Continuous learning and innovation are essential for public service employees and organisations to adapt, grow and deliver for citizens both now and into the future. Innovation climate and learning and development opportunities are key drivers of employee engagement and performance. This chapter examines these relationships further to identify the dimensions of innovation climate and learning and development that most significantly influence these outcomes. Additionally, it explores the relationship between innovation climate and participation in innovation projects and the relationships between learning and development and time spent on learning activities and perceived skill gaps. This chapter then provides recommendations for policy actions based on these insights.
Workforce Insights from Central Governments
Abstract
The ability to adapt and learn is more critical than ever for both public service organisations and workforces alike. Globally, public services are grappling with large-scale, fast-paced changes in their work driven by increasingly complex policy and regulatory contexts, rapidly evolving technologies, and shifting social and workforce dynamics. These pervasive trends necessitate new, flexible approaches to delivering public services and a workforce that is committed to continuous, lifelong learning and development.
This chapter examines employee perceptions of innovation climate—the strongest driver of perceived organisational performance—and learning and development—the strongest driver of employee engagement. This is particularly relevant, as public service organisations that foster a strong innovation climate, where teams have the right skills, tools, and resources to develop and implement new ideas and learning from past problems is embraced, may be better positioned to navigate uncertainty and adapt to changes. At the same time, employees who feel that they are growing professionally and are supported in their development may be more committed and motivated in their work. Together these drivers can help foster a culture of continuous improvement, driving high-performing public services that are responsive, future-oriented, and highly skilled. The remainder of this chapter explores the relationships between innovation climate and learning and development with important outcomes including employee engagement, team and organisational performance.
Overall, employee perceptions of innovation climate across EU8 countries are somewhat neutral with a mean score of 51.9 (Figure 5.1). In contrast, perceptions of learning and development are marginally more positive with a mean score of 58.3 (6.2 p.p. higher). Perceptions of innovation climate are most positive among employees in Latvia (60.4), while perceptions of learning and development are most positive among employees in Lithuania (63.5).
Note: The figure presents innovation climate and learning and development index scores by country on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). Scores are calculated as the average of responses across the index items. For details on index construction and scoring, refer to the technical annex. The EU average for the innovation climate index (EU8) includes all project countries, while the EU average for the learning and development index (EU7) includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Innovation climate items were not available for Denmark. For the learning and development index, the item “My organisation provides regular opportunities to improve the digital skills of employees” was not available for Denmark; as such, the index score for Denmark is based on the mean of the four remaining items. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Mean differences between the innovation climate and learning and development indices are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level in all countries where both indices are available.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Less than half of responding employees in EU8 countries perceive dimensions of their organisation’s innovation climate positively (Figure 5.2). While 43.0% of employees feel that their organisation empowers innovation by encouraging them to look for new ways of improving things, fewer believe their organisation enables it. Approximately a third of employees feel their organisation has sufficiently flexible legislative or regulatory frameworks (31.1%) or commits resources to develop new ideas and innovations (36.0%). Overall, employee perceptions suggest challenges to bottom-up innovation within public service organisations.
Note: The figure presents the EU8 average for the underlying items of the innovation climate index. EU8 includes all project countries, Positive responses refer to the combined share of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ neutral responses those selecting ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and negative responses those selecting ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Only half of employees across EU8 countries feel that they can access appropriate learning opportunities when needed (51.6%) or that they are growing professionally (50.4%; Figure 5.3). Opportunities for mobility are particularly limited with only a third of employees (31.1%) believing that their organisation supports career development through temporary assignments or transfers. This is consistent with challenges in incentivising managers to release staff for temporary assignments, particularly where these staff are high performing. Across OECD countries, lack of managerial support is the most common barrier to mobility (OECD, 2023[1]).
Note: The figure presents the EU8 average for the underlying items of the learning and development index, EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Positive responses refer to the combined share of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ neutral responses those selecting ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and negative responses those selecting ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex. Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Perceptions of innovation climate and learning and development also vary across key demographic and organisational characteristics (Figure 5.4). Respondents aged 24 and younger have the most positive perceptions of both innovation climate (61.4) and learning and development (65.6). This might be because, as new entrants to public administration, younger workers often benefit from structured onboarding and development activities aimed at building essential public service skills and knowledge. This learning, coupled with exposure to new tools and ways of working, may also enhance perceptions of innovation climate.
Employee perceptions are also influenced by the size of their organisation. Perceptions of innovation climate and learning and development are most positive among organisations with less than 20 employees (64.9) or between 20 and 100 employees (63.4) and become less positive as organisation size increases. This is somewhat surprising, since larger organisations often have more diverse functional areas and greater resources, which could act as structural advantage in fostering internal mobility and innovation. One possible explanation could be that employees in smaller organisations may feel more empowered to suggest new ways of working and benefit from diverse learning and development opportunities owing to the broader scopes of work and greater proximity to leaders.
Managers (62.0) hold more positive views of learning and development compared to non-managers (57.4). This could be because managerial and leadership capabilities are a strong focus of public administration learning activities (OECD, 2023[1]; OECD, 2014[2]), providing ample opportunities and signalling strong support for managers’ development. In contrast, perceptions of innovation climate were similar across managers (53.4) and non-managers (52.0). This may suggest that managers and non-managers face similar opportunities and constraints when it comes innovating within their organisations. In the public sector context, innovation is often driven by senior leaders and elected officials and in response to external budgetary pressures, changes to legislation or regulations, shifting political priorities or mandates for new services (Jung and Lee, 2016[3]; Arundel, Casali and Hollanders, 2015[4]). As such, support and opportunities for employees and middle-managers to generate and develop innovations can be limited. Within the Bulgaria Central Administration, for example, innovation efforts were largely top-down and permission to engage in innovation was lower among less senior staff (OECD, 2024[5]).
Note: The figure presents the average EU8/EU7 scores for the innovation climate (EU8) and learning and development (EU7) indices, disaggregated by subgroups. Index scores are shown on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). EU8 includes all project countries, EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex. Statistical significance between sub-groups is indicated by stars next to each bar. A single asterisk (*) indicates significance at the 90% level, two asterisks (**) at the 95% level, and three asterisks (***) at the 99% level. ‘N.S.’ denotes a non-significant difference compared to the reference group. The reference group is shown in light turquoise or light orange.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
This survey shows that, of all the drivers examined, innovation climate is the most influential driver of organisational performance and the third most influential driver of team performance (see Chapter 3).1 While important for both, how innovation climate relates to team and organisational performance differs, as seen in Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6.
Relative effect size of innovation climate dimensions on perceived organisational performance
Note: The figure presents the relative effect sizes of innovation dimensions in relation to perceived organisational performance in the EU8 countries The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. As the model does not account for other key drivers, results should be interpreted as the relative importance of dimensions within the relevant index, and not as a standalone effect in relation the outcome variable. Interpretation of effect size the expected change in the outcome variable following a change in response category from the reference category ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to another category (e.g. moving from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). Non-significant effects are not displayed. EU8 includes all project countries, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
As shown in Figure 5.5, all dimensions of innovation climate are significantly and positively related to organisational performance. Among these dimensions, the ability of organisations to learn from past problems and implement measures to prevent them from happening again is the most strongly related to perceived organisational performance. Perceived organisational performance is 10 percentage points higher among employees who strongly agree that their organisation learns from past mistakes, compared to those who neither agree or disagree, and 11.4 percentage points lower among those who strongly disagree. In contrast, that organisations support the idea that failure is part of innovation is least strongly related to perceived organisational performance. Organisational performance was rated 0.4 percentage points higher by those who agree compared to those who neither agree nor disagree, however disagreeing at all or strongly agreeing is not associated with any meaningful change in perceived organisational performance.
While both learning from past problems and supporting the idea of failure as part of innovation are important aspects of innovation climate, they may operate differently in the public service context. Failure poses risk to the delivery of essential services which can have enduring consequences for public trust. Thus, the benefits of organisational tolerance for failure may be limited by tolerance from the broader authorising environment and subsequently be constrained to low-risk or auxiliary areas of operation (OECD, 2023[6]) thereby limiting the benefit for organisational performance. In contrast, continuous improvements arising from an organisation’s ability to learn from past problems and prevent them from happening again may have more visible benefits to employees thereby directly influencing perceptions of organisational performance. This pattern of results may also reflect the current state of public sector innovation more broadly. Innovation is commonly driven by a desire for greater efficiency or reduced complexity, translating to incremental improvements of existing practices rather than systematic, transformational change (OECD, 2024[7]; OECD, 2024[5]; Kaur et al., 2022[8]). In such contexts, learning from past problems and finding new ways of improving the way employees work is likely to be important factors for successful innovation and subsequent organisational improvement.
As shown in Figure 5.6, all dimensions of innovation climate are significantly and positively related to team performance. Among these dimensions, the extent to which employees are encouraged to look for new ways to improve how things work is the most influential. Team performance is 6.2 percentage points higher among those who strongly agree that they are encouraged to look for new ways of doing things and 9.8 percentage points lower among those who strongly disagree.
Relative effect size of innovation climate dimensions on perceived organisational performance
Note: The figure presents the relative effect sizes of innovation climate dimensions in relation to perceived team performance in the EU8 countries The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. As the model does not account for other key drivers, results should be interpreted as the relative importance of dimensions within the relevant index, and not as a standalone effect in relation the outcome variable. Interpretation of effect size the expected change in the outcome variable following a change in response category from the reference category ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to another category (e.g. moving from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). Non-significant effects are not displayed. EU8 includes all project countries, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Though less strong than other dimensions, tolerance for failure is more highly related to team performance compared to its effects on organisational performance. Perceived team performance is 2.3 percentage points higher for employees who strongly agree that their organisation views failure as a part of innovation compared to those who neither agree nor disagree and 2.2 percentage points lower among those who strongly disagree. Such tolerance is important for individuals to suggest and test new ideas, without fear of repercussion.
One explanation is that these two dimensions partially point to the notion of psychological safety as the processes and practices that support open and trustful interactions (Baer and Frese, 2002[9]). By promoting collaboration, communication, and sense of belonging (Lee and Jung, 2024[10]) as well as helping to harness the benefits of team diversity (Valls, González‐Romá and Tomás, 2016[11]), these empowering aspects of innovation climate may be particularly important for team performance. In contrast, enabling aspects, such a flexible legislation, technology and budget allocations while needed, may have less of a direct influence on day-to-day team dynamics and subsequent performance in teams.
Perceived innovation climate is important as an enabler of actual innovation efforts within public service organisations. More than half of respondents (54.6%) report participating in the implementation of some form of innovation within their organisation in the past two years. These span service delivery (13.8%), process (39.5%), and policy or legislative (15.2%) innovations with some respondents reporting involvement in multiple types.
Employees who participated in some form of innovation typically held more positive views (a 6.1% increase) of their organisation’s innovation climate. This relationship is significant, controlling for demographic and organisational factors, however the causal direction is unclear. Hence, this finding may suggest that improving innovation climate results in more innovation activity; however, it could also suggest that employees involved in innovation activities typically have positive experiences, which, in turn, improve their perception of innovation climate. Regardless, this relationship varies across countries (Figure 5.7). For example, in Croatia where 47.1% of respondents report participating in innovation, participation was associated with a 9.2% increase in perceived innovation climate. In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has the highest rate of participation (61.5%), participation was associated with only a 3.1% increase in perceived innovation climate.
Note: The figure presents the innovation participation rate as the proportion of respondents of each country and the EU8 average that report being involved in any implementation of an innovation in the past two years (Q78). Effect size of participation on perceived innovation climate refers to the difference in average perceived innovation climate based on the innovation climate index between those who participated in innovation and those who did not for each country. EU8 includes all project countries, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Organisations benefit when all employees feel that they have the opportunity and ability to contribute to innovative efforts. At the same time, differences in representation of groups across public service workforces necessitates a balanced approach to ensuring that underrepresented voices are actively sought out. Strengthening innovation outcomes therefore requires diverse initiatives that align to the needs of the workforce.
Proportion of respondents reporting participation in any innovation projects in the past two years
Note: The figure presents the EU8 proportion of respondents who report participating in any innovation projects in the past two years. A random-intercepts logistic model predicting participation in any innovation project (binary) was fit on all control variables: gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/ permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisational size, tenure and organisation and country. Referent categories as displayed in blue. Interpretation of other categories are relative to the referent category and whether there is an increase (green), decrease (red) or no change (grey) in the odds of engaging in innovation compared. The figure does not display missing or ‘other’ categories. EU8 includes all project countries, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Among EU8 countries, older workers are no less likely to be involved in the implementation of innovation than any other age group. Negative stereotypes of aging frequently portray older workers as inflexible, difficult to train and resistant to change. That innovation is not age dependent suggests that for EU8 countries, public services are accessing diverse views and experiences of their multi-generational workforces.
In contrast, women report significantly less involvement in innovation than men (8 p.p. lower). Likewise, staff with non-tertiary educational attainment are significantly less likely to participate than those with bachelor’s degrees (4 p.p. lower) or higher (15 p.p. lower). These differences persist even after controlling for managerial status and working patterns suggesting deeper biases in how organisations recognise and encourage innovation, putting certain groups at risk of being left behind, particularly in digital transformation (OECD, 2024[12]). As women make up close to 80 percent of some EU8 public services (OECD, 2025[13]), organisations risk limiting the development of a significant segment of their workforce. Initiatives that target participation such as enhancing cross-functional collaboration or mobility opportunities can increase involvement of groups that are likely to be most impacted by public service innovation.
This survey demonstrates that, of all drivers examined, learning and development is the most influential driver of employee engagement (see Chapter 2).2 This significant finding suggests that a strong learning and development culture can promote engagement among employees by fostering greater commitment, motivation and feelings of efficacy. By investing in their development, organisations signal to employees that they are valued, which can inspire greater commitment and effort. Additionally, by equipping employees with new skills and capabilities, a strong learning and development culture can enhance employees’ sense of efficacy in their jobs while also helping to reduce feelings of stagnation.
Relative effect size of learning and development dimensions on employee engagement
Note: The figure presents relative effect sizes of learning and development dimensions in relation to engagement in the EU7 countries The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. As the model does not account for other key drivers, results should be interpreted as the relative importance of dimensions within the relevant index, and not as a standalone effect in relation the outcome variable. Interpretation of effect size the expected change in the outcome variable following a change in response category from the reference category ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to another category (e.g. moving from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). Non-significant effects are not displayed. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Professional growth has the strongest influence on employee engagement among the specific dimensions of learning and development (Figure 5.9). Engagement is 12.6 percentage points higher for employees who strongly agree that they are growing professionally compared to those who neither agree nor disagree and 16.3 percentage points lower for those who strongly disagree. This presents a key challenge as opportunities for vertical progression are often limited, particularly for middle- and late-career public servants.
Lateral mobility and other opportunities that grow and utilise employees’ skills become even more important for supporting their continuous development and sense of professional growth, and the data show that improving digital skills and support for mobility are also strongly associated with employee engagement. This is likely because, by increasing skill and task variety, mobility can promote feelings of growth while opportunities to develop in-demand skills can help maintain functional fitness and ensure employees feel supported in their long-term career plans. Opportunities to develop digital skills may be particularly important for employees in roles facing disproportionate impacts from new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (David et al., 2024[14]). The strong relationship to engagement suggests that central administration employees are appreciative of organisation’s upskilling and reskilling efforts. In contrast, dimensions that were more related to learning and training, such as access or relevance for performance, were less strongly associated with engagement.
On average, employees in EU8 countries are almost evenly divided in their perceptions of how promotions and career development opportunities are awarded. Approximately one-third (32.5%) believe that these are granted based on personal connections rather than merit. A similar proportion (31.7%) disagrees, instead perceiving that these opportunities are based on employee skills and abilities. The remaining (35.7%) hold a neutral view, neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Within countries, perceptions vary significantly with the proportion of employees who feel that opportunities are awarded based on personal connections ranging from a high of 44.7% to a low of 19.4%.
The extent to which employees feel that promotion and career development opportunities are granted based on merit impacts on how employees view their future within organisations. Of those who believe opportunities are awarded based on personal connections, 39.9% report intentions to leave the organisation in the next 12 months compared to 24.4% of those who feel that this is not the case. Employees are also more likely to feel that they are growing professionally when they perceive that promotion and career advancement opportunities are awarded based on merit. When employees believe that advancement is based on personal connections rather than merit, it can undermine motivation, and drive away talented individuals from the organisation. This can weaken the organisational capacity and disrupt continuity, particularly in roles requiring experience and specialised expertise. Transparent, competency-based promotion practices help ensure that the right people are in the right positions.
Note: The figure presents the country and EU8 responses to the question: “My organisation grants promotions and career development opportunities based on personal connections rather than on skills and abilities.” ‘Promotion based on skills and abilities’ includes respondents who replied ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’ to the statement. ‘Promotion based on personal connections’ includes those who replied ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ and ‘neutral’ includes those who replied ‘neither agree nor disagree.’ EU8 includes all project countries. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants.
Employees who rate learning and development more positively are more likely to have spent time on learning activities in the past 12 months, as shown in Figure 5.11. Conversely, perceptions of learning and development were lowest for employees who did not participate in learning activities. This may reflect both an absence of learning opportunities as well as challenges in gaining managerial support to access opportunities, particularly where resource constraints may make it difficult to justify employees’ release. In this sense, engaging in any hours of learning in the past 12 months may lead employees to evaluate their organisation’s learning and development more positively. Overall, however, more time spent on learning activities more likely reflects signals by the organisation that such efforts are expected, valued, and supported.
Note: The figure presents the EU7 average learning and development index scores by question: ‘In the last 12 months, how many hours of training or learning courses (in relation to your job) have you undertaken?’ EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
This survey finds that, of all drivers examined, learning and development is the fifth most influential driver of organisational performance (see Chapter 3).3 However, it is important to note that the effects of learning and development may be partially mediated through its strong relationship with employee engagement, which was the third most influential driver of organisational performance.
Among specific dimensions of learning and development, opportunities to improve digital skills is most strongly associated with organisational performance (Figure 5.12). Perceived organisational performance is 13.1 percentage points higher among employees who strongly agree that their organisation provides regular opportunities to improve the digital skills of employees compared to those who neither agree nor disagree. For those who strongly disagree, organisational performance is 12.3 percentage points lower. This is particularly important, since the rapidly evolving technologies and the digital transformation of government require strong digital competencies across public service workforces. Organisations that invest in the digital competencies of their workforce are better equipped to harness the benefits of digital transformation including for more efficient and effective delivery of services, new ways of working and tailored policy design (David et al., 2024[14]). Visibly investing in digital skills may signal to employees that their organisation is committed to maintaining the skill currency of its workforce and responding to emerging challenges.
Relative effect size of learning and development dimensions on organisational performance
Note: The figure presents the relative effect sizes of learning and development dimensions in relation to perceived organisational performance in the EU7 countries The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. As the model does not account for other key drivers, results should be interpreted as the relative importance of dimensions within the relevant index, and not as a standalone effect in relation the outcome variable. Interpretation of effect size the expected change in the outcome variable following a change in response category from the reference category ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to another category (e.g. moving from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). Non-significant effects are not displayed. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Support for mobility is also influential in shaping employees’ perceptions of performance. Organisational performance is 5.1 percentage points higher among employees who strongly agree that their organisation supports mobility opportunities for development compared to those who neither agree or disagree and 7 percentage points lower among those who strongly disagree. In addition to expanding employees’ skills and enhancing cross-functional collaboration, mobility opportunities, such as job rotations, secondments and internal assignments, help to build skills, and may also support organisations to leverage existing skills to respond to new demands (OECD, 2023[1]).
Note: The figure presents the EU7 average learning and development index scores by the count of reported skill gaps in question: ‘Are there currently skills or capacities missing within your immediate work unit or team? If yes, which are the most important skills missing?’ Respondents could select up to a maximum of five skill gaps. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
The value of a strong learning and development culture for organisational performance is further evidenced by its relationship to perceived skill gaps. As show in Figure 5.13, perceptions of learning and development were most positive among those who report no skill gaps in their immediate team or work group. This may be because, when learning and development is embedded in organisational culture, employees are supported to proactively develop new skills enabling them to keep pace with evolving job demands. It can also help with the identification and prioritisation of development needs by encouraging managers to be active in developing their staff and teams. The ability to address skill gaps internally is critical for organisational capability in a time of high global competition for skills.
Public service organisations continue to face significant challenges in fostering bottom-up innovation and continuous learning among employees. In EU8 countries, fewer than half of employees view their organisation’s innovation climate positively. When employees do not feel encouraged to propose new ideas, it negatively affects how they perceive the performance of their teams and the organisation as a whole. This suggests that while employees may have valuable insights for improvement, they often lack the support to voice them. Cultivating a culture that actively supports innovation—one where employees are empowered to share ideas and enabled, by equipping teams with the skills and resources needed to implement them, is important for ensuring public service organisations are able to respond and adapt to changing demands.
Although perceptions of learning and development are slightly more positive, only half of employees feel they are growing professionally in their current roles. This sense of stagnation can significantly undermine engagement. A key challenge in light of changing technologies is that only half of employees feel they have opportunities to improve their digital capabilities. Visible investment in maintaining the currency of employee skills shapes their perceptions of organisational performance. Creating meaningful development opportunities and investing in future-proof skills are therefore critical to sustaining a motivated, high-performing workforce.
Given this, public service leaders, managers and those designing reforms may wish to consider the following key considerations for policy actions:
Efforts to strengthen and leverage innovation climate to support organisational performance should include a focus on the mechanisms to institutionalise past learnings to enhance planning and adaptive capabilities without introducing additional bureaucracy. Interventions like central risk registries, information repositories, and regular retrospectives among others, can help enhance institutional capacity to learn from past problems without introducing additional approval processes.
Efforts to strengthen and leverage learning and development to support organisational performance should include a focus on investing in employees’ digital capabilities and creating and supporting mobility. Job rotations, temporary assignments, task forces provide opportunities for organisations to leverage existing skills while further developing skills of employees. Mobility also provides opportunities to involve underrepresented staff groups in innovation efforts and support building a more innovative culture. By building in-demand skills internally and creating mechanisms to leverage existing skills organisations can better respond to emerging trends and new demands.
Employees feel more engaged when they are growing professionally and developing in-demand skills. Organisations should consider how this can be leveraged when implementing upskilling and reskilling efforts. By framing these programmes as supporting long-term career and professional development, organisations can improve participation and engagement, particularly for voluntary opportunities.
Organisations should consider integrating informal learning and knowledge management mechanism to complement existing training. While important for engagement and perceived organisational performance, access to and quality of learning activities were the least influential dimensions of learning and development. Strengthening informal, experiential learning mechanisms can help to support a more holistic approach to staff development.
References
[4] Arundel, A., L. Casali and H. Hollanders (2015), “How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods”, Research Policy, Vol. 44/7, pp. 1271-1282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.007.
[9] Baer, M. and M. Frese (2002), “Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24/1, pp. 45-68, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179.
[14] David, S. et al. (2024), “Public administration managers’ and employees’ perceptions of adaptability to change under “the future of work” paradigm”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 199, p. 123088, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123088.
[3] Jung, C. and G. Lee (2016), “Organizational Climate, Leadership, Organization Size, and Aspiration for Innovation in Government Agencies”, Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 39/4, pp. 757-782, https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137764.
[8] Kaur, M. et al. (2022), “Innovative capacity of governments: A systemic framework”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 51, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/52389006-en.
[10] Lee, E. and Y. Jung (2024), “Linking innovation climate to innovative behavior in public organizations: Exploring the role of psychological needs”, International Public Management Journal, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2024.2407493.
[13] OECD (2025), Government at a Glance 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b378e11-en.
[12] OECD (2024), “Harnessing the green and digital transitions for gender equality: Policy insights from the 2024 OECD Forum on Gender Equality”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 61, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/860d0901-en.
[7] OECD (2024), Innovative Capacity and Participatory Policymaking in Armenia, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1efeba1a-en.
[5] OECD (2024), Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Public Sector of Bulgaria, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/39fa2eed-en.
[1] OECD (2023), Public Employment and Management 2023: Towards a More Flexible Public Service, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b378e11-en.
[6] OECD (2023), Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Public Sector of Latvia, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d3102d9-en.
[2] OECD (2014), 2014 OECD Survey of National Schools of Government, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2017/03/national-schools-of-government_g1g74ea4/9789264268906-en.pdf.
[11] Valls, V., V. González‐Romá and I. Tomás (2016), “Linking educational diversity and team performance: Team communication quality and innovation team climate matter”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 89/4, pp. 751-771, https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12152.
← 1. Based on results of separate mixed effect regression models which control for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/ permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisational size, tenure and country fixed effects. These models evaluated employee well-being, employee engagement, management, leadership, learning and development, innovation climate, pay satisfaction, employment security, and remote work as drivers of team and organisational performance.
← 2. Based on results of separate mixed effect regression models which control for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/ permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisational size, tenure and country fixed effects. These models evaluated employee management, leadership, learning and development, innovation climate, pay satisfaction, employment security, and remote work as drivers of employee engagement.
← 3. Based on results of separate mixed effect regression models which control for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/ permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisational size, tenure and country fixed effects. These models evaluated employee well-being, employee engagement, management, leadership, learning and development, innovation climate, pay satisfaction, employment security, and remote work as drivers of team and organisational performance.