The Relationship between Female Leadership Traits and Employee Innovation Performance—The Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The editor would update the authors wih the decision
Author Response
The reviewer has not review report.
Reviewer 2 Report
I'm grateful for the opportunity to edit the manuscript titled "The Relationship between Female Leadership Traits and Employee Innovation Performance -- The Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing" that was submitted to Sustainability Special Issue "Women in Sustainable Leadership and Entrepreneurship".
Of course, female leadership issue becomes even more vital when women are at the forefront of for your rights, this is of particular importance during the critical points of social development of public life in all world.
The authors have carried out a good theoretical analysis of the researchers’ works which are devoted to a range of issues on the relationship between female leadership traits and employee innovation performance.
This research fits in the main theme of the journal, but still requires several revisions. Below are some specific comments:
1. The approach to the internet survey (line 304) chosen by the authors is questioned as its inherent limitations could hardly paint an accurate picture of public attitudes regarding the research question and the sample size is too small.
2. Also, important to set this study in relation to both other similar studies and to prior research in cultural context.
I am sure that the answers to these comments / prescriptions will improve the quality of this article.
I will be happy to review the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Many thanks to the experts for reviewing our paper. Based on your suggestions for improvement, we have revised the paper. The details are as follows.
Point 1: The approach to the internet survey (line 304) chosen by the authors is questioned as its inherent limitations could hardly paint an accurate picture of public attitudes regarding the research question and the sample size is too small.
Response 1: We agree with you very much. Actually，we have distributed a total of 554 questionnaires, and now only 313 can be used. According to our reading of relevant literature, we found that there is no clear statistical requirement for the sample size. Usually, the sample size is about 5 to 10 times that of the number of questionnaire questions. Moreover, we have carefully analyzed that the increase in the number of questionnaires will not affect the empirical results. Of course, if the sample size can be increased, this is also very good. But we are not in a position to reissue the questionnaire.
Point 2: Also, important to set this study in relation to both other similar studies and to prior research in cultural context.
Response 2: This recommendation has been modified in this article. Please refer to the red font part of the text for the specific modification content. Please see the attachment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I read your article. The research is relevant and current. The authors conducted a study on the SEM model and collected data on a sample of 313 questionnaires.
However, this article needs improvements, such as:
- the introduction does not show the gaps in the literature, the novelty of the study and the structure of the article
- in the literature analysis the dimensions for the characteristics of female leadership are not approached. This part should be written rigorously, adding citations from scientific articles that address this topic. Citations must be from recent studies.
- based on the literature analysis in the article, 4 research hypotheses are formulated from H1 to H4. The authors wrote before Figure 1 that there are 6 research hypotheses - "According to the preliminary research model and six hypotheses proposed, the research model of this paper is drawn, as shown in Figure 1".
- in part 4.1. The authors write that, therefore, a total of 350 questionnaires were issued and 313 valid questionnaires were valid after the questionnaires with male direct leadership were removed and those with female direct leadership were retained, and from Table 1 it appears that 46% of respondents former male and 54% female ,,. Please clarify this part of the study.
- it is also not clear what the acronyms in table 2 represent. Please add an appendix with the items in the questionnaire and the corresponding acronym.
-the authors present the results of the study without discussing them compared to the results from other studies
- figure 2 lacks the link from "Personality caring ability" to "Knowledge sharing". Please clarify this.
- the results in some tables are not discussed, such as those in table 10.
- the title in point 6 does not agree with the content for this part. The authors did not present the conclusions of the study.
- the article does not have relevant and recent bibliographical references.
- the authors did not comply with the requirements for writing the article
In addition, the authors use too long sentences, which lose their meaning, such as the paragraph from line 100 to line 105.
The article needs improvements.
I recommend you see as a model the article from the following link https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9665, maybe it will inspire you.
That's all!
After improving your article, I recommend sending it back for analysis!
Best wishes!
Author Response
Many thanks to the experts for reviewing our paper. Based on your suggestions for improvement, we have revised the paper. The details are as follows.
Point 1: the introduction does not show the gaps in the literature, the novelty of the study and the structure of the article
Response 1: This recommendation has been modified in this article. Please refer to lines 35-42, lines 48-52, and lines 56-87 in red fonts for specific revisions.
Point 2: in the literature analysis the dimensions for the characteristics of female leadership are not approached. This part should be written rigorously, adding citations from scientific articles that address this topic. Citations must be from recent studies.
Response 2: This paper has explored the dimensions of female leadership characteristics. In addition, this paper also increases the discussion of knowledge sharing, concept connotation and measurement dimension of employee innovation performance. For the specific modification content, see the red font part of lines 90-253 in the text.
Point 3: based on the literature analysis in the article, 4 research hypotheses are formulated from H1 to H4. The authors wrote before Figure 1 that there are 6 research hypotheses - "According to the preliminary research model and six hypotheses proposed, the research model of this paper is drawn, as shown in Figure 1".
Response 3: This recommendation has been modified in this article. Please refer to the red font part of lines 445-448 in the text for the specific modification content.
Point 4: in part 4.1. The authors write that, therefore, a total of 350 questionnaires were issued and 313 valid questionnaires were valid after the questionnaires with male direct leadership were removed and those with female direct leadership were retained, and from Table 1 it appears that 46% of respondents former male and 54% female. Please clarify this part of the study.
Response 4: in part 4.1. The interviewees for this article were employees led by female leaders, not female leaders. Therefore, the male-to-female ratio in Table 1 is the male-to-female ratio of employees led by female leaders.
Point 5: it is also not clear what the acronyms in table 2 represent. Please add an appendix with the items in the questionnaire and the corresponding acronym.
Response 5:An appendix has been added to this article to explain the questionnaire items represented by each acronym in Table 2. For the specific modification content, please refer to the red font part of lines 843-888 in the text.
Point 6: the authors present the results of the study without discussing them compared to the results from other studies.
Response 6: This paper has compared the findings with those of other studies. Please refer to the red font part of lines 682-699 in the text for the specific modification content.
Point 7: figure 2 lacks the link from "Personality caring ability" to "Knowledge sharing". Please clarify this.
Response 7: This paper has explained the relationship between Personality caring ability and Knowledge sharing. The results of the study are compared with those of other studies. For the specific modification content, please refer to the red font part of lines 526-598 in the text.
Point 8: the results in some tables are not discussed, such as those in table 10.
Response 8: The results in Table 10 have been discussed in this paper. Please refer to the red font part of lines 630-644 in the text for the specific modification content.
Point 9: the title in point 6 does not agree with the content for this part. The authors did not present the conclusions of the study.
Response 9: This article has presented the conclusions of the study in point 6. For specific revisions, see the red font part of lines 646-699 in the text.
Point 10: the authors did not comply with the requirements for writing the article
Response 10: This recommendation has been modified in this article. Please refer to the paper for details of the revisions.
Point 11: In addition, the authors use too long sentences, which lose their meaning, such as the paragraph from line 100 to line 105.
Response 11: This article has revised the sentences from lines 100 to 105. This recommendation has been revised. For the specific modification content, please refer to the red font part of lines 256-262 in the text.
Please see the attachment about modified paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
.
