Ambidextrous Leadership Model in Knowledge-based Startups with Meta-Synthesis Approach

Omrani, Majid; Karimi, Asef; ZandHessami, Hessam; Seyed Naghavi, Mit Ali

doi:10.22118/edc.2022.351527.2122

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Ph.D. Candidate, Department of entrepreneurship, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

² Faculty member, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

³ Faculty member, Department of Industrial Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

⁴ Faculty member, Department of Public Management, Faculty of Management, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22118/edc.2022.351527.2122

Abstract

The behavior and performance of the leaders of start-up businesses can be the most important factor driving the business towards success and performance improvement. One of the behaviors that organizational leaders adopt to advance their goals in the organization is ambivalence. The current research is based on the deviation of the current situation from the desired situation, following the design of a dual leadership model in new knowledge-based businesses. The strategy of the current research was to solve the met combination problem with a qualitative approach and content analysis tactics. The current research has used the seven main steps mentioned by Sandlovski and Barroso (2007) to carry out the research steps. The data collection tool of the current research is a checklist (in the section of library studies) and a questionnaire (in the section of analyzes related to the prioritization of codes and Shannon's entropy). The research data analysis method was done by coding and summarizing data in MaxQda qualitative data analysis software. In the research analysis portfolio, using the screening process, 34 studies have been summarized in the form of 40 primary codes, 11 concepts and 4 categories, which is the highest abstraction level of the codes. In the document quality control phase, the reliability value of these codes based on the Kappa coefficient is 0.723 was obtained and then the codes were classified using the Shannon entropy method. Finally, after going through the seven main steps of the research model, the results and suggestions of the research were presented. The results of the present study show that the antecedents or factors that affect ambidextrous leadership behaviors include the capabilities of start-up businesses, entrepreneurial orientation, innovation tasks, and leader characteristics. The capabilities of business in the present research include growth tendency, networking ability and market diversity.

Keywords

References

Ahmadi P, Fayaz Ghaziani, M. (2017). Dimensions of organizational ambivalence, new research approaches in management and accounting, No. 6, Pp. 81-69. [In Persian].

Azar A. (2011). "Expansion and development of Shannon's entropy method for data processing in content analysis", Scientific Research Quarterly of Al-Zahra University, vol.11, No. 37, Pp. 1-18. [In Persian].

Hassanpour A, Yousefi R, Ghorbani M. (2019). Identifying and prioritizing factors affecting employees' ambivalence, sustainable human resource management, vol.2, No. 3, Pp. 175-194. [In Persian].

Sakhdri K, Zia B, Johrianzadeh F. (2014), investigating factors affecting the organizational ambivalence of franchisors, Entrepreneurship Development, vol.8, No. 4, Pp. 648-63. [In Persian].

Saryazdi A, Rajabzadeh Qatari A; Mashayikhi A, et al. (2017). Determining the effective factors on collective financing of knowledge-based IT companies, Information and Communication Technology of Iran, vol.10, No. 37, Pp.1-16. [In Persian].

Sirati M, Shakuhyar S, Rezaiyan A. (2018). Presenting the business intelligence model based on the two-way approach, Economics and Urban Management, vol.7, No. 4, Pp.1-15. [In Persian].

Shirazi H, Hashemzadeh Khorasgani Gh, Radfar R, et al. (2018). Evaluation of technology commercialization performance of start-up knowledge-based companies based on the fuzzy best-worst method, Technology Development Management, vol.7, No. 2, Pp. pp. 129-150. [In Persian].

Talari M, Fallah M R, Hossein Khani M. (1400). Examining the role of entrepreneurial orientation in the success of new products of knowledge-based companies with an emphasis on two-way marketing, New Marketing Research, vol.11, No. 1, Pp.157-178. [In Persian].

Tehrani M, Alipour F, Shafii L. (2019). Investigating the effect of dual leadership on the silence of employees with the role of psychological empowerment and social capital, transformation management, vol.12, No. 24, Pp. 22-48. [In Persian].

Fakhari H, Salmani D, Finance M. (2013), investigating the effects of economic sanctions on the performance of knowledge-based companies in the country, Journal of Politics and Innovation, vol.1, No. 19, Pp.1-16. [In Persian].

Qazi Nouri S, Bammad Sufi J; Radaei N. (2015). Investigating the behavior and performance of Iranian knowledge-based companies with a taxonomy approach, Technology Development Management, vol.4, No. 2, Pp. 32-9. [In Persian].

Ghore Jilli S, Rahmati M H, Pour Karimi J. (2018). The components of ambidextrous leadership, Marine Science Education, No. 16, Pp. 138-123. [In Persian].

Kaviani H, Salehi Sedqiani J, Fathabadi H. (2016). Investigating the relationship between strategic thinking and organizational ambivalence, transformation management, vol.10, No. 20, Pp.21-44. [In Persian].

Kamali Y. (2016). Metacomposite methodology and its application in public policymaking, Policy Quarterly, vol.47, No. 3, Pp.721-736. [In Persian].

Mubaraki M H, Zali M, Abdol Wahab S, et al. (2011). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation based on Lumpkin and Dess model on the performance of private insurance companies in Iran, Pezohishnameh Bimah, vol.27, No. 3, Pp.pp. 71-95. [In Persian].

Yazdan Shenas M. (2016). The effect of ambidextrous leadership on work attitudes considering the moderating role of social capital and self-efficacy, social capital coder, vol.4, No. 4, Pp. 545-527. [In Persian].

Duc L A, Tho N D, Nakandala D, et al. (2020). Team innovation in retail services: the role of ambidextrous leadership and team learning. Service Business, vol.14, No. 1, Pp.167-186.

Gerlach F, Hundeling M, Rosing, K. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and innovation performance: a longitudinal study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Hall T, Yarhi-Milo K. (2012). The personal touch: Leaders’ impressions, costly signaling, and assessments of sincerity in international affairs. International Studies Quarterly, vol.56, No. 3, Pp.560-573.

Hoogervorst N, De Cremer D, van Dijke M, et al. (2012). When do leaders sacrifice? The effects of sense of power and belongingness on leader self-sacrifice. The Leadership Quarterly, vol.25, No. 5, Pp.883-896.

Oluwafemi T B, Mitchelmore S, Nikolopoulos K. (2020). Leading innovation: Empirical evidence for ambidextrous leadership from UK high-tech SMEs. Journal of Business Research, vol.1, No. 119, Pp.195-208.

Park H T. (1997). Transformational and transactional leadership styles of the nurse administrators and job satisfaction, organizational commitment in nursing service. The Journal of Nurses Academic Society, vol.27, No. 1, Pp.228-241.

Parolini J, Patterson K, Winston B. (2009). Distinguishing between transformational and servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Rosing K, Zacher H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European journal of work and organizational psychology, vol.26, No. 5, Pp.694-709.

Sandelowski M, Barroso J. (2007). Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Sarkar M B, Aulakh P S, Madhok A. (2009). Process capabilities and value
generation in alliance portfolios. Organization Science, vol.20, No. 3, Pp.583-600.

Scheepers C B, Storm C P. (2019). Authentic leadership’s influence on ambidexterity with mediators in the South African context. European Business Review.

Seters David A, Field Richard H G. (1990). The Evolution of Leadership Theory. journal of Organizational Change Management, vol.3, No. 3, Pp. 29-45.

Simsek Z, Heavey C, Veiga J F, et al. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of management studies, vol.46, No. 5, Pp. 864-894.

Tung F C. (2016). Does transformational, ambidextrous, transactional leadership promote employee creativity? Mediating effects of empowerment and promotion focus. International Journal of Manpower.

Wang C J. (2016). Does leader-member exchange enhance performance in the hospitality industry? The mediating roles of task motivation and creativity. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.

Wiklund J, Davidsson P, Delmar F. (2003). What Do They Think and Feel
about Growth? An Expectancy Value Approach to Small Business Managers’
Attitudes toward Growth1. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, vol.27, No. 3,Pp. 247-270

Zacher H, Wilden R G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol.11, No. 87, Pp.813–820.

Zacher H, Rosing K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Zuraik A, Kell L. (2018). The role of CEO transformational leadership and innovation climate in exploration and exploitation. European Journal of Innovation Management.

Educational Development of Judishapur

Ambidextrous Leadership Model in Knowledge-based Startups with Meta-Synthesis Approach

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 1
June 2022
Pages 220-233

Ambidextrous Leadership Model in Knowledge-based Startups with Meta-Synthesis Approach

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 1June 2022Pages 220-233

Volume 13, Issue 1
June 2022
Pages 220-233