Organic Leadership—Implicit Followership Interaction: Relations among Trust in Supervisor, Active Followership and OCB
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Leader- Implicit Followership Interaction: Relations among Trust in Supervisor, Active Followership and OCB
Comments:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. Based on the title of the manuscript, it looks promising and can be an insightful study. However, some critical points need to be clarified and improved by the authors.
Abstract:
The authors should add the debates or the gap in the first two sentences of their abstract.
The aims of the study should be stated clearly.
The authors should write the keywords in alphabetic order
Introduction:
The introduction missed several crucial points that need to be improved. First, the authors mostly used old references. The authors must add the latest, at least the last three years of references. Second, there are some redundancies at some points, especially when the authors repeatedly explain the importance of followers. Third, at the end of the introduction section, the authors explain the purposes of this study, but the authors use some abbreviations/acronyms, such as TS, OCB, and AF, without prior explanation. Fourth, the interrelationship among the variables in this study is unclear.
Line 50: what is "real leadership" supposed to mean?
Line 55-56: the authors need to add the latest references to support this notion. I am afraid that the authors miss interpreting the concept that willingness is the degree of ability and willingness.
Line 71: reference number 55 in the introduction? Please re-check.
Literature Review:
The literature review is full of old-date references. The authors must add recent studies related to the topic, at least the articles published in the last three years, to support the old-date references. The authors were also trapped in jumping logic in several parts. Furthermore, how and why the authors come up with these four leadership styles (autocratic, democratic, laisses-faire, and transformational) are also unclear. Despite using "trait" terminology, I believe these four are leadership styles, not traits.
Line 95: knowledge? What knowledge is in this explanation?
Line 97-98: "an instruction is Thinking…" this sentence is unclear to me.
Line 145-146: This sentence is confusing. Did Katz state in 1946 that OCB is part of extra-role behavior, but the pioneer was then in 1988?
Line 150-152: the authors mentioned the motives of OCB. Then the authors jump back to the definition without explaining each of OCB's motives further.
Line 166-168: the authors should explain the rationale behind the inconsistent findings.
Line 184-186: Please provide the latest reference that there are two paradigms in the expression of followership. Using the old reference without adding the last three years of reference is not strong enough to make a justification that the latest studies still support this paradigm.
Section 2.6. the hypotheses development for each development is not clear. The authors should explain the rationale for each hypothesis by using three crucial things in developing a hypothesis: theory, recent studies, and logical thinking.
Methodology:
The authors should explain clearly regarding the experiment. How do authors conduct the experiment, and what is/are the stimuli for the participants? Who are the participants? Another important point that is missing is why this study needs experimental study. And why quasi-experiment?
Results:
How the authors make the manipulation or build the stimuli for these groups of leaders' traits and the two groups of followership is unclear.
Discussion:
This study also lacks theoretical implications. The authors should discuss the result of this study, and whether it confirms the prior studies or not. In addition, the authors also need to address the rationale for the unsupported findings.
Furthermore, the practical implication is also lacking. The authors should give suggestions to the organization based on the study findings.
Limitations and future research:
At the end of the manuscript, the authors should conclude the current study.
In addition, the limitations are also unclear. The authors mentioned that this study employed snowballing technique, but there is no explanation in the methodology section and the rationale for why this technique was employed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Very interesting study, which is also a well-written and well-structured. The problem statement is clearly presented and sufficiently supported by the literature on the subject. The research hypotheses are well-written and the existing literature on the subject is robustly reviewed to support them.
The methodological approach is appropriate and well-described, while the results have also been well-presented.
Based on my review of the manuscript, I recommend its publication in its current form.
Author Response
Thank you for your review comments, thank you very much for your hard work
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Organic Leadership- Implicit Followership Interaction: Rela-tions among Trust in Supervisor, Active Followership and OCB” (ID: 1979262). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. I have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following.
Best Regards,
Point 1: Abstract: Some recommendations for improvement in the abstract are as under:
1. Abstract start with a word that is never used in the paper again. I mean it is irrelevant word.
2. It is suggested not to use percentages in the abstract. Rather write ‘large number of organizations or a majority of organizations.’
3. Instead of numbering the objectives, write them in simple text format.
Keywords: appropriate keywords are used.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion, please refer to the revised document for the detailed revision of point 1, as in lines 13-30 on page 1,
“ Due to the impact of COVID-19, a large number of employees of organizations around the world have been forced to work remotely from home starting in 2020; as a result, leaders and followers face new communication and interaction challenges. If an enterprise is to be successful in the new wave of economic development, it must embrace the role of employee followers. However, there is currently no relevant research, therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyzes the interaction between organic leadership and implicit followers from the perspective of followers who are working remotely, and further analyze their relationship with trust in supervisor, organizational citizenship behavior, and active followership. Using the method of quasi-experimental design to conduct questionnaire measurement, and found through ANCOVA and PLS-SEM analysis: First, difference in leadership styles (IV) and implicit followers (IV) had significant effects on employees' trust in supervisor (DV), organizational citizenship behavior (DV), and active followers (DV); secondly, the influence of the leaders styles (IV) on employees' trust in supervisor (DV), organizational citizenship behavior (DV), and active followership (DV) is significantly affected only when IFTs are anti-prototypical traits; finally, organizational citizenship behavior (Med) has an indirect effects between trust in supervisor (DV) and active followership (DV). This article not only fills the gaps in the literature related to leaders and followers, but also provides analytical evidence and new thinking, which will enable companies to propose management strategies more effectively for employees working remotely in the face of the impact of the epidemic. “
Point 2: Introduction
1. Provide reference with the text and fact given on lines 44-47
2. Introduction section should focus on the background of the study, defining the and introducing main concepts of the study. This should be followed by a gap analysis. The authors have just provided an overview of the topic and gap analysis is missing.
3. Add the purpose of the study in a separate paragraph (in the second last para)
4. Add the flow or the breakdown of the paper in a separate paragraph at the end of the section.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestions, the suggestions for point 2 will be replied as follows:
1. Corrected, please refer to the revised document for the detailed revision of point 1-1, as in line 48 on page 2.
2. Correct, please refer to the introduction section of revised document for the detailed revision
3. Correct, please refer to the revised document for the detailed revision of point 1-3, as in lines 99-110 on page 3.
4. Correct, please refer to the revised document for the detailed revision of point 1-3, as in lines 111-120 on page 3.
Point 3: Theoretical foundation and research hypotheses
1. Authors are defining and explaining so many variables and theories however, none of these concepts or theories were introduced in the introductions section.
2. There is no link between all the variables with each other.
3. Critical literature review is missing which is essential for a good paper.
4. Lines 208-211. Make these lines clear.
5. Summing up all the relationships in 3 hypotheses is making things mixed. Authors should write all the hypotheses, showing the one IV, one DV and/or MV.
6. Why Oct is selected as mediating variable, no justification has been given.
7. Figure 1 is complex, and readers cannot understand it. Make it clear. If required, more than one model can be presented.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions, the suggestions for point 3 will be replied as follows:
1. Corrected, please refer to the revised document for the detailed revision of point 3-1, as in lines 62-73 page 2.
2. Revised, please refer to the section 2.6 as in lines 309-340 on page 7.
3. Modified and added, please refer to the example on page 6, lines 275-280.
4. Lines 208 to 211 are described in the previous paragraphs, so there is no need to repeat them here. Please refer to the revised file for detailed modifications, as in lines 216-221 on page 5.
5. Corrected, please refer to the revised document for the detailed revision of point 3-6, as in lines 348-368 on pages 7-8.
6. Revised, please refer to the section 2.6 “The Relationship among ILIF, Trust in Supervisor, OCB, and Active Followership” as in lines 309-347 on page 7.
7. Corrected, please refer to the revised file for figure 1. In line 369 on page 8. However, after discussion by all authors, Figure 1 of this study is designed to display the entire research hypothesis and structure more fully. Because other reviewers feel it is appropriate, we decide to keep it. In addition, the author has slightly revised some typographical errors and more clearly marked the hypothetical relationship between the variables
Point 4: Methodology
1. Add scale at the end of the manuscript.
2. Why were scales adapted? A justification should be given.
3. Who was the target population of the study?
4. How was the sample size determined? Why were 472 questionnaires distributed?
5. How the sample from the population was selected?
6. No detail of 4 × 2 quasi-experimental design.
7. Without all the above-suggested justification, the paper is incomplete.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions, the suggestions for point 4 will be replied as follows:
1. Added, please see appendix on pages22-25.
2. Revised, please refer to the lines 375-377 on page 8 and table 1 on page 9.
3. Revised, please refer to the lines 386-394 on page 9.
4. Revised, please refer to the lines 381-386 on page 8.
5. Revised, please refer to the lines 381-386 on page 8.
6. Revised, please refer to the lines 404-430 on page 10; and 435-446 on page 11.
7. Thanks for your suggestion, all content is modified according to your suggestion
Point 5: Results
1. Give some detail about tables 8 and 9.
2. Add validity and reliability analysis just after the descriptive analysis.
3. There is no detail on why so many analyses are given, you have to justify which table or test is used with which objective/hypothesis. Add detail of hypothesis acceptance or rejection also.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestions, the suggestions for point 4 will be replied as follows:
1. Revised, for point 1-1 and 1-2, please refer to the first paragraph of section 32.3.1 in lines 509-520 on page 14.
2. Revised, please refer to the revised file for detailed modifications, as in line 457 (H1a); line 461 (H1b); line 468 (H1c); line 475 (H2a, H2b, H2c); line 489 (H3a); line 494 (H3b); line 501 (H3c); line 531 (H4); and line 542 (H5).
Point 6: Discussion
1. Discussion section is underdeveloped. It should contain a general discussion about the importance of this research. Then discuss each hypothesis with results and provide literature support. After that, you will present the implications of the research. Currently, only implications are given. Rewrite this section.
2. Add implications of the study under a separate heading. Once you have identified the research gap in the introduction section, it will be easier for you to write the implications of the study.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions, for the point 6-1 and 6-2, please refer to the discussion section, as in lines 544-592 on 17 and 18.
Point 7: References
· Intext citations should be corrected throughout the manuscript.
· Update references. Some of the references are too old to be presented.
The Paper is a good attempt to fill the existing gap but methodology section and discussion sections are very weak.
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestions, all citations in the manuscript have been corrected, and many references from recent years have been added to the article, please refer to the revised file for detailed modifications.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you for addressing and revising the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. However, there is still one issue I am most concerned about the methodology. The authors explained that this study employed a quasi-experimental design with a 4x2 factorial design. In the manipulation check section, the authors explain that the leader styles and type of followership were two variables that were being manipulated by classifying the average number of answers. To my knowledge, experimental research uses intervention for the participants. The author(s) designs such intervention by only calculating the average and then classifying the answer into four groups of leadership styles and two groups of followership is not considered experimental design. In addition, I did not read any intervention conducted by the authors or control group in this study. Therefore, in my opinion, this study is not an experimental design due to the absence of interventions. I suggest that the authors change the methodology. Authors also can employ multigroup analysis by considering the groups of leadership styles, and the groups of followership seem suitable for this study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (Round II)
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Organic Leadership- Implicit Followership Interaction: Relations among Trust in Supervisor, Active Followership and OCB” (ID: 1979262). Regarding the issue of the research methodology, after discussion among all authors, we decided to accept the reviewer's opinion to change the quasi-experimental research method to multigroup analysis.
Please refer to the revised manuscript as in lines 10-11 on page 1; lines 103-105 on page 2; lines 393-395 on page 9.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
