Survey study reveals that servant leadership and readiness to change drive organisational agility in public-sector staff, indicating innovative behaviour acts as an essential mediator.
Orientation: Organisational agility is vital for public-sector organisations facing rapid change. Effective leadership and employees’ readiness for change enhance adaptability and innovation. Research purpose: This study examines how servant leadership (SL) and individual readiness to change (RTC) influence organisational agility in the public sector, with innovative work behaviour (IWB) serving as a mediating mechanism. Motivation for the study: While organisational agility has been widely studied in private-sector contexts, limited research explores how agility emerges within bureaucratic public institutions. This study addresses this gap by integrating leadership, change readiness, and innovation behaviour into a unified framework explaining agility in public organisations. Research approach/design and method: A quantitative approach was employed using survey data from 400 public-sector employees. The proposed model was tested using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to examine direct and mediating relationships among the constructs. Main findings: The results show that SL and RTC have significant positive effects on organisational agility. Innovative work behaviour partially mediates these relationships, indicating that employee innovation serves as a key mechanism that translates leadership and psychological readiness into agile organisational outcomes. Practical/managerial implications: Public organisations should foster SL, strengthen employees’ RTC, and encourage IWB to improve adaptability and responsiveness. Contribution/value-add: This study contributes to public management literature by providing empirical evidence that organisational agility can emerge in bureaucratic environments through the alignment of leadership practices, employee readiness for change, and innovation behaviour.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prasetiyo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: