Ethical Leadership: A Multi-Stage Mediation Model of Value Congruence and Organizational Identification on Employee Engagement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for submitting your paper and for the opportunity to review the article “Ethical Leadership: a multi-stage mediation model of value congruence and organizational identification on employee engagement”. After a comprehensive review, crucial areas for improvement were identified. The maximum abstract length of 200 words is not adhered to. The abstract contains all required elements. Keywords should be separated by a semicolon and not a comma. In the introduction, authors should more critically evaluate the area of research and explicitly define the research gap. The structure of the article and a brief description of the individual chapters are absent in the introduction. Authors should not use blank lines. It would be appropriate if the authors divided the Materials and Methods chapter into subchapters, e.g., sample selection and data collection, measurement of variables, and methods used. Details on ethical consent and anonymity are absent in this section. It would be appropriate to provide information on the basic demographic data of the sample if they were part of the data collection. The results chapter is not sufficiently elaborated. There is no visualisation of the results of the statistical investigation. An additional table of all regression coefficients, standard errors, and p-values for all paths would increase transparency. Only in the "Discussion" chapter is it stated that the model explained 20% of the variability in employee engagement. This should have been stated in the "Results" chapter. Although it is stated that a bootstrap with 2000 iterations was used, it is not stated what the exact confidence intervals were for all effects. The discussion is not sufficiently elaborated. The authors compare the results with other research, but they abstract from contradictory findings. The discussion thus seems one-sidedly positive. The authors state the limits of the study in a separate section (5.3), but the results themselves do not state what may distort these results. The authors also do not evaluate the effect size in the context of practical significance. Is 20% sufficient? How are the results of the models in the area under study? Or what is the informative value of the models in the area of behavioural research considered sufficient? In the conclusion chapter, the authors do not use the full potential of this chapter of the scientific article. The conclusion is too brief. The authors abstracted, for example, from the resulting quality of the model or the assessment of limitations, which would contribute to fairness and credibility. It also does not contain a call or recommendation for future research, which is important in scientific writing standards (although they were discussed in the previous chapter, they should be briefly summarised in the conclusion). There is no formulation of why these findings are relevant or important in light of current trends.

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comprehensive and thoughtful review of our manuscript "Ethical Leadership: a multi-stage mediation model of value congruence and organizational identification on employee engagement." We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing such detailed and constructive feedback. Your thorough analysis has significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work.

We have carefully addressed each of your recommendations in our revision:

Structural and Formatting Improvements: We have corrected the abstract length to comply with the 200-word limit, changed keyword separators to semicolons, removed blank lines throughout the document, and restructured the Methods section with appropriate subheadings including sample selection, data collection, ethical considerations, and analytical methods.

Introduction Enhancements: We have added a critical evaluation of the research area with explicit identification of research gaps, incorporated an article structure overview with brief chapter descriptions, and strengthened the theoretical positioning of our contribution.

Methods Section: We have divided this section into clear subchapters, added details on ethical consent and anonymity procedures, and provided comprehensive demographic information about our sample.

Results Section: We have moved the variance explanation (R²) findings from the Discussion to the Results section, enhanced the presentation of statistical findings, and provided more detailed reporting of our structural equation modeling results.

Discussion Section: We have significantly expanded this section to include contradictory findings, alternative perspectives, effect size evaluation in the context of practical significance, integration with recent research, and a more balanced assessment of our findings' implications. We have also addressed the methodological considerations that may influence result interpretation.

Conclusion Section: We have substantially enhanced the conclusion to include model quality assessment, comprehensive limitations discussion, future research recommendations, and explicit connections to current organizational trends and societal implications.

Your feedback has helped us better articulate the significance of our multi-stage mediation approach and its theoretical contributions to understanding the true psychological mechanisms through which ethical leadership operates. We believe these revisions have resulted in a more robust, transparent, and comprehensive manuscript that addresses the methodological rigor and scholarly standards expected in the field.

We hope that our revisions have adequately addressed your concerns and that the manuscript now meets the high standards of Administrative Sciences. We look forward to your assessment of the revised work.

Best regards,

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. References could be enhanced with recent papers.
2. In the Conclusions section it is necessary to show the social value of this study.
3. The items for each variable should be presented in an appendix at the end of the paper.
4. How do the authors explain the participation of 60% Caucasians in the survey?
5. To what extent can the participation of a high share of Caucasians in the survey influence the research results?
6. The "Results" section should be developed with a more in-depth description of the models (Model 1, Model 2 and Model 3) presented by the authors. The results presented are difficult to understand in the current version.
7. In the Discussion section it is necessary for the authors to relate the results received to recent research on the problem investigated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive and insightful review of our manuscript "Ethical Leadership: a multi-stage mediation model of value congruence and organizational identification on employee engagement." We sincerely appreciate your careful evaluation and the specific guidance you provided for improving our work. Your feedback has been invaluable in strengthening the manuscript.

We have addressed each of your recommendations comprehensively:

Recent References Enhancement: We have substantially updated our reference list to include more recent publications, adding several 2020-2025 studies including meta-analytic evidence from Amory et al. (2024) on cross-cultural ethical leadership research and Legood et al. (2020) on trust in leadership relationships. This enhances our engagement with contemporary scholarship in the field.

Social Value Discussion: We have significantly expanded the Conclusions section to include a dedicated subsection (6.4) on "Social Value and Broader Implications." This section explicitly addresses how our findings contribute to addressing workplace inequality, corporate responsibility, mental health considerations, economic resilience, and democratic governance—demonstrating the broader societal relevance of our research beyond organizational boundaries.

Variable Items Appendix: We have added Appendix A at the end of the paper, presenting all items for each variable (Ethical Leadership, Work Engagement, Organizational Identification, and Value Congruence) used in our study, enhancing transparency and replicability.

Cultural Composition Analysis: We have provided a thorough explanation of the 60% Caucasian participation, addressing both questions 3 and 4 together. In our enhanced Limitations section (5.4), we explain that this demographic reflects the MBA program sample source and discuss how this cultural composition may influence our findings. We analyze how our value congruence mechanism may be particularly salient in individualistic cultures, while collectivistic cultures might show different pathways to organizational identification through respect for authority or group-level processes.

Enhanced Results Section: We have significantly developed the Results section with more detailed descriptions of our model comparisons (Models 1, 2, and 3). We now provide clearer explanations of what each model represents, their respective fit indices, and the theoretical implications of the differences between models, making the results more accessible and understandable.

Recent Research Integration: We have extensively revised the Discussion section (5.3) to integrate recent research on ethical leadership, including contemporary meta-analyses and studies from 2020-2024. This integration shows how our findings relate to current developments in the field and positions our contribution within the evolving landscape of ethical leadership research.

Your feedback has helped us articulate more clearly the theoretical significance of our multi-stage mediation approach and its implications for understanding how ethical leadership actually operates through value congruence mechanisms. We believe these revisions have resulted in a more comprehensive, transparent, and impactful manuscript that better serves both the academic community and practitioners.

We are grateful for your thoughtful review and hope that our revisions adequately address your concerns while maintaining the rigor and contribution that Administrative Sciences expects.

Best regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

it is necessary to adjust table 1 according to the template.I have no further comments. Thank you for incorporating the previous comments. The quality of the article has improved significantly. I wish you much success in your scientific work.

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for helping make this a better article. The new version has fixed the table 1 format.