PONE-D-23-25025Empowering Leadership: A Conflict Resolver and A Performance Booster for OrganizationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 02 2023 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 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Faisal Shafique Butt, Ph.D

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

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Empowering Leadership: A Conflict Resolver and A Performance Booster for Organizations ", I have a few suggestions for the author(s) to incorporate in the manuscript and improve its quality further.

1. Revise the abstract. it should not be in questionable form. The abstract is not well-written and explicitly stated.

2. Revise your Title.

3. Too many sentences are used that give the same meaning in the whole document which creates repetition.

4. Thoroughly review the hypotheses and make them relevant to the literature.

5. The Research instrument's definition is non-specific.

6. Explain clearly in your document how the scale is selected and why.

7. The multicollinearity issue is not addressed, what is the reason behind this?

8. Describe each heading 1st (e.g. Table 1: - describe or explain it 1st), similarly, revise all headings.

9. Add future directions, limitations, and implications.

10. No equation is added to the methodology. Add mathematical models.

11. Is the Robustness check? If checked then add the equation in the methodology.

12. Revise and separate the methodological section with equations from the results.

13. What is the rationale behind using underlying methods in the current research?

14. Why the authors did not employ other similar techniques and prefer this technique solely?

15. Are there any other studies on a similar methodology? If yes, please cite them to have a better empirical justification.

16. What are the future prospects of this study? Adding the future directions along with

the implications for the individual market would be the greater advantage of the study.

17. I found some errors in the references. In that case, a thorough proofreading of references is needed.

18. I found some grammatical and typo errors in the manuscript. In that case, a

professional proofreading can polish and enhance the quality of your manuscript.

Reviewer #2: I am thankful to the editorial office for allowing me to review this manuscript, titled “Empowering Leadership: A Conflict Resolver and A Performance Booster for Organizations”. The idea and topic of this study is attractive but there is a need of severe efforts for the improvement/betterment of the manuscript, so here given below are some suggestions/comments for the betterment/improvement of the manuscript:

1. It would be better if authors remove Q1, Q2 and Q3 from the abstract and write in plain form about the purpose of this study.

2. In abstract authors write down questions about mediating role of conflict management and employee performance instead of direct link of these variables with organization sustainability.

3. Special attention requires to check all references of the manuscript as many references show surname of the authors which need to remove.

4. Another major problem found in manuscript is about the grammatical mistakes, so it is suggested that authors must proofread the manuscript from native language proofreader.

5. Justification and argumentation about empowering leadership in relation with organization sustainability, conflict management and employee performance are missing, which need to be added in introduction section.

6. Before the last paragraph where questions of study are addressed, there is a need to add questions about mediating role of conflict management and employee performance.

7. There is a need for correction of word in heading “2.1 Proposed” instead of “purposed”.

8. The explanation of relationships of proposed model using theoretical lens of transformational leadership theory is unsatisfactory, it is suggested that authors explain all the relationships of the model using lens of overarching theory.

9. There is also needed to add more latest studies (2018-2023) in literature review section for the support of justifications of the study.

10. It is suggested that authors modify the hypotheses as given bellow format:

H1 There is a positive relationship between empowering leadership and organization sustainability.

H2 There is a positive relationship between empowering leadership and conflict management.

H3 There is a positive relationship between empowering leadership and employees’ performance.

H4 There is a positive relationship between conflict management and organization sustainability.

H5 There is a positive relationship between employees’ performance and organization sustainability.

H6 Conflict management mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and organization sustainability.

H7 Employee performance mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and organization sustainability.

H8 Emotional stability moderates the relationship between empowering leadership and conflict management in such sense that higher/lower level of emotional stability will strengthen/weaken this positive relationship.

H9 Emotional stability moderates the relationship between empowering leadership and employee performance in such sense that higher/lower level of emotional stability will strengthen/weaken this positive relationship.

11. In methodology section, authors first provide information with this sequence for better understanding of the readers:

3.1 Sampling frame and technique

3.2 Data collection and sample size

3.3 Research Instruments

3.4 Data analysis method

12. It is suggested that authors must provide a minimum of one sample item of each scale.

13. It is suggested that authors remove table 1 as there is no need of missing values, mean, median, min, max of each item.

14. It is suggested that authors add skewness and kurtosis values of the items in table 2 with factor loadings.

15. As authors used Smart-PLS 4 and provides HTMT values but Fornell-Larker values are missing which need to be added in HTMT table.

16. It is suggested that authors merge Table 8 and Table 9 into one table and place this table just after HTMT table.

17. It is suggested that authors remove table 7 (effect size).

18. It would be better for the readers if authors provide information first about direct effects between independent and dependent variables as no one research model can be formulated without formation of these relationships. So, in table 6 authors provide values in this sequence:

1. EL → OS

2. EL → CM

3. EL → EP

4. CM → OS

5. EP → OS

6. EL → CM → OS

7. EL → EP → OS

8. EL x ES → CM

9. EL x ES → EP

19. It is also suggested that authors must provide the values in three decimals instead of one (e.g., 0.000).

20. The interpretation of results especially of direct, indirect, and moderating results and interpretation of moderation graph is much weaker, therefore, it is suggested that authors must read the latest papers of this journal for impressive interpretation of the results.

21. It is suggested that authors rewrite the discussion section after formulation of mediation hypotheses of both mediators.

22. In practical implications section, this sentence is out of sense “Therefore, the top management of manufacturing firms must work on transformative leadership theory to encourage middle management and employees to work with their innovative ideas” why management work on theory, practical implications represent the suggestions by the authors based on the findings of the study, so it is suggested that authors must revisit this section.

23. The limitations section of this manuscript is missing, which needs to be added.

Reviewer #3: The paper could benefit from a more in-depth explanation of the theoretical framework, specifically the transformational leadership theory. While the paper references this theory, it lacks a clear and detailed exposition of its key principles, which is essential for readers to fully grasp the context of the study.

The paper relies on a relatively small sample size (512 respondents) from the manufacturing sector firms in Wuhan, China. Given the vast diversity in organizational contexts, industries, and cultures, the study's findings may not be generalizable beyond this specific context. A broader and more diverse sample would enhance the paper's external validity.

While the paper mentions that measurement items were adapted from existing studies, it does not provide sufficient details about the adaptation process or the validation of these items in the new context. A more robust explanation of how these items were selected and modified for the study is necessary for transparency and rigor.

The paper briefly mentions the use of Smart PLS 4 for data analysis but lacks a comprehensive discussion of the analytical procedures. Readers would benefit from a more detailed explanation of how the data were analyzed, including model specifications, estimation techniques, and potential limitations of the chosen approach.

While the paper appropriately cites existing literature, it occasionally relies on these references without critical engagement. A more critical analysis and synthesis of prior research, including discussions of conflicting findings or gaps in the literature, would strengthen the paper's contribution.

The discussion section is somewhat superficial in its treatment of the findings. It tends to summarize the results without delving into the practical implications of the research or providing nuanced interpretations. A more thorough discussion that explores the "why" behind the relationships observed and how they align with prior theories would add depth to the paper.

By addressing these weaknesses would significantly strengthen the paper and increase its suitability for publication.

**********

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: RAMEEZA ANDLEEB

Reviewer #2: Yes: Muhammad Salman Chughtai, Faculty of Management Science, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Zartashia Hameed

**********

[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.

Empowering Leadership: A Conflict Resolver and A Performance Booster for Organizations

PONE-D-23-25025R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

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,

Faisal Shafique Butt, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: