Uprooting Technostress: Digital Leadership Empowering Employee Well-Being in the Era of Industry 4.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the authors explore the effects of technostress on employee well-being, hypothesizing that this relationship is mediated by work exhaustion and moderated by digital leadership. Regarding the originality and potential impact of the study, the mediating effect of work exhaustion is not so new, whereas the role of digital leadership is more relevant. Unfortunately, in my view, there are some major issues that require further work on the manuscript before it can be considered for publication.

The first major issue concerns the quality of the writing (see the section below).

The second issue concerns the hypothesis that digital leadership moderates the relationship between technostress and employee well-being. Why not also test whether it moderates the relationship between technostress and work exhaustion? The authors themselves state that “Furthermore, digital leadership’s ability to protect employees’ well-being from any adverse effects by lowering their exhaustion at work” (rows 245–247), which suggests that such a moderating effect could be hypothesized. I therefore encourage the authors to test this effect as well, or to provide convincing explanations as to why it cannot occur.

A third issue concerns the absence of ethical approval for the study. Many journals do not even consider studies involving human participants (even low-risk ones) if they have not been approved by an ethics committee. I leave it to the editor to decide how to proceed on this matter.

A fourth issue concerns the instruments used in the questionnaire: were previously translated and validated Turkish versions employed, or were the items translated by the authors specifically for this study?

Finally, the limitations section does not address what is arguably the main limitation: the cross-sectional design of the study, which prevents any causal inference. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that investing in improving digital leadership will enhance employee well-being. This is certainly plausible, but it remains a speculation, not a direct outcome of the results of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is full of typos as well as sentences that are difficult to understand (e.g., rows 43-45, 53-57 etc.; this list is not exhaustive, as it is not the reviewer’s job to act as a proofreader!). I suggest revising the text carefully and having it checked by a native English speaker.-

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	Must be improved	We thank the reviewer for their evaluation and constructive feedback. We carefully acknowledge that several areas of the manuscript must be improved
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	Must be approved
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	Must be approved
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	Must be approved
Is the article adequately referenced?	Yes
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	Must be approved
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors In this article, the authors explore the effects of technostress on employee well-being, hypothesizing that this relationship is mediated by work exhaustion and moderated by digital leadership. Regarding the originality and potential impact of the study, the mediating effect of work exhaustion is not so new, whereas the role of digital leadership is more relevant. Unfortunately, in my view, there are some major issues that require further work on the manuscript before it can be considered for publication.
Comment 1: The first major issue concerns the quality of the writing (see the section below). We sincerely thank you for this valuable comment. We will carefully revise the manuscript to improve the overall quality of writing according to the comments in the section below. Comments 2:The second issue concerns the hypothesis that digital leadership moderates the relationship between technostress and employee well-being. Why not also test whether it moderates the relationship between technostress and work exhaustion? The authors themselves state that “Furthermore, digital leadership’s ability to protect employees’ well-being from any adverse effects by lowering their exhaustion at work” (rows 245–247), which suggests that such a moderating effect could be hypothesized. I therefore encourage the authors to test this effect as well, or to provide convincing explanations as to why it cannot occur. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. Our research design positioned digital leadership as a moderator between technostress and employee well-being after conducting an extensive review of the existing literature. The review indicated that while digital leadership has been consistently associated with improvements in employee well-being (see lines 127–129), there is no prior empirical study directly examining its moderating role between technostress and employee well-being. As a result, we aimed to address this specific gap and contribute original insights by testing this pathway. Moreover, to address your point, we have now acknowledged in the limitations and future research section (rows 562–563) that future studies could expand the model by analyzing the role of digital leadership as a moderator between work exhaustion and employee well-being. This approach is also consistent with recent frameworks, such as Alkhayyal & Bajaba (2024), which emphasize the protective role of digital leadership in buffering exhaustion and related outcomes.   Comment 3: A third issue concerns the absence of ethical approval for the study. Many journals do not even consider studies involving human participants (even low-risk ones) if they have not been approved by an ethics committee. I leave it to the editor to decide how to proceed on this matter. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. We fully acknowledge that studies involving human participants require prior ethical approval. We confirm that ethical approval was obtained for this research via a signed ethics committee letter, and the confirmation code has already been submitted directly to the editorial office.   Comment 4: A fourth issue concerns the instruments used in the questionnaire: were previously translated and validated Turkish versions employed, or were the items translated by the authors specifically for this study?   We thank the reviewer for raising this important question. As explained in the Measurement section (rows 327–338), the instruments used in our study were based on previously validated questionnaires in the original English language. Since validated Turkish versions were not available for all constructs, the items were translated into Turkish specifically for this study.   Comment 5: Finally, the limitations section does not address what is arguably the main limitation: the cross-sectional design of the study, which prevents any causal inference. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that investing in improving digital leadership will enhance employee well-being. This is certainly plausible, but it remains a speculation, not a direct outcome of the results of the study. We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. We agree that the cross-sectional design is a key limitation of our study, as it restricts the ability to make causal inferences. To address this, we have revised the Limitations and Future Research section and added the following clarification in lines 556–559   Comment 6: Comments on the Quality of English Language The manuscript is full of typos as well as sentences that are difficult to understand (e.g., rows 43-45, 53-57 etc.; this list is not exhaustive, as it is not the reviewer’s job to act as a proofreader!). I suggest revising the text carefully and having it checked by a native English speaker.- We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We carefully revised the entire manuscript to address typos and to improve clarity and readability, with special attention to the rows mentioned (43–45 and 53–57). In addition, the manuscript has been proofread to ensure that the language throughout the paper now meets academic publication standards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript, titled "Uprooting Technostress: Digital Leadership Empowering Employee Well-being in the Era of Industry 4.0," has considerable academic value in terms of its research object, theoretical framework, methodological design, and written expression. However, it also has some noteworthy issues:

1. The introduction is lengthy and lacks focus. It contains too much background information and lacks a clear focus on research gaps, making it difficult for readers to quickly grasp the research motivation.
2. The hypotheses are formulated somewhat hastily. While the research hypotheses H1–H5 in Chapter 2 are based on the literature, the theoretical support for some hypotheses (such as H5) is somewhat weak, lacking in-depth theoretical reasoning.
3. The figures and explanations in the paper are disconnected. The figures in Figure 2 (Outer Model) and Figure 3 (Structural Model) lack sufficient explanations, making it difficult for readers to understand their actual meaning. The factor loadings in Table 1 do not list the specific indicator names, but only use "Tech 1–16" instead, which hinders the reader's understanding of the measurement structure.
4. The sample's representativeness and generalizability are limited. The sample in this article comes from only three manufacturing companies in Istanbul, Turkey, and primarily consists of young and middle-aged employees. This lacks sample diversity, limiting the generalizability of the conclusions. It is recommended that this information be explained and clarified in the article.
5. The mediation effect test is not fully reported. Although an indirect effect (H4) is reported, no comparison between the direct effect and the total effect is provided, nor is it clarified whether it is full or partial mediation.
6. The article's theoretical contribution and innovation are insufficient. The JD-R framework used in the article is a common choice and lacks theoretical innovation or integration.
7. The article's connection to SDG 3 is somewhat tenuous. While SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) is mentioned, there is no in-depth discussion of how the research results specifically contribute to the achievement of this goal, and there are no policy or practice-oriented recommendations.

Author Response

For a research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Quality of the English Language	( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. (x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.	We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of the manuscript’s language quality. We are pleased that the clarity and readability of the English were found satisfactory.
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript, titled "Uprooting Technostress: Digital Leadership Empowering Employee Well-being in the Era of Industry 4.0," has considerable academic value in terms of its research object, theoretical framework, methodological design, and written expression. However, it also has some noteworthy issues:
Comments 1: The introduction is lengthy and lacks focus. It contains too much background information and lacks a clear focus on research gaps, making it difficult for readers to quickly grasp the research motivation. We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment.  The introduction needed to be more concise and focused. To address this, we reduced the overall length of the introduction by removing material that provided excessive background information in the previous version. Specifically, we deleted the section in lines 91–102. The removed lines are provided below for your information:   “Furthermore, an American Psychological Association (APA) survey in 2022 demonstrated that 79% of employees reported stress relating to technology and burnout during the COVID-19 era [9]. Nonetheless, there remains a current absence of information on the benefits to an organization and its employees on how it can optimize the effect of digitalization within the workplace. A potential solution to enhance working conditions for staff is for leadership. It is possible for a leader to alter their staff’s working environment and thereby improve their employees' health through management of allocation and resources within their place of work [23]. The writers suggest three crucial attributes for digital leadership – trust, transparency, and communication, which can assist leaders in creating better relationships with staff through the digital transformation, which in turn contributes to reducing technostress and therefore to a more productive organization [24]. “   Moreover, we have added new sentences that explicitly emphasize the research gap in lines 120-126, and expanded the whole paragraph to sharpen the motivation of the study.       Comment 2: The hypotheses are formulated somewhat hastily. While the research hypotheses H1–H5 in Chapter 2 are based on the literature, the theoretical support for some hypotheses (such as H5) is somewhat weak, lacking in-depth theoretical reasoning.   We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. In the manuscript, H5 is already supported comprehensively through the JD–R theory, where digital leadership is theorized as a job resource that offsets technology-driven job demands. However, to further strengthen the theoretical grounding in line with your suggestion, we have now also articulated the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory as complementary support. COR posits that resource loss is the central driver of stress and that resource gain becomes especially important in loss contexts; it has been widely used to predict stress outcomes in organizations and to inform interventions that alter people’s resources or their environments. We have added the COR theory explanation in Lines in abstract line 14-15, Introduction 58-60, Literature review 238-243, theoretical implications 486-489, and conclusion in line 596.   Comment 3: The figures and explanations in the paper are disconnected. The figures in Figure 2 (Outer Model) and Figure 3 (Structural Model) lack sufficient explanations, making it difficult for readers to understand their actual meaning. The factor loadings in Table 1 do not list the specific indicator names, but only use "Tech 1–16" instead, which hinders the reader's understanding of the measurement structure.   We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. To address your concern, we have revised the manuscript to provide clearer explanations of the figures and tables. Specifically, an explanation for Figure 2 (Outer Model) has been added in lines 355–357, and an explanation for Figure 3 (Structural Model) has been added in lines 390–391 to guide readers in interpreting their meaning and significance. Additionally, we have updated Table 1 to include the outer loadings of all indicators, with the specific indicator names listed. To further aid understanding, we clarified in the table note that “Tech” refers to Technostress, with numbers 1–16 indicating the corresponding questionnaire items. The full questionnaire has also been included in the supplementary material.   Comment 4: The sample's representativeness and generalizability are limited. The sample in this article comes from only three manufacturing companies in Istanbul, Turkey, and primarily consists of young and middle-aged employees. This lacks sample diversity, limiting the generalizability of the conclusions. It is recommended that this information be explained and clarified in the article. We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We acknowledge that the representativeness of our sample is limited, as it was drawn from three manufacturing companies in Istanbul, Turkey. To address this point, we have already noted the issue of generalizability in the “Limitations and Future Directions” section (lines 567–573), where we emphasize that the findings may not fully represent other industries or demographic groups in Turkey. We also highlight that future research should expand the scope by including diverse sectors and organizations of different sizes.   Comment 5: The mediation effect test is not fully reported. Although an indirect effect (H4) is reported, no comparison between the direct effect and the total effect is provided, nor is it clarified whether it is full or partial mediation. We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. We would like to mention that the mediation analysis has already been reported in the manuscript under Section 4.2 Structural Model Assessment, specifically in subsection 4.2.1 Mediation analysis. In this section (lines 410–418), we explicitly interpret the mediation analysis and indicate that the effect is a partial mediation, as both the direct and indirect effects are significant.   Comment 6: The article's theoretical contribution and innovation are insufficient. The JD-R framework used in the article is a common choice and lacks theoretical innovation or integration. We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In the revised Theoretical Background, we clarify our contribution within the JD-R theory. Following calls in the JD-R literature to identify emergent demands and resources in Industry 4.0 we conceptualize technostress as a distinct Industry 4.0  job demand that accelerates depletion of emotional and cognitive reserves and theorize digital leadership as a strategic job resource that reconfigures the link by supplying direction, transparency, and support (Lines 479-486).  Importantly, the innovative link in our study is the role of digital leadership as the boundary condition that reshapes the technostress–well-being pathway; this novelty and its implications are explicitly articulated under the Theoretical Implications (lines 490–510). Comment 7: The article's connection to SDG 3 is somewhat tenuous. While SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) is mentioned, there is no in-depth discussion of how the research results specifically contribute to the achievement of this goal, and there are no policy or practice-oriented recommendations.   We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. In revision, we strengthened SDG 3 by adding a dedicated, practice-oriented paragraph to the Practical Implications (lines 548–553). These are aligned with the points already noted in the Introduction and Conclusion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title:

Understanding the importance of the topic and the authors' interest in proposing solutions to this problem, we recommend revising the text to specify that leadership is a variable that helps to mitigate or reduce the impact of technostress.

 

Introduction:

It is evident that the findings reported in various studies adequately support the hypotheses, objectives, and the proposed model for analysis. However, it is important that the authors explain that, although in many parts of the world organizations are returning to in-person work, virtual leadership remains a viable option for achieving objectives.

 

Materials and Methods:

 

Participants: The authors should specify the sampling method, the type of sample, and how the participants were selected. They should also report the statistical error margin for the selection of the 329 participants.

 

Survey design: Developing a research instrument is a scientific endeavor in itself. Therefore, it would be necessary to describe in more detail the stages of the survey development process and to report statistical indices of the items using the graded response model of Item Response Theory or an equivalent model.

 

Other tests administered: Since only reliability indices are reported, it would also be appropriate to indicate the statistical indices of validity for the scores obtained from the administered tests.

 

Results: In general terms, the statistical analyses are clear for technicians on the matter. However, for readers in others fields, it could not be. In that regard, it would be helpful to include a more understandable description of the model for anyone interested in applying it. For this purpose, a figure or a table showing the results based on the different types of companies that participated in the study could be added.

Discussion:

Overall, it has good development and structure. The section discussing the practical implications is particularly important.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

For a research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files         Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Can be improved Thank you for these constructive comments. we have revised the Introduction and Literature Review to be more concise and better contextualized, and we have strengthened the Methodology section by clarifying the research design, hypotheses, and sampling procedure. Finally, we also reviewed the references and revised them if necessary. Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Must be improved Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? YES For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? YES Is the article adequately referenced? Can be improved Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in the secondary literature?   YES

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment 1: Title:

Understanding the importance of the topic and the authors' interest in proposing solutions to this problem, we recommend revising the text to specify that leadership is a variable that helps to mitigate or reduce the impact of technostress.

 We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. As suggested, we have clarified throughout the manuscript that digital leadership is a key variable that mitigates the negative impact of technostress by providing direction, resources, and support for employees. This point was already emphasized in multiple sections, including the Abstract (lines 18–19), Introduction (lines 62–66), Literature Review (lines 235–289), Discussion (lines 450–455), Theoretical Implications (lines 492–514), and Conclusion (lines 591–594). To further strengthen the manuscript in line with your comment, we also added a more detailed explanation in the Theoretical Implications section (lines 523-529), where we specify the concrete mechanisms through which digital leadership can buffer technostress

 

Introduction:

It is evident that the findings reported in various studies adequately support the hypotheses, objectives, and the proposed model for analysis. However, it is important that the authors explain that, although in many parts of the world organizations are returning to in-person work, virtual leadership remains a viable option for achieving objectives.

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. We agree that clarifying the continuing relevance of virtual leadership is important, especially in the post-pandemic era. To address this, we have highlighted in lines 83–87 that, even as many organizations transition back to in-person work, virtual leadership continues to play a crucial role in achieving organizational objectives 

Materials and Methods:

 

Participants: The authors should specify the sampling method, the type of sample, and how the participants were selected. They should also report the statistical error margin for the selection of the 329 participants.

The study employed a simple random sampling method by electronically distributing questionnaires to employees in three manufacturing companies in Istanbul, Turkey. A sample size calculation was accomplished using G*Power 3.1, which suggested that a minimum of 312 participants was required (Lines 320-323). To reach this minimum of participation, the authors distributed 500 surveys, 351 were returned, and after data screening, 329 valid responses were retained for analysis. Since the sample calculation was conducted using G*Power 3.1, which is based on the effect size rather than the population, there is therefore no margin of error.

 

Survey design: Developing a research instrument is a scientific endeavor in itself. Therefore, it would be necessary to describe in more detail the stages of the survey development process and to report statistical indices of the items using the graded response model of Item Response Theory or an equivalent model.

 

We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. In our study, we did not develop a new instrument but instead adapted well-established, previously validated scales to measure the study variables. Specifically, technostress, work exhaustion, and employee well-being were measured using the validated items from Wang et al. (2022), while digital leadership was assessed using the scale developed by Lathabhavan and Kuppusamy (2023), both of which have been widely applied in organizational and Industry 4.0 contexts. All items were originally validated in English, and for this study they were carefully translated into Turkish following a translation procedure to ensure semantic and conceptual equivalence.

To establish the robustness of our adapted survey, we conducted reliability and validity analyses. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values for all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, and average variance extracted (AVE) values were above 0.50, demonstrating convergent validity ( Lines 335-346). Discriminant validity was further confirmed using the HTMT ratio, all of which fell below the threshold of 0.85 (380-382). Since the measurement scales were established in prior research and the items were not newly created, we followed classical test theory (CTT) approaches rather than Item Response Theory (IRT) (Lines 316-318). Nonetheless, we ensured statistical rigor by assessing indicator outer loadings (all >0.70) (Line 377), model fit indices (SRMR and NFI within acceptable ranges), and full measurement validity, which are consistent with PLS-SEM methodology (Lines 390-393).

 

 

Other tests administered: Since only reliability indices are reported, it would also be appropriate to indicate the statistical indices of validity for the scores obtained from the administered tests.

We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. In addition to reporting the reliability indices, we have already included validity assessments in the manuscript. Specifically, we tested discriminant validity using the HTMT ratio, which is considered one of the most robust measures, and reported these results in lines 382–384. All HTMT values were below the recommended threshold of 0.85, confirming discriminant validity among the constructs. Furthermore, we also examined convergent validity by reporting Average Variance Extracted (AVE), all of which were above 0.50, and outer loadings for each indicator, all of which exceeded 0.70 (Line 377).

 

Results: In general terms, the statistical analyses are clear for technicians on the matter. However, for readers in others fields, it could not be. In that regard, it would be helpful to include a more understandable description of the model for anyone interested in applying it. For this purpose, a figure or a table showing the results based on the different types of companies that participated in the study could be added.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. To enhance clarity for a broader readership, we have revised the Results section to include a more accessible description of the model in addition to the technical details. In particular, we now provide an interpretation that explains how technostress negatively affects employee well-being both directly and indirectly through work exhaustion (Lines 427-428), and how digital leadership mitigates this negative relationship (Lines 439-440). To further support reader comprehension, we have already added a hypothesis testing table (see Table 3) that presents the main structural model results (direct, indirect, and moderating effects) in a concise format (Line 404).

Discussion:

Overall, it has good development and structure. The section discussing the practical implications is particularly important

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this positive and encouraging comment. We are glad that the Discussion section, and particularly the part on practical implications, was found to be important. We carefully designed this section to ensure that the study’s findings are not only theoretically important but also directly relevant to practitioners and policymakers in Industry 4.0 contexts.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. While I appreciate the authors’ efforts, I regret to note that most of the concerns raised in the first round remain unresolved. My major points are the following:

1. Despite my explicit recommendation to improve the quality of English writing, the revised manuscript still contains numerous grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic errors throughout (not just in the examples highlighted in my previous review!). I strongly encourage the authors to have the manuscript professionally proofread by a native speaker or specialized editing service before resubmission.

2. In the first round, I suggested that the role of digital leadership as a moderator should either be explicitly tested between technostress and work exhaustion or that a clear theoretical justification should be provided for not doing so. This point has not been adequately addressed.
Since work exhaustion mediates the effect of technostress on employee well-being, it is theoretically plausible that digital leadership moderates the relationship between technostress and work exhaustion itself. Without testing this, or at least justifying its exclusion, the conceptual model appears incomplete.

3. The authors mention in their cover letter to have submitted the ethical approval to the editorial office. This information must be reported transparently within the manuscript (e.g., in the Methods section), including the name of the committee and the approval reference/code.

4. The use of psychometric tool translated for the study and not yet validated should be acknoledged in the limitations of the study.

Given the above points, I cannot recommend this version for publication in its current form. A thorough revision addressing these issues is necessary before the paper can be considered further.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript defintely needs to be professionally proofread by a native speaker or specialized editing service.

 

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

Comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. While I appreciate the authors’ efforts, I regret to note that most of the concerns raised in the first round remain unresolved. My major points are the following:

 

1. Despite my explicit recommendation to improve the quality of English writing, the revised manuscript still contains numerous grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic errors throughout (not just in the examples highlighted in my previous review!). I strongly encourage the authors to have the manuscript professionally proofread by a native speaker or specialized editing service before resubmission.

 

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully acknowledge the importance of clear and precise language in academic writing. In response, we have already sought the assistance of a native English speaker to paraphrase and proofread the manuscript, and we carefully revised grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic errors throughout the text. We have done our best to improve readability and clarity across all sections.

 

2. In the first round, I suggested that the role of digital leadership as a moderator should either be explicitly tested between technostress and work exhaustion or that a clear theoretical justification should be provided for not doing so. This point has not been adequately addressed. Since work exhaustion mediates the effect of technostress on employee well-being, it is theoretically plausible that digital leadership moderates the relationship between technostress and work exhaustion itself. Without testing this, or at least justifying its exclusion, the conceptual model appears incomplete.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this important point once again and fully appreciate the theoretical reasoning behind the suggestion. We acknowledge that it is indeed plausible that digital leadership could moderate the relationship between technostress and work exhaustion. However, our conceptual model was developed based on an extensive review of the literature and was intentionally focused on addressing the direct technostress–well-being link, with work exhaustion as a mediator and digital leadership as a moderator of the outcome. This specific design reflects the gap we identified in prior studies, which often overlooked the endpoint impact of technostress on employee well-being within Industry 4.0 contexts.

Adding a new moderation pathway (Digital leadership between technostress and work exhaustion) at this stage would require re-specifying the entire conceptual framework, re-running the analyses, and rewriting multiple sections of the manuscript (methods, results, discussion, theoretical and practical implications). Given the timeline for revision, this is not feasible without compromising the coherence and timeliness of the current submission.

To avoid any confusion, we have removed the sentence at lines 255–256 that could imply moderation of technostress–exhaustion by digital leadership in the manuscript. Furthermore, we now explicitly acknowledge this as a promising avenue for future research in the Limitations and Future Research section (lines 580-581), highlighting that future studies should test whether digital leadership also moderates the technostress–exhaustion relationship, building on recent works such as Alkhayyal & Bajaba (2024). The authors also reviewed all the manuscript text and removed the lines that may indirectly imply this relationship (Digital leadership between technostress and work exhaustion). "Inspiring leadership has been discovered to lower the relationship between techno-invasion and emotional exhaustion by urging staff to set stricter work-home limits and employ in combined decision-making with regard to the use of technology. Though this style of leadership may reinforce, as opposed to cushioning, the relationship between techno-overload and exhaustion, proposing that differing technostress dimensions may need dissimilar leadership styles [50]"(Lines 258-263).

We hope this clarifies that our current study remains focused, consistent with its original objectives, while also paving the way for further scholarly inquiry.

 

 

 

3. The authors mention in their cover letter to have submitted the ethical approval to the editorial office. This information must be reported transparently within the manuscript (e.g., in the Methods section), including the name of the committee and the approval reference/code.

We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have now included the ethical approval information from Ethics Committee of Arkin University of Creative Arts and Design directly in the Methods section (lines 311–312) to ensure transparency.

 

4. The use of psychometric tool translated for the study and not yet validated should be acknoledged in the limitations of the study.

 

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. As noted in the Methods section, we used previously validated English-language instruments, which were translated into Turkish using the back-translation method. While this process ensured semantic equivalence, the translated versions have not yet undergone a full psychometric validation study in the Turkish context. We agree that this is a limitation, and we have now acknowledged it in the Limitations section of the manuscript (Lines 601-604).

 

 

Given the above points, I cannot recommend this version for publication in its current form. A thorough revision addressing these issues is necessary before the paper can be considered further.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general terms, the authors respond the observations. If it is possible, in the results section, the path diagram require more description in verbal terms. The idea is for include information that point out that the evaluation of the model has a good adjust.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In general terms, the authors respond the observations. If it is possible, in the results section, the path diagram require more description in verbal terms. The idea is for include information that point out that the evaluation of the model has a good adjust.

 

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that providing a clearer verbal description of the path diagram enhances reader understanding. Beyond the statistical reporting already provided in Section 4.2, we now highlight in the revised text that the model demonstrates strong explanatory power, with R² values of 0.649 for exhaustion and 0.629 for well-being, indicating a substantial portion of variance explained by the predictors (Lines 396-400). This reinforces that the model achieves a satisfactory level of adjustment and that the path diagram visually illustrates the robustness of both mediation and moderation effects.

The following description is added to the manuscript on lines 396-400:

 

“Figure 3 demonstrates that a significant amount of the variance in the mediating and dependent constructs (R2 = 0.629 for well-being and R2 = 0.649 for exhaustion) can be explained by the model. These values show a well-adjusted model that goes beyond the significance of individual paths and validates that the proposed paths together account for a significant amount of explanatory power”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for resubmitting your manuscript. I appreciate the addition of the ethical approval statement and the inclusion of the use of non-validated measures in Turkish in the paper's limitations. However, I must stress that two major issues remain unresolved.

First, the missing moderation analysis. While I understand your rebuttal, I remain convinced that testing the moderating role of digital leadership on the technostress–work exhaustion relationship is both theoretically relevant and also analytically feasible. As reported in my previous reviews, given that work exhaustion mediates the technostress–well-being link, excluding this moderation pathway leaves the conceptual model incomplete. Current statistical software allows such an analysis to be performed very quickly and with minimal additional effort. Simply removing the textual references suggesting this potential moderation effect, rather than addressing the issue empirically, does not adequately resolve the concern.

Second, the quality of writing. Despite repeated feedback, the manuscript still contains numerous language errors and awkward formulations that obscure meaning. This is not acceptable for a high-standard journal as Sustainability. A thorough professional proofreading remains necessary.

Given these persisting limitations, I do not believe the manuscript, in its current form, could be considered for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript still contains numerous language errors and awkward formulations. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Round 3 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

Comments:  Thank you for resubmitting your manuscript. I appreciate the addition of the ethical approval statement and the inclusion of the use of non-validated measures in Turkish in the paper's limitations. However, I must stress that two major issues remain unresolved.

 

1-First, the missing moderation analysis. While I understand your rebuttal, I remain convinced that testing the moderating role of digital leadership on the technostress–work exhaustion relationship is both theoretically relevant and also analytically feasible. As reported in my previous reviews, given that work exhaustion mediates the technostress–well-being link, excluding this moderation pathway leaves the conceptual model incomplete. Current statistical software allows such an analysis to be performed very quickly and with minimal additional effort. Simply removing the textual references suggesting this potential moderation effect, rather than addressing the issue empirically, does not adequately resolve the concern.

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. In line with your recommendation, we examined the moderating role of digital leadership on the technostress-work exhaustion relationship (See Table 3). The results indicate that digital leadership does not significantly moderate this path. Our results highlight that digital leadership does not moderate significantly the correlation between work exhaustion and technostress. This implies that although digital leadership may offer support and resources, it may not offer adequate protection to reduce the impact of exhaustion related to a digital overload within the context of Industry 4.0. However, digital leadership played a minor but critical role in mitigating the negative impact of technostress on staff health. A potential cause could be described as the fact that well-being, as a broader construct, is more susceptible to leadership practices, for example, communication, support, and appreciation. This is as opposed to exhaustion, which is directly related to the power of technological stresses, for which leadership offers a limited ability to relieve. This is consistent with the JD-R theory, which proposes that leadership acts as a resource for jobs and impacts overall well-being; however, it may not overcome the extensive demands, leading to exhaustion. For this reason, and to maintain a theoretically consistent and empirically supported model, we did not include this moderation hypothesis in our final conceptual framework; however, we acknowledged it as a promising avenue for future research (Lines 580-581).

Table 3. Hypothesis Testing

 

		(β)	Sample mean (M)	STDEV	T statistics	P values
H1	Tech -> Well-being	-0.442	-0.443	0.056	7.879	0.00
H2	Tech -> WE	0.806	0.806	0.023	35.615	0.00
H3	WE -> Well-being	-0.304	-0.302	0.054	5.635	0.00
H4	Tech -> WE -> Well-being	-0.245	-0.244	0.044	5.541	0.00
H5	Dg x Tech -> Well-being	0.062	0.063	0.031	1.977	0.048
H6	Digital leadership x Tech -> Exh	-0.036	-0.033	0.038	0.941	0.347

 

 

 

 

 

2-Second, the quality of writing. Despite repeated feedback, the manuscript still contains numerous language errors and awkward formulations that obscure meaning. This is not acceptable for a high-standard journal as Sustainability. A thorough professional proofreading remains necessary.

 

Thank you very much for this important comment. We carefully revised the manuscript to refine the language and address issues of grammar, style, and clarity. In addition to our own revisions, the manuscript was thoroughly proofread by a native English speaker to ensure readability and alignment with the high linguistic standards of Sustainability. We are confident that the revised version eliminates the earlier errors and awkward formulations, and we hope that it now fully meets the journal’s expectations.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf