Hybrid Leadership Style in Kibbutz Industries to Promote Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The English should be reviewed, e.g., “individuals from various ranks”, the term rank is inaccurate, maybe job position could be used. Informal term should be adjusted, e.g., “They have done so”. Review the entire text.

The author uses the first-person plural to state some sentences. However, the research is from a single author. Instead of “we identified”, it should be used “it was identified”.

The introduction should not begin with the research goal. The context, relevance and gap of the study must be presented before.

Why kibbutz industries should be a focus of analysis for hybrid leadership? The author must explain and justify properly the focus of the research in the introduction.

The research questions must be justified. For Q1, the author is asking how, but it is not evidenced before the question that the kibbutz industries are sustainable.

For the Q2, the relationship between leadership and sustainability is absent in the introduction. The author must clearly indicate this relationship in the literature in the introduction. The introduction must present all the necessary background to base the research questions. Although the leadership analysis is expanded in the next section, the questions must be based on the evidence from the text of the introduction.  

In the literature review, the author explains the different types of leadership, which is ok. However, the paper lacks an analysis of the literature on it. What kind of research has been conducted about it in recent years? Considering the previous studies related to the theme, why is your study relevant?

More details are necessary to justify the cases analysed. Why are these cases relevant to be considered?

The interviews conducted in 2009-2012 and 2020; 2014-2015; 2018-2020. More than 15 years already passed after the first interviews; More than 5 years from the last ones. The study is very old.

Regarding the methods, the research lacks a robust methodology to base and justify the steps.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English must be reviewed by a native speaker.

Author Response

Authors would like to acknowledge since very valuable comments that have helped improving the quality and relevance of the presented work have been provided. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are constructive comments and suggestions for the authors:  

This study makes a significant contribution through its original exploration of hybrid leadership in kibbutz industries—a unique context neglected in mainstream leadership literature. The integration of communal values with democratic, autocratic, and transformational styles offers fresh theoretical insights, particularly regarding sustainability outcomes. The rigorous qualitative methodology, leveraging 75 interviews and document analysis across three cases, provides rich empirical grounding. The findings convincingly demonstrate how context shapes leadership efficacy (e.g., autocratic styles in crises versus democratic approaches in stable settings), strengthening the paper’s academic soundness.  

However, the theoretical framing of "communal leadership" requires deeper development. While positioned as a core element of the hybrid model, it lacks clear definition and differentiation from established constructs like ethical or servant leadership. Explicitly conceptualizing this dimension—drawing from kibbutz-specific values of egalitarianism and collective responsibility—would strengthen the manuscript’s originality. Additionally, the discussion would benefit from explicitly reconciling the observed autocratic effectiveness in Factory A with prevailing literature that champions participatory styles, addressing this apparent contradiction head-on.  

Structurally, Section 4.3 (findings) feels overly fragmented. Consolidating the seven leadership traits into broader themes (e.g., "Values-Driven Practices," "Strategic Adaptability") would enhance clarity. Reducing repetitive factory descriptions (e.g., global expansion cited separately for each case) and using integrated comparative tables could streamline the narrative while preserving nuance.  

Engagement with recent scholarship (post-2020) on sustainable leadership is limited. Incorporating contemporary works—such as Boeske (2023) on environmental leadership or Ren et al. (2024) on transformational leadership’s role in sustainability—would better position the study within current debates. Additionally, acknowledging potential selection bias (studying only *successful* kibbutz industries) as a limitation would bolster methodological rigor.  

The references are generally relevant and appropriate, though adding 2-3 recent (2023–2024) sustainability-focused leadership studies would demonstrate updated scholarly dialogue. Minor grammatical refinements (e.g., article usage, tense consistency) are advised to enhance readability.  

Overall, this research offers valuable empirical and theoretical insights. By sharpening the communal leadership concept, tightening the structure, and integrating contemporary literature, the manuscript’s already strong merit will further stand out for publication.

Author Response

Authors would like to acknowledge since very valuable comments that have helped improving the quality and relevance of the presented work have been provided. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The selected study is interesting in analyzing the leadership style on the basis of Kibbutz culture (attitudes, values).
However, in order to make the article more structured and present the obtained research results more clearly.
I suggest adjusting the article in the following directions:
- In the abstract, briefly present the summarized results
- In the introduction, clearly indicate the purpose of this article and how you understand sustainability in your work. Are you looking for manifestations of sustainability in companies or communities?
- At the end of the theoretical review, there is a lack of systematic presentation of the analyzed leadership styles by distinguishing their features. This can be presented in a table. Such a presentation would facilitate the reading of the obtained research results.
- Methodological part. Specify the purpose of the document content analysis, what period the documents were analyzed for, what criteria for the analysis were. The limitations of the study are not presented.
- Provide the directions of the interview research method questions.
- How were the research informants selected. Maybe you can provide the logic for coding the informants' answers.
- Analysis of the research results. There is a lack of clear logic in presenting the research results. Where are the results of the document content analysis presented, and where are the interviews?
- When presenting the results of interviews or document research analysis using quotes, I would like to ask you to indicate the sources.
- It is difficult to understand when reading how the results of the interview research are compared: A and B with T? or others? Please clarify.
- How are the following sections related to the expression of leadership style traits: 4.2.5 Going global 4.2.6. Policy for the long term. Shouldn't they have been presented with the results of the document content analysis? Please explain.
- How does the analysis of the theoretical part fit in with the research results section Cooperative Leadership in Kibbutz Industries
- In the discussion section, highlight the connections between leadership style and sustainability.
In the conclusions, clarify the connection between the defended statements and the research results.

Author Response

Authors would like to acknowledge since very valuable comments that have helped improving the quality and relevance of the presented work have been provided. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- For comment 3 of R1:

Regarding the lack of context, relevance and gap of the study in the introduction, the author justified stating the lack of literature on the theme. However, the author also states that the results are applicable to other businesses.

The literature on management of kibbutz enterprises can be scarce, but the literature on leadership, sustainability, and management is very robust. If the author claims that the results can be helpful in other kinds of business, why is the general literature about the themes mentioned not used?

The author must present a theoretical background to base research, even if the context needs to be more general. There are several aspects in the literature that the author used to base the study, but the introduction does not mention any of them. The author must talk about the relevance of sustainability in business management, the relevance of sustainable leadership, the importance of organizations of different kinds to base their principles, strategy and actions on sustainability, etc.

- For comment 4 of R1:

The fact that results may be helpful in other businesses does not justify the study conducted. The author must clearly explain the relevance of the paper.

- Regarding the document analysis 2020-2025, although it is mentioned in the methods, I did not find their analysis in the results section. And the debates comparing the case studies with the recent documents.

- Theoretical and practical implications are missing in the conclusion section.

- Newspaper seems very imprecise, what kind of information was used? What method was used for content analysis? How this part of the research was conducted?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- The paper still needs grammar revision, e.g., “she met them on several events, Moreover, she conducted before a year in 2024 an interview” (comma instead of point, “before a year”?)

- In “The researcher read also economic current newspaper”, instead of read, analyzed would be better.

Author Response

Authors would like to acknowledge since very valuable comments that have helped improving the quality and relevance of the presented work have been provided. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf