Agile Leadership from the Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities and Creating Value
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is interesting but the manuscript has a number of drawbacks.
1. For instance "Several researchers have also used styles of leadership as antecedent variables in 17 their research regarding dynamic capabilities [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)"... Listing the references presents a laundry list, not meaningful analysis. The general sentence is followed with 7 references.
2. The background section needs to be rewritten in order to present the real state-of-the-art analysis as well as the position of the presented research.
3. Sections 3 and 4 are poor. The author can not state just 540 participants. We need the questionnaire and much more information about the sample. A more advanced approach should be employed.
4. Conclusion should be improved. What are the implications, and practical theoretical, limitations...
Proof reading could be useful
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I uploaded my comment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
first of all, let me sincerely congratulate you for preparing a current article. In the following, I give suggestions for its improvement, which should serve as an additional explanation to the review I made in the Review Report Form:
- The summary is an autoplagiarism of the text from the article. It is necessary to rewrite it.
- In the sentence shown below, please indicate the name of the author, and then the quote you associate with it, i.e. instead of "However, only [7] has handled agile leadership with dynamic capability variables together." I suggest writing it down "However, only Akkaya [7] has handled agile leadership with dynamic capability variables together." This should also apply to other similar cases.
- The text is not always understandable. Example of such a sentence: According to the results of the study, it has been discussed which of the variables needs to be considered a valuable source. Or: ... to create value for their customers to survive in the market - who survives - enterprise or customer?
- Enterprise, firm, company, use only 1 term, please.
- Content is important for only top management (line 307) or both them and middle management (e.g. lines 42-43)?
- Some of the author's claims are not supported by citations, e.g. lines 51 to 56.
- There are technical deficiencies in the text, such as in line 89: (Tairas et al., 2016).
- You explained H1-H3 in the literature review. In the chapter with methodology, you have added H4, which is derived from the research model, but does not have an explanation in the theoretical starting points. It is necessary to add it - supplement the background.
- In chapter 3.2. Sample and Data you have repeated the same facts for the third time. Also, chapters cannot be represented by just one sentence, as in the case of your article.
- Research results should be better explained.
- The Discussion chapter should be separate from the Conclusion chapter.
- Discussion is very modest (poore on content).
- The conclusion is very modest. Actuallym there is no real discussion, it does not exist, so it cannot be constructive. The content of the discussion is completely missing.
- You wrote three-quarters of a page of Chapter 5 and then added the title of Subchapter 5.1, and you don't have Subchapter 5.2? A chapter that is divided into subchapters has no text in between, and we must also have at least 2 subchapters, otherwise it makes no sense to divide the chapter. I suggest that you delete the title 5.1 (or add another subsection 5.2 - that is, to add some more content).
- Check out the comments at the end, e.g. in "Funding: Please add: This research received no external funding" you need to delete "Please add:"; or in the Informed Consent Statement - there you left the journal's instructions (the text where the journal explains what this means). Etc.
- I think the literature is adequate in terms of content, but the latest knowledge is missing. For example you have cited 2 literatures from 2020. You have cited only 1 literature from 2022. All other literature is older, mostly between 2015 and 2019. Add the latest knowledge in this field.
I hope my comments will be useful to you in upgrading your research work.
Sincerely, Reviewer
Please read Comments and Suggestions for Authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is a reasonable effort, It provides valuable insights into the concepts of agile leadership, dynamic capabilities, and creating value. However, the author needs to make some amendments:
-> The author is recommended to add empirical gaps and contributions by recent studies in the introduction section.
-> Most of the literature is outdated. Perhaps the author can update the literature by adding recent articles.
-> In the literature section, the author needs to define each variable before discussing the relationships of each variable. Perhaps the author can also discuss the gurus in the field, and what they have contributed to the current literature.
-> Hypotheses development is weak. The author can have separate discussions for each hypothesis like H1, H2, Hc, and H4. In fact, there is no discussion given on the mediating hypothesis, i.e. H4.
-> What is the foundation of the research model in the current study? An underpinning theory or a conceptual model? Please discuss it in the literature review section.
->More explanation is needed to test the mediating impact of dynamic capabilities between agile leadership and creating value relationship.
->There is no information provided on population, sampling technique and sampling frame, and legitimacy of sample size. Why middle/upper-level managers were selected as the respondents of the current study?
-> Perhaps authors can add a sample of questions from each variable that are being asked from the respondents in the methodology section in order to facilitate the reader to better understand what questions were being asked to form the findings of the study, if authors don't want to provide the complete instrument in the appendix section.
-> Present and document the quality of the methodology in a better way. To ensure the quality of the overall research process, the study must have rigor.
-> There is no discussion on the measurement model such as confirmatory factor analysis.
-> Please use the following article to justify the benchmark being met for Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and AVE values.
Abboh, U. A., Majid, A. H., Fareed, M., & Abdussalaam, I. I. (2022). High-performance work practices lecturers’ performance connection: Does working condition matter? Management in Education, 0(0). https://doi-org.eserv.uum.edu.my/10.1177/08920206211051468.
-> Discussion is very weak. Needless to say, when it comes to discussing findings and contributions, we conform or differ from the work of previous scholars, in addition, to highlighting the unique contribution of our own work or how our work is different from the prior studies.
-> Please have a separate section for the discussion and conclusion.
-> Please add a paragraph each on the theoretical and practical implications of the current research.
The quality of English is fine. No problem is detected related to the English language or the structures of the sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Suggestions were followed.
proof reading
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
I find that you have greatly improved the article. The content of the article now tells readers of strategic management enough. Regardless, it is not suitable for publication in the journal Sustainability, as in the article is no interdependence with sustainable development.
For publication, it would be necessary to write the article more holistically, in such a way as to weave into every pore of the text the interdependence of the discussed contents with sustainability (the latter is the purpose of this journal). So, connect your findings with the need for sustainable development, operation, behavior. How can what you wrote contribute to more sustainability? For which aspects of sustainability is this necessary, why and how the discussed topic can promote sustainability etc. (and the like).
Thank you for your understanding and kind regards
Reviewer
Dear Author,
When I read your article, I still don't always know what you were trying to say, even though I am familiar with the field of research you describe. I believe that in this area a less expert reader would have even more difficulty in understanding. Perhaps the article should be read by a few colleagues of you, who know the subject and understand the English language well enough.
Thank you for your understanding and kind regards
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Author/s,
Please make the amendments as per suggested in the earlier review report. It seems that authors have just highlighted in red color instead of adding justifications and comments.
The quality of English is fine. No problem is detected related to the English language or the structures of the sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
I believe that you have adequately supplemented the article in accordance with my comments and that it is suitable for publication.
I sincerely congratulate you!
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Author,
Thank you for making the corrections.
