This study integrates three complementary theories to explain the relationships among SL, RTC, IWB, and organisational agility: the Resource-Based View (RBV), Social Exchange Theory (SET), and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT). The RBV posits that competitive advantage stems from valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources (Barney, 1991). Servant leadership and RTC serve as intangible resources that foster IWB, enabling public sector organisations to overcome bureaucratic inertia (Ahmed et al., 2018; Eva et al., 2019). Social Exchange Theory emphasises reciprocal obligations, suggesting that SL’s ethical care and RTC’s organisational support foster IWB through trust and motivation (Afsar et al., 2020; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Razo-Giamalon & Manayan, 2024). Dynamics Capability Theory views agility as a dynamic capability to sense, seize, and transform in response to environmental changes, with IWB operationalising this capability through innovative solutions (Anser et al., 2020; Teece et al., 2016).

Servant leadership enhances organisational agility in public sector settings by fostering trust, psychological safety, and collaborative problem-solving, enabling employees to align their individual and organisational goals flexibly (Liden et al., 2015). Unlike traditional bureaucratic leadership, SL empowers frontline staff through shared decision-making and active listening, helping overcome rigid hierarchies and risk-averse cultures (Mergel et al., 2021). Studies show that SL-driven teams exhibit faster crisis response (27% improvement in U.S. agencies) and higher innovation adoption (a 40% increase in Scandinavian governments) as leaders prioritise mission-driven adaptability over procedural compliance (Sørensen & Torfing, 2021).

This study highlights the potential of SL to bridge public service motivation (PSM) with agility by internalising goals (e.g., linking efficiency to citizen welfare) and creating feedback loops for iterative adjustments (Miao et al., 2020). For public sectors, adopting SL requires training leaders in empowerment-based coaching and rewarding adaptive behaviours, key steps to transform bureaucratic inertia into responsive governance:

Servant leadership significantly enhances IWB by cultivating a psychologically safe environment that encourages creativity and calculated risk-taking (Newman & Newman, 2021; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). This emphasis on a safe and secure environment is a hallmark of SL. Through empowerment and ethical role-modelling, SL leaders intrinsically motivate employees to challenge the status quo and propose novel solutions, as demonstrated by a 32% increase in process innovation initiatives in SL-led teams (Cai et al., 2018; Neubert et al., 2016). In public sector contexts, SL’s emphasis on servant stewardship helps overcome bureaucratic inertia by legitimising constructive dissent and providing organisational support for experimentation (Mergel et al., 2021; Torfing, 2019). This effect is particularly pronounced when SL leaders frame innovation as mission-critical to public service delivery (Park & Hassan, 2018).

The proposed positive relationship between SL and IWB is further strengthened by SL’s unique capacity to reconcile public sector constraints with innovation requirements. By replacing punitive accountability with developmental feedback, SL plays a crucial role in reducing the fear of failure that typically stifles innovation in rule-driven environments (Sørensen & Torfing, 2021). This reassurance and confidence are evident in empirical evidence from Scandinavian digital government reforms, which show that SL-led agencies achieved a 40% faster adoption of citizen-centric innovations compared to traditional hierarchies (Miao et al., 2020). This study extends these findings by positioning SL as a catalyst for transforming bureaucratic resistance into adaptive capacity through IWB, offering a framework for public organisations to nurture innovation while maintaining accountability systematically:

Readiness to change serves as a critical psychological foundation for organisational agility, integrating cognitive understanding, emotional acceptance, and behavioural willingness to adapt (Oreg et al., 2018; Vakola, 2014). This multidimensional preparedness plays a significant role in reducing change resistance by 35% – 40% in public sector organisations, a reassuring statistic, while increasing proactive change engagement by 25%, as demonstrated in longitudinal studies of digital transformation initiatives (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). When employees develop strong RTC, they become active change agents rather than passive recipients, enabling organisations to implement strategic pivots 30% faster than competitors (Rahi et al., 2021). This effect is particularly potent in bureaucratic contexts, where RTC bridges the gap between rigid structures and adaptive demands through mechanisms such as change self-efficacy and benefit perception (Thien, 2019).

The proposed H3 relationship between RTC and organisational agility finds robust support in public sector research. Agencies implementing structured RTC development programmes, such as participatory change planning (where employees are actively involved in decision-making processes related to change) and emotional readiness workshops (which focus on building positive attitudes towards change), show 45% greater adaptability during crises compared to traditional command-and-control approaches (Bordia et al., 2020; Thien, 2019). Recent meta-analytic evidence confirms that cognitive readiness (understanding the necessity of change) and emotional readiness (positive attitudes towards change) collectively explain 58% of the variance in public sector agility outcomes (Oreg et al., 2018; Rahi et al., 2021). This study extends current knowledge by demonstrating how RTC transforms bureaucratic inertia into strategic responsiveness, offering a roadmap for cultivating change-ready cultures in rule-driven environments:

Readiness to change significantly enhances IWB by enabling employees to reframe organisational change as an opportunity for growth rather than a threat. This reframing, in turn, reduces innovation resistance by up to 35%, providing reassurance about the approach’s effectiveness (Oreg et al., 2018; Whittle et al., 2023). Readiness to change conserves important psychological resources (e.g., cognitive bandwidth, emotional energy) that employees can then direct toward creative problem-solving and experimentation (Haspemi et al., 2023). Empirical studies indicate that units with high levels of RTC generate 28% more implementable process innovations, as employees feel psychologically safe to challenge legacy systems (Ansell et al., 2020; Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018). This effect is particularly pronounced when organisations pair RTC with structural supports such as innovation time allowances and cross-functional collaboration opportunities (Battilana et al., 2022).

The relationship between RTC and IWB is significant in the public sector context, where bureaucratic inertia typically stifles innovation. Research tracking digital government initiatives shows that agencies that systematically develop RTC through change management programmes achieve 40% higher employee engagement in innovation challenges compared to control groups (Sørensen & Torfing, 2021). This mechanism operates through a dual pathway: cognitive readiness helps employees recognise the need for innovation in a changing environment, while emotional readiness sustains motivation during implementation setbacks (Rafferty & Minbashian, 2019; Maharani & Tamara, 2024). This study advances current knowledge by demonstrating how RTC transforms public sector change challenges into innovation catalysts, providing actionable insights to foster entrepreneurial behaviour within bureaucratic constraints. Thus, we propose:

Innovative work behaviour serves as a critical driver of organisational agility, enabling employees to proactively generate, promote, and implement novel solutions that enhance adaptive capacity (Barrera-Osorio & Raju, 2017; Teece et al., 2016). Innovative work behaviour enhances organisations’ ability to sense environmental shifts and reconfigure resources accordingly, with empirical studies showing that teams demonstrating high IWB achieve response times 30% – 40% faster to market changes (Attanasio et al., 2022). In public-sector contexts, IWB proves particularly valuable for addressing complex societal challenges, as evidenced by digital government initiatives in which employee-driven innovations improved service delivery efficiency by 25% (Bos-Nehles et al., 2017; Bos-Nehles & Veenendaal, 2019; Sørensen & Torfing, 2021). This innovation-agility link operates through three key mechanisms: (1) continuous process optimisation, (2) anticipatory problem-solving, and (3) cross-functional knowledge recombination (Asghar et al., 2025; Shanker et al., 2017).

Longitudinal studies of bureaucratic reforms reveal that organisations cultivating IWB through empowerment practices demonstrate 35% greater adaptability during crises compared to traditional hierarchies (Sørensen & Torfing, 2025). This study extends current understanding by demonstrating how public sector organisations can overcome innovation constraints through IWB, particularly when supported by ambidextrous leadership that balances exploration and exploitation (Khan & Ullah, 2025). The research underscores IWB’s role in transforming bureaucratic organisations into agile, mission-driven innovators capable of addressing society’s evolving needs. Thus, we propose:

Servant leadership fosters IWB by building psychological safety and cultivating a culture of knowledge sharing, with research showing that teams under SL demonstrate 38% higher innovation implementation rates (Bhatti, 2024; Cai et al., 2018). Rather than relying on strong numerical claims, prior studies generally indicate that teams under SL tend to generate and implement more ideas. Equally inspiring, RTC enhances IWB through organisational learning mechanisms, as change-ready employees demonstrate 45% greater participation in innovation initiatives (Haspemi et al., 2023). Innovative work behaviour will translate these inputs into agility by generating adaptive solutions, with longitudinal data showing that organisations strong in IWB achieve strategic pivots 30% faster (Al-Husseini et al., 2021). Through this behavioural mechanism, IWB translates leadership influence and change readiness into actionable organisational responses. Contextual factors, such as collectivist cultural values, can amplify the impact of SL on IWB by up to 25% (Wang, 2023), while digital transformation pressures double the mediating importance of IWB in public sector agility (Mergel et al., 2021). Servant leadership stewardship (through mentoring and resource provision) increases frontline innovation efforts by up to 40% in public organisations (Sørensen & Torfing, 2025).

On the other hand, RTC cognitive-emotional readiness helps overcome innovation barriers in rule-constrained settings, resulting in solutions that are 35% more scalable (Ansell et al., 2020). Emerging evidence also suggests that during periods of crisis or rapid change, IWB becomes a particularly important mechanism linking leadership and adaptability outcomes (Ahmed et al., 2025). However, IWB is not expected to fully account for the relationships among SL, RTC, and organisational agility. Leadership behaviours and change readiness also directly influence agility through mechanisms within the organisation, such as decision-making processes, strategic alignment, and institutional support structures. Therefore, IWB is conceptualised as a partial mediator rather than a full mediator in this study.

By positioning IWB as a behavioural mechanism within a broader organisational system, this study aims to capture the direct and indirect pathways through which SL and RTC influence organisational agility in public-sector contexts. Thus, we propose:

Most studies on SL, RTC, IWB, and agility focus on private-sector contexts (Mustofa & Tjahjono, 2024), with limited attention to public sector organisations, where bureaucratic constraints and political mandates pose unique challenges (Mergel et al., 2021). The mediating role of IWB in linking SL and RTC to agility is remarkably underexplored in public administration (Haspemi et al., 2023). Additionally, contextual factors like organisational culture or digital transformation are rarely examined (Alnuaimi et al., 2022; Wang, 2023). This study addresses these gaps by testing a model of SL, RTC, and IWB in public sector organisations, offering two key contributions. Theoretically, it validates SL and RTC as antecedents of public sector agility and IWB as a mediator, thereby extending agility research. In practice, it provides strategies for public managers to foster agility through leadership and change readiness, thereby enhancing governance in volatile environments.

This study investigates the following research questions:

The objective is to develop and test a model that elucidates the direct and mediated effects of SL and RTC on organisational agility through IWB in public sector organisations, thereby contributing to both theoretical and practical insights for agile governance (Figure 1).

This study employs a comprehensive quantitative research approach to investigate the mediating role of IWB in the relationship between SL, RTC, and organisational ability. The choice of a quantitative approach is rooted in its ability to facilitate hypothesis testing, causal inference, and statistical generalisation using numerical data (Saunder et al., 2019). By employing structured data collection and advanced statistical techniques, this method ensures objectivity and reliability in measuring complex organisational constructs (Hair et al., 2022). The study is firmly grounded in a positivist philosophy, which places a strong emphasis on empirical observation, hypothesis testing, and measurable evidence. This philosophical alignment with the research objectives is crucial, as it seeks to identify cause-and-effect relationships through quantifiable data rather than subjective interpretations (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

A cross-sectional survey design, known for its efficiency in collecting data from a sample of employees across various industries at a single point in time (Levitt et al., 2018) is employed. This design is particularly effective for examining relationships between variables and testing mediation effects (Roemer et al., 2021).

Primary data is gathered through a structured questionnaire distributed to employees in organisations that exhibit SL practices and RTC. Rather than assuming that selected organisations inherently exhibit SL, this study empirically assesses SL at the individual level using validated measurement scales. Thus, the inclusion of organisations is based on their relevance to the public sector context, while the degree of SL is determined through respondents’ perceptions.

The questionnaire uses validated scales from prior studies, all of which have demonstrated strong reliability and validity. Organisational agility is measured using dimensions developed by Teece (2018) and Wageeh (2016), namely sensing agility, decision-making agility, and acting agility. Prior studies report Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.70 for these dimensions, indicating acceptable reliability, and confirm their construct validity in capturing dynamic capability aspects of organisational agility.

Readiness to change is measured by appropriateness, management support, change efficacy, and personal benefit (Holt et al., 2007). This scale has been widely validated, with reported Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.74 to 0.93, and has demonstrated strong construct validity through factor analysis in multiple organisational studies.

Innovative work behaviour uses dimensions developed by De Jong and Den Hartog (2010), including idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation. This instrument has shown high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha typically > 0.80) and a validated multidimensional structure, as demonstrated through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

Servant leadership utilises dimensions developed by Eva et al. (2019) and Liden et al. (2008), which include voluntary subordination, covenantal relationship, responsible morality, transcendental spirituality, and transforming influence. This scale has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha values generally exceeding 0.85, and evidence of convergent and discriminant validity across organisational contexts. In this study, SL is measured through employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors, ensuring an objective, data-driven assessment of leadership practices.

The measurement scale employs a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 indicating ‘strongly agree’, to ensure consistency in responses. This scale is widely used in organisational research and is considered appropriate for capturing variability and enhancing measurement sensitivity.

The target population consisted of employees working in public sector organisations at the provincial and local government levels in Jawa Tengah and the Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. To address potential ambiguity and reduce the risk of selection bias, this study specifically focuses on regional government agencies involved in public service delivery, administrative governance, and institutional reform programmes.

The selection of organisations was guided by objective criteria indicating exposure to innovation and adaptability demands, rather than subjective classification. Specifically, organisations were identified based on: (1) their involvement in digital transformation initiatives, (2) participation in government-led public service innovation programmes, and (3) engagement in organisational reform or capacity development activities as documented by the Jawa Tengah Human Resources and Personnel Development Agency and the Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. These criteria ensured that the selected organisations operate in environments where agility, innovation, and change readiness are relevant. These criteria were used to construct the sampling frame and do not imply that the organisations inherently exhibit SL, innovation, or adaptability.

Importantly, this study does not assume that the selected organisations inherently exhibit SL, innovation, or adaptability. Instead, these constructs are empirically measured at the individual level using validated instruments, ensuring a data-driven assessment. A total of 37 public sector organisations were included in this study, comprising regional government agencies at both provincial and local levels.

This study adopts a multi-stage sampling strategy to ensure methodological consistency with quantitative research. (Levitt, 2024) In the first stage, purposive sampling was used at the organisational level to define the sampling frame based on the institutional criteria described above. This stage serves only to identify relevant organisations and does not aim to generalise the findings. In the second stage, probability-based random sampling was applied to select employees within each organisation, thereby maintaining the principles of quantitative research and reducing selection bias (Etikan & Bala, 2017).

Employee lists obtained from each participating organisation were used as sampling frames, and respondents were randomly selected. Respondents were approached through coordination with designated contact persons in each organisation, who facilitated the distribution of the questionnaire link (Google form) to the selected employees. Participation was voluntary, and anonymity and confidentiality were ensured to minimise response bias.

The sample size adhered to the 10-fold rule for partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), which requires at least 10 respondents per predictor variable (Hair et al., 2022).

According to data from the Jawa Tengah Human Resources and Personnel Development Agency and the Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta for 2024, the total number of employees was 46 657. Determining the number of samples using the Slovin formula (Equation 1), as follows:

Where:

The final number of valid respondents included in this study was 400. The research instrument consisted of a questionnaire distributed to respondents via a Google Form (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, CA, US). Prior to data collection, formal research permission was obtained through official letters submitted to the respective public organisations, outlining the research objectives and procedures. In addition, communication was conducted through WhatsApp to coordinate access and ensure participation. After obtaining approval, the questionnaire link was distributed to respondents.

The data is analysed using PLS-SEM via SmartPLS 4.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Monheim am Rhein, Germany), which is suitable for complex mediation models and non-normal data distributions (Hair et al., 2022). The analysis includes a crucial Structural Model Assessment, which tests both direct and indirect effects (Hair et al., 2020), providing significant insights. A Measurement Model Assessment precedes this, evaluating reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, Composite Reliability) and validity (Convergent and Discriminant Validity). Additionally, mediation analysis is conducted using the bootstrapping method (5000 resamples) to examine whether IWB mediates the effects of SL and RTC on organisational ability (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Universitas Padjajaran Research Ethics Committee (Ref. No. 034/UN6.KEP/FEB/2026).