Examining Dark Triad Traits in Formal Leaders and Their Impact on Employee Workplace Stress: A Comparative Study of Family and Non-Family Businesses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your work for review. Please allow me to make the following suggestions for clarifying and strengthening the manuscript.

Overall, the manuscript is reasonably well-written and easy to follow. Thank you for that.

First, I must confess that I was surprised by the 4th hypothesis in that there is no clear indication there should be a moderation effect. Please take the time to make the conceptual linkages succinct and tenable. 

On line 206, we are missing the end of the sentence.

On line 287, you note "of the 95 employees who..." but there are 220 participants. Please clarify.

In the Tables, we need to see correct italicizing. For instance in Table 3, the M and SD needs italicizing.

In two places, you mention performing a confirmatory factor analysis, but provide no details. Typically, authors present that they were testing one model against two or more competing models until they reach the final acceptable results.

In the Method section, there is not sufficient information to replicate your work, as recommended at the manuscript's conclusions. So, with regards to working with the Association who helped with the student, was there a contact person? The HR person, for instance? Further, was the survey weblink pilot tested? How do we know how long it took to take the survey? Did you have any way to make sure the survey link was only used once? In addition, how did you handle possible common method variance bias statistically? You note taking procedural steps, but the second half of this is the statistics (see Podaskoff & colleagues, 2003). Finally, please provide some rationale as to why the study was conducted in Portugal, which is a strength of this research.

In the Results section, please indicate how the moderator variable was coded. It is hard to follow unless you do so. In addition, with hierarchical regression, you need to justify its use over simultaneous or stepwise regression. There is a theoretical reason to use a hierarchical approach (See Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Please report the amount of variance being explained (R2) with each step in the regression equation. 

In the Discussion section, you mention theoretical contributions in passing, but completely overlook the JD-R theory you presented in the Introduction. One of the possible limitations was the nature of your sample; that is, is a relatively well educated group. Future research could use samples of less educated participants too.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify and strengthen our work.

 

Comment 1: First, I must confess that I was surprised by the 4th hypothesis in that there is no clear indication there should be a moderation effect. Please take the time to make the conceptual linkages succinct and tenable. 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that the conceptual linkages leading to the proposed moderation effect in H4 were missing. To address this, we made an effort to revised the relevant section of the manuscript and provide a more coherent rationale for the moderation effect (page 7, line 263).

 

Comment 2: On line 206, we are missing the end of the sentence.

Response 2: Thank you for the note. We now provide the word missing (i..e, performance).

 

Comment 3: On line 287, you note "of the 95 employees who..." but there are 220 participants. Please clarify.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. There was a typo in the text, we have now corrected the participants to 220.

 

Comment 4: In the Tables, we need to see correct italicizing. For instance in Table 3, the M and SD needs italicizing.

Response 4: Thank you for this note. We have now italized the tables.

Comment 5: In two places, you mention performing a confirmatory factor analysis, but provide no details. Typically, authors present that they were testing one model against two or more competing models until they reach the final acceptable results.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We performed a CFA to confirm if the factor structure of the used scales holds for our sample. We are able to determine the that hypothesized original models that supported both instruments standed for our sample. 

 

Comment 6: In the Method section, there is not sufficient information to replicate your work, as recommended at the manuscript's conclusions. So, with regards to working with the Association who helped with the student, was there a contact person? The HR person, for instance? Further, was the survey weblink pilot tested? How do we know how long it took to take the survey? Did you have any way to make sure the survey link was only used once? In addition, how did you handle possible common method variance bias statistically? You note taking procedural steps, but the second half of this is the statistics (see Podaskoff & colleagues, 2003). Finally, please provide some rationale as to why the study was conducted in Portugal, which is a strength of this research.

Response 6: Thank you for questions and comments, it enabled us to provide relevant and more detailed information regarding the data collection process (page 8). We are sensitive to the challenges of cross sectional designs, often associated with the risk of common method bias. In this study, we have taken procedural steps to mitigate common method bias, including the fact that research participants came from different contexts (e.g. convenience sample; family vs non family firm), and the carefull revision of research items to increase clarity and reduce ambiguities. This is now clearer in the revised version of the manuscript (see page 8, lines 305-308). Also, in the new version of the manuscript we follow recommendations by Podsakoff et al. (2003, 2012) and performed Harman’s single-factor test. The exploratory factor analysis with principal components yielded a 3 factor solution, with a general factor explaining 49.67% of the variance, and 2 additional factors explaining 12.05%. Although these results do not exclude the possibility that our findings are in part biased by common method, they still speak to the existance of more than one general factor and therefore can be acepted. Finally, in the Limitations and Future Directions section, we also make a comment on this and how future studies could mitigate this limitation.

 

Comment 7: In the Results section, please indicate how the moderator variable was coded. It is hard to follow unless you do so. In addition, with hierarchical regression, you need to justify its use over simultaneous or stepwise regression. There is a theoretical reason to use a hierarchical approach (See Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Please report the amount of variance being explained (R2) with each step in the regression equation. 

Response 7: Thank you for calling our attention to these aspects in our paper. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included information about the coding of the moderator (i.e. Family company was coded as "1", Non-family company was coded as "2"; see Table 2 as example). Regarding hierarchical regression, this was a typo in our manuscript. Whereas hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested with independent sample t-test, hypotheses 3 and 4 were testing using a path based approach through PROCESS for SPSS. PROCESS allows the simultaneous modeling of all model paths, with no need for na hierarchical approach. We have correct this information in the manuscript (p. 11). Finally, we also noted that the main effect findings reported in Table 4 were not correct. This has been solved, together with the reporting of the R2 for variance explained.

 

Comment 8: In the Discussion section, you mention theoretical contributions in passing, but completely overlook the JD-R theory you presented in the Introduction. One of the possible limitations was the nature of your sample; that is, is a relatively well educated group. Future research could use samples of less educated participants too.

Response 8: We agree with the reviewer comments. Our discussion section did not adequately address the Job Demands-Resources theory, which we initially presented and mentioned in the introduction. To rectify this, we have extensively revised the Discussion section to explicitly incorporate and explain our findings in the light the Job Demands-Resources theory, linking them back to the theoretical framework that underpins our study (pages 13-15). We also agree with the limitation regarding our sample, which consists of a relatively well-educated group. We agree that this may limit the generalizability of our findings and we now highlight this limitation and suggest that future research should include samples with different educational backgrounds.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity in reviewing the paper.

The paper was well developed and simply explained. Statistics are clear.

My only recommendation is to explain what kind of business were evaluated through their employees.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and positive feedback.

Comment 1: My only recommendation is to explain what kind of business were evaluated through their employees.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. The kind of businesses that were evaluated through their employees is now presented (page 8, lines 318-319).

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive and positive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify and improve our work based on your suggestions.

Comment 1: Explain more how the literature relate to the research questions and hypotheses. Demonstrat a clear linkage between existing research and the study’s specific focus. 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that the conceptual linkages tween existing research and the study’s specific focus could be improved, namely in H4. To address this, we made an effort to revised the manuscript and provide a more detailed and coherent rationale.

 

Comment 2: Consider using a flowchart or diagram to visually represent the study design and data collection process. This can enhance understanding and make the methodology section more
accessible to readers. 

Responde 2: Thank you for your suggestion. A diagram representing the study design is now provided (Figure 1).

 

Comment 3: Provide your comments on the empirical findings which include accuracy, reliability, validity etc.

Response 34 Thank you for you comment. In the revised version of the manuscript we follow recommendations by Podsakoff et al. (2003, 2012) and performed Harman’s single-factor test. The exploratory factor analysis with principal components yielded a 3 factor solution, with a general factor explaining 49.67% of the variance, and 2 additional factors explaining 12.05%. Although these results do not exclude the possibility that our findings are in part biased by common method, they still speak to the existance of more than one general factor and therefore can be acepted.

 

Comment 5: First, begin by restating the main findings of your study concisely. Recapitulate the key results that directly address the research question or objective. Use clear and straightforward language to convey the main outcomes of your research.

Response 5: We agree with the reviewer comments. We have extensively revised and rewritten the discussion section to be explain our findings and also to explicitly address our findings in the light the Job Demands-Resources theory, linking them back to the theoretical framework that underpins our study (pages 13 to 15). 

 

Comment 6: It is more adequate to include research limitations, future research recommendation in the conclusions.

Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion. As suggest the we included the research limitations and future research recommendations in the conclusions section enhancing the overall readability and impact of our manuscript. It now provides readers with a comprehensive understanding of our study's scope, limitations, and future directions in one cohesive narrative.

We believe that these revisions address your concerns and enhance the rigor and clarity of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.