Page 1 of 13
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 10
Publication Date: October 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.810.11126. Shumshunnahar. (2021). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Factors on Public Service Innovation Outcomes: An Evidence
from Bangladesh. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10). 189-201.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Impact of Transformational Leadership Factors on Public
Service Innovation Outcomes: An Evidence from Bangladesh
Mst. Shumshunnahar
Associate Professor, Dept. of Public Administration
Comilla University, Cumilla, Bangladesh
Kasemsarn Chotchakornpant Ph.D
Associate Professor, GSPA, NIDA, Bangkok, Thailand
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research is to examine the effect of the factors of Transformational
leadership on public service innovation outcomes. Survey data collected from 500
innovation officers of field level administration of Bangladesh. Results from the
multiple regression analysis using SPSS indicated that there was a positive impact
of Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and
Individualized Consideration on public service innovation outcomes. The finding
also implies that the policy makers should build a strong strategy to put more
concentration and heighten transformational leadership to enhance public service
innovation outcomes.
Keywords: Transformational Leadership, Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation,
Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, Public Service Innovation
Outcomes
INTRODUCTION
There is a common and widespread observation that governments are unable to meet citizen’s
demands specially in the developing countries. It is the time to reinvent Governments to cope
up with the citizens’ changing expectations (Haque, n.d.). To cope with the changes in the
existing globalization system, the public service delivery in the government sector have to deal
with some challenges to become more responsible and responsive to the citizen's needs and
wishes (Nusair, Ababneh, & Bae, 2012). Public service innovation is a must to make these
challenges success and effective. These challenges insist organizations taking a new leadership
approach which will support innovation. So, the vital factors that will help organizations
carrying these burdens and meet the challenges are having innovative abilities (Constantine
Andriopoulos, 2006). The initial point for innovation is the creative ability and attitude of
organizations’ team and individuals. In the literature for inducing innovation of employees, one
of the vigorous forces is leadership ( Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Amabile, 1988; Mumford
& Gustafson, 1988; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994;). And leadership with
transformational style have an extra effect in inspiring, stimulating and endorsing innovation
in the organization (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Ogbonna and Harris found that a solid, strong and
a compact linkage between innovative culture and transformational leadership approach as an
interpreter of organizational performance (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). The study of leadership
styles and organizational innovation represents transformational style as the most influencing
style of leadership in innovation Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio (1998). The transformational style of
Page 2 of 13
190
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 10, October-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
leadership can increase the capacities of the employee's performance (Bass, 1995) and the
performance of a transformational leader is consistent with the component of innovation
(Elkins & Keller, 2003)
The Bangladesh government undoubtedly is in under massive pressure to fulfill the demands
of its citizen and to cope up with the growing difficulty and changing world specifically with the
global context. The present government of Bangladesh has declared “Vision 2041” and the
motive to establish Bangladesh as a resourceful, modern and digitalized country by 2041.
Understanding this situation very intensely the government of Bangladesh has taken a good
number of initiatives for promoting innovative and citizen-centric service delivery systems.
LITERATURE REVIEWS AND HYPOTHESES
Public Service Innovation and Public Service Innovation Outcome
Innovation as a research area has studied with a huge volume in the private sector specially in
the private manufacturing areas. But if compare with public service sector, it is nearly a new
subject. Generally , public service innovation is about to absent from innovation studies (Djellal
et al; 2013) Though, different topics of public service innovation has studied where “public
sector innovation” “public service innovation” “social innovation”, is mentionable.
At this beginning stage, the overview of innovation in public sector is not easy but roughly some
vital points of area has identified including ‘drivers’ ‘barriers’ and ‘conditions’ for innovation
Bekkers et al noticed that “this is a dominant theme in the study of innovation in the public
sector, in particular on co-production: most studies focused on the identification of influential
factors, while hardly any attention is paid to the outcomes” (Bekkers et al 2013). Additionally,
measurement of ‘innovation outcome’ studies are wanting in the public sector (Arundel &
Huber, 2013). Also the questions ‘what is typical of public sector innovation’ and ‘what
distinguishes it from innovation in the private sector’ are still unrevealed (Djellal et al., 2013).
De Vries (2016) stated that “ research has shown that research on innovation in the public
sector is scattered and tends to be non theoritical” also mentioned that innovation term is using
describing various ways but related phenomena (De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016). He also
gave some examples naming the researcher Savory 2009, Kallio 2013, Salge 2012 who
discussed innovation but various ways and perspectives not in the same way but using
dissimilar terminologies. Innovation modes, innovation targets and research based innovation
or practice based innovation are the examples. Kattel, 2013 said that “using the term public
sector innovation there is a large discrepancy in defining the core concept” (Kattel et al., 2014).
From the literature, organizational changes, processes or introducing new products have found
as reference of innovation which is clearly pointed to innovation outcomes. Additionally, the
references pointed to turn an idea into innovation which indicates innovation processes.
However, often organizational support brought to facilitating a process that is definitely
support for innovation. from this discussion three different aspects of innovations are analyzed
and distinguished that would be helpful for clarifying the contribution of previous studies and
established a foundation to describe and analyze innovation in the public services.
According to the analytical model developed by (Nählinder & Eriksson, 2019) there are two
modes of innovation - Science and Technology Based Innovation (STI) and Doing Using
Page 3 of 13
191
Shumshunnahar. (2021). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Factors on Public Service Innovation Outcomes: An Evidence from Bangladesh.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10). 189-201.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11126
Interacting (DUI) (Eriksson, 2019). From this analytical model, Erikson and Nählinder have
summarized three aspects of innovation. They are innovation processes, innovation outcomes
and support for innovation. From their study, they highlighted the innovation terminology as
innovation outcomes and they use the term “actual innovation”.
Petersson and Soderlind’s 1993 cited from (Nählinder & Eriksson, 2019) found that –the
innovation outcome volume can be vary on the basis of the sector. Both in the public and private
service innovation can avail different forms of innovations. For the democratic practices
innovation outcomes, will be tremendous as for example e-voting and execution of rules and
regulations.
Public service innovation is actually a long-term assurance which will bring observable changes
and improvements in public service performance as well as outcomes. The aim of PSI is to
organizing and delivering services to citizens at a low cost, within a short time where the
government will use the public money wisely and carefully. In this process government offices
will introduce new technology like ‘one stop’ approach which will make services easier and
easy access and will reduce visitors to the offices. The core principles of introducing innovation
in public services are - increasing engagement through digital web portals and satisfaction of
the customer which will ensure the best possible customer access (will reduce visitors),
delivering services at a low cost/value for money (will reduce costs) and improving online for
better use of technology and modern equipments for delivering faster services (will reduce
time)
Public service innovation is the way of increasing efficiency of dropping the overall cost of
service delivering thus the government use the resources and introduce a culture of cost
consciousness to the organizations. The organizational long-term sustainability depends on the
innovation also. The organization should be more efficient ensuring each penny of the
taxpayers is spent consciously and wisely only when the development will not be denied or
delayed.
The scarcity of resources is one of the important characteristics of developing countries. The
public organizations have a little choice to fulfill the citizens demand with these limited
resources. Innovation is the best possible alternative to solve this problem. It should be
acknowledged that setting precise, specific and clear output and outcomes of an organization
specially in a public organization is difficult in case of innovations. The reason of this difficulty
is the very complex and ambiguous subject matter (Gemuenden 1995, Hauschildt, 1997
Gamuuennden H.G 2001).
In the present study the innovation outcomes will be actually mean the performance of the team
which will be decribed by the variables relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. In the context of
innovation outcomes, relevance is important. Actually, relevance is the assessment of the
progress interferences meeting organizational priorities, and trustworthy with the donors.
Thus, relevance can be assessed by observing the logical project objectives and goals, compared
with the overall target. This could be from policy and planning viewpoints; of the implementing
/executive organizations, or at higher levels or in a wider geographical scope. (Undp, 2011).
Page 4 of 13
192
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 10, October-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The volume that the team achieved from the expected target in respect of outcome quality is
effectiveness According to Gemuenden, 2001 “In the case of innovation, an effective
performance regulerly entails adherence to predefined qualitative properties of the product ,
service or process to be developed e,g functionaliity , robustness , reliability, performance etc”.
The efficiency of a team is measured on the basis of adhesion of the scheduled innovation
project target from starting to ending, from manufacturing to product output with not crossing
the budget, costs and other resources. Therefore, to rate effectiveness have to compare
between the actual and intended outcome and to rate efficiency have to compare between
actual and intended inputs (Gemuenden, 2001)
UNDP outcome level evaluation guidelines (2011) defines outcome as the following “Outcomes
describe the intended changes in development conditions that result from the interventions of
governments and other stakeholders, including international development agencies such as
UNDP. They are medium-term development results created through the delivery of outputs and
the contributions of various partners and non-partners. outcomes provide a clear vision of what
has changed or will change globally or in a particular region, country or community within a
period of time. They normally related to changes in institutional performance or behavior among
individuals or groups. Outcomes cannot normally be achieved by only one agency and are not
under the direct control of a project manager” (Undp, 2011).
In accordance with the sense of economics, efficiency specifies how efficient the outcome of an
organization or a program/project with comparing the input resources. If the outcome is higher
than the input resources, then it measured as the organizational or project or program
efficiency. In a specific period of time how much costs have been invested to the project, and
how much the targeted or planned goals were achieved and if the attained results are better at
minimum cost then it can be said that the project is efficient.
According to UNDP outcome level evaluation guideline 2011- “Efficiency is assessed by means of
economic evaluation. Major methodologies include cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness
analysis. Guiding questions about efficiency are as follows - Could the performance of the
evaluation target have been achieved in a different way at less cost? Could better performance
have been achieved using the same resources? Was the evaluation target completed within the
originally planned period? To what extent was the implementation system efficiently managed
during project execution?” (Manual & Cooperation, 2009)
Now the question is how the efficiency could be measured? Efficiency is assessed by calculating
the volume of outputs brought about by the project or organizational activities with the
measurement of invested inputs, resources for example time, costs, expertise, funds etc (Danida
Project) According to Danida project evaluation - “Efficiency is a measure of the relationship
between outputs, i.e. the products or services of an intervention, and inputs, i.e. the resources that
it uses. An output is a measure of effort; it is the immediate observable result of intervention
processes over which the managers of the intervention, i.e. the implementers, have some measure
of control. An intervention can be thought of as efficient if it uses the least costly resources that
are appropriate and available to achieve the desired outputs, i.e. deliverables, in terms of quantity
and quality.” (Denmark,n.d)
Page 5 of 13
193
Shumshunnahar. (2021). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Factors on Public Service Innovation Outcomes: An Evidence from Bangladesh.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10). 189-201.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11126
For the assessment of the efficiency, good quality of inputs is a vital factor. If the input is poor
quality, then the output would be also bad and the overall performance will not be up to the
mark which is like garbage in garbage out process. Efficiency evaluation requires “Comparing
Alternative Approaches”
Danida project evaluation also indicated to some practical criteria to assess efficiency those are-
“Appropriate resources acquired with due regard for economy, Activities carried out as simply as
possible, Decisions made as close to where the products or services are delivered, Overhead as low
as possible, Duplication or conflicts addressed and resolved, Deliverables achieved on time and on
budget”. (Denmark, n.d.)
From the above criteria selection, by the first criteria “Activities carried out as simply as
possible” explains the simplification of the work process, by the second criteria ‘Decisions
made as close to where the products or services are delivered” explains the service seekers for
whom the service or process would be delivered, by the third criteria “overhead as low as
possible” explains about the low cost of the service or the product or process, by the fourth
criteria “duplication or conflicts addressed and resolved” explains the specific problem and to
solve it, the last criteria “deliverables achieved on time and on budget” explains the service
delivery to the service seekers on time and within the budget. From this discussion, three
indicators have been acknowledged to measure efficiency of public service innovation
outcomes. they are Reduced Time, Reduced Costs and Reduced Visits in short TC (Sharmin
Rumana, 2019)
A2I the “Access to Information” program introduced an exceptional efficiency evaluation
system which is known as TCV, time cost and visits measurement. The aim of this assessment
program is to evaluate the existing service system from the service recipient’s perspective. TCV
is assisting to improve efficiency of the govt. offices and exploring more user-friendly e services
and online services on the basis of empirical evidences.
A2I do their research on estimated and projected TCV reducing status for a specific time period
and it is based on average reduction and the service recipients who have benefitted from the
service after intervention within a certain time period. This research program also explores
beneficiaries’ expectations, satisfactions, key factors, future development from the major
findings, drawbacks and the interventions’ sustainability.
From the paper TCV: An Innovation Measurement Tool to improve Public Service Delivery A2I
expressed about their study - “TCV research is conducted primarily to understand the changes
caused by shifting to online services. it focuses on TCV innovations in agriculture, health,
education and other public service sectors, which help reduce frustration in obtaining
particular services. this is a simple tool for generating evidence that is easy to understand, clear
and transparent. To date, the a2i programme has conducted 102 TCV studies on simplified,
digitalized and doorstep innovation services. Findings revealed that these 102 innovations
reduced approximately65 percent of the time required, 66 percent of the entire cost involved
and 38 percent of the visits needed. the TCV research justifies the effectiveness of these
innovations.” (Sharmin Rumana, 2019)
Page 6 of 13
194
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 10, October-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is the behavior of an organization owner or an executive of any
kind of enterprises which has a great influence or inspires to the underlings or followers
achieving the targeted goals beyond the expectations. Transformational leader will help
building the capability of the followers to become a leader. He also care and assist them
enhancing career and leadership advancement (Bernard M. Bass, 2006). Transformational
leaders are defined as role models and guides as they headed by examples, inspiring and
situation where creative and innovative thinking is allied with the norms, values, and purposes
of the organization. This sort of leadership promotes the environment where individuals are
flexibly identified for their contributions. Bernard A. Bass (1985) identified Four distinct
elements of Idealized Influence (II), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS)
and Individualized Considerations (IC) known as 4I’s of Transformational Leadership.
Idealized Influence (II) – when a transformational leader preaches about the values and ideals
and encourages about creativity and also demonstrates strong conviction about creativity and
moral and ethical actions to be a role model in front of the team members.
Inspirational Motivation (IM)- when a transformational leader envisions future direction and
articulates for being creative, motivates higher level of creativity and creates sense of urgency
for realizing shared mission to be creative and try to develop professional zeal for being
persistent in achieving intended creativity.
Intellectual Stimulation (IS) - Which stimulates to unlock team members’ creativity and
innovative ideas, encourages to explore new ways of doing job, helps to prepare the team
members get ready to challenge status quo and embrace change initiatives. Suggests to think
beyond the box and make the members ready to accept and respect diverse perspectives of
other members.
Individualized considerations (IC) - Which offers the team members promoting supportive
relationship, helps keeping line communication and recognizes personally for unique creative
contribution of each members. Mentors’ potential followers for successful completion of
creative assignment and unique capabilities and competences of creativity individually.
Page 7 of 13
195
Shumshunnahar. (2021). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Factors on Public Service Innovation Outcomes: An Evidence from Bangladesh.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10). 189-201.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11126
Fig 1: The Conceptual Model
H1: Idealized Influence is positively associated with public service innovation outcomes.
H2:Inspirational Motivation is positively associated with public service innovation outcomes.
H3: Intellectual Stimulation is positively associated with public service innovation outcomes.
H4: Individualized Consideration is positively associated with public service innovation
outcomes.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The current study was followed pure quantitative methods and employed multiple regression
analysis for analysis of data. To get reliable and valid results, selection of representative
sampling is very important in the quantitative study. The sample population was drawn
randomly in this current study as the characteristics and the nature of the respondents lead
towards random sampling.
Procedure and Sampling size
Primarily the whole innovation teams in the Ministries and Divisions (54), Department and
Directorates (350), Districts (64), and Upazilas (492) of The People's Republic of Bangladesh
was the study unit which is about more than one thousand. But for the present study, the
volume of the unit was lessened to innovation teams only in the District and Upazila (subdistrict
) which is mentioned as field level administration. A survey was conducted on innovation teams
of District and Upazila (subdistrict level administrative unit) levels in Bangladesh. Therefore,
the entire number of the innovation teams of field administration which is more specifically
District and Upazilas of Bangladesh was considered as study area. In this current study, data
was collected from the team members of the district and Upazila (sub-district level) public
service innovation teams. Certainly, the unit of analysis is a team.
Public Service Innovation
Outcomes
Reduced Time
Reduced Cost
Reduced Visits
Idealized Influence
Inspirational Motivation
Intellectual Stimulation
Individualized Consideration
Transformational Leadership
Page 8 of 13
196
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 10, October-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The finalized version of the closed ended structured questionnaire which was confirmed after
the content validity by four reknowned experts of the area, construct validity and pre-test was
used for this survey. This final version of the survey questionnaires was circulated to 500 (five
hundred) innovation team members of the district and upazila level administration. A six-point
Likert scale was used for this study. The survey questionnaire was framed by employing a 6-
point Likert Scale.
The Item - Objective Congruence (IOC) index introduced by Rovinelli (1977) was used to
measure the face validity and content validity of the items of questionnaires (Rovinelli, R. J., &
Hambleton, 1977). Besides, the factor analysis has done which is exploratory to examine the
correlation between the variables. The validity of constructs normally confirmed by the
examination of factor loadings.
For this study, 50 (fifty) potential respondents had been taken as pre-test respondents and
received 48 hard copies of distributed questionnaires among 50 by the researcher so the
response rate was 96% with the Cronbach’s Alpha .917 thus, the scale reliability is proofed
satisfactorily and it was good enough reliable for the main study.
RESEARCH RESULT
Reliability and Validity of the Construct
Variable Component Number of
items
Reliability test Factor
Cronbach’s Alpha loading
Transformational
Leadership
Idealized
Influence 4 0.725
0.909
0.769
Inspirational
Motivation 5 0.777 0.809
Intellectual
Stimulation 5 0.759 0.826
Individualized
Consideration 6 0.752 0.698
Public service
Innovation
Outcomes
RL 3 0.698 0.888 0.540
EF 3 0.713 0.925
RT 3 0.746 0.738
RC 3 0.706 0.825
RV 3 0.726 0.779
For Transformational Leadership, the Cronbach’s Alpha is more than 0.7 (0.909) and the
correlation item total is more than 0.3. Where Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation
Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration were 0.725, 0.777, 0.759 and 0.752
respectively. So, each factor of transformational leadership has a good reliability.
Page 9 of 13
197
Shumshunnahar. (2021). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Factors on Public Service Innovation Outcomes: An Evidence from Bangladesh.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10). 189-201.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11126
Regression Analysis
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R SquareStd. Error of the
Estimate
Durbin-Watson
1 .692a .479 .475 .35311 1.939
a. Predictors: (Constant) TL
b. Dependent Variable: PSIO
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 42.037 3 14.012 112.379 .000b
Residual 45.635 366 .125
Total 87.672 369
a. Dependent Variable: PSIO
b. Predictors: (Constant) TL
From the ANOVA table the regression analysis was found statistically significant of F= 112.379
at the level of p<0.001. The adjusted R2 and R2 were .475 and .479 respectively. It is well proved
that the factors explain of 47.5% of the total variance of public service innovation outcomes.
The Durbin Watson statistics was 1.939 for the model. The D-W value within 1.5 to 2.5
confirmed the assumption that there was no auto correlation between the variables. The
collinearity statistics having a VIF value of 1.593 which is less than 10 and a tolerance value of
.628 which is greater than 0.10 and evident that there was no multi collinearity. No
heteroscedasticity was found in the scatter plot of the regression standardized residual and
standardized predicted values.
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1
(Constant) 1.030 .222 4.638 .000
TL .333 .051 .313 6.582 .000 .628 1.593
a. Dependent Variable: PSIO
From the above coefficient table, it was exposed that transformational leadership have
significant positive influence on public service innovation outcomes. The IV transformational
leadership with all the four factors II, IM, IS, IC (β=.313, t=6.582, p<.000) was found to be one
of the strong predictors of public service innovation outcome.
Page 10 of 13
198
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 10, October-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Hypotheses Testing
Coefficient and Collinearity test
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Toleranc
e
VIF
1 (Constan
t)
1.878 .235 7.997 .000
II .217 .052 .248 4.192 .000 .526 1.903
IM .212 .065 .240 3.264 .001 .342 2.925
IS -.002 .054 -.003 -.041 .967 .479 2.089
IC .193 .059 .201 3.254 .001 .484 2.066
a. Dependent Variable: PSIOH1
H1: Idealized Influence is positively associated with public service innovation outcomes – The
IV Idealized Influence was found to be one of the strong predictors of public service innovation
outcome (β=.248, t=4.192, p<.000)
H2: Inspirational Motivation is positively associated with public service innovation outcomes -
IV Inspirational Motivation was found to be one of the strong predictors of public service
innovation outcome (β=.240, t=3.264, p<.001)
H3: Intellectual Stimulation is positively associated with public service innovation outcomes -
IV Intellectual Stimulation was found to be one of the strong predictors of public service
innovation outcome (β=.-.003, t=-.041, p<.967)
H4: Individualized Consideration is positively associated with public service innovation
outcomes - IV Individualized Consideration was found to be one of the strong predictors of
public service innovation outcome(β=.201, t=3.254, p<.001)
Correlation matrix:
Positive association, negative association or no association between two variables can be
referred by the help of correlation. The range of correlation coefficient is from -1 to +1. -1 or +1
refers absolute negative or positive relations. The range of Correlation with positivity is from
zero to one whether the range of negativity is from minus one to zero. Close to 1 means more
strong association and close to 0 means less strong association in the correlation coefficient.
II IM IS IC PSIOH1
II Pearson
Correlation
1 .645** .570** .589** .520**
IM Pearson
Correlation
1 .714** .692** .539**
IS Pearson
Correlation
1 .570** .420**
IC Pearson
Correlation
1 .510**
PSIOH1 Pearson
Correlation
1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Page 11 of 13
199
Shumshunnahar. (2021). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Factors on Public Service Innovation Outcomes: An Evidence from Bangladesh.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10). 189-201.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11126
The above table indicated that there re relations between two concepts almost all the relations
but effect have or not don’t indicated.
CONCLUSION
Theoretical Implications
The influence of a team leader has been assessed which is a new addition, and a good attempt
to measure public service innovation outcomes on team based performance where team is a
unit of analysis. However, there is very few comprehensive study like current one taking which
was conducted on the outcome of the public service innovation. The study also contributes to
the team level innovation outcomes in public service which is undoubtedly important for the
organizational experts.
Practical Implications
The government of Bangladesh has invested for public sector innovation. However, the
outcome of that investment has not been measured. Access to Information (a2i) Program has
introduced more than ten years in 2008 as a part of vision 2021 and the Gazette of Innovation
team where the govt has declared the modalities of innovation teams in April 2013 (Gazette,
2013). A Very few research has been conducted to see the result of the public service innovation
outcomes and there is no study in this context following the outcomes of the innovation team’s
performance yet. So far there is no comprehensive study on a2i’s interventions as well as
innovation team’s. As there is evidence that transformational leadership with the four factors,
influence and positively impacted innovation outcomes innovation policy should take the
measures which will encourage transformational leadership in favor of innovation.
Limitations
This is the very first comprehensive study on public service innovation outcomes in Bangladesh
context. The study has been conducted in a premature context as there are lacking of enough
literature. Survey data has collected covering only the service delivery participants (innovation
team members) by questionnaire survey, innovation team leaders (chief innovation officers)
by interviews. However, the objective of the innovation team to smoothing, simplifying and
faster service delivering system, it would be a great job if this study could have done the mass
survey on service seekers/recipients and evaluate the quality of the services delivery in regards
of comparative view of before and after innovation applied.
Future Research
This research did not evaluate the operational, regulatory and financial structure related with
public service innovation outcomes. To focus on broader public policy context future study can
be done which will be a practical feasibility study of the public service innovation outcomes. To
go for a comprehensive picture of Public Service Innovation Outcomes in Bangladesh further
study can be followed including ministries and divisions and other public sector organizations.
Therefore, another model can be established where the study will be given priority, based on
service recipients or service seekers.
Page 12 of 13
200
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 10, October-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
References
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior. https://doi.org/Article
Arundel, A., & Huber, D. (2013). From too little to too much innovation? Issues in measuring innovation in the
public sector. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 146–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.009
Bass, B. M. (1995). Transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 463–485.
Bekkers, V., Tummers, L., & Voorberg, W. (2013). From public innovation to social innovation in the public
sector : a literature review of relevant drivers and barriers. EGPA 2013 Conference, 320090(320090), 1–38.
Retrieved from http://www.lipse.org/userfiles/uploads/From public innovation to social innovation in the
public sector.pdf
Bernard M. Bass, R. E. R. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Carter Bloch. (2011). Me asuring P ublic In novation in the.
Constantine Andriopoulos, A. L. (2000). (2006). “Enhancing organisational creativity: the process of perpetual
challenging”, Management Decision, Vol. 38 Iss: 10, pp.734 - 742.
De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future
research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
Denmark, M. of F. A. of. (n.d.). imp 2_Danida evaluation process_ publication.
Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public
services? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27(April 2018), 98–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005
Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and
conceptual framework. Leadership Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00053-5
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of
Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.192958
Gazette. (2013). Gazette_Innovation Team.pdf. People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Gemuenden, H. G. H. M. (2001). Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects : A Theoretical Concept
and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 12 (4)(July-August 2001), 435–449.
Haque, A. (n.d.). Why did Bangladesh Undertake Public Service Innovations?
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational
innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 525–544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00050-X
Kattel, R., Cepilovs, A., Drechsler, W., Kalvet, T., Lember, V., & Tõnurist Ragnar, P. (2014). Can we measure public
sector innovation? A literature review LIPSE Project Working Paper No 2, (2), 1–45. Retrieved from
www.lipse.org
Manual, I. E., & Cooperation, I. D. (2009). Integrated Evaluation Manual for International Development
Cooperation, 1–60. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/Korea-Evaluation-Guideline.pdf
Ms.RumanaSharmin. (2019). TCV: An Innovation Measurement Tool to Improve Public Service Delivery.
Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://www.southsouth-galaxy.org/solution/tcvan-innovation- measurement-tool-to-improve-public-service-delivery/
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27
Nählinder, J., & Eriksson, A. F. (2019). Outcome, process and support: analysing aspects of innovation in public
sector organizations. Public Money and Management, 39(6), 443–449.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2018.1559617
Page 13 of 13
201
Shumshunnahar. (2021). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Factors on Public Service Innovation Outcomes: An Evidence from Bangladesh.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10). 189-201.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11126
Nusair, N., Ababneh, R., & Bae, Y. K. (2012). The impact of transformational leadership style on innovation as
perceived by public employees in jordan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 22(3), 182–201.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10569211211260283
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence
from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766–788.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075114
Potts, J., & Kastelle, T. (2010). Public sector innovation research: What’s next? Innovation: Management, Policy
and Practice, 12(2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.12.2.122
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the Use of Content Specialists in the Assessment of Criterion- Referenced Test Item Validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2(49–60), 49–60.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/April 19-23
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). DETERMINANTS OF INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR: A PATH MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL
INNOVATION IN THE WORKPLACE. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating
idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_3
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The
relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1999.tb00173.x
Undp. (2011). Outcome-Level Evaluation, (december), 1–444.