Organizational Learning at Purpose-Driven Enterprise: Action–Research Model for Leadership Improvement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present in the actual version of the manuscript an interesting organizational-subject research questionnaire-based result. However, the whole manuscript must be reformulated / improved / explained /  in a more efficient and practical way  so that the reader can understand the real purpose of the manuscript…

 

 

The following are just some suggestions of how the manuscript must be improved for further reviews.

 

• The authors refer a model with 5 steps in the abstract. However, regarding the model there is nothing to be found … it is only described in the future research section in a very briefly way. Please properly describe the model before present the results of conclusions.

 

• Please create a Table with the 5 steps and the respective description. The way the steps are described is very misleading and not properly explained.

 

• It is not clear if what you present in the manuscript is a model or a set of conclusions based on information collected through a questionnaire. Please explain this point.

 

• I suggest the use of one figure (diagram, process flow, other) to help explain the model developed by the authors presented in the manuscript.

 

• In the abstract the ideas are not clear. The abstract is too large, and it does not focus on the major goal of the manuscript. Please rewrite the abstract in a more concrete compact way.

 

• The connection between the content presented in the manuscript and the scope of the journal is not pretty clear. I suggest that the author creates a sub-section named “ 1.1. Relevance and Novelty of the Research” where it clearly explains the missing connection.

 

• There are too many typos across the manuscript. I suggest a proof reading/writing by a native English language. For example: “ promote a better understanding of nowadays leadership’s role …” you mean today´s … instead of nowadays. In line 70 “ daily bases“ , you mean daily basis ... In line 387  “Forth step, about making decisions, guides organizational move from formal …” You mean Fourth step … Line 391 “ Five step completes“ ... you mean Five steps completes. Excessive use of So(s)…. And so on …

 

• The conclusions section must be improved. This means that the authors need to explain the managerial and academic implications of the research and connect them with the developed work in the present manuscript. I suggest the authors to use two sub-sections (1- Managerial implications, 2- academic implications). You can also use a more complete approach by using:

1-Conclusions

1.1 - Managerial implications

1.2 -Academic implications

1.3 -Future considerations

 

• The authors should consider the following point: instead of presenting in Appendix the questionnaire used to collect information that helps to elaborate the findings, they should present the results for each of the questions in a table and introduce them in the section Results.

 

• The authors refer: mixed (quantitative-qualitative) basis in line 405. Please develop on this subject. It is unclear what you aim with this statement…

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

I deeply appreciate your comments and suggestions, that really helps to a better understanding of research results and scope.

Please, see the attachment to read the changes made in the manuscript second version.

Yours, sincerely!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper presents part of wider study and explores important, attractive topic. It is soundly written, but authors probably aim to split their wider research and to publish in this article only smaller part. The questionnaire is not given in English, so it must be translated. Table with claims in the questionnaire and their connection with literature sources and interviews should be added. Also, some type of exploratory analysis on data collected must be given to prove the contribution of this paper - namely descriptive statistics, correlations and for instance data reduction techniques.

Author Response

I deeply appreciate your comments and suggestions, that really helps to a better understanding of research results and scope.

Please, see the attachment to read the changes made in the manuscript second version.

Yours, sincerely!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good job

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper is in acceptable form now.