Antecedents of Responsible Leadership: Proactive and Passive Responsible Leadership Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept yours corrections and in my opinion the article could be published in this form!

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate your re-submission by revising your paper.

 This paper examined the antecedents of responsible leadership behavior on organizational and situational level through case studies of firms in China. Relying on organizational strategy, organizational ownership, mass media, crisis, local community and other influencing factors, this paper found that there are two types of responsible leadership behavior: proactive responsible leadership behavior. Also this paper delved into the influence mechanism of the factors on responsible leadership and dealt with the development trend from passive to proactive of responsible leadership behavior. Although the authors have made considerable efforts to revise this paper, however, I could not think that the current version of manuscript was significant developed.

[1]  Theories and hypotheses - Most of all, this paper still does not have exact and clear hypotheses or propositions. Therefore, it is very hard for me to be sure that the research has an enough level of theoretical value and contribution.

 I think that this is the critical flaw of this paper. And, unfortunately, in this revision, the critical problem was not adequately dealt with.

Please not only provide the part in an elaborated way, but also clearly explain what its hypotheses or propositions are.

 I hope my suggestions may contribute to developing your paper.

Sincerely yours,

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. Generally, empirical research requires researchers to put forward clear hypotheses, and then conduct quantitative tests. Our article adopts the research method of exploratory case study, which is a qualitative research method. For exploratory case studies, clear hypotheses are not necessary, but theoretical reviews of existing relevant studies are needed [1,2]. Many research articles in the field of organization and leadership that take this qualitative approach do not have the section of hypotheses, but they do have the section of theoretical reviews [3-6]. The hypothesis section is not necessary in a qualitative research article. Perhaps the section of methodology is not clear, resulting in misunderstandings.

The purpose of using the exploratory case study method is to modify or improve the existing theoretical system [1], and our article also achieves this purpose. By investigating the antecedents and practice of responsible leadership in China, this study significantly contributes to the responsible leadership literature, and provides evidence in the Chinese business context. Our analysis confirms the extant theory, especially regarding the relevance of model of Stahl and Sully de Luque [7]; even when it is applied in a context that is sharply different from where their research was carried out and their construct was created. This study contributes to advancing theory in the field of leadership and presents new dimensions regarding responsible leadership. This study is also innovative, as it contributes to the development of knowledge about organizations that follow a responsible style of leadership and its formation path, even taking into account the natural idiosyncrasies inherent in Chinese organizations and the Chinese business environment (e.g., the important role of the government, mixed-ownership economy, and ‘the Belt and Road Initiative’). As a transitioning and developing economy, there exist considerable regional differences in the institutional environment in China. We studied the contingent effects of state-owned ownership and policy and regulation on RL behavior. These context-specific antecedents and their contingent factors of responsible leadership serve to enrich the re-sponsible leadership literature. Moreover, the continuum of responsible leadership develops from passive to proactive, presenting two types of RL behavior: Proactive and passive. It is our intention that this finding will assist others to further understand and investigate the mechanisms influencing responsible leadership; which, in turn, may cultivate proactive responsible leaders.

Maybe our previous revision instructions were not clear enough, resulting in misunderstanding. We hope this reply will make you accept our explanation. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Thank you again to you for your good comments.

References

1. Yin, R. L. (2014), Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed), Sage, Thousand Oaks.
2. Newman, W.L. (1994), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3^rd, Allyn and Bacon Cop., Boston, MA.
3. Feams, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A. and Looy, B.V. (2008), “Toward an Integrative Perspective on Alliance Governance: Connecting Contract Design, Trust Dynamics, and Contract Application”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No.6, pp. 1053-1078.
4. Ozcan, P. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2009), ”Origin of Alliance Portfolios: Entrepreneurs, Network Strategies, and Firm Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.52 No.2, pp:246-279.
5. Antunes, A. and Franco, M. (2016), “How people in organizations make sense of responsible leadership practices”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 126–152.
6. Maak, T., Pless, N.M. and Voegtlin, C. (2016), “Business Statesman or Shareholder Advocate? CEO Responsible Leadership Styles and the Micro-Foundations of Political CSR”, Journal of Management Studies.
7. Stahl, G.K. and Sully de Luque, M. (2014), “Antecedents of Responsible Leader Behavior: A Research Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Agenda for Future Research”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 235–254.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

I appreciate your efforts to revise your paper. However, unfortunately, I think that this paper is not revised adequately as I suggested in the previous review process. 

I am very sorry to tell you this.

Sincerely yours,

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is important. The language is simple but clear and understandable. Technically
the paper is well prepared.Тhe article is interesting and presents new dimensions about responsible leadership.

The study could be described in more detail, as well as the results. The authors declare the aim of research, but do not formulate any research hypotheses and does not describe clearly the methodology employed. The use of NVivo allows the visualization of the received data to be included.

Data was collected between January 2017 and April 2021. It is interesting whether and how Covid-19 influenced the responsible leadership.

Reviewer 2 Report

It would by useful if the motivation of COVID19 that is included in the introduction could be mentioned in the abstract. Also if this is an important aspect it should be returned to at the conclusion of the paper.

The paper raises interesting and important issues around passive and active leadership that are relevant internationally in both the public and private sectors and therefore has the potential to make a significant contribution to the research on leadership. The sample of organisations selected and the case study approach are appropriate and data was incorporated into the article that provided the reader with a lens into the companies studied.

However the paper needs major review before it meets requirements for publishing. Minor and major points for suggested revisions are listed here:

The paper needs thorough editing for English before publication. The flow and use of English needs significant amendments throughout the paper.

Case study is referred to in the Introduction section 1, but does not fit within the context of the discussion. This is covered again in Section 2 and fits better at this point.

The literature review is not substantial or sufficient. It would be useful to have a separate literature review section prior to the methodology, rather than being incorporated into the methodology and findings Sections 2&3.

The findings and discussion are the strongest components of the paper and it therefore should be revised and resubmitted as a worthwhile contribution to the field.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate having the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Antecedents of Responsible Leadership: Proactive and Passive responsible leadership behavior” (sustainability-1606335).

 This paper examined the antecedents of responsible leadership behavior on organizational and situational level through case studies of firms in China. Relying on organizational strategy, organizational ownership, mass media, crisis, local community and other influencing factors, this paper found that there are two types of responsible leadership behavior: proactive responsible leadership behavior. Also this paper delved into the influence mechanism of the factors on responsible leadership and dealt with the development trend from passive to proactive of responsible leadership behavior. Although the authors have made considerable efforts to develop this paper, however, I believe that the current version of manuscript should be improved through significant revision and re-writing. I want to provide some suggestions for the improvement of this paper as follows.

[1] Introduction

- I think that the overall structure and writing of introduction part are not clear and well-aligned, so it is not easy to catch what the research questions and strategies to deal with. Please clearly describe those things. As you already knew, the introduction section is one of the most important parts to not only draw attentions of readers but also provide guidelines for them to facilitate a clear understanding of the paper.

[2] Theories and hypotheses

- Most of all, this paper did not provide the part of “Theory and Hypotheses. So, it is very difficult for me to be sure that the research has an enough level of theoretical value and contribution. I think that this is the critical flaw of this paper. Please provide the part in an elaborated way.

- Although this paper dealt with interesting phenomena, it did not provide adequate theoretical background and support for the development of its hypotheses. This is the critical limitation of this paper. Please clearly explain what its hypotheses are.

[3] Strengths and Limitations of the Study

- Although the authors have attempted to explain the contributions and implications of the paper, I think that the overall quality of the explanations is low. Please provide more elaborated explanations to demonstrate its theoretical and practical contributions.

 I wish these comment may help you to improve your paper. Good luck.