In the evolving landscape of government operations, digital transformation has emerged as a critical catalyst for innovation and improved public service delivery. Recent research has delved into the complex interplay between digital leadership (DL), dynamic capabilities (DC), and their combined effect (DLDC) on innovative work behavior (IWB) and government service innovation performance (GSIP). This inquiry challenges some longstanding assumptions about how leadership and organizational competencies translate into actual innovation outcomes within the public sector.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the broad concept of digital leadership does not inherently foster innovative work behavior. While DL is often lauded as a key driver for groundbreaking ideas and strategic agility, this comprehensive study reveals a more nuanced reality. Specifically, only certain digital leadership roles—namely, digital pioneers and digital enablers—demonstrate a positive, direct influence on IWB. These roles are distinguished by their proactive stance in exploring new opportunities and by facilitating collaborative environments that empower teams to innovate. By contrast, other roles within digital leadership, such as innovators, managers, mentors, networkers, and mentees, do not significantly contribute to fostering innovative behaviors, likely due to their emphasis on maintaining existing systems rather than disrupting or transforming them.
The role of digital pioneers and enablers extends beyond merely promoting IWB; they also indirectly enhance government service innovation performance by cultivating leadership behaviors that encourage experimentation, creativity, and adaptability. This finding underscores the importance of a strategic and empowering leadership approach in navigating the complexities of digital transformation in public institutions. It is these leadership archetypes that effectively bridge the gap between intra-organizational innovation processes and tangible enhancements in government services.
Interestingly, this research stands in some conflict with earlier studies that have endorsed digital leadership broadly as a facilitator of innovation. Traditional perspectives advocate that digital leaders inherently shape an innovation-friendly culture by leveraging adaptive and strategic leadership models tailored to the digital era. Moreover, some previous conclusions have emphasized the role of DL in promoting responsible innovation and generating competitive advantages, positing it as a cornerstone of modern organizational success. However, the current findings suggest a recalibration is needed: leadership effectiveness in digital contexts is not uniform but deeply contingent upon the specific roles leaders embody and enact.
Parallel to the evaluation of digital leadership, dynamic capabilities—defined as the organizational abilities to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies—were scrutinized for their influence on IWB and GSIP. Surprisingly, neither DC as a whole nor its core facets—sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities—demonstrated a statistically significant direct or indirect impact on innovative work behavior or service innovation within governmental contexts. This unexpected lack of effect challenges the pervasive assumption that cultivating dynamic capabilities automatically translates into heightened innovation outcomes.
Despite this, it would be premature to dismiss the strategic relevance of dynamic capabilities entirely. Scholarly discourse acknowledges that DC enables leaders to adopt trusted strategies essential for navigating incessant change and fostering innovation over longer time horizons. Leaders adept in managing DC possess the skills necessary to gain and sustain competitive advantages by realigning resources, processes, and organizational environments in response to shifting external dynamics. Consequently, public sector institutions are advised to persist in efforts to refine these capabilities even if immediate impacts on innovation metrics are not overtly evident.
The integrative construct of digital leadership dynamic capabilities (DLDC) emerges as a more potent determinant of innovative behavior within leadership ranks. Particularly, aspects such as organizational digital capabilities (ODC) and entrepreneurial thinking digital capabilities (ETDC) positively influence IWB and, by consequence, enhance GSIP indices. These findings highlight that the fusion of digital leadership acumen with dynamic capability competencies is vital for generating actionable innovation within government settings. However, proactive digital capabilities (PDC), which denote leaders’ tendency to anticipate and act on emerging trends proactively, do not exert the same influence, suggesting room for greater strategic emphasis on strengthening these traits.
Empirical evidence from allied studies corroborates the transformative role of digital orientation and capabilities in fostering digital innovation that ultimately supports organizational performance gains. Modern leadership paradigms necessitate a continuous management of organizational capabilities aligned with innovation objectives, particularly as government entities strive to meet increasing public expectations. Proactive personalities among leaders, intertwined with authenticity and innovative propensity, can amplify innovative work behavior, thus serving as a mediator toward improved service delivery outcomes.
Crucially, innovative work behavior itself functions as a pivotal intermediary between leadership traits and government service innovation performance. IWB encompasses the generation and implementation of novel and beneficial ideas or processes beyond traditional role expectations, fostering a culture of creativity, risk-taking, and continuous improvement. Within governmental organizations, leaders who vigorously embody IWB drive meaningful changes that heighten service levels and organizational effectiveness. Prior research substantiates the direct link between leader innovation behavior and substantive improvements in public sector innovation capacity.
Nevertheless, governance structures face challenges in fully capitalizing on digital transformation dividends. Suboptimal IT management and innovation strategies can impede the realization of e-government potentials, signaling the need for a holistic approach that integrates leadership, capability development, and technology management. Public institutions must therefore orchestrate multi-dimensional initiatives that promote both digital leadership roles conducive to innovation and the cultivation of dynamic capabilities responsive to rapid environmental changes.
Limitations of the study highlight important considerations for future research trajectories. The exclusive focus on DL, DLDC, and DC constrains the scope of factors influencing IWB and GSIP. Comparing digital leadership with traditional leadership frameworks may reveal complementary or competing influences, enriching the understanding of how different leadership styles impact innovation outcomes. Longitudinal investigations tracking the evolution and sustainability of these relationships over time will also yield deeper insights into causality and effectiveness.
Moreover, generalizing findings beyond the sampled 388 participants requires caution, especially considering the diversity of leadership roles and institutional contexts across China. Expanding research to include heterogeneous participants from various geographic regions, organizational levels, and sectors—ranging from public institutions to private enterprises—will enhance the applicability and robustness of conclusions drawn. Such studies can elucidate contextual contingencies that shape the interplay between leadership, capabilities, and innovation processes.
In conclusion, advancing innovation within government services necessitates a refined leadership approach centered on digital pioneers and enablers, whose behavior directly fosters innovative work practices and indirectly drives service innovation performance. While dynamic capabilities alone may not yield immediate returns in IWB or GSIP, their strategic cultivation remains critical for long-term adaptability and competitiveness in the public domain. Integrating leadership roles with digital dynamic capabilities represents a promising pathway for enhancing innovation outcomes in government sectors undergoing digital transformation. Ultimately, the nuanced understanding provided by this research invites policymakers and organizational strategists to recalibrate leadership development and capability-building efforts tailored to the evolving digital ecosystem shaping the future of public administration.
Subject of Research: Factors influencing innovative work behavior and government service innovation performance, focusing on digital leadership and dynamic capabilities.
Article Title: A study on factors shaping innovative work behavior and service innovation performance in government sectors: role of digital leadership and dynamic capabilities.
Article References:
Ren, L., Deng, S., Men, L. et al. A study on factors shaping innovative work behavior and service innovation performance in government sectors: role of digital leadership and dynamic capabilities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1076 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05378-7
Image Credits: AI Generated
