Does Gender Matter? The Relationship Comparison of Strategic Leadership on Organizational Ambidextrous Behavior between Male and Female CEOs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, authors examine the role of CEO gender in strategic direction. It report that female strategic leaders with ambidextrous advantage could behave not inferior to males. Overall the paper highlights the role and importance of gender in corporate management, an issue worthy to be researched. However, after reading the paper I have some comments as follows:
1) Write-up should be improved. As it is confusing in the current form.
Line 34 about “the ” strategic decision
Line 37 perspective of “a” top manager
.. so on
The article should be well checked for grammar and writing
2) Equation of the empirical model should be added in the methodology section and then based on the equation variables should be defined. In the current form, variable explanations are not easy to understand.
Therefore, the author should also make certain adjustments to the narrative logic of the article.
3) line 370-371 figure lack title and the line in the figure crosses the text, the figure should be redone
Line 563 table name
These issues should be solved according to the template or the articles in the journal.
4) Authors should think of adding control variables.
5)The conclusion needs to be improved. It should describe what this article studies, what the conclusion is, and what the value of follow-up research is; and try to be concise and to the point.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thanks a lot for your suggestion on my manuscript entitled “Does Gender Matter? The Relationship Comparison of Strategic leadership on Organizational Ambidextrous Behavior between Male and Female CEOs”（ID：sustainability-1792244）.The comments are very valuable for revising our paper, as well as the guiding significance to our future research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction on by one. The revised edition are marked, and the main corrections in the manuscript are as followed.
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
- We feel very sorry for the writing-up problems and have checked grammar and writing of the whole article. For instance, we have corrected the expression of “the strategic decision (line 26) and “perspective of a top manager (line 28).
- As reviewer suggested that, the equation of empirical model has been added into the methodology part (line1079-1087), thus the variables could be defined more clearly than before. Besides, we have made adjustments on the logic and canceled some redundant words from section 2.1-2.3.
- We are sorry for the lack of figure and table title, and we have redone the figure and name it “conceptual framework” (line 955)，format of other tables (table 1-4) have also be readjusted with regard to template.
- We have made some corrections and adjustments on control variable, since the last edition of manuscript have not shown apparently. And in this edition, we made it into a single paragraph and moved it into section 3.2.4 (line1172-1177).
- It true that conclusion part in last edition was prolix and repetitive with section 5.2 and 5.3. And we made it concise this time, covering the main contents of this study, results and its value for future research. Moreover, we retained some limitations of current study that will be improved. The future agenda about female ambidextrous leadership has also been given since we think it may be an interesting topic.
Special thanks for your valuable comments on our article!
Best Regards!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Does Gender Matter? The Relationship Comparison of Strategic leadership on Organizational Ambidextrous Behavior be- 3 tween Male and Female CEOs.
The study seeks to examine the difference in the relationship of strategic leadership on organizational ambidextrous behavior between male and female CEOs, taking into consideration the balancing effect and the combined effect of exploratory behaviors. However, some comments to contribute and improve the paper follow.
Abstract:
1- Well structured presents all the assumptions.
Introduction:
- Throughout the paper the authors do not follow the citation style indicated by the journal/journal which would be IEE.
Materials and Methods:
1- Presents formatting problems and the article is dated 2021, when we are already in 2022.
Results:
1- Table 1 without title and with formatting problems in the paragraph nº 542 and 558 which makes it difficult to perceive its content.
2- All tables in the text are not characterized.
Discussion:
- Well accomplished
Conclusions:
- Immanent of the objectives and hypotheses of the study. Study well done.
Call attention, however, to key elements missing in the text such as Acknowledgements, Contribution of each author, Declaration of conflict of interest.
Author Response
Dear reviewer :
Thanks a lot for your suggestion on my manuscript entitled “Does Gender Matter? The Relationship Comparison of Strategic leadership on Organizational Ambidextrous Behavior between Male and Female CEOs”（ID：sustainability-1792244）.The comments are very valuable for revising our paper, as well as the guiding significance to our future research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction on by one. The revised edition are marked, and the main corrections in the manuscript are as followed.
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
- Abstract-Many thanks for your appreciation to our abstracts and assumptions.
- Introduction- We feel very sorry for the citation style and we have corrected with regard to template of the journal.
- Material and Methods- As Reviewer suggested that it is important to update the data to 2022, however, the revised time is limited, we will continually update the latest data after this edition. For the sake of better understanding the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable, we have added equation of empirical model(line1079-1087).
- Results (1)- We are sorry for the lack of figure and table title, and we have redone the figure and tables.
Results (2)- We have carefully characterized each table and commented them in article, for instance, line 1265-1268.
- Discussion- Thanks a lot for your appreciation to our discussion part.
- Conclusion- Thanks for appreciation to our conclusion part, and in this edition, we made it concise this time, covering the main contents of this study, results and its value for future research.
- We felt very sorry for missing some key information such as author contribution, funding, acknowledgment et al. We have added these contents after conclusion part.
Special thanks for your valuable comments on our article!
Best Regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for adding my most of the comments.
Just one minor comment.
Explanation regarding variables with reference to equation added can be improved. Although the equation was added but the explaination is not very coherent with the equation.
Author Response
Dear reviewer ,
Many thanks for your sincere comments on my manuscript again, and we feel grateful for your appreciation to our improved edition. It is so sorry to make equations a little confused. This time we have added the whole process that how equations work, as well as more detailed explanation of the relationship between DV and IV. Please see line 1302-1337 in attached file.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
