The Relationship between Figureheads and Managerial Leaders in the Private University Sector: A Decentralised, Competency-Based Leadership Model for Sustainable Higher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting, but in order to have a better understanding, I suggest adding the corresponding figures and tables in the results and not adding them as annexes. Rather, the figures should help to explain the findings in a clearer way.
Author Response
The Editor  
Sustainability
Subject: revised version submission for (sustainability-1904005-R1)
Dear Editor
I would like to thank you for getting our manuscript reviewed. Our heartfelt gratitude towards the reviewers for their meticulous jobs and without which it would not have been possible to reach this stage. We are indebted to you for your professional guidance.
The following is a write-up which may kindly be accepted as a response to the comments from the reviewers and from the editors.
General Responses:
I have found all the comments are important and incorporated the corrections suggested. While the corrections given by reviewer 1, 2 and 4 are minor (although reviewer 2 provides some extensive corrections), reviewer 3 suggested major correction. Although I respect the comments from all reviewers and put all the efforts to address them, I also notice the pragmatic corrections suggested by the reviewer 3 are also covered by the others especially reviewer 2. However, reviewer 3 might have missed some points due to the adherence of citation od MDP pattern. According to the MDPI, we need to cite by reference number NOT by the author’s name and I followed that. Hence, I think that we have miss-understanding as reviewer 3 said that I didn’t use references and literature to identify the scope and to map the gap and also to supplement the discussions. This is nor right as I used references and literature but they are by number NOT by name. Hope that the reviewer 3 would be able to trace in this version. The corrections are made by the red colour texts and they are found in the revised version. I will respond to the comments of reviewer 1, 2 and 4 before I respond reviewer 3.
Having saying that a point-by-point detailed explanation on how I have addressed each comment is provided bellow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Reviewer 1
Comment:
The article is interesting, but in order to have a better understanding, I suggest adding the corresponding figures and tables in the results and not adding them as annexes. Rather, the figures should help to explain the findings in a clearer way.
Response:
Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and valuable comments on our paper. Your comments are substantially crucial to our study. I am sorry that I missed to inset where the table, figures and diagram are to be set in the texts. I have now inserted that note to direct where the table, figures and diagram are to be set and please be assured that they are not annex. However correctly, they can be found at the bottom of the paper but typesetting would make sure that they are inserted at the right place while final formatting would take place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sincerely thank for the support and I am obliged. I made all the corrections as suggested therefore pray and hope the esteemed reviewers and editor grant the publication.
Yours sincerely
Author
Reviewer 2 Report
The study looks original and interesting. I enjoyed reading it. Yet I have the following comments:
-The introductory paragraph is unclear. Before making a sharp entry, the authors can begin with a short definition of "figurehead" and managerial leadership, to prepare readers for the further discussion on the relationship between these concepts.
- In the second paragraph, what is VC? Explaing the abbreviation the first time you use it.
- Avoid paragraphs with one or two sentences. (see p.3)
- There is a problem with the fluency of the literature review. There are sharp transitions between concepts and paragraphs.
- Methodology:
- Can you give a total number of participants involved in your study?
-There is no any information regarding the reliability-validity of the data collection instruments.
-Since qualitative research procedures are described in detail, you must provide information about how you developed your instruments, how did you assure the reliability and validity of your instruments, and your research data.
- YOu may consider including one or two sample interview questions to section 4.4 and tell your readers what resources you benefited from creating your interview questions.
- What type of analysis have you used analysing your data? Content or descriptive analysis? No any information provided here.
Results:
-Results are well organised. Yet your discussion of the results should be deeper and more analytical
Conclusion
You must explain more how decentralized competency-based leadership model will contribute to the leadership practice you tackle in your research.
Author Response
Subject: revised version submission for (sustainability-1904005-R1)
Dear Editor
I would like to thank you for getting our manuscript reviewed. Our heartfelt gratitude towards the reviewers for their meticulous jobs and without which it would not have been possible to reach this stage. We are indebted to you for your professional guidance.
The following is a write-up which may kindly be accepted as a response to the comments from the reviewers and from the editors.
General Responses:
I have found all the comments are important and incorporated the corrections suggested. While the corrections given by reviewer 1, 2 and 4 are minor (although reviewer 2 provides some extensive corrections), reviewer 3 suggested major correction. Although I respect the comments from all reviewers and put all the efforts to address them, I also notice the pragmatic corrections suggested by the reviewer 3 are also covered by the others especially reviewer 2. However, reviewer 3 might have missed some points due to the adherence of citation od MDP pattern. According to the MDPI, we need to cite by reference number NOT by the author’s name and I followed that. Hence, I think that we have miss-understanding as reviewer 3 said that I didn’t use references and literature to identify the scope and to map the gap and also to supplement the discussions. This is nor right as I used references and literature but they are by number NOT by name. Hope that the reviewer 3 would be able to trace in this version. The corrections are made by the red colour texts and they are found in the revised version. I will respond to the comments of reviewer 1, 2 and 4 before I respond reviewer 3.
Having saying that a point-by-point detailed explanation on how I have addressed each comment is provided bellow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Reviewer 2
Comments:
The study looks original and interesting. I enjoyed reading it. Yet I have the following comments:
Response:
Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and valuable comments on our paper. Your comments are substantially crucial to our study. I address all of your comments in the revised version. The point-by-point following note describes how I address your comments.
Comments:
-The introductory paragraph is unclear. Before making a sharp entry, the authors can begin with a short definition of "figurehead" and managerial leadership, to prepare readers for the further discussion on the relationship between these concepts.
Response:
Thank you so much for the helpful comments and I have addressed all the concerns. The introductory paragraph is made clear and the new writing can be found in page 1 with red colour texts.
Comments:
- In the second paragraph, what is VC? Explaing the abbreviation the first time you use it.
Response: Thank you so much. The abbreviation is spelled out and can be found in red colour text at page 2.
Comments:
- Avoid paragraphs with one or two sentences. (see p.3)
Response: Thanks. The issue is taken care off and can be found in page 3.
Comments:
- There is a problem with the fluency of the literature review. There are sharp transitions between concepts and paragraphs.
Response:
Thank you so much. Following your suggestions, the development is made. You can find the adjustments via red colour texts from pages 3 to 5.
Comment:
-Methodology:
- Can you give a total number of participants involved in your study?
Response:
Please refer to the table 2 and details are provided there.
Comments:
-There is no any information regarding the reliability-validity of the data collection instruments.
-Since qualitative research procedures are described in detail, you must provide information about how you developed your instruments, how did you assure the reliability and validity of your instruments, and your research data.
- YOu may consider including one or two sample interview questions to section 4.4 and tell your readers what resources you benefited from creating your interview questions.
- What type of analysis have you used analysing your data? Content or descriptive analysis? No any information provided here.
Response:
Thank you so much for all these great observations. These suggestions are well taken care of and subsequently improvements are made and they can be found in pages, 7, 8 and 9 with red colour texts.
Comments:
Results:
-Results are well organised. Yet your discussion of the results should be deeper and more analytical
Response:
Thank you so much for all these great observations. These suggestions are well taken care of and subsequently improvements are made and they can be found in pages 13 and 14.
Comment:
Conclusion
You must explain more how decentralized competency-based leadership model will contribute to the leadership practice you tackle in your research.
Response:
Thank you so much for all these great observations. These suggestions are well taken care of and subsequently improvements are made and they can be found in page 15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sincerely thank for the support and I am obliged. I made all the corrections as suggested therefore pray and hope the esteemed reviewers and editor grant the publication.
Yours sincerely
Author
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the submission on the topic ‘The relationship between figureheads and managerial leaders in the private university sector: an approach to decentralised competency-based leadership model’ to sustainability journal. While, the topic is relevant to the current trends, there were several points which need to address for the improvement.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Subject: revised version submission for (sustainability-1904005-R1)
Dear Editor
I would like to thank you for getting our manuscript reviewed. Our heartfelt gratitude towards the reviewers for their meticulous jobs and without which it would not have been possible to reach this stage. We are indebted to you for your professional guidance.
The following is a write-up which may kindly be accepted as a response to the comments from the reviewers and from the editors.
General Responses:
I have found all the comments are important and incorporated the corrections suggested. While the corrections given by reviewer 1, 2 and 4 are minor (although reviewer 2 provides some extensive corrections), reviewer 3 suggested major correction. Although I respect the comments from all reviewers and put all the efforts to address them, I also notice the pragmatic corrections suggested by the reviewer 3 are also covered by the others especially reviewer 2. However, reviewer 3 might have missed some points due to the adherence of citation od MDP pattern. According to the MDPI, we need to cite by reference number NOT by the author’s name and I followed that. Hence, I think that we have miss-understanding as reviewer 3 said that I didn’t use references and literature to identify the scope and to map the gap and also to supplement the discussions. This is nor right as I used references and literature but they are by number NOT by name. Hope that the reviewer 3 would be able to trace in this version. The corrections are made by the red colour texts and they are found in the revised version. I will respond to the comments of reviewer 1, 2 and 4 before I respond reviewer 3.
Having saying that a point-by-point detailed explanation on how I have addressed each comment is provided bellow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Reviewer 3
Comment
Thank you for the submission on the topic ‘The relationship between figureheads and managerial leaders in the private university sector: an approach to decentralised competency-based leadership model’ to sustainability journal. While, the topic is relevant to the current trends, there were several points which need to address for the improvement.
Response:
Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and valuable comments on our paper. Your comments are substantially crucial to our study. I have found all the comments are important and incorporated the corrections suggested. While the corrections given by reviewer 1, 2 and 4 are minor (although reviewer 2 provides some extensive corrections), reviewer 3 suggested a major correction. Although I respect the comments from all reviewers and put all the efforts to address them, I also notice the pragmatic corrections suggested by the reviewer 3 are also covered by the others especially reviewer 2. However, reviewer 3 might have missed some points due to the adherence of citation od MDP pattern. According to the MDPI, we need to cite by reference number NOT by the author’s name and I followed that. Hence, I think that we have miss-understanding as reviewer 3 said that I didn’t use references and literature to identify the scope and to map the gap and also to supplement the discussions. This is nor right as I used references and literature but they are by number NOT by name. Hope that the reviewer 3 would be able to trace in this version. The corrections are made by the red colour texts and they are found in the revised version. I have responded to the comments of reviewer 1, 2 and 4 and I am now responding the comment of reviewer 3.
Comment:
Abstract The paper is on elucidating the school management settings mainly amongst private universities in order to generate revenue for profits and survival, where based on this starting point they should at the same time retain a sound education philosophy. Of course, this is quite challenging task to implement clearly in the reality. The objective as the author said is to look into detail about arranging a sound education philosophy. However, the proposed contribution as author suggested contained a dynamic revenue collection model in developing a decentralised competency-based leadership approach. The clear link between proposed objective and given suggestion is still needed a further justification. This is important in order to ensure the clarity of issue and solving is properly linked. The authors stated distributed leadership, but sometimes, distributed way, several times in abstract, while no clear definition with its conceptual detail was made in the literature. It is a must in order to enable readers to have a clear picture of the content and context.
Response:
The improvement is made and can be found in red colour texts at page 1.
Comment:
Introduction Despite managerial leadership which incorporates both 32 government/management running of a country or its major institutions, 33 “figurehead” leadership prevails in many scenarios, in the first page. It is quite difficult to follow the detail of meaning. Please clearly revise accordingly. The rest of presented ideas is seemingly good in a way which can be easily understood. While, in 1.1. Research gap and scope: objective and questions, the author(s) stated only the number or size of student population enrollment, and did not clearly mentioned what the previous studies was done, mainly those discussing on the figureheads and managerial leaders in the private university sector as proposed in this paper. Moreover, regarding the scope also, it was not clearly justified what and how the scope is in the context of this study. This section is only mentioned about the objective of the study, nor the scope at all. One more important aspect is clear justification on selecting the state, country or certain place as the case study, where in this study the author(s) suddenly mentioned to propose Bangladesh as a case study. In the academic paper, prior to selecting one place to be considered as case study, there should be clearly justified, i.e. giving detail about the flow of the background of Bangladesh as case study in this context, then more narrowly described into education context and particularly on decentralised competency-based leadership model. As mentioned clearly in the introduction regarding figurehead and managerial leader in the university either private or public, the demanding questions are still required to give a brief description mainly on how the author(s) integrate in a way to combine in emerging the background between Bangladesh as a case study and the examples given detail in the introduction. This should be clearly and concisely mentioned.
Response:
The improvement is made and can be found in red colour texts at pages 1 and 2.
Comment:
Literature review The author(s) did sucessfully present the terms, definitions and conceptual framework clearly. However, since the author(s) said 'an approach to decentralised competency-based leadership model' in the topic, the author(s) failed to present this topic theme in the literature. There should be a distinct sub-theme to explain it in detail. This is important to enable those readers who are not in background may have a better understanding. In the section, 2.3. Transformation of university philosophy: challenges for private university leadership, it was mentioned that '[28] believed that a university’s purpose is to create “elite leaders” to run a country and in this way to gain international prestige and influence'. It was not clear who mentioned this and why this was decided. In the section, International comparative significance, it would be better for the author(s) to strictly mention the case example of private and public university with their figurehead and managerial leaders in Asian context, mainly for those with kingship and presidenship, for instance Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore, Thailand and others.
Response:
The improvement is made and can be found in red colour texts at pages 3, 4 and 5. The section International comparative significance is very relevant for this paper because private university is a recent phenomenon for the research area of international comparative education and development and I have been working in this field more than 3 decades and publishing in this area. The main argument of this paper is leadership in private university which is a topic of International comparative education. The paper main argument is not centred to a monarchy system such as kingship, presidentship and so on. Hence, figureheads’ leadership to private sector points issues likewise Board of trustees, Board of governance, Board of Directors. Yes, a minor example in the context of kingship is used to exemplify the figureheads issue but that is not main focus. A caution reading would give the real scenario.
Comment:
Methodology It was sufficiently stated. While, the author(s) mentioned triangulation process on this section. There should be clearly defined what it is. This is important to enable readers not from this background may have a sufficient understanding. How triangulation would be made if only presented qualitative data as primary data. There should be additional supporting data, wheter it comes from documentation or observation. If so, there should be clearly mentioned.
Response:
Thanks, further revisions are made which can be found in red colour texts from pages 7, 8 and 9.
Comment:
Results It was sufficiently stated.
Response:
Thanks
Comment:
Analysis and discussions The author(s) did not clearly state what the difference and similarity of current work compared to the previous work. If so, there should be clearly stated further in enabling the readership to look into detail about the significance.
Response:
Revisions are made and can be found in page 13, 14 and 15.
Comment:
Implications, further research, and limitations In this section, the author(s) stated the arguments and ideas from the work without mentioning the author(s) who said. It should be clearly stated in enabling the readers in obtaining better understanding. However, there are some quotes from the research participants inserted in this section, the question is why such quotes are needed in this section. As commonly known, the implication on social, practical or even knowledge has to be clearly stated, rather than inserting the data again in this section. Why this quotes were not put in the results sections. To be honest, it was not clearly what is between results and analysis, which all these should be sparately discussed with a careful explanation. It would be better in obtaining such sections, results and analysis to be divided into two distinctive themes.
Response:
Revisions are made and can be found in page 14, 15.
Comment:
Conclusion The overall results were presented clearly. However, again there was not clear in which significance or difference the current study about the figurehead and managerial leaders in the private university context compared to the already being or previous topic on the similar matter.
Response:
Revisions are made and can be found in page 15 and 16.
Comment:
References The overall references are well structured and up to date.
Response:
Thanks a lot for the kind support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sincerely thank for the support and I am obliged. I made all the corrections as suggested therefore pray and hope the esteemed reviewers and editor grant the publication.
Yours sincerely
Author
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript is relevant. Although it would benefit with the review of some issues:
Not all the acronyms are explicit
The study is presented as qualitative (4.1), nevertheless some data are presented in % (5.3)
Authors don’t provide a social characterization of interview’ respondents
Some statements require further support (e.g. line 611)
There are some inconsistencies (e.g. line 611 and line 630)
Author Response
Subject: revised version submission for (sustainability-1904005-R1)
Dear Editor
I would like to thank you for getting our manuscript reviewed. Our heartfelt gratitude towards the reviewers for their meticulous jobs and without which it would not have been possible to reach this stage. We are indebted to you for your professional guidance.
The following is a write-up which may kindly be accepted as a response to the comments from the reviewers and from the editors.
General Responses:
I have found all the comments are important and incorporated the corrections suggested. While the corrections given by reviewer 1, 2 and 4 are minor (although reviewer 2 provides some extensive corrections), reviewer 3 suggested major correction. Although I respect the comments from all reviewers and put all the efforts to address them, I also notice the pragmatic corrections suggested by the reviewer 3 are also covered by the others especially reviewer 2. However, reviewer 3 might have missed some points due to the adherence of citation od MDP pattern. According to the MDPI, we need to cite by reference number NOT by the author’s name and I followed that. Hence, I think that we have miss-understanding as reviewer 3 said that I didn’t use references and literature to identify the scope and to map the gap and also to supplement the discussions. This is nor right as I used references and literature but they are by number NOT by name. Hope that the reviewer 3 would be able to trace in this version. The corrections are made by the red colour texts and they are found in the revised version. I will respond to the comments of reviewer 1, 2 and 4 before I respond reviewer 3.
Having saying that a point-by-point detailed explanation on how I have addressed each comment is provided bellow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Reviewer 4
Reviewer: 4
Comments:
The manuscript is relevant. Although it would benefit with the review of some issues
Response:
Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and valuable comments on our paper. Your comments are substantially crucial to our study. I address all of your comments in the revised version. The point-by-point following note describes how I address your comments.
Comment:
Not all the acronyms are explicit
Response:
Thanks. The issue is taken care off and can be found in page 3.
Comment:
The study is presented as qualitative (4.1), nevertheless some data are presented in % (5.3)
Response:
I have improved following your suggestion and it can be found via red colour texts at page 7.
Comment:
Authors don’t provide a social characterization of interview’ respondents
Response:
I have improved following your suggestion and it can be found via red colour texts at page 8.
Comment:
Some statements require further support (e.g. line 611)
Response:
In the current revised version, the line 611 has been moved to 639 and I have adjusted and improved them
Comment:
There are some inconsistencies (e.g. line 611 and line 630)
Response:
In the current revised version, the line 611 has been moved to 639 and 630 has moved to 660 and I have adjusted and improved them
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sincerely thank for the support and I am obliged. I made all the corrections as suggested therefore pray and hope the esteemed reviewers and editor grant the publication.
Yours sincerely
Author
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors reviewed the manuscript in line with my suggestions.
Author Response
Thanks for accepting the paper
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author
Thank you for very prompt revision and clever comments. However, the revision is still needed in order to make more detail. The author(s) still needed to give more detail on literature, mainly why Bangladesh as the selected case of study. Although the author(s) claimed to have an experience for decades in this topic, there were still not clear on presenting the research gap. It should be clearly justified and proved in the current form. Regarding the citation, there should be the name, who said such statement, then followed by the citation. That is the main point from the previous comments.
Thank you.
Author Response
I find your comments a bit personal and the wording is a bit rude and I didnt like the word clever. Here, nothing to be clever what I noted that reviewers 1, 2 and 4 provided minor corrections while you provided major. In fact, these 3 reviewers have already accepted the paper. However, please find my response below:
# why a study in the context of Bangladesh in this particular topic is also relevant to the globe is explained at the sub-section 2.4. International comparative significance. The green colour texts have explained it sufficiently.
# Citation issue is double checked with MDPI format and MDPI accepts this format.
I have done so far, I could. I now rest the case.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you. All the issues were addressed.
Author Response
Thanks for accepting the paper
