Bootlegging Innovation as a Pathway to Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Roles of Job Crafting, Psychological Capital, and Promotion Focus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author ,

The manuscript demonstrates strong theoretical integration, rigorous analysis, and clear relevance to sustainable innovation research. However, several sections require conceptual tightening, clearer positioning of contributions, and enhanced methodological transparency. I recommend Minor Revisions before acceptance. Please follow the requirements:

• Title
• The term )Driving Sustainable Competitive Advantage( broad, I think the title would benefit from explicitly signaling the employee-level mechanism (bootlegging innovation) earlier.
• Abstract
• The abstract is somewhat verbose. I think reducing redundancy for example (repeated emphasis on sustainability and resilience) would improve conciseness and impact.
• Please report key quantitative results more explicitly (strength of mediation and moderated mediation effects) to increase the abstract’s empirical transparency.
• Introduction
• The research gap in introduction could be sharpened by more explicitly contrasting this study with recent bootlegging innovation studies, I mean at least clarify what they have not explained.
• The contribution section would benefit from a clearer theory-by-theory contribution mapping, what SDT adds, what COR adds, and what RFT uniquely contributes to the field.
• Theoretical Background
• While SDT, COR, and RFT are well integrated, I think the manuscript would benefit from a short integrative paragraph explicitly explaining why these three theories must be combined rather than used independently.
• Hypotheses Development
• The hypotheses are logically derived but occasionally lengthy. Please consider streamlining hypothesis rationales to avoid excessive repetition across H3–H5.
• For (H5), moderated mediation, please state (why moderation is expected at both stages simultaneously, not just restating earlier arguments).
• Methodology
• In this section I think the authors should clarify why a four-week interval is theoretically appropriate for changes in psychological capital and bootlegging innovation.
• For the sampling strategy I think it would benefit from a clear justification of industry diversity and how it supports generalizability within the Chinese context.
• Measures
• For bootlegging innovation, clarify how reverse-coded items were validated to avoid potential respondent confusion.
• Data Analysis and Results
• The CFA results are excellent; however, reporting HTMT ratios in addition to AVE would further strengthen discriminant validity claims.
• Discussion
• Please consider addressing potential dark-side risks of encouraging bootlegging innovation if any, for example (ethical or compliance tensions).
• Conclusion
• The conclusion must include a clear takeaway paragraph emphasizing (what organizations should do differently tomorrow), add a final paragraph (4–6 lines) at the end of the Conclusion that explicitly answers the question: What should organizations do start tomorrow? This paragraph should translate the main findings into concrete organizational actions (redesigning job roles to allow safe job crafting, intentionally developing employees’ psychological capital, and fostering a promotion-focused climate). And avoid repeating theoretical contributions and instead focus on practical change-oriented guidance.
• Managerial Implications
• In the section consider briefly discussing industry differences in applying these recommendations. For example, clarify that the intensity and form of job crafting, psychological capital development, and promotion-focused interventions may vary depending on industry risk, compliance pressure, and innovation norms. But please keep this discussion concise and illustrative rather than exhaustive.
• Limitations and Future Research
• Future research directions could be strengthened by proposing multi-level or longitudinal designs rather than general suggestions.

Author Response

Dear Author ,

The manuscript demonstrates strong theoretical integration, rigorous analysis, and clear relevance to sustainable innovation research. However, several sections require conceptual tightening, clearer positioning of contributions, and enhanced methodological transparency. I recommend Minor Revisions before acceptance. Please follow the requirements:

Title

The term )Driving Sustainable Competitive Advantage( broad, I think the title would benefit from explicitly signaling the employee-level mechanism (bootlegging innovation) earlier.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you very much for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have revised the title to explicitly foreground bootlegging innovation as the central employee-level pathway, while positioning sustainability and competitive advantage as downstream outcomes. Specifically, the title has been revised to:

“Bootlegging Innovation as a Pathway to Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Roles of Job Crafting, Psychological Capital, and Promotion Focus.”

This revised title more accurately reflects the theoretical focus of the study by clearly highlighting the micro-level behavioral mechanism (bootlegging innovation) and its underlying psychological and motivational processes, while maintaining a coherent link to broader sustainability and competitive advantage implications.

 

 

Abstract

The abstract is somewhat verbose. I think reducing redundancy for example (repeated emphasis on sustainability and resilience) would improve conciseness and impact.

Please report key quantitative results more explicitly (strength of mediation and moderated mediation effects) to increase the abstract’s empirical transparency.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that the original abstract contained some redundancy, particularly in the repeated emphasis on sustainability- and resilience-related implications, which may have reduced its overall conciseness and impact.

In response, we have streamlined the abstract by removing repetitive conceptual statements and tightening the narrative to focus more directly on the core theoretical mechanisms and empirical findings.

In addition, we have revised the abstract to report key quantitative results more explicitly. Specifically, we now clearly summarize the strength and significance of the mediation effect of job crafting, as well as the conditional indirect effects associated with promotion focus, thereby enhancing the empirical transparency of the abstract.

Overall, these revisions improve the clarity, conciseness, and informational value of the abstract while preserving its substantive contributions.

 

 

Introduction

The research gap in introduction could be sharpened by more explicitly contrasting this study with recent bootlegging innovation studies, I mean at least clarify what they have not explained.

The contribution section would benefit from a clearer theory-by-theory contribution mapping, what SDT adds, what COR adds, and what RFT uniquely contributes to the field.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you very much for this insightful comment. We agree that it is important to sharpen the articulation of the research gap by more explicitly contrasting our study with recent bootlegging innovation research and by clarifying the distinct contributions of each theoretical perspective.

In response, we have strengthened the Introduction to more clearly delineate the research gap. Specifically, we now emphasize that although prior studies on bootlegging innovation have primarily focused on employee motivation, motivation alone is insufficient to ensure the sustained enactment of bootlegging innovation. Employees engaging in bootlegging innovation must continuously cope with failure risks, regulatory sanctions, and potential resource depletion. Moreover, we explicitly note that prior research has rarely examined whether individual motivational orientations simultaneously shape both resource accumulation and resource mobilization processes in bootlegging innovation. These additions more clearly distinguish our study from recent work and clarify what existing research has not yet fully explained.

In addition, we introduced a new subsection in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3, Integrative Theoretical Logic) to provide a clearer, theory-by-theory articulation of the study’s theoretical contributions. In this section, we systematically outline the complementary roles of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Conservation of Resources Theory (COR), and Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) in explaining the psychological dynamics underlying bootlegging innovation. Specifically, SDT explains how intrinsic motivation is activated through job crafting; COR theory elucidates how psychological resources are accumulated, protected, and sustained under conditions of uncertainty and resource constraints; and RFT further specifies when and for whom these resources are most likely to be actively mobilized toward risky yet constructive innovation. By integrating these three theories into a sequential and non-redundant theoretical framework, the revised manuscript demonstrates how each theory uniquely contributes to explaining how job crafting–driven motivation is transformed into sustained bootlegging innovation.

Overall, these revisions sharpen the positioning of the research gap and provide a clearer, theory-by-theory mapping of the study’s theoretical contributions.

 

 

Theoretical Background

While SDT, COR, and RFT are well integrated, I think the manuscript would benefit from a short integrative paragraph explicitly explaining why these three theories must be combined rather than used independently.

 

=>Review Response：

we introduced a new subsection in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3, Integrative Theoretical Logic) to provide a clearer, theory-by-theory articulation of the study’s theoretical contributions. In this section, we systematically outline the complementary roles of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Conservation of Resources Theory (COR), and Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) in explaining the psychological dynamics underlying bootlegging innovation. Specifically, SDT explains how intrinsic motivation is activated through job crafting; COR theory elucidates how psychological resources are accumulated, protected, and sustained under conditions of uncertainty and resource constraints; and RFT further specifies when and for whom these resources are most likely to be actively mobilized toward risky yet constructive innovation. By integrating these three theories into a sequential and non-redundant theoretical framework, the revised manuscript demonstrates how each theory uniquely contributes to explaining how job crafting–driven motivation is transformed into sustained bootlegging innovation.

 

Hypotheses Development

The hypotheses are logically derived but occasionally lengthy. Please consider streamlining hypothesis rationales to avoid excessive repetition across H3–H5.

For (H5), moderated mediation, please state (why moderation is expected at both stages simultaneously, not just restating earlier arguments).

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that parts of the hypotheses development section were overly detailed and contained some repetitive reasoning across H3–H5.

In response, we have streamlined the theoretical rationales for H3–H5 by removing redundant explanations and tightening the argumentation, while retaining the core theoretical logic underlying each hypothesis. These revisions improve the clarity and conciseness of the hypotheses development section and reduce unnecessary overlap across hypotheses.

 

We would like to emphasize that H5 is theorized and tested as a moderated mediation effect rather than as two separate first-stage and second-stage moderation effects. Accordingly, our intention is not to argue that promotion focus independently moderates each path in a statistical sense. Instead, our theoretical logic conceptualizes promotion focus as shaping the overall effectiveness of psychological capital as a mediating resource-conversion mechanism linking job crafting to bootlegging innovation.

Specifically, the reference to “both stages” reflects two logically inseparable phases of the same mediation process: the transformation of proactive job crafting into accumulated psychological resources, and the subsequent translation of these resources into constructive deviant innovation. Drawing on regulatory focus theory and conservation of resources theory, promotion focus is expected to influence how efficiently psychological capital functions across this entire motivation–resource–behavior chain, rather than exerting isolated moderating effects on individual paths. In other words, promotion focus affects whether and to what extent psychological capital can fully perform its mediating role, thereby strengthening or weakening the indirect effect as a whole.

To avoid ambiguity, we have revised the theoretical explanation of H5 to explicitly clarify that promotion focus moderates the indirect effect of job crafting on bootlegging innovation through psychological capital, without implying separate moderation tests for each stage. This revision ensures conceptual precision and alignment between our theoretical arguments and the moderated mediation model estimated in the analysis.

 

Methodology

In this section I think the authors should clarify why a four-week interval is theoretically appropriate for changes in psychological capital and bootlegging innovation.

For the sampling strategy I think it would benefit from a clear justification of industry diversity and how it supports generalizability within the Chinese context.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this valuable comment regarding the methodological justification of the temporal design and sampling strategy.

In response, we have revised the Methodology section to more explicitly justify the theoretical appropriateness of the four-week time interval. Specifically, we clarify that the relationship between job crafting and psychological capital reflects a state-to-state developmental process, in which proactive work behaviors gradually contribute to the formation and accumulation of malleable psychological resources. Measuring these constructs at the same time point may blur their conceptual distinction and weaken the interpretation of psychological resource development. Accordingly, a four-week lag was introduced to capture the delayed effect of job crafting on psychological capital while maintaining relative stability in the external work environment during data collection.

At the same time, we explain that the relationship between psychological capital and bootlegging innovation represents a more proximal psychological–behavioral linkage. Once psychological capital is established, it can exert relatively immediate effects on employees’ behavioral decisions, and bootlegging innovation, as an opportunity-driven and context-triggered form of innovative behavior, does not necessarily require a long incubation period. Therefore, assessing psychological capital and bootlegging innovation within the same measurement wave is theoretically consistent with the nature of state–behavior relationships and aligns with common practice in organizational behavior research.

In addition, we have strengthened the justification of the sampling strategy by explicitly explaining the rationale for industry diversity. By recruiting full-time employees from multiple industries and job contexts in China, the study avoids restricting its findings to a single occupational setting and enhances the external validity and contextual generalizability of the results within the Chinese organizational environment.

Together, these revisions provide clearer theoretical and methodological justification for both the temporal design and the sampling strategy employed in this study.

 

Measures

For bootlegging innovation, clarify how reverse-coded items were validated to avoid potential respondent confusion.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful comment regarding the use and validation of the reverse-coded item in the bootlegging innovation measure.

In response, we have revised the Measures section to clarify how the reverse-coded item was handled and validated to minimize potential respondent confusion. Specifically, bootlegging innovation was measured using a revised four-item scale adapted from Criscuolo et al. [63], and one negatively worded item was intentionally included to reduce acquiescence bias. This item was carefully reverse-coded and recoded prior to analysis to ensure consistency in scale direction.

To further address potential concerns related to the sensitive and non-normative nature of bootlegging innovation, we adopted a self-reported measurement approach and implemented procedural remedies to reduce response bias. Participants were explicitly assured of anonymity and confidentiality, and participation was strictly voluntary, thereby lowering evaluation apprehension and enhancing response accuracy. In addition, the scale demonstrated strong internal consistency in the present study (Cronbach’s α = 0.881), providing empirical support for the reliability and proper functioning of the reverse-coded item within the overall measure.

These revisions clarify the validation and treatment of the reverse-coded item and reduce concerns regarding potential respondent confusion.

 

 

Data Analysis and Results

The CFA results are excellent; however, reporting HTMT ratios in addition to AVE would further strengthen discriminant validity claims.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that reporting HTMT ratios would further strengthen the assessment of discriminant validity.

In response, we have now reported HTMT ratios in Table 3 to complement the AVE-based criteria. As shown in Table 3, all HTMT values are well below the recommended threshold of 0.85, indicating satisfactory discriminant validity among job crafting, promotion focus, psychological capital, and bootlegging innovation. These additional results provide further empirical support for the distinctiveness of the study constructs.

 

Discussion

Please consider addressing potential dark-side risks of encouraging bootlegging innovation if any, for example (ethical or compliance tensions).

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this important suggestion. We agree that, although bootlegging innovation can generate constructive outcomes, it may also involve potential dark-side risks under certain conditions.

In response, we have explicitly addressed this issue in the Research Limitations and Recommendations section. Specifically, we acknowledge that because bootlegging innovation involves deviations from formal rules and procedures, it may entail ethical, compliance, or governance risks, particularly in highly regulated environments or under excessive performance pressure. We further note that, in the absence of appropriate boundary conditions, bootlegging innovation may shift from constructive exploration to dysfunctional behavior.

In addition, we outline several directions for future research, including examining the roles of ethical climate, compliance systems, and leadership monitoring as key boundary conditions, as well as investigating potential negative outcomes such as burnout and moral disengagement. By doing so, the revised manuscript conceptualizes bootlegging innovation as a double-edged phenomenon, offering a more balanced and nuanced discussion of both its constructive potential and associated risks.

We believe these additions adequately address the reviewer’s concern and strengthen the theoretical and practical completeness of the discussion.

 

Conclusion

The conclusion must include a clear takeaway paragraph emphasizing (what organizations should do differently tomorrow), add a final paragraph (4–6 lines) at the end of the Conclusion that explicitly answers the question: What should organizations do start tomorrow? This paragraph should translate the main findings into concrete organizational actions (redesigning job roles to allow safe job crafting, intentionally developing employees’ psychological capital, and fostering a promotion-focused climate). And avoid repeating theoretical contributions and instead focus on practical change-oriented guidance.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that the conclusion should end with a clear, action-oriented takeaway that translates the study’s findings into concrete organizational practices.

In response, we have added a final takeaway paragraph (4–6 lines) at the end of the Conclusion that explicitly addresses what organizations should start doing tomorrow. This paragraph focuses exclusively on practical guidance rather than theoretical contributions. Specifically, it highlights three actionable steps: (1) redesigning work roles to allow safe and bounded job crafting within clear ethical and compliance boundaries; (2) intentionally developing employees’ psychological capital through training, feedback, and supportive leadership practices; and (3) fostering a promotion-focused climate that encourages growth, learning, and proactive resource mobilization toward constructive innovation.

By articulating these concrete actions, the revised conclusion provides clear change-oriented guidance for managers and organizations seeking to harness bottom-up innovation in a sustainable and controlled manner. We believe this addition directly addresses the reviewer’s concern and strengthens the practical relevance of the manuscript.

 

 

Managerial Implications

In the section consider briefly discussing industry differences in applying these recommendations. For example, clarify that the intensity and form of job crafting, psychological capital development, and promotion-focused interventions may vary depending on industry risk, compliance pressure, and innovation norms. But please keep this discussion concise and illustrative rather than exhaustive.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that the application of the proposed managerial recommendations may vary across industries depending on differences in risk exposure, compliance pressure, and prevailing innovation norms.

In response, we have revised the Managerial Implications section to briefly and illustratively address industry differences in implementing job crafting, psychological capital development, and promotion-focused interventions. Specifically, we contrast knowledge-intensive and less regulated industries with highly regulated or safety-critical industries to demonstrate how the intensity, form, and governance of these practices should be adapted to different institutional contexts. This discussion is intentionally concise and example-based, rather than exhaustive, in line with the reviewer’s recommendation.

We believe this addition enhances the contextual sensitivity and practical applicability of the managerial implications while maintaining clarity and focus.

 

Limitations and Future Research

Future research directions could be strengthened by proposing multi-level or longitudinal designs rather than general suggestions.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that future research directions would be strengthened by proposing more concrete methodological approaches rather than general recommendations.

In response, we have revised the Limitations and Future Research section to explicitly propose longitudinal and multilevel research designs. Specifically, we now suggest longitudinal tracking and multi-wave designs to examine the dynamic evolution and causal sequencing among job crafting, psychological capital, and bootlegging innovation. In addition, we propose multilevel research frameworks that incorporate individual-level psychological mechanisms alongside organizational-level contextual factors (e.g., leadership style, innovation climate, structural autonomy, and compliance systems) to more systematically examine how different organizational environments shape resource generation and mobilization processes.

These revisions provide more concrete and methodologically grounded directions for future research and directly address the reviewer’s concern.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

While the manuscript integrates SDT, COR theory, and RFT, the proposed model primarily recycles well-known relationships (job crafting → psychological capital → innovation behavior). The authors are thus encouraged to clearly explain what is fundamentally original beyond past research that has already connected job crafting, psychological capital, and innovative or deviant innovation behavior. Right now, the contribution seems incremental rather than theory-expanding.

A lot of space is given to theoretical discussions, which are repetitive, with the same arguments restated across various theories, namely, SDT, COR, and RFT. Nevertheless, the boundaries among the concepts of motivation activation, resource generation, and resource mobilization are not clearly defined. More clarity is needed in the concepts, with fewer repetitive theoretical explanations.

Despite being anchored in the framework of sustainability, the current manuscript fails to make a coherent argument about how bootlegging innovation directly affects sustainable outcomes (environmental, social, and overall). The current linkage between deviant innovation and sustainable outcomes remains rhetorical and should be supported more explicitly in theory and empirical work.

Psychological capital and promotion focus are considered uniquely defined constructs that still measure the optimistic and growth-oriented aspects of psychology. The authors could have provided more conclusive evidence that the promotion focus serves as the moderator rather than the antecedent/aspect of psychological capital.

In spite of using a two-wave survey design to mitigate common method variance, it is still not a substantive study in terms of time. Conclusion about causality (e.g., "job crafting leads to bootlegging innovation") needs to be toned down, and rival explanations may be stated explicitly.

A measure of bootlegging innovation is administered using a four-item, self-reported, reverse-scored scale. Because a sensitive deviant behavior, such as bootlegging innovation, is measured using a self-reported instrument, it is highly susceptible to social desirability bias. This study would have greatly benefited from further explanation and clarification of why other data-gathering methods are rendered impractical.

Although the execution of the PROCESS is valid, the theoretical complexities of the proposed model of moderation in mediation might be better examined using a structural equation model. The authors should adequately explain why they opted to use regression analyses in the PROCESS model, particularly since they utilized both CFA and Latent variables.

The manuscript does not report any robustness checks or alternative model specifications; for instance, reversed mediation, alternative moderators, or competing theoretical models. In the absence of such tests, there is little basis for evaluating whether the proposed model offers incremental value over simpler or alternative explanations.

The literature review highlights supportive studies but often pays little attention to critical voices regarding job crafting, psychological capital inflation, or the dark side of deviant innovation. A more balanced discussion would strengthen the credibility of the theoretical framing.

Though it is relevant to the Chinese context in terms of its data, it fails to appropriately address the ASF factors in relation to the broader power distance dimension, rule orientation, and collectivism.

All hypotheses have been supported, raising concerns about potential bias and overfitting in the models. The authors should critically consider how the theory has been over-determined and what the implications are for fully supported hypotheses.

The implications for management section is primarily a rearticulation of findings in prescriptive form. More specific and prescriptive findings are required, especially on how to address the risks posed by bootlegging innovation.

Because the realm of Sustainability is so broad, the authors need to relate their results more explicitly to the theory, practice, or policies surrounding Sustainability. As it stands, the current submission could just as easily find a home in a general journal on organizational behavior, which dilutes its relevance to the journal's mission.

Author Response

Dear authors

While the manuscript integrates SDT, COR theory, and RFT, the proposed model primarily recycles well-known relationships (job crafting → psychological capital → innovation behavior). The authors are thus encouraged to clearly explain what is fundamentally original beyond past research that has already connected job crafting, psychological capital, and innovative or deviant innovation behavior. Right now, the contribution seems incremental rather than theory-expanding.

=>Review Response：

Thank you very much for this insightful and challenging comment. We fully understand the reviewer’s concern that the proposed model may appear to rely on well-established relationships (e.g., job crafting → psychological capital → innovation-related behavior), and we agree that it is essential to clearly articulate what is fundamentally original beyond prior research in order to demonstrate a theory-expanding contribution rather than an incremental one.

Crucially, beyond integrating established relationships, the core theoretical originality of this study lies in reconceptualizing bootlegging innovation as a sustained resource-conversion process rather than a one-shot motivational outcome. While prior research has typically treated job crafting, psychological capital, and innovative or deviant behaviors as loosely connected antecedents and outcomes, our model advances theory by explicitly distinguishing between resource generation (the accumulation of psychological capital) and resource mobilization (the deployment of these resources toward risky yet constructive deviant innovation). This distinction has not been systematically theorized in prior bootlegging innovation or job crafting research.

Moreover, by introducing promotion focus as a key boundary condition, this study moves beyond identifying a mediation mechanism to explain when and for whom accumulated psychological resources are actively mobilized rather than defensively conserved. In doing so, the model clarifies why similar levels of motivation or psychological capital may lead to sustained bootlegging innovation for some employees but not for others. In this sense, the contribution of the study is not merely additive, but theory-expanding, as it reframes bootlegging innovation as a dynamic and conditional process shaped by the interplay between motivational activation (SDT), resource sustainability (COR), and regulatory orientation (RFT), rather than as a static behavioral outcome.

To make this theoretical contribution more explicit, we have revised the Introduction to sharpen the articulation of the research gap and added a new subsection (Section 2.3: Integrative Theoretical Logic) that clearly maps the distinct and complementary roles of SDT, COR, and RFT within a sequential and non-redundant theoretical framework. We believe these revisions clarify that the study offers a genuine theory-expanding contribution by providing a process-level explanation of how job crafting–driven motivation is transformed into sustained bootlegging innovation.

 

A lot of space is given to theoretical discussions, which are repetitive, with the same arguments restated across various theories, namely, SDT, COR, and RFT. Nevertheless, the boundaries among the concepts of motivation activation, resource generation, and resource mobilization are not clearly defined. More clarity is needed in the concepts, with fewer repetitive theoretical explanations.

=>Review Response：

We have reduced repetitive theoretical discussions by clarifying the conceptual boundaries among motivation activation, resource generation, and resource mobilization, and by assigning each process to a distinct theoretical framework (SDT, COR, and RFT, respectively). These revisions are explicitly presented in Section 2.3 (Integrative Theoretical Logic), where the division of theoretical labor is clearly articulated to minimize overlap and redundancy across theories.

Despite being anchored in the framework of sustainability, the current manuscript fails to make a coherent argument about how bootlegging innovation directly affects sustainable outcomes (environmental, social, and overall). The current linkage between deviant innovation and sustainable outcomes remains rhetorical and should be supported more explicitly in theory and empirical work.

Psychological capital and promotion focus are considered uniquely defined constructs that still measure the optimistic and growth-oriented aspects of psychology. The authors could have provided more conclusive evidence that the promotion focus serves as the moderator rather than the antecedent/aspect of psychological capital.

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this important comment. We acknowledge that psychological capital and promotion focus both reflect positive and growth-oriented psychological tendencies, which makes it necessary to clearly demonstrate their empirical distinctiveness and justify the role of promotion focus as a moderator rather than an antecedent of psychological capital.

In response, we emphasize that the two constructs are treated as conceptually and empirically distinct in the present study. Specifically, our confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results indicate that psychological capital and promotion focus load on separate latent factors. In addition, the HTMT ratios between psychological capital and promotion focus are well below the recommended threshold, providing further evidence of satisfactory discriminant validity between the two constructs.

These results suggest that psychological capital and promotion focus capture related but distinct psychological processes, supporting our treatment of promotion focus as a boundary condition that moderates the indirect effect of job crafting on bootlegging innovation through psychological capital, rather than as an antecedent or component of psychological capital.

 

In spite of using a two-wave survey design to mitigate common method variance, it is still not a substantive study in terms of time. Conclusion about causality (e.g., "job crafting leads to bootlegging innovation") needs to be toned down, and rival xplanations may be stated explicitly.

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that, despite employing a two-wave time-lagged survey design to mitigate common method variance, the study does not constitute a fully longitudinal design in a substantive temporal sense. Accordingly, strong causal claims should be avoided.

In response, we have carefully toned down causal language throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Conclusion and Discussion sections, by replacing deterministic expressions (e.g., “leads to,” “causes”) with more cautious, association-based wording (e.g., “is associated with,” “is linked to,” “is more likely to”). These revisions ensure that the interpretation of the findings is consistent with the study’s research design.

In addition, we have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the Limitations and Future Research section, where we note that causal inferences remain constrained by the time structure of the data. In that section, we also discuss potential rival explanations, such as reverse causality and unobserved individual or contextual factors, and suggest that future research adopt longitudinal, experimental, or multi-source designs to more rigorously examine causal dynamics.

We believe these revisions appropriately address the reviewer’s concern and strengthen the methodological rigor and interpretive caution of the manuscript.

 

A measure of bootlegging innovation is administered using a four-item, self-reported, reverse-scored scale. Because a sensitive deviant behavior, such as bootlegging innovation, is measured using a self-reported instrument, it is highly susceptible to social desirability bias. This study would have greatly benefited from further explanation and clarification of why other data-gathering methods are rendered impractical.

=>Thank you for the reviewer’s important comment. We agree that bootlegging innovation is a sensitive and deviant form of behavior, and that self-reported measures may indeed be susceptible to social desirability bias. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the manuscript to further clarify why alternative data collection approaches are theoretically and practically constrained in the context of the present study.

Specifically, bootlegging innovation is characterized by a high degree of covert and informal nature, as such behaviors typically occur outside formal organizational procedures. As a result, supervisors are often unaware of employees’ engagement in bootlegging activities, making supervisor-rated assessments unlikely to provide accurate evaluations. In addition, organizations generally do not maintain objective or archival records of such informal innovative behaviors, rendering objective measurement approaches infeasible in practice.

Under these constraints, prior research on bootlegging innovation and other covert or deviant innovative behaviors has predominantly relied on self-reported measures as the most feasible and appropriate data collection method. To mitigate potential social desirability bias, this study emphasized anonymity, confidentiality, and voluntary participation during data collection, and employed reverse-coded items to reduce response pattern bias. These clarifications have been incorporated into Section 3.2.4 of the revised manuscript. We also acknowledge this limitation in the discussion section and note that future research could adopt multi-source data or qualitative approaches to further validate and extend the present findings.

 

Although the execution of the PROCESS is valid, the theoretical complexities of the proposed model of moderation in mediation might be better examined using a structural equation model. The authors should adequately explain why they opted to use regression analyses in the PROCESS model, particularly since they utilized both CFA and Latent variables.

=>Review Response：

In the present study, we chose to employ regression-based analyses using the PROCESS macro based on several theoretical and methodological considerations. First, the primary analytical objective of this study is to test conditional indirect effects (i.e., moderated mediation effects), with a particular focus on comparing the magnitude and significance of indirect effects across different levels of the moderator, rather than on fitting or comparing alternative structural models. The PROCESS macro is specifically designed for this purpose and provides bootstrapped estimates of conditional indirect effects, which closely align with the study’s hypothesis structure and research questions.

Second, although confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to establish the reliability and validity of the measurement model, the substantive hypotheses of this study focus on relationships among composite observed variables rather than latent structural paths. Using PROCESS allows us to maintain consistency between the theoretical level of the hypotheses and the analytical strategy, while avoiding the unnecessary complexity that may arise when estimating moderated mediation models within a full latent SEM framework.

Third, estimating moderated mediation models with interaction terms in SEM typically requires larger sample sizes, more complex model specifications, and additional identification and distributional assumptions, which may reduce model transparency and interpretability. In contrast, the PROCESS macro represents a parsimonious, well-validated, and widely adopted approach in organizational behavior research, enabling clear and robust estimation of mediation and moderation effects.

It is important to emphasize that the use of CFA and PROCESS serves complementary rather than contradictory purposes in this study. CFA was employed to assess the reliability and discriminant validity of the measurement model, whereas PROCESS was used to test the hypothesized conditional process model. This “measurement–structure separation” strategy is common in prior moderated mediation research.

To enhance transparency, we have explicitly added a clarification in Section 4.3 (Hypothesis Testing) stating that “the hypothesized moderated mediation model was tested using the PROCESS macro, which is well suited for estimating conditional indirect effects with bootstrapped confidence intervals.” We believe this additional explanation clarifies our analytical choice and addresses the reviewer’s concern.

 

The manuscript does not report any robustness checks or alternative model specifications; for instance, reversed mediation, alternative moderators, or competing theoretical models. In the absence of such tests, there is little basis for evaluating whether the proposed model offers incremental value over simpler or alternative explanations.

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this constructive comment. We agree that robustness checks and alternative model considerations are important for evaluating whether the proposed model offers incremental value beyond simpler or competing explanations.

In response, we would like to clarify that the revised manuscript does include competing model evidence at the measurement level, which provides an essential foundation for assessing the distinctiveness and added value of the proposed conceptual model. Specifically, Table 1 (Comparison of Measurement Models) compares the hypothesized four-factor model with several alternative factor structures. The results show that the proposed model demonstrates a significantly better fit than competing measurement models, indicating that the core constructs are empirically distinguishable and not reducible to simpler configurations.

In addition, we have supplemented the manuscript with Table 3 reporting HTMT ratios for discriminant validity. The HTMT results further confirm that all construct pairs fall below recommended thresholds, providing robust evidence that the focal variables capture distinct constructs rather than overlapping dimensions. Together, these analyses strengthen confidence that the proposed model is not merely a reparameterization of simpler alternatives.

We acknowledge that alternative structural specifications (e.g., reversed mediation or alternative moderators) could be explored in future research. Accordingly, we have noted this point explicitly in the Limitations and Future Research section, where we encourage future studies to test competing causal directions and alternative theoretical models using longitudinal or experimental designs. We believe that, given the theoretical grounding and empirical distinctiveness demonstrated in the current analyses, the proposed model offers meaningful incremental value over simpler explanations.

 

The literature review highlights supportive studies but often pays little attention to critical voices regarding job crafting, psychological capital inflation, or the dark side of deviant innovation. A more balanced discussion would strengthen the credibility of the theoretical framing.

=>Review Response：

Thank you very much for this insightful comment. We fully agree that incorporating both supportive perspectives and critical viewpoints is essential for enhancing the credibility and rigor of the theoretical framework.

In response, we have revised the literature review and discussion sections to more explicitly incorporate critical voices from the relevant literature. In addition, we have further expanded the discussion of the dark side of deviant innovation (including bootlegging innovation) in Section 5.3 (Research Limitations and Recommendations), highlighting that such behaviors may give rise to ethical, compliance, or coordination challenges, particularly in highly regulated or high-risk environments. By incorporating these perspectives, we clarify that the positive effects proposed in this study are not universal, but rather contingent on specific contextual and individual boundary conditions.

By integrating these critical perspectives, the revised manuscript presents a more nuanced and balanced theoretical discussion, which strengthens the credibility of the theoretical framing and positions the study more clearly within ongoing scholarly debates.

 

Though it is relevant to the Chinese context in terms of its data, it fails to appropriately address the ASF factors in relation to the broader power distance dimension, rule orientation, and collectivism.

=>Review Response：

Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We agree that, although the data are collected in the Chinese context, it is important to more explicitly situate ASF-related factors within broader cultural dimensions such as power distance, rule orientation, and collectivism, rather than treating them as background conditions.

In response, we have substantially revised the second limitation in the Research Limitations and Recommendations section to explicitly address this issue. In the revised manuscript, we clarify that ASF-related contextual factors may interact with China’s cultural characteristics, including high power distance, strong rule orientation, and collectivist norms, thereby shaping how job crafting and bootlegging innovation are perceived and enacted. Specifically, we explain that high power distance may increase employees’ tolerance of ASF-related practices, strong rule orientation may constrain the visibility and legitimacy of deviant innovation, and collectivist norms may lead employees to interpret ASF pressures through collective performance expectations rather than individual discretion.

By explicitly linking ASF to these broader cultural dimensions, the revised discussion clarifies that the mechanisms examined in this study are contextually embedded and potentially contingent, rather than universally applicable. We believe this revision strengthens the cultural grounding of the study and directly addresses the reviewer’s concern regarding the integration of ASF factors with macro-level cultural dimensions.

 

All hypotheses have been supported, raising concerns about potential bias and overfitting in the models. The authors should critically consider how the theory has been over-determined and what the implications are for fully supported hypotheses.

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this important and thoughtful comment. We agree that the fact that all hypotheses are supported warrants careful reflection, and that such results should not be interpreted uncritically as evidence of model perfection.

From a theoretical perspective, we would like to clarify that the fully supported hypotheses reflect theoretical coherence rather than over-determination. The proposed model is structured as a sequential and functionally differentiated framework, in which each hypothesis corresponds to a distinct psychological process: motivation activation (SDT), resource generation (COR), and resource mobilization (RFT). As such, the hypotheses are not redundant predictions of the same effect, but logically connected propositions derived from complementary theoretical roles.

From a methodological standpoint, we took several steps to reduce potential bias and overfitting, including a two-wave design, rigorous construct validation (CFA and HTMT), competing measurement models, and bootstrapped estimation of indirect effects using PROCESS. These procedures reduce the likelihood that the fully supported results are driven by common method bias or model over-specification.

At the same time, we acknowledge that fully supported hypotheses do not imply that alternative explanations or boundary conditions have been exhausted. In the revised manuscript, we have therefore explicitly reflected on this issue in the Discussion and Limitations sections, emphasizing that the observed relationships are contingent on specific contextual and individual conditions. We also note that alternative causal directions, omitted variables, and competing theoretical models remain plausible and should be examined in future longitudinal or experimental research.

By adopting this more critical and reflexive interpretation, we aim to situate the fully supported findings as evidence of internal consistency within a theoretically constrained framework, rather than as proof of a closed or over-determined model.

Because the realm of Sustainability is so broad, the authors need to relate their results more explicitly to the theory, practice, or policies surrounding Sustainability. As it stands, the current submission could just as easily find a home in a general journal on organizational behavior, which dilutes its relevance to the journal's mission.

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this important comment. We fully agree that, given the broad scope of sustainability research, it is essential to more explicitly connect our findings to sustainability-related theory, practice, and governance, rather than positioning the study solely as a general organizational behavior inquiry.

In response, we have substantially revised the Managerial Implications section to strengthen its sustainability orientation. Specifically, we now frame bootlegging innovation as a micro-foundational mechanism for sustainable innovation, emphasizing how employee-driven innovation can contribute to organizations’ long-term adaptive capacity rather than short-term performance gains. The revised discussion highlights sustainability-relevant themes, including responsible governance, bounded autonomy, ethical and compliance safeguards, institutional fit across industries, and the long-term durability of innovation outcomes.

Moreover, we clarify that the managerial recommendations are not merely behavioral prescriptions, but are directly linked to sustainability-oriented organizational practices, such as balancing exploration with accountability, aligning innovation with regulatory and ethical constraints, and designing governance mechanisms that support responsible and resilient innovation over time. By explicitly situating job crafting and bootlegging innovation within a sustainability and governance framework, the revised manuscript more clearly aligns with the journal’s mission to advance research on sustainable organizational practices.

We believe these revisions ensure that the contribution of the study extends beyond a general organizational behavior perspective and speaks directly to sustainability-focused theory and practice.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We thank the authors for their contribution entitled “Driving Sustainable Competitive Advantage Through Bootlegging Innovation: The Roles of Job Crafting, Psychological Capital, and Promotion Focus” and submitted to the Sustainability Journal.

An overall assessment

The manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic by investigating bootlegging innovation through the lenses of job crafting, psychological capital, and promotion focus. Theoretically, the framing is sound, and the suggested model logically cascades and, importantly, has been empirically tested using a reasonably robust research design. However, the theoretical contribution of this study appears to be mostly incremental, given that it leverages well-established constructs now applied toward a new outcome, without sufficiently clarifying what is truly novel. Furthermore, there is a pronounced misfit between the title and the empirical model, notably with respect to the emphasis on sustainable competitive advantage, which is not directly examined.

The manuscript does have potential, but some improvements will be needed in order to strengthen its contribution and achieve conceptual consistency within its peer-reviewed journal, Sustainability.

 

The title: it is too long, but it could be improved for clarity, conciseness, and impact. To improve alignment between the title and the empirical model, the authors should either explicitly theorize sustainable competitive advantage as an outcome of bootlegging innovation or revise the title and discussion to reflect that it is an inferred implication rather than a tested variable.

The abstract: The abstract is very clear and well-organized, but can benefit from a clearer statement of the novel theoretical contribution it makes and its reconciliation with the claim for sustainability and the actual variables it tests.

Model: While the model is clean, the path used in this model has been covered often. The manuscript does not clearly demonstrate what new theoretical or practical contribution it makes beyond applying existing constructs to bootlegging innovation.

Paper’s Topic and its suitability to the special issue: Bootlegging (constructive deviance) has become a prominent topic in innovation and organizational behavior research. Framing it as ‘positively intended’ and connected to innovation, resilience, and sustainability aligns well with current journal priorities. In particular, the paper’s topic and mechanisms align with the special issue’s goal of linking management innovation to sustainable development outcomes (organizational and beyond). The authors are invited to highlight in the manuscript (especially in the introduction and conclusion) the following:

1. First, how bootlegging innovation qualifies as a management innovation that influences sustainable organizational performance.
2. Second, how the study’s findings contribute to organizational practices that support long-term sustainability under boundary conditions.
3. Third, the broader implications for sustainable development, not just organizational performance, such as resilience, resource renewal, and adaptive capability.

Literature and theoretical background.

1. We noticed that Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) was not announced in the theoretical background section. This section should be updated by introducing this theory alongside SDT and COR.
2. Section 2.5 regarding the moderating role of promotion focus is poorly developed. Little literature supported this idea. This section should be carefully developed based on prior work.
3. The authors should be cautious about broad claims regarding generalizability across industries and “sustainable development” unless explicitly supported by their data. They should add this issue to the limitations section.

English Language: Language is fluent, professional, and precise. Minor stylistic tweaks could improve readability, but no major issues are evident.

Further details on questions

1. Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

The authors should clarify how the contribution extends current theory rather than just applying known constructs to a new context. The novelty could be emphasized more explicitly. In addition, they should ensure that the manuscript provides an adequate literature review, situating the study within recent empirical work. Little recent work defending their ideas was added.

2. Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?

The authors should explicitly state the technique used to make the match of the final sample of 370. Which factor/characteristic is used to apply this match?

3. Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling?

We found that a discussion section for the findings is absent. We recommend that the authors insert a separate section to discuss their findings. No discussion was developed in the paper to engage a scientific debate between previous studies and the authors’ study.

4. For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

The authors should include key effect sizes in the main text to enhance transparency.

5. Is the article adequately referenced?

The paper used 71 references adequately provided in text citation. However, little recent work linked to their moderated mediation model was cited.

6. Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

As mentioned above, the authors should insert other recent work to support their results.

Additional comments

• The iThenticate report indicates a similarity index of 38%, which is unacceptably high. The authors are strongly advised to revise the manuscript to substantially reduce this percentage. In our view, the similarity index should be below 15%. Manuscripts submitted to a reputable journal such as Sustainability are expected to meet this standard.
• BI should be announced first at the beginning of the text before line 42.
• con-textual, re-source, sustain-able should be written in one word: lines 333, 346, 375.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for the thoughtful, detailed, and constructive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Bootlegging Innovation as a Pathway to Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Roles of Job Crafting, Psychological Capital, and Promotion Focus.” We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the study’s timely topic, logical theoretical framing, and robust empirical design. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to all comments and provide detailed point-by-point responses below.

 

Reviewer Comment

The manuscript addresses a timely topic, but the theoretical contribution appears mostly incremental, and there is a misfit between the title and the empirical model, particularly regarding the emphasis on sustainable competitive advantage, which is not directly examined.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this important observation. We fully acknowledge the concern regarding both the incremental nature of the theoretical contribution and the alignment between the title and the empirical model.

In response, we have clarified that the novelty of this study does not lie in introducing new constructs, but in integrating motivation activation, psychological resource renewal, and resource mobilization into a unified sequential framework explaining bootlegging innovation as a form of bottom-up management innovation. This clarification has been explicitly added to the final paragraph of the Introduction.

Moreover, we have revised the title, abstract, discussion, and conclusion to ensure conceptual consistency. Specifically, we now clearly state that sustainable competitive advantage is not directly measured, but is theorized as a long-term organizationalimplication of sustained bootlegging innovation enabled by renewable psychological resources. These revisions resolve the previously noted title–model misalignment while preserving the sustainability-oriented positioning of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment

The title is too long and should better align with the empirical model. Sustainable competitive advantage should be theorized as an implication rather than a tested outcome.

 

=>Review Response：

We agree with this suggestion. The title has been revised to explicitly foreground bootlegging innovation as the focal employee-level mechanism, while positioning sustainable competitive advantage as a theoretically grounded implication rather than a directly tested variable.“Bootlegging Innovation as a Pathway to Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Roles of Job Crafting, Psychological Capital, and Promotion Focus.”This revision improves clarity, conciseness, and alignment between the title and the empirical model.

 

Abstract

Reviewer Comment

The abstract is clear but should more explicitly highlight the novel theoretical contribution and clarify the relationship between sustainability claims and the variables tested.

 

=>Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the abstract to more explicitly articulate the study’s novel theoretical contribution, namely, conceptualizing psychological capital as a renewable psychological resource and bootlegging innovation as a micro-level management innovation that supports long-term organizational sustainability.

In addition, we clarified that sustainability is addressed through mechanisms of resource renewal, resilience, and adaptive capability, rather than as a directly measured dependent variable. The abstract has also been streamlined to reduce redundancy and improve conceptual focus.

 

Model and Theoretical Contribution

Reviewer Comment

The model is clean, but the paths are well established. The manuscript does not clearly demonstrate what is new beyond applying existing constructs to a new outcome.

 

=>Review Response：

We appreciate this concern. While individual paths in the model have been examined in prior research, the theoretical novelty of this study lies in their integrated and sequential explanation of bootlegging innovation.

Specifically, we distinguish between resource generation (job crafting → psychological capital) and resource mobilization (psychological capital → bootlegging innovation), and further introduce promotion focus as a moderator that amplifies the effectiveness of psychological resources across both stages. This dual-path amplification logic clarifies when and how psychological resources are accumulated and actively deployed toward constructive deviance. These contributions are now more explicitly articulated in the Introduction and Discussion sections.

 

Fit with Sustainability and Special Issue

Reviewer Comment

The authors should more clearly highlight how bootlegging innovation qualifies as management innovation, how findings support long-term sustainability under boundary conditions, and the broader implications for sustainable development.

 

=>Review Response：

We appreciate this valuable guidance and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

First, we explicitly frame bootlegging innovation as a bottom-up form of management innovation that enhances adaptability and learning under institutional constraints.
Second, we clarify how the findings inform organizational practices that sustain innovation under boundary conditions, such as compliance pressure and resource scarcity.
Third, we extend the discussion beyond organizational performance to emphasize broader sustainability implications, including resilience, resource renewal, and adaptive capability. These points are now highlighted in the Introduction and Conclusion.

 

Literature and Theoretical Background

Reviewer Comment

Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) should be introduced alongside SDT and COR.

The moderating role of promotion focus is underdeveloped.

Claims about generalizability and sustainable development should be treated cautiously.

 

=>Review Response：

We agree with these points. We have revised the theoretical background to explicitly introduce Regulatory Focus Theory alongside SDT and COR and clarify its distinct explanatory role.

Sections addressing the moderating role of promotion focus have been substantially expanded by incorporating additional theoretical arguments and recent empirical work. Furthermore, we have added explicit cautionary statements in the Limitations section regarding generalizability across industries and sustainable development contexts.

 

Research Design and Methods

Reviewer Comment

The authors should clarify how the final matched sample of 370 respondents was obtained.

 

=>Review Response：

We have clarified in the Methodology section that respondents were matched across survey waves using unique identification codes, ensuring accurate temporal correspondence at the individual level.

 

Discussion of Findings

Reviewer Comment

A dedicated discussion section engaging prior research is missing.

 

=>Review Response：

We fully agree. A separate Discussion section has been added, systematically comparing our findings with prior studies and explicitly engaging recent empirical research. In this section, we situate our results within the broader literature and highlight how the study extends existing knowledge on bootlegging innovation and psychological resources.

 

Results Presentation

Reviewer Comment

Key effect sizes should be reported to enhance transparency.

 

=>Review Response：

Key standardized coefficients and effect sizes have now been explicitly reported in the main text, improving transparency and interpretability of the results.

 

References

Reviewer Comment

More recent work related to the moderated mediation model should be included.

 

=>Review Response：

We have updated the literature review and discussion by incorporating recent studies on job crafting, psychological capital, regulatory focus, and deviant innovation, thereby strengthening the manuscript’s connection to current research.

 

Additional Comments

Similarity Index

We take this issue very seriously. The manuscript has been substantially rewritten, particularly in the Introduction, theoretical background, and Discussion sections, and we are confident that the similarity index has been reduced to an acceptable level.Bootlegging innovation is now introduced earlier in the manuscript, and all hyphenation issues (e.g., contextual, resource, sustainable) have been corrected.

 

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for the insightful comments and constructive guidance. We believe that the revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript’s theoretical clarity, empirical transparency, and alignment with the sustainability-oriented focus of the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a valuable contribution to the growing body of knowledge on sustainable innovation, specifically focusing on how job crafting, psychological capital, and promotion focus influence bootlegging innovation. The theoretical integration of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) offers a solid foundation, yet the connection between these theories and bootlegging innovation requires further clarification. The authors should provide more in-depth discussion on how psychological capital, encompassing hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience, directly influences job crafting and bootlegging innovation, with additional empirical examples to strengthen these claims.

The research design, utilizing a two-wave survey, is appropriate for addressing the hypotheses. However, the manuscript lacks a deeper explanation of the selection and relevance of control variables such as age, gender, and education level. While these variables are commonly included, the manuscript does not adequately justify their potential influence on the key relationships. Furthermore, the authors should expand on the limitations of the two-wave design, especially with regard to the potential biases that could arise from relying on self-reported data.

The analysis of the hypotheses, particularly the moderation and mediation effects, would benefit from a more robust interpretation. While the findings regarding the interaction effects between job crafting and promotion focus are interesting, they require further elaboration, especially in terms of how these effects manifest in different organizational settings. The authors should also address potential confounding factors that may influence these relationships, ensuring a clearer understanding of the practical implications of their findings.

The managerial implications offered in the manuscript are valuable but need to be more closely tied to the study’s empirical results. The authors provide general suggestions, but these could be made more actionable and relevant to practitioners. For instance, how can organizations effectively implement job crafting and promotion focus interventions across different industries? It would be helpful to provide concrete examples, particularly from contexts similar to the study’s setting in China. Furthermore, the ethical implications of promoting bootlegging innovation in organizations should be discussed, especially given the potential risks associated with innovation that bypasses formal channels.

In terms of writing, while the manuscript is generally clear, there are areas that require refinement. The introduction should more explicitly define the gap in the literature that this study aims to fill, while the theoretical background could be more concise. Additionally, some sections of the manuscript feature minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasing, which, when addressed, would improve the overall readability.

In conclusion, this manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the literature on sustainable innovation, but it requires major revisions to improve both its theoretical and empirical rigor. The authors should elaborate on the role of psychological capital, clarify the theoretical framework, revisit the moderation and mediation effects, and ensure that the practical implications are more grounded in the empirical results. With these revisions, the study will be in a much stronger position to offer insights that are both theoretically rich and practically applicable.

 

Author Response

This manuscript provides a valuable contribution to the growing body of knowledge on sustainable innovation, specifically focusing on how job crafting, psychological capital, and promotion focus influence bootlegging innovation. The theoretical integration of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) offers a solid foundation, yet the connection between these theories and bootlegging innovation requires further clarification. The authors should provide more in-depth discussion on how psychological capital, encompassing hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience, directly influences job crafting and bootlegging innovation, with additional empirical examples to strengthen these claims.

The research design, utilizing a two-wave survey, is appropriate for addressing the hypotheses. However, the manuscript lacks a deeper explanation of the selection and relevance of control variables such as age, gender, and education level. While these variables are commonly included, the manuscript does not adequately justify their potential influence on the key relationships. Furthermore, the authors should expand on the limitations of the two-wave design, especially with regard to the potential biases that could arise from relying on self-reported data.

Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that, although age, gender, and education are commonly included as control variables in organizational behavior research, their relevance should be more clearly justified in the context of the present study.

In response, we have revised Section 3.2.5 (Control Variables) to explicitly clarify the rationale for including these demographic controls. As stated in the revised manuscript, age, gender, and education level were included because prior research indicates that these factors are systematically associated with employees’ work experiences, psychological resources, and engagement in innovation-related behaviors. Controlling for these variables helps rule out alternative explanations and ensures that the observed relationships among the focal constructs are not confounded by basic individual differences.

In addition, we have further expanded the discussion of the limitations of the two-wave research design in the Research Limitations and Recommendations section. While the time-lagged design helps mitigate common method variance, we explicitly acknowledge that reliance on self-reported data may still introduce social desirability and subjective bias, and that causal inferences remain limited. We also discuss potential rival explanations and suggest that future research adopt longitudinal, experimental, or multi-source designs to more rigorously examine causal mechanisms.

We believe these revisions adequately address the reviewer’s concerns by strengthening both the methodological transparency and the theoretical justification of the research design.

 

The analysis of the hypotheses, particularly the moderation and mediation effects, would benefit from a more robust interpretation. While the findings regarding the interaction effects between job crafting and promotion focus are interesting, they require further elaboration, especially in terms of how these effects manifest in different organizational settings. The authors should also address potential confounding factors that may influence these relationships, ensuring a clearer understanding of the practical implications of their findings.

 

The managerial implications offered in the manuscript are valuable but need to be more closely tied to the study’s empirical results. The authors provide general suggestions, but these could be made more actionable and relevant to practitioners. For instance, how can organizations effectively implement job crafting and promotion focus interventions across different industries? It would be helpful to provide concrete examples, particularly from contexts similar to the study’s setting in China. Furthermore, the ethical implications of promoting bootlegging innovation in organizations should be discussed, especially given the potential risks associated with innovation that bypasses formal channels.

Review Response：

Thank you for this constructive comment. We agree that the interpretation of the moderation and mediation effects, particularly with respect to how these effects may vary across organizational settings and be influenced by potential confounding factors, requires careful elaboration.

In response, we have substantially expanded Section 5.3 (Research Limitations and Recommendations) to provide a more nuanced and contextualized interpretation of the findings. Specifically, we discuss how the observed moderation and mediated relationships may manifest differently across organizational environments characterized by varying levels of institutional constraints, cultural norms, and ASF-related contextual factors. We explain that factors such as power distance, rule orientation, and collectivism may shape employees’ perceptions of legitimacy, risk, and discretion, thereby influencing how job crafting, psychological capital, and promotion focus translate into bootlegging innovation in practice.

Moreover, we explicitly address potential confounding factors that may affect these relationships, including individual-level conditions (e.g., psychological safety, career commitment, and risk perceptions) and organizational-level characteristics (e.g., leadership style, team innovation climate, structural autonomy, and control systems). By acknowledging these factors, we clarify that the reported moderation and mediation effects should be interpreted as contextually contingent rather than universally invariant.

We believe that positioning these issues within the limitations and future research section allows for a more cautious and theoretically grounded interpretation of the results, while also outlining concrete directions for future studies to further unpack the conditional nature of the proposed mechanisms across different organizational settings. These revisions strengthen the practical relevance and interpretive robustness of the findings.

 

In terms of writing, while the manuscript is generally clear, there are areas that require refinement. The introduction should more explicitly define the gap in the literature that this study aims to fill, while the theoretical background could be more concise. Additionally, some sections of the manuscript feature minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasing, which, when addressed, would improve the overall readability.

Review Response：

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that further refinement of the writing and structure can improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

In response, we have revised the Introduction to more explicitly articulate the research gap addressed by this study. Specifically, we now more clearly distinguish our work from prior research on job crafting and bootlegging innovation by emphasizing the underexplored role of sustained resource conversion and the joint consideration of motivational activation, resource accumulation, and resource mobilization. This revision sharpens the positioning of the study and clarifies its intended contribution to the literature.

We have also streamlined the Theoretical Background section by reducing repetitive explanations across theories and tightening the presentation of key concepts, while retaining the core theoretical logic necessary for hypothesis development. This helps improve conciseness without sacrificing conceptual clarity.

Finally, the manuscript has been carefully edited for language quality, and minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasing throughout the text have been corrected to enhance overall readability and flow.

We believe these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and substantially improve the clarity and presentation of the manuscript.

 

In conclusion, this manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the literature on sustainable innovation, but it requires major revisions to improve both its theoretical and empirical rigor. The authors should elaborate on the role of psychological capital, clarify the theoretical framework, revisit the moderation and mediation effects, and ensure that the practical implications are more grounded in the empirical results. With these revisions, the study will be in a much stronger position to offer insights that are both theoretically rich and practically applicable.

Review Response：

Thank you very much for your careful evaluation and constructive suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the study’s potential contribution and your detailed guidance on how to further strengthen its theoretical and empirical rigor.

In response, we have undertaken substantial revisions throughout the manuscript, including a clearer articulation of the theoretical framework, a deeper elaboration of the role of psychological capital, a more cautious and context-sensitive interpretation of the moderation and mediation effects, and a closer alignment between the empirical findings and the practical implications. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, robustness, and relevance of the study.

We are grateful for the opportunity to revise the manuscript and hope that the revised version meets the journal’s standards and expectations.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Best regards!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

The article reached a certain level in its revised version. Therefore, the article can be accepted in its current form. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for this insightful and constructive comment. We have carefully incorporated these adjustments and believe they have substantially improved the manuscript. Thank you again for your constructive guidance and support throughout the review process. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates a commendable effort to address the concerns raised in the previous review cycle. I appreciate the authors’ diligence in refining the theoretical positioning of the study; the updated Introduction now articulates the "resource conversion" mechanism with greater precision, effectively distinguishing this work from prior research on job crafting and bootlegging. The streamlining of the theoretical background has also successfully reduced the redundancy that previously slowed the narrative flow, allowing the core integration of Self-Determination Theory and Conservation of Resources Theory to emerge more clearly.

Regarding the methodological improvements, the expansion of Section 3.2.5 provides a much-needed rationale for the inclusion of demographic control variables. By grounding the selection of age, gender, and education in prior literature regarding their systematic association with psychological resources and innovation behaviors, the authors have strengthened the internal validity of the analysis. Similarly, the transparency regarding the limitations of the two-wave design—specifically the acknowledgment of social desirability bias and the constraints on causal inference—is refreshing and aligns with the standards expected in rigorous organizational behavior research.

However, a closer reading of the new text in Section 5.3 (Research Limitations and Recommendations) suggests that the authors may have over-corrected by placing too much substantive interpretation in the limitations section. The added discussion regarding how organizational environments (e.g., power distance, rule orientation, institutional constraints) condition the observed effects is insightful and theoretically rich. It feels like a missed opportunity to relegate these critical contextual factors solely to a "future research" or "limitations" subsection. I would encourage the authors to weave some of this contextual nuance back into the main Discussion section (perhaps in 5.1 or 5.2). Doing so would elevate the paper’s contribution by explaining why the relationships hold in this specific Chinese context, rather than just listing context as a limitation. This would transform a defensive limitation into a proactive boundary condition of your theory.

Furthermore, while the practical implications have been touched upon, the connection between "ethical risks" and "bootlegging" could be sharper. The authors now mention the importance of discussing ethical implications, but the guidance remains somewhat abstract. It would be beneficial to add a few sentences specifically addressing how managers can create a "safe zone" for bootlegging that encourages innovation without eroding organizational compliance—essentially, how to manage the "double-edged sword" mentioned in the literature review.

In sum, the manuscript is on a very positive trajectory. The empirical analysis appears robust, and the theoretical contribution is clearer. With these final rhetorical adjustments—primarily moving the rich contextual analysis from the "limitations" ghetto into the main discussion to strengthen the interpretation of the findings—I believe the manuscript will make a solid contribution to the literature on sustainable innovation. I look forward to seeing the final version.

Author Response

Comments 2:

Furthermore, while the practical implications have been touched upon, the connection between "ethical risks" and "bootlegging" could be sharper. The authors now mention the importance of discussing ethical implications, but the guidance remains somewhat abstract. It would be beneficial to add a few sentences specifically addressing how managers can create a "safe zone" for bootlegging that encourages innovation without eroding organizational compliance—essentially, how to manage the "double-edged sword" mentioned in the literature review.

=>Response 2：

Thank you very much for this valuable and constructive suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer’s emphasis on strengthening the practical relevance of the manuscript, particularly with regard to clarifying how ethical risks associated with bootlegging innovation can be actively managed rather than discussed only at a conceptual level.

In response to this comment, we have substantially revised and expanded the Managerial Implications section (Section 5.2) to provide more concrete and actionable guidance. Specifically, we now explicitly introduce the concept of a “bootlegging safe zone”, defined as a bounded organizational space in which exploratory and unauthorized innovation is tolerated under clearly articulated ethical, legal, and procedural constraints. This addition directly addresses how managers can encourage bottom-up innovative behavior while simultaneously safeguarding organizational compliance and integrity.

Moreover, we have supplemented this concept with specific managerial mechanisms, including designated discretionary time for exploration, small-scale experimentation budgets, staged risk-review processes, and access to legal, data-protection, and technical advisory resources. These mechanisms are intended to help managers actively govern the double-edged nature of bootlegging innovation, enabling its creative potential while preventing ethical erosion and compliance breakdowns. We also clarify the distinction between flexible boundaries and non-negotiable constraints (e.g., legal compliance, data security, and ethical standards), thereby translating abstract ethical concerns into concrete governance practices.

We believe these revisions significantly enhance the practical contribution of the manuscript by moving beyond principle-based discussion and offering implementable strategies for managing bootlegging innovation as a controllable and sustainable source of organizational innovation.

Thank you again for this insightful suggestion, which has helped us improve the managerial relevance and applied value of the study.

 

In sum, the manuscript is on a very positive trajectory. The empirical analysis appears robust, and the theoretical contribution is clearer. With these final rhetorical adjustments—primarily moving the rich contextual analysis from the "limitations" ghetto into the main discussion to strengthen the interpretation of the findings—I believe the manuscript will make a solid contribution to the literature on sustainable innovation. I look forward to seeing the final version.

 

Thank you very much for your generous and encouraging overall assessment of the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the robustness of the empirical analysis and the improved clarity of the theoretical contribution. We are particularly grateful for your insightful suggestion regarding the repositioning of the contextual analysis, which has helped us strengthen the interpretation of our findings and sharpen the paper’s contribution to the sustainable innovation literature. We have carefully incorporated these final rhetorical adjustments and believe they have substantially improved the manuscript. Thank you again for your constructive guidance and support throughout the review process.