Fostering Innovation at Work: The Synergy of Transformational Leadership,Job Autonomy,and Innovative Organizational Culture for Driving Innovative Work Behavior

Abstract

While previous studies have identified transformational leadership, job autonomy, and innovative organizational culture as key factors influencing employees’ innovative work behavior within public organizations, the interactive effects remain underexplored. To address this gap, this study draws on leader–member exchange, self-determination, and job characteristics theories to examine how these elements synergistically contribute to employees’ innovative work behavior. Using survey data from 4,133 South Korean public servants in central and local government, this study employs partial least squares structural equation modeling to test the moderated mediation framework. The findings reveal that transformational leadership is positively associated with innovative work behavior, with job autonomy partially mediating this relationship. It also suggests that an innovative organizational culture has not only direct and moderating effects of transformational leadership on job autonomy but also on innovative work behavior. Ultimately, it highlights that when public employees perceive a high level of innovative organizational culture, the indirect effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior, mediated by job autonomy, becomes more pronounced. This study concludes by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, as well as future research, and emphasizes the critical role of public organizations in creating environments that support innovation among public employees.

Keywords

transformational leadership job autonomy innovative organizational culture innovative work behavior public organizations innovation

Introduction

Public organizations have traditionally been characterized as rigid bureaucracies that emphasize formal rules, procedures, and stability, thereby constraining the discretion and creativity of public employees (Borins, 2002; Shim et al., 2023; Wilson, 2019). However, multifaceted changes in the public administration environment, such as the rapid digital transformation, climate change, demographic shifts, and increasing citizens’ expectations (Albury, 2005; Dunleavy et al., 2006; Suzuki, 2017, 2018; Suzuki & Demircioglu, 2019; Vivona et al., 2021), have exposed the limitations of standardized bureaucratic practices and have highlighted the need for adaptive and innovative approaches to enhance their capacity for innovation (De Vries et al., 2016; Kim, 2024).

At the core of these innovation efforts is employees’ innovative work behavior, defined as “the intentional generation, promotion, and realization of new ideas within a work role, work group, or organization” (Janssen, 2003, p. 348). Through this behavior, public employees are able to strengthen problem-solving skills, develop creative solutions for work processes, address service delivery errors, and generate new and alternative ways of performing their jobs by introducing novel procedures and reconfiguring existing approaches, thereby enhancing organizational performance (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2013; Janssen, 2003; Prieto & Pérez-Santana, 2014). Consequently, public management scholars have increasingly focused on understanding ways to foster innovation and manage organizational change in public organizations (Brown & Osborne, 2012; Demircioglu & Audretsch, 2024; Hijal-Moghrabi et al., 2020; Windrum & Koch, 2008). This scholarly attention has led to a growing body of studies highlighting the importance of employees’ innovative work behavior and to increased studies exploring its key drivers (Bysted & Hansen, 2015; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Miao et al., 2018; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). In particular, the public administration literature highlights that transformational leadership, job autonomy, and an innovative organizational culture are critical factors for effectively engaging employees’ innovative work behavior (e.g., Cho & Song, 2021; Lee, 2025; Günzel-Jensen et al., 2018; Hansen & Pihl-Thingvad, 2019; Lee & Jin, 2022; Kim & Shim, 2025; Ryu, 2022). However, despite this expanding scholarly attention, the interrelations among these factors remain insufficiently explored, for instance, the mediating role of job autonomy in the link between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior, and the moderating effects of an innovative organizational culture on both job autonomy and innovative work behavior. Notably, few studies have adopted a holistic approach to investigate moderated mediation in the transformational leadership–innovative work behavior relationship, prompting calls for further research to uncover specific mechanisms that enhance theoretical and practical understanding (Kyeong, 2025; Nuwagaba et al., 2025; Peng et al., 2020).

This study aims to address these gaps by investigating whether transformational leadership, in conjunction with the mediating role of job autonomy, and its direct, moderating, and conditional indirect effects of innovative organizational culture, fosters synergistic effects that enhance employees’ innovative work behavior within the context of the Korean government. In 2013, the Korean government introduced Government 3.0, which is an initiative emphasizing openness, sharing, communication, and collaboration to reinforce public employees’ innovative work behavior through proactive administration and by encouraging risk-taking without penalty (Bak et al., 2022; Ministry of Personnel Management, 2020; Nam, 2019). However, Korean public employees often exhibit risk-averse and hierarchical tendencies, which can hinder proactive efforts and stifle innovation (Lee & Choi, 2016; Kim, 2017; Park et al., 2013). To overcome these obstacles and transform passive attitudes into innovative work behavior, transformational leadership has emerged as a crucial force for spurring motivation and reshaping the behavior of public employees (Khan & Khan, 2019).

Transformational leadership, which denotes a leadership style that inspires and motivates employees to go beyond their self-interest by fostering a shared vision, instilling intrinsic motivation, and promoting individual development, has been positively associated with innovative work behavior in public organizations (Bak et al., 2022; Choi & Cho, 2025; Pieterse et al., 2010). Because of the importance of understanding how transformational leadership encourages innovative work behavior and to identify factors contributing to individual innovation (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Janssen, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994), particularly in hierarchical and risk-averse public sector environments, it promotes followers’ creativity and innovation more than other leadership styles (Choi et al., 2016; Lin, 2023). Drawing on the leader-member exchange theory, this study posits that high-quality dyadic relationships between leaders and subordinates foster reciprocal support, mutual respect, and commitment, and positive discretionary behaviors that are ultimately facilitating innovation (Bos-Nehles et al., 2016; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hassan & Hatmaker, 2014; Hesmert & Vogel, 2024).

While empowerment initiatives, such as providing access to relevant job knowledge and allowing flexibility in modifying work procedures, are positively associated with innovative work behavior, solely performance-based reward systems may hinder innovation (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2013). This underscores the need to explore how transformational leadership and job autonomy can influence employees’ innovative work behavior. Job autonomy represents employees’ perception of their freedom to perform their jobs, explore opportunities, and assume responsibility for their work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). This is particularly relevant in public organizations, where empirically and theoretically grounded research on this topic is much less common than in private organizations (Afsar et al., 2014; Amankwaa et al., 2019). Existing studies have separately examined the connection between transformational leadership and job autonomy (Amankwaa et al., 2019; Svendsen et al., 2018), as well as the relationship between job autonomy and innovative work behavior (De Jong & Kemp, 2003; De Spiegelaere et al., 2014) in relation to other factors. However, the fact that less is known about how and why transformational leadership fosters autonomy in public organizations, and the mere linkage between this relationship, does not automatically explain how job autonomy leads to innovative work behavior. Based on self-determination theory, which propose autonomy to be pivotal in creating own values and norms, choosing actions, and co-creating and internalizing norms (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2006) and job characteristics theory, which emphasizes the role of autonomy within a work environment that enables employees to engage in creative and innovative processes (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), this study focuses on the role of job autonomy as a central mechanism through which transformational leadership promotes innovative work behavior.

Furthermore, an innovative organizational culture, which describes a workplace environment that supports creativity, openness, and risk-taking as organizational shared values and norms (Wynen et al., 2014), may not only direct and moderate the influence of transformational leadership on job autonomy but also on innovative work behavior. This suggests the importance of cultivating both effective leadership strategies and a culture of innovation in public organizations (Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Park et al., 2015). Even a transformational leader’s best efforts may be constrained if the broader culture does not support public employees’ innovative work behavior. Lastly, while the mediating and moderating relationships have been individually explored, a holistic approach that integrates job autonomy as a mediator and innovative organizational culture as a moderator remains understudied. Therefore, this study explores how an innovative organizational culture serves as a moderator of the link between transformational leadership and job autonomy in influencing innovative work behavior.

This study contributes to the fields of leadership and innovation research in the public sector by theoretically integrating leadership, job characteristics, and organizational culture to better understand employees’ innovation in public organizations. To achieve this, the current study utilizes data from the 2021 Korea Public Employee Perception Survey (KPEPS), a representative sample of Korean central and local government employees. Through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the moderated mediation model, this study notably shows that when public employees perceive a high level of innovative organizational culture, it strengthens the positive association between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior through job autonomy. These results offer practical implications for public leaders and managers aiming to foster dynamic interaction effects that drive employees’ innovation through leadership development, autonomy, and culture-building practices.

This study proceeds as follows. The literature review section develops hypotheses regarding the influence of transformational leadership, job autonomy, and innovative organizational culture on innovative work behavior. The methods section provides the explanation of the data, measures, and analytical approach, and the results section presents the findings. The discussion and conclusion section covers the theoretical and practical implications with key findings, limitations, and potential directions for future research.

Literature Review

Transformational Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior

Transformational leadership is a leadership style that inspires and motivates employees to go beyond their self-interest by fostering a shared vision, instilling intrinsic motivation, and facilitating individual development (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Caillier, 2016). Unlike transactional leadership, which relies on contingent rewards and exchanges, transformational leadership transforms followers’ values, beliefs, and behaviors to achieve higher performance and innovation (Ejaz et al., 2025; Jung & Avolio, 2000; Yukl, 1999). This leadership style is particularly effective in dynamic environments that require adaptability and creativity (Gumusluoğlu & İlsev, 2009; Pieterse et al., 2010).

Transformational leadership consists of four core dimensions that shape employee attitudes and behaviors (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Idealized influence refers to leaders acting as role models, demonstrating ethical behavior, integrity, and a strong commitment to organizational goals, which fosters trust and admiration among employees (Wright et al., 2011). Inspirational motivation involves articulating a compelling vision and setting high expectations, instilling confidence and enthusiasm in employees to achieve collective goals (Jung & Avolio, 2000). Intellectual stimulation encourages employees to challenge assumptions, think critically, and explore creative solutions, creating a culture that values innovation and experimentation (Pieterse et al., 2010; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Lastly, individualized consideration entails providing personalized mentorship and developmental support, ensuring that employees feel valued and empowered to contribute to organizational innovation (Bak et al., 2022; Günzel-Jensen et al., 2018). Overall, these four dimensions of transformational leadership are directed to facilitate and manage organizational change (Van Wart, 2013). These dimensions of transformational leadership often cultivate high-quality leader–member relationships, aligning with the leader-member exchange theory (Bos-Nehles et al., 2016; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hassan & Hatmaker, 2014). This theory posits that when leaders develop closer, trust-based relationships with subordinates, both parties engage in reciprocal support, mutual respect, and commitment (Hesmert & Vogel, 2024; Liden et al., 1993; Mostafa & El-Motalib, 2019; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Under transformational leadership, such high-quality exchanges can be reinforced by a shared vision, intellectual stimulation, and individualized support, thereby motivating employees to reciprocate with proactive and innovative behaviors (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Choi et al., 2016).

Innovative work behavior, as highlighted by Scott and Bruce (1994) and further supported by Janssen (2003), stands out as a critical factor for organizational success. It involves behaviors focused on introducing, generating, or applying new concepts, products, or processes, impacting both specialized innovation roles and the entire workforce (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Innovative work behavior includes generating new ideas, identifying problems, promoting them, and implementing them, all of which significantly enhance organizational performance (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Janssen, 2003). Innovative work behavior’s relevance extends beyond sectors, debunking the notion of its scarcity in public organizations due to their political context (Bysted & Jespersen, 2014). Instead, it is instrumental in achieving sustainable development and effectiveness across sectors (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Moreover, innovative work behavior plays an important role in enhancing employee and organizational performance through the introduction and implementation of novel ideas, technologies, and work approaches (Yuan & Woodman, 2010).

Transformational leadership has been widely linked to innovative work behavior, as it promotes followers’ creativity and innovation more than other leadership styles (Choi et al., 2016; Lin, 2023). Each of the four dimensions of transformational leadership enables employees to develop, promote, and implement innovative ideas (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Janssen, 2003). For instance, idealized influence creates a trust-based work environment conducive to taking the initiative (Pieterse et al., 2010), while inspirational motivation frames innovation as a strategic priority (Jung & Avolio, 2000). In addition, intellectual stimulation promotes experimentation and challenges conventional practices (Shin & Zhou, 2003), and individualized consideration ensures employees have the support and psychological safety to actively engage in innovation (Bak et al., 2022; Günzel-Jensen et al., 2018). Furthermore, from a leader–member exchange perspective (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), the high-quality exchanges that emerge under transformational leadership reinforce employees’ sense of mutual commitment and responsibility to contribute new ideas.

Extensive research supports the positive relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior (Bak et al., 2022; Hansen & Pihl-Thingvad, 2019; Pieterse et al., 2010), highlighting vision, trust, autonomy, and mentorship as key to creating an innovation-driven workplace (Choi et al., 2016; Khan & Khan, 2019). Transformational leaders empower employees to engage in the full innovation process—from idea generation to implementation—by reducing uncertainty and fostering an adaptive work culture (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Public-sector studies further suggest that transformational leadership helps mitigate bureaucratic resistance, making it a key driver of innovative work behavior in public organizations (Bysted & Jespersen, 2014; Günzel-Jensen et al., 2018). Based on these theoretical and empirical insights, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership has a direct and positive association with the public employees’ innovative work behavior.

The Mediating Role of Job Autonomy

Job autonomy refers to employees’ perception of their freedom to perform their jobs, explore opportunities, and assume responsibility for their work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). It includes freedom, independence, and discretion to plan and execute work, which is considered a motivating factor for employee productivity (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Lee & Jin, 2022). In essence, increasing job autonomy enhances employee discretion in task management and aligns with their core psychological needs, facilitating the use of contextual knowledge to improve performance (Campbell, 2025; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2008). In the Korean public sector, however, Government 3.0 initiatives, which emphasize proactive administration, often clash with hierarchical structures and traditional management protocols, resulting in constrained autonomy for many public servants (Bak et al., 2022; Ministry of Personnel Management, 2020; Nam, 2019). This tension underscores the practical importance of studying job autonomy in Korean government agencies, where reforms aim to encourage innovative solutions but frequently encounter resistance from legacy bureaucratic norms. Successfully navigating these constraints is especially crucial for ensuring that public employees can exercise autonomy, generate creative ideas, and ultimately drive performance improvements.

Job autonomy, as explained by self-determination theory (Deci et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2008), is closely associated with transformational leadership. This relationship influences personal values, norms, and decision-making, which helps individuals internalize these norms and promotes their self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2006). Because this theory underscores the importance of intrinsic motivations, which increases the individuals’ propensity to act and make a continuous effort at work, it advocates that behaviors should stem from personal drive and autonomy (Deci et al., 2001; Le & Barboza-Wilkers, 2024). Existing studies have also suggested that transformational leaders are more likely to provide employees with a greater degree of autonomy. For instance, Amankwaa et al. (2019) emphasize that transformational leaders, particularly through individualized consideration, enhance employee innovation by enabling leaders to understand job requirements, granting necessary freedom and authority for innovation, empowering employees, encouraging responsibility, and stimulating creativity to generate new ideas. Moreover, intellectual stimulation further encourages employees to challenge existing assumptions and apply new approaches, reinforcing their autonomy in decision-making (Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Svendsen et al., 2018).

Given that innovative work behavior is hindered within rigid and traditional management structures, Park and Jo (2018) emphasize the necessity of granting employees work-related autonomy to generate innovative ideas independently within their tasks. Based on job characteristic theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), it suggests that autonomy within a job environment plays a central role in enabling employees to engage in creative and innovative processes. This theory suggests that greater autonomy in the workplace not only encourages employees to explore new ideas, experiment, and take ownership of their tasks but also enhances their ability to generate and develop ideas through application (De Spiegelaere et al., 2014; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Granting job autonomy is expected to heighten employees’ intrinsic motivation, fostering a more self-directed and voluntary approach to work (Campbell, 2025). Moreover, job autonomy plays a critical role in mitigating risk aversion, which is often a significant barrier to innovation. Employees with greater autonomy are more likely to take calculated risks and engage in proactive problem-solving behaviors as they operate beyond administrative constraints (De Jong & Kemp, 2003; De Spiegelaere et al., 2014). Recent studies consistently show that job autonomy is a key factor in promoting employees’ innovative work behavior (Cho & Song, 2021; Lee & Jin, 2022; Kim & Shim, 2025). Therefore, this study suggests that the transformational leadership behaviors of leaders and managers foster job autonomy among employees, which in turn facilitates innovative work behavior. Based on these considerations, this study argues that:

Hypothesis 2: Job autonomy mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior.

The Roles of Innovative Organizational Culture

Organizational culture, which consists of shared values, norms, beliefs, and behaviors, significantly influences internal interactions and decision-making processes within organizations, reflecting deep-rooted assumptions and values shaped by factors like mission, bureaucratic structures, and the political environment (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999; Schein, 1985). Its profound impact on behavior, attitudes, and effectiveness underscores its role in how members work together and achieve goals (Brewer & Seldon, 2000). Among the various dimensions of organizational culture, innovation plays an important role in fostering adaptability and responsiveness to change (O’Reilly et al., 1991).

An innovative organizational culture characterized by employees generating and implementing novel ideas, embraced as shared values and norms within the organization (Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Ryu, 2022). This perspective emphasizes creativity, openness to change, risk-taking, and an entrepreneurial mindset, which collectively influence attitudes toward innovation, technology adoption, knowledge exchange, and problem-solving capacities (Hofstede, 2003; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Wynen et al., 2014). As Wynen et al. (2014) noted, an innovative culture entails both the orientation to innovation and the creation of an environment that supports a climate of innovation. McLean (2005) further proposes that successful organizational innovation prospers when environments offer supportive and motivating conditions for innovative efforts. Within government contexts, an innovative organizational culture might significantly contribute to developing new public services tailored to meet evolving citizen needs (Moore & Hartley, 2008). In such a culture, employees are encouraged to take initiative, experiment with novel ideas, and engage in problem-solving activities that enhance organizational adaptability. This environment not only fosters innovation at an individual level but also strengthens the overall innovative capacity of the organizations (Hofstede, 2003; Park et al., 2015; O’Reilly et al., 1991). Previous studies also indicated that public organizations with a high level of innovative culture are more likely to foster employees’ innovative work behavior (Lee, 2025; Ryu, 2022). Building on these findings, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Innovative organizational culture has a direct and positive association with the public employees’ innovative work behavior.

Meanwhile, transformational leadership is widely recognized as a key driver of innovation, inspiring employees to exceed expectations and embrace change (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Sarros et al., 2008). However, the effectiveness of transformational leadership in promoting employees’ innovative work behavior may depend on the degree to which innovation is supported within the organizational culture. In public organizations where innovative culture is embedded as a value and belief, transformational leaders are more likely to encourage employees’ innovative work behavior by fostering creativity, risk-taking, and the pursuit of challenging goals (Bak et al., 2022; Park et al., 2015; Wynen et al., 2014). Moreover, when the innovative culture is encouraged in public organizations, employees tend to pursue specific and meaningful goals rather than vague objectives, which could lead to the generation of more creative outputs and services (Fried & Slowik, 2004). Conversely, in bureaucratic or risk-averse environments where innovation is not institutionalized, the influence of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior may be diminished. Ryu (2022) has found that innovative culture strengthens the positive relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. In this light, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Innovative organizational culture moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and employees’ innovative work behavior in public organizations.

The influence of transformational leadership on job autonomy also varies according to the level of innovativeness within the organizational culture (Chenhall et al., 2011; Škerlavaj et al., 2009). In highly innovative cultures, transformational leaders more readily instill autonomy by encouraging creativity and problem-solving (Park et al., 2015). Conversely, in rigid and risk-averse organizations, transformational leadership’s ability to promote autonomy is constrained. Prior studies have also linked job autonomy with innovative work behavior (Amankwaa et al., 2019; De Spiegelaere et al., 2014; Lee & Jin, 2022), highlighting how an innovative organizational culture can spur innovation at both individual and organizational levels (Lee, 2025; Ryu, 2022; Park & Jo, 2018). Furthermore, transformational leadership is central to shaping and reinforcing the organizational culture itself (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Sarros et al., 2008), underscoring the reciprocal influence between leadership and culture. Nevertheless, the moderating role of innovative organizational culture in the relationship between transformational leadership and job autonomy remains underexplored. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 5: Innovative organizational culture moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and job autonomy in public organizations.

This study also aims to explore additional factors associated with the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior, investigating if the influence of transformational leadership on job autonomy, moderated by innovative organizational culture, subsequently affects innovative work behavior. Specifically, this study is integrated to verify the moderated mediation effect that considers job autonomy and innovative organizational culture in the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. While previous studies have highlighted the role of transformational leadership in fostering job autonomy and, consequently, innovative work behavior, it remains to be uncovered how an organization’s cultural environment influences these dynamics.

A high level of innovative organizational culture provides employees with psychological safety and openness to apply new approaches, reinforcing the positive influence of transformational leadership on job autonomy and, in turn, on innovative work behavior (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Martins & Terblanche, 2003). In contrast, when an organization has a weak innovative culture, the autonomy granted by transformational leaders may not lead to effective employees’ innovative work behavior due to risk aversion and bureaucratic constraints common in public organizations. Therefore, this study suggests that an innovative organizational culture strengthens the indirect effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior through job autonomy. When employees perceive a high level of innovative organizational culture, they are more likely to leverage their autonomy to engage in creative problem-solving and initiative-taking. However, in organizations with a low level of innovative organizational culture, the influence of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior through job autonomy may be weaker. From this discussion, the following hypothesis is presented:

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior through job autonomy is higher for those who perceive a more innovative organizational culture than for those who experience a lower innovative organizational culture in public organizations.

Based on the literature review, this study provides the theoretical conceptual model (see Figure 1) depicting the relationship among transformational leadership, job autonomy, innovative organizational culture, and innovative work behavior.

Figure 1.

Theoretical conceptual model.

Data and Methodology

The data for this study come from the 2021 KPEPS, an annual initiative by the Korea Institute of Public Administration (KIPA). The survey collects responses from central and local government employees throughout South Korea—the data for the 2021 survey was obtained between August 12 and September 30, 2021. The survey targeted 24,441 public servants employed in general positions across 46 central government ministries and agencies and 52,356 officials in 17 metropolitan cities and provinces as of December 31, 2020. The desired sample size was 4,000 responses, evenly split between central government and local government entities, with a target sampling error rate of ±2%. This study used a stratified sampling method, initially stratified by organization type and employee numbers. Participants were randomly selected within these sample clusters and were sent a survey link via email or provided with a QR code-based link if email access was unavailable due to security concerns or other reasons. In total, 4,133 survey responses were collected. More detailed information about the survey methodology is available in Korean from KIPA at https://www.kipa.re.kr/site/kipa/main.do.

This study employs a PLS-SEM approach using SmartPLS 4 to test six hypotheses, including direct, mediating, moderating, and moderated mediation framework. In PLS-SEM, significance testing generally relies on bootstrap resampling, which generates empirical sampling distributions for path coefficients and allows for bias-corrected confidence intervals (Hair et al., 2022). This procedure is particularly useful for detecting conditional indirect effects, thereby providing a more robust verification of the mediator’s influence under different levels of a moderator. See Appendices A and B for the survey items and details from the KPEPS.

Dependent Variable: Innovative Work Behavior

This study measured innovative work behavior using three survey questions for the dependent variable: (a) I try to develop a new and creative idea and apply the idea to my work in an innovative way (idea generation), (b) I try to develop a new and creative idea to solve organizational problems while working (implementation), and (c) I actively work to improve unreasonable factors in my work (realization). It concentrated on important aspects such as idea generation, implementing creative problem-solving, and realization of ideas that adaptive responses to change (Janssen, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). These items used a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha for these items is .87.

Independent Variable: Transformational Leadership

To measure transformational leadership, this study aimed to measure four aspects: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Lim & Moon, 2021). This was achieved through four survey questions to measure independent variables: (1) My supervisor provides me with a clear vision for the future I should aim for (inspirational motivation). (2) My supervisor motivates me to work hard (idealized influence). (3) My supervisor encourages me to approach my work from a new perspective (intellectual stimulation). (4) My supervisor helps me develop independently (individualized consideration). These items used a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha for these items is .93.

Mediator Variable: Job Autonomy

Job autonomy is measured by three survey questions for the mediating variable: (1) I have the autonomy to choose my methods and procedures at work. (2) I can control the pace and deadlines of my work. (3) I can participate in setting the performance metrics and criteria for my work. These items are based on studies by Campbell (2025), De Spiegelaere et al. (2014), and Lee and Jin (2022). Respondents again used a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha for these items is .82.

Moderator Variable: Innovative Organizational Culture

Innovative organizational culture is measured by three survey questions for the moderating variable: (a) Our organization emphasizes creativity, innovation, and challenges, (b) Our organization values employees’ intuition and growth in solving new challenges, and (c) Our organization tolerates a certain degree of risk in pursuit of innovation. These items are based on studies by Lee (2025), Park et al. (2015), Ryu (2022), and Wynen et al. (2014). A 5-point Likert scale was used for the variables, with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha for these items is .80.

Control Variables

This study uses six control variables to ensure consistency and validity. Firstly, the type of government, distinguishing between central and local government. Job tenure was included as a control variable due to its observed negative linear curve relationship with innovation adoption (Damanpour & Schneider, 2008). The inclusion of rank as a control variable stemmed from the potential positive association between managerial roles and innovative work behaviors, attributed to the greater autonomy for implementing innovative efforts (Ryu, 2022). This study also controlled for gender by acknowledging the potential differences in work behaviors based on gender roles (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Lastly, this study used age groups and education levels as control variables based on previous research indicating a positive association between educational level and innovative work behavior (Kearney et al., 2000; Mohr, 1969).

Results

Model Fit Diagnostics

In this study, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the indices concerning individual perceptions. The validity of the indices was assessed using specific criteria. As shown in Table 1, the CFA results indicated that the four-factor model (transformational leadership, job autonomy, innovative organizational culture, and innovative work behavior) demonstrated a better fit with the data than other alternative models, as evidenced by the following goodness-of-fit indices: χ²(df = 59) = 558.876, p < .001, comparative fit index = 0.984, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.979, normed-fit index = 0.982, standardized root mean square residual = 0.035, and root mean square error of approximation = 0.045. In order to address potential biases from common method variance resulting from self-reported data, this study conducted Harman’s one-factor test following Podsakoff et al. (2012) recommendation. The test results indicated no issue with common method bias, as the total variance extracted by one factor was 42.660%, which is below the recommended threshold of 50%.

Table 1.

Results of CFA with Alternative Models.

Model	X²(df)	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	NFI	SRMR
Four-factor model (TL; IOC; JA; IWB)	555.876 (59)	0.045	0.984	0.979	0.982	0.035
Three-factor model (TL + IOC; JA; IWB)	3216.387 (62)	0.111	0.900	0.875	0.899	0.079
Three-factor model (TL; IOC + JA; IWB)	3590.629 (62)	0.117	0.889	0.860	0.887	0.069
Two-factor model (TL + IOC + JA; IWB)	6686.302 (64)	0.158	0.791	0.745	0.789	0.116
One-factor model (TL + IOC + JA + IWB)	12344.589 (65)	0.214	0.612	0.534	0.611	0.154

Note. TL = transformational leadership; IOC = innovative organizational culture; JA = job autonomy; IWB = innovative work behavior; df = degree of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; NFI = normed-fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 explains the descriptive statistics for the variables. Innovative work behavior averaged at 3.35 on a 5-point scale, with the independent variable transformational leadership averaged at 3.27. The mediator variable, job autonomy, displayed an average of 3.14, while the moderator variable, innovative organizational culture, had an average of 3.13. These findings indicate above-average levels across all variables.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample Respondents.

Variables	Obs.	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
IWB	4,133	3.35	0.68	1	5
TL	4,133	3.27	0.81	1	5
JA	4,133	3.14	0.75	1	5
IOC	4,133	3.13	0.74	1	5
Type of government (local = 1)	4,133	0.49	0.50	0	1
Job tenure (5 years or less = 1)	4,133	3.23	1.80	1	6
Rank (grade 1–4 = 1)	4,133	2.79	0.71	1	4
Gender (male = 1)	4,133	0.56	0.50	0	1
Age group (20s = 1)	4,133	2.78	0.93	1	4
Education level (high school graduate or less = 1)	4,133	3.04	0.67	1	5

Note. Obs = number of observations; SD = standard deviation; IWB = innovative work behavior; TL = transformational leadership; JA = job autonomy; IOC = innovative organizational culture.

This study explored the reliability and validity of the measurement items (Hair et al., 2013) using construct reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and maximum shared variance (MSV). Additionally, this research addressed convergent validity and discriminant validity. Table 3 displays the CR coefficient for all variables, which were found to be 0.7 or higher, indicating good reliability of the measurement items. Furthermore, the AVE value for all variables exceeded 0.5, suggesting strong convergent validity. Moreover, this study ensured that the MSV of all variables was smaller than the AVE value, and the square root of the AVE exceeded the correlation coefficient value for all related variables. These findings demonstrate acceptable discriminant validity among the study variables. Table 3 presents the correlations between the independent, mediator, moderator, control, and dependent variables. The results indicate significant positive correlations between variables. Specifically, transformational leadership had a positive correlation with innovative work behavior (r = .27, p < .01). Similarly, job autonomy was also positively related to innovative work behavior (r = .33, p < .01). Moreover, innovative organizational culture showed a positive relationship with the dependent variable (r = .36, p < .01).

Table 3.

Correlation Analysis.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
IWB	(0.815)
TL	.27**	(0.873)
JA	.33**	.40**	(0.779)
IOC	.36**	.56**	.41**	(0.771)
ToG	.02	−.02	.05**	.05**	—
Job tenure	.25**	.03	.13**	.18**	.12**	—
Rank	−.22**	−.04**	−.12**	−.05**	.19**	−.47**	—
Gender	−.18**	−.14**	−.09**	−.08**	.00	−.04**	.15**	–
Age	.26**	.02	.13**	.16**	.09**	.84**	−.48**	−.14**	—
Education	.11**	.01	.02	−.01	−.12**	.03	−.27**	−.02**	.14**	—
CR	.797	.927	.822	.812	—	—	—	—	—	—
AVE	.665	.762	.606	.594	—	—	—	—	—	—
MSV	.149	.376	.217	.376	—	—	—	—	—	—

Note. The values in parentheses represent the square root of AVE. IWB = innovative work behavior; TL = transformational leadership; JA = job autonomy; IOC = innovative organizational culture: ToG = type of government; CR = construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum shared variance.

p < .01.

Hypothesis Test

Figure 2 presents the results of the full structural equation model, explaining the pathways among transformational leadership, innovative organizational culture, job autonomy, and innovative work behavior with control variables. To test Hypotheses 1 through 6, this study used the PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2022) to test the proposed direct, mediating, moderating, and moderated mediation model (Hayes, 2018) by conducting 10,000 bootstrapping to generate 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals.

Figure 2.

Results of the full structural equation model.

As shown in Table 4, the direct effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior is positive and significant (β = .080, p < .001; 95% CI [0.047, 0.113]) and supports Hypothesis 1. In addition, transformational leadership exhibits a positive effect on job autonomy (β = .271, p < .001), and job autonomy, in turn, significantly predicts innovative work behavior (β = .173, p < .001), indicating that a mediating pathway may be present.

Table 4.

Path Coefficients and Direct/Moderate Relationships.

Direct and moderate relationships	Coefficient	T-values	Bias-corrected bootstrap [95% CI]
TL → IWB (H1)	.080	4.013***	[0.047, 0.113]
TL → JA (H2)	.271	14.138***	[0.240, 0.303]
JA → IWB (H2)	.173	9.985***	[0.144, 0.201]
IOC → IWB (H3)	.199	10.111***	[0.167, 0.232]
TL × IOC → IWB (H4)	.096	6.376***	[0.071, 0.120]
TL × IOC → JA (H5)	.041	3.105**	[0.020, 0.064]

Note. TL = transformational leadership; IWB = innovative work behavior; JA = job autonomy; IOC = innovative work behavior; CI = confidence interval.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5 summarizes the mediation analysis (Hypothesis 2), showing that the total effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior (β = .127, p < .001) decreases to a direct effect of 0.08 when job autonomy is included as a mediator. The indirect effect through job autonomy is 0.047 (95% CI [0.038, 0.057]), which remains statistically significant and supports Hypothesis 2. Since both the direct and indirect paths are significant, job autonomy partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior.

Table 5.

Mediation Analysis Summary.

Total effect (TL → IWB)	Direct effect (TL → IWB)	Relationship	Indirect effect	Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI [lower bound, upper bound]	Conclusion
0.127***	0.080***	H2: TL → JA → IWB	0.047***	[0.038, 0.057]	Partial mediation

Note. TL = transformational leadership; JA = job autonomy; IWB = innovative work behavior; CI = confidence interval.

***

p < .001.

Hypothesis 3 was also supported, as shown in Table 4. The results indicate that innovative organizational culture has a statistically significant and positive direct association with innovative work behavior (β = .199, p < .001; 95% CI [0.167, 0.232]). Additionally, both Hypotheses 4 and 5, which tested the moderating role of innovative organizational culture, were also supported. The interaction between transformational leadership and innovative organizational culture significantly predicted innovative work behavior (H4: β = .096, p < .001; 95% CI [0.071, 0.120]), suggesting that innovative organizational culture strengthens the positive effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior. Furthermore, the interaction term also significantly predicted job autonomy (H5: β = .041, p < .01; 95% CI [0.020, 0.064]), indicating that a higher level of innovative organizational culture enhances the influence of transformational leadership on job autonomy.

Finally, Table 6 presents the conditional indirect effects (Hypothesis 6), showing how innovative organizational culture moderates the mediating pathway from transformational leadership to innovative work behavior through job autonomy. This study indicates that the index of moderated mediation (0.007, p < .01) of confidence interval does not include zero ([0.004, 0.011]), and the proposed model is accepted. Also, to probe the moderated mediation effect when the mediator is a continuous variable, this study estimated the conditional indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable at the mean, one standard deviation below the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean of the mediator (Hayes, 2018). The indirect effect increases from 0.040 at a low level of innovative organizational culture (−1 SD) to 0.047 at the mean level and up to 0.054 at a high level of innovative organizational culture (+1 SD).

Table 6.

Results of Conditional Indirect Effects of Innovative Organizational Culture.

Mediator	Conditional indirect effects of innovative organizational culture
Mediator	Condition	β	SE	t	p	Bootstrap 95% CI [low, high]
Job autonomy	Low (−1 SD: −0.737)	.040	0.006	6.966	.000	[0.031, 0.050]
	Middle (mean: 0.000)	.047	0.006	8.223	.000	[0.038, 0.057]
	High (+1 SD: 0.737)	.054	0.007	8.165	.000	[0.044, 0.066]
Index of moderated mediation		.007	0.002	3.010	.001	[0.004, 0.011]

Note. SE = standard error.

Figure 3 provides a graphical illustration of these conditional indirect effects, indicating that as the level of innovative organizational culture increases, the indirect effect (TL → JA → IWB) grows stronger. The dashed lines represent the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (10,000 draws), indicating that this indirect path remains statistically significant across varying levels of innovative organizational culture. Consequently, higher levels of innovative organizational culture strengthen the positive influence of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior by enhancing job autonomy, thereby supporting Hypothesis 6.

Figure 3.

Conditional indirect effect on innovative organizational culture.

Discussion

This study investigated whether transformational leadership, through its mediating role in job autonomy and its direct, moderating, and conditional indirect effects of innovative organizational culture, fosters synergistic effects that enhance innovative work behavior among public employees in South Korea. The findings indicate that transformational leadership is directly and positively associated with innovative work behavior, and this relationship is partially mediated by job autonomy. In addition, an innovative organizational culture is not only positively associated with the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior but also moderates the effects of transformational leadership on both job autonomy and innovative work behavior. Moreover, the conditional indirect effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior is mediated by job autonomy, strengthened when public employees perceive a high level of innovative organizational culture.

The findings of this study contribute to the existing literature on leadership and innovation in the public sector by providing insights into these relationships for theoretical implications. Firstly, the results indicate the positive association between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior, drawing on the leader-member exchange theory to suggest that promoting transformational leadership through organizational support leads to active innovative work behavior (Bos-Nehles et al., 2016; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hassan & Hatmaker, 2014; Hesmert & Vogel, 2024). This underscores that when transformational leaders communicate a clear vision, exhibit trust, and stimulate employees’ intellectual capacities, followers are more inclined to be proactive and create innovative work behavior (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Choi et al., 2016). Second, this study enhances the theoretical understanding of how transformational leadership influences innovative work behavior by demonstrating that job autonomy partially mediates this relationship. These findings support self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2008; Deci et al., 2017) and job characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) theories. Self-determination theory highlights that job autonomy is critical in influencing personal values and decision-making (Svendsen et al., 2018). Transformational leadership promotes job autonomy, allowing employees to create and refine ideas effectively (De Spiegelaere et al., 2014; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). This approach shows that transformational leadership directly affects actions and strengthens job autonomy, leading to improved, innovative work behavior. Specifically, transformational leaders appear to empower employees by offering them discretion over how they plan and execute their tasks (De Spiegelaere et al., 2014; Lee & Jin, 2022). This job autonomy, in turn, influences employees’ intrinsic motivation, encouraging them to explore novel solutions (Campbell, 2025; Svendsen et al., 2018). Such effects are especially noteworthy in public organizations, where rigid structures can stifle creativity (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2013; Park & Jo, 2018).

Moreover, the significance of an innovative organizational culture, both in its direct and moderating effects, emerges prominently. Consistent with existing studies on the relationship between innovative organizational culture and innovative work behavior (Lee, 2025; Ryu, 2022), and addressing the lack of studies examining the moderating effects of transformational leadership on both job autonomy and innovative work behavior. The findings show that an innovative organizational culture not only directly enhances employees’ willingness to engage in innovative work behavior but also strengthens its effects of transformational leadership on both job autonomy and innovative work behavior. These results align with the concept that defines innovative organizational culture as one that fosters creativity, supports risk-taking, and cultivates openness to change (Hofstede, 2003; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Wynen et al., 2014). It means that public organizations should not solely concentrate on transformational leadership but also nurture an innovative organizational culture that enhances job autonomy and encourages innovative work behavior. In essence, fostering such environments within public organizations tends to encourage individual innovation through increased job autonomy and effective transformational leadership (Hartog & Belschak, 2012; J. W. Park et al., 2015). This highlights the reciprocal influence between leadership and culture, underscoring that the broader organizational culture of the environment can shape how employees perceive their discretion and react to transformational leadership, as well as engage in innovative work behaviors (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Hofstede, 2003; Škerlavaj et al., 2009). In other words, as employees perceive a higher level of innovative organizational culture, the association with transformational leadership strengthens, both in terms of job autonomy and innovative work behavior. Finally, this study shows that when public employees recognize a high level of innovative organizational culture, the indirect effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior through job autonomy becomes more significant. Altogether, this emphasizes the importance of carefully considering not only individual factors but also clear organizational environmental factors, like innovative organizational culture, which public employees recognize as crucial elements for fostering innovative work behavior.

The significance of these findings extends to leaders and managers within the public sector, particularly in South Korea, to consider practical implications. Firstly, given the positive association between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior, this study recommends that leaders and managers engage in transformational leadership activities to encourage innovative work behavior. Institutional constraints, hierarchical culture, and bureaucratic red tape contribute to lower innovation and activity levels among South Korean public employees compared to those in the private sector, hindering their efforts to enhance performance and deliver quality public services (Bak et al., 2022; Campbell & Im, 2019; Kim, 2017). Effective transformational leadership can counteract these constraints by empowering public employees through a compelling shared vision, organizational goals, and a culture that values innovation. South Korean public organizations should invest in comprehensive training programs to effectively develop transformational leaders by instilling the core qualities of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Lim & Moon, 2021). Evaluating transformational leadership qualities during interviews for leadership roles is also advisable to ensure effective recruitment (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010).

In the context of Korean public-sector reforms, specifically Government 3.0, managers can take further practical steps to reduce the fear of retribution and nurture a supportive culture for innovation. For instance, piloting a “safe-to-fail” initiative—where small-scale experiments are allowed to fail without punitive consequences—can encourage responsible risk-taking. Public leaders can also form autonomous task teams with cross-departmental authority, fostering collaboration beyond traditional hierarchical silos (Bak et al., 2022; Ministry of Personnel Management, 2020). Additionally, performance evaluations could be revised to reward creative input rather than relying solely on outcome-based or seniority-focused metrics. Such measures align well with transformational leadership practices by empowering managers to grant job autonomy and cultivate an innovation-friendly organizational culture (Park & Jo, 2018).

Secondly, regarding the significant role of job autonomy in bridging transformational leadership with innovative work behavior, Korean public-sector leaders and managers should prioritize strategies that foster autonomy within the workplace. Promoting autonomy not only empowers employees but also creates an optimal environment for both personal innovation and leadership growth. Leaders also need to consider restructuring work processes to increase the freedom and discretion employees have (Amankwaa et al., 2019). This might involve redesigning tasks so that employees can approach their work in more flexible and innovative ways. Leaders and managers can significantly enhance employee engagement and innovative problem-solving by supporting autonomous decision-making, consulting with employees on impactful decisions, incorporating their ideas into organizational strategies, and delegating job responsibilities (De Jong & Kemp, 2003; De Spiegelaere et al., 2014; Svendsen et al., 2018). Conversely, managers who micromanage can stifle creativity and hinder innovation. Therefore, fostering autonomy is a key strategy for leaders aiming to drive innovation and enhance overall organizational performance.

Lastly, leaders and managers should take a more holistic approach, considering the broader work environment and employee perceptions in promoting decision-making processes. This study shows that the influence of job autonomy and transformational leadership on innovative work behavior is strengthened in an innovative organizational culture. This collaborative interplay fosters innovative behaviors within public organizations, enabling them to adeptly handle complex challenges and unforeseen situations. Recognizing job autonomy’s central role as a mediator, it becomes evident how employee autonomy significantly shapes personal values, norms, and decision-making processes (Campbell, 2025; Svendsen et al., 2018). Leaders should, therefore, develop an innovation-driven organizational culture through bottom-up empowerment initiatives and tailored leadership development programs emphasizing intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Lim & Moon, 2021). These efforts would help balance formal hierarchy with proactive, creative problem-solving among public employees in South Korea. Moreover, the moderating influence of innovative organizational culture emphasizes the necessity for cultivating a culture that encourages openness and creativity and embraces new ideas, coupled with a willingness to take risks and foster an entrepreneurial mindset (O’Reilly et al., 1991; Wynen et al., 2014). Given the association of innovative organizational culture with job autonomy, leaders and managers should build an innovation-driven organizational culture to maximize the association of transformational leadership with innovative work behavior.

Despite these implications, some limitations must be considered. Firstly, it relied on self-reported and cross-sectional data, limiting the ability to establish causality or definitively ascertain the nature of these relationships. Moreover, the study’s focus solely on South Korea’s public sectors may hinder the broad applicability of the findings to other contexts or sectors. Future investigations need to consider longitudinal or experimental designs and expand their scope to encompass diverse sectors and cultural contexts, thereby enhancing the findings’ generalizability. Additionally, reliance on individual perceptions may lead to response variations, potentially affecting the credibility of the results. Future research needs to address this issue by scheduling separate data collection times for the independent and dependent variables. Furthermore, in this study, transformational leadership and innovative organizational culture were measured with four and three survey items. While this approach offered a concise way to capture the concept, it may not fully reflect the multifaceted nature of transformational leadership and innovative organizational culture. Hence, future studies would benefit from employing more validated multi-item scales, which could more accurately capture these concepts. Finally, this study controlled only for demographic variables broadly and explored innovative work behavior through factors such as transformational leadership, job autonomy, and innovative organizational culture. However, it did not fully consider other individual and motivational influences on innovative work behavior in the research model. Future works could consider individual characteristics such as psychological safety and public service motivation to better understand innovative work behavior.

Conclusion

Public organizations increasingly view innovation as a core strategy to address evolving societal demands, manage complex governance challenges, and ensure sustainable growth (De Vries et al., 2016; Demircioglu & Audretsch, 2024; Hijal-Moghrabi et al., 2020). Encouraging employees’ innovative work behavior helps public organizations to tackle socio-economic and management challenges, deliver public services more effectively, and enhance citizen satisfaction (Demircioglu et al., 2023; Shim et al., 2023). Public management scholars have recognized its positive potential and studied its antecedents, identifying key factors that influence individual innovation within public organizations. Among these factors, transformational leadership, job autonomy, and innovative organizational culture have garnered significant attention; however, previous studies have insufficiently explored their dynamic interactions. Therefore, using survey data from Korean public employees in central and local governments, the important findings suggest that a holistic approach to encouraging public employees’ innovative work behavior, encompassing not only transformational leadership but also nurturing an innovative organizational culture and promoting job autonomy, is essential for driving innovation and improving performance in public sector organizations.

Taken together, this study contributes to public personnel management scholarship by integrating perspectives on leadership, job characteristics, and organizational culture into a cohesive framework for understanding innovation in public organizations. It also extends existing studies by exploring the interrelationship between innovative organizational culture, leadership, autonomy, and innovative behaviors. Practically, the findings suggest that the importance of public managers need to adopt combined strategies that include transformational leadership practices with efforts to build and support an innovative-oriented culture and empower employees’ discretion. Promoting leadership development, redesigning work structures and tasks to enhance autonomy, and fostering a culture that encourages openness to change, creative problem-solving, and constructive risk-taking are significant steps toward enhancing employees’ innovation capacity and improving the performance and responsiveness of public organizations.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B.

Demographics of the Sample Respondents.

Demographics	Frequency	Percent
Type of government
Central	2,092	50.6
Local	2,041	49.4
Job tenure
5 years or less	964	23.3
6–10 years	793	19.2
11–15 years	577	14.0
16–20 years	700	16.9
21–25 years	314	7.6
More than 26 years	785	19.0
Rank
Grade 1–4	203	4.9
Grade 5	959	23.2
Grade 6–7	2,474	59.9
Grade 8–9	497	12.0
Gender
Male	2,296	55.6
Female	1,837	44.4
Age group
20s	379	9.2
30s	1,199	29.0
40s	1,502	36.3
50s and older	1,053	25.5
Education level
Less than high school	182	4.4
College degree (2 years)	227	5.5
Bachelor’s	3,050	73.8
Master’s	593	14.3
Doctoral degree	81	2.0

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Seongdeok Oh

Meghna Sabharwal

Data Availability Statement

Raw data were generated at the Korea Institute of Public Administration. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Author Biographies

Seongdeok Oh is a Ph.D. candidate in the public and nonprofit management program at the University of Texas at Dallas. His research focuses on public management, organizational behavior, and human resources management, with emphasis on innovation and leadership in the public sector.Meghna Sabharwal is a professor in the public and nonprofit management program and Associate Provost for faculty success at the University of Texas at Dallas. She is a NAPA fellow. Her research is focused on public human resources management, specifically workplace inclusion, liberatory public service, and organizational outcomes. She has published five books and over 80 peer-reviewed journal articles and chapters, and is the winner of six best paper awards. She is the Editor-in-Chief of the Review of Public Personnel Administration.

References

Afsar

Badir

Y. F.

Saeed

B. B.

(2014). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114(8), 1270–1300. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-05-2014-0152

Albury

(2005). Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00450.x

Amankwaa

Gyensare

M. A.

Susomrith

(2019). Transformational leadership with innovative behaviour. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(4), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-10-2018-0358

Bak

Jin

M. H.

McDonald

B. D.

(2022). Unpacking the transformational leadership-innovative work behavior relationship: The mediating role of psychological capital. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(1), 80–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2021.1939737

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699408524907

Bass

B. M.

Riggio

R. E.

(2006). Transformational leadership. (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Borins

(2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(8), 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210449357

Bos-Nehles

A. C.

Bondarouk

Nijenhuis

(2016). Innovative work behaviour in knowledge-intensive public sector organizations: The case of supervisors in the Netherlands fire services. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(2), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244894

10.

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

(2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 685–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024287

11.

Brown

Osborne

S. P.

(2012). Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. Routledge.

12.

Bysted

Hansen

J. R.

(2015). Comparing public and private sector employees’ innovative behaviour: Understanding the role of job and organizational characteristics, job types, and subsectors. Public Management Review, 17(5), 698–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841977

13.

Bysted

Jespersen

K. R.

(2014). Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: Comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review, 16(2), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806576

14.

Caillier

J. G.

(2016). Do transformational leaders affect turnover intentions and extra-role behaviors through mission valence? American Review of Public Administration, 46(2), 226–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014551751

15.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

(2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

16.

Campbell

J. W.

(2025). Job autonomy, role ambiguity, and procedural justice: A multi-conditional process model of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 45(1), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x231214978

17.

Campbell

J. W.

(2019). Exchange ideology, performance pay, and pay satisfaction: Evidence from South Korean central government. Public Personnel Management, 48(4), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019832632

18.

Chenhall

R. H.

Kallunki

J.-P.

Silvola

(2011). Exploring the relationships between strategy, innovation, and management control systems: The roles of social networking, organic innovative culture, and formal controls. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 23(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-10069

19.

Cho

Y. J.

Song

H. J.

(2021). How to facilitate innovative behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from public employees in Korea. Public Personnel Management, 50(4), 509–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020977571

20.

Choi

Cho

K. W.

(2025). Influence of transformational leadership on innovative behavior in the Korean public service sector: The moderated mediating effect of change management and PSM. Public Performance & Management Review, 48(2), 437–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2024.2436631

21.

Choi

S. B.

Kim

Ullah

S. M. E.

Kang

(2016). How transformational leadership facilitates innovative behavior of Korean workers. Personnel Review, 45(3), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-03-2014-0058

22.

Damanpour

Schneider

(2008). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun021

23.

De Jong

J. P.

Den Hartog

. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x

24.

De Jong

J. P.

Kemp

. (2003). Determinants of co-workers’ innovative behaviour: An investigation into knowledge intensive services. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919603000787

25.

De Spiegelaere

Van Gyes

De Witte

Niesen

Van Hootegem

. (2014). On the relation of job insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12079

26.

De Vries

Bekkers

Tummers

. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209

27.

Deci

E. L.

Olafsen

A. H.

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

28.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

29.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

30.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

Gagné

Leone

D. R.

Usunov

Kornazheva

B. P.

(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002

31.

Demircioglu

M. A.

Audretsch

D. B.

(2024). Public sector innovation (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.

32.

Demircioglu

M. A.

Hameduddin

Knox

(2023). Innovative work behaviors and networking across government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211017654

33.

Dewar

R. D.

Dutton

J. E.

(1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422

34.

Dunleavy

Margetts

Bastow

Tinkler

(2006). New public management is dead — long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057

35.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.54.6.408

36.

Ejaz

Quratulain

Aulakh

A. H.

Cando-Naranjo

Sabharwal

(2025). The conditional effects of the transformational leadership behaviors on leaders’ emotional exhaustion: Roles of deep acting and emotional intelligence. American Review of Public Administration, 55(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241273978

37.

Fernandez

Moldogaziev

(2013). Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12049

38.

Fried

Slowik

L. H.

(2004). Enriching goal-setting theory with time: An integrated approach. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 404–422. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159051

39.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

40.

Gumusluoğlu

İlsev

(2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.032

41.

Günzel-Jensen

Hansen

J. R.

Jakobsen

M. L. F.

Wulff

(2018). A two-pronged approach? Combined leadership styles and innovative behavior. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(12), 957–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1303711

42.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.

43.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.

44.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001

45.

Hansen

J. A.

Pihl-Thingvad

(2019). Managing employee innovative behaviour through transformational and transactional leadership styles. Public Management Review, 21(6), 918–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1544272

46.

Hartog

D. N. D.

Belschak

F. D.

(2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024903

47.

Hassan

Hatmaker

D. M.

(2014). Leadership and performance of public employees: Effects of the quality and characteristics of manager-employee relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1127–1155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu002

48.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

49.

Hesmert

Vogel

(2024). Following your ideal leader: Implicit public leadership theories, leader—member exchange, and work engagement. Public Personnel Management, 53(4), 548–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260241249146

50.

Hijal-Moghrabi

Sabharwal

Ramanathan

(2020). Innovation in public organizations: Do government reforms matter? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(6-7), 731–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-04-2020-0106

51.

Hofstede

(2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage Publications

52.

Janssen

(2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647210

53.

Jung

D. I.

Avolio

B. J.

(2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949–964. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200012)21:8

54.

Kearney

Feldman

B. M.

Scavo

(2000). Reinventing government: City manager attitudes and actions. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 535–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00116

55.

Khan

N. A.

Khan

A. N.

(2019). What followers are saying about transformational leaders fostering employee innovation via organisational learning, knowledge sharing and social media use in public organisations? Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.003

56.

Kim

Shim

D. C.

(2025). Unveiling the link between organizational politics and innovative work behavior: Evidence from local civil servants in South Korea. Public Personnel Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260251345970

57.

Kim

(2017). National culture and public service motivation: Investigating the relationship using Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(1 Suppl), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315596214

58.

Kim

(2024). Give and take: Understanding innovative behaviour from a psychological contract perspective. Public Management Review, 24, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2354780

59.

Kyeong

(2025). Do transformational leadership and innovative climate always enhance employees’ innovative behavior? Focusing on the moderated mediating role of innovative climate on change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Public Personnel Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260251325269

60.

T. V.

Barboza-Wilkes

(2024). How self-determination moderates burnout in public organizations across gender, race, and generation. Public Personnel Management, 53(1), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231191274

61.

Lee

(2025). The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between job autonomy and innovative Behavior. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X251342001

62.

Lee

Choi

D. L.

(2016). Does public service motivation influence the college students’ intention to work in the public sector? Evidence from Korea. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x13511974

63.

Lee

Jin

M. H.

(2022). Understanding the organizational learning culture—innovative behavior relation in local government: The roles of knowledge sharing and job autonomy. Public Administration, 101(4), 1326–1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12884

64.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Stilwell

(1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662

65.

Lim

J. Y.

Moon

(2021). Transformational leadership and employees’ helping behavior in public organizations: Does organizational structure matter? Public Personnel Management, 50(4), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020977565

66.

Lin

(2023). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of identification, voice and innovation climate. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 113, Article 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103521

67.

Martins

Terblanche

(2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060310456337

68.

Matsumoto

Juang

(2004). Culture and psychology (3rd ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

69.

McLean

(2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422305274528

70.

Miao

Newman

Schwarz

Cooper

(2018). How leadership and public service motivation enhance innovative behavior. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12839

71.

Ministry of Personnel Management. (2020). Proactive governance. http://www.mpm.go.kr/proactivePublicServiceEn/

72.

Mohr

L. B.

(1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review, 63(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400261510

73.

Moore

M. H.

Hartley

(2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701763161

74.

Mostafa

A. M. S.

El-Motalib

E. A. A.

(2019). Servant leadership, leader–member exchange and proactive behavior in the public health sector. Public Personnel Management, 48(3), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018816340

75.

Nam

(2019). Determinants of local public employee attitudes toward government innovation. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(4), 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-06-2018-0134

76.

Nuwagaba

Han

Kim

S. Y.

(2025). Exploring the dual effects of employee empowerment on innovative behavior: Encouraging and discouraging pathways. Public Personnel Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260251340741

77.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Chatman

J. A.

Caldwell

D. F.

(1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.2307/256404

78.

Oldham

G. R.

Cummings

A. L.

(1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634. https://doi.org/10.5465/256657

79.

Paarlberg

L. E.

Lavigna

(2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02199.x

80.

Park

J. W.

Lee

Kim

P. S.

(2015). Participative management and perceived organizational performance: The moderating effects of innovative organizational culture. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1108773

81.

Park

S. J.

(2018). The impact of proactivity, leader-member exchange, and climate for innovation on innovative behavior in the Korean government sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(1), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-09-2016-0216

82.

Park

S. M.

Park

H. J.

Ryu

E. Y.

(2013). Determinants of positive job attitude and behaviour in the Asian work context: Evidence from Korean central government agencies. Public Management Review, 15(8), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.816517

83.

Peng

Liao

Sun

(2020). The influence of transformational leadership on employees’ affective organizational commitment in public and nonprofit Organizations: A moderated mediation Model. Public Personnel Management, 49(1), 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019835233

84.

Pieterse

A. N.

Van Knippenberg

Schippers

M. C.

Stam

(2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.650

85.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

86.

Prieto

I. M.

Pérez-Santana

M. P.

(2014). Managing innovative work behavior: The role of human resource practices. Personnel Review, 43(2), 184–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-11-2012-0199

87.

Rainey

H. G.

Steinbauer

(1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024401

88.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

89.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x

90.

Ryu

(2022). Why does organizational culture matter for public employees’ innovative behavior? International Review of Public Administration, 27(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2022.2044106

91.

Sarros

J. C.

Cooper

Santora

J. C.

(2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051808324100

92.

Schein

E. H.

(1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. Jossey-Bass.

93.

Scott

S. G.

Bruce

R. A.

(1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/256701

94.

Shim

D. C.

Park

H. H.

Chung

K. H.

(2023). Workgroup innovative behaviours in the public sector workplace: The influence of servant leadership and workgroup climates. Public Management Review, 25(5), 901–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1999668

95.

Shin

S. J.

Zhou

(2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040662

96.

Škerlavaj

Song

J. H.

Lee

(2009). Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert Systems With Applications, 37(9), 6390–6403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.080

97.

Sparrowe

R. T.

Liden

R. C.

(1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522–552. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707154068

98.

Suzuki

(2017). Government expenditure cuts and voluntary activities of citizens: The experience of Japanese municipalities. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 39(4), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2017.1403179

99.

Suzuki

(2018). Government retrenchment and citizen participation in volunteering: A cross-national analysis of OECD countries. Public Policy and Administration, 35(3), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718796097

100.

Suzuki

Demircioglu

M. A.

(2019). The association between administrative characteristics and national level innovative activity: Findings from a cross-national study. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(4), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1519449

101.

Svendsen

Unterrainer

Jønsson

(2018). The effect of transformational leadership and job autonomy on promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave Study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817750536

102.

Van Wart

. (2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of leaders. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12069

103.

Vivona

Demircioğlu

M. A.

Raghavan

(2021). Innovation and innovativeness for the public servant of the future: What, why, how, where, and when. In Sullivan

Dickinson

Henderson

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of the public servant (pp. 1–22) Springer eBooks.

104.

Wilson

J. Q.

(2019). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books.

105.

Windrum

Koch

P. M.

(2008). Innovation in public sector services entrepreneurship creativity and management. Edward Elgar.

106.

Wright

B. E.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2011). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02496.x

107.

Wynen

Verhoest

Ongaro

Van Thiel

(2014). Innovation-oriented culture in the public sector: Do managerial autonomy and result control lead to innovation? Public Management Review, 16(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.790273

108.

Yuan

Woodman

R. W.

(2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49388995

109.

Yukl

(1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(99)00013-2