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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is timely and the sample is sizeable (n = 406). The core empirical takeaway—that administrative innovation is associated with lower burnout—has practical value. However, the manuscript requires substantial methodological and reporting improvements before it can support strong inferences. 

1) Measurement and validity

• Report internal consistency (α/CR) and construct validity (CFA with AVE and discriminant validity) for all scales; include item lists in an appendix. The innovation construct uses 8 items across three dimensions, which is unusually sparse for stable latent measurement.

• Justify using only the work-related CBI subscale and discuss implications. Establish measurement invariance for subgroup analyses (e.g., by gender/sector).

2) Design and common-method variance

• Clarify sampling frame, recruitment channels, response rate, and any weighting/stratification. 

• Assess and, if possible, mitigate common method variance (e.g., Harman’s single-factor test and/or a marker variable), given the mono-source, self-report, cross-sectional design. 

3) Model parsimony and multiple testing

• Model 3 introduces an extensive set of interactions (79 predictors) with R² = .843; this is implausibly high for survey data and strongly suggests overfitting. Pre-specify theoretically motivated interactions, control false discovery (e.g., Benjamini–Hochberg), and consider SEM with latent interactions or penalized regression (ridge/LASSO). Report adjusted R², but also justify stability (e.g., cross-validation).

4) Collinearity and suppressor effects

• The innovation dimensions correlate very highly (r = .765–.882). This redundancy likely drives instability (e.g., product/process becoming non-significant). Consider a second-order factor/parcel or composite indices, and re-estimate. Provide full VIFs for all final models.

5) Interpreting counter-intuitive findings

• The positive coefficient for transformational leader behavior on burnout in the final model (β = .259, p = .002) contradicts established evidence. Probe suppressor patterns (e.g., overlap with “encouraging leadership”), inspect bivariate associations, and present alternative specifications (drop collinear predictors; use subdimensions).

6) Reporting and transparency

• Include 95% CIs, standardized effects, robust SEs, and full regression tables. Show actual diagnostics (QQ-plot; residuals vs. fitted) referenced in the text. Specify coding, centering, and missing-data handling.

• Normalize terminology (avoid mixed labels “Admin1/2/3”; use consistent names). Improve language and table formatting. 

7) Theoretical alignment and scope of conclusions

• Tighten the JD-R framing (resources vs. demands) and integrate recent work on LMX/ethical leadership and burnout.

• Temper claims about “social sustainability” and policy implications: with a cross-sectional design, causal language should be avoided; center conclusions on the robust result (administrative innovation).

Promising paper with a relevant core result, but it needs major improvements to measurement validation, model parsimony, and result reporting to ensure coherence between theory, evidence, and claims.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents promising work with clear potential for publication, despite several areas that require improvement. This review is intended to support the authors in strengthening their manuscript, and further revisions are encouraged to enhance its academic contribution.

1. The research question in the Introduction section is not clearly articulated. The discussion of the relationship between job burnout and innovation lacks a clearly defined research gap and does not sufficiently explain the significance of the study. While the inclusion of social sustainability as a conceptual dimension is both relevant and timely, it requires a clearer definition and stronger integration with the core constructs of innovation and managerial burnout. The contextual focus on Serbia offers potential value; however, the manuscript should elaborate more fully on the country’s institutional, cultural, and economic characteristics to clarify how national conditions and organizational norms shape the relationships under investigation.
2. Although the literature review references many relevant studies, it remains largely descriptive and lacks conceptual synthesis. This section should present a more coherent theoretical rationale, clearly articulate the relationships among the primary, mediating, and moderating variables, and highlight the research gap with greater precision. Furthermore, the study should be positioned more explicitly within an appropriate theoretical framework to strengthen its scholarly contribution.
3. The Materials and Methods section should explain the rationale for selecting the primary and moderating variables and provide evidence of the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments. The definitions of key variables are insufficiently clear; including a table of operational definitions would enhance conceptual clarity. The description of the questionnaire survey is too brief and should be expanded to include details on the sampling strategy, participant recruitment procedures, and the administration process. Although the statistical methods are listed, the manuscript does not explain the rationale for selecting each analytical technique. These choices should be justified to demonstrate their alignment with the study’s research objectives.
4. The Results section is well-organized and detailed; however, it is overly descriptive and lacks interpretive depth. While the statistical findings are reported comprehensively, the discussion focuses too heavily on numerical outputs without adequately addressing their conceptual implications. The authors should interpret the magnitude and meaning of the observed effects rather than relying primarily on statistical significance. The very high R² value in the hierarchical regression model raises concerns about potential overfitting or multicollinearity, which should be examined and discussed. Additionally, the tables are dense and would benefit from clearer visual summaries and concise interpretive commentary following each major result to enhance clarity, coherence, and theoretical alignment.
5. The Discussion section provides a useful summary of the findings but remains largely descriptive and lacks deeper analytical engagement. The authors should more clearly explain how the results relate to existing theories and prior research, emphasizing the novel contributions of the study. The subsection on gender and sector differences is promising but requires a more balanced and evidence-based interpretation. The practical implications are relevant but should be more directly linked to the empirical findings and to the earlier discussion of social sustainability. Finally, incorporating Serbia’s social systems and cultural context into the interpretation of results would enhance the study’s contextual relevance and its potential applicability to other national settings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is necessary to more clearly state the purpose of the study, which should correspond to the title of the article and the empirical research carried out by the author, as well as to eliminate the different-sounding purposes presented in the text:

1.1.  Currently, two purposes are stated in the introduction: „to investigate the relationship between innovation and employee burnout at the middle management level“ (lines 61-62) и „to contribute to the understanding of the factors that shape the contemporary work environment and provide guidelines for sustainable innovation management“ (lines 71-73). 

1.2.  Lines 296-303 state: „the primary objective of the research is to examine the relationship between different dimensions of organizational innovation and the level of professional burnout of middle managers positions” and “…identifying that dimension of innovation that has the strongest protective or negative effect on burnout, as well as on understanding organizational factors that can contribute to the prevention of emotional exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional performance among employees in the modern work environment. Additionally, the goal of the research is to formulate guidelines and recommendations intended for middle management in countries in transition.” 

2. The title of the article creates an expectation that it will investigate the implications of organizational innovation and managerial burnout on well-being and social sustainability in a transition economy. It is necessary to clarify whether the studied influences are specific to transition economies or are also similar in developed economies. In addition, it is required to argue more clearly how the conclusions of the empirical study are interpreted - at the level of a country's economy or at the organizational level (well-being and social sustainability in a country's economy or well-being and social sustainability of employees in a given country).

3. There is a lack of clarity and unity in the terminology used in the title of the article, in §2. Theoretical background and in §3.3. Research objectives and hypothesis. My main recommendation is that the authors carefully monitor and unify the terms used in the title of the manuscript (organizational innovation and managerial burnout; wellbeing and social sustainability) and all the others - in the purpose of the study (lines 61-62, 71-73), in the introduction and theoretical background (lines 29-261) and in formulating the hypotheses (lines 296-349). I recommend that the authors trace the logical connections in a term tree to eliminate redundant terms. The key concepts that are currently not sufficiently clarified (organizational innovation; administrative innovation; product, service and process innovation; well-being and social sustainability; workforce stability and employee stability) should be presented in more depth in the theoretical overview, including clarification of the connections between them. I draw attention to the variety of terms mentioned in the text as follows:

3.1.  Innovation-related: innovation (83-87, 97), innovativeness (92, 159), innovative processes (93), administrative, product and process innovations (11-12, 316-323), innovations in products, processes, business models and organizational structures (38-39), open innovations (82), organizational innovation (headline, lines 7, 297, 310, 333, 354), organizational innovativeness (313), sustainable and competitive innovations (99-100), innovative business models (106-107), employee innovativeness (154). The nature of organizational innovation and a classification of types of innovation must be clarified, clearly showing which ones are covered in the study.

3.2.  Burnout-related: managerial burnout (headline, lines 7), professional burnout (lines 44, 115-117, 127, 297), innovation fatigue (50), emotional exhaustion (301), cynicism (301). 

3.3.  Wellbeing and social sustainability-related: psychological well-being (line 20), psychological health (45), mental health (112), social sustainability (60), workforce stability (60), work efficiency (46, 112), full potential of the organization (82), well-being and work quality (141), well-being and productivity of employees (113-134), professional performance among employee (301-302).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revision addresses the main conceptual and methodological issues raised in the first round. Psychometric properties of the scales are now clearly reported, the use of the work-related CBI subscale is justified and acknowledged as a limitation, and the regression models are more transparent (cross-validation, FDR correction, full tables and diagnostics). The JD–R framing and the focus on administrative innovation are clearer, and the conclusions are now more cautious.
A remaining minor issue is the internal inconsistency in the description of Harman’s single-factor test and the percentage of variance explained. Please correct this and consider a light condensation of the theoretical background to improve succinctness.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and has improved compared with the previous version. However, there are still some long and dense sentences and a few minor typos. A light language edit would further improve clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer appreciated the authors' careful revisions, which have led to a significant improvement in the manuscript. As a final recommendation, please consider reporting the results of multicollinearity diagnostics, particularly the variance inflation factor (VIF) or tolerance value, in a suitable section such as the methodology or results. Including this information would enhance the transparency and rigor of the regression analysis, in line with standard expectations for complex models.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf