How Employee Career Sustainability Affects Innovative Work Behavior under Digitalization

Dear Reviewer1,

We are very grateful to you for giving us this valuable R & R opportunity. We also would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for giving us constructive feedback. As you can see, we have followed the comments raised by you and four reviewers to largely revise our research-The modified content is highlighted with yellow colored text in our manuscript. While the point-to-point answers to your specific comments are shown below in BLUE. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and look forward to a favorable decision.

Many thanks.

2.General Comment:

First of all, congratulations to the authors for their work on this manuscript. The work is of interest to the scientific community and fits with the objectives of this journal. But before it is published, the authors need to improve some aspects:

Response: Thank you for acknowledging that our manuscript is interesting and timely. We also thank you for offering constructive feedback aimed at helping us strengthen our manuscript. We feel that we have adequately addressed all the concerns expressed and hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations. Our point-by-point response is shown in blue text.

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

Include an appendix with the questions used, as well as the design of the data collection instrument in more detail than is currently done.

Response: Thank you for this constructive comment. As you can see on page 15-16, we have added the Table A1 with the questions used and we have explained the data collection instrument in more detail as follows (see on page 7):

“3.2. Measures

In this study, we used four dimensions of CS (CN, CF, CI, and CRS) as independent variables, IWB as the dependent variable, and UR and HC as the moderators. We utilized validated instruments to measure the significant variables and implemented a back-translation procedure to ensure that the Chinese respondents fully understood the original English questions. The participants were asked to utilize a six-point Likert-type scale for their responses, ranging from 1=" strongly disagree" to 6= "strongly agree". The scale’s construct reliability was reported to be higher than 0.8 for all of the constructs. The variables’ measurement is detailed below. Further information regarding the details of the scales can be found in Appendix A.

3.2.1. The Independent Variables

The independent variables were measured with the scale developed by Chin et al., (2021) comprised a total of 12 items. CN, CF, CI, and CRS were measured using 3 items each. The sample items for CN were “My career provides me opportunities to update my skills” and “My career gives me the chance to reassess my capabilities”; the sample items for CF were “My career gives me a lot of flexibility”, and “My career allows me to seek new opportunities”; the sample items for CI were “My career builds my ability to absorb information and knowledge “and “My career enables me to integrate information obtained from different sources”; and the sample items for CRS were “My career makes me feel like I have a bright future” and “My career enables me to have a good standard of living”.

3.2.2. The Dependent Variable

We adopted the scale developed by Janssen (2000) to measure IWB, including 3 dimensions [33]: (1) idea generation, (2) idea promotion, and (3) idea realization. This scale comprises 9 items, with each construct measured using 3 items. The sample items included the following: “I will create new ideas for difficult issues in the workplace”, “I will mobilize support for innovative ideas in the work”, and “I will Introduce innovative ideas into the work environment in a systematic way”.

3.2.3. The Moderators

The scale developed by Kim et al. (2009), including 4 items, was adopted to measure UR [35]. The sample items include “I will not comply with the change to the new requirement of working with the information systems”, “I will not cooperate with the change to the new arrangement of working with the information systems”, and “I op-pose the change to the new way of working with the information systems”.

We employed the scale developed by Subramaniam et al. (2005), including 5 items, to measure HC [37]. The sample items include “I am the expert in the particular jobs and functions”,” I will develop new ideas and knowledge”, and “I am creative and bright in my professional field”.

3.2.4. The Control Variables

Previous research has suggested that age, gender, education, and firm size may correlate with our main constructs [4]; thus, we adopted these as control variables.”

2.The statistical analysis performed and its interpretation is very simple. We recommend a structural equation analysis.

Response: We very much appreciate your insightful suggestions. Based on these suggestions, we have completely revised the whole section and performed both structural equation and regression analyses. In particular, we have restructured the analysis of data and made comprehensive interpretation for the empirical results. Please find the details of the revision on page 8-18.

3. The actual wording of the conclusions is too descriptive without connection to previous literature; it does not indicate any reference to which it is connected.

Response: Thank you for these excellent suggestions. we have revised the conclusions and expand it into three sections to address the follows (see page 13-15):

“5. Discussion

The empirical results provided support for all eight proposed hypotheses. More specifically, using data from high-tech enterprises in China, our study reveals that four CS dimensions (i.e., CN, CF, CI, and CRS) indeed exert different influences on IWB. As expected, we identified the significance of the positive correlations between CN-IWB, CF-IWB, and CI-IWB. Drawing upon the existing literature, relevant studies posited that CS functions as a key psychological resource, stimulating individuals' inclination towards innovation in response to the changes caused by digitalization [42]. These results thereby demonstrated the positive impact of CS on the IWB, which is in line with previous findings [43] [44]. In contrast, an inverted U-shaped association between CRS and IWB has been identified. Previous research posited that the perceived CRS represent the level of job security and stability [45]. Thus, when employees perceive a higher level of CRS, they tend to view their career prospects more positively and are inclined to utilize the available resources to drive innovation. However, as the accumulation of career resources reaches a certain threshold, employees may experience a reduction in work-related stress. Consequently, this reduction in stress may lead employees to adopt more conservative approaches, focusing on resource maintenance rather than pursuing innovative actions. Unlike previous research, which mainly documented direct and linear relationships [45][46], we tested for and found curvilinear effects. This finding advances our theoretical understanding of how the different dimensions of CS impact IWB. In terms of the moderating effects, HC and UR both significantly moderated the above-mentioned CS-IWB associations, with the former demonstrating a positive effect and the latter showing a negative effect. Consistent with McDonald et al. (2018) [8], this finding highlights the significant effect of contextual factors on the CS-IWB relationship.

5.1. Theoretical Contribution

Firstly, based on the COR theory, and by constructing a systematic framework in different dimensions, this study takes the perspective of multidimensional interaction between the individuals, the organizations, and the environment and delves into the aftereffect mechanisms of CS, thereby enriching and expanding relevant research in the field of CS. Secondly, this study provides valuable empirical evidence regarding the interplay between CS and IWB, as well as the moderating roles of both UR and HC in this relationship. Additionally, scholars have called for more empirical studies on the effects of individual dimensions of CS on career-related outcomes. Our study ad-dresses this need. Thirdly, based on the dual path of the JD-R model, this study takes UR as a job demand and HC as a job resource to explore their moderating effects on the CS-IWB mechanism. This helps to further clarify the mechanism by which employees’ perceived resource affects employees’ IWB in complex ecosystems under digitalization and enriches relevant research from the interdisciplinary perspective of career theory and knowledge management.

5.2. Implications for Practice

Our study provides two valuable insights and practical implications for managers and practitioners. Firstly, confirming the significant correlation between CS and IWB helps inspire managers to promote employee innovation by adjusting human resource allocation mechanisms. In other words, managers can regard CS as a pivotal factor in human resource practices. By maintaining the employees' perception of CS at an ap-propriate level, they can effectively stimulate the generation of IWB among employees. Additionally, policymakers should prioritize the promotion of career development programs (e.g., skills training, career counseling, and mentorship opportunities) aimed at enhancing CN, CF, and CI. Conversely, we recommend that policymakers meticulously evaluate and determine the most suitable levels of CRS to optimize its positive impact on IWB. Furthermore, they should encourage individuals to strike a balance be-tween utilizing the existing resources and exploring new avenues for growth and in-novation.

 Secondly, our findings indicate that the strongest positive relationships between CN-IWB, CF-IWB, and CI-IWB occur when HC is high and UR is low. This highlights the importance for organizations to prioritize strengthening the positive effect of hu-man capital on innovative work behavior, while mitigating the negative impact of user resistance. In other words, managers should develop targeted management strategies for organizational knowledge resources. For instance, they can focus on initiatives, such as talent acquisition and establishing knowledge-sharing platforms, to strengthen the connection between CS-IWB. Moreover, practitioners can reduce UR by collecting feedback from employees, tracking performance metrics, and evaluating the impact of interventions.

6. Conclusion

This research highlights the considerable influence of four sub-dimensions of career sustainability on employees' innovative behaviors within knowledge-intensive corporations. Specifically, it addresses a gap in the existing literature by examining the outcomes of career sustainability, particularly in the context of digitalization, an area that has received limited attention thus far. In particular, this study indicates that a sub-dimension (CRS) exhibits an inverted U-shaped association with IWB, which echoes the results of some other studies on the optimal point of CS and partly explains the findings of those indicating positive or negative relationships. Additionally, by considering human capital and user resistance as moderators, this study emphasizes the significance of contextual factors in the development of IWB, as highlighted in previous research.

7.Limitations and Future Research

While this study yielded some noteworthy findings, there are limitations and areas for future research. Firstly, the sample of this study only involved Chinese workers in high-tech enterprises, which may affect the generalizability of its findings. Future studies should collect data from employees across different industries or countries. Secondly, this research did not explore the roles of two additional sub-dimensions of intellectual capital (e.g., social capital and organizational capital) in influencing the relationship between CS and IWB. The existing studies suggest that different dimensions of IC have unique attributes and may thus have varied impacts on the association be-tween CS and IWB. Therefore, future studies could examine other sub-dimensions of intellectual capital as variables.”

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    (in red)

Dear Reviewer 2,

We are very grateful to you for giving us this valuable R & R opportunity. We also would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for giving us constructive feedback. As you can see, we have followed the comments raised by you and four reviewers to largely revise our research-The modified content is highlighted with yellow colored text in our manuscript. While the point-to-point answers to your specific comments are shown below in BLUE. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and look forward to a favorable decision.Many thanks.

2.General Comment:

General Comment: Unfortunately, I should say this paper only shows limited contributions and very low readability. In addition, some parts did not follow the template.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions. According to the comments, we revised this manuscript correspondingly. Significant changes are made to the paper and all the revised contents are highlighted in yellow within the revised manuscript. Below, we discuss how we’ve addressed all the other concerns.

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

（1）The third paragraph of Introduction, you should define the IWB.

Response: Thank you for this constructive comment. Based on this, we have defined the IWB in the third paragraph. Specific revisions are highlighted in yellow within the revised manuscript. The details are as follows (see on page 1):

“IWB can be defined as the proactive and creative actions that employees under-take within an organization to rearrange information and existing knowledge in different ways to create new products and processes, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the overall effectiveness [6]. Following this, IWB is crucial for the competitiveness of organizations. Therefore, the factors that can promote IWB must be investigated, particularly in today's knowledge-intensive economy.” 

（2）.In lines 72-80, the first and the third contributions are substantially the same.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s attention to this critical detail for this paper. Based your comments, we have rewritten the third contribution as follows (see in lines 85-90):

“(3) Adopting the JD-R model, this research considers UR as a job demand and HC as a job resource to examine their moderating impacts on the CS-IWB process. This con-tributes to a deeper understanding of how contextual factors influence IWB within complex digitalized environments. Additionally, it enhances interdisciplinary research by integrating perspectives from career theory and knowledge management.”

（3）.The reasons were very weak about why did you use JD-R model and "only" use UR and HC as demands and resources. (Lines 124-136)

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s attention to this critical detail for this paper. We have refined the relevant part to make the reasons more clearly for using JD-R model. The details are as follows (Line 132-142 in revised version):

“The prior studies suggest that UR plays a significant role in organizational digital transformation, leading to disruptions in the workflow as employees use traditional methods or workaround solutions [23] [24]. These disruptions may result in inefficiencies, errors, and delays in completing tasks, potentially causing frustration and stress among employees. Therefore, we consider UR as a job demand in the digitalized work context. As a core knowledge resource, HC encompasses the knowledge, skills, and abilities of employees, enabling individuals to quickly learn and adapt to emerging technologies and leverage digital technologies to develop new products, services, and processes [9]. Therefore, we chose HC as a job resource in our research setting. Based on the dual-process proposed by the JD-R model, this study explores the relationship between CS and IWB by introducing UR and corporate HC as moderators.”

（4）.The authors must explain why did you combine offline and online data, and why did you gather data through twice time scales.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the explanation about the combination of offline and online data in the revised manuscript (see in line 289-292). The details are as follows:

“Dillman et al. (2014) note that using a combination of online and offline data collection methods can remove the biases inherent in any single method and improve the representativeness of the sample. Therefore, this study conducted both online and offline surveys [40].”

and why did you gather data through twice time scales. (3.1. Participants and Data Collection)

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the explanation about the combination of offline and online data in the revised manuscript (see in line 298-303). The details are as follows:

“To minimize the risk of self-reporting and reduce the likelihood of methodological bias [32], we employed a two-wave time-lag survey method. Data collection was conducted at two time points from September 2023 to November 2023. At Time 1, the researchers mainly collected the data of independent variables and the other control variables. At Time 2 (4 weeks later), the researchers collected data on the dependent variable and moderators.”

（5）.There is no Table 4. Model numbers need to be separated by table.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. First, we apologize for making a typo in the source of the Tables. As the order of the tables has been changed in the revised manuscript, the previous missing Table 4 is added as Table 6 instead. The details are as follows (see on page 11 in the revised version):

（6）In addition, you must explain why only Table 7 showed Models 15 and 16. (Result)

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s attention to this critical detail for this paper. Based on your suggestions, we have added the explanation in the revised manuscript. As we have revised the section of result, the order of Tables has been changed. Therefore, please noted that the Models 15 and 16 of Table 7 in the previous version is now turned into Models 5 and 6 of Table 9. The details of revision are as follows (see in lines 426-431 on page 1):

“In Table 9, we added the square term of CRS in MODELS 5-6 to examine the dual moderating effects on the inverted-U relationship of CRS-IWB [42], and according to MODEL 6 of Table 9, HC positively moderates the CRS-IWB inverted U-shape relation-ship (β = -0.143 and p < 0.001) while UR negatively moderates the CRS-IWB inverted U-shape relationship (β = 0.131 and p < 0.001), supporting H2d.”

（6）The authors should discuss why only CZ showed U-shape relationship.

Response: We very much appreciate your insightful suggestions. Based on these suggestions, we have added the discussion about the U-shape relationship in the revised manuscript. Please noted that we have changed acronyms used for career resourcefulness from “CZ” to “CRS” to make it can be understood easily. The details are as follows (see in line 516-526 on page 13-14):

“In contrast, an inverted U-shaped association between CRS and IWB has been identified. Previous research posited that the perceived CRS represent the level of job security and stability [45]. Thus, when employees perceive a higher level of CRS, they tend to view their career prospects more positively and are inclined to utilize the available re-sources to drive innovation. However, as the accumulation of career resources reaches a certain threshold, employees may experience a reduction in work-related stress. Consequently, this reduction in stress may lead employees to adopt more conservative approaches, focusing on resource maintenance rather than pursuing innovative actions. Unlike previous research, which mainly documented direct and linear relationships [46][47], we tested for and found curvilinear effects. This finding advances our theoretical understanding of how the different dimensions of CS impact IWB."

（7）.The Implications for Practice was very general, and I didn't understand the third implication was derived from which results. (Discussion)

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s attention to this critical detail for this paper. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the implications for practice completely in the revised version. The details are as follows (see in line 546-567 on page 14):

“5.2. Implications for Practice

Our study provides two valuable insights and practical implications for managers and practitioners. Firstly, confirming the significant correlation between CS and IWB helps inspire managers to promote employee innovation by adjusting human resource allocation mechanisms. In other words, managers can regard CS as a pivotal factor in human resource practices. By maintaining the employees' perception of CS at an ap-propriate level, they can effectively stimulate the generation of IWB among employees. Additionally, policymakers should prioritize the promotion of career development programs (e.g., skills training, career counseling, and mentorship opportunities) aimed at enhancing CN, CF, and CI. Conversely, we recommend that policymakers meticulously evaluate and determine the most suitable levels of CRS to optimize its positive impact on IWB. Furthermore, they should encourage individuals to strike a balance be-tween utilizing the existing resources and exploring new avenues for growth and innovation. Secondly, our findings indicate that the strongest positive relationships between CN-IWB, CF-IWB, and CI-IWB occur when HC is high and UR is low. This highlights the importance for organizations to prioritize strengthening the positive effect of hu-man capital on innovative work behavior, while mitigating the negative impact of user resistance. In other words, managers should develop targeted management strategies for organizational knowledge resources. For instance, they can focus on initiatives, such as talent acquisition and establishing knowledge-sharing platforms, to strengthen the connection between CS-IWB. Moreover, practitioners can reduce UR by collecting feedback from employees, tracking performance metrics, and evaluating the impact of interventions.”

4.Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors used many acronyms but it makes me confused. You should use acronyms only on what is core to the study

Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. Based on your suggestions, we firstly identified the acronyms for the core constructs in the abstract in the revised manuscript, as follows: career sustainability (CS), innovative work behavior (IWB), career renewability (CN), career flexibility (CF), career integrity (CI), career resourcefulness (CRS), human capital (HC), and user resistance (UR) (see in abstract). Secondly, we have replaced other acronyms with full spelling of relevant words. Moreover, we have read through the entire manuscript carefully and sent it to the professional company to do the English editing before resubmission.

Dear Reviewer3,

We are very grateful to you for giving us this valuable R & R opportunity. We also would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for giving us constructive feedback. As you can see, we have followed the comments raised by you and four reviewers to largely revise our research-The modified content is highlighted with yellow colored text in our manuscript. While the point-to-point answers to your specific comments are shown below in BLUE. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and look forward to a favorable decision.

Many thanks.

 2.General Comment:

I begin by congratulating the authors for the work presented. This clearly deserves to be published and disseminated. I had great pleasure reading this article and I support it.

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging comments. Your helpful comments and suggestions greatly improve the quality of this manuscript. According to the comments, we revised this manuscript correspondingly. Significant changes are made to the paper and all the revised contents are highlighted in within the revised manuscript. Below, we discuss how we’ve addressed all the other concerns.

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

(1)The only improvement I can suggest is related to the lack of capital letters in titles such as 2.3, 2.4…And correct the figure 1, some letters missing and not in uppercase in the model.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. First, we apologize for making a typo in the titles and figures. According to your comments, we have corrected these titles in the revised manuscript (see in line 143,171,195,216,237). We also corrected the figure 1 in the word file (see on page 6):

Dear Reviewer 4,

We are very grateful to you for giving us this valuable R & R opportunity. We also would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for giving us constructive feedback. As you can see, we have followed the comments raised by you and four reviewers to largely revise our research-The modified content is highlighted with yellow colored text in our manuscript. While the point-to-point answers to your specific comments are shown below in BLUE. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and look forward to a favorable decision.

Many thanks.

2.General Comment:

The study is interesting and may contribute to the academic literature. However, the authors should improve the manuscript's English language for better readability and coherence. Additionally, the authors should revise the manuscript based on the following suggestions

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging comments. We are very grateful for the thoughtful suggestions. According to the comments, we revised this manuscript correspondingly. Significant changes are made to the paper and all the revised contents are highlighted in yellow within the revised manuscript. Below, we discuss how we’ve addressed all the other concerns.

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

(1) The authors may consider revising the title of the study.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. According to your comments above, we have changed the title as follows:

“How employee career sustainability affects innovative work behavior under digitalization”