The Anointed Steward: A Critical Review of Western Christian and Secular Steward Leadership Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article's topic is interesting and pertinent, and the content is well-structured.

 

Below, I express some suggestions (authors and concepts) that the author can consider; however, in the final text for publication can be omitted:

 

a.         The intersectional perspective is progressively gaining ground in the agendas and recommendations of political and legal actors at the transnational level. Yuval-Davis considers it the "most relevant framework for understanding issues concerning social justice in global terms" (Yuval-Davis, 2011, p. 193; Kimberlé Crenshaw and Intersectionality, 2019, p. 17).

b.         Likewise, some theoretical contribution related to gender studies is lacking. Surprisingly, no mention appeared in the text.

c.         Covid-19 is not mentioned in any line of work and sounds strange in a 2023 publication.

d.         The theorist Edward Saïd coined the term "traveling theory" in 1983: In the same way that people do, the ideas that "nourish intellectual and political life travel across eras, disciplines, and borders" (Said, 2006, p. 303).

 

Some formal issues for the author to take into consideration:

a.         In the abstract, it is explicit that “With the continuing entanglement of leadership modalities and governance theories regarding being a steward and a servant, it becomes apparent to applications that the need to understand existing research across domains becomes paramount based on origin, perspective, complexity, and volume”. However, this scheme needs to be reflected in the text. Now it's not.

b.         In Figure 1, the time sequence is not justified. Why every five years?

c.         Point 6 ends with the idea of Anointed Steward as a Functionalist: Is it the conclusion? Does a discussion open? While what is raised is interesting, it could be more enlightening to appear at the end of the document with a different title.

 

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article addresses an intriguing subject – the analysis of stewardship from both religious and non-religious standpoints within the context of leadership theory. However, despite the merits of this approach, there are several issues that need attention:

One major concern is that the authors discuss the religious aspect in very general terms, without confining themselves to a specific religion or denominational theology. In a brief article like this, such an approach seems unsatisfactory. It is challenging to deduce that diverse religions share similar views on the essence of anointing and stewardship. An attempt to adopt a generic ‘faith-based’ perspective may inevitably lead to a superficial and selective analysis with limited conclusions. It would be more appropriate for the article to focus on one religious or theological tradition.

Another notable flaw in the article is the absence of a proper introduction. Although Section 1 serves partially as an introduction, it fails to clarify the sources and research methods used. The mention of the four-quadrant Cartesian plane as a research method is questionable. Additionally, the criteria for selecting religious and non-religious literature remain unclear.

Given the extensive scope of the topic, encompassing both faith-based and secular perspectives, the article lacks systematic reflection. As a result, readers may find it challenging to grasp the authors' reasoning fully. Regarding the religious aspect, biblical quotations are freely cited without a structured analysis of the biblical model of leadership or stewardship. Conversely, no references are made to normative sacred texts from other religions.

While the authors incorporate a considerable amount of literature, the extensive list of references throughout the article makes it difficult to discern their original contribution. Consequently, the impression arises that the article is a compilation of existing references.

In light of these shortcomings, I would like to propose the following recommendations:

1. Narrow the focus of the article to concentrate on one religious tradition. This would allow for a more in-depth and comprehensive exploration of the chosen tradition's perspective on stewardship and leadership.

2. Rethink the framing of stewardship and leadership within the chosen religious tradition. Present the ideas in a structured manner to enhance clarity and coherence.

3. Restructure the article to clearly highlight the authors' novel contributions to the scholarly discussion. This could involve a more systematic analysis of the religious texts and a comparative evaluation of stewardship and leadership principles across different traditions.

 

By implementing these suggestions, the article will be better positioned to achieve its scholarly objectives and make a meaningful contribution to the field of study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made suggested improvements. The article is interesting and deserves to be published.