Leadership and Work Engagement Effectiveness within the Technology Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Re: Manuscript “Leadership and work engagement effectiveness within the technology era”

 

Thank you very much for your effort in revising our manuscript.

We consider that all your suggestions are very important and constructive in developing the final form of our manuscript.

For this reason, we performed the following revisions bellow.

1. We added the correct information in regard with the sampling method, changed the title accordingly. We also reduced the focus on entrepreneurship, as you suggested.
2. We cleared both under theoretical and analysis background the aspects in regard with properly identifying the variables that were used.
3. We explained how work engagement was measured.
4. In the appendix we provided the content of the questionnaire, both in romanian and english.
5. We modified the tree table so it can be readable; moreover we modified the chart for the importance performance map as suggested.
6. We added information in regard with future research to advance a greater causality.
7. As mentioned before, we reduced the focus on entrepreneurship not only within the initial part of the manuscript, but also within conclusions.

 

Thank you very much once again!

 

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the paper titled 'Entrepreneurship and job performance complexities within the technology era' and found it an excellent contribution to literature. However, I would like to recommend a few things.

The authors have not provided a proper introduction. They should include an introduction to the study.

In the literature review, the authors should also present the latest research in order to establish the relationship among variables. Moreover, they should explicitly mention the significance of conducting research on these variables. 

In sampling, the authors should explain how they mitigate the element of sampling bias.  

In measures, the authors have mentioned that they will provide the questionnaire in the appendix which is missing. In addition, there should be an explanation as to why they have used a 7-point Likert scale instead of the original 5-point Likert scale.

It should also be explained why the authors have used Smart PLS for the data analysis.

The discussion should be thoroughly revised. It should discuss how the results are similar or different from previous research.

Theoretical implications should provide details regarding your contribution to the specified theory.

The section on practical implications does not fulfill its intended purpose. It should clearly mention how this study would benefit the practitioners.

The authors should also proofread the whole document as there are spelling and grammatical mistakes.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Re: Manuscript “Leadership and work engagement effectiveness within the technology era”

 

Thank you very much for your effort in revising our manuscript.

We consider that all your suggestions are very important and constructive in developing the final form of our manuscript.

For this reason, we performed the following revisions bellow.

1. We added a introduction to the study.
2. We added information in the literature review in regard to the latest research and established relationship among the variables and mentioned the significance of conducting research on these variables.
3. Referring to sampling, we explained how we mitigate the element of sampling bias.
4. We provided the questionnaire in the Appendix and fully explained why we preferred a 7 point Likert scale instead of a traditional 5 point Likert scale.
5. We explained why we used Smart PLS software.
6. We revised the discussion and added information on similarities and/or differences in regard with previous research.
7. We improved the section of theoretical implications we provided details in regard to our contribution to the theoretical background.
8. We added more details on section on practical implications has been improved.
9. We proofread the entire document in regard with spelling and grammatical mistakes.

 

Thank you very much once again!

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for sending your paper to the journal. I studied your paper several times and due to the following main issues, the paper is rejected at this stage:

1- The abstract of the study only should be covered the research objective-research method- conclusion and originality. According to the current standard format of the abstract, your paper missed this part.

2-The introduction section, should cover several sections such as the introduction of the dependent variable, research problem and research gap- research originality. In contrast you b brought a very small and rough introduction.

3-The theoretical issues poorly support the research hypotheses

4-In the research method still I have several concerns, the first is about the sample of the study. How and why did you select 508 participants? Further, the data were poorly analysed without any additional analyses or robustness tests.

5-The research limitation should be completely revised according to the real condition of the study

6- Still there is a doubt what is the actual contribution of the study

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Re: Manuscript “Leadership and work engagement effectiveness within the technology era”

 

Thank you very much for your effort in revising our manuscript.

We consider that all your suggestions are very important.

As much possible, we tried to take into consideratio your very constructive comments.

1. We have been rewriting the abstract and covered the objective, research method, conclusion and originality.
2. We added information in regard to the Introduction section of the current manuscript and introduced the dependent variable, research problem and research gap.
3. We revised the theoretical background in order to better support the research hypotheses.
4. We explained why our conveninece sample has 508 participants; in regard to the robustness test, we tried to give more valid arguments, from literature,why it wasn’t applied in our ststistical analysis.
5. We revised the research limitations.
6. We added information and explained what is the actual contribution of the study.

Thank you very much once again!

 

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a very good job.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for sending the revised manuscript, the current version meets my academic expectations and the paper is accepted in the current format. Congratulations