Abstract
Drawing on job demands–resources theory, this study explains the underlying mechanism by which servant leadership affects public employees’ innovative behaviors. Building upon this foundation, the study constructs a hypothesized theoretical model positioning psychological safety as the mediator and public service motivation as the moderator. Through institutional cooperation with graduate schools at two universities in Yunnan Province, China, a survey was administered to 680 Master of Public Administration students, yielding 642 valid responses for analysis. Based on a sample of 642 public employees from public organizations in China, servant leadership was found to positively affect public employees’ psychological safety and innovative behaviors. Psychological safety partially mediated the relationship between servant leadership and innovative behaviors. Furthermore, public service motivation moderated the link between psychological safety and innovative behaviors. These findings suggest that public organizations must develop and train servant leaders using various strategies to establish and maintain a psychologically safe work environment conducive to innovation and also should attach importance to the significant role of public service motivation in enhancing innovative behaviors among public employees.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Within modernism, rapid socioeconomic transformations have rendered public and societal issues increasingly complex and uncertain. Public sector innovation enables governments to better respond to these challenges. Walker offered the pioneering insight that when governmental entities innovate to address societal problems and deliver high-quality public services, citizen trust in and support for government thereby increases1. Innovation is generally recognized as a critical component in the efforts of organizations to gain and maintain a competitive advantage in a knowledge-based society2,3. For example, researchers have viewed the innovative behaviors of employees as a foundation of organizational innovation4,5. Currently, organizations seek to stimulate and motivate employee engagement in innovative conduct to maintain sustainable success in organizational performance. This development highlights the need for practitioners and scholars to understand the vital influencing factors that impede innovation by employees. Given the significance of such behaviors in highly competitive societies, a stream of empirical studies has been devoted to the antecedents and mechanisms that underlie and predict employees’ innovative behaviors6,7. Previous research has also confirmed that leadership is the most significant environment-related predictor of such conduct8,9,10,11. Specifically, most prior studies reveal that innovation among employees is related to transformational12, inclusive13, entrepreneurial, and empowering types of leadership14,15. The problem is that these traditional leadership styles generally disregard perspectives centering on employees16. A contrasting style is servant leadership, which was initially defined by Greenleaf and has recently received increasing attention in the leadership domain17. Servant leadership involves the development of “employees to their fullest potential in the area of task effectiveness, community stewardship, self-motivation, and future leadership capabilities”18. As a people-centric approach, servant leadership exclusively focuses on satisfying employees’ needs and interests by supporting their career development, providing them with greater job autonomy, and helping them realize their full potential. However, although considerable research has examined the direct association between servant leadership and employees’ innovative behaviors in business settings, very little is known about the effects of the former on the latter in public organizations6,10,19,20,21. To the best of our knowledge, there is a dearth of empirical studies on innovation in the public sector22,23,24,25,26. Additionally, “there seems to be considerable disagreement about how to spur and sustain public innovation”27. Such innovation is crucial for effective service provision to the public23.
Considering the above-mentioned issues, we argue that further explorations should be conducted to inquire into the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ innovative behaviors in public organizations. Drawing on job demands–resources theory, we examined the underlying mechanisms through which servant leadership affects innovation among public employees28. Previous empirical research suggests that psychological safety is a significant predictor of employee creativity and innovation, but because innovative behaviors are typically correlated with uncertain and risky outcomes, employees require a psychologically safe atmosphere in which to advance the innovation process12,15,29,30,31,32,33,34. When employees perceive that they will not be rejected or punished for putting forward risky creative ideas, they are motivated to innovate. On this basis, it is essential for leaders to foster a psychologically safe workplace so that employees will freely show ad share their innovative ideas without fear of negative consequences related to job, status or self-image35. Leaders with high servant leadership qualities understand employees’ needs and goals, advance their career growth, and help them realize their full potential, thereby facilitating psychological safety for subordinates3,36. However, as far as we can tell, only a few empirical studies have explored the psychological processes through which servant leadership inspires employees’ innovative behaviors7,12. A worthwhile endeavor, therefore, is to delve into whether psychological safety mediates the relationship between servant leadership and employee innovation.
It is widely agreed that individual creativity is commonly affected by the cognitive process, organizational context, individual capacity, and motivation37. As far as motivation is concerned, scholars agreed that intrinsic motivation (e.g., public service motivation and prosocial behavior) is a key predictor of individual creativity and innovation37,38. Public service motivation (PSM), as a personal resource, is believed to influence employees’ innovative behaviors and creativity in the public sector24,39. Public employees with high levels of PSM are more likely to find increasingly innovative and creative ways to effectively deliver services to citizens. In line with job demands-resources theory, public employees with substantial PSM tend to pursue innovative ways of problem solving to complete their service responsibilities using various job resources40. Thus, the relationship between psychological safety and innovative behaviors in the public domain may be conditional upon PSM. That is, when public employees possess altruistic values that motivate them to dedicate themselves to public service, the influence of psychological safety on their innovative behaviors may be more pronounced.
The present study investigated how and when servant leadership affects public employees’ innovative behaviors by proposing a moderated mediation model (Fig. 1). Many previous studies have been directed to clarifying the effects of PSM on work-related performance, but no research has determined the link between servant leadership and public employees’ innovative behaviors as well as the underlying mechanisms of this relationship. Moreover, as far as we know, few studies have explored the effects of servant leadership on employees’ innovative behaviors in public organizations. A discussion of such issues is necessary because “the predominant view of innovation in government has been one of suspicion”41. In particular, public innovation is traditionally considered a form of risk-taking that is unacceptable and unauthorized in China, whose culture is characterized by a high-power distance and a rigid hierarchy. Therefore, we integrated servant leadership and PSM into the proposed research model. This study enriches the literature on servant leadership and PSM by confirming that servant leadership directly enhances public employees’ innovative behaviors, especially in high power-distance public sectors. It reveals psychological safety as a core mediating mechanism through which servant leaders foster public employees’ innovation, offering new insights within the Job Demands–Resources theory frameworks. Moreover, the study identifies PSM as a key moderator that strengthens the effect of psychological safety on innovation, highlighting the conditional role of individual motives in shaping innovative behavior. These findings deepen theoretical understanding of how servant leadership and PSM jointly promote innovation in public organizations.
Hypothesized research model.
Literature review and hypotheses
Servant leadership and innovative behavior
Greenleaf originally described servant leadership as “a natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” and a “conscious choice bringing one to aspire to lead”42. The author elaborated that servant leadership is aimed at helping employees obtain more career growth opportunities, understanding employees’ needs and interests, and, thereby, benefiting an organization17. More recently, Eva et al. explained that “servant leadership is manifested through one- on-one prioritizing of follower’s individual needs and interests that are linked to the well-being of others internally within the organization and externally within the larger community”43,44. Compared with other leadership styles, servant leadership is a unique orientation that emphasizes “servant first”17. It is based on the core premise that an organization achieves its final goals by paying attention to employees’ needs and interests, enhancing their growth and well-being, and developing their problem-solving skills45,46. Numerous studies have suggested that servant leadership is positively related to employees’ job satisfaction and well-being47,48, performance49, innovative behaviors50, and organizational citizenship behaviors51.
According to Yuan and Woodman, innovative behavior is “an employee’s intentional introduction or application of new ideas, products, processes and procedures to his or her work role, work unit or organization”52. Innovative behavior and creativity among employees have been widely recognized as significantly related to leadership styles3,6,14,53,54. The impact pathways on innovative behaviors diverge significantly across leadership styles. For instance, relational silence, psychological empowerment, and psychological safety with creative self-efficacy serve as effective mediators between inclusive leadership and innovative behaviors55. Ethical leadership operates primarily through self-efficacy, group cohesion, and openness to experience56,57,58,59. In transformational leadership’s causal chain, knowledge sharing and person-organization fit have been empirically validated as mediators60. Further comparative studies demonstrate authentic leadership’s superior efficacy, while servant leadership exhibits stronger explanatory power for innovative behaviors beyond transformational leadership61,62. This association can be explained by job demands-resources theory, job resources are defined as those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that help employees accomplish work goals, reduce job demands, or stimulate personal growth and development63. Within the framework of the Job Demands–Resources theory, servant leadership can be conceptualized as a key job resource that facilitates employee development and promotes positive work outcomes. Servant leaders, through behaviors such as listening, empathy, empowerment, and encouragement, provide employees with crucial social and psychological resources—such as a sense of support, trust, and opportunities for personal growth43. These resources are instrumental in encouraging proactive work behaviors, particularly innovative behavior. Thus, this kind of people- oriented leadership enhances employees’ identification with organizations and trust in supervisors, thereby motivating them to exercise innovative and creative behaviors on the basis of the norms of reciprocity7. Employees who perceive leadership support for individual development opportunities typically exhibit high intrinsic motivation to generate innovative ideas and methods in their work. A body of empirical research confirmed that servant leadership is positively and significantly related to employees’ innovative behaviors, innovative work conduct, and creative behaviors10,20,21,50,64. Examples are the studies of Reslan et al., who revealed that employees’ innovative work behaviors are directly promoted by servant leadership, and Khan et al., who verified the significant and positive effects of the latter on the former65,66. Similar findings are obtained in previous studies on public organizations25,26. Accordingly, we formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1
Servant leadership is positively related to employees’ innovative behaviors.
The mediating role of psychological safety
Psychological safety refers to “individuals’ perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in their workplace”67. According to Edmondson and Lei, individuals fully express and show their ideas, share their opinions, and report mistakes in a work environment when they clearly perceive that they will not be punished or rejected by their supervisors and organizations68. Scholars have long recognized that the psychological safety felt by employees is tremendously and directly shaped and influenced by leadership behaviors. Specifically, empirical research verified that employees’ psychological safety can be predicted by leadership styles such as transformational leadership, entrepreneurial leadership, and charismatic leadership11,14,69.
Despite the insights provided by the above-mentioned studies, however, little attention has been paid to the association between servant leadership and psychological safety, thus calling for investigations into the effects of the former on the latter43. As a unique leadership style, servant leadership prioritizes the needs and interests of employees in the process of achieving organizational goals. Such leaders are likely to cultivate an atmosphere of psychological safety for their followers by showing concern and care for their subordinates and encouraging their self- development11,64. This is supported by the results of Iqbal et al. and Ma et al., who indicated that servant leadership is directly, positively, and significantly related to employees’ psychological safety7,70,71. In the context of public organizations, empirical research attested to a significant and favorable connection between servant leadership and employees’ innovative behaviors25,26,72.
As previously stated, in a psychologically safe organization, employees are more likely to freely express their opinions and generate new ideas without fear of negative consequences34. Previous empirical studies demonstrate that psychological safety is significantly and positively related to employees’ ingenuity and innovative work behaviors12,15,29,30. Employees who perceive high psychological safety tend to involve themselves in creative activities and share their own risky ideas, which in turn, remarkably enhance their pursuit of innovation. The literature also suggested that psychological resources, such as psychological capital and psychological safety, play a principal role in the relationship between leadership styles and employees’ innovative behaviors10,15,73,74. A case in point is Yi et al., who found that psychological safety strengthens the favorable effects of leaders’ transparent behaviors on employees’ creativity72. Fang et al. reported that psychological capital mediates the association between inclusive leadership and employees’ innovative behaviors, similar to Chen et al., who discovered a mediating role of psychological safety in the link between participative leadership and ingenuity among employees15,75. Nevertheless, minimal research has clarified the mediating effect of psychological safety on the association between servant leadership and employees’ innovative behaviors76. However, few studies have found that servant leadership stimulates psychological safety and thereby promotes employees’ innovative behaviors and creativity7,12. Psychological safety refers to employees’ perception that they can express their ideas or try new approaches at work without fear of criticism or punishment77. Servant leadership, through listening, empathy, and support, is particularly effective in fostering such a psychologically safe environment18. In contrast, other potential mediators, such as psychological empowerment, emphasize individuals’ sense of competence and self-determination, which may influence innovative behavior through more indirect motivational pathways78. Furthermore, previous studies have demonstrated that psychological safety plays a significant mediating role between leadership behaviors and employees’ innovative behavior79. Therefore, this study selects psychological safety as the mediating variable, as it aligns more closely with the people-centered nature of servant leadership, which encourages risk-taking and open expression, and with the risk-tolerant environment required for innovation. Therefore, we crafted Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 2
Psychological safety mediates the positive relationship between servant leadership and employees’ innovative behaviors.
The moderating role of public service motivation
Previous studies reveal that psychological safety is a crucial predictor of employees’ innovative behaviors, but it is important to recognize that the psychological pathways that stimulate employees’ innovative behaviors and creativity may depend on contextual and individual factors, such as institutional environment, leadership style, and internal motivation15,29,30,80. Given that the intrinsic motivation of individuals is a primary antecedent of creativity and innovation, this research put forward PSM as a moderator to explore the boundary conditions between psychological safety and public employees’ innovative behaviors10,81,82. PSM, which was originally conceptualized by Perry and Wise, refers to “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations”83. It is typically viewed as an obligation-based or institutionally driven form of motivation83. In contrast, prosocial motivation refers to the desire to benefit others or promote others’ well-being, often emphasizing concern for other people’s outcomes84. While both PSM and prosocial motivation emphasize altruism, PSM is more closely tied to institutional values and public missions, whereas prosocial motivation is not confined to the public sector and can arise in a broad range of organizational and social contexts85. Moreover, intrinsic motivation is characterized by engagement in tasks due to interest, enjoyment, or inherent challenge86. Unlike PSM, which is rooted in moral obligation and a sense of responsibility toward the public good, intrinsic motivation stems from personal satisfaction derived from the activity itself. Recent studies have also shown that PSM plays a unique role in fostering innovative behavior in the public sector, particularly when employees perceive a high level of psychological safety39,87.
Scholars have agreed that the PSM levels of public employees significantly shape their work- related attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention51,87,88,89. The challenge is that there is limited knowledge of the association between PSM and public employees’ innovative behaviors. Perry and Wise asserted that to serve public interests and fulfill their altruistic needs, “committed employees are likely to engage in spontaneous, innovative behaviors on behalf of the organization”83. Recently, the link between PSM and employee innovation has gained increasing attention in the field of public administration24,37,39,90. A representative work is that of Wright et al., who found that self-sacrifice, as a dimension of PSM, is positively related to employees’ commitment to change90. Another example is the research of Miao and Newman, who suggested that PSM facilitates subordinates’ innovative behaviors by increasing their perceptions of meaning24. Amin et al. implied that PSM significantly and positively influences individuals’ creativity37. More recent research was conducted by Rafique et al., whose results reflected that three dimensions of PSM (i.e., compassion, policymaking, and self-sacrifice) have significant effects on employees’ innovative behaviors39. To do good for others and larger communities by delivering satisfied services, public employees with high PSM may use various resources to meet the public’s needs91. When public employees perceive that they are meaningfully contributing to serving public interests and fulfilling their altruistic needs, they “will be motivated to create, promote and implement new ideas”92.
Given the pivotal function of psychological safety in enhancing employees’ innovative behaviors, the interaction between psychological safety and PSM may influence such behaviors. More specifically, when public employees with high PSM find meaning in their jobs, the effects of psychological safety on their innovative behaviors are further strengthened. In a psychologically safe workplace, high-PSM public employees are predisposed to joyfully engage with their jobs and promote innovation and creative problem solving in their routine activities. Thus, the positive effects of psychological safety on public employees’ innovative behaviors increase when they have a substantial proportion of other-oriented and prosocial motives. According to the Job Demands–Resources theory, PSM is regarded as a vital personal resource that can influence employees’ work-related behaviors, including innovative behavior40. Within this theoretical framework, public employees with high levels of PSM tend to possess stronger intrinsic motivation to pursue meaningful public goals, such as serving others and improving society85. Consequently, when employees perceive a high level of psychological safety, they are more inclined to explore new approaches and generate novel ideas at work, thereby demonstrating a higher degree of innovative behavior. Such innovation not only enhances work efficiency and organizational performance but also contributes to fulfilling their prosocial goals of helping others and promoting the public good93. Therefore, incorporating PSM as a moderating variable captures its distinctive institutional function and helps clarify the boundary conditions under which psychological safety facilitates innovative behavior in public organizations. In line with this argument, we developed the supposition below:
Hypothesis 3
PSM moderates the positive relationship between psychological safety and public employees’ innovative behaviors.
In view of the mediating role of psychological safety in the link between servant leadership and innovative behaviors (Hypothesis 2) and the moderating effect of PSM on the association between psychological safety and innovative behaviors (Hypothesis 3), the indirect impact of servant leadership on innovativeness among public employees through psychological safety may be conditionally affected by PSM. On the grounds of the discussions above, servant leadership helps induce innovative conduct by positioning employees at top priority; this engagement in innovation may be even more strongly advanced in a psychologically safe workplace. In detail, servant leaders encourage and support their followers’ innovative behaviors, which in turn, cultivate considerable psychological safety for public employees and decrease the perceived risk of innovation94. In other words, the favorable relationship between servant leadership and public employees’ innovative behaviors may be stronger if employees’ PSM is high than when this PSM is low. We therefore expected the indirect effects of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behaviors to vary across different levels of PSM. This expectation is conveyed in Hypothesis 4:
Hypothesis 4
PSM moderates the indirect effects of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behaviors through psychological safety.
Methods
Sample and procedure
To collect data, we contacted employees of graduate departments in two universities in Yunnan Province. We administered a survey to master’s of public administration (MPA) students who were also full-time public employees of all levels in Chinese government departments. This investigation was approved by the School of Law and Politics of Yunnan University of Finance and Economics and was conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. A total of 680 MPA students completed the anonymous questionnaire, and all participants were told to do it anonymously, and their informed consent was obtained. After excluding invalid and incomplete questionnaires, we were left with a final valid sample of 642 individuals, which corresponds to a response rate of 94.41%. Of the respondents, 54.7% were female, and 61.8% were aged between 18 and 30 years old. Nearly 94.9% held at least a bachelor’s degree, and 51.4% had worked for 6 to 20 years.
Measures
To accomplish the measurement tasks, the back-translation procedure was employed to translate original scales into Chinese, ensuring linguistic equivalence prior to data collection. Each item was measured with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Second, regarding the survey implementation: contact was initiated with MPA centers at two universities in Yunnan Province. Through their coordination, the questionnaire survey was administered during intensive residential modules when MPA students were engaged in concentrated coursework.
Servant leadership was measured using Liden et al.’s seven-item scale46. Sample items include “My leader puts my best interests ahead of his/her own” and “I would seek help from my leader if I had a personal problem.” The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.839.
Psychological safety was assessed using a four-item scale developed by Li and Yan95. Sample items include “I’m not afraid to be myself at work” and “If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.” The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.826.
To measure PSM, we adopted five items from Perry’s96 original scale. This shortened scale has been widely used and validated by many scholars97,98,99,100. Sample items are “Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievement” and “Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements.” The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.730.
Innovative behaviors was measured using a five-item scale designed by Zheng et al.101. Sample items include “I would generate creative ideas in the work process” and “I would develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas” The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.827.
Results
Descriptive analysis
The means, standard deviations, correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha values of all the variables are reported in Table 1. Servant leadership was positively related to innovative behaviors (r = 0.556, p < 0.01) and psychological safety (r = 0.484, p < 0.01). Psychological safety was positively associated with innovative behaviors (r = 0.510, p < 0.01) and PSM (r = 0.451, p < 0.01). Furthermore, PSM was positively related to innovative behaviors (r = 0.446, p < 0.01). The Cronbach’s alpha values of all the scales exceeded 0.70, indicating good inter-item reliability.
Testing for common method bias
Common method bias (CMB), arising from factors such as single data sources, measurement instrument characteristics, and respondents’ response tendencies, represents a systemic issue prevalent in empirical research102. To mitigate potential CMB effects, we implemented preventive measures during data collection: strictly ensuring respondent anonymity, incorporating reverse-worded items for select questions, and utilizing established scales with validated reliability in the field. Furthermore, to rigorously assess CMB’s potential influence, Harman’s single-factor test was performed prior to data analysis103. Results indicated that the first factor explained 34.37% of the variance—below the 40% threshold generally considered acceptable for minimizing CMB concerns. Thus, the data were deemed valid for analysis, indicating that common method bias does not pose a substantial threat.
Hypothesis testing
To test our hypotheses, we used a process program of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, following Preacher et al.104. According to the methods of Mueller et al.105, we tested the mediating effect and moderating effect suing PROCESS macro model 4 and model 14 respectively. As shown in Table 2, the overall model explained 40.6% of the variance in innovative behavior (R2 = 0.406), indicating a moderate effect size. The effect of servant leadership on innovative behavior was significant (B = 0.664, 95% CI [0.590, 0.737]), suggesting meaningful practical relevance. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Hypothesis 3 holds that psychological safety may play a mediating role in the relationship between servant leadership and innovative behavior. The results in Table 2 reveal that psychological safety had a significant and positive impact on public employees’ innovative behaviors (B = 0.269, 95% CI [0.220, 0.338]). With psychological safety as the mediator, the significant effect of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behaviors (B = 0.503, 95% CI [0.421, 0.584]) persisted. In line with these findings, the indirect impact of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behaviors was significant (indirect effect = 0.161, 95% CI [0.108, 0.216]). This translates to support for Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 maintains that PSM moderates the positive relationship between psychological safety and public employees’ innovative behaviors. Table 3 illustrates that the overall model explained 43.8% of the variance in innovative behavior (R2 = 0.438), indicating a moderate effect size. PSM was significantly and positively linked to public employees’ innovative behaviors (B = 0.194, 95% CI [0.126, 0.263]). The interaction between psychological safety and PSM was significantly and positively associated with the aforementioned behaviors (B = 0.062, 95% CI [0.019, 0.105]). On this basis, the impact of psychological safety on innovative behaviors was stronger under high PSM than under low PSM. This finding was also derived in simple slopes analyses (Fig. 2), denoting support for Hypothesis 3.
Interaction plot of psychological safety (PS) and PSM predicting innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 4 posits that PSM moderates the indirect effect of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behaviors through psychological safety. We also ascertained the conditional indirect effect of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behaviors through psychological safety over three PSM levels (i.e., the mean level, the level one standard deviation above the mean, and the level one standard deviation below the mean). Table 4 indicates that the conditional indirect effect was positive and significant for the mean PSM (B = 0.112, 95% CI [0.067, 0.160]), the high PSM (B = 0.143, 95% CI [0.094, 0.197]), and the low PSM (B = 0.082, 95% CI [0.039, 0.136]). The index of moderated mediation was significantly positive (B = 0.031, 95% CI [0.010, 0.055]), suggesting that PSM moderated the indirect impact of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behaviors through psychological safety. In other words, the indirect association between servant leadership and innovative behaviors through psychological safety was moderated by PSM. Alternatively, the indirect impact of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behaviors was stronger when PSM was high than when it was low. These findings reflect support for Hypothesis 4.
Discussion
Drawing on job demands-resources theory, this study explored the effect of servant leadership on public employees’ innovative behavior, as well as the underlying mechanisms through which the former affects the latter. First, consistent with prior research, this study confirmed a significant positive relationship between servant leadership and public employees’ innovative behavior in the Chinese public sector3,6,10,19,106. Drawing on Job Demands–Resources theory, servant leadership serves as a vital job resource that alleviates work-related strain and cultivates a motivating work environment63. By attending to employees’ needs, providing emotional support, and promoting personal growth, servant leaders enhance psychological resources such as optimism, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation—key drivers of creativity and innovation43. In line with the JD-R model, these resources contribute to greater well-being and job satisfaction, which in turn foster innovative behavior63. Unlike transformational leadership, which primarily affects innovation through affective commitment and shared vision, servant leadership more directly satisfies basic psychological needs and encourages risk-taking. Our findings highlight the unique and incremental contribution of servant leadership to innovation beyond the effects of transformational leadership70.
Second, this study identified psychological safety as a significant mediator in the relationship between servant leadership and innovative behavior among public sector employees, consistent with prior empirical findings7,12. Under servant leadership, employees feel supported, respected, and understood, which enhances their psychological safety—a key psychological resource within the Job Demands–Resources framework63. This sense of safety reduces fear of failure and encourages risk-taking, enabling employees to engage in creative exploration and idea generation. Servant leaders cultivate a trusting, autonomy-supportive climate that buffers job demands and fosters intrinsic motivation, both of which are crucial for innovation. By strengthening psychological safety, servant leadership not only directly promotes innovation but also facilitates it indirectly by enhancing employees’ psychological resources. These findings underscore the critical role of leadership in creating enabling conditions for innovation in public organizations.
Third, this study revealed that PSM moderates the relationship between psychological safety and innovative behavior among public employees. Specifically, employees who perceive high psychological safety are more likely to engage in innovative behavior when they are strongly driven by a desire to serve the public. While prior research has primarily conceptualized PSM as an antecedent of organizational citizenship behavior, this study focus on its moderating role in the link between psychological safety and innovation87,88,99,107. Innovation is inherently uncertain and risky, and employees with high PSM are more willing to engage in such non-routine behaviors when they feel psychologically safe. According to the Job Demands–Resources theory, psychological safety acts as a key job resource that reduces stress and enables learning and experimentation, while PSM serves as a personal resource that enhances resilience, intrinsic motivation, and goal alignment61. When both resources are present, employees are more likely to take initiative, tolerate ambiguity, and pursue novel ideas. Moreover, emerging research indicates that PSM is positively associated with psychological empowerment, which further promotes innovative behavior39. These findings underscore the synergistic effect of psychological safety and PSM in fostering innovation among public sector employees.
Practical implications
This study also offers practical implications for public organizations with respect to enhancing employees’ innovative behaviors. First, the findings indicated that servant leadership was crucial in fostering public employees’ innovative behaviors. To establish and maintain a work environment that encourages innovation, public organizations must develop and train servant leaders through various strategies. According to Hunter et al., servant leaders possess unique leadership traits, such as high ethical and moral standards, a strong desire to serve others, and an agreeable personality108. Public organizations should recruit leaders with servant leadership qualities through service-oriented behavioral interviews and provide targeted training programs. These programs can include empowerment techniques (e.g., barrier-removal sessions), growth scaffolding (e.g., career mapping for innovation), and autonomy calibration (e.g., controlled experimentation). Additionally, servant leadership metrics, such as the innovation support rate, should be integrated into performance evaluations to foster a supportive and trustworthy environment. As mentioned earlier, greater work autonomy, more opportunities to develop potential and strong supervisor support translate to increased motivation to exercise innovation.
Second, this study discovered the important intervening role of psychological safety in transferring the positive impact of servant leadership onto public employees’ innovative behaviors. Previous empirical studies corroborate that psychological safety is positively associated with employees’ innovative behaviors and creativity7,12,15,30,73. Hence, leaders should foster psychological safety by encouraging junior staff to speak before seniors in innovation meetings through the “silent starters” approach, promoting a blame-free culture with “innovation amnesty” protocols that document lessons from failures, and regularly tracking employees’ sense of safety via concise quarterly pulse surveys. Doing so will convince public employees to willingly express themselves and share ingenious opinions, which is conducive to innovation.
Third, our findings revealed that PSM moderated the linkage between psychological safety and public employees’ innovative behaviors, implying that public organizations should pay increased attention to the important role of PSM in eliciting public employees’ innovative behaviors. Specifically, public organizations should consider PSM and high levels of altruistic motivation as key standards for recruiting candidates. They need to assess candidates’ personal value in the selection and recruitment process because value congruence between an organization’s missions and a candidate’s work motivation tremendously affects employees’ job performance109. It is likewise crucial for policymakers to reinforce public employees’ PSM levels through occupational training programs that encompass prosocial work motivation, organizational missions, and organizational goals. This approach can elevate the incorporation of innovation into routine activities.
Limitations and future research
Certain limitations need to be addressed in future research. First, our study adopted a cross-sectional design, which may not have enabled a thorough interpretation of causality between the variables. To obtain evidence of reliable causalities, researchers should use a longitudinal data design. Future research should employ longitudinal or experimental designs to track variable changes over time and better establish causal relationships. Second, we used single-sourced data, which may have led to common method bias. Thus, future studies should collect data from multiple sources (e.g., supervisors and subordinates) and adopt multi-wave data collection strategies to reduce potential bias and improve measurement validity. Third, we adopted a shortened version of a PSM scale, which may have influenced our results. Previous research reveals that individual PSM levels are closely correlated with national culture; thus, there is a need to develop a new PSM scale in accordance with the Chinese cultural context110,111. Future researchers should consider constructing culturally sensitive PSM measurement tools through qualitative pretesting and large-scale validation, particularly tailored for non-Western institutional settings. Additionally, the generalizability of the results should be viewed with caution because this research involved Chinese public organizations, whose cultures are typified by a high-power distance. Therefore, scholars are advised to scrutinize whether our findings are robust in business organizations based in other countries with different levels of power distance. Subsequent research should replicate this study in diverse cultural and organizational contexts—such as low-power distance countries or private-sector firms—to test the cross-cultural applicability and robustness of the findings.
Finally, this study offers partial insights for researchers in related fields, suggesting that future research should further investigate other variables potentially influencing public sector innovation. Specifically, beyond internal factors, subsequent studies ought to examine the effects of external factors, policy contexts, and regulatory environments on public sector innovation. Future studies should broaden the analytical framework by incorporating external environmental factors such as institutional constraints, public pressure, or policy reforms to gain a more comprehensive understanding of innovation dynamics in the public sector.
Data availability
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
References
Walker, J. L. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 63(3), 880–899. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954434 (1969).
Shin, S. J., Yuan, F. R. & Zhou, J. When perceived innovation job requirement increases employee innovative behavior: A sense making perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 38(1), 68–86 (2017).
Wang, Z., Meng, L. & Cai, S. Servant leadership and innovative behavior: A moderated mediation. J. Manag. Psychol. 34(8), 505–518 (2019).
Scott, S. G. & Bruce, R. A. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 580–607 (1994).
Janssen, O., Vliert, E. V. D. & West, M. The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: A special issue introduction. J. Organ. Behav. 25(2), 129–145 (2004).
Gao, P. & Gao, Y. How does digital leadership foster employee innovative behavior: A cognitive-affective processing system perspective. Behav. Sci. 14(5), 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14050362 (2024).
Yang, C., Jin, H. & Zhang, C. The influence of leaders’ collectivist orientation on employees’ innovative behavior. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 45(5), 899–918. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2023-0528 (2024).
Tran Pham, T. K. How does ethical leadership enhance employees’ innovative behavior? The roles of work group cohesiveness and openness to experience. Int. J. Innov. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-09-2024-0262 (2024).
Man, S., & Fan, J. Unveiling the impact of inclusive leadership on innovative behavior among female employees with two children: Evidence from china. Sci. Rep. 15(1), 17361. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-01311-9 (2025).
Ghlichlee, B. & Motaghed Larijani, M. Servant leadership and knowledge employee performance: The mediating role of employee innovative behavior in knowledge-based firms. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 45(3), 544–558. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0428 (2024).
Li, Z., Qiu, C., Zeng, K. & Wang, F. Gain or loss: The double-edged effect of empowering leadership on employees’ innovative behaviours. Chin. Manag. Stud. 17(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-06-2021-0243 (2023).
Liu, Q. & Nie, Y. How transformational leadership impact on employee service innovation: The moderating effect of employee creative role identity. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 45(8), 1301–1314. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2022-0415 (2024).
Gupta, S., Nawaz, N., Tripathi, A., Arif Chaudhry, S. & Agrawal, K. Impact of inclusive leadership on innovation performance during Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak: Mediating role of employee innovation behavior and moderating role of psychological empowerment. Front. Psychol. 13, 811330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.811330 (2022).
Summers, G. Creative performance and psychological safety as modified by leadership style (Order No. 31997279). (3195392774). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/creative-performance-psychological-safety-as/docview/3195392774/se-2 (2025).
Gu, Y., Diao, F. & Cao, X. The impact of empowering leadership on employees’ deviant innovation behavior from the perspective of planned behavior. In (eds Tu, Y. P., Chi, M.) E-Business. New Challenges and Opportunities for Digital-Enabled Intelligent Future. WHICEB 2024. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing vol. 516 (Springer, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60260-3_12.
Sendjaya, S. & Sarros, J. C. Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 9(2), 57–64 (2002).
Greenleaf, R. K. In (eds Robert, K.) The Servant as Leader 166 (Greenleaf Center, Newton Center, 1970).
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H. & Henderson, D. Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadersh. Quart. 19(2), 161–177 (2008).
Ye, P., Liu, L. & Tan, J. Influence of leadership empowering behavior on employee innovation behavior: The moderating effect of personal development support. Front. Psychol. 13, 1022377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1022377 (2022).
Musenze, I. A., Mayende, T. S., Wanyana, M. & Kasango, J. Servant leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of innovation climate using evidence from the Ugandan local government sector. J. Manag. Dev. 43(6), 896–919. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2023-0316 (2024).
Munawar, S. et al. The impact of emotional intelligence, servant leadership, and psychological safety on employee’s innovative behavior with the moderating effect of task interdependence in Lahore Pakistan. Curr. Psychol. 43, 8186–8199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04990-7 (2024).
Borins, S. F. Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Adm. Rev. 60(6), 498–507 (2000).
Bernier, L., Hafsi, T. & Deschamps, C. Environmental determinants of public sector innovation: A study of innovation awards in Canada. Public Manag. Rev. 17(6), 834–856 (2015).
Miao, Q. & Newman, A. How leadership and public service motivation enhance innovative behavior. Public Adm. Rev. 78(1), 71–81 (2018).
Zeng, J. & Xu, G. How servant leadership motivates innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17(13), 47–53 (2020).
Shim, D. C., Park, H. H. & Chung, K. H. Workgroup innovative behaviours in the public sector workplace: The influence of servant leadership and workgroup climates. Public Manag. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1999668 (2021).
Hartley, J., Eva, S. & Jacob, T. Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Adm. Rev. 73(6), 821–830 (2013).
Blau, P. M. Exchange and Power in Social Life 94 (Transaction Publishers, 1964).
Zhan, X., Wu, J. & Jie, Y. How and when psychological safety impacts employee innovation: The roles of thriving at work and regulatory focus. Curr. Psychol. 44, 3736–3746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07348-3 (2025).
Wang, W., Kang, S.-W. & Choi, S. B. Servant leadership and creativity: A study of the sequential mediating roles of psychological safety and employee well-being. Front. Psychol. 12, 807070. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.807070 (2022).
Liu, L., Wan, Z. & Wang, L. Cross-level research on the impact of self-serving leadership on employee innovation behavior: The roles of workplace anxiety and team psychological safety. Front. Psychol. 13, 1069022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1069022 (2023).
Hon, A. H. Y. & Lu, L. Are we paid to be creative? The effect of compensation gap on creativity in an expatriate context. J. World Bus. 50(1), 159–167 (2015).
Mumtaz, S. & Parahoo, S. K. Promoting employee innovation performance: Examining the role of self-efficacy and growth need strength. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 69(4), 704–722 (2019).
Cai, L., Xiao, Z. & Ji, X. Impact of supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior: Roles of psychological safety and face orientation. J. Manag. Psychol. 38(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2021-0670 (2023).
Kahn, W. A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 33(4), 692–724 (1990).
Yang, Z. W., Zhang, H. N., Kwan, H. K. & Chen, S. M. Crossover effects of servant leadership and job social support on employee spouses: The mediating role of employee organization-based self-esteem. J. Bus. Ethics 147(3), 595–604 (2018).
Shofia, A., Muthia, S. & Amirul, M. The impacts of the servant leadership on the innovative work behaviors: Looking at the role of public service motivation and employee engagement. J. Chin. Human Resour. Manag. 15(02), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.47297/wspchrmWSP2040-800502.20241502 (2024).
Papachristopoulos, K. & Arvanitis, A. Autonomy orientation and innovative work behavior: Τhe mediating role of creativity and prosocial motivation. Eur. J. Psychol. Open 83(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1024/2673-8627/a000059 (2024).
Rafique, M. A., Hou, Y., Chudhery, M. A. Z., Gull, N. & Ahmed, S. J. The dimensional linkage between public service motivation and innovative behavior in public sector institutions; the mediating role of psychological empowerment. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 26(1), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2021-0098 (2023).
Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 22(3), 273–285 (2017).
Altshuler, A. A. Public Innovation and Political Incentives 1 (Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 1997).
Greenleaf, R. K. Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness 27 (Paulist Press, 1977).
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D. & Liden, R. C. Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. Leadersh. Q. 30(1), 111–132 (2019).
Eva, N., Sendjaya, S., Prajogo, D., Cavanagh, A. & Robin, M. Creating strategic fit: Aligning servant leadership with organizational structure and strategy. Pers. Rev. 47(1), 166–186 (2018).
Franco, M. & Auntunes, A. Understanding servant leadership dimensions: Theoretical and empirical extensions in the Portuguese context. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 11(3), 345–369 (2020).
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C. & Meuser, J. D. Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Acad. Manag. J. 57(5), 1434–1452 (2014).
ElBayaa, N., Alzoubi, Y. I. & Abboud, E. The mediation effect of trust and justice on the relationship between servant leadership and employee job satisfaction: An empirical findings from private universities in Kuwait. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2023-0553 (2024).
Zeng, J., Lai, J. & Liu, X. How servant leadership motivates young university teachers’ workplace well-being: The role of occupational commitment and risk perception. Front. Psychol. 13, 996497. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.996497 (2022).
Liu, W. & Zhao, L. Servant leadership and work performance of public servants: Exploring the mediating role of public service motivation and job satisfaction. J. Psychol. Afr. 32(4), 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2022.2075626 (2022).
Iqbal, A., Ahmad, M. S. & Nazir, T. Does servant leadership predict innovative behaviour above and beyond transformational leadership? Examining the role of affective commitment and creative self-efficacy. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 44(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2022-0016 (2023).
Demissie, A. D., Alemu, A. E. & Tensay, A. T. Servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of perceived organizational politics and the moderating role of political skill in public service organizations. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-023-09486-x (2024).
Yuan, F. & Woodman, R. W. Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad. Manag. J. 53(2), 323–342 (2010).
Wahab, F. A., Subramaniam, A., Ho, J. A. & Anuar Shah, B. M. Augmenting effect of inclusive and ambidextrous leadership on public university academic staffs’ innovative performance: The mediating role of innovative work behavior. SAGE Open https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241232761 (2024).
Guo, Y., Jin, J. & Yim, S.-H. Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The mediating role of job crafting. Adm. Sci. 13(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13010004 (2023).
G-f, Wu. & Li, M. Impact of inclusive leadership on employees’ innovative behavior: A relational silence approach. Front. Psychol. 14, 1144791. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1144791 (2023).
Çetinkaya, B. & Yeşilada, T. Inclusive leadership and employee innovative work behaviours: Testing a psychological empowerment and leader-member exchange moderated-mediation model. J. Psychol. Afr. 32(1), 15–20 (2022).
Wang, H., Chen, M. & Li, X. Moderating multiple mediation model of the impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior. Front. Psychol. 12, 666477 (2021).
Uppathampracha, R. & Liu, G. Leading for innovation: Self-efficacy and work engagement as sequential mediation relating ethical leadership and innovative work behavior. Behav. Sci. 12(8), 266 (2022).
Tran Pham, T. K. How does ethical leadership enhance employees’ innovative behavior? The roles of work group cohesiveness and openness to experience. Int. J. Innov. Sci. (2024).
Sudibjo, N., & Prameswari, R. K. The effects of knowledge sharing and person–organization fit on the relationship between transformational leadership on innovative work behavior. Heliyon 7(6) (2021).
Korku, C. & Kaya, S. Relationship between authentic leadership, transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: Mediating role of innovation climate. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2022.2112445 (2022).
Iqbal, A., Ahmad, M. S. & Nazir, T. Does servant leadership predict innovative behaviour above and beyond transformational leadership? Examining the role of affective commitment and creative self-efficacy. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 44(1), 34–51 (2023).
Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 (2017).
Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W. & Knight, C. Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 93(1), 1–44 (2020).
Bou Reslan, F. Y., Garanti, Z. & Emeagwali, O. L. The effect of servant leadership on innovative work behavior and employee knowledge sharing in the Latvian ICT sector. Balt. J. Manag. 16(5), 729–744 (2021).
Khan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., & Islam, T. How servant leadership triggers innovative work behavior: Exploring the sequential mediating role of psychological empowerment and job crafting. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. (2022).
Erkutlu, H. & Chafra, J. Leader psychopathy and organizational deviance: The mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of moral disengagement. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 12(4), 197–213 (2019).
Edmondson, A. C. & Lei, Z. Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1(1), 23–43 (2014).
Shao, Z., Feng, Y. & Wang, T. Charismatic leadership and tacit knowledge sharing in the context of enterprise systems learning: The mediation effect of psychological safety climate and intrinsic motivation. Behav. Inf. Technol. 36(2), 194–208 (2017).
Iqbal, A., Latif, K. F. & Ahmad, M. S. Servant leadership and employee innovative behaviour: Exploring psychological pathways. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 41(6), 813–827. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2019-0474Emerald (2020).
Ma, Y. et al. Curbing nurses’ burnout during COVID-19: The roles of servant leadership and psychological safety. J. Nurse Manag. 29(8), 2383–2391 (2021).
Brunetto, Y., Saheli, N., Dick, T. & Nelson, S. Psychosocial safety climate, psychological capital, healthcare SLBs’ wellbeing and innovative behaviour during the COVID 19 pandemic. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2021.1918189 (2021).
Yi, H., Hao, P., Yang, B. & Liu, W. How leaders’ transparent behavior influences employee creativity: The mediating role of psychological safety and ability to focus attention. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 24(3), 335–344 (2016).
Fang, Y. C., Chen, J. Y., Wang, M. J. & Chen, C. Y. The Impact of inclusive leadership on employees’ innovative behaviors: The mediation of psychological capital. Front. Psychol. 10, 1803–1904 (2019).
Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm. Sci. Q. 23(2), 224–253 (1978).
Chiniara, M. & Bentein, K. Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. Leadersh. Q. 27(1), 124–141 (2016).
Edmondson, A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44(2), 350–383 (1999).
Spreitzer, G. M. Psychological empowerment in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 38(5), 1442–1465 (1995).
Newman, A., Donohue, R. & Eva, N. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 27(3), 521–535 (2017).
Zhou, W. & Velamuri, V. K. Key contextual success factors for employee innovative behavior—a study in a foreign manufacturing subsidiary in China. Cogent Bus. Manag. Decis. 5(1), 1–18 (2018).
Dysvik, A. & Kuvaas, B. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as predictors of work effort: The moderating role of achievement goals. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 52(3), 412–430 (2013).
Bande, B., Fernandez-Ferrın, P., Varela-Neira, C. & Otero-Neira, C. Exploring the relationship among servant leadership, intrinsic motivation and performance in an industrial sales setting. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 31(2), 219–231 (2016).
Perry, J. L. & Wise, L. R. The motivational bases of public service. Public Adm. Rev. 50, 367–373 (1990).
Grant, A. M. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. J. Appl. Psychol. 93(1), 48 (2008).
Vandenabeele, W., Ritz, A. & Neumann, O. Public service motivation: State of the science and future directions. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 42(2), 226–252 (2022).
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61, 101860 (2020).
Jung, G. & Moon, K.-K. Examining public service motivation’s impact on organizational commitment: Focusing on moderating roles of hygiene and motivation factors. Behav. Sci. 14(6), 476. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060476 (2024).
Lu, D. & Chen, C. H. The impact of public service motivation on job satisfaction in public sector employees: The mediating roles of work engagement and organizational commitment. Mob. Inf. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7919963 (2022).
Lim, J.-Y. & Moon, K.-K. The public service motivation’s impact on turnover intention in Korean public organizations: Do perceived organizational politics matter?. Behav. Sci. 15(4), 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040474 (2025).
Wright, B. E., Christensen, R. K. & Isett, K. R. Motivated to adapt? The role of public service motivation as employees face organizational change. Public Adm. Rev. 73(5), 738–747 (2013).
Perry, J. L. & Hondeghem, A. Building theory and empirical evidence about public service motivation. Int. Public Manag. J. 11(1), 3–12 (2008).
Susanto, E. Does love of money matter for innovative work behavior in public sector organizations? Evidence from Indonesia. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 34(1), 71–85 (2021).
Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A. & Wise, L. R. Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Adm. Rev. 70(5), 681–690 (2010).
Guchait, P., Pas amehmetoglu, A. & Dawson, M. Perceived supervisor and co-worker support for error management: Impact on perceived psychological safety and service recovery performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 41(41), 28–37 (2014).
Li, N. & Yan, J. The effects of trust climate on individual performance. Front. Bus. Res. China 3(1), 27–49 (2009).
Perry, J. L. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 6, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303 (1996).
Christensen, R. K. & Wright, B. E. The effects of public service motivation on job choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person-organization fit and person-job fit. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 21(4), 723–743 (2011).
Qi, F. H. & Wang, W. J. Employee involvement, public service motivation, and perceived organizational performance: Testing a new model. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 84(4), 746–764 (2018).
Gan, K. P., Lin, Y. & Wang, Q. Public service motivation and turnover intention: Testing the mediating effects of job attitudes. Front. Psycho. 11, 1–14 (2020).
Wang, Q. et al. Public service motivation and public employees’ turnover intention: The role of job satisfaction and career growth opportunity. Pers. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2020-0836 (2020).
Zheng, J., Wu, G., Xie, H. & Li, H. Leadership, organizational culture, and innovative behavior in construction projects: The perspective of behavior-value congruence. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 12(4), 888–918 (2019).
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 (2003).
Calvete, E. et al. Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile. Comput. Human Behav. 26(5), 1128–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017 (2010).
Preacher, K. J. & Hayes, A. F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 (2008).
Mueller, D., Judd, C. M. & Yzerbyt, V. Y. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 89(6), 852–863 (2005).
Karatepe, O. M., Aboramadan, M. & Dahleez, K. A. Does climate for creativity mediate the impact of servant leadership on management innovation and innovative behavior in the hotel industry?. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 32(8), 2497–2517 (2020).
Lee, J. & Kim, S. Antecedents of innovative behavior in public organizations: The role of public service motivation, organizational commitment, and perceived innovative culture. Front. Psychol. 15, 11170709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.11170709 (2024).
Hunter, E. M. et al. Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. Leadersh. Quart. 24(2), 316–331 (2013).
Gould-Williams, J. S., Mostafa, A. M. S. & Bottomley, P. Public service motivation and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector: Testing the mediating effect of person-organization fit. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 25(2), 597–622 (2015).
Ritz, A. & Brewer, G. A. Does societal culture affect public service motivation? Evidence of sub-national differences in Switzerland. Int. Public Manag. J. 16(2), 224–251 (2013).
Kim, S. National culture and public service motivation: Investigating the relationship using hofstedes five cultural dimensions. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 83(1), 23–40 (2017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
F. X. X. and L. L. Y. contributed to data analysis. J. F. K. and Y. L. provided thorough review. F. X. X. and Q. W. wrote the draft and edited the paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Xiao, FX., Lin, Y., Kuang, JF. et al. How and when servant leadership affect public employees’ innovative behavior. Sci Rep 15, 26705 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-11504-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-11504-x
