Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Can the ‘Dark Side’ of Employee Innovative Behavior be Mitigated by Supervisor Interaction? Analyzing the Moderated Mediation of Envy and Ostracism through Supervisor Interaction.” The topic is certainly important, and the authors have collected a useful multi-wave dataset from South Korean employees. I particularly appreciate their effort to test an interactionist perspective that positions leadership as a potential buffer against the adverse social consequences of innovation. Nevertheless, after a careful reading I must recommend that the manuscript be rejected in its current form for the reasons outlined below.

1. Aside from the moderating variable (supervisor interaction), the manuscript’s core variables—innovative behavior, coworker envy, and ostracism—have already been examined in earlier studies (e.g., Mao, He, & Yang, 2021). The authors themselves note in the Introduction that “Breidenthal et al. (2020) and Mao et al. (2021) empirically showed that innovative employees trigger envy from colleagues and experience ostracism.” Consequently, this work appears largely repetitive and offers limited theoretical value.

Reference: Mao, Y., He, J., & Yang, D. (2021). The dark sides of engaging in creative processes: Coworker envy, workplace ostracism, and incivility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(4), 1261-1281.

2. The Introduction opens the second paragraph with the question, “But do innovative behaviors lead to negative outcomes in all contexts?” This rhetorical move is unnecessary: the performance value of employee innovation is widely recognized, and prior research already documents both positive and negative consequences. The sentence appears to serve only as a segue to the moderator, weakening the overall framing. A sharper introduction would instead articulate precisely why supervisor interaction should alter the envy-ostracism pathway and what new theoretical insight this affords beyond existing studies.

3. Hypothesis 1 posits that innovative behavior negatively predicts ostracism, yet the authors’ own reasoning suggests this effect is contingent on contextual factors such as collectivistic culture and coworkers’ learning orientation. Presenting an unconditional main-effect hypothesis is therefore conceptually inconsistent. Similar logical gaps appear in the justifications for Hypotheses 2 and 3.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and detailed review of our manuscript entitled “Can the ‘Dark Side’ of Employee Innovative Behavior be Mitigated by Supervisor Interaction? Analyzing the Moderated Mediation of Envy and Ostracism through Supervisor Interaction.” Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have greatly contributed to improving the theoretical rigor and empirical clarity of our work.

In response to your valuable feedback, we have carefully revised the manuscript to address each point you raised. Specifically, we have sharpened our theoretical positioning with respect to supervisor interaction as a boundary condition, clarified the cultural contextualization, and refined our hypotheses to reflect the conditional nature of the examined effects. We also enhanced the empirical analyses and expanded the discussions on limitations and future research.

We have endeavored to comprehensively respond to your concerns while maintaining the core contributions of our study. We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and compel a favorable reconsideration of our manuscript.

Please find the detailed point-by-point response attached. We look forward to your further constructive feedback.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall logic that the “dark side” of innovative behavior—its tendency to trigger envy and lead to workplace ostracism—diminishes when supervisor interaction is frequent is interesting and promising. However, to enhance the qualitative rigor of this study, I suggest the following points:

 

1. Literature Review on Innovation and Ostracism
   The connection between innovative behavior and workplace ostracism requires a more thorough review of the existing literature. It remains unclear whether the link between innovation and ostracism is a robust and generalizable finding. The current argument would be strengthened by demonstrating that prior studies consistently support (or at least substantially report) this pathway.
2. The Role of Envy as a Mediator
   The logic of envy as a mediating mechanism needs further elaboration. For the mediation to be meaningful, the outcome (ostracism) should occur more convincingly through the emotional process of envy than through direct effects. Yet prior studies often report mixed or insufficient evidence on the direct link between innovation and ostracism. Thus, it would be useful to argue why envy is the “black box” mechanism that clarifies this relationship, or to provide a stronger theoretical rationale for why envy specifically matters as a mediator. Simply attributing the results to the collectivistic and relational culture of Korea, where envy is assumed to be lower, appears insufficient.
3. Cultural Contextualization
   The manuscript emphasizes that in collectivistic, relationship-oriented contexts like Korea, innovation is more likely to be perceived negatively, leading to envy and ostracism. This cultural contextualization should be highlighted and developed further, making it clearer how the Korean context produces distinctive effects compared to Western settings.
4. Measurement Concerns: Directionality of Envy
   There is a potential misalignment between the theoretical model and the measurement. The hypotheses concern whether others envy me when I am innovative, but the survey items ask whether I envy certain colleagues. This discrepancy raises validity concerns, as the measure does not directly capture the intended construct of “perceived envy from others toward me.” Without such alignment, it is difficult to conclude that innovative behavior reduces or increases envy directed at the focal employee.
5. Supervisor Interaction as a Situational Factor
   Supervisor interaction is positioned as a moderator, but the construct appears underspecified. Interaction should not only capture frequency but also encompass qualitative aspects such as value signaling, meaning-making, and legitimization of innovative behavior. A richer conceptualization would strengthen the contribution by clarifying how supervisory behavior shapes coworkers’ interpretations of innovation.

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript titled “Can the ‘Dark Side’ of Employee Innovative Behavior be Mitigated by Supervisor Interaction? Analyzing the Moderated Mediation of Envy and Ostracism through Supervisor Interaction.”

Your insightful comments have provided critical guidance that helped us refine both the theoretical and empirical aspects of the study. We thoroughly addressed your points regarding the literature review expansion, the mediating role of envy, cultural contextualization, measurement concerns, and supervisor interaction conceptualization.

Please find our detailed point-by-point responses attached, along with the revised manuscript. We hope that the revisions sufficiently clarify our contributions and meet the standards expected for publication.

Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While this paper offers valuable theoretical and practical insights by focusing on the negative social consequences of employee innovative behavior and the moderating role of supervisor interaction, it suffers from several notable shortcomings:

 

1.Although the paper draws upon multiple theories—including social comparison theory, LMX theory, and social cognitive theory—it fails to weave them into a deeply integrated and coherent causal narrative. The application of these theories remains superficial, as the paper does not fully leverage their core tenets to elucidate the key mechanisms. For instance, in its use of social comparison theory, the analysis merely reiterates the commonplace assertion that upward comparison triggers envy. It entirely overlooks the theory's more profound implications, such as the motivation behind the comparison (e.g., for learning versus for competition) or its contextual dependency (i.e., which situations lead comparison to be perceived as a threat rather than an inspiration)—precisely the questions its moderation model should have explored. Similarly, the essence of LMX theory lies in the quality of the relationship, encompassing trust, respect, and mutual obligation, not the mere quantity of interaction, which is what the paper's measure of interaction frequency actually captures.

 

2.The measurement of the moderating variable, "supervisor interaction," is fundamentally flawed. The authors state their single-item measure is adapted from Chun et al. (2009). However, a review of the source material reveals that the original item, measuring "hours of interaction," was used solely as a preliminary "leader-follower distance check" to justify their sample grouping. It was never employed as a core theoretical construct in any of their primary hypothesis tests, nor was any evidence of its construct validity provided. In essence, the paper has erroneously elevated an auxiliary tool—used for background classification in the original study—to the status of a core moderating variable, tasking it with carrying the weight of rich theoretical concepts like "meaning-making" and "value clarification."

 

3.The sample data, having been collected from 20 distinct Korean companies, are inherently nested at the organizational level. Significant variations in corporate culture, policies, and leadership styles across these firms are highly probable. Such organizational-level variables could plausibly confound all the core relationships examined in the study. The potential for such confounding effects due to the nested data structure should have been explicitly acknowledged and discussed as a key limitation of the research.

 

4.The paper's core argument posits that supervisor interaction serves to mitigate the negative social consequences of innovative behavior. This narrative, however, rests on the critical premise that the "dark side" pathway is indeed significant under conditions of low supervisor interaction. The empirical results presented in Table 6 contradict this premise, as the effect for this pathway is non-significant under the low-interaction condition (CI: [-.068, .089]). This finding indicates that, within the current sample, the foundational "dark side" path lacks empirical support. Consequently, a more accurate interpretation aligned with the data would suggest that the study's core mechanism is not the mitigation of a pre-existing negative effect, but rather the activation of a potential positive one through high-quality interaction.

 

5. The paper's recommendation for managers to intervene to buffer the negative fallout of innovation is arguably simplistic, as it overlooks a more fundamental systemic issue: the extent to which organizations and leaders implicitly benefit from such internally generated competition and jealousy. In a performance culture predicated on "internal horse-racing," interpersonal tension and envy among employees might be tacitly permitted or even encouraged to spur greater output. Therefore, a simple appeal for individual managers to "show goodwill" is likely to be both naive and ineffectual. A more insightful discussion would address the underlying organizational and systemic roots of these dynamics and contemplate governance mechanisms that operate beyond the individual manager. For example, it could explore how compensation systems and promotion criteria might be fundamentally redesigned to cultivate a culture that values both collaboration and innovation, rather than depending solely on the interpersonal skills of a given supervisor.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and thorough review of our manuscript entitled “Can the ‘Dark Side’ of Employee Innovative Behavior be Mitigated by Supervisor Interaction? Analyzing the Moderated Mediation of Envy and Ostracism through Supervisor Interaction.”

We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, especially regarding the theoretical integration, measurement issues, and methodological considerations. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the clarity, rigor, and depth of our revised manuscript.

We have carefully considered each of your points and incorporated substantive revisions as detailed in our attached responses and revised document. We hope the changes address your concerns and improve the manuscript’s overall quality.

Thank you for your valuable time and expertise.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript entitled “Can the ‘Dark Side’ of Employee Innovative Behavior be Mitigated by Supervisor Interaction? Analyzing the Moderated Mediation of Envy and Ostracism through Supervisor Interaction.” I appreciate the authors’ efforts to substantially revise the manuscript. However, after carefully reading the new version, I regret that my overall evaluation remains unchanged, and I must once more recommend rejection.

The main reason is that the manuscript continues to present a replicative design with limited theoretical novelty. As the authors themselves note, Breidenthal et al. (2020) and Mao et al. (2021) have already demonstrated that coworkers’ envy mediates the link between employee creativity and ostracism, thereby establishing the “dark side” mechanism. The present study differs in terminology but not in substance.

First, the focal predictor—innovative behavior—is conceptually very close to creativity. Creativity is typically defined as the generation of novel and useful ideas, whereas innovative behavior refers to the implementation and promotion of such ideas in the workplace. In both cases, the construct captures an employee’s relative standing compared with peers. Indeed, Breidenthal et al.’s (2020) “relative creativity” explicitly denotes an employee’s creativity compared to coworkers, and the current study’s operationalization of innovative behavior similarly relies on coworkers’ perceptions in social comparison processes. Thus, despite the shift in terminology, the theoretical meaning is essentially the same.

Second, the moderator—supervisor interaction—is also highly similar to Breidenthal et al.’s relative leader–member exchange (LMX). Although the current study measures supervisor interaction via a single item adapted from Chun et al. (2009)—namely, the frequency of direct interaction hours with the supervisor—this operationalization still captures differential access to leader attention and relational contact. In Breidenthal et al. (2020), relative LMX reflects an employee’s exchange quality with the leader compared to peers, which in practice is shaped by the amount of leader time, energy, and attention a focal employee receives. In both cases, the key mechanism is that variation in leader engagement alters how coworkers interpret and respond to a focal employee’s contributions. Therefore, the present study’s supervisor interaction measure, though framed differently, functions in a very similar manner to relative LMX.

Finally, both studies adopt social comparison theory as their explanatory lens, framing coworkers’ envy as the mechanism linking individual creativity/innovation to ostracism. Given these overlapping constructs, mechanisms, and theoretical foundations, the current manuscript does not extend beyond prior work in a meaningful way. At best, it constitutes a conceptual replication, but one that does not yield new theoretical insights.

While I commend the authors for their methodological rigor and multi-wave design, methodological effort alone cannot substitute for theoretical contribution. To warrant publication, the study would need to move the literature forward by uncovering novel mechanisms, boundary conditions, or theoretical perspectives. In its present form, however, it largely reiterates what has already been shown.

For these reasons, I must conclude that the manuscript does not meet the standards for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and constructive feedback from the previous review.

Your insights have been extremely helpful in improving the clarity, theoretical rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript

Thank you once again for your valuable guidance and support throughout the review process.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the revised manuscript demonstrates clear improvements in response to my earlier comments. The authors have effectively addressed the concerns I raised, which has enhanced the clarity of the theoretical framework, strengthened the methodological rigor, and improved the coherence of the discussion. The revisions substantially increase the manuscript’s contribution and readability, and I am satisfied that the key issues highlighted in the prior review round have been adequately resolved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and constructive feedback from the previous review.

We have carefully completed the final revisions and also conducted a professional English proofreading process to further improve the clarity and readability of the paper.

Thank you once again for your valuable comments and kind support throughout the review process.

We truly appreciate your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your diligent revisions. The manuscript is substantially improved, particularly in its reframed narrative and deepened practical implications. Based on this progress, the recommendation for this round is Accept after Minor Revisions.

The core of this final revision is to ensure the manuscript's claims are precisely calibrated to its fundamental methodological limitations. While the authors now candidly acknowledge the measurement issue, this does not eliminate its constraint on the study's conclusions.

The manuscript's central dilemma is that its theoretical story revolves around interaction quality (e.g., sensegiving), while its empirical evidence is based only on interaction quantity (frequency). Although the authors now attempt to theorize frequency as a "behavioral proxy" for high-quality interaction, this largely serves as a post-hoc justification. The justification for frequency as a proxy remains a point of concern, as high-frequency interaction could plausibly be of a low-quality, micromanaging nature.

To resolve this dilemma, two key adjustments are recommended:

1.Refine Terminology: In the Abstract and Introduction, it would be beneficial to qualify the broad term "Supervisor Interaction" upon its first appearance as the "frequency of supervisor interaction." This would more accurately define the study's empirical scope from the outset.

2.Down-tone Contribution Claims: The theoretical contributions in the Discussion section would be strengthened by using more cautious and conditional language (e.g., "suggests that," "may indicate"). It is advised that interpretations remain strictly tied to the actual finding related to "interaction frequency."

Finally, the current discussion of the measurement issue in the Limitations section is excellent. Its retention in the final manuscript is essential, as this transparency is what allows the paper to make a credible contribution despite its constraints.

Upon completion of these adjustments for precision and prudence, the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have carefully completed all the revisions as instructed and further improved the manuscript through professional English proofreading.

We sincerely appreciate your time, effort, and valuable feedback throughout the review process.

Thank you very much for you kind support.

 

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf