Effects of Secure Base Leadership vs. Avoidant Leadership on Job Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a current topic of great interest in the field and presents important scientific findings from the analysis of the relationship between a new leadership style based on Secure Base Leadership method in comparison with passive-avoidant leadership in relation to employee performance in organisations.

However, there are still some things that need to be improved and perfected before being accepted for publication:

1. On line 129 "Motowidlo and colleagues" could be replaced by the standard form "Motowidlo et al.".

2. Sections 1. Introduction and 2. Literature Review could be merged into a single section 1. Introduction, as the template format indicates. Thus, an introduction section implicitly contains a literature review. Subsequently, the paragraph in lines 46-56 could be moved to the end of section 1. Introduction for the fluency of the text.

3. Following the results obtained, the conclusions refer to the positive effects of applying the SBL (Secure Base Leadership) method in organisations. The authors state that the application of this more effective method involves the formation of leaders in organisations through training programmes. In order to achieve the integration of this type of modules in training programmes, it is necessary to make organisations aware that SBL is more effective than Passive-Avoidant Leadership. How could organisations be influenced to integrate and choose this SBL method over another, when other methods may have proven effective in the past? Please indicate this in the conclusions section.

Author Response

Summary

Thank you for your time and thoughtful review of our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and scientific importance of our research topic. We have addressed the relationship between Secure Base Leadership and passive-avoidant leadership styles, along with their impact on employee performance in organizations. Following your comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript. All revisions and corrections are marked in red in the resubmitted document. Below, we provide a detailed explanation of the specific changes made in response to your observations, ensuring that all feedback has been accurately incorporated.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment 1: On line 129 "Motowidlo and colleagues" could be replaced by the standard form "Motowidlo et al.".

Response 1: We have updated line 129 to 'Motowidlo et al.' in accordance with your suggestion. Thank you for your attention to this detail.

 

Comment 2: Sections 1. Introduction and 2. Literature Review could be merged into a single section 1. Introduction, as the template format indicates. Thus, an introduction section implicitly contains a literature review. Subsequently, the paragraph in lines 46-56 could be moved to the end of section 1. Introduction for the fluency of the text.

Response 2: Per your suggestion, we have combined the Introduction and Literature Review into a single section and relocated the paragraph from lines 46-56 to the end of this unified Introduction. We appreciate your guidance on enhancing the flow of the text.

 

Comment 3: Following the results obtained, the conclusions refer to the positive effects of applying the SBL (Secure Base Leadership) method in organisations. The authors state that the application of this more effective method involves the formation of leaders in organisations through training programmes. In order to achieve the integration of this type of modules in training programmes, it is necessary to make organisations aware that SBL is more effective than Passive-Avoidant Leadership. How could organisations be influenced to integrate and choose this SBL method over another, when other methods may have proven effective in the past? Please indicate this in the conclusions section.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. In response, we have expanded our conclusions and included additional detail at the end of the discussion section to address the strategies for influencing organizations to adopt SBL over other methods. This includes presenting empirical evidence from our study that demonstrates SBL's superior outcomes, sharing success stories from organizations that have successfully implemented SBL, and engaging respected business leaders for endorsements. We also highlight the unique benefits of SBL, such as fostering secure bases and healthy workplace relationships, and detail comprehensive training programs and pilot projects that align SBL with strategic organizational goals like innovation and talent retention. These additions are aimed at facilitating a smoother transition from conventional leadership styles and enhancing receptivity to change.

 

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language  

The revised version of the manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please find my comments below:

- The research gap is not explained in the Introduction, so the position of the study among extant related studies cannot be identified.

- The literature review section should explain the relationships between the tested variables, so there are clear connecting lines.

- The approach to determining the sample (sampling) is not provided in section 3.1.

- When and where the survey was conducted should be explained.

- An analysis of Common Method Bias (CMB) is needed at the beginning of data analysis.

- Figure 1 does not need to be explained when it is repeated in Figure 2.

- There is no discussion comparing the obtained results with those from previous relevant studies (key references). What are the implications of this findings and comparisons?

 

Good luck!

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is needed.

Author Response

Summary

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for the time and thorough attention that you have given to our manuscript. Following your comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript. All revisions and corrections are marked in red in the resubmitted document. Below, we provide a detailed explanation of the specific changes made in response to your observations, ensuring that all feedback has been accurately incorporated.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors   Comment 1: The research gap is not explained in the Introduction, so the position of the study among extant related studies cannot be identified.

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful feedback concerning the clarity of the research gap in our study's introduction. In response to your comments, we have revised the introduction to explicitly address the research gap within the existing literature on leadership and job performance. We have now clearly articulated that, despite the extensive research on various leadership styles and their impact on job performance, the specific effects of secure base leadership—a model based on attachment theory—remain underexplored. This study aims to fill this gap by contrasting secure base leadership with passive-avoidant leadership, traditionally known as laissez-faire in Bass's full-range leadership model. We believe this addition not only clarifies the position of our study among extant studies but also highlights the novelty and significance of our research approach. This revised section now specifically outlines how our research will contribute to a deeper understanding of how both positive and negative leadership styles distinctly affect job performance in business settings. We hope this revision adequately addresses your concerns and clarifies the unique contribution of our study to the business literature.

 

Comment 2:

The literature review section should explain the relationships between the tested variables, so there are clear connecting lines.

Response 2: In response to your comments regarding the explanation of relationships between the tested variables, we have revised the introduction of our manuscript to make these connections more explicit. Our update includes a clearer delineation of how secure base leadership and passive-avoidant leadership influence job performance, supported visually by Figure 1. We have enhanced the text to more clearly delineate how secure base leadership and passive-avoidant leadership impact job performance. These updates are designed to better bridge the theoretical gaps and provide a clearer guide through our conceptual framework, which is visualized in Figure 1. This revision aims to articulate the theoretical framework more effectively, thereby enhancing the reader's understanding of the contrasting impacts these leadership styles have on job performance. By refining this section, we hope to more precisely position our study within the broader context of existing literature.  

 

Comment 3: The approach to determining the sample (sampling) is not provided in section 3.1.

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting the need for clarity on our sampling method. In response to your feedback, we have updated Section 2.1 "Procedure and Participants" of our manuscript to include detailed information about our approach to determining the sample. We have clarified that the data collection occurred from October to December 2023, utilizing a paper-and-pencil questionnaire in Spanish. Participants were recruited through a structured process where undergraduate psychology students at a Spanish university, who received practicum credits, contacted at least four eligible participants each. These were employees over 18 years old. This recruitment strategy adhered to Demerouti and Rispens’s (2014) guidelines for student-recruited samples and incorporated both convenience sampling and exponential non-discriminative snowball sampling methods.

We also detailed that participants were informed about the study's voluntary nature, the anonymity of their responses, and their options to withdraw at any time. We believe these additions provide a comprehensive overview of our sampling strategy and address the previous lack of detail. We appreciate your guidance and hope that these revisions adequately respond to your concerns.

 

Comment 4: When and where the survey was conducted should be explained.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the need for more specific details on the timing and location of our survey. In response to your comment, we have revised the manuscript to clearly state that the data collection took place between October and December 2023. We also specified that the survey was administered to participants who were recruited from a Spanish university by undergraduate psychology students involved in a practicum.

These updates have been added to Section 2.1 "Procedure and Participants" to ensure readers are fully informed about the context and logistics of the data collection process.

We appreciate your attention to detail and helpful suggestions that contribute to the improvement of our study's presentation.

 

Comment 5: An analysis of Common Method Bias (CMB) is needed at the beginning of data analysis.

Response 5: Thank you for highlighting the importance of addressing Common Method Bias (CMB) in our analysis. In response, we have detailed our comprehensive CMB assessment in Section 3.1 of the manuscript. Firstly, we applied Harman’s Single Factor Test, which showed that the first factor accounted for only 34.08% of the total variance, well below the threshold suggesting significant CMB. Secondly, we assessed potential bias using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), with all values remaining below the critical value of 3.3, indicating our model is free from common method bias, as supported by Kock (2015). Additionally, we conducted another Exploratory Factor Analysis using JASP software, which employed Parallel Analysis and the minimum residual factoring method with oblique Promax rotation. The Bartlett test of sphericity confirmed the model’s statistical significance, and all factor loadings exceeded the recommended cut-off value of 0.40, substantiating the integrity of our variable constructs. These steps, collectively, assure the robustness of our findings, addressing your concerns effectively. We appreciate your guidance in enhancing our manuscript and hope these additions meet your expectations.

 

Comment 6: Figure 1 does not need to be explained when it is repeated in Figure 2.

Response 6: Thank you for your observation regarding the redundancy in explaining Figure 1 when it is also depicted in Figure 2. In line with your suggestion, we have removed the explanatory paragraph for Figure 1 from the manuscript to streamline the presentation and avoid repetition. This adjustment helps focus the reader's attention on the analysis and results sections where Figure 2 provides the necessary visual explanation along with detailed interpretations. We appreciate your guidance in improving the clarity and conciseness of our manuscript.

 

Comments 7: There is no discussion comparing the obtained results with those from previous relevant studies (key references). What are the implications of this findings and comparisons?.

Response 7: Thank you for emphasizing the need to compare our findings with prior research and discuss the implications more thoroughly. In response to your comments, we have expanded the discussion section of our manuscript to address these aspects explicitly.

Our study provides a detailed analysis of SBL and passive-avoidant leadership's impacts on job performance, contrasting these effects with findings from existing literature. Specifically, we compare our results with those from transformational leadership studies, such as those presented by Wang et al., highlighting similarities in how these leadership styles influence contextual more than task performance. We also address the lack of significant detrimental impacts from passive-avoidant leadership, aligning our findings with previous studies that report a minimal influence of laissez-faire leadership on performance metrics [4]. This observation suggests that passive-avoidant leadership’s characteristic disengagement might not inherently result in negative outcomes but may represent an absence of influence, challenging conventional expectations. Further, we integrate these findings with the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory to discuss how SBL serves as a critical organizational resource that enhances employee performance and mitigates counterproductive behaviors. By drawing parallels with established models and theories, we underscore the practical implications of SBL in fostering a productive and supportive business environment. These enhancements to the discussion section ensure that our study not only aligns with but also contributes to the ongoing discourse in business management research, offering actionable insights for organizational leaders and researchers alike. We appreciate your guidance, which has helped us strengthen the manuscript significantly.

 

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language  

The revised version of the manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for sending me the revised version. Now, the manuscript's content is improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate.