Does Inclusive Leadership Improve the Sustainability of Employee Relations? Test of Justice Theory and Employee Perceived Insider Status

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has potential for publication, but I recommend adding the following:

An understandable goal should be added to the abstract and core of the manuscript, and its context should be mentioned very clearly in the conclusions.

It is impossible to have the exact keywords with the title of the manuscript; the authors thereby deprive themselves of the possibility of citations.

The authors do not entirely respect the formal editing required by MDPI; I recommend quoting correctly according to the template.

I consider it necessary to cite only professional sources (impacted articles) that are less than 5-8 years old.

I totally miss the discussion of research results and similar research abroad.

All images must be referenced and carefully explained in the text.

I don't understand why it is cited in the results section; only research results are supposed to be presented here. An explanation of the use of the methods and relevant citations belong to the methodology.

 

Figure 3 does not make sense in the context of the x-axis; it needs to be better described.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your invaluable comments and suggestions, which have improved the revised version significantly.

 

We would also like to send our appreciation to you for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper. We would like to thank you for your following comments:

• The article has potential for publication,

 

 

We would also like to send our appreciation to you for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper and for providing excellent comments. Below are our responses to your helpful comments and suggestions.

 

Question 1. Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? (can be improved)

 

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Answer 1:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods and stated clearly the contents in our revised manuscript.

 

 

Question 2. Are all the cited references relevant to the research? (must be improved)

 

Answer 2:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved both our citations and the references so that all the cited references are relevant to the research of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 3. Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? (can be improved)

 

Answer 3:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods so that the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are clearly stated in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 4. Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? (must be improved)

 

Answer 4:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved the arguments and discussion of findings in our paper so that the arguments and discussion of findings in our revised manuscript are now coherent, balanced and compelling.

 

Question 5. For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? (must be improved)

 

Answer 5:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have clearly presented the results for empirical research in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 6. Is the article adequately referenced? (must be improved)

 

Answer 6:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have included more adequate references in our paper so that our article is now adequately referenced in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 7. An understandable goal should be added to the abstract and core of the manuscript, and its context should be mentioned very clearly in the conclusions.

 

Answer 7:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have included the understandable goal in the abstract and core of the manuscript and mentioned the context clearly in the conclusions of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 8. It is impossible to have the exact keywords with the title of the manuscript; the authors thereby deprive themselves of the possibility of citations.

 

Answer 8:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 9. The authors do not entirely respect the formal editing required by MDPI; I recommend quoting correctly according to the template.

 

Answer 9:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have conformed to the format of our paper.

 

Question 10. I consider it necessary to cite only professional sources (impacted articles) that are less than 5-8 years old.

 

Answer 10:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have mainly cited professional sources that are less than 5-8 years old in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 11. I totally miss the discussion of research results and similar research abroad.

 

Answer 11:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved the discussion of research results and similar research abroad in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 12. All images must be referenced and carefully explained in the text.

 

Answer 12:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have referenced and carefully explained all images in the text of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 13. I don't understand why it is cited in the results section; only research results are supposed to be presented here. An explanation of the use of the methods and relevant citations belong to the methodology.

 

Answer 13:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 14: Figure 3 does not make sense in the context of the x-axis; it needs to be better described.

 

Answer 9:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

We hope that you will find this manuscript suitable to be included in an upcoming issue of your publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Inclusive leadership

 

The presented studies in the ­­introduction all point to the positive impact of inclusive leadership. It simply seems to be a wonderful leadership strategy that benefits all employees. IN that sense, there seems to be little reason to study the impact of IL. Halfway page 2, the authors propose that “the most fundamental questions remain unexplored”. The intro does not specify which questions those are. There is little doubt about the impact of IL on withdrawal: you could hardly imagine anything but a positive impact there. Please make a more convincing claim explaining why we need this study. Right now it reads like the introduction of ‘just another IL study’. What is so urgent about this RQ?

The notion that there is a tension between social inclusion and belongingness on the one hand, and value uniqueness and individuality is fascinating, but in the model, I only see the first represented (Insider status). Furthermore, I wonder what ‘insider status’ as a moderator adds beyond the work that proposes that identification processes underly the effects of IL.

 

The mediation hypothesis is convincing, although there is such abundance of evidence of IL’s effectiveness that you get the idea that it correlates with any belongingness- or performance concept.

The argument behind moderation hypothesis 4 makes sense, although one could just as easily propose that distr. justice mediates the relationship: an inclusive leader treats employees in a more fair way, and, as the paper proposes: “when individuals receive fair and transparent treatment, they feel themselves part of the inner group.” The latter refers to insider status right? The model also shows direct relationships between DJ and IS. It also shows that leaders are perceived as more inclusive when the treatment is fair. I can follow the argument that distributive fairness makes them willing to “accept and embrace the leadership”, but in this case it is implausible that the moderator (DF) is independent of the IV (inclusive leadership). Surely IL will lead to more perceived fairness.

 

Method:

Clear and appropriate method. The authors could explain why this healthcare setting is an appropriate setting to test these predictions, a little better: is there variation in IL? Is withdrawal a particular problem in this setting? Some additional information about hierarchical structures is needed. Who are these leaders? How large are teams generally?

Results:

The results are presented in a clear way. There is an error in the table presenting the moderation effect of H4: The moderation hypothesis is about the interaction between IL and DJ. In the table, the interaction between IL and withdrawal seems to be presented. The beta presented in the table (0.328) is not the same as the one in the text (0.283). Can the authors please correct this error and also provide a better explanation of of the moderation graph: is that based on a median split? Is that a simple slopes graph?

 

Discussion:

As I interpret insider status, it relates to belongingness, but not so much to uniqueness. Masterson & Stamper’s dimension does not convince that IS relates to both uniqueness and belongingness, but rather to belongingness only. As such, one can hardly conclude that the findings are in line with the optimal distinctiveness theory. Having an insider status -to me- means that one belongs to the group (you are an insider) and you do not necessarily hold a unique, individual position in the group.

Rather, I’d think that the research design lacks a measure of uniqueness. That is a point that should be included in the methodological discussion.

Otherwise, the discussion nicely covers the findings.

Writing:

The paper is very overall well-written. It is extremely clear and pleasant to read.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your invaluable comments and suggestions, which have improved the revised version significantly.

 

We would also like to send our appreciation to you for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper. We would like to thank you for your following comments:

 

• English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
• Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?         (yes)  
• Are all the cited references relevant to the research?         (yes)  
• Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?         (yes)  
• Is the article adequately referenced? (yes)  
• The paper is very overall well-written.
• It is extremely clear and pleasant to read.
• The mediation hypothesis is convincing
• The argument behind moderation hypothesis 4 makes sense,
• Clear and appropriate method.
• The results are presented in a clear way.
• the discussion nicely covers the findings.

 

 

We would also like to send our appreciation to you for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper and for providing excellent comments. Below are our responses to your helpful comments and suggestions.

 

Question 1. Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? (must be improved)

 

Answer 1:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved the arguments and discussion of findings in our paper so that the arguments and discussion of findings in our revised manuscript are now coherent, balanced and compelling.

 

Question 2. For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? (must be improved)

 

Answer 2:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have clearly presented the results for empirical research in our revised manuscript.

Question 3. An understandable goal should be added to the abstract and core of the manuscript, and its context should be mentioned very clearly in the conclusions.

 

Answer 3:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have included the understandable goal in the abstract and core of the manuscript and mentioned the context clearly in the conclusions of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 4. Please make a more convincing claim explaining why we need this study. Right now it reads like the introduction of ‘just another IL study’. What is so urgent about this RQ?

 

Answer 4:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have made a more convincing claim explaining why we need this study in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 5. The notion that there is a tension between social inclusion and belongingness on the one hand, and value uniqueness and individuality is fascinating, but in the model, I only see the first represented (Insider status). Furthermore, I wonder what ‘insider status’ as a moderator adds beyond the work that proposes that identification processes underly the effects of IL.

 

Answer 5:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 6. I can follow the argument that distributive fairness makes them willing to “accept and embrace the leadership”, but in this case it is implausible that the moderator (DF) is independent of the IV (inclusive leadership). Surely IL will lead to more perceived fairness.

 

Answer 6:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 7. The argument behind moderation hypothesis 4 makes sense, although one could just as easily propose that distr. justice mediates the relationship: an inclusive leader treats employees in a more fair way, and, as the paper proposes: “when individuals receive fair and transparent treatment, they feel themselves part of the inner group.” The latter refers to insider status right? The model also shows direct relationships between DJ and IS. It also shows that leaders are perceived as more inclusive when the treatment is fair. I can follow the argument that distributive fairness makes them willing to “accept and embrace the leadership”, but in this case it is implausible that the moderator (DF) is independent of the IV (inclusive leadership). Surely IL will lead to more perceived fairness.

 

Answer 7:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 8. The authors could explain why this healthcare setting is an appropriate setting to test these predictions, a little better: is there variation in IL? Is withdrawal a particular problem in this setting? Some additional information about hierarchical structures is needed. Who are these leaders? How large are teams generally?

 

Answer 8:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 9. There is an error in the table presenting the moderation effect of H4: The moderation hypothesis is about the interaction between IL and DJ. In the table, the interaction between IL and withdrawal seems to be presented. The beta presented in the table (0.328) is not the same as the one in the text (0.283). Can the authors please correct this error and also provide a better explanation of of the moderation graph: is that based on a median split? Is that a simple slopes graph?

 

Answer 9:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 10: As I interpret insider status, it relates to belongingness, but not so much to uniqueness. Masterson & Stamper’s dimension does not convince that IS relates to both uniqueness and belongingness, but rather to belongingness only. As such, one can hardly conclude that the findings are in line with the optimal distinctiveness theory. Having an insider status -to me- means that one belongs to the group (you are an insider) and you do not necessarily hold a unique, individual position in the group.

 

Answer 10:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

We hope that you will find this manuscript suitable to be included in an upcoming issue of your publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Detailed comments are provided in attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your invaluable comments and suggestions, which have improved the revised version significantly.

 

We would also like to send our appreciation to you for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper. We would like to thank you for your following comments:

• For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? (yes)  
• Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? (yes)  
• Abstract Is well structured and attracts the readers.
• Keywords are appropriate as per the manuscript

 

 

We would also like to send our appreciation to you for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper and for providing excellent comments. Below are our responses to your helpful comments and suggestions.

 

Question 1. Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? (can be improved)

 

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Answer 1:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods and stated clearly the contents in our revised manuscript.

 

 

Question 2. Are all the cited references relevant to the research? (must be improved)

 

Answer 2:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved both our citations and the references so that all the cited references are relevant to the research of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 3. Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? (can be improved)

 

Answer 3:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods so that the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are clearly stated in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 4. Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? (must be improved)

 

Answer 4:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have improved the arguments and discussion of findings in our paper so that the arguments and discussion of findings in our revised manuscript are now coherent, balanced and compelling.

 

Question 5. Is the article adequately referenced? (must be improved)

 

Answer 5:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have included more adequate references in our paper so that our article is now adequately referenced in our revised manuscript.

 

Question 6. Introduction

 

Answer 6:  Thank you very much for pointing out all the problems in the Introduction Section. We have fixed all the problems you raised in the Introduction Section of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 7. Model and hypotheses

 

Answer 7:  Thank you very much for pointing out all the problems in the Model and hypotheses Section. We have fixed all the problems you raised in the Model and hypotheses Section of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 8. Data and Methodology

 

Answer 8:  Thank you very much for pointing out all the problems in the Data and Methodology Section. We have fixed all the problems you raised in the Data and Methodology Section of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 9. Empirical analysis

 

Answer 9:  Thank you very much for pointing out all the problems in the Empirical analysis Section. We have fixed all the problems you raised in the Empirical analysis Section of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 10. Discussion

 

Answer 10:  Thank you very much for pointing out all the problems in the Discussion Section. We have fixed all the problems you raised in the Discussion Section of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 11. Implications

 

Answer 11:  Thank you very much for pointing out all the problems in the Implications Section. We have fixed all the problems you raised in the Implications Section of our revised manuscript.

 

Question 12. References

 

Answer 12:  Thank you very much for your advice. We have addressed the issue in our revised manuscript.

 

 

We hope that you will find this manuscript suitable to be included in an upcoming issue of your publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Agree

Author Response

Thank you very much for your invaluable comments and suggestions, which have improved the revised version significantly.

 

We would also like to send our appreciation to you for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper. We would like to thank you for your following comments:

• Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?         (yes)  
• Are all the cited references relevant to the research? (yes)  
• Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?         (yes)  
• Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? (yes)  
• For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? (yes)  
• Is the article adequately referenced? (yes)  
• Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? (yes)  
• I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

 

We hope that you will find this manuscript suitable to be included in an upcoming issue of your publication.