to use their both hands equally at work”.

Our response: We revised this text for making the sentence comprehensible.

 

Comment 3: Although the efforts which were made, in the introduction section the research questions address concepts and relationships which are not previously clarified.

Our response: Thank you so much.

 

Comment 4: In the introduction section, the authors are not explicit about what they mean by sustainable performance.

Our response: Thanks to the reviewer for pointing out the concept of sustainable performance. We addressed these issues at their relevant texts. Also, relationship depicted in relevant text as per your comments.

 

Comment 5: Also, see lines 83-85: “there is a lack of research to investigate the relationship between knowledge sharing and employees' ambidexterity concerning sustainable performance”. As I wrote before, such relationship should be better depicted.

Our response: We responded accordingly

  

Comment 6: The concept of Knowledge Management (KM) should be better explored. Again, knowledge sharing (KS) is one of the various processes pertaining to KM. Therefore, KS should be framed in a KM context. As suggested, the authors defined several concepts. However, they inserted all definitions right in the beginning of the literature review, without worrying with the text fluidity. Suggestion: insert such definitions in the introduction to better clarify the reader

Our response: Thanks to the reviewer for this valuable suggestion however, we addressed it at their relevant texts.

 

Comment 7: The theoretical background is still poor, namely regarding to H4. Try to show how the mediation occurs.

Our response: Thanks to the reviewer for highlighting this point. We have rephrased and added text this section as per your guideline.

 

Comment 8: Regarding the conclusion section, it is still poor. Suggestion: Merge 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 in the concluding remarks. Isolate the discussion section.

Our response: Thanks to the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have amended conclusion section accordingly.

 

Please feel free to contact us for any further concern regarding the paper.

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed my comments from the previous round in detail. There are some more minor revisions required to the discussion and conclusion section to strengthen the overall argument. 

The authors should show in a bit more detail some of the limitations of knowledge sharing and sustainability/CSR including, for instance, humans' bounded rationality (please see below some guiding references). This would further strengthen your study by clearly showing its' boundaries. 

Supporting references:

Cohen, B. and M. I. Winn: 2007, ‘Market Imperfections,
Opportunity and Sustainable Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing 22(1), 29–49.

Gsottbauer, E. and J. C. J. M. van den Bergh. 2011. “Environmental
Policy Theory Given Bounded Rationality and Other-regarding
Preferences”. Environmental and Resource Economics. 49(2): 263–
304.

Roehrich, J.K.; Grosvold, J. and Hoejmose, S.U. (2014). Reputational risks and responsible supply chain management: Decision making under bounded rationality. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 695-719.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3:

Respected Reviewer

Thank you so much for your comments to improve the merit of the paper. We made revision according to your feedbacks:

Comment 1: There are some more minor revisions required to the discussion and conclusion section to strengthen the overall argument. 

Our response: We added details to support it as per the guidelines.

 

Comment 2: The authors should show in a bit more detail some of the limitations of knowledge sharing and sustainability/CSR including, for instance, humans' bounded rationality (please see below some guiding references). This would further strengthen your study by clearly showing its' boundaries. 

Our response: We revised limitations part and updated references from suggested papers.

 

Please feel free to contact us for any further concern regarding the paper.

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc