Dear editor
The article with the title “Rampart of Health-Specific Leadership and Social Support of Colleagues to Overcome Burnout in an Emotionally Demanding Situations: The Mediating Role of Stress” is very useful for human resource health management, because it has the following advantages: 1) focuses on employee psychosocial factors, namely the role of emotional demands, health-specific leadership, and social support from co-workers in influencing work stress and fatigue; 2) data were collected at two different times so that cause-and-effect relationships could be better understood; 3) examines the mediating role of stress in the relationship between social support from coworkers and job burnout, as well as between health-specific leadership and job burnout; 4) contributes to the understanding of factors that can improve employee psychological health, as a basis for developing interventions and management strategies.1
However, we have also identified the limitations of this research, namely: 1) the sample is limited to technical workers, so the generalization of the findings is limited to this population;2 2) potential perception bias because data were collected through self-report questionnaires;3 2) the potential for common method bias because the data are obtained from a single source;3 3) some variables are measured with only a few items;4 4) although this research uses control variables (gender, age, and education), there are other factors that can influence the relationship between variables, which are not measured; 5) the absence of further analysis of contextual factors that might influence the relationship between variables, such as organizational culture or specific job characteristics.
Therefore, to improve the results of this research in the future, we recommend: 1) expanding the research sample to other industries or sectors, also involving respondents from various levels and backgrounds so that more comprehensive insights are obtained; 2) using experimental or longitudinal designs to strengthen analysis of cause-and-effect relationships; 3) use observation or interview methods in collecting data to obtain a more in-depth perspective; 4) control or include other variables in the analysis to understand the influence of contextual variables, such as organizational culture or job characteristics; 5) use path analysis or multilevel analysis to obtain a deeper understanding of the relationship between the variables studied.5 It is hoped that the results of this further research will provide better results, which can be used by stakeholders in decision making.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this communication.
References
- 1.Javaid MU, Rehman N, Mirza MZ, Ibrahim AM. Rampart of health-specific leadership and social support of colleagues to overcome burnout in an emotionally demanding situations: the mediating role of stress. J Healthc Leadersh. 2023;15:121–128. doi: 10.2147/JHL.S420584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Polit DF, Beck CT. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(11):1451–1458. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Brenner PS, DeLamater J. Lies, damned lies, and survey self-reports? Identity as a cause of measurement bias. Soc Psychol Q. 2016;79(4):333–354. doi: 10.1177/0190272516628298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Simundić AM. Bias in research. Biochem Med. 2013;23(1):12–15. doi: 10.11613/BM.2013.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Nugroho HSW, Acob JRU, Martiningsih W. Healthcare worker’s mental health during the epidemic peak of COVID-19 [Letter]. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2021;14:333–334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]