Sustainability and Organizational Performance in South Korea: The Effect of Digital Leadership on Digital Culture and Employees’ Digital Capabilities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your paper.
Please see my suggestions and concerns above which might increase the value of the paper.
The paper addresses an interesting topic, that is, Sustainability and Organizational Performance in South Korea: The Effect of Digital Leadership on Digital Culture and Em- ployees’ Digital Capabilities. Albeit, the manuscript presents a good theoretical background and is well written, there are some aspects for improvement that need to be addressed, namely:
1) In the introductory item, please add a paragraph presenting the structure of the paper, at the final of this item.
2) In the Section 3 - Research Model and Methodology:
- Regarding the measurement of the variables, you explain why you dropped 1 of the six items of the Digital Leadership measure, but you do not explain why you dropped 3 of the five items of the Digital Culture measure and also 3 of the five items of the Employee's Digital Capabilities measure
- Regarding the Construct Validity Analysis I think it is problematic to proceed with the analysis when we have GFI (.848), AGFI (.765), and RMSEA (.097) values
I don't understand your explanation which is "However, GFI (.848), AGFI (.765), and RMSEA (.097) are not fit; therefore, we use *** to check the validity"
- To overcome these limitations, I suggest that you can adopt one of two options: Obtain a lot more valid questionnaires or use another data analysis methodology
-Please add in the annex the questionnaire used for data gathering
-Please explain why you did not use control variables
3) In the Section 5 - Conclusion and Discussions
I suggest the introduction of a paragraph explaining the limitations of the study
Good luck in refining the paper!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Your abstract states that transformational leadership is being replaced by digital leadership, but p. 2 indicates that BOTH are needed. I'd suggest that the latter is stated in the abstract. You can say that you are focusing on the digital leadership aspect.
Hypotheses are well founded.
State that you are ADDING two hypotheses.
I like your research model.
You need to state which industries/companies you selected and on what basis. Did you really contact EVERY business in S. Korea? If so, say so. It would also be nice if the % of people WITHIN each company who responded were noted.
Nice job explaining instruments.
Probably need to qualify this statement (and similar ones): These results indicate that digital culture has no impact on organizational 391 performance in South Korea - FOR THE EMPLOYEES WHO RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY.
You need to state your limitations; 111 responses does not cover all Korea's industries so be careful of generalizations.
Another benefit of the research is the use of the assessment measurement instruments.
Is the italicized paragraph in the conclusion a direct quote? If so, it needs page numbers. Otherwise, what is the reason for the italics?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments to the Author(s)
This paper explores the relationship between digital leadership and organizational performance in Korea by a survey data. This study can be meaningful research. However, this study exists obvious flaws in the research design, empirical analysis and even in the conclusion and discussion. Besides, this study are some low-level mistakes (font, typography, grammar and et al).
Comments:
1) As mentioned in the hypothesis, there may exist positive and significant relationship between the variables. But in the 5.1 General Discussion, this relationship is translated as positive and significant direct effect (casual effect, my understanding), which is incorrect. But if the authors want to investigate the casual effect between DL and Org P, as well the mediating effect of Digital Culture and Employees Digital Capabilities, current analysis is far from enough. However, if just analysis the relationship between the variables, I think the academic contribution is quite limited.
2) I cannot understand why there are many words with blue color, and even some are in bold. As well, the content in 4.2 Hypotheses Testing should not be with bold and third paragraph in 5.2 should not be in italic and should be justify align.
3）In the literature review and hypothesis, there exist H4.1&H4.2, H5.1&H5.2, which is different from hypothesis in the proposed research model.
4) The layout of Table 1, 3, 6 are not good, which with contents not in same page.
The quality of figure 2 should be improved.
5) What does the ***means in Table 6? I believe the p value should be a number, and can also be number with ***, but the *** should be noted like “*** means significance level at 1%”.
6) I think the authors should consider using language editing services provided by professional organizations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
Thank you for taking my suggestions seriously when you reviewed your article. I congratulate you on your work and wish you the best of luck in the future
Author Response
Thank you. Your suggestions have improved the quality of our paper. Thank you so much for your reasonable opinions. Happy New Year.
Reviewer 2 Report
In Appendix, delete 1. Type of industry, 2. Size of organization, 3. Employee work position, 4. Work experience. These variables are already shown in Sample and Data Collection section. Looks redundant.
New numbering starts from 5. Digital Leaderhsp...
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Thanks for revising according to my suggestions, please kindly explain the following questions.
1. Could you explain to me why there are some many different places with blue color?
2. Please check table 2, delete the extra "." in the organizational performance part. Also please add 0. in some necessary places，also please keep same three number after 0. Conduct the same for table 1, table 3, table 4, figure 2.
3. In the reference, only four or five with doi, how about others?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
