Burnout Syndrome and Emotional Labor in Leaders and Subordinates: A Dyad Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study presents a test of a model of dyadic interactions between emotional labor and burnout syndrome in both leaders and subordinates. Overall, it documents several key findings among the tested variables.

A few minor issues prevent me from recommending publication at this time. First, on line 180, it appears that "average" should be added in a discussion of number of workers. Second, there is an inconsistent use of decimal places; 2 should be used throughout. Third, on line 197, marital status is listed, but the question used appears to measure relationship status (partnered or not). Fourth, on lines 284-290, binary language (he/she, him/her) is used for gender; non-binary language should be employed. Fifth, and most importantly, there were several low measures of internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas), especially for Indolence; these should be noted in the limitations. In addition, as a global measure of burnout syndrome was used, the alpha for it should be presented. Finally, regarding the cross-sectional nature of the study and despite the use of SEM, causality is not assured using such methods, and cross-validation is called for, and should be noted in the limitations.

Some language issues should be fixed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We are attaching the second revision (highlighted in green letters).

We appreciate your valuable contributions and remain at your disposal if necessary.

Best regards

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading the paper. The English language was clear, and the structure was logical. My comments for the improvement of the paper follow:

1.) The authors have opted to include all of their background within the introduction section of the paper. This makes the literature review quite brief. Moreover, even if the whole literature review were to remain within the introduction, it needs to be enriched and perhaps split into sub-sections. For example, definition(s) of burnout and sub-categories / types of manifestation, and (separately) effects of burnout on employees / types of effect, where I suggest that the authors add more references regarding burnout, focusing on the great impact that burnout may have on all aspects of organizational life. Resources may stem also from MDPI journals. A search on “Burnout” within the current journal (Social Sciences) returned 24 items, while a search on “Burnout” on all MDPI journals returned 1,477 results, many of which from 2023-2024. Some papers to cite include (among others) the following:

- Parent-Lamarche, A.; Marchand, A.; Saade, S. A Multilevel Analysis of Changes in Psychological Demands over Time on Employee Burnout. Merits 2024, 4, 19-34. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits4010002

- Kotsopoulos, D.; Bardaki, C.; Papaioannou, T.G. Determinants of Employees’ Personal and Collective Energy Consumption and Conservation at Work. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4913. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064913

- Freitas, M.; Moreira, A.; Ramos, F. Occupational Stress and Turnover Intentions in Employees of the Portuguese Tax and Customs Authority: Mediating Effect of Burnout and Moderating Effect of Motivation. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13120251

2.) The authors explain their research question and hypotheses in the last paragraph of the introduction. However, it seems that they have not formally stated them. In other words, they need to add the research question and hypotheses separately and in a formal way, such as:  ‘We focus on the following research question in this research. R.Q.: What effect do emotional demands and dissonance of leaders have on ...... ?’ - ‘Accordingly, we focus on the following research hypotheses: H1: ..., and H2: ..’.

These RQ and Hs need to be followed and mentioned throughout the description of the study results and discussion, so that the reader can better understand where the study aimed to go, what was carried out to do so, and where it finally arrived. It would also help if the authors place the hypotheses in a table and add supporting evidence for each of the hypotheses formulated, based on evidence from the literature. To do so, they need to place all the hypotheses in the left column, and in the right column add supporting evidence for each of the hypotheses separately. This table will also help the authors when enriching their discussion on a hypothesis-based form (please see one of my next comments).

3.) In the beginning of the materials and methods section, I suggest that the authors add a figure that graphically presents the hypotheses (hypothesized relationships) they will have formulated at the end of the previous section. That way, the reader will be in a better position to understand what will consecutivelly be described in terms of analyses.

4.) In the description of the sociodemographic profiles of the participants (see Table 1), I believe that a separate analysis of leaders and followers should also be made, to provide for a comparison between the characteristics of leaders and followers. You could therefore add two more tables with the characteristics of the two categories of participants separately and add passages that briefly explain them also in text.

5.)  The results section is extremely (and disproportionately) small. The authors need to explain more what the results showed based on their analysis. To do so, they need to reflect on the hypotheses they will have added (as per my previous suggestions). Then, they should explain what data is provided by their study results that either support, or reject their initially formed hypotheses. For a better view of the results, I also support that the hypotheses are included in the figure with study results (now Figure 1) - just add H1, H2, etc. over the arrows, based on the hypotheses you will formulate as per my previous comments. Moreover, since you have monitored a number of demographics and other variables in your model, you also need to add (before the model itself) the analysis of correlations revealed between the variables. That way, you can enrich your findings and provide more insight from the collected data, that will also help in enriching the discussion of the paper.

6.)  I suggest enriching further the discussion, by utilizing the hypothesized relationships (the formal Hypotheses that I have earlier suggested they add to the paper). That way, utilizing the evidence from literature in connection to the different hypotheses, they can explain better their results, their impact (to theory and practice), etc.

It would help to build a new table based on the table that offers supporting evidence from literature (which I suggested they add earlier in the manuscript). This new table should include their hypotheses, along with evidence that supports them from their own study.

7.) I suggest that the authors provide additional insight in the discussion, explaining in a more focused way what the addition to theory is (theoretical contribution), and what the addition to businesses' practice is / what they suggest that is done based on their findings (practical contribution).

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We forward the paper with the revisions made and responses to the reviewers.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

It was with great pleasure that I reviewed your manuscript.

However, I have a few comments to make:

Regarding the metric qualities of the instruments, you only present us with the Cronbach's alpha value. I would like to see a factor analysis, which will be difficult as the sample is very small.

But they should have at least presented the sensitivity of the items.

As for the results, their description is very short.

My Best Regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We forward the paper with the revisions made and responses to the reviewers.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I do find the authors' reception of my review comments dissapointing. It seems that instead of receiving my comments in a positive manner, and constructively trying to utilize them in improving their work, the only thing that seems to have happened is that they have suggested reasons why my comments are not applicable to their work. This kind of negative stance towards my review is neither constructive, nor fitting to academic practice. Just as an example, I had suggested that all the hypotheses in the selected theory are enumerated and utilized throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors have just hypothesized that the theory theg selected fits their study context. This is simply not the way things are done in research. You need to test the theory in your context in all its aspects. Hypothesized each and every connection and prove the hypotheses within the theory. In the end you may find that all relationships in the theory are confirmed, or just some. It depends.

An indication of the negative reception of my comments is also that the responses of the authors are just a few lines whereas my comments were quite lengthy soas to provide them with as adequate information to improve their work. In the same note, the suggested references were simply judged as irrelevant or unneeded by the authors.

All in all a negative reception of my constructive comments and a denial to improve the paper accordingly.

Hence, in my view the paper has not improved at all compared to the previous version, and I suggest the authors revisit and act upon my previous round comments constructively. I do repeat that the reviewer is your ally in the publication process and not someone opposed to your own work.

Best of luck on improving your paper.

English language is more or less OK.

Author Response

Dear Review

We are attaching the second revision (highlighted in green letters). We appreciate your valuable contributions and remain at your disposal if necessary.

Best regards,

The authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for taking on board my suggestions for improvement.

My Best Regards

Author Response

Dear Review

We are attaching the second revision (highlighted in green letters). We appreciate your valuable contributions and remain at your disposal if necessary.
Best Regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the effort made by the authors to improve the manuscript according to my suggestions. Indeed, the hypotheses were added as indicated and a few details on their discussion was added accordingly.

However, other than that I see no significant change as per the rest of my comments from the previous rounds that (as I also noted on my last review round comments) remain uncovered, especially with regards to the addition of references, and the more detailed explanation of the study results.

-

Author Response

Comments 1:

I appreciate the effort made by the authors to improve the manuscript according to my suggestions. Indeed, the hypotheses were added as indicated and a few details on their discussion was added accordingly.

Authors: Many thanks. We are grateful that the reviewer recognized our efforts to respond to adjustment requests, respecting the critical comments.

Comments 2

However, other than that I see no significant change as per the rest of my comments from the previous rounds that (as I also noted on my last review round comments) remain uncovered, especially with regards to the addition of references, and the more detailed explanation of the study results.

Authors:  

Critical dialogue between reviewers, authors, and editors is an intrinsic part of the scientific field in any area of knowledge. Generally, the journal invites two or three reviewers to evaluate a manuscript. They may agree or disagree about critical structural elements such as the study design, theoretical and methodological basis, results, discussion, and practical and theoretical contributions of the study. This fruitful dialogue between parties should not limit the authors’ autonomy, including not accepting all suggestions. Consensus supports science only in rare instances. Strictly speaking, consensus could harm the recognition of multiple perspectives, including contradictory ones, allowing for scientific advancement.

We analyzed the references the second reviewer suggested but did not consider them in line with our study. Although the analytical and theoretical basis of the survey was burnout, strictly speaking, our study focused on the relationship between dyads, a specific type of relationship analysis that we consider innovative for studies in organizational contexts. Burnout is often studied empirically at the individual level, and we know how much it can impact relationships between different hierarchical levels. It is also relevant to consider that reviewers are important interlocutors, but not the only ones. Numerous peers who can evaluate an article's heuristic potential from different theoretical-methodological perspectives should test the ultimate judgment of its quality.

In science, it can be risky to confirm a study's definitive reliability without considering potential gaps for criticism and improvement in future studies. Based on the comments of the three reviewers, we sought to respond to their valuable requests as much as possible. We expected comprehension by our choice. We were able to meet the requests of two reviewers satisfactorily.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf