Factors Affecting Perceived Effectiveness of Multigenerational Management Leadership and Metacognition among Service Industry Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

·         Avoid using the word 'effect' in the manuscript. The adopted cross-sectional research design limits causal inference and can be substituted with an experimental research design to draw a causal inference. Alternatively, the author could replace the word 'effect' with 'relationship' or 'association.'

·         Identify the sampling method used.

·         Specify the sample and population size and calculate the survey response rate.

 

·         Add future research suggestions.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Attached is the point-by-point response and revision clarifications by the authors. We highly appreciated the constructive comments given and have substantially improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors attempt to detect and investigate different factors that may affect “perceived effectiveness on multigenerational management leadership and metacognition
among service industry companies in the Philippines”. Although interesting may be the specific research topic, I fear that the article needs significantly more work before it could be published.

 I feel that there is much confusion regarded the core notions and terms are used in the study. In this vein, it seems that the authors consider as identical the notions of manager and leadership.  For instance, in line 234 they inform us that “a total of five hundred twelve individuals who are serving as managers or leaders….”. However, in the organization leadership studies the clear-cut distinction between the notions of management and leadership constitutes a fundamental pillar of the methodological and analytical apparatus in the field. So, the authors should delve with this distinction and clarify if they refer to management or to leadership notion.

The same also holds for the term “metacognition”, in the sense that the authors never provided any definition!

In the title, authors use the term “sustainable business”, however this term is totally absent from the text. Thus, a short discussion of the notion of sustainable development should be provided in the introduction. See (a) Manolis Manioudis & Giorgos Meramveliotakis (2022) Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy, New Political Economy, DOI: 10.1080/13563467.2022.2038114  and (b) Tomislav, K. (2018). The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94.

Moreover, the authors should elaborate more on the notion of “perceived efficiency”. What exactly do they mean by this term?

Besides the obfuscation on the notions and ideas used, a puzzlement equally prevails regarding the subjects of the study. Reading the theoretical part of the paper, I am waiting that the questionnaire will refer to employees, but rather see that the sample refers to managers or leaders and consequently 3 major issues raised here that are seriously engender the validity of the sample:

1.       See above the conceptual distinction between management and leadership

2.       In which terms the authors guarantee that these individuals are managers or an even more difficult task, how they were convinced that these individuals are leaders? 

3.       Regarding the employment status of some of the individuals belong to sample, they are referred as “self-employed”, “unemployment” and “retired”. How well fit these people in a supposedly sample of managers and leaders?

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Attached is the point-by-point response and revision clarifications by the authors. We highly appreciated the constructive comments given and have substantially improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The title needs to be justified according to the outcome so that it is not too long and biased

2. The author needs to provide more rational explanations and reasons to strengthen the background of this research

3. In the implications section, it is necessary to explain, both for the theoretical implications and the practical implications

4. It is necessary to add an explanation regarding the respondent's data, the reasons for selecting the respondent and the methodology for collecting and processing the data

5. Please check again the suitability between the formulation of the problem, objectives, conclusions and implications of this research.

6. A more detailed and complete explanation is needed for Figure 4.

7. How is the process of elaborating the reference models used to produce a conceptual model in this research?

8. Need to improve the English on this manuscript

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Attached is the point-by-point response and revision clarifications by the authors. We highly appreciated the constructive comments given and have substantially improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors accommodate all my comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Revisions have been made according to the comments submitted.