Although Rainey (1982) first coined the term “PSM” in his article published in American Review of Public Administration in 1982, Perry and Wise (1990) elaborated the concept of PSM. Before PSM had been posited, it was widely accepted that bureaucrats or those who work in the government are utility maximizers pursuing selfish ends in their workplace, and their motivation is the same as that of those who act in the market. Kelman (1987) was critical of this trend, stating that “this account of the operation of the political process is a terrible caricature of reality. It ignores the ability of ideas to defeat interests, and the role of that public spirit plays in motivating the behavior of participants in the political process” (p. 81). The origins of such positive views of a bureaucrat can be traced to the traditional intellectual approach to bureaucracy initiated by Max Weber. He envisaged those who work in the bureaucratic system (or bureaucrats) as sincere servants, suggesting that the bureaucrat is an impartial implementer in pursuit of organizational goals who does not place his personal goals over organizational goals in a bureaucratic system, even if his claims were empirically unproven.

For more than four decades, public administration scholars have identified differences between public and private organizations in terms of the behaviors and work-related attitudes of organizational members and organizational characteristics (Bozeman, 1987; Scott and Falcone, 1998; Rainey and Bozeman, 2000). Research on public-private sector differences has yielded fruitful empirical results, showing that the characteristics and behaviors of public organizations are sharply distinct from those of their private counterparts (Wright and Grant, 2010; Ingrams, 2020). One strand of these findings is that employees in public organizations (or bureaucrats) have different motivations and reward preferences from those in private organizations; numerous studies have reported identical findings. Rainey (1982), for example, compared middle managers in the public and private sectors, revealing that while the latter place a high importance on “higher pay” and “making a good deal of money,” the former focus on “engaging in meaningful public service” and “doing work that is helpful to other people” (p. 292). Based on these findings, he suggests developing the concept of PSM in research on public administration.

Full-scale PSM research has been conducted since the work of Perry and Wise (1990), who define PSM as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (p. 368). Perry and Wise propose three types of motives that lay the foundation for PSM: affective, norm-based, and rational. The affective motive refers to actions grounded in emotional responses to various social situations, the norm-based motive involves actions caused by endeavors to conform to social norms or rules, and the rational motive refers to behavior based on an individual’s desire to participate in policymaking. To measure the construct of PSM at the empirical level, Perry (1996) suggested four dimensions–public policymaking, public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice–with 24 measurement items through survey-based observation of graduate students. Since the development of Perry’s PSM measurement items, ample empirical findings have been produced, constituting the bulk of evidence in the field.

The concept of PSM has two important implications for academia. First, there are two types of motivations–intrinsic versus extrinsic––in organization theory, which do not reflect or account for individuals’ motivation to serve the public. Thus, PSM fills this knowledge gap. Second, self-interest was recognized as a universal motivation of bureaucrats at a time before the concept of PSM when public choice theory dominated the territories of knowledge.

PSM has been studied extensively in the context of public administration and organizational behavior, with research highlighting its positive impacts on job satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Perry and Vandenabeele, 2015; Ritz et al., 2016).

Table 2 provides a synthesis of recent empirical investigations concerning the correlations between PSM and positive outcomes in organizational settings. Despite the multitude of empirical inquiries conducted thus far, they can be classified into several thematic clusters regarding these favorable outcomes. Chief among these outcomes are job attitudes, with job satisfaction and turnover intentions being notably significant in organizational contexts (Bright, 2020). High levels of PSM among public servants have been consistently linked to heightened job satisfaction during task performance (Naff and Crum, 1999; Andersen and Kjeldsen, 2013; Roh et al., 2016; Prysmakova and Vandenabeele, 2020; Zhang, 2023), consequently mitigating turnover intentions (Naff and Crum, 1999; Shim et al., 2017; Gan et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2024).

PSM fosters socially desirable conduct both within and beyond organizational boundaries, stemming from individuals’ altruistic inclinations and commitment to public goods (Walton et al., 2017). Houston (2006) observed a higher propensity for charitable volunteering and blood donation among government agency employees, attributed to elevated levels of PSM compare to their private sector counterparts. Subsequent empirical studies have explored the association between PSM and volunteering behaviors, consistently affirming his relationship (Walton et al., 2017; Leisink et al., 2021).

Furthermore, PSM positively influences altruistic behaviors within organizations, exemplified by organizational citizenship behaviors which surpass formal role expectations, thereby enhancing organizational effectiveness and performance (Kim, 2006). Notably, a robust correlation between PSM and organizational citizenship behaviors has been observed in public administration studies. For instance, Koumenta (2015) demonstrated a significant promotion of organizational citizenship behaviors by PSM among British civil servants, concurrently reducing organizational deviance. Various empirical inquiries have replicated and reinforced these findings (Campbell and Im, 2016; Shim and Faerman, 2017; Abdelmotaleb and Saha, 2019; Ingrams, 2020; Li and Wang, 2022). Additionally, PSM serves as a precursor to prosocial and altruistic behaviors beyond organizational citizenship behaviors (Esteve et al., 2016; Piatak and Holt, 2020; Gans-Morse et al., 2022).

PSM is also under scrutiny as a driver of ethical conduct such as anti-corruption measures and whistleblowing within organizations. Despite conceptual overlaps with ethics, empirical studies have discerned a distinct positive association between PSM and ethical outcomes (Choi, 2004; Kwon, 2014; Stazyk and Davis, 2015; Wright et al., 2016). Particularly, whistleblowing, an ethical imperative in combating corruption and misconduct, is notably influenced by PSM (Cho and Song, 2015; Potipiroon and Wongpreedee, 2021; Prysmakova and Evans, 2022).

Lastly, research on PSM has explored its impact on individual and organizational performance within diverse settings. PSM emerges as a significant determinant of performance across various domains. Drawing on the field experimental method, Bellé (2013), for instance, showed nurses with higher levels of PSM achieved higher job performance in hospitals. Andersen et al. (2014) revealed that the students taught by teachers with high level of PSM exhibited higher academic achievement in school. Numerous studies affirm PSM’s role as a performance determinant (Naff and Crum, 1999; Ritz, 2009; Vandenabeele, 2009; Zhu and Wu, 2016; Lim et al., 2022; Thuy and Phinaitrup, 2023).

Janssen (2000) defined innovative behavior as a complex behavior that includes the generation, promotion, and idealization of ideas, specifically focusing on the individual creation of novel and useful ideas in the workplace across various domains. Innovation goes beyond performing tasks in a routine manner according to standard business procedures. It is an activity that voluntarily improves work methods, incorporates new technologies, views phenomena from a different perspective, and attempts to solve problems through new ideas (Woods et al., 2018). Furthermore, it is a continuous effort to spread experience and change fundamental work methods and systems (Scott and Bruce, 1994).

Innovative behavior is regarded as an important form of capital that enables an organization to effectively achieve its goals (Kanter, 1983; West and Far, 1990; Yuan and Woodman, 2010). In general, public organizations are not considered innovative because they do not operate within a market mechanism and are characterized by excessive rules and controls that constrain the innovative behavior of public servants (Miao et al., 2018). However, there has been recent emphasis on innovation that aims to improve efficiency and performance in the public sector (Fernandez and Moldogaziev, 2013; Waheed et al., 2017; Park and Yun, 2022).

While various factors, including organizational culture and climate, influence an individual’s innovation behavior, the psychological aspect of intrinsic motivation has been emphasized as an antecedent of innovative behavior (Yuan and Woodman, 2010). Given that innovation involves changing both the way people do things and the processes themselves, public sector employees are agents who facilitate and implement the innovative process (Nguyen et al., 2023). In public organizations, the outcome of innovation is an increase in the quality of public services, which benefits citizens. Public servants’ motivation to enhance the quality of their lives is a precondition for innovative behavior in public organizations.

The positive impact of intrinsic motivation on innovative or creative behavior has been well-documented in organizational studies (Liu et al., 2016; Fischer et al., 2019). Intrinsically motivated individuals tend to be curious, which facilitates creative ideas when they are at work (Devloo et al., 2015). In addition to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation contributes to innovative or creative performance in organizations (Chen et al., 2010). For instance, extrinsic or monetary rewards are widely utilized as incentives for employees to promote innovative behavior in private-sector organizations.

As a type of motivation, PSM is understudied in the psychology or management domains, but it is regarded as a driving force that enables individuals to produce positive outcomes in public-sector organizations (Perry and Vandenabeele, 2015; Ritz et al., 2016). PSM is an important psychological resource that drives innovative behavior in public organizations, and it is an important factor in organizational innovative behavior because members of public organizations are motivated by the ideal of serving the public interest and are committed to serving the people rather than monetary rewards. One of the most important factors in innovative behavior is the voluntary participation of organizational members. This indicates that innovative behavior is driven by individuals’ attitudes, psychology, and motivation, which are intrinsic to the organization, rather than by external rewards and control.

Perry and Wise (1990) propose that PSM encompasses three distinct motives: rational, normative, and affective. The rational motive entails individuals’ aspiration to engage in the policymaking process, prioritizing societal or communal interests over personal gain, contrary to the assumptions of economic theory. Normative motive involves a desire to advance the common good and fulfill civic duties as a citizen. Affective motive reflects a commitment to government programs driven by a conviction of their societal significance, accompanied by feelings of empathy and affection toward others. These three motives, integral to PSM, are closely linked to intrinsic motivation (Jung et al., 2018).

The measurement of PSM relies on four sub-elements that mirror these motives. Rational motive is gaged by the inclination to participate in policymaking and attraction toward attraction to policymaking (APM), while normative motive is assessed through commitment to public interest (CPI), indicating the extent to which individuals strive for the common good. Affective motive is measured through compassion (COM) and self-sacrifice (SS) (Perry, 2000). Since the sub-dimensions of PSM overlap with characteristics of intrinsic motivation, some scholars contend that PSM constitutes a form of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000).

Despite similarities, some scholars distinguish between PSM and intrinsic motivation (Paarlberg and Lavigna, 2009; Bozeman and Su, 2015). PSM tends to be more altruistic, driving individuals to perform challenging tasks not solely for personal enjoyment but for the benefit of society and communities. Consequently, individuals with high PSM levels are inclined to invest extra effort in achieving outcomes that hold meaning and significance for society and others (Perry and Hondeghem, 2008; Ki, 2021). Rafique et al. (2023) identified correlations between PSM sub-dimensions and innovative behaviors within the Pakistani context. Thus, public service-motivated individuals consistently approach problem-solving from a citizen’s perspective, striving to ensure that public services are delivered in an innovative manner that is both convenient and efficient for citizens.

In addition, innovative behavior can be explained by PSM because this type of motivation is based on self-sacrifice, aims to realize the public good, and drives proactive and active behavior. Given that innovative behavior involves trying to solve problems through new ideas beyond routine work procedures and taking the risk of failure, it is difficult to achieve without an active and positive psychological state and motivation to accept the risk of failure. Therefore, PSM serves as a key driver of innovative behavior because individuals motivated by public service values are more likely to engage in activities that foster organizational innovation.

While the nexus between PSM and innovative behavior has not been comprehensively explored, recent studies have suggested a significant positive relationship. Employees with high PSM may be more inclined to engage in innovative behaviors, as they align with their intrinsic motivation to serve public goods and improve public welfare (Miao et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020). For instance, Vuong (2023) found that civil servants with high levels of PSM tended to exhibit innovative work behavior in Vietnamese local governments. Khan and Burdey (2021) and Suryani et al. (2023) discovered that individuals motivated by public service are inclined to exhibit innovative behaviors in the workplaces in Pakistan.

Self-determination theory (SDT), proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985), explains PSM can be a potent intrinsic motivator for individuals in the public sector. PSM, characterized by an altruistic desire to serve the public and contribute to society, aligns with the principles of SDT (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). Specifically, PSM fulfills the need for autonomy (engaging in work that feels personally meaningful), competence (feeling effective in contributing to public good), and relatedness (connecting with societal values and the community) (Corduneanu et al., 2020). These alignments suggest that civil servants with high PSM are motivated to serve the public good. Therefore, they will likely engage in proactive behaviors, seeking new and creative work processes to deliver public service efficiently and effectively to citizens.

Organizational commitment, as defined by Meyer and Allen (1991), encompasses an employee’s psychological attachment and loyalty toward their organization, highlighting its complex and multifaceted nature. It encompasses affective commitment (emotional attachment to the organization), continuance commitment (perceived cost of leaving the organization), and normative commitment (sense of obligation to remain with the organization). Although organizational commitment is a multidimensional construct, these three dimensions are not mutually exclusive (Camilleri and Van Der Heijden, 2007).

While PSM and organizational commitment exhibit mutual interdependence, it is more logically argued that PSM serves as an antecedent of organizational commitment within public organizations (Vandenabeele, 2009). As previously noted, there are three dimensions comprising the concept of organizational commitment. Normative commitment pertains to an obligation-based loyalty to the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Public service-motivated individuals entering and working in the public sector strongly embrace the values and goals of public service for the betterment of the public good (Witesman and Walters, 2013). The alignment between individuals and the organization in public services enables employees to uphold the obligations expected by the organization. Adherence to norms and values can serve as a fulfilling motivation for public servants (Andersen et al., 2013). Normative commitment acts as a cohesive force between public service-motivated employees and value-oriented behaviors within public organizations. Consequently, public employees, guided by normative and value-oriented attitudes, endeavor to enhance society by refining and improving the process through which public services are delivered.

Affective commitment refers to emotional attachment to the organization, where organizational members identify themselves with the organization, leading to enjoyment of tasks within the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Public service-motivate individuals identify themselves with public services, fostering a public service identity (Bednarczuk, 2018). Individuals with a high level of affective commitment, or public service identification, tend to derive satisfaction from their tasks and actively engage in them, thereby enhancing organizational performance. Increased identification with the public service organization correlates with a higher likelihood of employees making significant personal investments in the organization and actively engaging in actions that contribute positively to its success (Miao et al., 2019).

Continuance commitment can be defined as “a desire to maintain organizational membership” (Porter et al., 1974:604). People with this type of commitment and PSM typically internalize the values of public services through the socialization process during their tenure in public organizations. Empirical evidence supports that organizational members with a high level of PSM exhibit a low intention to turnover (Campbell and Im, 2016; Shim et al., 2017; Jia et al., 2022). In other words, low turnover intention indicates high continuance commitment. As a result, employees with high continuance commitment are presumed to engage in innovative behaviors to address imminent challenges, staying with the organization to contribute to its performance and sustainability.

According to social exchange theory, relationships within organizations are driven by the reciprocal exchange of resources, benefits, and rewards between individuals and the organization (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Blau, 2017). Employees with high levels of PSM are motivated by altruistic values and a desire to contribute to the public good. The initial step in this reciprocal relationship is catalyzed by employees’ perception that their altruistic efforts and motivations are recognized and supported by the organization. Next, committed employees are more likely to take initiative, propose new ideas, and implement changes that align with organizational goals, viewing innovation as a way to give back to the organization and further its mission. As a result, organizational commitment mediates the relationship between PSM and innovative behavior by acting as the mechanism through which the social exchange process translates intrinsic motivation (stemming from PSM) into actions that benefit the organization (innovative behavior). The stronger the commitment, the more likely employees are to engage in innovative activities, as they feel an emotional and psychological investment in the organization’s success (Mowday et al., 1979; Wright and Pandey, 2008). Specifically, Vandenabeele (2009) empirically found that PSM is linked to performance exhibiting a high correlation with innovative behavior mediated by organizational commitment.

Consequently, the positive influence of PSM on innovative behavior is mediated by the degree of an employee’s commitment to the organization, as stronger commitment may lead to greater involvement in innovative activities. Accordingly, we hypothesize that:

Organizational culture refers to a “complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its business” (Barney, 1986, p. 657). Culture is a collective context, such as an institution, that guides organizational members’ behaviors and choices. Within this context, individuals internalize and learn shared cultural values to sustain in-group homogeneity (Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983; Büschgens et al., 2013). When innovation is a shared value within an organization, it fosters an perceived innovative culture and actively motivates its members to innovate in terms of both willingness and behavior.

The influence of organizational culture, specifically perceived innovative culture, on employee behavior is well-established in organizational psychology. An perceived innovative culture characterized by support for creativity, tolerance of risk, and openness to new ideas is considered crucial for fostering innovation within organizations (Martins and Terblanche, 2003). A group with a collective organizational culture of innovation will serve as a catalyst to enhance the level of innovative behavior and its relationship with other factors influencing innovation compared to a group lacking such a culture.

The moderating role of perceived innovative culture in the relationship between PSM, organizational commitment, and innovative behavior is rooted in fit theory (Kristof, 1996). According to this perspective, the congruence between an individual’s values (such as those associated with PSM) and the organizational environment (such as an perceived innovative culture) enhances the likelihood of certain behaviors, including innovation (Schneider, 1987; Chatman, 1989). Thus, perceived innovative culture may amplify or mitigate the effects of PSM and organizational commitment on innovative behavior.

The alignment between PSM and an perceived innovative culture arises because individuals with a high level of PSM are often intrinsically motivated to achieve outcomes that benefit the public and seek out creative ways to overcome barriers to public service delivery. An organizational culture that values and supports innovation can amplify the impact of PSM by providing the resources, support, and recognition needed to transform creative ideas into tangible improvements in public services. Thus, when PSM and an innovative organizational culture coexist, the organization is more likely to foster a proactive and creative workforce dedicated to public service excellence.

Also, the link between organizational commitment and innovation behavior is grounded in the idea that committed employees are more likely to engage in behaviors that go beyond their basic job requirements, including innovative behavior. This is because committed employees have a stronger desire to contribute to the organization’s success and are more willing to engage in risk-taking and experimentation, which are essential for innovation. Furthermore, committed employees are likely to have a deeper understanding of the organization’s goals and challenges, enabling them to identify opportunities for innovation that align with organizational objectives.

Hence, the presence of an perceived innovative culture within an organization strengthens the relationship between PSM, organizational commitment, and innovative behavior, creating an environment more conducive to innovation.

Accordingly, Hypothesis 3-1 states that an perceived innovative culture influences how PSM translates into organizational commitment, potentially enhancing the alignment between personal values and organizational objectives. Hypothesis 3-2 implies that the impact of organizational commitment on innovative behavior varies depending on the level of perceived innovative culture, with a stronger culture likely to enhance the commitment-behavior link. Finally, hypothesis 3-3 suggests that perceived innovative culture within an organization can moderate the relationship between PSM and innovative behavior.

The survey in this study targeted public servants within the central government of the Republic of Korea. Due to the challenge of obtaining a comprehensive sampling frame of all government agency employees in Korea, we utilized two sources for sampling: an online panel pool and a list of employees from the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS). The online panel pool, owned by Mbrane Public, a reputable research company in Korea, comprises approximately 1.5 million individuals as of May 2022. We distributed an email containing a web survey instrument and sent text messages requesting participation to all 6,333 panelists who identified their occupation as “public servant in a centralized administrative organization.” Ultimately, 714 respondents out of the 6,333 panelists participated in the web survey, resulting in a survey participation rate of 11.3%.

However, due to the insufficient sample size to meet our target, we extended the survey to include public employees in the central government through the MOIS. A cooperation letter containing the survey URL was issued to 3,845 employees working in the MOIS headquarters and agencies, with 307 employees participating in the survey, yielding a response rate of 8.0%. The combined response rate for both surveys was 10.0%. Data collection took place from May 24 to June 5, 2022, and was conducted by Mbrane Public. To analyze the survey data and test the proposed hypotheses, structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed.

The factor loadings of the measurement items demonstrated sufficient representation of their respective constructs. Both the overall Cronbach’s α value and those of all constructs exceeded 0.8, exceeding the established threshold of 0.70 (Kline, 2016). Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed to ensure the convergence of multiple indicators within the same construct and the distinctiveness of the indicators across different constructs (Neuman, 2011). The evaluation of convergent validity relies on average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). As presented in Table 3, the CR values exceeded 0.8 and the AVE values exceeded 0.6, meeting the criteria for sufficient convergent validity.

For discriminant validity, a comparison was made between correlation coefficients of the three latent variables and the square root values of their respective AVE. According to the established criterion, discriminant validity was affirmed if the square root values of AVE surpass the correlation coefficients. The results in Table 4 indicate that the square root values of the AVE for all four latent variables consistently exceeded the correlation coefficients among the variables, confirming the model’s satisfactory discriminant validity.

To check for common method bias, we followed Podsakoff et al. (2003) and applied Harman’s one-factor technique. Harman’s one-factor analytical results identified the variance of the first factor as 38.44%, which was less than 50%, indicating that common-source bias was not a serious concern in our data. Additionally, the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios for our study ranged from 0.33 to 0.598, effectively confirming the discriminant validity of the constructs. Since all HTMT values are significantly below the conventional thresholds of 0.85, it is clear that the constructs are distinct and measure separate phenomena (Henseler et al., 2015). This is a crucial validation point, particularly in addressing potential concerns related to common method variance.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to identify the optimal model through multiple confirmatory factor comparisons. As depicted in Table 5, the model fit least favorably when all factors were combined into a single factor ( χ 2 = 2343.765, df = 65, CFI = 0.608, TLI = 0.530, RMSEA = 0.185, SRMR = 0.110). The most suitable model was determined to be the four-factor model, demonstrating a good fit to the data ( χ 2 = 327.478, df = 59, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.067, SRMR = 0.050). Significantly, the proposed four factor-model outperformed the three-factor model, as evidenced by Δ χ 2 (3) = 485.146, p < 0.001.

The results offer significant insight into the dynamics of innovative behavior within public organizations. The acceptance of Hypothesis 1 confirms that PSM is positively related to innovative behavior. This finding aligns with the existing literature, suggesting that employees motivated by a desire to serve the public are more inclined to engage in innovative activities aimed at making citizens more comfortable with public services (Miao et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2023). This relationship underscores the importance of intrinsic motivation in fostering an environment conducive to innovation, particularly in the public sector.

The non-acceptance of Hypothesis 2 suggests that organizational commitment may not play the hypothesized mediating role in the relationship between PSM and innovative behavior. This could indicate that the direct influence of PSM on innovative behavior is not significantly channeled through organizational commitment. This finding suggests that PSM directly influences innovative behavior without mediation through organizational commitment, perhaps implying that the intrinsic motivation provided by PSM is sufficient to drive innovative behavior independently. Alternatively, the nature of public sector work, with its complex regulations and bureaucratic constraints, might limit the extent to which individual commitment can translate into observable innovative outcomes (Demircioglu and Audretsch, 2017; Acar et al., 2018).

The acceptance of Hypotheses 3–1 and 3–2 with positive moderation underscores the significant role of perceived innovative culture in enhancing the relationships between PSM and organizational commitment (H3-1) and between organizational commitment and innovative behavior (H3-2). This indicates that in environments where innovation is culturally valued and nurtured, employees with high PSM are likely to develop stronger organizational commitment, which in turn, more effectively translates into innovative behavior. This result highlights the pivotal role of an innovative organizational culture in leveraging employee motivation and commitment toward fostering innovation (Lukoto and Chan, 2016; Li and Liu, 2022; Pradana et al., 2022).

The finding that Hypothesis 3-3, positing that perceived innovative culture moderates the relationship between PSM and innovative behavior, is not supported prompts several possible explanations. This outcome suggests that the influence of an innovative organizational culture may not be as pivotal in moderating the impact of PSM on innovative behavior as initially theorized.

The results offer significant insight into the dynamics of innovative behavior within public organizations. The hypothesis 1 was supported. It confirms that PSM is positively related to innovative behavior. This finding aligns with the existing literature, suggesting that employees motivated by a desire to serve the public are more inclined to engage in innovative activities aimed at making citizens more comfortable with public services (Miao et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2023). This relationship underscores the importance of intrinsic motivation in fostering an environment conducive to innovation, particularly in the public sector.

The hypothesis 2 was not supported. It suggests that organizational commitment may not play the hypothesized mediating role in the relationship between PSM and innovative behavior. This could indicate that the direct influence of PSM on innovative behavior is not significantly channeled through organizational commitment. This finding suggests that PSM directly influences innovative behavior without mediation through organizational commitment, perhaps implying that the intrinsic motivation provided by PSM is sufficient to drive innovative behavior independently. Alternatively, the nature of public sector work, with its complex regulations and bureaucratic constraints, might limit the extent to which individual commitment can translate into observable innovative outcomes (Demircioglu and Audretsch, 2017; Acar et al., 2018). Given the limited research on this relationship, further investigation is necessary across different sociocultural and methodological contexts.

The hypotheses 3–1 and 3–2 were supported; positive moderation underscores the significant role of perceived innovative culture in enhancing the relationships between PSM and organizational commitment (H3-1) and between organizational commitment and innovative behavior (H3-2). This indicates that in environments where innovation is culturally valued and nurtured, employees with a high level of PSM are likely to develop stronger organizational commitment, which in turn, more effectively translates into innovative behavior. This result highlights the pivotal role of an innovative organizational culture in leveraging employee motivation and commitment toward fostering innovation (Lukoto and Chan, 2016; Li and Liu, 2022; Pradana et al., 2022).

The finding that hypothesis 3-3, positing that perceived innovative culture moderates the relationship between PSM and innovative behavior, is not supported prompts several possible explanations. This outcome suggests that the influence of an innovative organizational culture may not be as pivotal in moderating the impact of PSM on innovative behavior as initially theorized.

One possible explanation for this result could be the inherent strength of PSM itself. Individuals with high PSM may be intrinsically motivated to innovate, regardless of organizational culture. This aligns with one of the core principles of PSM that individuals are driven by a commitment to the public good and societal values, potentially overshadowing environmental factors like organizational culture (Perry and Vandenabeele, 2015).