Servant Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediation Role of Flow at Work and Trust Servant Leadership dan Innovative Work Behavior : Peran Mediasi Flow at Work dan Trust

Competitiveness in the context of digital business encourages companies to continuesly innovate in their daily operations to achieve market dominance and adapt to changes in environmental forces and competitor strategies. Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) of employees is considered to be an important element for companies to carry out sustainable innovation. This research aims to determine the influence of Servant Leadership (SEL) on IWB as well as the mediating role of Flow at Work (FAW) and Trust (TR) between the relationship between SEL and IWB. This research used the survey of 247 employees from digital business companies using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) as a data analysis method. The research results show that the majority of employees working in digital business companies feel that their desire to engage in innovative behavior is influenced by the role of their supervisor who demonstrate servant leadership characteristics as well as a feeling of flow that makes employees feel total involvement in completing their work. SEL plays a significant role in increasing employee IWB and FAW is proven to partially mediated the relationship between SEL and IWB. Meanwhile, in the indirect effect of TR, it was identified that TR did not mediate the relationship between SEL and IWB. This research is expected to provide insights for company HR management in increasing the active role of employees' innovative behavior in the workplace.


INTRODUCTION
In the age of digital era and the 4.0 industrial revolution, digital technology has significantly influenced individuals as well as organizations.Based on a data survey conducted by the social media management platform Hootsuite (We Are Social) in 2022, it is observed that approximately 74 percent of Indonesia's population is actively engaged with the Internet.Digital age can give rise to information technology (Daud et al., 2022).Based on East Ventures -Digital Competitiveness Index (EV-DCI) 2023, a report conducted by East Ventures together with Katadata Insight Center and PwC Indonesia, digital competitiveness in Indonesia's regions continues to show a positive trend with the 2023 EV-DCI score of 38.5.This situation illustrates the transformation of digital business into a venture that exerts substantial influence on entrepreneurship, resulting in a model and framework that possesses heightened flexibility and accessibility.Similarly, in the context of marketing digitization, which serves as a common intermediary channel adopted by business entities amid the wave of digital transformation, several firms are now transitioning from traditional business models towards contemporary approaches reliant on digital platforms (Daud et al., 2022).
Innovation plays a significant role in driving digital technology, which goes beyond merely utilizing data logic and technology to sustain various facets of a company's functions.It involves harnessing data to enhance production, streamline decision-making processes, and foster development, serving as a crucial means to attain high-quality enterprise growth (Yin & Yu, 2022).Therefore, in facing this digital era, the success of business will greatly depend on the availability of appropriate information and knowledge.Organizations need to adapt to survive and achieve success amidst changes in their business domains, processes and technologies in the face of increasing environmental complexity.Technological developments and business innovation have accelerated significantly in the last few decades, causing an increased challenges in creating business models that can provide sustainable profits (Teece & Linden, 2017).Innovation, for a company, is an important element to adapt to the changing environmental forces and competitor strategies (Devloo, Anseel, De Beuckelaer, & Feys, 2016).Meanwhile, innovation in this digital era is not only manifested in the form of products that consumers buy and use, but also in the way companies create, deliver and adapt value in some new ways (Sorescu & Schreier, 2021).The extent to which employees from digital business firms promote innovative behavior is the subject of this study.
In contrast to earlier times, when the quest for innovation was undertaken by the intelligent or a select of few leaders engaging in the quest for innovation (Khan, Mubarik, Ahmed, Islam, & Khan, 2021), the present endeavour for innovation involves every member of the organization's workforce (Khan, Mubarik, & Islam, 2021).The organization's capability in innovation relies on the inventive conduct of its employees, as their innovative actions serve as the foundation for continual innovation (Bukhari & Bhutto, 2021).Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) is defined as deliberate individual actions to apply and/or adapt new concepts, goods, processes and procedures for tasks, units or organizations (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2008).IWB encompasses developing new ideas, technologies and techniques, as well as evaluation and application of innovative approaches associated with business processes within specific industry sectors (Sutardi, Nuryanti, Kumoro, Mariyanah, & Agistiawati, 2022).Khan, Mubarik, and Islam (2021) on their study stated that in emulation of practitioners, scholars have undertaken investigations to explore novel approaches for fostering Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB) among employees.The body of literature on IWB indicates that factors such as organizational justice, job characteristics, psychological contract, intrinsic motivation, rewards, leadership, and the quality of working relationships, among others, could contribute to engaging employees in IWBs (Afsar, Badir, & Khan, Person-job 2015).
Basically, leadership plays a significant role in influencing the innovative work behavior of employees.Existing literature indicates that various leadership styles can either foster or hinder creative and innovative behavior within firms.This creates an avenue to identify the key aspects of leadership that prominently contribute to innovative behavior (Bukhari & Bhutto, 2021).As employees transition from the age of productivity to the era of innovation (Lenka & Gupta, 2020), it becomes imperative to alter the approach of leadership in their management (Khan, Mubarik, & Islam, 2021).Leaders should guide and facilitate their employees to engage in Innovative Work Behavior (IWB), rather than simply issuing commands.Contrary to the recommendation of certain researchers to utilize transformational leadership for encouraging IWB (Afsar & Umrani, 2020), leaders in the knowledge economy would achieve greater effectiveness by adopting a leadership approach that is more cantered on the employees (Khan, Mubarik, & Islam, 2021).Servant leadership is gaining significance as one of the prominent forms of relational leadership in the 21st century (Khan, Mubarik, Ahmed, Islam, & Khan, 2021) The linking mechanism between servant leadership and IWB is one such gap.Motivational factors employed as intermediaries between servant leadership and IWB are intrinsic motivation (Su, Lyu, Chen, & Zhang, 2020), work engagement (Rasheed, Lodhi, & Habiba, 2016) and psychological empowerment (Faraz, Mughal, Ahmed, Raza, & Iqbal, 2019).The first study of flow at work as a mediator between servant leadership and IWB was conducted by Khan et al., (2021).Experiencing flow at work, characterized by intrinsic motivation, leads to an employee fully engrossed in tasks and proceeding with work without external prompting.According to Schermuly & Meyer (2020), eexperiencing flow increases feelings of self-efficacy and has "positive effects for employee well-being and innovation at work".
Many employees perceive IWB as involving risks and extending beyond explicitly outlined job responsibilities.Consequently, managers should establish an internal environment characterized by trust and autonomy to foster these innovative behavioral tendencies (Afsar, Badir, & Khan, 2015).Employees with a high tendency to share and exchange information from their leaders imply that there is a sense of trust between the two, and this can increase innovative work behavior (Jain, 2023).Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng (2011) argue that trust in leaders plays an important role in linking leader behavior and performance in teams.According to (Khan, Mubarik, & Islam, 2021) the establishment of trust in a leader, stemming from employee-centric leadership, serves as one of the causal connections between servant leadership IWB.As previous study suggested leadership style can affect employees to promote innovative work behavior, also bothflow at work and trusthad unique effects on the relationship between servant leadership and employee innovative behavior, so this study assesses the effects on servant leadership on employee's IWB through the mediation of flow at work and trust.

Literature Review Servant Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior
Empirical studies indicate that servant leaders are dedicated to offering their followers opportunities to acquire new skills and knowledge.Additionally, they provide support for individuals to attain personal goals by leveraging their talents and intellectual capabilities (Gul, Tahir, & Batool, 2021).Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, van Dierendonck, & Liden (2019) define servant leadership as a leadership that is oriented towards other people, where the leader gives priority to the individual interests and needs of his followers, and is reoriented towards caring for other people in an organization and greater community.In line with the previous statement, Zeng & Xu (2020) argue that as other people-oriented leadership, servant leaders are willing to empower and provide opportunities for their followers.Along with service to employees, servant leadership considers community development as the ultimate goal and to achieve this goal requires employee involvement (Greenleaf, 2002).Greenleaf (1977) stated "The servant leader is servant first.Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead".
Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) is defined as behavior that directed to implementing change, new knowledge, creating new ideas, and improving work processes to increase performance at work (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2008).In contrast to creativity, IWB is explicitly intended to provide several benefits.IWB possesses a more distinct practical element and is anticipated to yield innovative outcomes.Creativity plays a crucial role in IWB, particularly evident in the initial stages of the innovation process when issues or performance gaps become evident, and new ideas are conceived in response to the perceived necessity for innovation.(West, 2002).
According to Wu, Liden, Liao, & Wayne (2021), servant leaders' prioritization of employee needs and sincere concern for employee welfare make servant leaders a credible source of change, so that employees become more accepting of behavioral change efforts.Servant leadership employs strategies that support cognitive and social processes that are essential for fostering employee's IWB (Khan et al., 2021).Furthermore, Khan et al., (2021), explained that servant leaders communicate to their employees that their sincere intention to pursue innovation will be valued and acknowledged, regardless of any setbacks or failures.Besides the mentioned reasoning, there is empirical evidence done by previous studies which suggest that servant leadership is positively affecting employee's innovative work behavior (Khan et al., 2021;Zeng and Xu, 2020).Furthermore, we proposed hypothesis as follows: H1 : Servant leadership positively related to innovative work behavior.

Servant Leadership and Flow at Work
The term flow was first defined by Csikszentmihalyi (1977) as "the holistic sensation that people feel when they act with total involvement" (Demerouti, 2006).According to Csikszentmihalyi (1990), the notion of "flow" denotes a psychological state where individuals immerse themselves profoundly in an activity, to the extent that external concerns become inconsequential; the intrinsic pleasure derived from the activity is so profound that individuals are willing to participate even at considerable personal expense, solely for the inherent satisfaction it provides.Theories associated with the concept of flow posit that the dynamic interactions between individuals and their surroundings give rise to the state of flow; it suggested that the experience of flow is influenced by the individual's resources and their subjective interpretation of the environment (Schermuly & Meyer, 2020).According to Bakker (2005), the predominant definition of flow appears to encompass three identical elements: absorption, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation.These three components are indeed fundamental elements that are commonly incorporated in studies focusing on the phenomenon of flow (Bakker, 2005).
According to Khan et al., (2021), it is essential to have both elevated abilities and challenges in order to facilitate a state of flow in the workplace.Servant leadership, due to its focus on employees, has the capacity to establish a suitable alignment between challenges and abilities, thus fostering a state of flow in the work environment (Khan et al., 2021).Servant leaders establish a secure environment wherein employees feel trust, acceptance, and freedom from the fear of errors, facilitated by the encouragement of these leaders for employees to autonomously make work decisions and handle challenging situations (Song, Tian, & Kwan, 2022).As servant leaders involve employee in decision making, empower individuals to acquire knowledge through collaborative interaction with their peers, and this shared exposure, combined with more demanding job roles, contributes to the experience of flow in the workplace (Khan et al., 2021).
There had not been many studies regarding the relationship between servant leadership and flow at work.Studies relating leadership quality and flow at work was usually correlated with transformational leadership (Schermuly & Meyer, 2020).Previous study by Khan et al., (2021) was the first to learn the relationship between both variables.The result of the study suggested that there is a positive relationship between servant leadership and flow at work.Therefore, we proposed hypothesis as follows: H2 : Servant leadership positively related to flow at work.

Servant leadership and Trust
Fulmer & Gelfand (2012) define trust as a favourable anticipation rooted in perception and belief.It also involves a willingness to embrace vulnerability, primarily associated with uncertainty or the deliberate decision to undertake risks and rely on other parties.This aligns with existing literature that defines trust as a party's readiness to expose themselves to potential actions by another party, anticipating that the latter will undertake specific actions deemed crucial by the trusting party, regardless the ability to supervise or govern the actions of the other party (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).In this case, vulnerability indicates that the party providing trust can lose something, but still takes the risk (Haq, Khalid, & Usman, 2018).
Trust in a leader is characterized as the subordinate's readiness to place themselves in a position of vulnerability concerning the leader's actions, decisions, and conduct, all within a context where they lack control over the leader.According to Greenleaf (2002), trust both precedes and results from servant leadership.The theory of servant leadership posits that servant leaders cultivate trust within their subordinates by embracing, empathizing with, supporting, and nurturing them (Greenleaf, 2002).To gain the trust of subordinates, a servant leader engages in three key actions, specifically: (1) including subordinates at an early stage, (2) upholding commitments, and (3) authentically empowering subordinates (Spears, 2004).
Previous study related to the relationship between servant leadership and trust related with employee's organization citizenship behavior (Qiu & Dooley, 2022), work engagement (Zhou, Gul, & Tufail, 2022), and organisational commitment and employee's performance (Setiawan & Irawanto, 2020).With this accumulating evidence showing the relationship between servant leadership and trust, we proposed hypothesis as follows: H3 : Servant leadership positively related to trust in leader.

Flow at Work and Innovative Work Behavior
Theories pertaining to flow contend that the dynamic interactions between individuals and their surroundings give rise to the experience of flow; this phenomenon is influenced by individual resources and their personal interpretation of the environment (Schermuly & Meyer, 2020).According to Bakker (2005), the prevailing definition of flow prominently incorporates three elements: absorption, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation.These elements serve as fundamental components consistently integrated into studies on flow (Bakker, 2005).Therefore, when flow is applied to work situations, it can be defined as a short-term peak experience in the workplace characterized by the characteristics of absorption, work enjoyment, and intrinsic work motivation (Bakker, 2005).
IWB is considered as an extra-role behavior, which is only possible when employees are internally motivated.According to Khan et al., (2021), IWB, encompassing idea generation and implementation, correlates with the concept of flow at work for the following two primary reasons.Firstly, the experience of positive emotions derived from their work, as highlighted by Frederickson (2004), has a beneficial impact on employees' cognitive and behavioral capabilities, facilitating the generation of creative ideas.Secondly, individuals who experience a state of flow at work tend to view their tasks as a form of self-expression.Consequently, their positive thoughts and intrinsic motivation drive them to passionately advocate for their innovative ideas (Khan et al., 2021).
Previous study by Zubair & Kamal (2015) established the relationship between flow at work and creativity.Current study by Khan et al., (2021), uncovered that flow at work is related to IWB, even no previous study has attempted to unfurl the relationship between both variables.Therefore, we proposed hypothesis as follows: H4 : Flow at work positively related to innovative work behavior.

Trust and Innovative Work Behavior
According to Social Exchange Theory (SET), trust facilitates leader-member relationships and employee performance (Bukhari & Bhutto, 2021).Li et al. (2019) concluded that subordinates who are trusted by their supervisors will be more motivated to engage in innovative behavior (IWB).When employees have a sense of trust in their leaders, employees will show extra roles in the workplace as a way of responding to the quality of their relationship with their leaders; where they have a sense of trust in their supervisor so that they engage in discretionary behavior (Bukhari & Bhutto, 2021).Borgen (2001) implies that trust in leaders is integrally connected to the capacity to predict and influence the behavior of others.
Trust can increase self-efficacy and competence in the workplace, enable individuals (and organizations) to be more proactive and willing to take risks, facilitate the learning process through work, and increase innovative behavior (Jain, 2023).Afsar, Badir, & Khan (2015) argue that a work environment lacking mutual trust will inhibit openness and generativity, and can drain cognitive resources needed for work-based learning.Through the process of introducing a vision and encouraging beliefs, leaders will influence cognitive and affective beliefs, which will ultimately increase employees' intrinsic motivation in adopting innovative ideas to achieve the organization's vision (Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014).Empirical evidence done in the previous study show that trust is significantly related to employee's innovative work behavior (Kmieciak, 2021).Therefore, we proposed hypothesis as follows: H5 : Trust positively related to innovative work behavior.

Mediating role of flow at work and trust
Employees refrain from engaging in proactive work behaviors due to their fear of potential adverse consequences in case of failure (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009).The Trust role of leaders is needed in avoiding such behavior.Servant leadership, through its employee-centered leadership style, wins employees' trust by creating safe environment for them (Song, Tian, & Kwan, 2022).As the relationship develops, both leaders and subordinates share more extensive information, encompassing both formal and informal aspects.This phase is referred to as the acquaintance phase, fostering an emotional connection between the supervisor and subordinate.Consequently, the relationship progresses and evolves towards sentiments of loyalty, commitment, respect, obligation, and mutual trust (Williams, Scandura, Pissaris, & Woods, 2016).When employees have the trust of their leader as a resource, they become unafraid of potential negative consequences arising from failures in their proactive work endeavors, thereby being more willing to actively pursue such behavior.The compassionate approach of servant leadership stimulates feelings of enjoyment, a component of the flow experience at work, which enhances positive emotions; these positive emotions expand the cognitive and behavioral capabilities of employees, rendering them more proficient in engaging in IWB (Khan et al., 2021;Frederickson, 2001).With the above reasoning, we therefore proposed hypothesis as follows: H6 : Flow at work mediates the relationship between servant leadership and IWB.H7 : Trust mediates the relationship between servant leadership and IWB.
Based on the problem, literature review, and previous related research, the conceptual framework of this research can be shown in Figure 1.

RESEARCH METHOD
This research uses a perspective that is classified as a cross-sectional design, because research data collection was carried out at one time.A total of responses received by researchers amounted to 247 respondents met the sample characteristics for this study, with position levels of the employees from staff to manager.Data collection was carried out directly at the source (primary data) by distributing questionnaires using a purposive sampling method.The questionnaire was distributed online with sample characteristics has already been determined.The questionnaire consists of four parts and each part represents each variable, including innovative work behavior as dependent variable, servant leadership as independent variable, and flow at work and trust as mediating variables.The questionnaire contains 41 question indicators.
All items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale where 1 means strongly disagree while 7 presents strongly agree.Servant leadership: Measurement of Servant leadership employed the SL-7 scale developed by Liden et al., (2015).The scale comprises a total of 7 items, with a representative item is, "My leader gives me the freedom to handle difficult situations in the way that I feel is best".Innovative work behavior: Measurement of IWB employed the scale developed by De Jong & Den Hartog (2010).The scale comprises a total of 10 items, with a representative item is, "I often systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices".Flow at work: Measurement of Flow at work employed the scale developed by Schiepe & Engeser (2017), encompassing three dimensions, namely, absorption, work enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation.The scale comprises a total of 13 items, with a representative item is, "When I am working, I forget everything else around me". Trust: Measurement of Trust employed the scale developed by McAllister (1995), encompassing two dimensions, namely, affect-based trust and cognition-based trust.The scale comprises a total of 11 items, "If I shared my problems with this person, I know s(he) would respond constructively and caringly".
The research employed the structural equation model (SEM) as the analytical methodology.This choice was made because the SEM approach possesses the capacity to concurrently assess intricate research models, analyse variables that cannot be directly measured, and test complex theoretical frameworks within the field of social sciences (Alsarayreh, 2023).SEM has the characteristic of being an analytical technique to further confirm whether a particular research model is valid or not.This approach is utilized to elucidate the direct association between the independent variable (servant leadership) and the dependent variable (IWB).Additionally, it aims to examine flow at work and trust as mediating variables in the connection between servant leadership and IWB.

Respondent Demography
Based on the sample size in this study, which adhered to SEM guidelines utilizing the maximum likelihood method, the study required a minimum of 205 respondents.However, the research ultimately included a total of 247 participants.The characteristics of the main test respondents consisted of employees who worked in digital business-based companies with a total period of working at the company for more than 1 year.Gender, age, highest level of education, total years of working, position level, length of time the company has been established, company type, and job division are used to categorize respondents in this study.Table 1 shows the demographic of respondents:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
This research employs Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess the validity of variables, including Servant Leadership, Innovative Work Behavior, Flow at Work, and Trust.CFA, as a component of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), is utilized to evaluate the latent structure of test instruments like questionnaires.The primary focus of CFA is to identify and examine the relationships between observed measures and latent variables while assessing the reliability of an indicator.Evaluation of measurement model reliability in SEM involves using measures of composite reliability and variance extracted.If the Average Variance Extract (AVE) exceeds 0.50 and the Construct Reliability (CR) reaches or surpasses 0,70, it can be concluded that the measurement model has good reliability in measuring each latent variable.According to Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt (2011), construct reliability exceeding 0,50 indicates the accuracy of these indicators in measuring constructs.Table 2 shows the results of validity and reliability of each construct: In Table 4, shows the results of data processing analysis, the validity of all latent variables was confirmed through SLF values which showed good quality (≥ 0,50) so that each indicator of the latent variables SEL, IWB, FAW, and TR could be said to be valid.Additionally, an AVE value ≥ 0,50 and a CR value ≥ 0,70 indicate that each indicator of the latent variables SEL, IWB, FAW, and TR can be said to be reliable.

Goodness of Fit
The assessment of structural model adequacy pertains to the causal relationships among variables, utilized as a means to evaluate hypotheses.The Goodness of Fit (GOF), synonymous with the model's fit degree, acts as a criterion for gauging the appropriateness of the structural model.The assessment of the fit degree involves comparing the gathered data with the research model.Table 3 shows the result of Goodness of Fit measure.Table 3 shows a GFI value of 0.85, meets the Marginal Fit criteria (0,80 ≤ 0,90).RMSEA with a value of 0,08, meets the good fit criteria (≤ 0,08), this shows the overall suitability of the structural equation model to the data.In the incremental fit measure test, NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI, and RFI have values ≥ 0,90, meets the good fit criteria.These results show the suitability of the model to the data.In the parsimony fit indices, the PNFI was 0.80, meets the Marginal Fit criteria, and the PGFI was 0,64 indicates good fit criteria.Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson (2019) stated that a model is considered good if it meets at least four of the standard values of the Goodness of Fit Index (GOFI), which refers to evaluating the extent to which the model fits the observed data.Thus, this research succeeded in fulfilling more than four Goodness of Fit (GOF) suitability testing criteria at the absolute level.

Hypotheses Testing
Structural model testing involves measuring the cause-and-effect relationships among research variables, represented by t-values, after ensuring the adequacy of the structural model.Based on the path diagram generated from data analysis, previously formulated hypotheses will be tested.The Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) method is employed for data analysis using LISREL 8.80, and the t-value for a confidence level of 95 percent or a significance level of 5 percent is set at ≥ 1,645 (Hair,Ringle,& Sarstedt,H7 (0,13;1,27) H5 (0,14; 1,31) H3 ( 0 2011) because this study employs a one-tailed method, where the direction of the influence has been predetermined.The mediating effects in hypotheses six and seven are formed from the five direct influence hypotheses, namely hypotheses one to five.The causality between the independent variable and the mediating variable is tested through these five hypotheses of direct effects.Mediation can occur either fully or partially, where full mediation eliminates the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, while partial mediation allows for both direct and indirect effects through one or more intermediary variables (Hayes, 2017).Table 4 shows that the four hypotheses proposed on direct influence have a t-value ≥ 1,645 so that these four hypotheses can be said to be significant and accepted.Meanwhile, 1 (one) hypotesis proposed on direct effect has a t-value < 1,645 so that the hypothesis can be said to be insignificant and rejected.The critical value/t-table shows whether or not a hypothesis is accepted, where the t-table limit is ±1,645.
It is known that H1 which states that there is a direct influence between SEL and IWB has a t-value of 1,72, which means the relationship between the two variables is significantly positive and the hypothesis is accepted.H2 which states that there is a direct influence between SEL and FAW has a t-value of 12,68, which means the relationship between the two variables is significantly positive and the hypothesis is accepted.H3 which states that there is a direct influence between SEL and TR has a t-value of 16,94, which means the relationship between the two variables is significantly positive and the hypothesis is accepted.H4 which states that there is a direct influence between FAW and IWB has a t-value of 6,87, which means the relationship between the two variables is significantly positive and the hypothesis is accepted.Meanwhile, H5 which states that there is a direct influence between TR and IWB has a t-value of 1,31, which means the relationship between the two variables is positive and not significant and the hypothesis is rejected because the t-value <1,645.
The mediating impact examined in hypotheses six and seven stems from the direct influence posited in hypotheses one through five.Causal relationships between independent variables and mediating variables are assessed through these five direct effect hypotheses.Mediation can manifest either fully or partially; full mediation extinguishes the direct impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable, whereas partial mediation permits both direct and indirect effects through intermediary variables (Hayes, 2017).In this study, the connection with a mediating variable is observed in the relationship between servant leadership (SEL) and innovative work behavior (IWB), where flow at work (FAW) and trust (TR) act as mediators.As indicated in Table 4, H6, asserting that FAW mediates the SEL-IWB relationship, is supported by a t-value of 5,99.This suggests that FAW partially mediates the relationship between SEL and IWB, leading to the acceptance of the hypothesis.Conversely, H7, proposing that TR mediates the SEL-IWB relationship, is not supported, as evidenced by a t-value of 1,27 (t-value < 1,645), indicating that TR does not mediate the relationship between SEL and IWB, resulting in the rejection of the hypothesis.

Discussion
The findings of this study indicate that both servant leadership and flow at work contribute to the enhancement of employees' innovative work behavior.This aligns with the findings of a previous study by Jin, Li, & Xiao (2022), which asserted that servant leadership positively influences the encouragement of innovative employee behavior.Leadership plays a pivotal role in fostering organizational creativity and driving innovation initiatives (Stoker, Looise, Fisscher, & De Jong, 2001;Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002;Bossink, 2007;Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, & Niu, 2015), particularly in the context of servant leadership (Jin, Li, & Xiao, 2022).Furthermore, the outcomes of this study align with earlier research conducted by Carmeli, Meitar, & Weisberg (2006), underscoring the significance of self-leadership skills in fostering innovative behavior within the workplace.This correlation is consistent with the idea of flow in the workplace, wherein individuals are more prone to exhibiting innovative behavior when fully engrossed in their assigned tasks.
Additionally, the study revealed a significant impact of servant leadership on both flow at work and trust.This corresponds with the findings of Khan et al. (2021), who observed that servant leadership influences flow at work by introducing challenging aspects to the job and enhancing employee skills.In addition, according to Ekmekcioglu & Öner (2023), servant leadership, recognized for facilitating employee skill development and aiding in the pursuit of individual creative objectives, fosters a perception of substantial support among employees.This perceived support may consequently encourage employees to exhibit heightened levels of innovative behavior.Furthermore, Goh & Zhen-Jie (2014), offering empirical support for the positive association between servant leadership and trust, propose that leaders exhibiting characteristics of the servant leadership style contribute to higher levels of trust among employees and increased organizational commitment.This is because servant leadership behavior can be especially useful for leaders to break down the walls of separation between leaders and employees by conveying support for employee welfare (Goh & Zhen-Jie, 2014).
Based on the findings of this study, it can be inferred that there is a direct but statistically insignificant relationship between trust in leaders and employee innovative behavior.This differs from the research conducted by Bukhari & Bhutto (2021), where their results indicated that trust directly contributes to innovative employee behavior.However, another study by Bidault & Castello (2009) found that the positive correlation between trust and performance is not consistently significant.Moreover, Bidault & Castello (2009) noted that the assumption that higher trust between individuals always leads to increased creativity and innovation is not universally valid.This implies that the impact of trust on innovative work behavior may be contingent on contextual factors.Additionally, the connection between trust and innovative behavior can be influenced by the mediation of other variables.This aligns with the research conducted by Li et al. (2019), proposing that work engagement acts as a mediator in the relationship between trust in a leader and the innovative work behavior of employees.These findings suggest the presence of a mediating mechanism in the association between trust and innovative work behavior.
The findings of this study highlight that flow at work plays a partial mediating role in the connection between servant leadership and innovative work behavior.In a scenario of partial mediation, we find that even after controlling for flow at work, there remains a significant direct effect of servant leadership on innovative work behavior.This suggests that while flow at work does mediate part of the relationship between servant leadership and innovative work behavior, there are still other factors at play that directly influence innovative work behavior beyond flow at work.A leadership style rooted in service (servant leader) generates feelings of joy, a component of the work-related flow experience.This, in turn, leads to an augmentation of positive emotions, ultimately enhancing employees' cognitive and behavioral capacities, enabling them to engage in proactive and innovative work behavior more proficiently.Servant leadership provides employees with essential resources and capabilities, fostering enjoyment in their work, reinforcing intrinsic motivation, enriching their thinking and actions, and consequently boosting their innovative behavior (Khan et al., 2021).Essentially, servant leadership cultivates an environment conducive to the emergence of a sense of flow in the workplace, thereby positively influencing innovative work behavior among employees.
On the other hand, trust was not identified as a mediator in the relationship between servant leadership and innovative work behavior.Thus, the results of this research provide an understanding that trust in leaders is not significant in mediating the influence of service-based leadership (servant leader) on employee innovative behavior, meaning that employee involvement in innovative behavior is not influenced by trust in leaders.In other words, servant leadership can directly influence employees' desire to behave innovatively without having to instil employees' feelings of trust in their leaders.While trust may not always characterize the interactions between leaders and employees, employees remain motivated to devise innovative and efficient solutions for their projects.Their drive often stems from technical challenges and a desire for excellence in their work rather than from personal rapport with their leaders.While trust typically plays a pivotal role in mediating the link between servant leadership and employees' innovative behavior, these findings propose that in digital business settings, employees' inherent motivation might be influenced more by factors like job complexity and aspirations for exceptional performance.
Literature by Legood, van der Werff, Lee, & Den Hartog (2021) underscores trust as a fundamental mechanism that aids in understanding how leader-employee relationships impact employee behavior and performance, particularly in the realm of innovative behavior.Notably, in the leadership field, trust is recognized as a significant construct influencing leadership processes and performance, particularly within the context of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) (Chan & Mak, 2014;Wu, Huang, Li, & Liu, 2012;Zhu, Newman, Miao, & Hooke, 2013).Additionally, Khan et al., (2021) conducted research highlighting the intricate mediating mechanisms involved in the impact of servant leadership on employees' innovative work behavior.Their findings revealed that the relationship between servant leadership and Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) is sequentially mediated by trust and job crafting, emphasizing the intricate interplay of these variables in influencing innovative work behavior.

CONCLUSION
The findings of this study reveal the following: (1) Servant leadership and flow at work exert a positive and significant influence on innovative work behavior, (2) Trust has a positive but statistically insignificant influence on innovative work behavior, (3) Servant leadership positively and significantly influences both flow at work and trust, (4) Flow at work partially mediates the relationship between servant leadership and innovative work behavior, (5) Trust does not mediate the relationship between servant leadership and innovative work behavior.These overall results offer insights for future research based on the model of innovative work behavior.Servant leadership is an important factor in influencing employees to behave innovatively.To promote this leadership style, HR management should conduct comprehensive leadership training for managers, emphasizing the importance of servant leadership in building positive relationships with subordinates.This training should cover concepts of servant leadership, strategies for building trust, and practices supporting personal and professional development.Additionally, HR should encourage leaders to facilitate employee self-development through training opportunities, workshops, and mentoring programs.Leaders should actively engage with their teams, listen to their ideas, and provide support in skill development, fostering an environment where every team member feels valued and empowered to contribute meaningfully, thereby promoting innovation without hindrances.
Regarding the experience of flow at work or the sensation of flow, HR management and company leaders should assess each individual's Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).Leaders must verify that assigned tasks align with employees' capabilities.Assigning tasks that are overly simplistic can lead employees to perceive their work as lacking challenges and surpassing their skill level.Consequently, employees may not experience an optimal work experience, discouraging innovative behavior.Intrinsic motivation can significantly enhance prolonged job performance and contentment, as employees typically exhibit heightened engagement and enthusiasm toward tasks that inherently inspire them.Elements such as personal autonomy, empowerment, and professional growth opportunities serve as catalysts for intrinsic motivation.Hence, HR management and company leaders should afford employees autonomy in task execution to foster a sense of empowerment and increased control over their responsibilities.
This research was conducted solely focusing on four variables, namely Innovative Work Behavior, Servant Leadership, Flow at Work, and Trust.Further research by testing other variables that have the potential to influence employee IWB behavior can be carried out to gain a more comprehensive understanding.For example, future research could

Figure
Figure 1.Conceptual framework

Figure
Figure 2. Structural Model fit, personorganization fit and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of innovation trust,