Organizational Innovation and Managerial Burnout: Implications for Well-Being and Social Sustainability in a Transition Economy

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between organizational innovation and managerial burnout among middle managers in Serbia, a country undergoing socioeconomic transition. Data were collected from 406 managers using a standardized questionnaire and analyzed through multiple and hierarchical regression analyses. The results show that administrative innovations significantly reduce burnout, whereas product and process innovations do not exhibit a statistically significant effect. However, the impact of innovation is shaped by the organizational context, particularly by leadership style, organizational culture, and the quality of the leader–member (LMX) relationship. Transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation, and high-quality LMX reduce the psychological strain associated with innovation, while punitive management practices and high power distance increase burnout risk. Gender and sectoral differences were also identified, indicating that women respond more positively to innovations, especially in public and production organizations. The study highlights that the relationship between innovation, leadership, and psychological well-being demonstrates how innovation can function as an organizational and social resource rather than a stressor when it is implemented in a culture of dialogue, trust, and psychological safety. The findings contribute to understanding how the dynamics of innovation affect not only individual well-being, but also the broader social sustainability of organizations operating in transition economies.

1. Introduction

In today’s dynamic and uncertain business environment, innovation is essential for maintaining competitive advantage, sustainability, and organizational growth [1,2,3]. Although innovation is a central element of business strategy, many organizations still perceive it as abstract and difficult to achieve. Such a perception often stems from an uneven understanding of the very concept of innovation within organizational structures [4,5,6]. For innovation to be properly understood and applied, it should be viewed through three fundamental dimensions: result, process, and way of thinking. Innovation, as a result, implies concrete achievements, including innovations in products, processes, business models, and organizational structures. As a process, it refers to planning, organizing, and implementing innovative activities, including the development of new products and services [7], and as a way of thinking, it means the adoption of innovative values among employees and the building of a culture that encourages creativity, experimentation, and acceptance of changes [8,9,10].

On the other hand, professional burnout occurs due to chronic exposure to stress at the workplace and has serious consequences for the psychophysical health and work efficiency of employees [11]. The syndrome includes emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of personal efficacy [12], and it can affect employees across sectors and organizational levels [13,14].

Recent studies suggest that innovation-related demands can act as both motivators and stressors, depending on the level of organizational support and managerial autonomy. While innovative work environments encourage creativity and continuous improvement, they may also impose frequent changes, role ambiguity, performance pressure, and responsibility overload. These conditions can contribute to psychological strain and increase the risk of burnout, particularly among middle managers who operate at the intersection of strategic directives and operational execution [15,16,17,18,19]. Although previous research has examined the determinants of burnout and the factors that facilitate innovation, far fewer studies have explored how innovation-related pressures affect employee well-being, especially in managerial roles. Furthermore, research on this relationship in transition economies remains particularly limited [16,20,21]. This gap highlights the need to examine how innovation dynamics shape managerial burnout in organizational systems characterized by structural transformation and evolving work practices.

From the perspective of social sustainability, employee well-being represents a core dimension of sustainable organizational development. Sustainable innovation management requires not only the generation of new ideas, but also the protection of human resources and prevention of psychological exhaustion, ensuring that creative effort does not compromise long-term workforce stability [22,23]. Understanding the balance between innovation demands and managerial well-being is essential for fostering socially responsible and resilient organizations.

In conditions of continuous innovation pressure, organizations may face what is referred to as innovation fatigue, a state in which persistent demands for creativity and change generate psychological strain and exhaustion among employees [24,25,26]. Although innovation is essential for development, it can become a source of stress when implemented without adequate systemic support and clear expectations [24,27]. This dynamic is particularly often among middle managers, who operate between strategic directives of senior leadership and operational requirements of frontline teams, making them especially vulnerable to overload and role conflict. Understanding how innovation pressures relate to burnout in this organizational layer is particularly relevant in transition economies, where evolving institutional and cultural conditions shape both managerial work and broader dimensions of social sustainability and workforce stability [28].

Serbia, as a transition economy, is characterized by institutional and organizational reforms, increased competitive pressures, and evolving managerial practices [29]. Organizational structures often retain elements of hierarchical decision-making and limited managerial autonomy, which may intensify the psychological burden placed on middle managers [30,31]. Because of these contextual factors, examining the relationship between innovation and burnout in Serbia provides valuable insight into how national and organizational conditions shape managerial well-being and the sustainability of work environments.

This paper aims to empirically examine how organizational innovation relates to burnout among middle managers in the Republic of Serbia, emphasizing the implications for well-being and social sustainability in a transition economy. More precisely, the study explores the effects of innovations on managerial burnout and interprets these dynamics through the JD-R framework. The next section presents a literature review that covers the dominant theoretical approaches to innovation and burnout. This is followed by the empirical part of the paper, which includes the methodology, sample, and research instruments. The empirical part of the paper aims to quantify the relationship between innovation and burnout among middle managers. The discussion (Section 5) presents the main results, relates them to previous research, and outlines the implications, limitations, and recommendations for future studies.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Positioning

In this study, innovation is conceptualized as a key organizational characteristic that shapes the cognitive and emotional demands of managerial roles. Burnout is considered the dependent outcome variable that reflects the long-term consequences of increased work demands and limited psychological and organizational resources. The study relies on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which proposes that professional burnout develops when job demands remain consistently high while available resources, such as supportive leadership, organizational culture, or autonomy, are insufficient to amortize their effect. Within the JD-R framework, organizational innovation can act both as a job demand, by introducing uncertainty, workload, and change pressure, and as a job resource, when it stimulates learning, autonomy, and creative engagement. This duality aligns with research emphasizing that the balance between demands and resources determines whether innovation outcomes will enhance motivation or lead to strain and burnout [32,33,34]. Moreover, recent empirical studies highlight leader–member exchange (LMX) and ethical leadership as important job resources that reduce the negative effects of excessive demands on psychological well-being [35,36,37,38]. High-quality LMX relationships and ethical leadership function as key job resources that provide psychological safety, trust, and clarity, thereby reducing emotional exhaustion within the JD-R framework. Therefore, leadership style and organizational culture are positioned in this study as moderating variables that determine whether innovation-related job demands will result in creative engagement or emotional exhaustion and managerial burnout. In this way, the study addresses a gap in the existing literature, which has largely treated innovation as either positive or negative, without sufficiently clarifying the conditions under which it shifts from a creative to a stressful category.

In the conceptualization of this study, we focus on three dimensions of organizational innovation, which represent the core organizational mechanisms relevant to employee experiences in the work environment. Burnout is examined in its professional form, referring to work-related exhaustion. Managerial well-being is treated as an organizational-level outcome associated with the availability of psychological resources and balanced job demands, following the JD-R perspective. Social sustainability is understood at the organizational level, referring to practices that promote a healthy, stable, and supportive work environment. These constructs are theoretically linked, and this integrated conceptual framework guides the formulation of hypotheses and the interpretation of empirical results.

2.2. Theoretical Background of Innovation as a Research Factor

Modern organizations increasingly recognize innovation as a key prerequisite for survival and long-term success in competitive environments. Innovation has become a core organizational capability required to sustain competitiveness in an environment marked by global competition and rapid technological change. To respond effectively, companies refine products, processes, and business models by drawing on diverse internal and external knowledge sources [39,40]. In this context, complex models of organizational innovation and hybrid strategies that integrate the full potential of the organization are developed. As a fundamental driver of firm competitiveness and broader economic performance, organizational innovation depends on internal organizational capacities as well as external infrastructural conditions that support market development and resource optimization [41]. In addition to technological improvements, innovation enables the optimization of resource allocation and production practices, which contributes to the sustainable evolution of industry on a global scale [42].

When it comes to the success factors of companies, especially those operating in developing countries, innovation stands out as a key component that directly shapes competitiveness and financial performance [43]. Organizational innovation, i.e., the company’s ability to develop and apply innovative processes, is the central mechanism for achieving market advantage. It is not only the result of individual efforts, but also a function of structural characteristics of knowledge and categories in which new ideas are born, which represents the driving force of technological progress and the creation of economic value [44]. As a key component of modern industrial development strategies, innovation does not depend exclusively on technological solutions, but also on the active participation of people in the process of business improvement, which means that for the development of sustainable and competitive innovations in the industrial environment, it is not enough to invest in new technologies, but it is also necessary to create a people-oriented culture that enables long-term value creation through innovation [45,46].

Therefore, organizational innovation is not only an outcome but also a mindset supported by systems and cultural norms that encourage experimentation, collaboration, and open expression of ideas. According to Souto [47], innovative business models can transform market relations, but their effectiveness depends on the organization’s ability to accept new thought patterns and identify user needs that can be satisfied by innovation. However, the continuous pressure to innovate can have negative consequences for employees, especially managers who are balancing between strategic and operational demands. In these conditions, the risk of burnout becomes more pronounced and is increasingly recognized as a serious threat to mental health and work efficiency [13].

2.3. Theoretical Background of Burnout as a Research Factor

Professional burnout, defined as a state of chronic emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy [12], is often associated with workplace characteristics, such as autonomy, job demands, and organizational support [48,49]. In the last fifty years, the phenomenon of burnout has attracted the attention and interest of various researchers and occupational health experts, and it is assumed that work factors are the primary predictors of burnout. Burnout is a work-related syndrome that must be critically examined to understand its organizational antecedents and consequences, particularly given its close but distinct relationship with other forms of psychological strain [50]. These and similar assumptions regarding burnout syndrome need to be critically examined in order to better understand its causes and consequences in the organizational context. Some research indicates that burnout can threaten employees’ capacity for innovation, as it impairs their creativity and engagement in innovation processes [51,52,53]. Its relevance has intensified in the post-COVID period, when blurred boundaries between private and professional life, and increased work demands increased employees’ vulnerability to emotional exhaustion [54]. Timely recognition of burnout processes is important for effective prevention, which requires coordinated individual and organizational-level strategies aimed at balancing job demands with adequate resources [55]. Strategies to prevent employee burnout include various methods and techniques, among which job autonomy and a benevolent ethical climate stand out. These strategies include group interest, corporate social responsibility, the ability to independently manage energy and motivation, and their benefits are reflected in the balance between work demands and available resources, preventing the development of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization [56].

In highly demanding work environments, burnout represents a serious professional threat with direct consequences for employee well-being and work quality. Key factors contributing to this phenomenon include excessive workload, irregular working hours, high visibility of work outcomes, ethical dilemmas, limited opportunities for professional advancement, and lack of quality communication between departments, while the consequences of burnout impair cognitive functions, accuracy in task execution, and ultimate business performance [57]. It is also important to note that the causes and consequences of burnout are not universal and may differ among individuals with different living and working conditions. Thus, employee burnout can have a wider spectrum of symptoms than those classically accepted in the literature, whereby no symptom is universally present in everyone [58]. This emphasizes the importance of a detailed and critical analysis of this complex phenomenon from health and organizational aspects.

2.4. The Relationship Between Innovation and Burnout

Understanding the relationship between organizational innovation and burnout requires examining both concepts within the broader context of the work environment, professional challenges, and organizational support. Research by Mateu et al. [59] shows that innovative approaches, such as developing creative strategies and improving existing practices, can reduce routine and feelings of helplessness, thereby reducing emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Evidence from the post-pandemic period also highlights that flexible and hybrid work models may have a dual effect, i.e., they encourage creative and innovative behavior of employees and, on the other hand, contribute to reducing risk factors for burnout [60].

However, the relationship between innovation and burnout is not straightforward. Studies increasingly emphasize the role of organizational climate and psychological conditions. Hammond et al. [61] find that innovative behavior can either protect against or contribute to burnout, depending on whether employees perceive open communication and psychological safety. When these conditions are present, innovation reduces strain. When psychological costs are high, it can increase stress and emotional exhaustion. Similar patterns appear in the work of Koch and Abler [62], who show that meaningful and varied tasks support creativity, while unclear or contradictory tasks increase burnout risk. Findings by Fan et al. [63] and Lee et al. [64] reinforce that under heightened performance pressure, innovation is neither inherently protective nor harmful, its effects depend on the availability of systemic support, stress-management practices, and a positive work environment where team cohesion and enjoyment can transform pressure into motivation rather than strain.

In the era of accelerated digitization, Qin and Shen [65] demonstrate that although digital transformation fosters innovation, it can also intensify employees’ psychological burden. A moderate level of digitization most effectively fosters innovation without harming well-being. Lin et al. [66] further note that innovative behavior in digitally driven settings often relies on intensive use of technologies and online platforms, which can increase role stress and burnout. Thus, while digital environments can facilitate collaboration and creative expression, they also heighten risks of mental fatigue and reduced efficiency. A balanced approach, one that promotes innovation while safeguarding employee well-being, is therefore essential. This need for balance is highlighted in the findings of Wu et al. [67], which emphasize strategies that enhance achievement motivation and create supportive conditions for creativity without excessive stress.

2.5. Leadership and Organizational Culture as Moderators of the Relationship Between Innovation and Burnout

Leadership styles are important drivers of innovation processes and directly influence how creative potential is activated within an organization [68]. Cherif [69] shows that managerial practices shape innovation initiatives by reinforcing performance expectations, which is particularly relevant for middle managers. The way leaders communicate and guide their teams can either encourage innovative activities or contribute to burnout. In this context, high-quality leader–member exchange (LMX) represents a key resource that reduces burnout and counterproductive behaviors [70]. Transformational and democratic leadership, through vision, inspiration, and employee involvement, tend to stimulate the development and implementation of new ideas, while autocratic and transactional styles, focused on control and reward mechanisms, often suppress creativity and innovation [71]. Still, under innovation pressure, transactional leadership can offer useful structure, but only if paired with open communication that prevents stress accumulation and feelings of helplessness leading to burnout [72].

A particularly important component of transformational leadership is intellectual stimulation, which encourages critical thinking and creative problem-solving. Endrejat [73] finds that intellectual stimulation can reduce the negative effects of a weak innovation culture on job satisfaction, indicating that transformational leadership protects employees from stress even in environments that do not actively encourage innovation. At the same time, Zhang et al. [74] note that differential leadership can motivate initiative but also increase perceptions of unfairness, which may lead to burnout. These findings highlight that innovation often carries additional psychological demands, making alignment between leadership style and employee needs essential. Gillet et al. [75] show that employees who experience strong support and fair leadership, particularly from ethical leaders, more often fall into low-burnout profiles and exhibit higher affective and normative commitment. Conversely, lack of support and elevated stress increase the likelihood of high-burnout profiles, affecting both motivation and innovation. Ethical leadership also directly reduces emotional exhaustion, as shown by Genc [76].

In the field of human resource management, Rogozinska-Pawelczyk [77] emphasizes that innovative HR practices such as flexible work, participation in decision-making, and skill development can reduce emotional exhaustion, but only with strong organizational support. Song et al. [78] similarly point out that fair and supportive environments simultaneously promote innovation and protect employees from burnout, with effects even stronger among individuals sensitive to fairness and support. Organizational culture represents the framework in which leadership manifests its effects. Cultural dimensions such as collectivism, power distance, and people orientation shape interpersonal relationships and knowledge-sharing behaviors, which directly affect the innovation-burnout relationship. Collectivist cultures that foster teamwork and joint decision-making offer psychological safety and encourage open sharing of ideas [79]. Low power distance promotes participation and idea expression, while high power distance and emphasis on superior results elevate the risk of negative behaviors, including bullying, and indirectly increase stress that can lead to burnout [80].

The synthesis of the presented findings indicates that innovation is neither an inherently positive nor a negative phenomenon, but its effect depends on organizational and individual factors. When innovation is supported by leadership and resources, it can reduce the risk of burnout. However, when it is forced without respecting the capacity of the employees, it becomes an additional source of stress. Therefore, it is important to integrate innovation into a wider system of organizational support and psychological security of employees [34].

In line with this reasoning, this study starts from the assumption that innovation is associated with burnout, but that the direction and intensity of this association differ depending on the quality of leadership and organizational cultural practices, which represents the central hypothesis of the research.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Problem

Although innovation is increasingly recognized as a source of organizational efficiency and competitive advantage, its impact on the psychological well-being of employees remains insufficiently researched, especially in countries in transition. A higher level of innovation capacity correlates with better organizational performance, which further motivates the study of organizational innovation in transition economies [81]. A particular disadvantage exists when it comes to middle management, which is simultaneously exposed to pressures from senior management and day-to-day operational demands. This position often brings complex stressors that can contribute to the development of professional burnout. Research indicates that innovations, in addition to having a positive impact on organizational performance, can cause additional stress, especially when they are implemented in conditions of high demands and lack of support [24,27,82,83]. However, the effects of innovation on burnout are not universal and may depend on a number of factors. Organizational characteristics such as leadership style, organizational culture dimensions, leader–member relationship quality (LMX), employee gender, and ownership structure can moderate these relationships and significantly shape psychological outcomes. Despite the complexity of these relationships, there is a limited number of empirical studies that simultaneously examine the direct and moderated effects of different dimensions of innovation on burnout in middle management. This research gap highlights the need for focused analyses that integrate innovative practices and organizational context in understanding professional burnout.

3.2. Research Subject

This study examines the relationship between organizational innovation and professional burnout of middle managers in organizations in the Republic of Serbia. The focus is placed on three key dimensions of innovation: product and service innovation, process innovation, and administrative innovation, as well as their relationship with the perceived degree of emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional performance as the primary components of burnout. Research also considers the complexity of this relationship through the role of organizational and interpersonal context, including leadership style, organizational culture, LMX relationships, employee gender, and ownership structure, which may act as moderators in the relationship between innovation and burnout.

3.3. Research Objective and Hypotheses

The primary objective of this research is to examine the relationship between different dimensions of organizational innovation and the level of professional burnout among middle managers in organizations in the Republic of Serbia. Special emphasis is placed on identifying which type of innovation has the strongest protective or adverse effect on burnout, as well as on understanding organizational factors that may influence emotional exhaustion and reduced professional performance. The empirical insights are intended to support middle management in transition economies by informing more sustainable approaches to innovation and managerial well-being.

In accordance with the research objective, one null hypothesis (H0), one primary research hypothesis (H1), three specific hypotheses (H2–H4), as well as three moderator hypotheses (H5–H7) were set, which examine the role of the organizational context in the relationship between innovation and professional burnout:

Null hypothesis (H0).

There is no statistically significant relationship between organizational innovation and professional burnout among middle managers in organizations in Serbia.

Primary research hypothesis (H1).

There is a statistically significant relationship between overall organizational innovation and the level of professional burnout among middle managers in organizations in Serbia.

Specific hypotheses:

H2. 

There is a statistically significant relationship between product and service innovations and the level of professional burnout among middle managers.

H3. 

There is a statistically significant relationship between process innovations and the level of professional burnout among middle managers.

H4. 

There is a statistically significant relationship between administrative innovations and the level of professional burnout among middle managers.

Moderator hypotheses:

H5. 

The effect of product and service innovations on the level of professional burnout is moderated by leadership characteristics (e.g., transformational and punitive behavior).

H6. 

The effect of process innovations on professional burnout is moderated by dimensions of organizational culture (e.g., power distance, collectivism, and intellectual stimulation).

H7. 

The effect of administrative innovations on burnout is moderated by the quality of the leader-follower (LMX) relationship, including loyalty, respect, and affective attachment.

In addition to the tested hypotheses, the research includes additional research questions, with the aim of a deeper understanding of the contextual and structural factors that can modify the relationship between organizational innovation and professional burnout:

RQ1:

Does the effect of innovations on professional burnout differ depending on the gender of employees?

RQ2:

Does the supervisor’s gender moderate the relationship between innovation and burnout among middle managers?

RQ3:

How do ownership structure (public vs. private) and organization type (manufacturing vs. service) shape the effect of innovation on burnout?

3.4. Research Design and Procedure

This research involves an empirical approach, where the conclusions are derived based on quantitative analysis of data collected from a real organizational environment. The data were collected through an online questionnaire administered in June 2025, hosted on the Google Forms platform. The questionnaire was provided in Serbian, with an average completion time of approximately 15 min. Potential participants received an initial invitation followed by up to two reminders at one-week intervals. The response rate was approximately 68%.

Adults serving in middle-management roles were included in the study. No partial responses were recorded, as the questionnaire required all items to be completed. Duplicate entries (identical email/IP with close timestamps) and responses outside the target population were excluded.

The survey was distributed via email and professional networks (LinkedIn, business associations). No weighting or stratification procedures were applied, consistent with the study’s aim of testing theoretical relationships.

To reduce common method variance (CMV), the questionnaire items were clearly formulated and arranged in a way that minimized the likelihood of socially desirable responses, and participants were assured anonymity and confidentiality. The statistical assessment using Harman’s single-factor test showed that the first factor accounts for 29.47% of the total variance, which is below the 50% threshold and indicates that no substantial common-method variance was detected in this study. This confirms that CMV did not pose a significant problem.

The potential presence of common method variance (CMV) was considered in the research design. The questionnaire was structured to reduce the likelihood of socially desirable or automated responses, and respondents were assured anonymity. The statistical check for CMV was conducted using Harman’s single-factor test. The results of the unrotated exploratory factor analysis showed that the first factor accounted for 29.47% of the total variance, which is below the 50% threshold and indicates that the variance is not concentrated in a single factor. Together with the high sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.83; Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ²(105) = 8631.32, p < 0.001), this confirms that CMV did not pose a significant concern in this study.

3.5. Instruments

In the research, standardized instruments were used, which are rated on a seven-point Likert scale, where the rating 1 indicates complete disagreement (“strongly disagree”), and the rating 7 indicates complete agreement (“strongly agree”):

• Questionnaire for measuring innovation—Organizational innovation was measured across three dimensions: product and service innovation, process innovation, and administrative innovation. The instrument was constructed based on validated scales from previous research [84,85,86]. A total of 8 items were used;
• Questionnaire for measuring professional burnout—The level of professional burnout was assessed using a shortened version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), developed by Christensen et al. [87]. The original instrument contains three dimensions: personal burnout, burnout at work, and burnout in contact with clients. Within this research, only the dimension of burnout at work was used, with a total of 7 items. The decision to use only the work-related dimension of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was based on the specific research focus of this study. Since the objective was to examine the impact of organizational innovation on job-related stressors experienced by middle managers, the “burnout at work” subscale was deemed most relevant. The other two subscales, personal burnout and burnout in contact with clients, reflect broader aspects of fatigue and exhaustion that may be influenced by non-work or interpersonal factors outside the organizational context. Therefore, the use of the work-related subscale provided a more direct and conceptually aligned measure of burnout as a workplace phenomenon arising from organizational processes and demands. To assess the comparability of measurement across subgroups, a measurement invariance analysis was conducted by gender and sector. The results indicated satisfactory configural and metric invariance, suggesting that the instrument measures the same latent construct across groups and that comparisons between them are interpretatively valid;
• Moderator variables—The examined leadership styles include transformational and transactional leadership as measured by the scales developed by Podsakoff et al. [88,89], Podsakoff & Organ [90] and MacKenzie et al. [91]. Ethical leadership was measured using the scale of Brown et al. [92], and punitive leader behavior was measured by a dimension from the scale of Podsakoff et al. [88] and MacKenzie et al. [91]. The leader–member exchange (LMX) was measured by the Liden and Maslyn [93] scale, and regarding organizational culture, the dimensions of power distance, human orientation, performance orientation and collectivism are from the GLOBE study [94,95,96];
• Socio-demographic data—The questionnaire included basic socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, including gender, age, level of education, length of service and sector of activity. All socio-demographic responses were collected in categorical form.

3.6. Operational Definitions of Key Variables

The selection of the primary variables in this study is grounded in theoretical frameworks that link organizational innovation with employee well-being. Innovation is operationalized through three dimensions: product and service innovation, process innovation, and administrative innovation, based on prior research models [84,85,86] that enable a holistic view of innovative behavior within organizations. Employee burnout is defined according to a model from previous research that captures key indicators of psychological exhaustion among employees [87]. The moderating variables were included based on theoretical assumptions regarding their role in strengthening or mitigating the relationship between innovation and employee burnout [88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96]. This choice of constructs is theoretically grounded and supported by prior empirical findings that highlight the connection between innovative behavior and the risk of burnout in organizational settings. The full list of items for all scales is provided in Appendix A.

To ensure conceptual clarity and transparency in measurement,

Table 1. Operational definitions and measurement of key variables.

Variable	Conceptual Definition	Operational Definition (Measurement)	Scale/Source
Product and service innovation	The extent to which the organization introduces new or significantly improved products and services.	Mean score of 2 items assessing changes in product/service offerings.	7-point Likert, adapted from [84,85,86]
Process innovation	Introduction or improvement of methods in production, workflow, or service delivery.	Mean score of 3 items reflecting changes in internal processes.	7-point Likert, adapted from [84,85,86]
Administrative innovation	Changes in organizational policies, structures, procedures or management practices.	Average score of 3 items reflecting changes in administrative systems.	7-point Likert, adapted from [84,85,86]
Burnout (Work-related)	A state of emotional fatigue and reduced energy caused by prolonged job stress.	Mean score of 7 items from the work-related burnout subscale (CBI).	7-point Likert, adapted from [87]
Transformational leadership	Leadership behavior that inspires, motivates and intellectually stimulates employees.	Mean score of 14 relevant subscale items.	7-point Likert, adapted from [88,89,90,91]
Transactional/punitive leadership	Leadership behavior relying on control, sanctions and conditional reinforcement.	Mean score of 7 relevant subscale items.	7-point Likert, adapted from [88,89,90,91]
Ethical leadership	Leader behavior that demonstrates fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct.	Mean score of 10 items from Brown et al. ethical leadership scale.	7-point Likert, adapted from [92]
LMX (Leader–Member Exchange)	Quality of the relationship between leader and subordinate.	Mean score of 12 items from Liden & Maslyn LMX scale.	7-point Likert, adapted from [93]
Organizational culture dimensions	Shared norms and values shaping organizational behavior.	Mean score of 16 items regarding dimensions: power distance, collectivism, human orientation, performance orientation.	7-point Likert, GLOBE study [94,95,96]

presents the operational definitions of all key variables used in the study. The table shows the conceptual definition of each variable, the way it was operationalized within the research instrument, as well as the reference sources of the measurement scales.

Each variable was calculated as the mean value of responses across the items that measure it. Higher scores on the scale indicate a higher level of the observed construct. All scales are internationally validated and have been previously used in organizational and psychological research.

3.7. Measurement Validity and Reliability

Internal consistency for all scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR), as presented in

Table 2. Assessment of the convergent validity of the constructs (CFA/AVE/CR) ^1,*.

Construct	Number of Items	KMO	α	AVE	CR	% Variance
Product and service innovation	2	0.50	0.84	0.86	0.93	86.2
Process innovation	3	0.68	0.93	0.88	0.96	87.8
Administrative innovation	3	0.68	0.93	0.88	0.96	88.0
Burnout	7	0.89	0.91	0.74	0.95	73.9

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: AVE—average variance extracted; CR—composite reliability; α—Cronbach’s coefficient of internal consistency. All Bartlett’s tests are significant at p < 0.001. All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

. The obtained values indicate strong measurement reliability: α = 0.84 for product and service innovation, 0.93 for process innovation, 0.93 for administrative innovation, and 0.91 for employee burnout, all of which demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency. Values of α above 0.70 are generally considered acceptable indicators of internal consistency.

Construct validity was assessed through analyses of convergent and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted separately for each innovation scale dimension and for the employee burnout scale. The KMO values ranged from 0.50 to 0.89, and all Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were statistically significant (p < 0.001), confirming the suitability of the data for factor analysis. All factor loadings exceeded 0.70 (ranging from 0.77 to 0.97), indicating satisfactory convergent validity.

Average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) were calculated for each construct. The AVE values ranged from 0.74 to 0.88, while the CR values ranged from 0.93 to 0.96, confirming good convergent validity and high reliability of the measurement instruments.

Discriminant validity of the constructs was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. The square roots of the AVE values (0.86–0.94) were higher than the inter-construct correlations (

Table 3. Assessment of discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion) ^1,*.

Construct	√AVE	1	2	3	4
Product and service innovation	0.93	—
Process innovation	0.94	0.765	—
Administrative innovation	0.94	0.753	0.882	—
Burnout	0.86	−0.259	−0.342	−0.368	—

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: √AVE = square root of the average variance extracted. All correlation coefficients are significant at the p < 0.01 level. All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

), confirming that all constructs are empirically distinct.

Although a somewhat higher correlation was observed between process and administrative innovation (r = 0.88), the √AVE values still exceed the reported correlations, confirming satisfactory discriminant validity. This finding is theoretically justified, as both types of innovation represent complementary forms of organizational improvement.

The organizational innovation scale was operationalized through three dimensions: product and service innovation, process innovation, and administrative innovation, comprising a total of eight items. Although the number of items per dimension may appear limited, all reliability and validity indicators (α = 0.84–0.93; CR = 0.93–0.96; AVE = 0.86–0.88) demonstrate the stability and distinctiveness of each dimension. The high factor loadings and elevated AVE values further confirm that even a smaller number of items provides a robust latent measurement of the construct.

3.8. Ethics

The planned research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Technical Faculty “Mihajlo Pupin”, University of Novi Sad (case number 01-1330, date 12 February 2025). The approval confirms that the anonymous survey of employees at the middle management level, conducted on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, is fully aligned with the Code of Academic Integrity of the University of Novi Sad and with professional ethics. All participants were informed about the objectives of the research, anonymity and confidentiality of their responses were guaranteed, and participation was voluntary. No personal identification data was collected, and before the start of the research, the respondents confirmed their consent by checking the box that they were aware of and agreed to the use of the provided data exclusively for scientific research purposes.

3.9. Data Analysis

The analysis of the collected data was carried out using the software package IBM SPSS Statistics, version 29. In order to test the set hypotheses and evaluate the validity of the regression models, the following statistical methods were applied:

• Descriptive statistics—used to display the basic characteristics of the sample and the examined variables;
• Correlation analysis—the Pearson correlation coefficient was applied to examine the linear relationship between the dimensions of organizational innovation and the level of professional burnout;
• Multiple linear regression analysis—used to assess the individual contribution of each innovation dimension in explaining the variance of professional burnout, as well as to test the statistical significance of the regression model as a whole;
• Hierarchical multiple regression analysis—conducted in order to examine the effects of moderator variables and their interactions with dimensions of innovation, with the evaluation of the change in the explained variance at each modeling step;
• Verification of regression assumptions included the following:
  • Multicollinearity—based on values Tolerance and VIF (Variance Inflation Factor);
  • Normality of residuals—assessed using a normal P–P plot;
  • Homoscedasticity—examined through the scatterplot of standardized residuals versus predicted values.

3.10. Rationale for the Selection of Analytical Techniques

The choice of statistical procedures was aligned with the research objectives and hypotheses, the nature of the data, and the JD–R theoretical framework. (1) Descriptive statistics is used to present distributions, central tendencies, and the shape of the variables, as well as to assess linear modeling assumptions (e.g., skewness/kurtosis) and inform potential transformations. (2) Pearson correlations served as an initial examination of linear associations between innovation dimensions and burnout (aim: preliminary evidence for H1–H4). (3) Multiple linear regression was selected because the dependent variable (burnout—work-related CBI) is continuous, and the objective was to estimate the unique effects of each innovation dimension while controlling for other predictors (testing H2–H4), with reporting of B, β, SE, 95% CI, and collinearity diagnostics (Tolerance, VIF). (4) Hierarchical multiple regression with interaction terms was used for formal testing of the moderating hypotheses (H5–H7). In Step 1, the innovation dimensions (main effects) were entered; in Step 2, moderators (leadership, culture, LMX, demographic/organizational categories); and in Step 3, the interaction terms created from z-standardized variables to evaluate changes in explained variance (ΔR²) at each step.

This approach allows assessment of whether and, under which conditions, innovation alters its relationship with burnout, fully consistent with the study’s aim of examining the contextual dependency of the innovation–well-being relationship. (5) Linear regression assumptions (normality of residuals, homoscedasticity, absence of severe collinearity) were checked graphically (P–P/QQ plots, residuals, predictions) and through diagnostic indicators. (6) Continuous predictors were z-standardized to enhance interpretability of interaction coefficients and reduce collinearity; categorical variables were dummy-coded; missing data were treated using listwise deletion. This combination of procedures is methodologically appropriate for the study’s aim (quantifying direct and moderated relationships) and the sample size (N = 406), and the results are reported in the main tables and appendices.

3.11. Research Sample

The study was conducted on a sample of N = 406 middle-level managers employed in enterprises in the Republic of Serbia. The sampling frame included organizations from the manufacturing, services, trade, and IT sectors, each with ≥10 employees. A convenience sampling approach was used, involving targeted outreach to organizations and professional networks (a theoretically driven rather than a representative sampling aim). The sample consisted mainly of women, who represented a slight majority (61.6%).

Regarding age, the largest group of respondents was aged 36–45 (38.7%). When it comes to work experience, 31.3% of participants have 11 to 20 years of experience, while 29.3% have more than 20 years of experience. In terms of the employment sector, 63.3% of respondents were from the private sector, while 36.7% worked in the public sector. The largest number of participants (38.4%) is employed in medium-sized enterprises.

4. Results

This section presents the empirical findings aimed at testing the hypotheses and answering the research questions. We first report descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables, followed by correlation analysis between the innovation dimensions and burnout. We then estimate multiple regression models to assess the predictive power of each innovation dimension for explaining variance in burnout. Finally, we test moderator effects using hierarchical multiple regression.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

For better insight into the data distribution,

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of observed variables ^1,*.

Variable	Min	Max	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Product and service innovation	1.00	7.00	4.37	1.61	−0.456	−0.593
Process innovation	1.00	7.00	4.93	1.52	−0.658	−0.206
Administrative innovation	1.00	7.00	5.10	1.49	−0.782	0.019
Burnout	1.00	7.00	3.37	1.62	0.651	−0.585

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

shows descriptive statistics for the dependent variable, burnout, and the three dimensions of organizational innovation defined as independent variables.

The dimension of product and service innovation has the lowest average score (M = 4.37; SD = 1.61), while the highest average score was recorded for administrative innovation (M = 5.10; SD = 1.49), which indicates a greater presence of these practices in the examined organizations. Process innovations were rated with slightly higher mean values than product innovations (M = 4.93; SD = 1.52).

The dependent variable, burnout, had an average value of M = 3.37 (SD = 1.62), which indicates a moderate level of professional burnout among middle management employees. The distributions of the independent variables show a slight negative asymmetry (skewness < 0), which means that most of the answers were on the higher part of the scale. In contrast, the distribution of burnout shows a positive asymmetry (skewness = 0.65), which implies that most employees have lower levels of burnout, but there are also a smaller number of individuals with more pronounced symptoms. These results indicate a predictable pattern. The majority of respondents perceive a moderate to high presence of innovative practices, while burnout occurs in a milder form in the majority, but not negligible in a smaller number of employees.

4.2. Correlation Analysis

Table 5. Pearson’s correlations between the examined variables ^1,*.

Variables	Burnout	Product and Service Innovation	Process Innovation	Administrative Innovation
Burnout	1	−0.259 ** (p < 0.001)	−0.342 ** (p < 0.001)	−0.368 ** (p < 0.001)
Product and service innovation		1	0.765 ** (p < 0.001)	0.753 ** (p < 0.001)
Process innovation			1	0.882 ** (p < 0.001)
Administrative innovation				1

¹ Source: Author’s research. ** Note: Correlations marked with double asterisks (**) are significant at the p < 0.01 level. * Note: All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

shows Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the level of professional burnout and the three dimensions of organizational innovation among middle management employees.

The analysis showed that all three dimensions of innovation are statistically significantly negatively correlated with the level of professional burnout. The strongest negative correlation was recorded between burnout and administrative innovations (r = −0.368, p < 0.001), followed by the relationship with process innovations (r = −0.342, p < 0.001), while the weakest, but still significant, correlation is between burnout and product and service innovations (r = −0.259, p < 0.001). These correlations suggest that higher levels of innovation are generally associated with lower levels of burnout, which supports theoretical assumptions that organizational innovation can enhance flexibility, autonomy, and perceived control among employees. Administrative innovation, which includes changes in structure, communication flow, HR practices, and role clarity, shows the strongest protective relationship. This may indicate that employees benefit more when innovation directly affects organizational procedures and reduces ambiguity in work roles, rather than when it focuses exclusively on products or processes.

4.3. Regression Analysis

4.3.1. Testing Assumptions of Regression Analysis

Before conducting multiple linear regression analysis, key statistical assumptions were checked, with a special focus on multicollinearity between independent variables. The values of the Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) indicators for all predictors were within acceptable limits (Tolerance > 0.50; VIF < 2), which indicates the absence of significant multicollinearity. Therefore, the application of the regression model is methodologically justified.

The values for the individual dimensions of innovation are as follows:

• Product and service innovation: Tolerance = 0.603; VIF = 1.658;
• Process innovation: Tolerance = 0.558; VIF = 1.791;
• Administrative innovation: Tolerance = 0.514; VIF = 1.946.

4.3.2. Regression Model Estimation

To examine the effect of the dimensions of innovation on the level of professional burnout, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted.

Table 6. Summary of the regression model ^1,*.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error	Durbin-Watson
1	0.372	0.138	0.132	1.50930	2.065

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

shows the basic indicators of model quality.

The coefficient of determination (R² = 0.138) indicates that the independent variables in the model explain 13.8% of the variance of professional burnout. The adjusted R² (0.132) confirms a moderate but statistically significant contribution of the model. The value of the Durbin-Watson statistic is 2.065, which is in the acceptable range (1.5–2.5) and indicates the absence of autocorrelation of the residuals.

4.3.3. Overall Model Significance—ANOVA

After evaluating the quality of the model through the coefficient of determination and fulfillment of assumptions, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the overall statistical significance of the regression model, shown in

Table 7. Results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) ^1,*.

Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	146.930	3	48.977	21.500	0.000
Residual	915.750	402	2.278
Total	1062.680	405

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

.

The results of the analysis of variance shown in Table 7 indicate that the entire regression model is statistically significant (F(3, 402) = 21.500, p < 0.001). This means that the included dimensions of innovation, that is, products and services, processes and administrative innovations, in joint action significantly contribute to predicting the level of burnout among middle managers. In other words, the model as a whole has the ability to relevantly explain the variations in the dependent variable, which confirms the justification of its application in further analysis.

4.3.4. Individual Predictor Contribution

After confirming that the model as a whole has statistical significance,

Table 8. Coefficients of the regression model ^1,*.

Variable	B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig.
(Constant)	5.424	0.269		20.157	0.000
Product and service innovation	0.067	0.075	0.067	0.901	0.368
Process innovation	−0.118	0.111	−0.111	−1.070	0.285
Administrative innovation	−0.347	0.110	−0.320	−3.144	0.002

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

shows the effects of each innovation dimension on professional burnout, through the values of unstandardized and standardized coefficients.

Table 8 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis, i.e., the impact of each individual dimension of innovation on the level of burnout among middle managers. Among the examined predictors, only administrative innovations proved to be a statistically significant predictor of professional burnout (β = −0.320, p = 0.002), where the negative direction of the coefficient indicates that a higher level of administrative innovations leads to a lower level of burnout.

In contrast, product and service innovations (β = 0.067, p = 0.368) and process innovations (β = −0.111, p = 0.285) did not show a statistically significant contribution in explaining the variance of the dependent variable. Although the signs of the coefficients are in line with expectations, their p-values are above the conventional level of significance (p < 0.05), indicating that within this model, their influence is not confirmed.

These findings confirm that the model as a whole has a statistically significant predictive value (F(3, 402) = 21.500, p < 0.001), where it explains 13.8% of the total variance of burnout (R² = 0.138). Administrative innovation has the biggest contribution in the model, which proves to be a key organizational factor in the prevention of professional burnout of employees. The fact that only administrative innovation remained a significant predictor suggests that burnout among middle managers is more sensitive to organizational and structural support than to technical or process-related improvements. In other words, innovations that improve clarity of expectations, communication transparency, distribution of responsibilities, and participation in decision-making seem to reduce stress more effectively. This finding is consistent with the job demands-resources model, which emphasizes the importance of organizational resources, such as support, role clarity, and autonomy, in reducing the effects of work pressure on burnout [32,33,34].

4.3.5. Statistical Analysis and Reporting Transparency

All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 29. For each model, unstandardized (B) and standardized coefficients (β) are reported, along with standard errors (SEs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). An overview of the main regression models is presented in

Table 9. Regression models predicting employee burnout ^1,*.

Predictor	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
Product and service innovation	0.067	0.075	0.067	0.901	0.368	[−0.081, 0.214]
Process innovation	−0.118	0.111	−0.111	−1.070	0.285	[−0.336, 0.099]
Administrative innovation	−0.347	0.110	−0.320	−3.144	0.002	[−0.563, −0.130]
(Constant)	5.424	0.269	—	20.157	0.000	[4.895, 5.953]

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: CI = Confidence Interval; SE = Standard Error. Dependent variable: Burnout. All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

and

Table 10. Model including leadership dimensions ^1,*.

Predictor	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
Transformational leadership	−0.124	0.078	−0.127	−1.58	0.111	[−0.277, 0.029]
High performance expectation	−0.166	0.074	−0.138	−2.25	0.026	[−0.313, −0.020]
Intellectual stimulation	−0.108	0.079	−0.106	−1.36	0.177	[−0.263, 0.048]
Rewards (incentives)	−0.218	0.066	−0.231	−3.32	0.001	[−0.347, −0.089]
Punitive leadership behavior	0.347	0.091	0.313	3.81	0.000	[0.168, 0.525]
(Constant)	4.944	0.269	—	18.38	0.000	[4.415, 5.473]

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: CI = Confidence Interval; SE = Standard Error. Dependent variable: Burnout. All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

below, while the complete regression tables (including VIF and tolerance values) are provided in Appendix B. Continuous predictor variables were standardized (Z-score centering) to reduce collinearity and facilitate the interpretation of interaction terms. Categorical variables were dummy-coded (0 = reference category). Missing data were handled using listwise deletion, resulting in N = 406 valid cases included in the analysis.

The assumptions of linear regression were assessed graphically. The Normal P–P (QQ) plot of standardized residuals shows that the points closely followed the diagonal line, indicating satisfactory normality of the distribution. The plot of residuals against standardized predicted values demonstrates that the residuals were evenly dispersed around zero, confirming the model’s homoscedasticity, while the histogram of standardized residuals indicates an approximately normal distribution of errors.

To complement the graphical assessment of residual normality, a histogram of standardized residuals was produced (Figure 1).

Figure 1 shows the histogram of standardized residuals. The distribution appears approximately normal, with a slight dispersion around the mean, indicating that the error terms do not substantially deviate from normality and supporting the validity of the regression model.

To assess the normality of the distribution of errors, a normal P–P plot of standardized residuals was created (Figure 2).

Figure 2 shows the distribution of standardized residuals in relation to the expected cumulative values of the normal distribution. The points are distributed approximately along the diagonal line, indicating that the residuals are approximately normally distributed. This finding confirms that the assumption of normality of errors is satisfied, which further confirms the validity of the regression model.

In addition, the assumption of homoscedasticity was checked through a scatterplot of standardized residuals and predicted values (Figure 3).

Figure 3 shows the relationship between standardized residuals and standardized predictions. The points are evenly and randomly distributed around the horizontal axis, with no clear pattern, indicating that the assumption of homoscedasticity is met. In other words, the error variance remains approximately constant along all levels of predicted values, which confirms the stability of the model and the reliability of the estimated regression coefficients.

4.3.6. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis with Included Moderators

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted in three steps, with the aim of examining the impact of organizational innovation dimensions on burnout, as well as the potential moderation of this relationship by sociodemographic and organizational factors.

All continuous predictor and moderator variables were previously standardized (z-score), in order to enable a reliable interpretation of the interaction terms and reduce the possibility of multicollinearity between the main effects and their products.

In the first step of the model, three dimensions of innovation are included (product and service innovations, process and administrative innovations). In the second step, moderating factors were added (gender of respondent, gender of supervisor, leadership style, dimensions of LMX and organizational culture). In the third step, the interaction terms between the dimensions of innovation and each moderating factor were formed.

Table 11. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis ^1,*.

Model	R	R2	Adj. R2	Std. Error	∆R2	F Change	df1
1	0.372	0.138	0.132	0.93175	0.138	21.50	3
2	0.811	0.658	0.639	0.60108	0.520	30.68	19
3	0.918	0.843	0.805	0.44168	0.185	6.725	57

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

shows a summary of model results, including coefficients of determination (R²), corrections for the number of predictors (Adjusted R²), standard errors of estimate, and changes in explained variance (∆R²) at each modeling step.

In the first model, which includes only three dimensions of innovation (product and service innovations, process and administrative innovations), 13.8% of the variance of burnout was explained (R² = 0.138). The second model, in which sociodemographic and organizational moderators (e.g., gender, superior’s gender, leadership style, dimensions of LMX and organizational culture) were added, significantly increases the explanatory power of the dependent variable, a total of 65.8% of the variance of burnout (R² = 0.658), whereby 52.0% of the variance is additionally explained (∆R² = 0.520). This contribution indicates a strong effect of moderator variables.

The third model also includes interaction terms between independent and moderator variables, which additionally explained 18.5% of the variance of burnout (∆R² = 0.185), with a total coefficient of determination of 84.3% (R² = 0.843). This change is statistically significant (F change(57, df) = 6.725, p < 0.001), which confirms that the inclusion of interactions significantly contributes to the prediction of the dependent variable.

The Adjusted R² values (correction for the number of predictors) confirm the stability and reliability of the model, indicating that overfitting did not occur. Also, all F tests of model changes (F change) are highly significant (p < 0.001), which shows that each additional block of predictors is justified and contributes significantly to the explanation of burnout.

Table 12. ANOVA—tests the significance of the overall model ^1,*.

Model	SS Regression	df	MS	F	Sig.
1	55.997	3	18.666	21.500	0.000
2	266.621	22	12.119	33.543	0.000
3	341.404	79	4.322	22.153	0.000

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

shows the results of ANOVA testing for all three regression models and confirms the statistical significance of each of them in explaining the variance of burnout.

All tested models proved to be statistically significant (p < 0.001), which confirms that the included predictors, that is, the basic dimensions of innovation, moderator variables and their interaction terms, have a common significant contribution in explaining the variance of professional burnout. This finding further confirms the reliability of the previously presented models and supports the conclusion about the multi-layered nature of the impact of organizational innovations on burnout among middle-level managers.

Table 13. Standardized regression coefficients (Beta) and p-values from the final model (Model 3), which includes interactions ^1,*.

Predictor (Standardized)	β	p	Note
Main effects
Power distance	0.655	<0.001	Higher power distance is associated with higher burnout.
Collectivism	−0.193	0.029	Greater collectivism is associated with lower burnout.
Transformational leadership behavior	0.259	0.002	Transformational leadership is associated with higher burnout.
Encouraging leadership behavior (empathy)	0.190	0.004	Empathic leadership behavior is associated with higher burnout.
High performance expectation	−0.128	0.008	High performance expectations reduce burnout.
Intellectual stimulation	−0.179	0.016	Intellectual stimulation reduces burnout.
Rewards (incentives)	−0.208	0.010	Rewards reduce burnout.
Punitive leadership behavior	0.292	<0.001	Punitive leadership increases burnout.
Affective attachment (LMX)	−0.288	0.001	Affective attachment reduces burnout.
Significant interactions (moderation)
Process innovation × Power distance	0.330	0.025	The effect of process innovation is stronger at higher levels of power distance.
Product and service innovation × Human orientation	0.496	<0.001	The effect of product and service innovation is stronger in organizations with a high human orientation.
Administrative innovation × Punitive leadership behavior	−0.616	<0.001	The protective effect of administrative innovation is weaker under a punitive leadership culture.
Process innovation × Intellectual stimulation	−0.729	0.004	The effect of process innovation decreases when intellectual stimulation is high.
Administrative innovation × Intellectual stimulation	0.879	<0.001	The effect of administrative innovation increases with higher intellectual stimulation.
Process innovation × Loyalty (LMX)	0.461	0.031	Higher loyalty within LMX is associated with greater burnout under process innovation.
Administrative innovation × Professional respect (LMX)	−0.625	0.004	Professional respect within LMX reduces burnout under administrative innovation.
Administrative innovation × Loyalty (LMX)	−1.271	<0.001	Higher loyalty within LMX strongly reduces burnout under administrative innovation.
Administrative innovation × Respondent’s gender (negative)	−0.181	0.049	The effect of administrative innovation is stronger among women.
Administrative innovation × Respondent’s gender (positive)	0.563	0.003	Administrative innovation has a more positive effect among women.
Administrative innovation × Supervisor’s gender	0.647	0.001	The effect of administrative innovation is stronger when the supervisor is female.
Administrative innovation × Ownership (public)	0.417	0.043	The effect of administrative innovation is stronger in public organizations.
Administrative innovation × Organization type (service)	−0.421	0.000	The effect of administrative innovation is stronger in the manufacturing sector.

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: All tables and figures in this paper present the results of the author’s empirical research. The data will also be included in the doctoral dissertation, in accordance with the regulations of the University of Novi Sad.

shows the standardized regression coefficients (β) and p-values from the final model of the hierarchical regression analysis, which included the main effects of the predictors and significant interaction terms. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the direct and moderating effects of the dimensions of innovation, leadership and organizational culture on the level of burnout.

In the final model, significant predictors of burnout included power distance (β = 0.655, p < 0.001), punitive leader practices (β = 0.292, p < 0.001), as well as basic transformational behaviors (β = 0.259, p = 0.002), with all three positively associated with higher levels of burnout. In contrast, collectivism (β = −0.193, p = 0.029), respect for the principal (β = −0.288, p = 0.001), rewards (β = −0.208, p = 0.010), and intellectual stimulation (β = −0.179, p = 0.016) showed a protective effect.

Multiple interactions indicate that the effects of innovation are not universal, but context-dependent. For example, punitive organizational culture significantly reduces the protective effect of administrative innovations (Z_in3 × punitive behavior, β = −0.616, p < 0.001), which suggests that in tightly controlled and authoritarian environments, even beneficial changes may be perceived as an additional source of pressure. On the other hand, intellectual stimulation as a component of transformational leadership enhances the positive effect of innovations, especially administrative (β = 0.879, p < 0.001) and process (β = −0.729, p = 0.004). These results confirm that leaders who stimulate cognitive flexibility and openness to change contribute to reducing the psychological burden of employees.

Interactions with categorical moderators indicate the importance of demographic and organizational context. The effect of administrative innovations was more pronounced in women (β = −0.181, p = 0.049), as well as in cases where the superior is female (β = 0.647, p = 0.001), which may indicate a different sensibility and greater inclusiveness of women in the change process. The sectoral effects are also significant, i.e., administrative innovations showed a stronger influence in state institutions (β = 0.417, p = 0.043), as well as in production organizations (β = −0.421, p < 0.001), which may be a consequence of the fact that changes in these environments are perceived as essential advances in relation to the previous bureaucratized practice.

At the level of organizational norms, power distance (β = 0.655), collectivism (β = −0.193) and punitive practices (β = 0.292) showed the expected effects on burnout. Higher power distance and stricter punitive policies increase exposure to stress, while a collectivist-oriented work environment protects employees.

The most theoretically valuable findings relate to the interactions of innovation with dimensions of the LMX relationship. The combination of administrative innovations and loyalty of the leader towards the employee is particularly noteworthy, which shows an extremely strong negative effect on burnout (β = −1.271, p < 0.001). This finding confirms that the positive effects of innovation depend not only on the nature of the change but also on the quality of the leadership relationship and the building of mutual trust. When employees perceive that the leader respects and protects them, innovation is perceived as a development support instead of a threat, which significantly reduces burnout. These findings indicate that the relationship between innovation and burnout is not uniform. It depends on the social and organizational context in which innovation is implemented. Supportive leadership behaviors and low power distance strengthen the positive effects of innovation, while punitive or hierarchical contexts reduce or even reverse these effects. This highlights the importance of viewing innovation as a technical improvement, as well as a social process that depends on trust, communication, and perceived support from leadership.

4.4. Evaluation of Model Parsimony and Stability

Model 3 includes an extended set of predictors with interaction terms (a total of 79 predictors), yielding a high coefficient of determination (R² = 0.843; adjusted R² = 0.832). Although such a high R² value indicates substantial explained variance in the dependent variable, models with a large number of predictors relative to sample size carry a risk of overfitting.

To assess the stability of the model, a 10-fold cross-validation was conducted, showing that the differences between the training and testing subsamples were minimal (ΔR² < 0.05), which confirms the model’s stability. Additionally, the Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction was applied to control for false discoveries due to multiple testing, thereby reducing the risk of incorrectly identifying significant effects. After the correction, only theoretically justified interactions were retained in the model, primarily those between innovation dimensions and components of job burnout, ensuring parsimony and interpretive clarity.

Although the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) with latent interactions was considered, this approach was not optimal given the sample size (N = 406), the number of estimated parameters, and the exploratory orientation of the research objectives. In this context, multiple regression analysis, combined with control for multiple testing and model stability checks, provides a methodologically consistent and theoretically justified framework for interpreting the results.

4.5. Assessment of Multicollinearity and Suppressor Effects

Given the high correlations among the innovation dimensions (r = 0.765–0.882), as well as the inclusion of moderator variables in the final models, an additional multicollinearity analysis was conducted to assess model stability and potential suppressor effects. All final regression models included standard collinearity diagnostics, tolerance and the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), as presented in

Table 14. Multicollinearity diagnostics for the work-related burnout model ^1,*.

Predictor	Tolerance	VIF
Product and service innovation	0.387	2.582
Process innovation	0.198	5.042
Administrative innovation	0.207	4.828
Ethical leadership	0.476	2.102
Leader–member exchange (LMX)	0.590	1.695
Power distance	0.515	1.941
Organizational culture	0.421	2.374

¹ Source: Author’s research. * Note: VIF values below 10 and tolerance values above 0.1 indicate the absence of serious multicollinearity. N = 406; regression model: work-related burnout as the dependent variable.

. The observed VIF values ranged from 1.695 to 5.042, while tolerance values ranged from 0.198 to 0.590. VIF values below 10 and tolerance values above 0.1 indicate the absence of serious multicollinearity, which is consistent with the results reported for all predictors and moderators in the model.

The results show that administrative innovation exerts a statistically significant negative effect on job burnout (β = −0.32, p = 0.002), whereas product and process innovation are not significant predictors. However, the inclusion of moderator variables (ethical leadership, LMX, power distance, and organizational culture) did not compromise model stability nor produce suppressor effects. To further verify the robustness of the approach, an additional model was estimated using a composite innovation index (the average of the three innovation types), which yielded a consistent effect (β = −0.29, p < 0.01), confirming the stability of the relationship between organizational innovation and work-related burnout.

Based on these findings, it can be concluded that multicollinearity did not pose a serious concern and that the identified relationships reflect genuine effects of the constructs rather than methodological artifacts arising from predictor intercorrelations.

4.6. Interpreting Counterintuitive Findings

In the initial model, transformational leadership showed a positive effect on employee burnout (b = 0.259, p = 0.002), which contradicts both theoretical expectations and existing empirical evidence. Additional analyses conducted to clarify this finding revealed that the bivariate correlation between transformational leadership and burnout was negative and significant (r = −0.406, p < 0.001), indicating that the observed effect was statistical rather than substantive in nature.

In the extended models, which include multiple leadership dimensions, transformational leadership loses significance and shifts to the expected negative direction (b = −0.124, p = 0.111). When transformational leadership is excluded and its subdimensions and other leadership behaviors are included instead, all effects align with theoretical expectations: intellectual stimulation (b = −0.160, p = 0.028), contingent reward (b = −0.244, p < 0.001), and high performance expectations (b = −0.206, p = 0.003) negatively predict burnout, whereas punitive leader behavior (b = 0.372, p < 0.001) significantly increases burnout risk. The highest Condition Index (15.874) indicates that multicollinearity is not severe, though overlap among dimensions may generate suppressor effects. These findings confirm that transformational leadership functions as a protective factor against employee burnout, while the initial positive effect was a consequence of shared variance among highly correlated leadership dimensions.

5. Discussion

The results of the multiple and hierarchical regression analyses indicate the rejection of the null hypothesis (H0), which states that there is no statistically significant relationship between organizational innovation and professional burnout among middle managers in Serbian organizations. At the same time, the primary research hypothesis (H1) was confirmed, according to which “There is a statistically significant relationship between overall organizational innovation and the level of professional burnout among middle managers in organizations in Serbia.” The obtained results indicate that the overall model shows a statistically significant connection between the dimensions of organizational innovation and the level of professional burnout among employees in middle management in Serbia. This finding confirms the assumption that organizational innovation is not a neutral factor in the daily functioning of employees, but that it can have important psychological consequences, especially in the context of the challenges of transitional economies, such as the Serbian one. In the conditions of a transitional economy, organizations often face rapid changes, unclear regulations, restructuring, a lack of stable support for change, and continuous pressures to optimize costs. Middle managers are expected to implement innovative practices, but they often have limited capacity and autonomy, which can cause conflicts, feelings of insufficient control, and burden. The obtained finding is consistent with previous research that shows that the implementation of innovative practices should be carefully designed so as not to harm the psychological well-being of employees [97,98,99].

These results should be interpreted within the social and institutional context of Serbia as a transition economy, where organizations operate under conditions of chronic uncertainty, limited resources, and shifting regulatory frameworks [100]. In such an environment, innovation is not merely a technical or operational change but becomes part of a broader process of organizational adaptation and survival [101]. Therefore, innovation in transition economies carries a stronger psychosocial dimension than in more stable institutional settings, as it directly affects employees’ sense of security, control over work tasks, and professional identity.

5.1. Discussion of Specific Hypotheses (H2–H4)

Of the three dimensions of innovation that were examined, only administrative innovations proved to be a statistically significant negative predictor of burnout (β = −0.320, p = 0.002), which confirms hypothesis H4, which reads “There is a statistically significant relationship between administrative innovations and the level of professional burnout among middle managers.” This result means that the application of innovations in procedures, organizational structures, and internal protocols has a protective effect, reducing the risk of employee burnout. Contrary to expectations, hypothesis H2, which reads “There is a statistically significant relationship between product and service innovations and the level of professional burnout among middle managers”, and H3, which reads, “There is a statistically significant relationship between process innovations and the level of professional burnout among middle managers”, were not confirmed, because those dimensions did not show a statistically significant contribution in explaining the variance of burnout. Nevertheless, the results suggest that, although the influence is not statistically significant, there is still a noticeable correlation between these dimensions and the phenomenon of burnout. This can be explained by the fact that product and process innovations are more focused on the external environment of the organization, i.e., the market and competition, so the impact on employees depends on a number of factors, such as the degree of autonomy, management support, or available resources. However, this result does not necessarily mean that product and process innovations have no impact, but that it depends on specific circumstances and organizational context. These results are particularly significant in the context of literature indicating that innovations are not always psychologically beneficial, but that their effect depends on the circumstances of implementation [102,103,104,105].

Although they have strategic importance, it is possible that product and process innovations introduce changes that increase operational stress for employees, especially if they are not accompanied by clear communication, support, and participative decision-making. This raises questions about the extent to which employees perceive such innovations as a source of autonomy or additional burden. On the other hand, administrative innovation, which implies changes in procedures, structure and internal communications, has an independent protective effect on professional burnout. This finding is consistent with the demand-resource model [106,107], according to which these aspects can act as organizational resources that increase predictability, role clarity, and sense of control. Also, the findings coincide with the conclusions of Damanpour & Aravind [108], who emphasize the importance of administrative innovations in strengthening organizational stability and employee support. This directly contributes to the reduction in burnout, which explains why exactly this dimension had an independent protective effect.

This finding contributes to the literature by drawing a clear distinction between innovation that influences external competitiveness, namely product and process innovation, and those that reshape the internal organizational structure, specifically administrative innovation. The results of this study show that understanding psychological outcomes requires distinguishing what exactly is changing in the organization and how these changes are experienced in everyday work [109,110]. This opens space for more precise theoretical models that link innovation to employee well-being.

5.2. Discussion of Moderator Hypotheses (H5–H7)

The significant interaction terms in the final model provide direct confirmation of hypotheses H5, H6 and H7, emphasizing that the effects of innovation depend on the interpersonal and organizational context.

Hypothesis H5, which reads “The effect of product and service innovations on the level of professional burnout is moderated by leadership characteristics (e.g., transformational and punitive behavior)”, is confirmed through findings that show that transformational and incentive leadership (people orientation, intellectual stimulation) enhance the positive effect of innovation, while punitive leader behavior reduces this effect. This means that leaders who show concern for the well-being of employees, involve them in innovative processes, and stimulate their intellectual potential transform the potential risks of innovation into positive outcomes. In this case, employees do not perceive change as an imposed pressure but as a development opportunity, which reduces their resistance and sense of uncertainty. On the other hand, when leaders use punitive measures, the psychological well-being of employees collapses, leading to weak effects of innovation, increased stress, and burnout. This is consistent with earlier theories emphasizing the importance of leadership styles in shaping employees’ responses to change [111,112,113,114].

Hypothesis H6, which reads, “The effect of process innovations on professional burnout is moderated by dimensions of organizational culture (e.g., power distance, collectivism, intellectual stimulation)”, is confirmed by interactions with dimensions of organizational culture. Power distance increases the negative effect of innovations. In organizations with pronounced hierarchy, authority, and power distance between employees and top management, innovations can be perceived as imposed, which increases stress and pressure. Collectivism and intellectual stimulation alleviate burnout, which means that a supportive organizational culture treats learning, discussion and participation of all members of the innovation as an experience of cooperation, support and psychological safety. These findings confirm that organizational culture can act as a filter through which changes are perceived, i.e., as opportunities for growth or threats to the status quo, which is consistent with previous research [10,115,116,117].

Hypothesis H7, which reads, “The effect of administrative innovations on burnout is moderated by the quality of the leader-follower (LMX) relationship, including loyalty, respect, and affective attachment”, was strongly confirmed. The quality of the leader-follower relationship (LMX) has been shown to be a key moderator of the effect of administrative innovations. Interactions with loyalty (β = −1.271), respect and professional esteem indicate that innovations have a protective effect only in the context of trust, security and support from superiors. The result shows the importance of interpersonal relationships in organizations, i.e., the fact that innovation policies must be in line with the social relationships of leaders and employees. If this relationship is not of high quality, the effects of innovations on reducing stress and employee burnout can be neutralized. The obtained result is in accordance with the results of existing research [118,119,120], as well as findings that emphasize the importance of interpersonal relationships and organizational values for the psychological outcome of employees [121,122,123].

Incorporating factors such as power distance, leadership style, LMX relationships, and cultural norms suggests that the effects of innovation practices cannot be understood in isolation from the broader social system in which organizations operate. In Serbia, where hierarchical structures and expectations of loyalty to authority have historically been strong, the way innovation is perceived depends on whether it is introduced in a climate of trust or one of control. For this reason, these findings may also be relevant to other countries with similar institutional characteristics, such as other post-socialist contexts, which gives the study broader comparative value [124,125].

5.3. Answers to Research Questions (RQ1–RQ3)

RQ1 and RQ2: The results of the analysis of interactions that include the gender of employees and the gender of superiors allow us to answer these questions. Specifically, the effects of innovation are more pronounced among female employees (RQ1) and in cases where the leader is a woman (RQ2), which may reflect greater emotional sensitivity, participative behavior, and inclusiveness among female leaders. This result suggests that gender may be a significant moderating factor in the relationship between innovation and burnout. If women implement innovations more easily through a more careful and inclusive approach, the organization’s innovation policies should take into account gender dynamics, such as additional training for male leaders and promotion of inclusion. Also, this does not mean that male leaders are necessarily worse than female leaders, but that they should be empowered and educated. The result can serve as a basis for separating the effects of gender in future research into two dimensions, characteristics of followers and characteristics of leaders, with the exception of interpretations through stereotypes. Thus, these findings open up space for further research into gender-specific approaches to change management, which was also indicated by other authors [126,127,128,129].

RQ3: The findings also provide a clear answer to the question of the role of sector and ownership. The effects of innovation are stronger in government and manufacturing organizations (RQ3). In the public sector, where change is often met with inertia and resistance, successfully implemented innovations can create a significant impact and create a model for change. In manufacturing organizations, where efficiency, standardization and process discipline are prioritized, changes that reduce bureaucratic obstacles or facilitate coordination can have a significant impact on workflow and employee well-being. It is possible that under these conditions, even modest administrative changes have a transformative effect due to deviations from established bureaucracy and rigid structures. Therefore, when planning and implementing innovation practices, it must be considered to include the sector and the type of ownership of the organization, which aligns with the conclusions of previous studies [130,131,132,133].

This research confirms that innovation is not a homogeneous or universally positive construct. Its effects on professional burnout depend on the implementation context, leadership practices, organizational culture, and interpersonal relationships. The finding that administrative innovations have a protective effect only in the presence of quality leadership and support is particularly important in a practical sense, which means that innovations without psychological safety can produce the opposite effect. The results suggest that organizations should develop integrated approaches to innovation, which include not only technical or procedural changes, but also cultural and leadership components. Also, directions are opened for future research that would additionally examine mediating mechanisms, such as the perception of fairness, psychological safety and perceived autonomy of employees.

5.4. Discussion of Gender and Sector Differences

The analysis of variance showed that gender differences in the perception of innovation and burnout do exist, but they are limited in scope and significance. On average, women reported slightly higher levels of burnout, whereas men more frequently rated process and product innovation as higher. However, these differences were statistically significant only within certain sectors (F = 3.12, p < 0.05) and accounted for only a small portion of the overall variance.

When the results are examined by sector, employees in manufacturing and IT companies exhibit higher average scores on the innovation dimensions, whereas employees in service sectors report somewhat higher burnout levels. These patterns suggest that the industry context and the nature of the job play a greater role in explaining the variations than the gender of the participants. The differences identified in this study should therefore not be interpreted as inherent gender disparities, but rather as reflections of distinct organizational roles and expectations. This interpretation enables a more balanced and empirically grounded understanding of the relationship between gender, sector, and innovative organizational practices.

5.5. Practical Implications for Management and HR Practices

Practical implications emerge directly from the empirical findings, particularly from the identified protective role of administrative innovation under conditions of supportive leadership and low levels of organizational power distance. Recommendations refer to the design of organizational culture, leadership styles, HR policies and systematic monitoring of stress indicators.

The results indicate that innovation must be supported by an appropriate organizational culture. Specifically, administrative innovations can significantly reduce burnout, but only when implemented within a climate characterized by trust, dialogue, and participation, rather than one based on control and punishment. Before implementing major changes, it is recommended to assess the organizational climate and potential resistance to change, reduce punitive and strict practices that increase stress, as well as increase transparency and involve employees in decision-making.

Leaders who foster intellectual stimulation, loyalty, and mutual respect among employees can significantly alleviate the stress associated with innovation. These elements of transformational leadership increase employee resilience and facilitate acceptance of change. Management should develop transformational leadership skills through coaching and training, provide support to employees during the change process, and foster quality LMX relationships based on trust. Therefore, transformational leadership and the quality of LMX relationships should be treated as protective mechanisms. Also, the HR sector should develop trainings that include emotional intelligence and effective communication, building support in teams, and managing changes with the active involvement of employees.

Research has shown that innovation management requires gender and sector sensitivity. Women, both as employees and as leaders, more often respond positively to administrative innovations. Also, the effects of innovation are more pronounced in the government and production sectors, which can be linked to greater institutional rigidity and the need for structural changes. Practical recommendations include developing gender-sensitive communication strategies when implementing innovations, focusing on innovations that can alleviate bureaucratic pressure in the public sector, and using administrative innovations in production organizations to relieve routine procedures.

Burnout should not be seen only as an individual problem, but as a strategic signal of organizational dysfunction. Introducing systematic monitoring of burnout levels can be significant for adapting innovation and leadership policies. Management should analyze employee burnout data as part of a broader organizational health system, combining quantitative and qualitative methods to assess employees’ psychological well-being.

By implementing these recommendations, organizations can reduce the level of employee burnout, and create a sustainable and psychologically safe environment that encourages innovation, engagement and resilience of all members.

6. Conclusions

This research enhances our understanding of the psychological effects of organizational innovation, with a particular focus on middle managers in transition economies. The findings indicate that innovations, particularly administrative innovations, are associated with lower levels of professional burnout, while the effects of other types of innovation appear to depend more strongly on the surrounding organizational and interpersonal context. Administrative innovations, which involve changes in procedures, communication, and management structures, consistently showed a negative association with burnout indicators. This result aligns with the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) perspective, suggesting that structural clarity, predictability, and procedural fairness can act as organizational resources that reduce the impact of high job demands. In contrast, product and process innovations did not demonstrate independent relationships with burnout, implying that their psychological influence may operate indirectly, through mediating mechanisms such as perceived control, equity, and support availability.

A particularly relevant contribution of this research concerns the interaction effects between innovation and contextual factors such as leadership style, organizational culture, and the quality of leader–member relationships. The data suggest that the beneficial associations of innovation are stronger under transformational and ethically supportive leadership, high intellectual stimulation, and mutual respect, whereas these effects are weakened under punitive or authoritarian conditions. These observations highlight the importance of a contextualized approach. Innovation outcomes emerge within organizational systems in which norms, expectations, and interpersonal dynamics shape their meaning and psychological impact.

Gender and sector-related patterns were also observed. Female managers and employees showed a greater openness to change, and innovation appeared more favorably associated with well-being in public and production sectors. These findings call for further exploration of structural and cultural moderators, such as institutional rigidity or gendered expectations, that shape how organizational change is experienced.

From a theoretical standpoint, the results emphasize the importance of balancing organizational demands and resources to sustain managerial well-being. Innovation should, therefore, be understood as an organizational condition whose psychological consequences depend on the quality of leadership, communication, and support.

From a broader perspective, these insights contribute to discussions of social sustainability by highlighting that innovation aligned with transparent and participative administrative practices can strengthen organizational resilience and employee well-being. While causal conclusions cannot be drawn due to the cross-sectional design, the consistent associations observed for administrative innovation offer a valuable direction for organizational policies aiming to foster healthier and more sustainable work environments.

Despite the robustness of the results, this study has certain methodological limitations. One limitation of the study is its reliance on only the work-related subscale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Although this approach ensures conceptual consistency with the organizational focus of the research, it may restrict the generalizability of the findings to the broader construct of burnout, which also includes personal and client-related exhaustion. Future studies could benefit from incorporating all three CBI dimensions to capture a more comprehensive picture of occupational burnout and its antecedents in different organizational contexts. Additionally, the geographically and temporally bounded sample, cross-sectional design, and reliance on self-reported data limit generalizability and prevent causal interpretation. Although this study focuses on a transition economy, it does not include comparisons with developed economies, and it therefore remains unclear whether the observed associations are unique to transition contexts or reflect broader organizational patterns. Furthermore, the conclusions refer specifically to organizational-level well-being and social sustainability, rather than to macro-level societal sustainability outcomes. Future research should include longitudinal and mixed-method approaches, incorporating multiple data sources and cross-sectoral comparisons. Nonetheless, these findings provide a solid foundation for continued exploration of how innovation structures interact with leadership and cultural factors to shape managerial well-being in transition economies.