SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEES’ INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (2016–2025)

Innovative work behaviour (IWB), which refers to the generation, promotion, and implementation of novel ideas, is an important quality for organisational adaptability and competitiveness. IWB has been increasingly studied, and one area explored as a correlate of IWB is servant leadership (SL), which encompasses follower development, empowerment, and ethical stewardship. Since 2016, empirical research on the SL–IWB relationship has grown; however, the literature remains scattered across organisational contexts, theoretical lenses, and explanatory frameworks. A systematic and critical review of this literature is needed. This review systematically identified required quantitative empirical studies on SL and IWB from January 2016 to December 2025. By synthesising recurring explanatory processes from existing studies, this work develops an evidence-based integrative framework. This framework guides both the literature review and the identification of new research directions. Following PRISMA 2020, a systematic search was conducted of the Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCOhost databases. Twenty-seven empirical quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria and were finalised in this review. The methodological quality of the articles was assessed using a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)-informed appraisal for analytical cross-sectional studies. Because the included studies differed conceptually and methodologically, a structured narrative synthesis was performed. In the studies examined, there were consistently positive correlations between SL and IWB, with correlation coefficients ranging from [Formula: see text] to 0.47. When standardised regression coefficients were reported, the values ranged from [Formula: see text] to 0.42. Four major groups of explanations were formed, representing motivational, relational, cognitive, and contextual behavioural explanations. These clusters do not indicate causal pathways; instead, they should be interpreted as themes requiring explanation. Job autonomy, creative self-efficacy, team reflexivity, and innovation climate were explored as boundary conditions; however, evidence was limited for most, and the exceptions are listed below. The methodological evaluation found that the evidence base largely comprised cross-sectional designs, often relying on a single source, which limits the ability to draw temporal and causal inferences. This review provides an evidence-based summary of common explanatory patterns and identifies conceptual overlap, publication bias risk, and methodological and contextual limitations. Future research should compare alternative explanatory constructs and employ experimental, multi-source longitudinal, multilevel, cross-cultural, and meta-analytic designs.