The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Performance: Testing the Mediating Effects of Knowledge Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

In the following rows, I will present my recommendation for your article.

1. The abstract should contain the full name of the variables, in the actual form being practically impossible to detect which variables the study refers to.
2. For Hypotheses testing T-value is not a sufficient indicator, path coefficients, p-values and standard deviation should also be provided for a proper interpretation. The hypotheses testing is incomplete in the actual form.
3. Argumentation for hypotheses 13-18 is superficially, and not consistent, more arguments and previous results should be indicated for each hypothesis.
4. We suggest adding discriminant analysis using Fornell and Larcker (1981) indications and also providing data regarding multicollinearity.
5. The methodology should be improved and better arguments should be provided. The use of correlation analysis results when Structural Modeling Equation incomplete results were presented is not consistently sustained.
6. Better spelling and English writing should be provided.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance and looking forward to hear from you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giing me the opportunity to review this paper.

The paper in its current state is very good and almost ready for publication. I would recommend some minor changes:

1. Abstract: as you are testing 15 hypothesis, the fact that you put all results in 3 sentences creates confusion. I would rather either focus on the most important or try to explain the overall results without going into details of what is correlated with what. this to improve readibility of your manuscript
2. Theory and hypothesis development: this section is very well crafted for the first 11 hypotheses. From 12 to 15, you just drop there referecence to the literature review. So, you have two options: either you decide that these are control varibles and relationships, so you remove them from the theory and just have them in the methodology, or you provide an adequate justification. I would add 3 sentences each. if the overall manuscript is too long, try to cut from intro or first paragraph of theory. 
3. Methodology: it seems very well crafted and i have no concern on this section.
4. The same for the results section: very well done.
5. Conclusions: I would detail more the contribution of the study. you start to do this, but then you go back stating what is significant and what is not (which you already did in the results session). Try to remove that part and focus more on the overall high-level relevance of your findings. you can reduce in length this session and only focus on the relevance of your results.

Author Response

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance and looking forward to hear from you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The abstract is more clear, the 13-18 hypotheses are better sustained. The research methodology is very well improved, and better argumented encompassing the colliniarity indicators, path coeficients and p-values. 

Thank you for correctly implementing all the suggested recommendations! 

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your valuable recommendations.