How to Enhance Business Model Resilience: The Mechanism of Dynamic Capability and Leadership Style in the Enterprise–User Interaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The hypothesis regarding the relationships between EUI, BMR, EDC, and KOL seem to be generally appropriate, and the effort to clarify these relationships may be recognized as both novel and useful. However, questions remain about the validity of the paper due to the following unclear points:

• The actual questionnaire items are not disclosed. It is stated that there are 8 items for EUI, 4 for BMR, 16 for EDC, and 6 for KOL, but references 18 and 8 are not accessible from readers, making it difficult to judge their validity. With respect to reference 6, it is not clear what exactly the four BMR questionnaire items are. The actual questionnaire items should be included in an appendix.
• Regarding the 300 survey respondents, it is unclear whether they are capable of answering the above questionnaire items appropriately. There is doubt as to whether young employees can accurately respond to questions about their company's BMR and EDC. Additionally, should the respondents’ job positions not also be considered?

These concerns need to be addressed in order to properly assess the validity of the questionnaire survey.

 

Minor Points:
- Table 1 is difficult to read. Borders should be added between items to improve clarity.
- Regarding the notation of Firm Size, the abbreviations GM and FM are used inconsistently.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper offers a logical empirical examination of enterprise-user interaction's role in business model resilience through dynamic capability moderated by knowledge-oriented leadership. While theoretical framing and general contribution are significant, I would like to offer the following methodological descriptions and recommendations to further improve the paper:
1) Table 2 provides that AVEs of two base constructs — Enterprise-User Interaction (EUI: 0.445) and Enterprise Dynamic Capability (EDC: 0.444) — are less than the conventional lower bound of 0.50, triggering matters of convergent validity. I will suggest elimination of couple of items or review AVE scores.
2) The mediation was also bootstrapped using Hayes' bootstrapping technique, which is sound statistically. However, for transparency and triangulation purposes, it is best that the mediation analysis be reported using the Baron and Kenny (1986) method as well.
3) Moderation was examined using hierarchical regression with interaction terms and also graphically using the Johnson-Neyman technique. That is accurate. But it would be useful to know if other techniques (e.g., PROCESS Model 1) were attempted or tested.
4) Common method bias was controlled by Harman's single-factor test, with the first factor explaining 35.55% variance — below cutoff. Harman's test, however, has poor diagnostic power. The authors are encouraged to perform and report a Common Latent Factor (CLF) test using CFA as a more potent diagnostic method.
5) The target population was "employees of enterprises," but no distinction is provided as to functional roles, decision-making authority, or organizational departments. It is particularly problematic for concepts like dynamic capability and business model resilience, both of which typically are framed on managerial or strategic levels. Greater specificity is called for.
6) Since the study is conducted in China, the initial scales are most likely to be English. But the process of translation is not even mentioned. Authors are requested in strong terms to report: Whether or not instruments were translated into Chinese, Whether back-translation procedure or pretest was carried out, And to provide the translated instrument as a supplement to cross-cultural replicability and reliability.
7) The research questions should be clearly articulated towards the conclusion of the section. This will be concentrating the study and guiding the reader along the theoretical and empirical aims.
8) Elaborating the study's contributions in the final paragraph of the introduction. At present, the contributions are scattered throughout the manuscript but would be more impactful if summarized in advance, especially concerning theoretical extension, empirical innovation, and practical relevance.
9) To enhance correspondence between research goals and interpretation of outcomes, I suggest organizing the Discussion section around the research questions (once formally posited). This will Help systematically revisit and consider each research goal, Strengthen the logical movement from hypotheses to implications, And facilitate the reader's ability to follow how the findings respond to the originally formulated questions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed responses to my first-round review comments. I believe the newly attached questionnaire is extremely important for understanding the paper. I also recognize that the questionnaire design has been approached carefully, including conducting preliminary trials.

On the other hand, I have reviewed the questionnaire items from the perspective of a respondent, and even with the detailed supplementary explanations provided in the response document, it seems quite difficult for respondents, in their capacity as employees, to answer accurately. Therefore, I do not consider the reliability of this study to be high. However, even with this limitation, I acknowledge that the study has a certain degree of significance.

Additionally, many citations from Chinese-language sources appears to be one of the weaknesses of this paper, but this alone does not warrant rejection.

Given these weaknesses, I believe further improvement would be difficult, and I have no objection to accepting the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submitting the revised manuscript. I have reviewed the revised version in detail and am pleased to observe that all earlier comments and suggestions have been appropriately incorporated.
The manuscript is now a logical and methodologically sound examination of the relationship between enterprise-user interaction and business model resilience, grounded in solid theoretical and empirical research. The incorporation of dynamic capability theory, the mediating role of dynamic capability, and the moderating role of knowledge-oriented leadership are all significant contributions to the literature.
I am pleased to accept the manuscript for publication.