Leader emergence and affective empathy: A dynamic test of the dual-hormone hypothesis

John G. Vongas; Raghid Al Hajj; John Fiset

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244548

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 14, 2020
2 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Claus Lamm, Editor PONE-D-20-32353 Leader emergence and affective empathy: A dynamic test of the dual-hormone hypothesis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Vongas, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Note that we were only able to secure one review, probably due to the difficult times everyone is going through. The comments of this review are attached to this letter. Based on our own reading of the paper, and in the attempt to provide a timely answer, we felt it save to proceed, although we usually try to secure at least two reviews. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Claus Lamm Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: My applause to the authors of the PONE-D-20-32353 mss! The model tested is amazingly relevant in these trying times in which we witness leadership of all forms tested under high stress. 1. The design is clear and relevant both in the research world and in practice. 2. The measures chosen are quite appropriate and their processing was handled well. 3. The data analysis was meticulous and explained well. 4. The results offer another important step in understanding the psycho-physiology of leadership. 5. The choice of personalized power as the key motivational variable is fine for this arousal (experimental) design. Being a part of the original research, it was socialized power that was thought and found to be key to effective leadership. But in this design, the arousal was a perceived zero-sum competition. In such a situation, personalized power would be both the fastest to be aroused and most immediately relevant. A comment about that should be made in the Discussion. That would clarify a possible confusion in thinking about emergent leadership in highly competitive settings versus effective leadership. 6. The endocrinological hypotheses are sound. But there is something more subtle possibly involved. Testosterone has been linked primarily to instrumental behavior. Often, through its constituent role in creating vasopressin, the instrumental causality becomes clear. At modest doses, vasopressin is also linked to Parasympathetic Nervous System arousal which ameliorates the negative effects of stress. Since cortisol is a clear endocrine marker of stress, the interactions found in this study make sense. But at higher doses, both testosterone and vasopressin can drive more, in McClelland's terms, "power stress" with its effect of increasing stress hormones, like cortisol. This is no way threatens the validity or importance of the findings in this study, but it suggests a dosage effect worthy of comment in the Discussion to avoid simplistic conclusions about T and C and leadership effectiveness and sustainability. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes:** Richard E. Boyatzis [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244548.r001
Revision 1
9 Dec 2020 Author Response Dear Drs. Lamm and Boyatzis: Kindly note that these responses are also included in a separate document titled "Responses to Reviewers," which we were asked to upload. For your convenience, we include them here as well. Please allow me to use RB (Reviewer initials) and JV (my initials) as follows: RB: My applause to the authors of the PONE-D-20-32353! The model tested is amazingly relevant in these trying times in which we witness leadership of all forms tested under high stress. JV: Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We very much appreciated your insightful comments and your praise. RB: The design is clear and relevant both in the research world and in practice. JV: Thank you. RB: The measures chosen are quite appropriate and their processing was handled well. JV: Thank you. The PSE coding was a laborious task that required much attention to detail. RB: The data analysis was meticulous and explained well. JV: Thank you. RB: The results offer another important step in understanding the psycho-physiology of leadership. JV: Thank you. RB: The choice of personalized power as the key motivational variable is fine for this arousal (experimental) design. Being a part of the original research, it was socialized power that was thought and found to be key to effective leadership. But in this design, the arousal was a perceived zero-sum competition. In such a situation, personalized power would be both the fastest to be aroused and most immediately relevant. A comment about that should be made in the Discussion. That would clarify a possible confusion in thinking about emergent leadership in highly competitive settings versus effective leadership. JV: We value this comment and acknowledge that it is important to address this distinction between emergent leadership, where p Power may be particularly useful, and effective leadership in organizations where s Power is key, as your pioneering work has long established. This will clarify any potential confusion on our choice for using one ‘face of power’ of the other. We include this new section in our revised manuscript on page 30 (i.e., the entire second paragraph immediately following the “Discussion” heading). RB: The endocrinological hypotheses are sound. But there is something more subtle possibly involved. Testosterone has been linked primarily to instrumental behavior. Often, through its constituent role in creating vasopressin, the instrumental causality becomes clear. At modest doses, vasopressin is also linked to Parasympathetic Nervous System arousal which ameliorates the negative effects of stress. Since cortisol is a clear endocrine marker of stress, the interactions found in this study make sense. But at higher doses, both testosterone and vasopressin can drive more, in McClelland’s terms, “power stress” with its effect of increasing stress hormones, like cortisol. This is no way threatens the validity or importance of the findings in this study, but it suggests a dosage effect worthy of comment in the Discussion to avoid simplistic conclusions about T and C and leadership effectiveness and sustainability. JV: This was also a notable comment and we agree that we should have better articulated how complex these hormonal mechanisms truly are. In the revised manuscript, we allude to vasopressin (arginine vasopressin or AVP) and its effect on both T and C. This section is found on page 34, added at the end of the first paragraph following the heading “Limitations and future research.” We are also aware of McClelland’s research on the relationship between AVP and the need for achievement (nAch) but opted to leave this detail out of the manuscript because our study does not address implicit motives other than power. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244548.r002
14 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Claus Lamm, Editor Leader emergence and affective empathy: A dynamic test of the dual-hormone hypothesis PONE-D-20-32353R1 Dear Dr. Vongas, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Claus Lamm Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244548.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Dec 2020 Acceptance Letter - Claus Lamm, Editor PONE-D-20-32353R1 Leader emergence and affective empathy: A dynamic test of the dual-hormone hypothesis Dear Dr. Vongas: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Claus Lamm Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244548.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .