Middle Management Leadership Experiences of a Mission-Driven Innovation University Strategy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

These are my comments after my revision,

1) In the Introduction section, it seems that the generalization of universities resembling private businesses and competencies, is to vague and the phrase should be rewritten.

2) Also, in the Introduction: from globalization and rapid change. What is rapid change. Please scpecify.

3) The Introduction needs a definition of what it is mission-driven innovation.

4) The concept academic middle managers should be specified.

5) The phrase in the Introduction, from 'Against' to processes' is confusing and too long. Be aware that there many keu concepts added in this phrase that needs strong specification. Specially if those terms are not further use, I suggest to delete them.

6) The question is also confusing and not well formulated. Please think of rewritting it. To me also is confusing, the term 'initial phase of mission-driven innovation strategy...'

7) Authors should define the vertical and horizontal management activities they are involved in. I guess the four main activities  could be arranged to suit peer-to-peer relationships and also vertical dependences. Try to define general roles in the activities. I know that the activities may be country dependent, but try to generalise them.

8) You should present a interreability analysis between the analysers, with values.

9) Table 2 is not in the right format. Try to be consistent.

10) To me, the information of Table 2 should be the basis of a 'Results' section.

11) I am wandering if the teachers involved in the study were indeed following some of the SDGs in their action, or as a member a faculty or university that delivered SDGs outcomes, etc.

12) Since the information and analysis was performed on a set of academic middle managers, and once driven the conclusions, could the authors state like a list of activities that may arise from the analysis for an 'efficient academic middle manager' for a best management.

Author Response

1) In the Introduction section, it seems that the generalization of universities resembling private businesses and competencies, is to vague and the phrase should be rewritten.	Thank you for highlighting this! Even though, it was meant as a contextual note, to start up the introduction, it is reading too general and vague. So, we fully agree with you, and this has been rewritten accordingly – also in combination with the latter comment below.
2) Also, in the Introduction: from globalization and rapid change. What is rapid change. Please scpecify.	As with the aforementioned comment, we also agree, that it was too vague, and it now also reads differently (in combination with the prior comment)
3) The Introduction needs a definition of what it is mission-driven innovation.	Another very reasonable point, and this is now inserted accordingly. Defined by the main developer of the mission-driven innovation framework. It now also includes a shorter encircling of what it means for universities (and the connection with UNSDGs).
4) The concept academic middle managers should be specified.	This a good point – and it has now, in the introduction section, been specified further – with a key reference (Bryman, 2007) and more specified (historically) by Rudhumbu (2014).
5) The phrase in the Introduction, from 'Against' to processes' is confusing and too long. Be aware that there many keu concepts added in this phrase that needs strong specification. Specially if those terms are not further use, I suggest to delete them.	When reading it, we see that the mentioned concepts herein, are as you point out, not really being applied later – those are deleted from the text, as we fully agree, that these might confuse more than necessary.
6) The question is also confusing and not well formulated. Please think of rewritting it. To me also is confusing, the term 'initial phase of mission-driven innovation strategy...'	We have followed the suggestion and removed ‘innovation’ and kept ‘strategy’. We have also removed the phrases mentioned: “initial phase” in the introduction section.
7) Authors should define the vertical and horizontal management activities they are involved in. I guess the four main activities  could be arranged to suit peer-to-peer relationships and also vertical dependences. Try to define general roles in the activities. I know that the activities may be country dependent, but try to generalise them.	This is a valid argument, we however, do not present the framework of vertical/horizontal management activities in the paper, and therefore, we do not see this needed. We do acknowledge, that it is useful to know, but we have tried to include the last point in this feedback point, that activities may differ and vary among countries – but there a general activities (such as orchestrating and delivering transformations within the department)
8) You should present a interreability analysis between the analysers, with values.	Not being able to fully depict the calculative dimension – we acknowledge that it was an inappropriate term, and this has now been substituted accordingly with a specification of the process.
9) Table 2 is not in the right format. Try to be consistent.	This is attended to – and should now be in the correct Word formatting layout.
10) To me, the information of Table 2 should be the basis of a 'Results' section.	We fully agree, but we also proceed and present table 2 as the basis of the categories and related analysis. It is placed in the article within methodological procedures as an ending - hopefully guiding readers into the start of the findings and discussion in a meaningful way. We do, and thereto also acknowledge the feedback, convey the categories' content into narrative representations.
11) I am wandering if the teachers involved in the study were indeed following some of the SDGs in their action, or as a member a faculty or university that delivered SDGs outcomes, etc.	A good reflection – we do not investigate this, but have taken it into account, and this could indeed be an interesting next step for exploration.
12) Since the information and analysis was performed on a set of academic middle managers, and once driven the conclusions, could the authors state like a list of activities that may arise from the analysis for an 'efficient academic middle manager' for a best management.	Indeed, this is a good point and we have included an additional proposal, based on our findings, suggesting ‘good/best practices’ for other academic middle managers' practices of managing. This also feeds into the former review comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims this paper “aims to explore middle management stakeholders' perspectives concerning a mission-driven innovation university strategy by qualitatively combining a phenomenographic and thematic analysis for understanding the experiences of this exact group of individuals”, a relevant field because some universities are just beginning mission-driven strategy implementation; and, therefore, it is also an original field of study that could provide important insights to all institutions starting this new path, and to other researchers interested in this subject.

Th theoretical framework designed by the authors is well developed, using many relevant and appropriate references (classics and also more up to date). And the methods applied are coherent and are clear about how authors were careful about, not only applying the scientific method correctly, but also other topics such as privacy and other ethical issues. I would be concerned about the use of both iteratively and abductively qualitative analysis, however the authors explained well how they avoided limitations; and, also, they admitted to them.

Results are cohesive and allowed to give answers to the main question “What is perceived by academic middle managers enacting a mission-driven innovation strategy in a higher education institution regarding experiences, encountered challenges, and affordances?” and permitted important conclusions.

I advise the authors to make sure they have the correct formatting of table and references. They do not seem to follow the instructions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We greatly appreciate the feedback given, and we especially appreciate that attention has been given to certain elements, that we also are quite satisfied with. It brings us joy, that notice was given to the intricate dilemmas of blending methodological approaches, in addition to both iteratively and abductively processing data. We fully recognize that the formatting of tables and reference list was wrongly formatted, and we have attended to this, and it should now fit the formatting layout prescribed by the journal. Thank you, for some very kind words overall.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No additional comments.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are pleased to know the changes made are sufficient and we thank you for accepting our revisions. 

Best,

The author team