11321, 359 PM 19 Examples of Ability Privilege - Everyday F

11/3/21, 3:59 PM 19 Examples of Ability Privilege - Everyday
Feminism
https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/03/19-examples-of-ability-
privilege/ 1/3
As able-bodied individuals, we live in a society that regularly
and easily accommodates
our every need. As such, we often forget the privilege that this
entitles us.
The following list includes examples of the benefits those of us
who are able-bodied —
i.e. not physically disabled, chronically ill, severely obese or
otherwise physically limited
— experience. (Cognitive ability, a.k.a. neurotypical privilege
also exists, but deserves its
own article, so will not be included in this list).
Keeping these things in mind will help us to relate to those
among us who encounter
barriers due to physical limitations and to gain more
understanding of what they go
through on a daily basis.
�. You can go about your day without planning every task, like

getting dressed or going to
the bathroom.
�. You can play sports easily.
�. Public transportation is easy for you.
�. Air travel is relatively easy for you.
�. Others don’t get frustrated with you in public for needing
special accommodations or
holding up lines.
�. You don’t have to worry about others’ reactions to your
able-ness.
�. You have ample role models of your ability to whom you can
aspire.
19 Examples of Ability Privilege
March 5, 2013 / Shannon Ridgway
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/able-bodied
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical
http://www.righttoplay.com/International/news-and-
media/Documents/Policy%20Reports%20docs/Harnessing%20th
e%20Power%20-%20FULL/Chapter5_SportandDisability.pdf
https://www.good.is/posts/public-transportation-systems-are-
leaving-people-with-disabilities-behind
http://nod.org/what_we_do/program_design/start_on_success/
https://everydayfeminism.com/author/shannonr/

Feminism
privilege/ 2/3
�. You don’t frequently encounter communication barriers.
�. Leisure activities like gardening, knitting or woodworking
are easy for you.
��. You can expect to be included in-group activities.
��. As an able-bodied person, you are well-represented in
movies, books and TV
shows. Typically you don’t have to rely on others to accomplish
tasks.
��. Others don’t assume you need to rely on them to
accomplish tasks.
��. As a healthy person, you don’t have to think about
your daily pain level when planning
events and activities.
��. You can expect to find housing that accommodates your
physical needs.
��. People don’t make fun of you because of your ability.
��. Public access to buildings, parks, restaurants etc. is easy
for you (this especially applies
in small towns wherein handicap access may be limited).

��. If you get hired people don’t assume it’s based on your
ability.
��. You don’t face job discrimination based on your ability.
http://dailylivingskills.com/articles/areas-of-daily-living-
articles/recreation-for-the-disabled-an-introduction/
http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/i-barfi-i-sparks-debate-
about-the-portrayal-of-the-differently-abled-in-films-270815
http://www.theacpa.org/
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2011/08/30/housing-
discrimination-complaints/13845/
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2013/01/29/workplace-
discrimination-record/17205/
https://everydayfeminism.com/rdir-adfoxly/78051
Feminism
privilege/ 3/3
��. Your ability isn’t the butt of jokes in TV shows and
movies.
By no means is this a complete list of able-bodied privilege.
Please share more examples
below!
Found this article helpful?
Help us keep publishing more like it by becoming a member!

Shannon Ridgway is from the great flyover state of South
Dakota (the one with the
monument of presidential heads). In her free time, Shannon
enjoys reading, writing,
jamming out to ’80s music and Zumba, and she will go to great
lengths to find the
perfect enchilada. Follow her on [email protected]
https://everydayfeminism.com/membership/
https://everydayfeminism.com/membership/
https://www.twitter.com/sridgway1980
References for week3
Esty, D. C., & Bell, M. L. (2018). Business leadership in global
climate change responses. American Journal of Public Health,
108(S2), S80–S84
Ljungholm, D. P. (2014). The performance effects of
transformational leadership in public administration.
Contemporary Readings in Law & Social
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Cooper, B. (2018). How
leadership and public service motivation enhance innovative
behavior
References for week2
Hijal-Moghrabi, I., & Sabharwal, M. (2018). Ethics in American
public administration: A response to a changing reality. Public
Integrity, 20(5)
Kearney, R. C., & Coggburn, J. D. (2016). Public human
resource management: Problems and prospects. Los Angeles:
CQ Press
Oberfield, Z. W. (2014). Public management in time: A

longitudinal examination of the full range of leadership theory.
Journal of Public
Sowa, J. E., & Lu, J. (2017). Policy and management:
Considering public management and its relationship to policy
studies. Policy Studies Journal
Business Leadership in Global Climate Change
Responses
In the 2015 Paris Climate Change
Agreement, 195 countries com-
mitted to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions in recognition of
the scientific consensus on the
consequences of climate change,
includingsubstantialpublichealth
burdens. In June 2017, however,
US president Donald Trump an-
nounced that the United States
would not implement the Paris
Agreement.
We highlight the business

community’sbackingforclimate
change action in the United
States. Just as the US federal
government is backing away
from its Paris commitments,
many corporate executives are
recognizing the need to address
the greenhouse gas emissions
of their companies and the busi-
ness logic of strong environ-
mental, social, and governance
practices more generally.
We conclude that climate
change could emerge as an issue
on which the business and public
health communities might align
and provide leadership. (Am J
Public Health. 2018;108:S80–S84.

doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304336)
Daniel C. Esty, JD, MA, and Michelle L. Bell, PhD
Environmental problemsare sometimes hard to de-
tect until they reach a critical
threshold and emerge as public
health or ecological threats.
When the underlying causes are
spread widely over space or time
or a solution requires significant
cost or behavioral change, cap-
turing public focus can be even
more challenging. If action re-
quires overcoming entrenched
interests that benefit from the
status quo, then the political
mobilization necessary to pro-
duce collective action will be
particularly difficult.1 Climate
change presents an extreme case
on all counts. After decades of
inaction, however, 195 nations
committed in the 2015 Paris
Climate Change Agreement to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
that have been building up in
the atmosphere for centuries.
However, President Trump
announced on June 1, 2017, that
the US government intends to
leave the Paris Agreement and
retreat from its commitment
to a clean energy future. We

reviewed scientific evidence for
climate change action, and we
highlight the present commit-
ment to action, which spans
the developing and developed
worlds and includes cities, states
and provinces, and companies.
Indeed, the leadership of mayors,
governors, and corporate exec-
utives has added bottom-up
momentum. Perhaps most no-
table is the breadth of support in
the business community for en-
vironmental protection in gen-
eral and climate change initiatives
in particular that have taken place
despite the passive disregard and
active denial of climate change by
some in the business community.
We conclude that a growing
numberofprivatecompanies,along
with cities, states, universities, and
other nongovernmental organiza-
tions, are pushing back against the
Trump administration’s withdrawal
from the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Addressing the public health
crisis of climate change requires
efforts from multiple communi-
ties, so commitment from the
business sector is of utmost im-
portance. Thus, the better the
field of public health understands
business’s positions on climate

change and vice versa, the better
climate change can be addressed
and the related public health crisis
avoided or mitigated. We ex-
plore climate change actions by
the corporate world, especially in
light of changes in the US federal
leadership’s position on the issue.
CLARIFYING CLIMATE
CHANGE SCIENCE
Thousands of scientists
from across the world partici-
pated in the UN-chartered
Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.2 The
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s recent Fifth
Assessment Report3 makes clear
that greenhouse gas emissions
threaten to produce not just
overall warming but sea level rise,
changed range and distribution
of disease vectors, and changed
rainfall patterns, leading to more
droughts, wild fires, and floods.
While acknowledging that
some scientific uncertainties
remain in climate science, an
overwhelming scientific con-
sensus has been reached on the
seriousness of the problem.4
THE 2015 PARIS

CLIMATE CHANGE
AGREEMENT
Climate change has been
recognized since the early 1980s.5
At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, 154 presidents
and prime ministers signed the
UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change, committing to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But little was done by many such
nations in the ensuing 2 decades.
Globally, emissions and accumu-
lation of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere continued to rise.6,7
One reason the 1992 con-
vention delivered little mitigation
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Daniel C. Esty is with the Yale Law School and the Yale School
of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, New Haven, CT. Michelle L. Bell is with the Yale
School of Forestry and Envi-
ronmental Studies.
Correspondence should be sent to Michelle Bell, Yale
University, 195 Prospect St, New Haven,
CT 06511 (e-mail: [email protected]). Reprints can be ordered
at http://www.ajph.org by
clicking the “Reprints” link.
This article was accepted January 14, 2018.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304336

S80 Editorial Peer Reviewed Esty and Bell AJPH Supplement 2,
2018, Vol 108, No. S2
AJPH PERSPECTIVES
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.ajph.org
was the lack of consensus on who
should do what (“burden shar-
ing,” in diplomatic language)
beyond a common commitment
to the broad principle of “com-
mon but differentiated respon-
sibility.”8 The UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change
split the world into a small group
of Annex 1 countries (roughly
the 40 most developed nations
at that time), which agreed to
control emissions, and a long
list of non–Annex 1 countries,
which made no substantive
commitment to emissions
control.
The 2015 Paris Agreement
changed this dynamic by em-
phasizing common responsibility
and calling on signatories to de-
velop climate change action plans
under the banner of “nationally
determined contributions” to
control greenhouse gas emis-

sions.8 When negotiations
closed, 188 nations issued na-
tionally determined contribu-
tions, putting virtually every
country in the world on the
climate change playing field.
A second breakthrough in the
Paris Agreement was the shift
from national governments as the
primary actors to broader en-
gagement, calling on cities, states
and provinces, citizens, and
companies to advance efforts on
climate change mitigation and
adaptation. Indeed, hundreds of
mayors, governors, premiers, and
corporate leaders made their own
commitments to action in Paris.6
Negotiators acknowledged that
climate change has many facets
and requires, as former UN
secretary-general Ban Ki-moon
liked to say, “all hands on deck.”9
BUSINESS BACKS
ACTION
The business community’s
broad embrace of the 2015 Paris
call for corporate action to reduce
emissions reflects another point
of learning over previous de-
cades. At the 1992 UN Frame-

work Convention on Climate
Change, most business leaders
were skeptical about climate
change and many remained de-
fensive about environmental re-
quirements more generally.10
Today, although opposition re-
mains, many business leaders
recognize the value of environ-
mental protection.11,12 A grow-
ing number of business leaders
have built energy, environmen-
tal, and sustainability elements
into their day-to-day corporate
strategy.13 Some chief executive
officers (CEOs) have been vocal
for years about opportunities to
“do good and do well” simulta-
neously. Paul Polman of Uni-
lever, for example, developed the
Sustainable Living Plan, which
puts environmental progress on
the household and societal levels
at the center of his business
growth strategy and charges all
the company’s 170 000 world-
wide employees to fold sus-
tainability into their work.14
Similarly, Elon Musk, CEO of
Tesla, in his 2006 Master Plan,
put “provide zero emission
electric power generation op-
tions” alongside “build sports
car” as core elements of Tesla’s

mission.15
The range of corporate leaders
calling for climate change action
is now much broader. TheWorld
Economic Forum organized an
open letter in 2015, before the
Paris Agreement, from nearly
100 CEOs to world leaders
affirming “that the private sector
has a responsibility to engage
actively in global efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and to
help the world move to a low-
carbon, climate-resilient econ-
omy.”16 In urging President
Trump to stay in the Paris Agree-
ment, Jeff Immelt, CEO of
General Electric, recently de-
clared that “climate change is
real” and that actions to reduce
emissions make business as well as
environmental sense.17 More
than 1000 companies joined the
World Bank’s 2015 call for a
carbon charge.18 Hundreds of
companies joined the Carbon
Pricing Leadership Coalition,
a group of governments and
businesses launched in 2014 at
the UN Climate Summit and led
by the World Bank, which aims
to grow the application of carbon
pricing to lower emissions of
greenhouse gases, while keeping

economic advantages.19 Hun-
dreds of US companies publicly
announced support for the Paris
Agreement and commitments to
reduce their emissions.20
Many corporate leaders now
recognize that companies cannot
thrive in societies with ecological
and public health problems of
the sort that climate change threa-
tens to cause.21 More notably,
a growing number of executives
recognize that a strategic focus on
environmental issues can pay off
in the marketplace.22 Although
compliance with environmental
regulations can be costly for some
industries, ignoring sustainability
challenges exposes companies to
serious risks, including changed
customer expectations and
product displacement, non-
governmental organization pro-
tests or boycotts, unfavorable
media exposure, and govern-
mental pushback, including new
regulatory obligations.23 How-
ever, environmental or sustain-
able strategies can deliver cost
savings. Companies investing in
energy efficiency—for example,
LED lighting, updated equip-
ment, and more efficient
logistics—often achieve cost re-
ductions.13 Likewise, businesses

that reduce waste and improve
production practices to minimize
scrap and increase resource
productivity cut costs and
strengthen competitive
position.24
More dramatically, many
companies have found ways to
drive growth through environ-
mental initiatives.25 Businesses
that can offer products or services
that solve customers’ energy or
environmental challenges can see
competitive positions strengthen
as these market offerings deliver
added value.26 A recent Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology
and Bonston Consulting Group
study found that half of all
companies they surveyed re-
ported changing their business
models to take advantage of
sustainability opportunities.27
Mondelez International (for-
merly Kraft Foods), for example,
discovered that integrating sus-
tainability throughout its value
chain opened new markets, ex-
panded its consumer base, and
increased profitability. Similarly,
General Electric’s position in
the jet engine marketplace was
strengthened by success in in-

creasing its engines’ fuel effi-
ciency. The company’s strategic
focus on “ecomagination” has
spurred sustainability-oriented
innovation across many of
General Electric’s business
lines.28 Our research shows an
ever-growing number of com-
panies reporting substantial
sustainability-driven revenues
and rising profits, with 9 com-
panies reporting more than $1
billion in profit from sustainable
products or services.29
Beyond the bottom line,
a significant number of business
leaders today recognize that en-
vironmental leadership often
translates into enhanced brand
awareness and other elements of
intangible value. When Coca-
Cola’s CEO James Quincey
makes sustainability a corpo-
rate value and urges President
Trump not to abandon the Paris
AJPH PERSPECTIVES
Supplement 2, 2018, Vol 108, No. S2 AJPH Esty and Bell Peer
Reviewed Editorial S81
Agreement, he is not just ac-
knowledging his company’s de-

pendence on water. He is also
recognizing that Coca-Cola has
a market capitalization that re-
flects more than $80 billion in
intangible value30 that might be
threatened if the consuming
public concludes that the com-
pany was acting in an environ-
mentally irresponsible manner.
On the other hand, a number of
companies have discovered that
failing to embrace sustainability as
a core value can result in damaged
reputations and other business
challenges.31 BP and Volkswa-
gen are notable recent cases of
environment-driven brand
damage that translated into bil-
lions of dollars of lost market
capitalization.32,33
Robust corporate environ-
mental efforts have also been
demonstrated to enhance cus-
tomer loyalty and deepen em-
ployee engagement (particularly
of today’s prized knowledge
workers).34 Investors are
increasingly asking about
environmental, social, and
governance practices of compa-
nieswitha special worry aboutthe
future prospects of any business
that has significant carbon expo-
sure or other evidence of envi-
ronmental practices that could

become liabilities.35
PROTECTING THE
PAST VS BUILDING
THE FUTURE
Despite the efforts we have
described, the business sector
does not uniformly support cli-
mate change mitigation, and
some companies openly support
a rollback of America’s climate
change commitments. They have
brought significant political
pressure through their campaign
contributions and lobbying
efforts.36 Coal companies, in
particular, have celebrated the
prospect of abandoning the
Obama administration’s Clean
Power Plan, the structure of
state-by-state greenhouse gas
emission targets for the utility
sector that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) de-
veloped to induce a shift toward
cleaner fuels and greater energy
efficiency.37 In fact, a recent
study of climate change com-
munications from ExxonMobil
concluded that the company
misled the public regarding cli-
mate change science.38 Still, the
Trump administration’s decision
to pull out of the 2015 Paris

Agreement and its plan to walk
away from the Clean Power Plan
seem unlikely to reverse the de-
cline of coal as a source of US
electricity for several reasons.
First, market economics con-
tinue to steer utilities away from
coal-fired generation and toward
natural gas and to emphasize solar
and wind power.39,40 Simply put,
those building power plants,
which have decades-long life-
times, do not see coal as a good
bet over a 40- or 50-year time-
frame.41,42 Second, the Clean
Power Plan cannot be eliminated
with the stroke of a pen. US
administrative law allows the
EPA to revise its rules only after
going through a new regulatory
process, including building a sci-
entific record that supports in-
action or reduced emphasis on
climate change.43,44 Third, if the
EPA introduces much weaker
emissions controls, it will almost
certainly be challenged in court,
especially if it withdraws the
so-called endangerment finding
that requires emissions controls
undertheUSCleanAirActforany
air pollutant, including greenhouse
gas emissions found to “endanger
public health and public welfare.”

Ultimately, any EPA effort
to construct an administrative
record that purports to suggest
that greenhouse gas emissions are
not a public health threat in
support of weaker regulations
would seem likely to run afoul of
the fundamental administrative
law standard of review: that the
EPA not act in a “arbitrary and
capricious” manner.45 Finally,
much of the disincentive for
burning coal comes from the
EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards, not climate change
regulations.46
LONG-TERM GAINS AT
SHORT-TERM COSTS
Environmental protection,
like many public health issues,
often involves changing behavior
and short-term investments for
long-term benefits. Around the
world, including in the United
States, much (but not all) of the
public has come to recognize the
threat of climate change.47 Even
without leadership from Wash-
ington, governors and mayors in
34 states have rolled out climate
change action plans.48 Climate
change action plans are only part
of broader state-level commit-

ments to a transformed energy
future. California, Florida, and 15
other states have strengthened
their renewable portfolio stan-
dards, developed new incentives
for renewable energy deploy-
ment, or refined their carbon
reduction programs.49 Con-
necticut, New York, and a
growing number of other states
have launched green banks to
finance broader deployment of
renewable power and expanded
energy efficiency.50
In the aftermath of Trump’s
decision to leave the Paris
Agreement, California, New
York, and Washington State
announced the formation of the
US Climate Alliance, a coalition
of states that will work to meet
their commitments under the
Paris Agreement.51 Hundreds of
mayors, university presidents,
and corporate leaders are work-
ing on a proposal to present to the
United Nations that would allow
them to submit their climate
targets and emissions reductions
for inclusion alongside countries
in the Paris Agreement.52
In the private sector, some
companies are investing in the

energy efficiency and renewable
power breakthroughs required
to deliver a clean energy future.
Google, Apple, Facebook, and
more than 90 other companies
around the world, for example,
have committed to using 100%
renewable energy in all of their
operations.53 Meanwhile, com-
panies increasingly recognize the
opportunity energy efficiency
initiatives provide to reduce op-
erational costs and improve their
carbon footprints.54 A growing
number of companies are estab-
lishing internal greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals, with
85% of companies recently sur-
veyed by the Carbon Disclosure
Project reporting that they have
established emissions targets.55
In brief, the 2015 Paris
Agreement has galvanized a push
for real change in the energy
foundations of the global econ-
omy. The expectation that the
world will now move on to
a more sustainable energy path
has an important dimension that
is self-fulfilling as business leaders
lock in assumptions about their
future energy options and cost
expectations.
Ironically, although the

United States may experience
more hurricanes and suffer
damage to farming and forests
as well as other climate change
consequences in the next several
decades, much of the early and
most severe impacts will be in
the developing world.56 Island
AJPH PERSPECTIVES
2018, Vol 108, No. S2
nations and other low-lying
countries, such as Bangladesh, are
likely to be particularly hard hit.57
The prospect of more com-
mand and control regulations
that limit individual and corpo-
rate choices draws particular ire.
But fear of more big government
controls will lead to a debate over
policy instruments, not objection
to action on climate change
generally. Clearly, US politics has
unique elements that provide
some explanation for its anoma-
lous position in the global con-
versation about climate change.
Notably, the fossil fuel industry
pushes back against climate
change science more aggressively

in the United States than in other
parts of the world.
With the future health and
welfare of the United States and
the rest of the world at stake, the
fact that an important swath of
US political leadership evinces
a lack of concern about climate
change and unwillingness to act
must be seen as a public health
communications problem as
well. Public health experts hel-
ped change American under-
standing and attitudes (and thus
the direction of US politics) with
regard to smoking, seatbelts, and
a number of other issues. That
same degree of effort to increase
awareness may now be needed
for climate change.
A changing climate is antici-
pated to bring substantial health
burdens with increases in many
environmental exposures that
harm health, including wildfires,
droughts, air pollution, and
disease-bearing vectors, among
others, as well as the potential for
harmed health through conflict
and environmental refugees from
dwindling resources. The health
effects of climate change are
numerous and an area of active
research. The 2017 Lancet

Commission on Health and
Climate Change tracks progress
on health and climate change on
the basis of 40 indicators.58 To list
just a few, health impacts in-
cluded weather-related disasters,
food security and food-borne
diseases, infectious disease, and air
pollution. In fact, a survey of
members of the American Tho-
racic Society from 68 countries
indicated that most had already
observed adverse health out-
comes of climate change in their
patients.59 The 2015 Paris
Agreement highlighted the
health consequences of climate
change as a driving reason to
control greenhouse gas emis-
sions.60 The agreement also
noted the potential for coimpacts
(often called cobenefits): the
short-term improvements in air
quality and subsequently in
health from policies designed to
lower greenhouse gas emissions
that also lower levels of harmful
air pollutants.
The consensus for climate
change science is broad and deep
across the rest of the world. The
US public broadly supports cli-
mate change mitigation efforts.
But US opposition to action,

although limited, remains strong.
Environmental groups have been
beating the climate change drum
for years. Much of the business
world has come to regard climate
change action as a good, not
a bad, thing. In vast numbers,
corporate leaders support green-
house gas emission controls and
are ready for the shift to a clean
energy future, and in the future,
we will see if such support
translates into action. But these
voices are not carrying the day
politically in the United States.
Additional champions are re-
quired. As the public health
community is already a critical
voice in advancing the call for
climate change action, climate
change could emerge as an issue
on which the business and public
health communities align.
CONTRIBUTORS
The authors contributed equally to this
article.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article was developed under an as-
sistanceagreement(RD-835871) awarded
by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to Yale University.
D. Esty thanks Ram Sachs and Lucy
Kessler for their research assistance on this

article. He also wishes to highlight that he
is a principal in Constellation Research
and Technology, a fintech company that
is developing improved ways of gauging
corporate sustainability for the purposes of
guiding investors toward more sustainable
investing.
Note. This article has not been for-
mally reviewed by the EPA. The views
expressed in this document are solely those
of the authors and do not necessarily re-
flect those of the EPA. The EPA does not
endorse any products or commercial ser-
vices mentioned in this publication.
REFERENCES
1. Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press; 1965.
2. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. History. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/
organization_history.shtml. Accessed
May 31, 2017.
3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Fifth assessment report. Geneva,
Switzerland; 2014.
4. Oreskes N. The scientific consensus on
climate change. Science. 2004;306(5702):
1686.
5. Speth G. The Eleventh Annual Report

of the Council on Environmental Quality.
Washington, DC: Council on Environ-
mental Quality; 1980.
6. University of Cambridge Institute
for Sustainability Leadership. The Paris
pledge for action. Available at: http://
www.parispledgeforaction.org/read.
Accessed June 2, 2017.
7. United Nations. United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 1992.
8. United Nations Paris Agreement Under the
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. New York, NY: United
Nations; 2015.
9. UN News. Climate summit: “All hands
on deck” declares ban, calling for lead-
ership, concrete action. Available at:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.
asp?NewsID=48787#.WS2tiGXuxVo.
Accessed May 31, 2017.
10. Glicksman RL. Anatomy of industry
resistance to climate change: a familiar
litany. In: Driesen DM, ed. Economic
Thought and U.S. Climate Change Policy.
Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press;
2010.
11. Vandenbergh MP, Gilligan JA. Be-
yond gridlock. Columbia J Environ Law.
2016;40(2):217–303.

12. Senge PM, Smith B, Kruschwitz N,
Laur J, Schley S. The Necessary Revolution:
How Individuals and Organizations Are
Working Together to Create a Sustainable
World. New York, NY: Crown Business;
2010.
13. Esty DC, Winston A. Green to Gold:
How Smart Companies Use Environmental
Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build
Competitive Advantage. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley; 2009.
14. Unilever. Sustainable living. Available
at: https://www.unilever.com/
sustainable-living. Accessed June 2, 2017.
15. Musk E. The secret Tesla Motors
master plan (just between you and me).
2006. Available at: https://www.tesla.
com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-
plan-just-between-you-and-me.
16. World Economic Forum. These 79
CEOs believe in global climate action.
2015. Available at: https://www.
weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/open-
letter-from-ceos-to-world-leaders-
urging-climate-action. Accessed May 31,
2017.
17. Donnan S, Crooks E. GE’s Immelt
urges Trump to remain in Paris climate
accord. Available at: https://www.ft.

com/content/245babfe-311b-11e7-
9555-23ef563ecf9a. 2017. Accessed May
31, 2017.
18. World Bank. We support putting
a price on carbon. Available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
EXTSDNET/Resources/carbon-
pricing-supporters-list-UPDATED-
110614.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2017.
19. Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition.
2016–2017 Carbon pricing leadership
report. Washington, DC: World Bank;
2017.
20. Low-Carbon USA. Business backs
low-carbon USA. Available at: http://
lowcarbonusa.org/business. Accessed
May 31, 2017.
21. Porter ME, van der Linde C. Green
and competitive: ending the stalemate.
Harv Bus Rev. 1995;73(5):120–134.
22. Ameer R, Othman R. Sustainability
practices and corporate financial perfor-
mance: a study based on the top global
corporations. J Bus Ethics. 2012;108(1):
61–79.
23. Spar DL, La Mure LT. The power of
activism: assessing the impact of NGOs on
global business. Calif Manage Rev. 2003;
45(3):78–101.

24. Lubin DA, Esty DC. The sustainability
imperative. Harv Bus Rev. 2010;88(5):
42–50.
AJPH PERSPECTIVES
Supplement 2, 2018, Vol 108, No. S2 AJPH Esty and Bell Peer
Reviewed Editorial S83
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
http://www.parispledgeforaction.org/read
http://www.parispledgeforaction.org/read
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48787#.WS2ti
GXuxVo
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48787#.WS2ti
GXuxVo
https://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living
https://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living
https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-
just-between-you-and-me
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/open-letter-from-
ceos-to-world-leaders-urging-climate-action
https://www.ft.com/content/245babfe-311b-11e7-9555-
23ef563ecf9a

23ef563ecf9a
23ef563ecf9a
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSDNET/Resources/carbo
n-pricing-supporters-list-UPDATED-110614.pdf
http://lowcarbonusa.org/business
http://lowcarbonusa.org/business
25. Haanaes K, Michael D, Jurgens J,
Rangan S. Making sustainability profit-
able. Harv Bus Rev. 2013;91(3):110–115.
26. Lourenco I, Callen JL, Branco MC,
Dias Curto JD. The value relevance of
reputation for sustainability leadership. J
Bus Ethics. 2014;119(1):17–28.
27. Kiron D, Kruschwitz N, Haanaes K,
Reeves M, Goh E. The innovation bot-
tom line. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2013;
54(3):1–21.
28. Chesbrough HG. GE’s ecomagination
challenge: an experimentinopeninnovation.
Calif Manage Rev. 2012;54(3):140–154.
29. Williams F. Meet the nine billion-dollar
companies turning a profit from sustain-
ability. 2016. Available at: https://www.

theguardian.com/sustainable-business/
2016/jan/02/billion-dollar-companies-
sustainability-green-giants-tesla-chipotle-
ikea-nike-toyota-whole-foods. Accessed
June 2, 2017.
30. Interbrand. Best global brands 2016
rankings. Available at: http://interbrand.
com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2016/
ranking/cocacola. Accessed May 31, 2017.
31. Porter ME, Kramer MR. Creating
shared value. Harv Bus Rev. 2011;89(1/2):
62–77.
32. Moreano G. CNBC.com. A year later:
BP down $49 billion in market cap. 2011.
Available at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/
42677477. Accessed June 9, 2017.
33. Shepardson D. VW must face U.S.
investor lawsuit in emissions scandal.
2017. Available at: http://www.reuters.
com/article/volkswagen-emissions-
idUSL1N1EV01M. Accessed June 9,
2017.
34. Hammond JH, Sesia A. Ceasars En-
tertainment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Case 615-031; 2014.
35. Esty DC, Cort T. Corporate sustain-
ability metrics: what investors need and
don’t get. J Environmental Investing. 2017;
54(3):140–154.

36. A Climate of Corporate Control: How
CorporationsHave Influenced the U.S. Dialogue
on Climate Science and Policy. Cambridge,
MA: Union of Concerned Scientists; 2012.
37. US Environmental Protection
Agency. What they are saying about
President Trump’s executive order on
energy independence. 2017.Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/
what-they-are-saying-about-president-
trumps-executive-order-energy-
independence. Accessed June 8, 2017.
38. Supran G, Oreskes N. Assessing
ExxonMobil’s climate change communi-
cations (1977-2014). Environ Res Lett. 2017;
12(8):084019.
39. Chu S, Majumdar A. Opportunities
and challenges for a sustainable energy
future. Nature. 2012;488(7411):294–303.
40. AnnualEnergyOutlook2017WithProjects
to 2050. Washington, DC: US Energy In-
formation Administration; 2017.
41. Shearer C, Ghio N, Myllyvirta L, Yu
A, Nace T. Boom and bust 2017: tracking
the global coal plant pipeline. 2017.
Available at: https://www.sierraclub.org/
sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-
wysiwig/final%20boom%20and%20bust
%202017%20%283-27-16%29.pdf.
Accessed February 20, 2018.

42. Revesz R, Lienke J. Struggling for Air:
Power Plants and the “War on Coal.” New
York, NY: Oxford University Press;
2016.
43. Waltman RA. Assessing the EPA’s
authority to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions under the Clean Air Act section
111(D) and the Clean Power Plan. Vill
Envt L J. 2016;27(1):35–62.
44. Rabinowitz A. Undoing the Clean
Power Plan will be a legal nightmare.
2017. Available at: https://newrepublic.
com/article/141686/undoing-clean-
power-plan-will-legal-nightmare.
45. Mehling MA. A new direction for US
climate policy: assessing the first 100 days
of Donald Trump’s presidency. Carbon &
Climate Law Review. 2017;11(1):3–24.
46. Reitze AW. Federal regulation of
coal-fired electric power plants to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Utah Environ-
mental Law Review. 2012;32(2):391–429.
47. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-
Renouf C, Rosenthal S, Cutler M. Cli-
mate Change in the American Mind. New
Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate
Change Communications; 2017.
48. Center for Climate and Energy So-
lutions. Climate action plans. Available at:

https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/
policy-maps/climate-action-plans.
49. Macbeth H, Pacyniak G, Zyla KA,
Arroyo V. State Leadership Driving the Shift
to Clean Energy: 2016 Update. Wash-
ington, DC: Georgetown Climate Cen-
ter; 2016.
50. Leonard WA. Clean is the new green:
clean energy finance and deployment
through green banks. Yale Law Policy Rev.
2014;33(1):197–229.
51. Cuomo AM. New York Governor
Cuomo, California Governor Brown, and
Washington Governor Inslee announce
formation of United States Climate Alli-
ance. 2017. Available at: https://www.
governor.ny.gov/news/new-york-
governor-cuomo-california-governor-
brown-and-washington-governor-
inslee-announce. Accessed June 6, 2017.
52. Tabuchi H, Fountain H. Bucking
Trump, these cities, states and companies
commit to Paris Accord. 2017. Available
at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/
01/climate/american-cities-climate-
standards.html. Accessed June 5, 2017.
53. RE100. Companies. Available
at: http://there100.org/companies.

54. Nidumolu R, Prahalad CK,
Rangaswami MR. Why sustainability is
now the key driver of innovation. Harv
Bus Rev. 2009;87(9):56–64.
55. Out of the Starting Blocks: Tracking
Progress on Corporate Climate Action. Lon-
don, UK: Carbon Disclosure Project;
2016.
Change. Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaption, and Vulnerability. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
Change. Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaption and Vulnerability. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
58. Watts N, Amann M, Ayeb-Karlsson S,
et al. The Lancet countdown on health
and climate change: from 25 years of
inaction to a global transformation for
public health. Lancet. 2017;6736(17):
32464–32469.
59. Sarfaty M, Kreslake J, Ewart G, et al.
Survey of international members of the
American Thoracic Society on climate
change and health. Ann Am Thorac Soc.
2016;13(10):1808–1813.
60. Vidal J. Health effects of climate
change highlighted in Paris Agreement.
BMJ. 2015;351:h6885.

AJPH PERSPECTIVES
2018, Vol 108, No. S2
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2016/jan/02/billion-dollar-companies-sustainability-
green-giants-tesla-chipotle-ikea-nike-toyota-whole-foods
http://interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-
brands/2016/ranking/cocacola
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42677477
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42677477
http://www.reuters.com/article/volkswagen-emissions-
idUSL1N1EV01M
idUSL1N1EV01M
idUSL1N1EV01M
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/what-they-are-saying-about-

president-trumps-executive-order-energy-independence
https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploa
ds-wysiwig/final%20boom%20and%20bust%202017%20(3-27-
16).pdf
16).pdf
16).pdf
16).pdf
https://newrepublic.com/article/141686/undoing-clean-power-
plan-will-legal-nightmare
https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/climate-
action-plans
https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/climate-
action-plans
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/new-york-governor-cuomo-
california-governor-brown-and-washington-governor-inslee-
announce
announce

announce
announce
announce
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/american-cities-
climate-standards.html
http://there100.org/companies
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits
use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited 71
and is not used for commercial purposes.
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 78, Iss. 1, pp. 71–81. © 2017 The Authors.
Public Administration Review published
by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of
American Society for Public Administration.
DOI: 10.1111/puar.12839.

The copyright line for this article was changed
on 25 July 2018 after original online publication.
Gary Schwarz is associate professor
of public policy and management at
SOAS University of London. He has been
a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School
and authored the book Public Shared
Service Centers : A Theoretical and Empirical
Analysis of U.S. Public Sector Organizations
(Springer, 2014). His articles on leadership
and performance in the public sector
have appeared in journals such as Public
Administration .
E-mail: [email protected]
Alexander Newman is professor
of management at Deakin University,
Australia. He has published widely in the
areas of leadership, entrepreneurship, and
organizational psychology in journals such

as Leadership Quarterly, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Public Administration,
and the Journal of Applied Psychology .
Qing Miao is professor of public
management in the School of Public Affairs,
Zhejiang University, China. His research
focuses on leadership effectiveness in
the public context and the emerging
phenomenon of social entrepreneurship in
China. His work has appeared in journals
such as Public Administration, Leadership
Quarterly, and the Journal of Applied
Psychology .
Abstract : Prior research has linked the innovative behavior
of public sector employees to desirable outcomes such as
improved efficiency and higher public service quality. However,
questions regarding the drivers of innovative behavior
among employees have received limited attention. This article
employs psychological empowerment theory to examine
the underlying processes by which entreprene urial leadership

and public service motivation (PSM) shape innovative
behavior among civil servants. Based on three-wave data from
281 Chinese civil servants and their 59 department
heads, entrepreneurial leadership is found to positively
influence subordinates ’ innovative behavior by enhancing
two dimensions of psychological empowerment: meaning and
impact. Additionally, PSM was found to influence
subordinates ’ innovative behavior by enhancing the
dimensions of meaning and competence. These findings suggest
that to facilitate innovative behavior among employees, public
organizations should consider introducing training that
encourages leaders to serve as entrepreneurial role models and
recruit employees with high levels of PSM.
Evidence for Practice
• Public managers can spur innovative behavior among their
subordinates by acting as entrepreneurial role
models.
• Entrepreneurial leadership was found to positively influence
employees ’ innovative behavior by enhancing
their feelings of meaning and impact.
• PSM was found to positively influence employees ’
innovative behavior by enhancing their feelings of
meaning and competence.
• To facilitate innovative behavior in public sector employees,
organizations should introduce training that
stresses the importance of leaders who act entrepreneurially and
encourage subordinates to identify and
exploit entrepreneurial opportunities in the workplace.
Qing Miao

Zhejiang University
Alexander Newman
Deakin University
Gary Schwarz
SOAS University of London
Brian Cooper
Monash University
How Leadership and Public Service Motivation
Enhance Innovative Behavior
T
he “innovation imperative” for public
organizations arises because of both external
and internal pressures ( Jordan 2014 ). Changes
in the external environment, such as increasingly
scarce resources, rising citizen expectations for
more responsive and accountable government,
and deliberate internal choices aimed at reducing
performance gaps in the pursuit of higher service
levels, require innovation ( Walker 2008 ). Despite a
stream of studies on public sector innovation from
the mid-1970s to 1990 (e.g., Perry and Kraemer
1979 ) and a recent surge in interest in this topic

(e.g., Fernandez and Moldogaziev 2013b ), Hartley,
Sørensen, and Torfing noted that “there seems to
be considerable disagreement about how to spur
and sustain public innovation” (2013, 821). Given
that innovation in public sector organizations has
been linked to improved effectiveness, efficiency,
and citizen involvement, it is important to analyze
the factors that elicit innovative behavior in public
servants ( Salge and Vera 2012 ). However, few studies
have investigated the antecedents of employees ’
innovative behavior in public sector organizations
( Bysted and Hansen 2015 ).
Using three waves of data from multiple informants
within Chinese public sector agencies in six
Chinese cities, the present article examines whether
entrepreneurial leadership, defined as a leadership
style that influences and directs subordinates toward
the achievement of organizational goals that involve
the identification and exploitation of entrepreneurial
opportunities (Renko et al. 2015), is effective at
promoting the engagement of subordinates in
innovative behavior in the workplace. Drawing on
psychological empowerment theory ( Spreitzer 1995 ),
which suggests that leaders play an important role
in shaping employees ’ subjective perceptions of
their work, we argue that by acting as role models
for employees and furnishing them with support in

Brian Cooper is associate professor at
Monash University, Australia. His research
interests include the relationship between
high-performance work practices, employee
attitudes, and employee behaviors. He
has published in leading journals such as
Public Administration and Human Resource
Management .
15406210, 2017, 78, D
ow
nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary-w
iley-com
.proxy1.ncu.edu B
y N
orthcentral U
niversity C
alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R
e-use and distribution is strictly not perm
itted, except for O

pen A
ccess articles
72 Public Administration Review • January | February 2018
their engagement in entrepreneurial activity, entrepreneurial
leaders
positively influence subordinates to engage in innovative
behavior.
We also argue that employees ’ public service motivation
(PSM),
defined as “a particular form of altruism or prosocial motivation
that
is animated by specific dispositions and values arising from
public
institutions and missions” (Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise 2010 ,
682),
influences their innovative behavior by enhancing their
psychological
empowerment. Although a growing body of research has
established
the positive effects of PSM on employee performance and other
work
outcomes, few studies have examined its effects on the
innovative
behavior of employees and the mechanisms that may underlie
those
effects (Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann 2016).
Innovation is particularly relevant for the Chinese public
sector.

Faced with a rapidly changing environment, Chinese public
organizations have amended their form, structure, and scope
multiple times since the beginning of reforms in 1978 ( Xue and
Liou 2012 ). President Hu Jintao elevated the relentless pursuit
of innovation to a national policy (Leung et al. 2014). While
innovation in public organizations is crucial to avoid arcane
processes and procedures that hamper economic progress, Wu,
Ma, and Yang observed that “the overall state of innovation in
the
Chinese public sector remains unclear” (2013, 347).
In the present article, we aim to make several contributions to
the public administration literature. First, we answer the calls of
scholars to investigate the outcomes of entrepreneurial
leadership
and PSM using multisource data instead of self-reported data
(Perry,
Hondeghem, and Wise 2010 ; Renko et al. 2015). While prior
studies of public sector innovation have typically used a
qualitative
approach and focused predominantly on the United States or
the United Kingdom (de Vries, Bekkers, and Tummers 2016 ),
we conduct a quantitative study using dyadic data from China.
Second, by examining the mediating mechanism of
psychological
empowerment, we shed light on the underlying psychological
processes that link both entrepreneurial leadership and PSM to
employees ’ innovative behavior in public sector organizations.
Unlike

other public sector studies that analyze the mediating effects of
psychological empowerment, we take a more nuanced approach
by
examining the relative importance of the four main
subdimensions
of psychological empowerment: meaning, competence, self-
determination, and impact ( Tummers and Knies 2013 ).
This article is structured as follows: First, we review the
literature
on the key variables and develop our hypotheses (figure 1
illustrates
the research model). After a description of the research context
and our methodology, we conduct a confirmatory factor analysis
to determine the construct validity of our measurement model
and
test our hypotheses using multilevel mediated regression
analyses.
Finally, we discuss the importance of our results in helping us
better
understand how public organizations can foster innovation.
Innovative Behavior in Public Sector Organizations
In an age of austerity in which public organizations around the
globe face an increasingly turbulent operating environment and
the
challenge to do more with less, innovation has become central
to
effective service delivery to citizens ( Bernier, Hafsi, and
Deschamps
2015 ). Innovation refers to “an idea, practice, or project that

is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption”
( Rogers 2003 , 12). Innovations are different from inventions
in the
sense that they must be implementable, and they are different
from
continuous improvement in that they go beyond minor changes
and
adaptations ( Moore and Hartley 2008 ).
Altshuler noted that “the predominant view of innovation in
government has been one of suspicion” (1997, 1). Innovation
has
been questioned as a legitimate function of public management
because risk taking and bureaucratic discretion are contrary to
traditional public administration concerns with control and
accountability and may result in failure, the abuse of citizen
rights, favoritism, or corruption ( Terry 1993 ). Innovation that
has not been explicitly authorized (e.g., skunkworks projects
that do not follow routine procedures) is often considered to be
unacceptable ( Halachmi 2002 ). Frequently, more rules,
controls,
and constraints that limit the acceptable behavior of civil
servants,
rather than innovation, are considered to be a remedy in the
case
of performance deficiencies ( Kelman 2008 ). However, public
organizations must change frequently because of shifts in public
policy and priorities (Ricard et al. 2017). Innovative practices
can

help public sector organizations address changes and
stakeholder
expectations and provide legitimacy for the government as an
institution that creates public value ( Moore 2014 ).
Research dispels the myth that public organizations are not
innovative because of the nonexistence of a market mechanism
that eliminates organizations that do not adapt to their task
environment (e.g., Damanpour and Schneider 2009 ). Most
studies have focused on innovation at the policy ( Osborne and
Brown 2011 ), organizational ( Walker 2008 ), and project
levels
( Borins 2000 ). The innovative behavior of individual
employees
has received far less attention (de Vries, Bekkers, and
Tummers
2016 ). However, because of the importance of innovation,
public
Figure 1 Hypothesized Mediation Model
15406210, 2017, 78, D
ow
nloaded from
iley-com
.proxy1.ncu.edu B
y N
orthcentral U

niversity C
itted, except for O
pen A
ccess articles
How Leadership and Public Service Motivation Enhance
Innovative Behavior 73
sector organizations increasingly expect their employees to play
a
contributing role ( Altshuler 1997 ). For the purposes of this
study,
we define employees ’ innovative behavior as the generation
and
implementation of new and useful ideas by public sector
employees,
in line with previous research on public sector organizations
( Bysted and Hansen 2015 ). Individual innovation can be
viewed
as a multistage process that starts with problem recognition and
the generation of ideas either internally or through the adoption
of external practices ( Fernandez and Wise 2010 ). In the next
stage,
an innovative individual seeks to promote his or her ideas to
others
within the organization. Finally, innovative behavior includes
the

preparation of plans and schedules for the implementation of
new
ideas so that they can be used productively ( Scott and Bruce
1994 ).
Empirical work suggests that frontline employees are important
sources of innovation in public sector organizations ( Bernier,
Hafsi,
and Deschamps 2015 ). Reviewing award-winning innovations
in
government, Borins (2000 ) found that innovators were usually
not
senior managers but street-level bureaucrats. Middle- to lower-
level
employees are particularly critical to the successful
implementation
of new ideas.
In light of the importance of employees to organizational
innovation, the role played by managerial leadership and
employees ’
PSM in driving innovative behavior in public sector employees
needs to be examined in more detail.
Entrepreneurial Leadership and Innovative Behavior
The extent to which public managers should be entrepreneurial
has
been debated throughout public administration history. Max
Weber,
the founder of the modern study of bureaucracy, noted that the
authority to give commands should be “strictly delimited by

rules”
( Weber 1970 [ 1922 ], 196). In contrast, Woodrow Wilson, one
of
the founding fathers of the modern study of public
administration,
envisioned more room for managerial discretion as “a certain
degree
of administrative autonomy was required to make policy
delivery
effective” ( Wilson 1887 , 200). The New Public Management
(NPM) and reinventing government reform movements
encouraged
a more entrepreneurial approach to managing public sector
organizations ( Borins 2000 ). Hennessey (1998 ) showed that
leaders
make a significant difference in reinventing government by
fostering
support and nurturing cultures that facilitate innovation.
Roberts
and King even stated that “public entrepreneurship is the
process of
introducing innovation” (1991, 147).
Verhoest, Verschuere, and Bouckaert (2007) suggested that
NPM-
type reforms both “let public managers innovate” and “make
public
managers innovate.” Allowing managers to innovate removes
bureaucratic obstacles and provides them with the decision-
making
competencies and autonomy that are necessary to deviate from

established practices ( Damanpour and Schneider 2009 ).
Making
them innovate creates incentives to engage in risky innovative
behavior that, at least in some cases, may fail to produce the
desired
results. In their analysis of innovation in the Chinese public
sector,
Wu, Ma, and Yang (2013) concluded that fiscal decentralization
and cadre personnel management, with its inherent potential
reward
of career advancement, were the core means by which the
central
government incentivizes local government officials to innovate.
Innovative employees are also rewarded through innovation
awards
programs. The Innovations and Excellence in Chinese Local
Governance awards program, for example, in addition to the
honor
of being nominated, bestows 50,000 renminbi on winners and
10,000 renminbi on finalists (Wu, Ma, and Yang 2013).
Although some public sector studies have recognized the
importance of leadership as an organizational antecedent to
innovation (de Vries, Bekkers, and Tummers 2016 ), other
studies
have cast doubt on the relationship between leadership and
innovation adoption (e.g., Perry and Kraemer 1980 ). Scholars
have only very recently developed a measure of entrepreneurial
leadership that assesses the extent to which leaders influence

and direct their subordinates in identifying and exploiting
entrepreneurial opportunities and confirmed its discriminant
validity from other leadership styles, such as transformational
leadership (Renko et al. 2015). Entrepreneurial leaders not only
encourage their subordinates to experiment and innovate in the
workplace, but also they act as role models for their
subordinates by
engaging in entrepreneurial activities themselves and
encouraging
subordinates to emulate that behavior ( Meijer 2014 ). They
generate
ideas and creative solutions to problems, challenge the status
quo,
create a climate of innovation by encouraging risk taking, and
tolerate failed ideas. Entrepreneurial leaders also provide
critical
resources for innovation, such as time, equipment, and facilities
( Scott and Bruce 1994 ).
Fernandez and Rainey (2006 ) emphasized that management
practices are important for employee acceptance of change.
Despite
some evidence that entrepreneurial leadership may be effective
in
promoting innovative outcomes in the public sector (Ricard et
al.
2017), there is limited knowledge of the underlying
psychological
processes that link entrepreneurial leadership with the

innovative
behavior of individual employees.
Public Service Motivation and Innovative Behavior
In their seminal article analyzing the motivational bases for
public
service, Perry and Wise wrote that “committed employees are
likely
to engage in spontaneous, innovative behaviors on behalf of the
organization” (1990, 371). While the positive relationship
between
PSM and commitment has been established ( Crewson 1997 ),
the
influence of employees ’ PSM on their innovative behavior has
received surprisingly limited attention in the literature despite
the fact that research has found a link between employees ’
PSM
and other measures of performance (Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann
2016). Researchers have only very recently begun to examine
the
general relationship between PSM and innovation, for example,
by
analyzing the extent to which managers ’ PSM facilitates
innovative
behavior among their employees (Hatmaker, Hassan, and Wright
2014) or causes them to adopt innovative ideas themselves (
Hsu
and Sun 2014 ). Wright, Christensen, and Isett (2013b) found
that employees who scored high on the self-sacrifice dimension
of

PSM were more likely to support organizational change, and
they
suggested that this may be because such employees are less
likely to
be concerned with change that adversely affects them
personally.
However, the impact of employees ’ PSM on their innovative
behavior has not yet been examined in detail.
In the following sections, we highlight the importance of
psychological empowerment as a mechanism that links both
15406210, 2017, 78, D
ow
nloaded from
iley-com
.proxy1.ncu.edu B
y N
orthcentral U
niversity C
itted, except for O
pen A
ccess articles

entrepreneurial leadership and PSM to employees ’ innovative
behavior and develop hypotheses accordingly.
Psychological Empowerment
Two different perspectives of empowerment have emerged in
the
literature (Hassan, Wright, and Park 2016). The first is a
managerial
perspective that considers empowerment to be the delegation
of decision making from higher to lower organizational levels
( Fernandez and Moldogaziev 2013b ). Under this perspective,
empowerment is viewed as a relational construct, as authority,
information, and rewards are shared between supervisors and
subordinates, which has been the case in many NPM-type
reforms
( Fernandez and Moldogaziev 2013a ). However, simply sharing
power with subordinates is not enough to realize the full
benefits of
empowerment, as some employees may view new
responsibilities as
an unwelcome burden (Renko et al. 2015).
The second perspective views empowerment from the point of
view of the employee and treats it as a psychological construct
( Spreitzer 1995 ). Psychological empowerment focuses on the
conditions that allow employees to believe that they have
control
over their work, which encourages them to become willing to

take
on more responsibility ( Cho and Faerman 2010 ). Psychological
empowerment is the perspective that is adopted in this article.
Spreitzer (1995 ) defined psychological empowerment as a
form of
intrinsic motivation to perform tasks that comprise four
cognitive
variables: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact.
Psychological empowerment is highest when all four
dimensions
are high (Maynard, Gilson, and Mathieu 2012). The first
variable,
meaning, refers to the match between a job ’ s requirements
and an
individual ’ s values and beliefs ( Tummers and Knies 2013 ).
The
second variable, competence, is defined as an individual ’ s
feeling
of confidence that he or she has the ability to complete the tasks
required of him or her ( Cho and Faerman 2010 ). This can be
directly linked to Bandura ’ s (1997 ) notion of self-efficacy.
The third
variable, self-determination, refers to whether an individual
feels that
he or she has the ability to make decisions about how to
perform
work (Knol and van Linge 2009 ). The final variable, impact,
refers
to the extent to which individuals believe that their work has
an influence on their immediate work environment and that of
the organization (Knol and van Linge 2009 ). Impact is
different

from self-determination. While self-determination refers to an
employee ’ s sense of control over his or her own work, impact
refers
to an employee ’ s sense of control over organizational
outcomes. In
their recent review of two decades of psychological
empowerment
research, Maynard, Gilson, and Mathieu stated that “the
consistency
of the four-dimensional factor structure is impressive given that
both convergent validity and discriminant validity have been
found
in international samples; across different types of organizations
and
work contexts, including samples of nurses; and with both blue-
collar and white-collar employees” (2012, 1236).
Entrepreneurial Leadership and Psychological Empowerment
In this section, we highlight how entrepreneurial leadership
fosters
higher levels of psychological empowerment and propose that
psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between
entrepreneurial leadership and employees ’ innovative
behavior.
Compared with more transactional styles of leadership (Van
Wart
2013 ), entrepreneurial leadership focuses more on
empowerment
than control strategies, encouraging subordinates to be

independent
and proactive in seeking and exploiting new opportunities at
work (Renko et al. 2015). Therefore, entrepreneurial leadership
might be expected to enhance the various facets of
psychological
empowerment in a number of ways.
By involving subordinates in innovative activity that is crucial
to the success of their department or organization and stressing
the importance of such activity, entrepreneurial leaders send a
clear message to subordinates that their work is valued. Doing
so is likely to enhance subordinates ’ perceptions of meaning .
For
example, in their study of Dutch public employees from two
large
municipalities, a university and the health care sector,
Tummers
and Knies (2013 ) found that leaders play an important role in
making the work of public employees more meaningful. Second,
by providing advice and support to subordinates and acting as
entrepreneurial role models that may be emulated by
subordinates,
entrepreneurial leaders increase subordinates ’ confidence that
they
are able to do what is required of them. For example, in a study
of
365 senior public managers from three large European cities,
Ricard
et al. (2017) found that entrepreneurial leaders provide
employees
with learning opportunities. This should enhance their

perceptions
of competence .
Through removing obstacles that hold back their employees,
delegating responsibility, and encouraging employees to take
the
initiative to identify and exploit new opportunities ( Damanpour
and Schneider 2009 ), entrepreneurial leaders enhance
subordinates ’
perceptions of self-determination . For example, in a study of
street-
level bureaucrats from a U.S. state agency, all of the
respondents
demanded that their managers provide them with sufficient
autonomy (Petter et al. 2002). Finally, by challenging
subordinates
to act in a more innovative way and linking their engagement in
opportunity identification and exploitation activities to the
future
success of the department or organization in which they work,
entrepreneurial leaders enhance subordinates ’ perceptions that
their
work has impact (Renko et al. 2015).
By enhancing employees ’ psychological empowerment,
entrepreneurial leadership is also likely to enhance employees ’
innovative behavior. There is growing recognition among
researchers
that psychological empowerment explains the process by which
contextual antecedents at work, such as leadership, exert their
influence on employees ’ work outcomes by shaping employees
’

subjective perceptions of their work ( Spreitzer 1995 ). For
example,
in a meta-analysis, Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011) urged
researchers to examine psychological empowerment as a
mediator
to explain the effects of contextual antecedents, such as
leadership,
on behavioral consequences, such as innovative behaviors.
Similarly,
Taylor (2013 ) emphasized that psychological empowerment
can serve as an important mediator that explains how external
contingencies relate to behavioral outcomes in public sector
research.
Although the effects of psychological empowerment on the
relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and innovative
behavior have not yet been examined, prior research suggests
that
psychological empowerment may explain the process by which
15406210, 2017, 78, D
ow
nloaded from
iley-com
.proxy1.ncu.edu B
y N
orthcentral U

niversity C
itted, except for O
pen A
ccess articles
leadership shapes employees ’ work outcomes in the public
sector.
For example, based on a sample of 520 nurses employed in a
public sector hospital in Singapore, Avolio et al. (2004) found
that
psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between
leadership style and organizational commitment. Similarly,
using
public sector survey data from samples in local government,
health
care, and education, Tummers and Knies (2013 ) established
that components of psychological empowerment can serve as
mediators between leadership and work outcomes. In light
of these findings and growing work linking various facets of
psychological empowerment to the innovative work behaviors
of
public sector employees ( Bysted and Hansen 2015 ; Fernandez
and

Moldogaziev 2013b ; Knol and van Linge 2009 ), it is proposed
that
entrepreneurial leadership will enhance the innovative behavior
of
employees through psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 1: Entrepreneurial leadership is positively related
to psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 2: Psychological empowerment mediates
the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and
innovative behavior.
Public Service Motivation and Psychological Empowerment
Although prior research has not closely examined the effects of
PSM on employees ’ psychological empowerment, we predict
that
PSM will enhance the various facets of psychological
empowerment
in a number of ways. First, given that many people join public
organizations precisely because they intend to do meaningful
work and contribute to their communities (Perry, Hondeghem,
and Wise 2010 ), we expect PSM to be positively related to the
dimension of meaning . Second, civil servants with higher
levels of
PSM might be expected to ensure that they have the
competence
that is required to benefit others. In their study on the effects of
organizations on PSM, Moynihan and Pandey (2007 ) found
that
PSM was significantly and positively related to civil servants ’
level

of education and membership in professional organizations,
both of
which contribute to competence acquisition. PSM is also likely
to
be positively related to self-determination, as Moynihan and
Pandey
(2007 ) also showed that red tape—the rules and regulations
that
limit self-discretion but do not advance the legitimate purposes
for
which they were created—was negatively related to PSM.
As PSM leads individuals to seek out opportunities to work on
projects that have a significant impact on their community (Van
Loon et al. 2016), individuals with higher levels of PSM are
more
likely to feel that their work has impact than those with lower
levels
of PSM. In a quasi-experiment with fundraisers serving a public
university, Grant (2008 ) showed that employees ’ motivation
could
be increased by connecting them to the prosocial impact of their
work. Moreover, Stritch and Christensen (2014 ) found that
PSM
strongly predicted employees ’ perceptions of the social impact
of
their jobs.
By enhancing their psychological empowerment, PSM is also
likely
to enhance employees ’ innovative behavior. Drawing on data
from

the U.S. Merit Principles Survey, Moon and Christensen (2014
)
found that the impact of PSM on perceived performance was
enhanced for civil servants with strong feelings of
psychological
empowerment. As this work suggests that psychological
empowerment may interact with PSM to influence work quality,
we argue that PSM is likely to foster employees ’ innovative
behavior
by enhancing different facets of psychological empowerment.
We
propose that PSM enhances the innovative behavior of
employees
by making them feel that their work is more purposeful
(meaning),
that they are competent in doing their work (competence), that
they have control over their work (self-determination), and that
their work has an influence on their immediate work
environment
(impact). This leads us to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: PSM is positively related to psychological
empowerment.
Hypothesis 4: Psychological empowerment mediates the
relationship between PSM and innovative behavior.
Methods

Sample and Procedures
A total of 156 bureau directors from the Yangtze Delta Zone
(Shanghai and the adjacent provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang)
who
were participating in a leadership development program were
invited
to join a research project titled “Leadership and Subordinates ’
Innovation.” Of those, 135 indicated their willingness to
participate
and provided their contact information to the research team.
At the beginning of the project, we randomly selected 14 public
sector bureau directors from the contact list that was compiled
during the leadership training course. We approached them and
explained our research purpose and requirements. Each director
provided us with a list of department heads under their
leadership.
We gathered survey data from the department heads
(supervisors)
and their immediate subordinates. Gathering data from two
sources
allowed us to reduce the common method biases often
associated
with single-source data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff
2012).
Data were collected in three waves. Prior to our data collection,
bilingual members of the research team translated the
questionnaires

from Chinese to English using a back-translation procedure. At
time
1, questionnaires were distributed to the employees
(subordinates)
who worked directly under the head of each department. The
employees were required to provide their own demographics and
rate the entrepreneurial leadership behavior of the department
head. At time 2, two weeks later, the employees who had
responded to the first wave of the survey were required to rate
their
psychological empowerment. Finally, at time 3, four weeks
later,
the department heads were asked to rate the innovative behavior
of
their subordinates. All participants were assured that their
responses
were anonymous and informed of the voluntary nature of their
participation. All sets of questionnaires were distributed in a
printed
format and coded to ensure that the responses of the
subordinates
and their supervisors could be matched. Both the subordinates
and
the department heads were asked to return the completed
surveys
directly to members of the research team.
In total, we obtained responses from 281 subordinate working
under 59 department heads (representing an overall response
rate

of 82 percent), with an average of just under 5 subordinates per
15406210, 2017, 78, D
ow
nloaded from
iley-com
.proxy1.ncu.edu B
y N
orthcentral U
niversity C
itted, except for O
pen A
ccess articles
department head (see table 1). Of the 281 subordinates, 46
percent
were male, had worked for their organization for 4.80 years on
average (SD = 2.58), and had worked under their present
supervisor
for an average of just over three years (M = 3.25, SD = 1.87).
Measures

For all measures, the participants rated items using a five-point
Likert scale where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly
agree.”
Entrepreneurial leadership .
entrepreneurial leadership behavior of their department head
using
the eight-item scale developed by Renko et al. (2015). Sample
items
include “My supervisor has creative solutions to problems” and
“My
supervisor challenges and pushes me to act in a more innovative
psychological empowerment using the 12-item scale developed
by
Spreitzer (1995 ), which has been applied in previous public
sector
research ( Cho and Faerman 2010 ; Taylor 2013 ). Sample
items
am
confi dent about my ability to do my job” (competence), “I have
signifi cant autonomy in determining how I do my job” (self-
determination), and “My impact on what happens in my
of the
subscales was .90 (meaning), .75 (competence), .79 (self-

determination), and .92 (impact).
Public service motivation . PSM was measured by the fi ve-
item
Merit Systems Protection Board scale, which was taken from the
original 40 items developed by Perry (1996 ) and has been
extensively used in previous research (Wright, Christensen, and
is
very important to me” and “I am prepared to make enormous
this scale
was .78.
Innovative behavior
innovative
behavior of subordinates using fi ve items from a scale
developed by
Scott and Bruce (1994 ) that has been applied in recent public
sector
studies (e.g., Bysted and Hansen 2015 ; Im, Campbell, and
Jeong
processes,
techniques, and/or ideas.” One item from the original scale was
not
included because employees in the government agencies were
not

was .94.
Control variables . Tenure and time spent under their
supervisor
(both measured in years) and follower ’ s gender (coded 1 =
male,
0 = female) were included as controls in line with previous
research
(e.g., Miao et al. 2014).
Method of Analysis
The present data set was multilevel in nature, consisting of 281
employees nested within 59 departments. We analyzed the data
on
the basis of hierarchical linear modeling because employees
within
the same department may be more similar to one another than to
employees working in a different government department (e.g.,
Vashdi, Vigoda-Gadot, and Shlomi 2013). We used hierarchical
linear modeling that utilized robust maximum likelihood
estimation
in Mplus 7.4 to test the hypotheses. To facilitate the
interpretation
of effect size, all of the variables were z -standardized prior to
analysis. There were no violations of the regression assumptions
of
normality and linearity ( Tabachnick and Fidell 2013 ) as
assessed
through bivariate scatterplots, residual plots, and the
examination

of univariate skewness and kurtosis indices. There were also no
correlations that exceeded .70 among the predictors (verified by
examining variance inflation factor statistics), which suggests
that
there is little evidence of multicollinearity.
Results
Construct Validity
Before hypothesis testing was undertaken, a confirmatory
factor
analysis was conducted to examine the construct validity of
the variables used in the study and to establish whether the
four dimensions of psychological empowerment (i.e., meaning,
competence, self-determination, and impact) were better treated
as separate factors or whether they should be combined to form
a
higher order factor. The hypothesized seven-factor model (i.e.,
items
measuring entrepreneurial leadership, PSM, meaning,
competence,
self-determination, impact, and innovative behavior) yielded a
better fit to the data than alternative models (see table 2).
Following Renko et al. (2015), we conceptualized
entrepreneurial
leadership as a team-level construct. The mean rwg for the
entrepreneurial leadership scale was .85, indicating a high level
of
within-group agreement. Taken together, these results provide

support
for the aggregation of entrepreneurial leadership to the team
level.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and
correlations of the
study variables. As shown in the table, there are positive
correlations
Table 1 Participants
City (Province/Area) Bureaus Departments Civil Servants
Hangzhou (Zhejiang) 2 9 44
Ningbo (Zhejiang) 3 11 56
Nanjing (Jiangsu) 2 8 34
Changzhou (Jiangsu) 3 12 59
Putuo (Shanghai) 2 9 41
Putong (Shanghai) 2 10 47
Total 14 59 281
Table 2 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Model X 2 df IFI CFI RMSEA SRMR
Hypothesized seven-factor
model: Dimensions of

psychological empowerment
treated as separate factors
726.67 384 .94 .94 .06 .05
Four-factor model: Dimensions of
psychological empowerment
treated as higher-order factor
527.28 203 .91 .91 .08 .06
Four-factor model: Items
measuring psychological
empowerment loaded onto
one factor
1724.74 399 .76 .75 .11 .12
One-factor model 3633.26 405 .41 .40 .17 .14
Note: IFI is the incremental fi t index; CFI, the comparative fi
t index; RMSEA, the
root mean square error of approximation; and SRMR, the
standardized root mean
square residual.
15406210, 2017, 78, D
ow

nloaded from
iley-com
.proxy1.ncu.edu B
y N
orthcentral U
niversity C
itted, except for O
pen A
ccess articles
between entrepreneurial leadership, PSM, and innovative
behavior.
There were also positive correlations between each of the four
dimensions of psychological empowerment and innovative
behavior.
Test of Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 predicted that entrepreneurial leadership is
positively related to psychological empowerment. As is shown
in
table 4 (models 1–4), entrepreneurial leadership was positively

related to meaning ( β = .21, p < .01) and impact ( β = .27,
p < .01).
No statistically significant relationship was found between
entrepreneurial leadership and competence ( β = .09, p > .05)
or entrepreneurial leadership and self-determination ( β = .08,
p > .05). Hence, hypothesis 1 was supported for the
psychological
empowerment dimensions of meaning and impact.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that psychological empowerment
mediates
the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and
innovative
behavior. We followed the procedures for testing cross-level
mediation as outlined in Pituch and Stapleton (2012 ). To test
the hypothesized indirect effect, we employed a Monte Carlo
simulation with the recommended 20,000 random repetitions
( Preacher and Selig 2012 ). A Monte Carlo simulation is a
flexible
method for building the confidence intervals around the
estimated
indirect effects. It can be used when bootstrapping is not
feasible,
such as for complex multilevel data. The Monte Carlo technique
has been found to perform favorably with bootstrapping in
terms
of statistical power and accuracy ( Preacher and Selig 2012 ).
The
Monte Carlo confidence intervals (CIs) for the standardized
indirect effects were as follows: meaning = .08 (95 percent CI =
.03

to .13), competence = .01 (95 percent CI = –.01 to .03), self-
determination = .01 (95 percent CI = –.01 to .02), and impact =
.05
(95 percent CI = .01 to .10). Hypothesis 2 was thus supported
for
the dimensions of meaning and impact, as zero is not contained
in
the corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that PSM is positively related to
psychological empowerment. As can be seen in table 4 (models
1–4), PSM was positively related to meaning ( β = .26, p <
.01) and
competence ( β = .33, p < .01). There were no statistically
significant
associations between PSM and self-determination ( β = .09, p
> .05)
or impact ( β = .09 p > .05). Hence, hypothesis 3 was
supported for
the dimensions of meaning and competence.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that psychological empowerment
mediates
the relationship between PSM and innovative behavior. The
Monte Carlo confidence intervals for the standardized indirect
effects were as follows: meaning = .10 (95 percent CI = .04
to .16), competence = .04 (95 percent CI = .01 to .08), self-
determination = .01 (95 percent CI = –.01 to .02), and impact =
.02
(95 percent CI = –.01 to .06). Hypothesis 4 was thus supported
for the dimensions of meaning and competence, as zero is not

contained in the corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals.
Table 4 Results of HLM Mediated Regression Analyses
Model 1
Meaning
Model 2
Competence
Model 3
Self-Determination
Model 4
Impact
Model 5
Innovative Behavior
Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE
Level 1 ( n = 281 employees)
Organizational tenure
–.13 * (.06)
.12 (.06)

.09 (.06)
.05 (.06)
.12 (.08)
Time under supervisor .06 (.07) .03 (.06) –.03 (.07) .06 (.06) –
.18 * (.05)
Gender –.02 (.06) .06 (.06) .04 (.07) .16 ** (.05) .01 (.05)
PSM .26 ** (.06) .33 ** (.06) .09 (.07) .09 (.07) .08 (.07)
Meaning .37 ** (.07)
Competence .13 * (.05)
Self-determination .06 (.06)
Impact .19 * (.07)
Level 2 ( n = 59 departments)
Entrepreneurial leadership .21 ** (.05) .09 (.05) .08 (.07) .27
** (.05) .03 (.04)
Random variance .01 (.04) .01 (.07) .09 (.05) .05 (.04) .01 (.04)
−2 log-likelihood –372.82 –374.25 –391.86 –375.48 –333.58
Total R 2 .16 ** (.04) .15 ** (.04) .03 (.02) .14 **
(.04) .31 ** (.04)
Note: Standardized regression coeffi cients reported with

robust standard errors in parentheses.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
among the Study Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Entrepreneurial leadership (department level) 3.15 1.00
2 Meaning 3.15 1.02 .49 **
3 Competence 4.25 0.60 .14 * .28 **
4 Self-determination 3.58 0.97 .26 ** .28 ** .28 **
5 Impact 3.21 1.16 .27 ** .32 ** .33 ** .35 **
6 PSM 3.94 0.64 .25 ** .32 ** .35 ** .11 .18 **
7 Innovative behavior 3.34 0.83 .32 ** .50 ** .34 ** .28
** .38 ** .28 **
8 Organizational tenure 4.80 2.58 –.10 –.13 * .11 .06 .06 –.06
.01
9 Time under supervisor 3.25 1.87 –.09 .01 .10 .03 .11 .02 –.08
.47 **
10 Gender 0.46 0.50 .05 .01 .08 .04 .17 ** .07 .05 .02 .08
Note: Gender is coded as 0 = female and 1 = male.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
15406210, 2017, 78, D

ow
nloaded from
iley-com
.proxy1.ncu.edu B
y N
orthcentral U
niversity C
itted, except for O
pen A
ccess articles
Overall, 31 percent of the variance in innovative behavi or
was explained by our model, representing a large effect size by
conventional standards ( Cohen 1992 ). When controlling for the
mediating variables, the direct effect of entrepreneurial
leadership on
innovative behavior was not statistically significant ( β = .03,
p > .05),
supporting an inference of full mediation. Similarly, the direct
effect
of PSM on innovative behavior was not statistically significant

( β = .08, p > .05), which supports an inference of full
mediation.
Discussion
The present study found that entrepreneurial leadership, a style
of
leadership in which the leader acts as an entrepreneurial role
model
and encourages subordinates to identify and exploit
entrepreneurial
opportunities in the workplace, and employees ’ PSM are
effective
at promoting employees ’ innovative behavior by enhancing
their
psychological empowerment. More specifically, our findings
suggest
that whereas entrepreneurial leadership elicits innovative
behavior
by enhancing employees ’ perceptions of impact and meaning,
PSM elicits innovative behavior through enhancing meaning and
competence.
Our findings have both important theoretical and practical
implications. First, the main theoretical contribution of this
research
results from our identification of the psychological mechanisms
that link entrepreneurial leadership and PSM to subordinates ’
innovative behavior. Although previous research has examined
the
impact of other leadership styles on psychological
empowerment

(Seibert, Wang, and Courtright 2011), this study is the first to
examine the mediating effects of psychological empowerment
on the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and
employees ’ innovative behavior. It is also the first to analyze
the
mechanisms linking PSM to employees ’ innovative behavior.
In
addition, by examining the relative importance of different
facets
of psychological empowerment, the present study provides a
more
nuanced understanding than previous work on the psychological
processes by which leadership and the motivations of employees
shape employees ’ innovative behavior.
Our finding that both entrepreneurial leadership and PSM
primarily drive subordinates ’ innovative behavior by
heightening
their perceptions of meaning is especially relevant. Work is
considered to be meaningful when there is a fit between work
requirements and an employee ’ s own ideals, values, or
standards
( Spreitzer 1995 ). From Perry ’ s (1996 ) four classic
subscales—
attraction to public policy making, commitment to civic duty
and the public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice—self-
sacrifice refers to the roots of PSM in prosocial motivation,
which
emphasizes meaning and purposes as drivers of effort. Brewer
and

Selden highlighted the importance of meaning in their definition
of PSM as “the motivational force that induces individuals to
perform meaningful . . . public, community, and social service”
(1998, 417).
It should also be noted that self-determination does not play a
significant role in eliciting innovative behavior. Self-
determination
refers to an employee ’ s ability to make choices in initiating
and
regulating action. Although public sector employees may feel
that
they may have a certain degree of autonomy in deciding work
activities, this may not translate into innovative behavior
because
of rules and regulations that mandate that minutely specified
processes and procedures must be followed when implementing
changes. This may be a case of red tape, which goes beyond
mere
formalization and can be defined in terms of the negative
effects of
rules and procedures ( Moynihan and Pandey 2007 ). While
Moon
and Bretschneider (2002 ) found that entrepreneurial leadership,
conceptualized as the risk-taking propensity of top managers,
was
positively associated with information technology
innovativeness,
their study also showed that the perception of red tape impeded

innovativeness in organizations.
Our research also has important practical implications. As
individuals with high levels of PSM and entrepreneurial leaders
were found to elicit employees ’ innovative behavior, hiring
practices
could assess job candidates ’ PSM and propensity to engage in
entrepreneurial leadership activities. In China, questions about
PSM
and entrepreneurial leadership could be integrated into the
annual
civil service examinations, which were taken by 1.4 million
entry-
level applicants in 2015 (Schwarz et al. 2016). Our results show
that public organizations would be well advised to design jobs
that
civil servants consider meaningful and at which they feel
competent.
Moreover, exhibiting entrepreneurial leadership characteristics
and the ability to spur innovation could be considered to be
prerequisites for promotion within the civil service ( Fernandez
and
Wise 2010 ). Traditionally, many public managers are promoted
because of their professional ability and seniority. They often
do not realize that one of their responsibilities is to encourage
their employees to be more innovative ( Liu and Dong 2012 ).
Entrepreneurial leaders have to create a climate that is
conducive
to the development and realization of novel ideas ( Meijer 2014

).
To overcome internal, external, and political obstacles ( Borins
2000 ) and to drive (and protect) innovation, leaders have to act
as
“supporters,” “idea champions,” and “advocates” ( Fernandez
and
Rainey 2006 ; Osborne and Brown 2011 ). To prepare them for
these roles, entrepreneurial leadership training could be
provided
to all civil servants above a certain level. In China, the Outline
of National Median and Long Range Plan for Human Resource
Development that was published in 2010 includes a provision
for
the improvement of middle- and senior-level government
officials ’
leadership skills (Miao et al. 2014). For example, all civil
servants
above the level of division chief are required to attend a three -
month
training session within each five-year period ( Xue and Liou
2012 ).
This setting could be used to educate managers on the
importance
of acting as entrepreneurial leaders.
Conclusion
The present study employed psychological empowerment
theory
to examine the underlying processes that link entrepreneurial
leadership and PSM to innovative behavior. Using multisource

three-wave data from 281 employees reporting directly to their
department heads in 59 government agencies in six Chinese
cities, entrepreneurial leadership was found to positively
influence
employees ’ innovative behavior by enhancing the meaning and
impact dimensions of psychological empowerment. PSM was
found to positively influence employees ’ innovative behavior
via
meaning and competence. While innovative behavior is not, in
itself, an end, it is a prerequisite for overall innovation in
public
organizations and an important facet of public value creation
( Moore 2014 ).
15406210, 2017, 78, D
ow
nloaded from
iley-com
.proxy1.ncu.edu B
y N
orthcentral U
niversity C
itted, except for O
pen A

ccess articles
This study is not without limitations. Its main limitation resul ts
from our reliance on supervisor-provided ratings of innovative
behavior rather than more objective measures. In the future, we
recommend that researchers use objective data on innovative
behavior in addition to supervisor-provided ratings to better
establish the effects of entrepreneurial leadership. Moreover,
the
survey design does not permit the inference of cause-and-effect
relationships. Another limitation concerns the fact that data
collection was carried out in one area in a single countr y, the
Yangtze Delta Zone in China. Future research should examine
whether the study ’ s findings are generalizable to other parts of
China (Wu, Ma, and Yang 2013) and across countries.
While identifying psychological empowerment as mediator of
the
relationship between PSM and innovative behavior is an
important
first step, we encourage future studies to analyze this
relationship in
more detail, for example, by examining multiple PSM
dimensions
and conducting experiments. Future research should also
examine

the boundary conditions of the mediated relationship between
entrepreneurial leadership and innovative behavior through the
various dimensions of psychological empowerment. While our
focus in this article was on individual-level innovation, future
research should also examine the influence of organizational -
level
determinants of innovation, such as organizational size,
structure,
and complexity, as well as the availability of slack resources.
Other factors that could accentuate the relationship between
entrepreneurial leadership and innovative behavior may include
the extent to which an organization ’ s reward systems
incentivize
innovative behavior and the innovation climate within teams.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Tom Christensen, Hanna de Vries,
Julian
Gould-Williams, Christian Bøtcher Jacobsen, PAR Editor in
Chief James Perry, Eva Sørensen, Montgomery Van Wart, and
three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on
earlier
versions of this article. This research was funded by the Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 71672174 & R17G020002).
References
Altshuler , Alan A. 1997 . Public Innovation and Political
Incentives . Cambridge, MA :
Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation .
Avolio , Bruce J. , Weichun Zhu , William Koh , and

Puja Bhatia . 2004 .
Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment:
Mediating Role
of Psychological Empowerment and Moderating Role of
Structural Distance .
Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 ( 8 ): 951 – 68 .
Bandura , Albert . 1997 . Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of
Control . New York : W. H. Freeman .
Bernier , Luc , Taïeb Hafsi , and Carl Deschamps .
2015 . Environmental Determinants
of Public Sector Innovation: A Study of Innovation Awards in
Canada . Public
Management Review 17 ( 6 ): 834 – 56 .
Borins , Sandford F. 2000 . Loose Cannons and Rule
Breakers, or Enterprising
Leaders? Some Evidence about Innovative Public Managers .
Public
Administration Review 60 ( 6 ): 498 – 507 .
Brewer , Gene A. , and Sally Coleman Selden . 1998 .
Whistle Blowers in the Federal
Civil Service: New Evidence of the Public Service Ethic .
Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 8 ( 3 ): 413 – 40 .

Bysted , Rune , and Jesper Rosenberg Hansen . 2015 .
Comparing Public and Private
Sector Employees ’ Innovative Behaviour: Understanding the
Role of Job and
Organizational Characteristics, Job Types, and Subsectors .
Public Management
Review 17 ( 5 ): 698 – 717 .
Cho , Taejun , and Sue R. Faerman . 2010 . An
Integrative Model of Empowerment
and Individuals ’ in Role and Extra-Role Performance in the
Korean Public
Sector: Moderating Effects of Organizational Individualism and
Collectivism .
International Public Management Journal 13 ( 2 ): 130 – 54 .
Cohen , Jacob . 1992 . A Power Primer . Psychological
Bulletin 112 ( 1 ): 155 – 59 .
Crewson , Philip E. 1997 . Public Service Motivation:
Building Empirical Evidence of
Incidence and Effect . Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 7 ( 4 ):
499 – 518 .
Damanpour , Fariborz , and Marguerite Schneider .
2009 . Characteristics of Innovation

11321, 359 PM 19 Examples of Ability Privilege - Everyday F

11321, 359 PM 19 Examples of Ability Privilege - Everyday F

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 11321, 359 PM 19 Examples of Ability Privilege - Everyday F

Similar to 11321, 359 PM 19 Examples of Ability Privilege - Everyday F (9)

More from SantosConleyha

More from SantosConleyha (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

11321, 359 PM 19 Examples of Ability Privilege - Everyday F