Public sector innovation theory argues that the extent to which governments innovate is a question of factors such as capacity, collaboration, leadership, orientation, size, and autonomy. However, public sector organizations cannot be treated as uniform entities. Different units in an organization may have different challenges, networks, and exposure to innovation resources and pressures. Using multi-level survey data from Belgian federal and Flemish public sector managers (N=351), we provide important new knowledge to understand what characteristics and incentives at both levels (units and their organizations) should be promoted and leveraged to support managers’ perceived innovation outcomes.
AgranoffRMcGuireM (1998) Multinetwork management: Collaboration and the hollow state in local economic policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8(1): 67–91.
2.
AnsellCGashA (2018) Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28(1): 16–32.
3.
BachTWegrichK (2019) The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non-coordination. New York, NY: Springer.
4.
BekkersVEdelenbosJSteijnB (2011) Innovation in the Public Sector: Linking Capacity and Leadership. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BernierLDeschampsC (2020) Autonomy and distance from the centre as drivers of innovation in the public sector: Testing a positioning-based hypothesis. Canadian Public Administration63(2): 271–292.
6.
BommertB (2010) Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International public management review11(1): 15–33.
7.
BoonJVerhoestKWynenJ (2020) What determines the audiences that public service organisations target for reputation management?Policy & Politics48(2): 295–314.
8.
BorinsS (2002) Leadership and innovation in the public sector. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal23(8): 467–476.
9.
BorinsS (2014) The Persistence of Innovation in Government. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press with Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation.
10.
BoukamelOEmeryY (2017) Evolution of organizational ambidexterity in the public sector and current challenges of innovation capabilities. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal2(22): 1–26.
11.
BrogaardL (2021) Innovative outcomes in public-private innovation partnerships: A systematic review of empirical evidence and current challenges. Public Management Review23(1): 135–157.
12.
BuchheimLKriegerAArndtS (2019) Innovation types in public sector organizations: A systematic review of the literature. Management Review Quarterly70: 509–533.
13.
ChesbroughHW (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
14.
ChoiTChandlerSM (2015) Exploration, exploitation, and public sector innovation: An organizational learning perspective for the public sector. Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership & Governance39(2): 139–151.
15.
ChoiJChangJ (2009) Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration of institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology94(1): 245–253.
16.
CinarETrottPSimmsC (2019) A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process. Public Management Review21(2): 264–290.
17.
CinarESimmsCTrottP, et al. (2022) Public sector innovation in context: A comparative study of innovation types. Public Management Review: 1–29.
18.
ClausenTHDemirciogluMAAlsosGA (2020) Intensity of innovation in public sector organizations: The role of push and pull factors. Public administration98(1): 159–176.
19.
DamanpourF (1991) Organizational innovation: A meta-Analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal34(3): 555–590.
20.
DamanpourF (1996) Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science42(5): 693–716.
21.
DamanpourFSchneiderM (2009) Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19(3): 495–522.
22.
De VriesHBekkersVTummersL (2016) Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public administration94(1): 146–166.
23.
DemirciogluMA (2020) The effects of organizational and demographic context for innovation implementation in public organizations. Public Management Review22(12): 1852–1875.
24.
DemirciogluMAVan der WalZ (2022) Leadership and innovation: What’s the story? The relationship between leadership support level and innovation target. Public Management Review24(8): 1289–1311.
25.
FaveroNBullockJB (2015) How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(1): 285–308.
26.
FernandezSMoldogazievT (2012) Using employee empowerment to encourage innovative behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory23(1): 155–187.
27.
GeorgeBPandeySK (2017) We know the Yin—But where is the Yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship. Review of public personnel administration37(2): 245–270.
28.
GibsonCBBirkinshawJ (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47(2): 209–226.
29.
GieskeHvan BuurenABekkersV (2016) Conceptualizing public innovative capacity: A framework for assessment. The Innovation Journal21(1): 2–25.
30.
GieskeHvan MeerkerkIvan BuurenA (2018) The impact of innovation and optimization on public sector performance: Testing the contribution of connective, ambidextrous, and learning capabilities. Public Performance and Management Review42(2): 432–460.
31.
GieskeHGeorgeBvan MeerkerkI, et al. (2020) Innovating and optimizing in public organizations: Does more become less?Public Management Review22(4): 475–497.
32.
GullmarkP (2021) Do all roads lead to innovativeness? A study of public sector organizations’ innovation capabilities. The American Review of Public Administration51(7): 509–525.
33.
HartleyJ (2016) Organizational and governance aspects of diffusing public innovation. In: TorfingJTriantafillouP (eds), Enhancing Public Innovation by Transforming Public Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 95–114.
34.
HartleyJSørensenETorfingJ (2013) Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review73(6): 821–830.
35.
HarveyGSkelcherCSpencerE, et al. (2010) Absorptive capacity in a non-market environment: A knowledge-based approach to analysing the performance of sector organizations. Public Management Review12(1): 77–97.
36.
HildénSPekkolaSRämöJ (2014) Measuring reflectiveness as innovation potential – do we ever stop to think around here? In: DavilaAEpsteinMJManzonniJ-F (eds), Performance Measurement and Management Control: Behavioral Implications and Human Actions. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 177–202.
37.
JakobsenMJensenR (2015) Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal18(1): 3–30.
38.
JansenJJVan Den BoschFAVolberdaHW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science52(11): 1661–1674.
39.
JansenJJVeraDCrossanM (2009) Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly20(1): 5–18.
40.
JanssenO (2005) The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology78(4): 573–579.
41.
KlijnE-HSteijnBEdelenbosJ (2010) The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public administration88(4): 1063–1082.
42.
LægreidPRonessPGVerhoestK (2011) Explaining the innovative culture and activities of state agencies. Organization Studies32(10): 1321–1347.
43.
LapuenteVSuzukiK (2020) Politicization, bureaucratic legalism, and innovative attitudes in the public sector. Public Administration Review80(3): 454–467.
44.
LawsonBSamsonD (2001) Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management05(03): 377–400.
45.
LeachWDWeibleCMVinceSR, et al. (2014) Fostering learning through collaboration: Knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory24(3): 591–622.
46.
LewisJMRicardLMKlijnE-H (2018) How innovation drivers, networking and leadership shape public sector innovation capacity. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(2): 288–307.
47.
LindsayCFindlayPMcQuarrieJ, et al. (2018) Collaborative innovation, new technologies, and work redesign. Public Administration Review78(2): 251–260.
48.
MaggettiMVerhoestK (2014) Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: A state of the field and ways forward. International Review of Administrative Sciences80(2): 239–256.
49.
MarchJG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
50.
MeynhardtTDiefenbachFE (2012) What drives entrepreneurial orientation in the public sector? Evidence from Germany’s federal labor agency. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22(4): 761–792.
51.
MolenveldAVerhoestKWynenJ (2020) Why public organizations contribute to crosscutting policy programs: The role of structure, culture, and ministerial control. Policy Sciences54: 123–154.
52.
MoussaMMcMurrayAMuenjohnN (2018) Innovation in public sector organisations. Cogent Business & Management5(1): 1475047.
53.
MuRWangH (2022) A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: Comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation. Public Management Review24(4): 489–511.
54.
MutonyiBRSlåttenTLienG (2020) Empowering leadership, work group cohesiveness, individual learning orientation and individual innovative behaviour in the public sector: Empirical evidence from Norway. International Journal of Public Leadership16(2): 175–197.
55.
NonakaI (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science5(1): 14–37.
56.
OECD (2019) Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.
57.
OsborneSBrownL (2013) Handbook of Innovation in Public Services. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
58.
ParkAYSKrauseRMHawkinsCV (2020) Institutional mechanisms for local sustainability collaboration: Assessing the duality of formal and informal mechanisms in promoting collaborative processes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31(2): 434–450.
59.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology63: 539–569.
60.
PollittC (2010) Public Management Reform during Financial Austerity. Stockholm: Statskontoret.
61.
RakšnysAValickasAVanagasR (2020) Challenges of creation and implementation of collaborative innovations in public sector organisations. Public policy and administration19(1): 9–21.
62.
RashmanLWithersEHartleyJ (2009) Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews11(4): 463–494.
63.
RogersEM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
64.
SørensenETorfingJ (2011) Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society43(8): 842–868.
TimeusKGascóM (2018) Increasing innovation capacity in city governments: Do innovation labs make a difference?Journal of Urban Affairs40(7): 992–1008.
67.
TorfingJ (2019) Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review21(1): 1–11.
68.
TorfingJAnsellC (2017) Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance. Public Management Review19(1): 37–54.
69.
TorfingJCristofoliDGloorPA, et al. (2020) Taming the snake in paradise: Combining institutional design and leadership to enhance collaborative innovation. Policy and Society39: 592–616.
70.
TorvinenHJanssonK (2022) Public health care innovation lab tackling the barriers of public sector innovation. Public Management Review25: 1539–1561.
71.
van AckerWWynenJOp de BeeckS (2018) Illuminating the gender divide in public sector innovation: Evidence from the Australian public service. Public Personnel Management47(2): 175–194.
72.
van MeerkerkIEdelenbosJ (2014) The effects of boundary spanners on trust and performance of urban governance networks: Findings from survey research on urban development projects in The Netherlands. Policy Sciences47(1): 3–24.
73.
van MeerkerkIEdelenbosJKlijnEH (2015) Connective management and governance network performance: The mediating role of throughput legitimacy. Findings from survey research on complex water projects in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning C: government and Policy33(4): 746–764.
74.
van ThielSvan der WalZ (2010) Birds of a feather? The effect of organizational value congruence on the relationship between ministries and quangos. Public Organization Review10: 377–397.
75.
VerhoestKVerschuereBBouckaertG (2007) Pressure, legitimacy, and innovative behavior by public organizations. Governance20(3): 469–497.
76.
Vigoda-GadotE (2009) Building Strong Nations: Improving Governability and Public Management. Aldershot: Ashgate.
77.
WalkerRM (2014) Internal and external antecedents of process innovation: A review and extension. Public Management Review16(1): 21–44.
78.
WegrichK (2019) The blind spots of collaborative innovation. Public Management Review21(1): 12–20.
WynenJVerhoestKOngaroE, et al. (2014) Innovation-oriented culture in the public sector: Do managerial autonomy and result control lead to innovation?Public Management Review16(1): 45–66.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
