Human Systematic Innovation Helix: Knowledge Management, Emotional Intelligence and Entrepreneurial Competency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for the opportunity to review your manuscript. Focusing on the executives' perspectives on key variables of Knowledge management, emotional intelligence, and entrepreneurial competency across a variety of sectors provided a new dimension to knowledge literature. 

While the structure and the flow of the manuscript is properly curated, I must say there are still few areas of the work that requires further improvement. Below are some of the minor issues I have noticed:

1. The opening sentence in the introduction appears to be personal. I suggest stating what "we" refers to for better reading.
2. How will the proposed "Human Systemic Innovation Helix" benefit knowledge literature and the executives of the organizations? In other words, to complement the aim of the study, the introduction may end in the contribution and significance of the study.
3. For the method part, it will be better to state the total number of distributed surveys and also the final response rate of the surveys.
4. To put the implications in perspective, it will be good to specify which sectors the executives are selected from and if there are any sectors that are omitted and why.
5.  Tables 1 and 3 can be combined
6. Correlation of variables and measures of discriminant validity should be provided and discussed. Author are advised to see this   https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2019-0319  for clarifying this issue. 

Author Response

                                                                                                                                  Dear reviewer,

I thank you for all your corrections because they have allowed me to advance my research work.

1. The opening sentence in the introduction appears to be personal. I suggest stating what "we" refers to for better reading.

Thank you for the suggestion, this sentence has been deleted.

2.  How will the proposed "Human Systemic Innovation Helix" benefit knowledge literature and the executives of the organizations? In other words, to complement the aim of the study, the introduction may end in the contribution and significance of the study.

We have updated the introduction (page 2), you can see paragraph in red previous the literature review:

……the main aim of this research is to study the influence that the integration of these three variables: Knowledge Management, Emotional Intelligence and Entrepreneurial Competency exert on the Innovation at Spanish companies. This paper contributes generating new knowledge that strengthens the value of executives as a catalyst for innovation; and, originating a new socio-economic management tool, which it is called the Human Systematic Innovation Helix (HSIH).

3. For the method part, it will be better to state the total number of distributed surveys and also the final response rate of the surveys. 

In page 8, we have included the required information:

 

The total number of surveys collected was 400, and, after making two reminders, the total number of respondents was 255, but 14 outliers were identified and eliminated to prevent distortion of the subsequent analysis. Therefore, the response rate reached 63.75%.

4. To put the implications in perspective, it will be good to specify which sectors the executives are selected from and if there are any sectors that are omitted and why.

Thank you for this suggestion. In page 8, we have included the required information:

No sector of activity has been omitted, the most representative sectors being: services sector (43.15%); professional, scientific and technical activities sector (12.45%); technology (7.05%); and, industry sector (6.64%).

5. Tables 1 and 3 can be combined.

We agree with this comment. So, in table 1 has been included the AVE and a Note.

 Note: * Validity check for constructs using Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

6. Correlation of variables and measures of discriminant validity should be provided and discussed. Author are advised to see this   https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2019-0319 for clarifying this issue. 

Thank you for the observation. The following clarification regarding discriminant validity and content validity is key in this article (pp. 10-11): 

The AVE and interconstruct correlations of KM, EI, EC and INNOV can be found in Table 1, where we can verify that no construct presents validity problems, with the AVE> 0.5. However, the square root of AVE is lower than the interconstruct correlations, (KM <–> EI = 0.713; KM <–> EC = 0.712; EI <–> EC = 0.930). In 1981, following the recommendation of Fornell and Larcker [114] square root of AVE should be greater than the interconstruct correlations, thus distorting discriminant validity. In 2009, Martínez-García and Martínez-Caro [115] pointed out that content validity is the response to problem derived from statistical analyzes is the appropriate theoretical solidity of the proposed scales. In the present study the definition of the variables KM, EI, EC e INNOV are conceptually different and their respective measurement scales are sufficiently well justified on a theoretical level: Lin and Lee [103] and Gold et al. [104]; Wong and Law [105]; Dullayaphuta and Untachaia [106]; and, Prajogo and Sohal [107]. 

Thank you for your constructive comments because they have been of great help to increase the quality of this manuscript.

All the best,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting, it deals with an important topic relation between knowledge management, emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial competency, and it is my pleasure to review it.

The paper has merits, is very detailed, well organized, and uses a solid scientific and logical tool. Methodology and approaches are interesting, systematic and comprehensive.

Regarding the content, we find the paper highly theoretical, although, in the final part, the authors honestly suggest some practical values of the results obtained. Also, the connection with the topic of sustainability is indirect. However, both observations do not affect the value of the paper.

Formal remarks:

- Figure 2 mentions (in title and in content) certain hypotheses, but they are set out in detail on the next page, which can be confusing.

- Figure 4 is difficult to read and the suggestiveness of the chosen format is unclear.

- Minor formal issues - unnecessary extra space (even a full page, p.11)

- Page 7   IFigure 1 instead Figure 1

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article and good luck!

Author Response

                                                                                                                                                       March, 23, 2022

Dear reviewer,

I thank you for all your corrections because they have allowed me to advance my research work.

1. Figure 2 mentions (in title and in content) certain hypotheses, but they are set out in detail on the next page, which can be confusing.

We appreciate this comment. Including the list of hypotheses (pag. 7). proposed under figure 2 makes it easier for the reader to understand the proposed conceptual model.

2. Figure 4 is difficult to read and the suggestiveness of the chosen format is unclear.

Thank you for the suggestion, The figure 4 has been revised and the text revised. Now, the audience can understand the meaning of this figure. Furthermore, in conclusions we have added this explanation: The Human Systemic Innovation Helix (figure 4) represents that enterprises are made up of different activity departments: management; marketing; human resources; technology; commercial; business and finances; production; logistic; communication; etc; which are leaded by executives with different level of knowledge management capacity (KM), socio-emotional abilities (EI) and entrepreneurial competences (EC) capacity. If the executives from different departments acting in a systematic way, taking advantage of the integration of KM, EI and EC, these capacities exert a positive and direct influence on the innovation of each department innovation of the company. Consequently, there should be an increase in the products and processes innovations from enterprises from different sector of activity.

3. Minor formal issues - unnecessary extra space (even a full page, p.11).

Thank you for the observation.

4. Page 7   IFigure 1 instead Figure 1

It is removed. Thanks!

Thank you for your constructive comments because they have been of great help to us in obtaining this manuscript.

All the best,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congrats