Public organizations tend to think of OP as the efficiency, quality of services, responsiveness, and accountability, as opposed to profitability ([10]; [30]). Taking these dimensions to high levels cannot be done only through formal structures and regulations, but through the creation of internal capabilities, which enable agencies to enact policies, adapt to evolving expectations, and balance multiple stakeholder relationships ([31]).

GPI reflects how well an organization can redesign its processes in ways that are responsible to the environment to consume less resources, minimize pollution, and increase adherence to the environmental regulations ([10]; [32]). Through empirical studies, it is clear that the green process innovation can promote resource efficiency, regulatory compliance, and stakeholder confidence, which are all beneficial in encouraging improved organizational results, whether in the private or in the public sphere ([60]; [33]; [35]). CE is defined as the degree of sharing of information within and among units in a timely, transparent and accurate way that helps in the coordination, transparency and alignment to strategic priorities ([34]; [3]; [56]). Research in industries links effective in-company communication to better employee performance, better stakeholder relationships and greater change adaptability ([89]; [37]; [36]).

The capabilities are directly applicable in the UAE MOI national ambitions which unite security, intelligent policing, and sustainability ([12]; [38]). GPI is in line with the national environmental goals and the spirit of more eco-friendly public services, whereas CE supports the collaboration between departments and the quality of the service provided to citizens. The previous evidence within the same setting has established that GPI and CE are positively correlated with perceived OP, which can be viewed as an RBV perspective of these constructs as the core operational capabilities in government ([39]; [40]).

Management commitment as a capability platform

Management Commitment can be thought of as a strategic capability of a higher order that serves two complementary functions. First, it serves as an enabling platform which allows the development and implementation of operational capabilities like Green Process Innovation and Communication Effectiveness. Second, as in RBV, Management Commitment is itself an organizational capability, as it represents the organization’s capability to commit resources, priorities and implementation to desired outcomes. Thus, MC can impact upon organizational performance indirectly, through capability development, or directly, through strategic alignment and resource orchestration.

Management commitment (MC) means how much the top managers focus on strategic goals and distribute resources and continuously advocate change projects like sustainability and communication enhancements ([6]; [41]; [45]). MC gives the power, legitimacy and resource support that is needed by capabilities such as GPI and CE to develop and persist in a public-sector environment where there are formal rules and hierarchical decision-making.

The current literature makes MC one of the strategic resources that influence the culture of the organization, conveys priorities and indicates the long-term commitment to the innovation ([42]; [46]). Having a high MC, employees will feel that green initiatives and communication enhancements are part of their job, which will result in more coherent implementation and more powerful performance outcomes. The relevance of the MC in the MOI is further intensified by the fact that the alignment of MC and national vision documentations in the MOI is a magnified one since determined managers are interpreters of national expectations and translate it into working practices ([43]; [91]).

In spite of the fact that the earlier literature mainly discussed the way MC develops downstream capabilities like GPI and CE, MC could also be thought of as a general framework of capabilities that has a direct impact on OP through the provision of strategic alignment, the minimization of implementation barriers, and the maintenance of performance-based routines ([67]; [44]). In this light, MC can be considered as a resource that facilitates capabilities as well as a capability itself and thus needs to be scrutinized in its direct connection to OP.

TL can be characterized by actions that describe a motivating vision, give personalized attention, provoke the intellect and followers, and set the preferred values, making followers more motivated and identified with the organizational objectives ([83]; [19]; [11]). As a mass of empirical evidence indicates, TL is linked to an increased rate of employee involvement, organizational citizenship action, inventiveness, and OP in industries, including in the public services ([15]; [47]). TL improves the purpose and psychological resources of the employees which further promotes discretion effort towards organizational goals.

In recent studies, it is stressed that the impact of TL itself is conditioned by the boundary states, including organizational culture, competition, and the features of leaders. As an example, organizational culture has been observed to mediate the TL-OP relationship, where supportive cultures enhance performance gains of TL ([87]; [48]). Equally, research indicates that the contingencies at the leader level can enhance the association between TL and employee vitality and job improvement behavior, with extraversion being one of the traits of a leader.

In this boundary-condition understanding, TL also may be considered as a moderator in the impacts of other organizational factors, such as capabilities and structural features ([51]; [88]). To illustrate, TL can be used to intensify the influence of change-oriented practices, ethical systems, or digital technologies on the outcome through the frames of interpretation and motivation encouraging employees to use all these resources. Nevertheless, empirical research that specifically models TL as a modulator of the capability-performance links are still scarce, particularly in the public-sector setting.

Substitutes for Leadership Perspective

The present study also gains insight from Substitutes for Leadership Theory ([49]), which posits that there are some organizational characteristics that may decrease the need for the influence of leadership. In a formalized and centralized public sector context, strategic priorities can be found in regulations, procedures, and hierarchical structures. Formal systems thus can take the place of leadership’s influence when it comes to translating management’s commitment into organizational outcomes. The viewpoints indicate that transformational leadership might be less likely to moderate strategic level capabilities, like the management commitment, and more likely to moderate operational capabilities that involve employee engagement, interpretation and behavioral adaptations.

The RBV views organization performance as a service of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources and capabilities. In the context of the public administration, this view has been applied to contend that leadership, innovation routines, and communication systems may form strategic resources which support the sustained performance ([4]; [22]). Nonetheless, RBV applications have tended to take a linear path in which resources generate capabilities that, in their turn, generate performance effects, usually through mediating processes ([53]; [91]).

The moderation-based RBV logic changes the focus towards the influence of contextual and configurational elements on the performance value of specific capabilities ([67]; [55]). This view does not presuppose that a particular capability is universally desirable but instead it holds that the same capability can have varying performance results in relation to complementary resources, leadership practices, and environmental factors. TL is easily accommodated into this view as a higher-order resource that specifies the effectiveness with which more particular capabilities-GPI or CE-are marshaled to performance ([16]; [57]).

In this reasoning, such capabilities as GPI and CE can be equally high in each unit, but their input to OP will be more significant where TL is high, since transformational leaders can propose the idea of these practices as at the core of the organizational mission, psychological safety to experiment and reinforce information on environmental initiatives and communication practices ([50]; [58]). Conversely, in low-TL environments, the same capabilities may be poorly employed or not tied to day-to-day considerations, leading to weaker performance impacts.

MC may directly impact OP positively by maintaining a strategic fit, offering a clear set of priorities, and harnessing resources towards performance-enhancing activities. Within public systems where there is high centralization, strong MC will assist in uniformity of reforms, less ambiguity about performance expectations and long-term support of change all of which contribute to increased service quality and responsiveness ([23]).

H1: Managementcommitmenthasapositiveeffectonorganizationalperformance.

As an operation capability, GPI allows organizations to rearchitecture processes to minimize environmental impact, improve resource use and meet regulatory requirements that may result in more reliable and cost-efficient service delivery ([9]). Research attributes green process innovation to enhanced operational efficiency, enhanced stakeholder legitimacy, and enhanced environmental performance, all of which contribute to improved organizational results ([88]; [68]).

H2: Greenprocessinnovationhasapositiveeffectonorganizationalperformance.

CE also facilitates the flow of information both within and across departments and ensures the coordination, transparency, and timely resolution of problems. There is some evidence that good communication correlates with improved employee performance, improved stakeholder relationship and enhanced flexibility to change in both state and private organizations ([15]; [69]). CE is likely to be a key driver of OP in the MOI where the smart policing and citizen services demand complex interdepartmental coordination.

H3: Communicationeffectivenesshasapositiveeffectonorganizationalperformance.

TL can enhance the MCOP relationship by transforming the top managerial promises into day-to-day behavior and meaning system, which motivates employees to internalize organizational priorities ([70]; [50]). Employees might view commitments as rhetorical or bureaucratic when MC is high, but TL is low, and as leaders strengthening MC by acting in a consistent way, communicating the vision, and providing individualized support, which in turn increases its effect on OP.

H4: Transformationalleadershippositivelymoderatestherelationshipbetweenmanagementcommitmentandorganizationalperformance, suchthattherelationshipisstrongerathigherlevelsoftransformationalleadership.

TL will also tend to enhance the GPI OP relationship. Green process innovations can entail experimentation with new practices by employees, coordination across units, short-term disruption, and this can create uncertainty and resistance ([60]; [71]; [72]). Transformational leaders can make green initiatives a core part of the organizational mission, offer intellectual stimulation to seek new solutions, and appreciate contributions to sustainability, making employees more willing to work on and use GPI to gain performance benefits.

H5: Transformationalleadershippositivelymoderatestherelationshipbetweengreenprocessinnovationandorganizationalperformance, suchthattherelationshipisstrongerathigherlevelsoftransformationalleadership.

TL will most probably enhance the relationship between CE and OP. Communication is the information backbone of coordination, yet employees require motivation, trust, and psychological safety in order to openly and positively utilize communication channels ([91]; [73]). TL promotes trust, recognition, and transparency and makes employees use communication channels to express their concerns, ideas, and feedback which further improves the performance merits of CE.

H6: Transformationalleadershippositivelymoderatestherelationshipbetweencommunicationeffectivenessandorganizationalperformance, suchthattherelationshipisstrongerathigherlevelsoftransformationalleadership.

The researcher uses cross-sectional quantitative research design to validate the hypothesized moderation model in the UAE MOI, which is a large state agency that handles internal security, policing, and the associated administrative support ([23]). The MOI is based on effective national-level guidelines that focus on sustainability, innovativeness, and smart service delivery; therefore, it makes a suitable environment to study the relationships between capability and performance and the leadership role.

Data were gathered through an online questionnaire that was sent to employees in various departments and job grades in MOI. A stratified random sampling approach was used to enhance representativeness with respect to department and functional rank, based on an employee registry provided by the administrative office ([8]; [74]). The employees were randomly invited to participate within the stratum.

The result was 390 responses that were usable in total which is sufficient to complete a variance-based SEM and moderation analysis with the complexity of the model and the recommended minimum sample sizes ([27]). The demographic subgroup was well-balanced in terms of gender, experience, and education levels, which implied the generalizability of the results in the context of MOI.

Multi-item scales based on previous validated measurements were used to measure all constructs. MC was measured with questions of [91] and [67] focusing on the degree to which top managers value and promote sustainability, innovations, and communication-related activities. GPI items were redesigned based on Feng and Chen and Khanra et al. and were dedicated to the process changes that can lessen the environmental impact and enhance resource efficiency. Items of Lan et al. and [89] were used to measure CE, which included clarity, timeliness, and completeness of internal communication. The results of efficiency, service quality, and responsiveness were reflected in the OP items adapted by Choi and Chun, and Karia.

Items that measured core transformational behaviors including articulating vision, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration were used to measure TL, which is consistent with other commonly used TL scales within the leadership literature ([75]; [81]). The items were tailored to the public-sector environment to capture leadership behaviors that apply to the MOI employees including motivating commitment to national vision and innovation in service processes.

All the items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree) as the lowest and highest scores respectively. The questionnaire was pre-tested on a small section of MOI employees to make sure it is clear and relevant to the context, and some wording changes have been made.

Due to limitations in access to operational performance records within the Ministry, perceptual measures of organizational performance were used. A valid proxy for organizational effectiveness in public sector settings has been shown in previous research to be employee assessments.

SmartPLS 4.0 and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) were used in the analysis of data. The PLS-SEM can be used to predict and develop theory with complex models and non-normal data, which are typical in survey research in organizations. The analysis was done in two steps.

The measurement model was initially tested in terms of reliability and validity. The internal consistency reliability was determined through Cronbach alpha and composite reliability (CR) with values of more than 0.70 being acceptable. The average variance extracted (AVE) was used to measure convergent validity where the values above 0.50 would mean satisfactory convergence. The Fornell-Larcker criterion and the cross-loading patterns were used to test discriminant validity.

Second, structural model was evaluated, both direct and interaction effects. Path coefficients, coefficient of determination (R2) and predictive relevance (Q2) were derived. Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was used to test the significance of path coefficients and interaction terms.

Interaction terms between TL and each predictor (MC, GPI, CE) were generated to test the moderating effects of TL. The product indicator approach was used in SmartPLS, in which standardized indicators of TL were multiplied by standardized indicators of each predictor construct to construct latent interaction terms. These constructs of interaction were then factored into the structural model as predictors of OP in addition to the main effects.

The positive interaction terms would be significant to show that TL enhances the positive relationship between the respective capability and OP. Simple slope analyses were performed to facilitate interpretation, by plotting the association between each capability and OP at low and high levels of TL (e.g., −1 standard deviation below and above the mean).

Multiple approaches were used to test for common method bias. First, procedural remedies were put in place such as anonymity protection, psychological separation of predictor and outcome constructs, and voluntary participation. Second, there was no indication of common method variance as all VIF values were obtained below 3.3, the threshold value, based on full collinearity assessment ([54]). Third, Harman’s single factor test was used as an auxiliary test, and it was found that there wasn’t a predominant factor.

Full collinearity VIF values ranged from 1.95 to 2.89, all below the recommended threshold of 3.3 ([54]), suggesting that common method bias was unlikely to threaten the validity of the findings.

The measurement model was assessed in terms of internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity using SmartPLS 4.0.

Internal consistency reliability was confirmed as all constructs demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha (α) and Composite Reliability (CR) values exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 ([23]). Convergent validity was established as all Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were above 0.50, indicating that each construct explained more than 50% of the variance of its indicators (Table 1).

Table 1. Reliability and convergent validity.

Discriminant validity was evaluated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. The square root of AVE for each construct was greater than its inter-construct correlations, confirming adequate discriminant validity (Table 2).

Table 2. Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion).

All values satisfy the recommended thresholds, indicating that the measurement model is reliable and valid.

The structural model was evaluated using bootstrapping with 5000 resamples. The results indicate that all three predictors MC, GPI, and CE have significant positive effects on OP (Table 3).

Table 3. Direct path coefficients.

Management Commitment exhibits the strongest direct effect on OP, followed by Green Process Innovation and Communication Effectiveness.

The coefficient of determination (R²) for OP is 0.671, indicating that approximately 67.1% of the variance in organizational performance is explained by the model, reflecting substantial explanatory power.

Moderation effects were assessed by introducing interaction terms between Transformational Leadership (TL) and each predictor variable (Table 4).

Table 4. Moderation effects.

The interaction effects reveal that TL significantly moderates the relationships between GPI and OP, and CE and OP, while its moderating effect on MC is weaker and marginally significant (Figure 2).

The interaction plot indicates that the relationship between Green Process Innovation (GPI) and Organizational Performance (OP) is much stronger at a higher level of Transformational Leadership (TL). When the TL conditions are low, the slope will be flatter, which means that the performance gains will be weak. Nonetheless, the steepness of the slope increases with TL, indicating that transformational leaders enhance the efficiency of green innovation initiatives in boosting organizational performance (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between green process innovation and organizational performance.

Figure 3. Moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between communication effectiveness and organizational performance.

The findings reveal that Transformational Leadership enhances the positive connection between Communication Effectiveness (CE) and Organizational Performance (OP). The slope becomes much steeper at higher levels of TL, suggesting that effective communication can be translated more into performance outcomes. Conversely, the influence of communication on performance is relatively small under low TL (Figure 4).

There is a positive moderating effect, although in a less significant manner, between Management commitment (MC) and Transformational Leadership (TL). Although, MC has a stronger association with OP under high TL, the change between the high and the low TL is not as intense as GPI and CE. This indicates that leadership is supportive, but not dominant in boosting the effectiveness of the performance of management commitment.

Figure 4. Moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between management commitment and organizational performance.

To interpret moderation effects, simple slope analyses were conducted at high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD) levels of TL.

For GPI → OP, the slope is significantly steeper under high TL (β = 0.34) compared to low TL (β = 0.12), indicating that transformational leadership amplifies the performance impact of green innovation.For CE → OP, the relationship is stronger under high TL (β = 0.29) than under low TL (β = 0.09), suggesting that leadership enhances the effectiveness of communication processes.For MC → OP, the slope difference is smaller (high TL β = 0.26 vs low TL β = 0.18), supporting the weaker moderation effect.

Effect sizes were calculated to assess the relative contribution of each predictor (Table 5).

Table 5. Effect sizes (f²).

Using the blindfolding procedure, the Q² value for OP was 0.421, indicating strong predictive relevance of the model.

The results confirm that MC, GPI, and CE significantly influence organizational performance. It is also identified that Transformational Leadership strengthens the impact of GPI and CE Furthermore, there is moderating effect on MC is comparatively weaker. Overall, the findings support the conceptualization of Transformational Leadership as a boundary condition that enhances the effectiveness of organizational capabilities in driving performance.

The findings validate the hypothesis that Management Commitment (MC), Green Process Innovation (GPI), and Communication Effectiveness (CE) have strong positive influence on Organizational Performance (OP). This supports the main assumption of the Resource-Based View (RBV) that internal organizational capabilities are key performance determinants. Nevertheless, the comparative strengths of these relationships provide the picture of greater differentiation ([83]).

Management Commitment proves to be the most robust direct predictor of performance, and the role of strategic alignment and top-level support in well-organized public-sector setting remains significant ([78]). Within the framework of the UAE Ministry of Interior, where vertical control and centralisation of decision-making are the norm, the willingness of the top-level management seems to directly correlate with better coordination, resource distribution, and consistency of implementation ([10]; [79]).

Simultaneously, the pronounced impacts of GPI and CE suggest that the operational capabilities, especially the ones associated with sustainability and communication, are not the supporting mechanisms only but rather the autonomous drivers of performance. This is especially pertinent in the reformative-based public systems where environmental programs and communication systems are progressively integrated within performance requirements ([80]; [15]). Combined, these results indicate that strategic intent (MC) and operational execution (GPI and CE) co-produce performance in public organizations, as opposed to being driven by any of the dimensions ([82]; [18]).

The main contribution of the research is the ability to prove that transformational leadership is not so much a mediating mechanism, but an enhancer of the already existing abilities. This claim is well supported by the strong empirical evidence of the significant moderation effects of GPI and CE ([84]; [52]).

In particular, the results of the interaction indicate that the positive effect of green process innovation on performance is significant when the levels of transformational leadership are high. This implies that inasmuch as GPI gives the structural framework of sustainable practice, its implementation into actual performance benefits is subject to actions by leaders that foster experimentation, decrease change resistance and coordinate environmental action to organizational goals ([60]; [85]). Without such leadership, green initiatives can be procedural or symbolic, limiting their performance impact.

The same trend is observed with regard to communication effectiveness. Although CE has an independent effect on performance, its effect is highly enhanced in the presence of transformational leadership. It means that the communication structures are not enough; it is how leaders engage such structures through building trust, openness, and understanding ([15]). Transformational leaders seem to turn the communication channels into meaningful collaboration mechanisms and thus make them more relevant in their performance ([7]; [86]).

All these findings move the role of leadership to be not just an enabler of organizational effectiveness but also a configurator. In this meaning, leadership does not dictate the presence of capabilities, but their utilisation.

A key observation comes out of the relatively less significant moderation effect of TL on the MC-OP relationship. The interaction is positive, but it is smaller and only significant in some specifications ([50]; [90]). This implies that transformational leadership is not so dominant in intensifying the performance effect of strategic level capabilities like the management commitment.

A possible reason is the very nature of MC. Management commitment is a high-level, structurally embedded capability, thereby already having a direct effect on performance by providing formal control, alignment of policies, and resource distribution ([13]). When these happen, leadership behaviors can be of incremental value, but they are not the key process of performance realization. The relative low level of moderation impact of the TL between the MC-OP relationship implies that management commitment is more formal, through structures, governance systems and resource allocation systems, and less relies on leadership amplification. Management commitment is embedded in organizational policy and strategic planning procedures, rather than being a capability such as communication effectiveness and green process innovation. Therefore, it’s incremental value and not transformational value when it comes to this relationship. Weak H4 finding can be explained in the light of Substitutes for Leadership Theory. The UAE Ministry of Interior (MOI) has a well-established formal policy and central governance to ensure strategic priorities are maintained. These structures can replace the impact of leadership, thus limiting the incremental effect of leadership on the MC-OP relationship.

Operational capabilities that include GPI and CE need ongoing interpretation, motivation and reinforcement of behaviour at the employee level. It is these areas that transformational leadership is essential ([15]). The results thus indicate that there is a differentiated role of leadership with TL being more consequential in operational and behavioral areas than stratum-based strategic functions.

The findings add to an increasing literature that requires a more dynamic understanding of the Resource-Based View. The conventional RBV models tend to believe that valuable capabilities will automatically translate into high performance ([91]). The current results, however contradict this premise by showing that the performance value of capabilities depends on the context of leadership.

This study empirically supports a moderation-based RBV logic, according to which the efficacy of capabilities is conditional upon complementary resources, by demonstrating that TL dramatically changes the strength of the GPI-OP and CE-OP relationships ([15]). Transformational leadership becomes a superior resource which adds value to existing capabilities via embedding them in the systems of shared meaning, encouraging employee involvement, and supporting their strategic significance ([60]).

This view transcends the linear resource-capability-performance links, and a more configurational view of organizational performance takes its place ([20]). It recommends that capabilities cannot be assessed separately of the leadership context within which they are applied ([15]).

The implications of the findings on the context of the work of the public-sector organizations in the reform-driven settings that include the UAE are also significant. The national agendas of sustainability, digital transformation, and service excellence demand not just the capabilities development but also effective implementation on a large scale ([2]; [14]).

The high levels of moderation that have been found in both GPI and CE imply that transformational leadership is important in closing the gap between policy intent and operational reality. Leadership behaviors that encourage, motivate and involve employees seem crucial to making initiatives not to be turned into procedures of compliance in a system with formal structures and compliance requirements ([5]).

Further, the moderation effect of MC is relatively weaker which means that structural devotion is not enough to ensure optimal performance results. Leadership practices at various levels of the organization are essential in translation of strategic priorities into action even in highly centralized systems.

Combined, the findings provide evidence of reconceptualizing organizational performance in the public sector, as a process of capability presence and capability activation. Whereas MC, GPI, and CE give the resource base needed in performance, transformational leadership dictates how far the resources are mobilized.

This two-sided opinion provides a more holistic understanding of the dynamics of performance, with investments in capabilities complemented by investments in leadership development. In the absence of such alignment, even well-crafted organizational systems might not perform to their optimum capability.