Developing Creative Leadership in the Use of Digital Communication Tools: A Psychological Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The investigated theme is of scientific interest and suitable for the special issue of Sustainability Journal.
Regarding the manuscript development, I suggest some ideas for improvement:
-The objective of the study is not well identified in the summary or in the introduction. I think the authors should specifically introduce it at the beginning of both sections.
-The conceptual framework could bring other arguments regarding the need to use effective digital communication strategies for creative leadership. Perhaps it would be necessary to specify the risks to which the employees would be exposed, possible pathologies that would appear at the level of the organization due to the lack of a creative management, which does not also call on digital communication; for example, large psychological distance between management and employees, low productivity, workaholism etc. I recommend arguing the importance and necessity of carrying out such a study also by analyzing other articles, such as:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413641
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.460
The conclusions are well drawn and interesting.
The authors incorporate a section of limitations, which demonstrates their honesty and frankness in the investigation. In my opinion, this section is very convenient and timely.
I recommend reading the manuscript carefully; for example, in line 289 there is a transition error, probably rehearsability and reprocessability.
The conclusions of the study should present the importance and necessity of these researches for the adaptation of organizational communication strategies to the evolution of digital technologies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Introduction
In this section, the role of team cooperation and the difficulties arising from the use of communication tools should be emphasized even more.
2. Literature Review
The basic concepts are well defined. The authors are well versed in the topic and presented the most important facts and information in this area.
It is worth pointing to the dynamics of employees working remotely (communicating remotely) during the COVID-19 period, for example:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210923-1
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200206-1
5. Research methods
In future research, it is worth adding a question about communication preferences (Remotely or in contact). For some people, the period of a pandemic is a time of lower workload related to, among other things, reduced communication in the organization.
6. Results
Do the authors have data on how communication in these companies looked like before the pandemic? How common was electronic communication and how dominant was personal communication? It is worth relating the obtained results to these data.
Line 498 "optimal media configuration" in digital communication may also have the risk of compromising creativity generation - this part is very important and should be even more emphasized.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I read the paper with great interest and enthusiasm. The paper is well written with substantial literature support and appropriate underpinning theories. However, I have the following minor observations for further improvements of the paper.
1) The title: Please edit the title as suggested below:
Developing Creative Leadership in the Use of Digital Communication Tools: A Psychological Perspective
2) The draft contains lots of typos and grammatical errors i.e., all three hypotheses contain the word, farther. It should be 'further'. The paper should be sent for proofreading before final submission.
3) I would suggest that the RQs be explained at the end of the introduction section. It looks very odd to find the RQs after research hypotheses.
4) The research hypotheses should be synchronized with the RQs. This is a serious matter that authors need to address. I did not find any relation between RQs and hypotheses proposed in the current draft.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
