Research Article

Does Paradoxical Leadership Enhance Organizational Ambidexterity and Organizational Success: A Study in the Food Industry Sector of Egypt?

Wageeh A. Nafei
University of Sadat City, Egypt
Manal A. Ghoneim
October High Institute for Engineering & Technology, Egypt
Bahaudin G. Mujtaba
Nova Southeastern University, USA
* Corresponding author
Nile M. Khanfar
Nova Southeastern University, USA
DOI icon 10.24018/ejbmr.2025.10.1.2592

Read Counter
805

Downloads
310

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2025-01-09
Published 2025-02-28

Read counter = 805 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

This research assesses and examines the impact that paradoxical leadership can have on organizational ambidexterity and organizational success at the food industry sector in Egypt. Analysis of data from 300 respondents at the food industry sector in Egypt revealed that paradoxical leadership has a strong relationship with organizational ambidexterity and organizational success. Specifically, we found a statistically significant positive relationship between the dimensions of paradoxical leadership (i.e., maintaining both distance and closeness, maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy, etc.) and organizational success. Also, there is a positive relationship between the dimensions of paradoxical leadership and organizational success. The research contributes to a better comprehension of the influence of paradoxical leadership on organizational ambidexterity and organizational success. The paper confirms that paradoxical leadership is an imperative tool for enhancing organizational ambidexterity and organizational success. Studying paradoxical leadership and organizational ambidexterity is crucial in the food industry of any nation, where companies face increasingly complex and contradictory demands due to local, national, or global pressures. On one hand, food companies must prioritize efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and scalability to remain competitive in a global market. On the other hand, they must also adapt to shifting consumer preferences, such as demands for sustainability, transparency, unique experiences, and sustainability. Paradoxical leadership and organizational ambidexterity offer a framework for navigating these contradictions, which can enable companies to simultaneously pursue competing goals, such as profitability, social responsibility, and sustainability. By embracing paradoxical leadership and organizational ambidexterity, food companies can develop the capacity to innovate, adapt, and thrive in a rapidly changing environment by employing effective management practices, creativity, digital twinning, and artificial intelligence technologies. For instance, a company might adopt an ambidextrous approach to innovation, balancing incremental improvements to existing products with more radical, disruptive innovations through horizontal or vertical value chain mergers and integrations. Similarly, leaders might cultivate a paradoxical mindset by embracing both the analytical, data-driven aspects of decision-making and the intuitive, creative aspects. By doing so, food companies can stay ahead of the curve, capitalize on emerging trends, and build a sustainable competitive advantage.

Keywords: Food industry organizational ambidexterity organizational success paradoxical leadership

Introduction

Organization leaders often face various forms of contradictions, conflicts, and ethical dilemmas within their departments, teams, and cultures (Kaifiet al., 2023; Cavico & Mujtaba, 2016; Cavico & Mujtaba, 2013). Amid contradictory circumstances, organizational leaders seek to bring about change and development without affecting the stability of the organization on the one hand, and the competitive position on the other. This is in addition to the necessity and importance of responding to customer requests and developing services without increasing the costs of providing them (Tripathi & Dixon, 2008).

Carrying out administrative development and change in the organization requires focusing on different groups of conflicting goals and strategies, which requires leaders of the organization to have a decisive role in managing contradictions, encouraging employees to accept them, and persuading everyone to effectively deal with them (Torfinget al., 2020; Sparr, 2018). Leaders who are aware of organizational contradictions can apply the “Both-and” approach, which helps the leader to achieve a kind of balance in paradoxical behaviors and to develop the ability of employees to deal with paradoxical environments (Zhanget al., 2015). Experts have emphasized that leaders and their “companies should constantly seek to align between interrelated subsystems and the external environment…Companies must learn and adapt to their changing environment to achieve high performance and growth, especially those related to customers’ demands” (Budihardjo & Supriyadi, 2025, p. 1).

Just like managers, diverse employees that come from different cultures and nations often face conflicting situations, which lead to feelings of anxiety and job insecurity (Kaifiet al., 2022; Cavico & Mujtaba, 2013; Mujtaba, 2007). The role of the successful leader appears in reducing negative feelings, increasing employee satisfaction, and improving their performance (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). The successful leader is the one who can persuade employees to accept contradictions and deal with them, through the effective involvement of employees in defining job tasks and standards for performance (Mujtaba, 2019; Mujtaba, 2014), while granting each team member a degree of freedom and independence in work. This leads to the worker’s attachment to the job, and an increase in the degree of job satisfaction, and the improvement of its performance, which results in achieving organizational goals (Furstenberget al., 2021; Schadet al., 2019).

This paper is organized with first the theoretical basis for this research being discussed, and hypotheses presented to investigate the relationship between paradoxical leadership (PL) and organizational ambidexterity (OA) as well as organizational success (OS). Next, the methodology used is explained to collect and analyze the data. Then, the results are discussed, and the final section reflects the academic and management implications, along with the summary and suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

Paradoxical Leadership

Paradoxes refer to the existence of two paradoxical but related opinions or attitudes that occur at the same time. That is, the simultaneous existence of two incompatible states, as in the case of innovation and efficiency, or participation and competition (Eisenhardt, 2000).

Paradoxical leadership seeks to achieve a simultaneous fit of paradoxical alternatives rather than focusing on a single alternative (Lewis, 2000). PL builds a stable work environment by preventing autonomy and flexibility in a way that leads to support for individuals working in the organization (Zacheret al., 2014), enhances self-motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and encourages innovative behavior (Liuet al., 2010).

The traditional leader always seeks to use the “Either-Or” method, meaning choosing only one solution from the available solutions. PL uses the “Both-and” methodology, that is exploiting the advantages of all solutions, even those that are paradoxical (Vroom & Jago, 2007). A paradoxical leader must be able to maintain his/her influence and authority, while at the same time recognizing the value of subordinates (Hoch & Dulebohn, 2013).

PL is based on the paradox theory, which refers to the inadequacy that arises from the ways in which regulators manage the tensions in which they occur (Cunha & Putnam, 2019). PL is concerned with achieving a balance between short and long-term goals using the “Both-and” strategy rather than the “Either-Or” approach while adhering to the organization’s culture and goals (Yiet al., 2019). Of course, nowadays, e-leadership is needed to positively influence the culture and achieve organizational goals (Subramaniamet al., 2023; Mujtaba, 2023).

PL performs several major roles in the organization by dealing with external variables (Lewis, 2000), improving organizational creativity (Dashuai & Bin, 2020), and increasing the ability to discover opportunities that distinguish the organization from others (Yiet al., 2019), thereby giving leaders the opportunity for employees to behave in behaviors that may be contradictory but are associated with the contradictions and pressures that occur in the work environment (Kearneyet al., 2019). In PL, the leader deals with contrasting situations to realize the gains behind this contradiction (Waldman & Bowen, 2016). PL is the ability to deal with the interrelated behaviors of employees and tensions in the work environment effectively by restoring balance in the work environment and developing the level of employees’ performance (Sparr, 2018).

PL are components of competing, yet interdependent, behaviors to meet the demands of a paradoxical work environment. That is, PL is based in its essence on the dynamic nature that is based on harmonizing tensions and contradictions in organizational management (Zhanget al., 2015). It should be noted that applying the “Both-and” strategy aims to achieve integration and behavioral balance for employees, in addition to coordinating their conflicting demands (Zhanget al., 2015).

PL provides a mechanism that can combine and harmonize focusing on oneself vs. focusing on others, through the humility of leaders and the recognition of the value of others (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). PL is a leadership style that combines the contradictions facing the organization and is based on addressing two or more problems without the leader being committed to choosing one of them. PL achieves stability and flexibility that helps the organization to interact with the external environment. PL style combines the contradictions facing the organization using the “Both-and” method, which is based on addressing two or more problems without the leader being obligated to choose one of them, thus enhancing flexibility in decision-making (Lewis, 2000).

PL plays an important role considering the complex and competitive organizational environment that characterizes modern firms. PL helps managers in facing the paradoxical demands of employees. The paradoxical leader plays an important role in reducing the feeling of instability in the work environment, decreasing job insecurity, reducing negative feelings for employees, restoring balance in the work environment, improving the well-being of employees, and increasing the degree of job satisfaction, which leads to more effectively achieving the goals of the organization. There are five basic dimensions of PL (Zhanget al., 2015):

1. Combining self-centeredness with other-centeredness (SO): Leaders are the center of influence in the organization, so leaders must take care of themselves and of others (Joneset al., 2007). The leader must be able to manage his/her own needs and reconcile within the organization, in addition to caring for subordinates by considering their personal interests, empathizing with them, being humble in dealing with them, and recognizing the value of the roles they play in the organization (Maccoby, 2004).

2. Maintaining both distance and closeness (DC): Maintaining distances between the leader and his/her subordinates depends largely on how the leader’s behavior affects subordinates, and how the subordinates evaluate those behaviors (Howellet al., 2005). Some subordinates believe that leaders who keep the distance between them and subordinates are more effective and more attractive to them (Shamir, 1995; Yagil, 1998). Therefore, leaders should reduce the differences between them and subordinates by building close personal relationships among them (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002).

3. Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization (UI): The principle of uniformity must be applied in the organization, which is based on the premise that leaders must treat subordinates uniformly and uniquely or personally (Boies & Howell, 2006). Leaders must place subordinates in certain positions and tasks in a coherent manner, considering the privileges and rights of each one of them (Lewis, 2000). The adoption and application of the principle of standardization in the organization leads to overcoming the personal character of individuals and the non-discrimination of some over the other (Brewer, 1991; Kreineret al., 2006).

4. Maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy (CA): Leaders who follow PL style integrate or reconcile contradictions related to both the arbitration and empowerment dimensions (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Leaders can control the behavior of subordinates and make work-related decisions while giving working individuals the freedom to act flexibly and independently (Ouchi, 1978).

5. Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility (RF): This dimension focuses on the need for the leader to allow subordinates a degree of freedom in carrying out the job tasks they are assigned to do, whether it is flexibility at the time of implementation or allowing them an acceptable error rate.

Organizational Ambidexterity

Organizational ambidexterity is the ability of an organization to allocate resources for success in both exploration and exploitation (Yigit, 2013). OA can be viewed through three perspectives, which are (1) the interval between exploitation and exploration activities, where the organization exploits at one time and explores at another, (2) the structural separation between exploitation and exploration, where the organization exploits in certain sections, and explores in other sections, and (3) specialization between companies, where one company exploits, and another explores (Prieto & Santan, 2012).

OA is the link between exploring and exploiting opportunities for all individuals and sub-units of the organization (Adler & Heckscher, 2011). OA is the ability of the organization to link exploration and exploitation to opportunities (Bodwell, 2011). OA is a firm’s capacity to exploit available competencies, as well as to explore new opportunities (Danzinger & Dumbach, 2011).

OA is the ability to use skills, achieve innovations and strive to distinguish an organization from competing firms. This is done through the exploitation of available resources and the pursuit of skills that achieve competitive excellence focused on new opportunities (Caoet al., 2010). OA is the ability of an organization to capitalize on existing knowledge and explore new knowledge (Huang, 2008).

OA is the organization’s ability to optimize opportunities and seek new opportunities (Walraveet al., 2010). OA can be embodied at the level of team operations through the ability of organization staff to find creative solutions to problems in the light of a shared vision and mutual trust (Tempelaar, 2010). OA is an integrated concept that points to a twin approach to exploration and exploitation (Caoet al., 2010).

OA is the ability of an organization to perform various actions such as stabilization, the search for new resources, efficiency, flexibility, exploration, exploitation, harmonization, adaptation, overall innovation, progressive innovation, growth strategy, and profit strategy. OA is the organization’s pursuit of interdependence among all activities. It also seeks to achieve adaptation by restructuring its activities in a manner that achieves competitive excellence. All activities are interconnected, and adaptation means restructuring activities quickly to meet changes in the environment (Simsek, 2009). OA is the ability of the organization to achieve both exploitation and exploration, by excelling in existing opportunities to achieve gradual innovation that is concerned with modifying an existing product and exploring new opportunities to foster innovation that is concerned with product change (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009).

OA means an organization’s ability to design structures that contribute to the application of innovative phases. OA is linked to exploitation and exploration activities, and there is a fundamental difference between them. Exploitation activity is linked to processes such as optimization, efficiency, and implementation. Exploration activity is associated with processes such as variation and experimentation (Simsek, 2009).

OA is the ability of an organization to achieve competition in two directions: to exploit available resources, and to discover new resources or business that can achieve excellence from competing organizations (Taylor & Helfat, 2009). OA is the ability to capitalize on existing competencies and explore new opportunities (Popovičet al., 2009).

OA can be distinguished by separating exploitation and exploration activities, noticing the structural separation between exploitation and exploration, and observing the specialization of different organizations (Tran, 2008). OA is the organization’s pursuit of innovation and short-term operational objectives while maintaining long-term performance rates (Im & Rai, 2008). OA is the ability of an organization to operate efficiently and effectively in managing its current business at the same time as it can adapt to changes in the environment of the organization (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008).

OA is the ability of an organization to balance the exploitation of existing possibilities and explore new opportunities (He & Wong, 2004). OA is the extent to which an organization can achieve adaptation to all variables that occur in the environment and strive to improve performance levels (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). OA is based on the requirements imposed by the environment which may be incompatible, so that organizations can reconcile them and enhance competitiveness (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

There are two dimensions of OA (He & Wong, 2004; Bierly & Daly, 2007; Jansenet al., 2008), including optimization of opportunities and searching for new opportunities.

Optimization of Opportunities

Optimization of opportunities refers to an organization’s ability to efficiently create value in the short term, to meet the needs of existing customers in the market, to seek to expand knowledge and skills, as well as products or services, while increasing distribution channels throughout the value chain (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen, 2005; Lubatkinet al., 2006).

Search for New Opportunities

Searching for new opportunities refers to the need for the organization to mobilize its efforts to obtain new prospects, where the organization is working to determine the future demands of existing customers, as well as anticipating changes in the type of applications, and the need for the firm or institution to seek new opportunities. The organization can seize opportunities by adopting new ways of delivering goods and services, undertaking competitive actions to confront other organizations, improving their competitive position and responding to market changes.

Exploration and exploitation are competing approaches for a number of reasons, the most important of which are (1) exploration and exploitation strategies compete for the limited resources of the organization; (2) exploitation strategies reduce the exploration of the organization, while exploration strategies reduce the exploitation of the organization’s resources, (3) the organization faces a major problem of how to balance the exploration and exploitation activities, where exploitation activities ensure the firm’s immediate survival, and exploration activities ensure future sustainability (Kyriakopoulos & Moorman, 2004).

Exploration is concerned with exploring new possibilities and opportunities, searching for new customers and entering new markets, increasing the company’s ability to adapt quickly to the fundamental changes that occur in the market, while exploiting the current possibilities and satisfying the needs of existing customers and current markets (Patelet al., 2013).

Organizational Success

Organizational success is the accomplishment of the project while balancing competitive requirements related to diverse stakeholder expectations of quality, time, and costs associated with each project (Agaet al., 2016). OS is about the achievement of goals in terms of financial standpoint, pleasing customers, as well as organizational learning and growth (Donsophonet al., 2016), which can be achieved using appropriate leadership styles such as transactional, transformational, etc., based on the circumstance and culture (Zareenet al., 2015). OS is the organization’s level of long-term sustainability (Fleck, 2009). OS is the ability of the organization to achieve its mission through high performance (Whitney, 2010).

OS represents the organization’s coordination activities to achieve its mission-critical priorities and objectives (Dell & Kramer, 2003). OS is the ability of the organization to achieve its long-term purposes while enriching its employees (Kenny, 2001). OS is the ability of the organization to achieve the organization’s goals through growth, regeneration, survival, and consistent delivery of quality products or services in the marketplace (Cameronet al., 1987).

There are two dimensions of OS, which are organizational survival and organizational growth (Simonet al., 2011).

Organizational Survival

Organizational survival refers to the firm’s ability to achieve high customer satisfaction and loyalty levels. For each organization to survive, there should be an established system for receiving customer complaints and suggestions and acting on them in a timely manner to retain clients. Customer satisfaction should be an established part of the organization’s culture, and all employees must be trained in quality service and involved in decision making for each customer interaction.

Organizational Growth

Organizational growth means the ability of the organization to realize its social responsibility obligations while ensuring the training of its human capital, identifying the needs and desires of all stakeholders in the organization, and paying attention to the language of dialogue with the staff to keep them highly satisfied.

The working life at Food industry sector in Egypt can be very complex. Therefore, we shed some light on PL, OA and OS. In this study, we propose that PL can enhance OA and OS at the food industry sector in Egypt. Based on the above description, the study raises the following hypotheses:

1. H1: There is a positive statistically significant effect of paradoxical leadership dimensions on OA.

• Three sub-hypotheses emerge from this hypothesis, depending on the dependent variable:

• H1a: There is no statistically significant relationship between combining self-centeredness with other centeredness and OA at the food industry sector in Egypt.

• H1b: Maintaining both distance and closeness have no statistically significant effect on OA at the food industry sector in Egypt.

• H1c: There is no relationship between treating subordinates uniformly and OA at the food industry sector in Egypt.

• H1d: There is no statistically significant relationship between maintaining decision control and OA at the food industry sector in Egypt.

• H1e: Enforcing work requirements has no statistically significant effect on OA at the food industry sector in Egypt.

2. H2: There is a positive statistically significant effect of paradoxical leadership dimensions on OS.

• Three sub-hypotheses emerge from this hypothesis, depending on the dependent variable:

• H2a: There is no statistically significant relationship between combining self-centeredness with other centeredness and OS at the food industry sector in Egypt.

• H2b: Maintaining both distance and closeness have no statistically significant effect on OS at the food industry sector in Egypt.

• H2c: There is no relationship between treating subordinates uniformly and OS at the food industry sector in Egypt.

• H2d: There is no statistically significant relationship between maintaining decision control and OS at the food industry sector in Egypt.

• H2e: Enforcing work requirements has no statistically significant effect on OS at the food industry sector in Egypt.

Methodology

In this study, we used the survey methodology process for collecting information from the respondents. So, we used descriptive statistics to analyze the proposed variables and to test the hypotheses.

Research Model

We designed the model on the assumption that there is a statistically significant effect of PL on OA and OS, as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Proposed comprehensive conceptual model.

Participants

The population of the study is over 168000 employees at the food industry sector in Egypt. It is represented by Delta For Sweets and Food Industries (54892), El Ekhwa El Mottahedoun for Food Industries (39872), Mondelez Egypt Foods (30554), El Masria for Food Industries (30247), Sweet Factory and Foodstuff-Swifax for Chocolate (8730), and Horreia Food Industries (3789). The food industry was chosen because of the rising prices, inflation, and the fact that this sector employes a high percentage of the Egyptian population. We relied on a simple random technique to determine the sample size, which was calculated by the following formula (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016):

n = N / ( N − 1 ) ∗ e 2 + 1

where n is sample size, N is population size, and e is standard permitted error.

Using the statistical tool for determining the sample size from such a large research population, it was shown that an appropriate sample size can be about 383 (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). The designed questionnaire was distributed to the recommended sample size of employees at the food industry sector in Egypt, and 300 were retrieved excluding 83 incomplete questionnaires (78% response rate).

Data Collection Instrument

We designed the questionnaire items based on the existing literature. This study’s questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part measured PL based on Zhanget al. (2015). The PL section contained 22 items distributed into six dimensions. The first five items measuring combining self-centeredness with other centeredness, the second four items measuring maintaining both distance and closeness, the third five items measuring treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization, the fourth four items measuring maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy, and the fifth four items measuring enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility. The second part measured OA based on Jansen (2005). The OA section contained 14 items distributed into two dimensions. The first seven measure optimization of opportunities, and the second seven measure search for new opportunities. The third part measured OS based on Simonet al. (2011). It contained 10 items distributed into two dimensions. The first five measure organizational survival, and the second five measure organizational growth.

For the data collected, we used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for statistical analysis using descriptive statistics and the multiple regression analysis (MRA).

Table I shows the values of reliability and validity for PL, OA and OS. The research variables were above the acceptable limits (60%) (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016).

Variables Reliability Validity
Independent variables: (PL dimensions)
Combining Self-centeredness with other centeredness 0.888 0.942
Maintaining both distance and closeness 0.861 0.927
Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization 0.927 0.962
Maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy 0.842 0.917
Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility 0.877 0.936
Dependent variable: OA 0.922 0.960
Dependent variable: OS 0.929 0.963
Table I. Reliability and Validity

Results

Table II provides a description of the variables, along with the arithmetic mean and the standard deviations measured on a five-point scale.

Variables Mean Standard deviation
Independent variables: (PL dimensions)
Combining Self-centeredness with other centeredness 3.63 0.622
Maintaining both distance and closeness 3.12 0.625
Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization 4.17 0.810
Maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy 3.60 0.628
Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility 4.27 0.731
Dependent variable: OA 3.83 0.737
Dependent variable: OS 3.94 0.661
Table II. Mean and Standard. Deviations

The arithmetic means of combining self-centeredness with other centeredness, according to the hypothetical mean of Likert’s five-point scale (3). The standard deviation values show a high degree of convergence of the total answers from their arithmetic means.

Correlation Coefficients Between PL, OA and OS

Table III shows the correlation coefficients between PL, OA and OS at the food industry sector in Egypt.

Variables X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 OA OS
Combining Self-centeredness with other centeredness (X1) 1
Maintaining both distance and closeness (X2) 0.55** 1
Treating subordinates uniformly (X3) 0.82** 0.52** 1
Maintaining decision control (X4) 0.91** 0.51** 0.82** 1
Enforcing work requirements (X5) 0.84** 0.51** 0.84** 0.82** 1
OA Y 1 0.22** 0.25** 0.15** 0.23** 0.18** 1
OS Y 2 0.76** 0.52** 0.85** 0.76** 0.78** 0.13** 1
Table III. Correlation Coefficients Between PL, OA and OS

According to the data, there seems to be a positive and strong correlation between the research variables. As such, all the correlation coefficients are high in general.

Results of Hypothesis Testing

The research hypothesis proposed a positive relationship between PL and OA. To test this hypothesis, we used MRA to explore the role of PL in achieving OA.

Table IV shows MRA for the relationship between PL and OA at the food industry sector in Egypt.

Intervening variable R R2 ΔR2 Adj R2 F Sig. f
Combining Self-centeredness with other centeredness 0.273 0.075 – 0.059 4.74 0.000**
Maintaining both distance and closeness 0.769 0.072 0.003 0.060 5.73 0.000**
Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization 0.156 0.024 0.048 0.008 1.47 0.000**
Maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy 0.261 0.068 0.044 0.056 5.39 0.000**
Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility 0.193 0.037 0.031 0.024 2.84 0.000**
Table IV. MRA Between PL and OA

Based on the data from the relationship between PL and OA, we conclude the following points:

• The values of the correlation coefficients (R) in this study indicate a significant positive correlation between the dimensions of PL and OA.

• The variables of “combining self-centeredness with other centeredness” explains the variance in OA. As a matter of fact, it explains 75% of the variance while “maintaining both distance and closeness” contributing to 3% of the variance.

• Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization variable contributed to explaining 72% of the variance and maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy variable, which explained 4%.

The research hypothesis proposed a positive relationship between PL and OS. To test this hypothesis, we used MRA to explore the role of PL in achieving OS.

Table V show MRA for the relationship between PL and OS at the food industry sector in Egypt.

Intervening variable R R2 ΔR2 Adj R2 F Sig. f
Combining Self-centeredness with other centeredness 0.800 0.640 – 0.634 104.45 0.000
Maintaining both distance and closeness 0.621 0.386 0.254 0.377 46.31 0.000
Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization 0.858 0.736 0.350 0.732 164.03 0.000
Maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy 0.774 0.598 0.138 0.593 109.85 0.000
Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility 0.786 0.617 0.019 0.612 119.05 0.000
Table V. MRA Between PL and OS

As per data in the relationship between PL and OS, we conclude the following points:

• The values of the correlation coefficients (R) indicate a significant positive correlation between the dimensions of PL and OS.

• “Combining self-centeredness with other centeredness” variable explains the variance in OA. It contributed to the explanation of 64% of the variance and maintaining both distance and closeness contributing to 25% of the variance.

• The “treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization” variable contributed to explaining 38% of the variance and maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy variable, which explained 35%.

Table VI shows the final form of MRA in the relationship between the dimensions of PL and OA.

Intervening variable Beta T Sig. T Constant coefficient F Sig. f
Combining Self-centeredness with other centeredness 0.064 0.417 0.677 2.58 5.63 0.000
Maintaining both distance and closeness 0.198 2.91 0.004
Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization 0.199 1.70 0.089
Maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy 0.217 1.46 0.144
Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility 0.019 0.161 0.872
Table VI. MRA Between Dimensions of PL and OA

As per the data on the relationship between PL and OA, we conclude several points. First, there is a positive effect of PL dimensions (combining self-centeredness with other centeredness, maintaining both distance and closeness, treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization, and maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy, and enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility) on OA. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted. Secondly, the t-value and beta results confirm a direct, positive, statistically significant relationship between PL dimensions and OA. The t-value indicates the significance of the model’s parameters, and the coefficient of the essence of the model (Sig. F) indicates the significance of these results at a significance level of (0.001). So, there is a positive relationship of statistical significance between PL dimensions and OA.

Table VII shows the final form of MRA in the relationship between the dimensions of PL and OS.

Intervening variable Beta T Sig. T Constant coefficient F Sig. f
Combining Self-centeredness with other centeredness 0.038 0.469 0.640 0.646 179.9 0.000
Maintaining both distance and closeness 0.082 2.31 0.021
Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization 0.600 9.89 0.000
Maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy 0.096 1.25 0.212
Enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility 0.121 1.93 0.053
Table VII. MRA Between Dimensions of PL and OS

Based on the data from the final form of the relationship between PL and OS, we make several concluding points. First, there is a positive effect from combining self-centeredness with other centeredness, maintaining both distance and closeness, treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization, and maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy, and enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility on OS. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted. Second, t-value and beta confirm a direct, positive, statistically significant relationship between PL dimensions and OS. It is evident that there is a positive relationship of statistical significance between PL dimensions and OS. More specifically, there is a negative relationship of statistical significance between PL and OS.

Discussion

In this paper, the research model was built to analyze the impact of paradoxical leadership on organizational ambidexterity and organizational success. In line with our hypothesis, the current study found that there is a relationship between the independent variable represented by PL and the dependent variables represented by OA and OS. PL encourages employees to express their opinions and builds an engaging work environment. Also, PL works to support specialized work teams, which leads to the creation of new ideas, and contributes to the achievement of outstanding performance.

The study found that the PL is flexible and capable of absorbing suggestions from all employees. Also, PL is interested in enhancing cooperation among them and provides an opportunity to transfer experience and increase knowledge-sharing. The study indicated that there is a relationship between PL and job behavior within the organization, which is in alignment with previous studies (Xueet al., 2020). Also, PL includes balanced management of contradictions within the work environment by applying the “Both-and” approach instead of “Either-Or” (Muharrem, 2020).

Moreover, the study concluded that the leader should implement behaviors that may seem contradictory but are in fact interrelated with the aim of attracting employees. These behaviors maintain their satisfaction and participation in achieving good performance (Backhauset al., 2021). Also, PL plays a weak role in helping employees to enhance innovation by sharing knowledge and information among them. The study indicated the need to pay attention to the PL to share knowledge and information among employees to improve their level of performance (Alsoltane & Alallaq, 2020).

Furthermore, the study concluded that the contradictions are due to the existence of tension between the leadership and their duties and responsibilities. Also, the need for the leader to be able to achieve a balance between paradoxical demands by exploiting the opportunities that resulted from the existence of organizational contradictions, achieving a balance between paradoxical tasks, and trying to eliminate contradictions within the work environment (Shaked, 2020).

Paradoxical leadership contributed to supporting the formulation of leaders’ jobs in the organization and improving performance. The study indicated that the effect of PL depends on the professional flexibility of the leaders (Chenet al., 2021). In addition, there is a positive relationship between PL and job engagement. Also, the role of the successful leader extends to clarifying the functional tasks of employees, giving them a degree of independence in evaluating job tasks and making decisions, in addition to providing training courses on how to manage contradictions in the work environment and how to balance them (Furstenberget al., 2021).

Similarly, the characteristics of leadership and organizational structure contribute to the emergence of OA. Also, there is a positive relationship between OA, the characteristics of leadership and organizational structure. OA plays the mediating role between organizational structure, leadership characteristics and organizational performance (Chang & Hughes, 2012). Also, the study found a positive relationship between social integration of the senior management team and OA, while there was no relationship between emergency rewards and OA (Tempelaar, 2010).

Moreover, the study found a positive impact for the executive manager and senior management support on OA (Caoet al., 2010). Aso, the study concluded that there is a positive correlation between OA and cooperation, administrative communication, team effectiveness and OA. The study pointed out that there is an inverse relationship between OA and central decision-making (Jansenet al., 2009). Furthermore, dynamic capabilities and OA are linked to competitive advantage, and OA plays a mediating role in the relationship between dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage (Jurksiene & Pundiziene, 2016). So, there is a relationship between OA and performance. The study found that high levels of technology encourage OA, which confirms previous research (Hanet al., 2001).

Finally, the study found a positive correlation between exploitation and the performance of the organization, while there is a statistically significant relationship between exploration and organizational performance (Weiet al., 2014). Also, there is a positive relationship between the characteristics of leadership and organizational structure and the balance between the dimensions of OA (Chang & Hughes, 2012).

Contribution

This paper provides knowledge contributions for paradoxical leadership, organizational ambidexterity, and organizational success at the food industry sector in Egypt. First, this study is an initial attempt to research the relationship between PL, OA and OS with respondents from a Middle Eastern work environment. Second, data collected from a sample of Arab population provides evidence of the validity of value PL as achievement of OA and OS. Third, employees in the food industry can enhance OA and OS, if they are coached and guided with relevant leadership. In other words, PL is an important tool that facilitates organizational ambidexterity and success. Fourth, the results add to the scientific literature on the effect of PL on OA and OS. Additionally, this paper contributes to the validity of PL with an Egyptian population. Fifth, the results of this paper encourage the practice of paradoxical leadership to achieve OA and OS. Sixth, finally, this paper focused on the relationships between the two variables, since an analysis of these relationships enriches OA and OS through PL.

This paper also provides operational contributions to the food industry. First, the results indicate that PL is useful in developing OA and OS. It is beneficial for the food industry in Egypt to benefit from PL to enhance OA and OS level. Second, this paper encourages leaders to be sensitive towards PL and to strategically use it to achieve OA and OS.

Third, we recommend implementing PL because it will help stakeholders to positively perceive OA and OS. Fourth, this paper revealed a positive relationship between PL, OA and OS. Fifth, these results shed more light on the importance of understanding and practicing PL and promoting it in the workplace as a tool for OA and OS. Sixth, managers can implement PL through combining self-centeredness with other centeredness, maintaining both distance and closeness, treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization, maintaining decision control while allowing autonomy, and enforcing work requirements while allowing flexibility.

Finally, the leaders of the organizations must listen to the views of employees and their needs and move away from any destructive or ineffective traditional management styles to control workers. The leader should give sufficient freedom to employees to participate in decision-making and maintain enough space among them. The interaction between the leaders and employees must be based on friendliness and mutual respect. Eight, there is a need for organizational leaders to pay attention to sharing knowledge among employees through training courses. The leader should make sure that all the information provided to the employees is valuable and useful, which can be used to solve a problem that they may face at work. Also, the need for organizational leaders to pay attention to sharing knowledge among employees through brainstorming sessions. The leader should ensure that employees obtain knowledge from their colleagues and share ideas and information among them. This is in addition to motivating employees to complete their work in a productive and creative way, which prevents employees from feeling boredom in repeating the same routine procedures.

Limitations and Future Research

The current paper includes several limitations that highlight important venues for future research. First, the researchers studied the relationship between the proposed variables and did not address the indirect relationship by studying some mediating variables or variables that modify the relationship between variables. Second, the variables of the current study can be investigated in other sectors, and the results can be compared between studies to determine the extent of similarity and difference between them. Finally, the relationship between PL and bullying behavior, workplace anxiety, organizational cynicism, and organizational citizenship behaviors can be studied in the future.

Conclusion

Modern leaders face various forms of contradictions within the organization, and most of them seek to change and growth their firms without negatively affecting the stability of the organization or its competitive position. Similarly, employees face conflicting situations, which lead to feelings of anxiety and job insecurity. The role of the successful leader appears in reducing negative feelings, increasing employee satisfaction and improving their job performance. The successful leader can persuade employees to deal with the contradictions through the effective involvement of the entire team in defining job tasks, performance standards, while granting everyone some degree of freedom, which leads to the worker’s attachment to the job, increases in the degree of job satisfaction, improves performance, and achieves organizational goals.

Paradoxical leadership plays an important role in today’s complex and competitive organizational environment. PL helps in facing the paradoxical demands of employees. A paradoxical leader plays an important role in reducing the feeling of instability in the work environment, lack of job security, reducing negative feelings for employees, restoring balance in the work environment, improving the well-being of employees, and increasing the degree of worker job satisfaction in the organization. Overall, there are many basic dimensions of paradoxical leadership, which, if practiced properly, do allow organizational flexibility and long-term success. Additionally, paradoxical leadership has at least four basic skills, which are cognitive complexing, confidence, conflict management, and communication. The organization should enhance the role of paradoxical leadership in increasing the degree of employee attachment to their jobs, by showing its importance in managing differences among the work team, motivating subordinates to adopt the paradoxical interpretation approach to enhance performance for the purpose of making the appropriate decision.

The organization must train and qualify managers on the necessity of using PL skills, dealing with short and long-term emergency situations, studying cases that focus on dealing with contradictions, coordinating and achieving balance among them, and applying the “Both-and” strategy instead of “Either-Or”. The traditional leader always seeks to use the “Either-Or” method, meaning choosing only one solution from the available solutions, while the contradictory leader uses the “Both-and” methodology, meaning exploiting the advantages of all solutions, even those that are contradictory. A paradoxical leader can apply the “Both-and” approach, which helps the leader achieve a kind of balance in the contradictory behaviors among employees and develop their abilities in dealing with contradictory environments.

In conclusion, managers need to pay attention to set specific standards for subordinates, giving them a degree of flexibility in implementation, having an effective control system, allowing employees a degree of error to learn from their mistakes, support mutual trust among managers and subordinates in a way that helps them improve their performance and increase their functional link with the organization. Also, organizational leaders need to pay attention to managing contradictions at all administrative levels and coordinate work among them. This is to achieve the highest levels of job engagement for employees and increase the degree of job satisfaction. This leads to strategically and productively spending time, effort, and maximum energy at work to efficiently achieve organizational goals.

References

  1. Adler, P., & Heckscher, C. (2011). Collaborative community is the basis of organizational ambidexterity. https://msbfile03.usc.edu/digitalmeasures/padler/intellcont/version%209.7.2011.single-1.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  2. Aga, D., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  3. Alsoltane, I., & Alallaq, H. (2020). The mediating role of team perspective between paradoxical leadership, Innovative work behavior and team innovation. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 13(6), 626–642. https://www.ijicc.net/images/vol_13/Iss_6/13671_Alsoltane_2020_E_R.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  4. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  5. Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  6. Backhaus, L., Reuber, A., Vogel, D., & Vogel, R. (2021). Giving sense about paradoxes: Paradoxical leadership in the public sector. Public Management Review, 24(9), 1478–1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1906935.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  7. Bierly, E., & Daly, P. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00185.x.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  8. Bodwell, W. (2011). A theoretical model of organizational ambidexterity in hospitals [Doctorate dissertation]. Colorado State University, Colorado.
     Google Scholar
  9. Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader-member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.004.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  10. Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  11. Budihardjo, A., & Supriyadi, F. (2025). Learning culture and organizational effectiveness in emerging market: An exploratory study in the logistics industry. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 10(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2024.9.6.2539.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  12. Cameron K., Kim M., & Whetten D. (1987). Organizational effects of decline and turbulence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(2), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393127.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  13. Cao Q., Simsek Z., & Zhang H. (2010). Modeling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1272–1296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00877.x.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  14. Cavico, F. J., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2013). Business Ethics: The Moral Foundation of Leadership, Management, and Entrepreneurship. 3rd ed. Pearson: USA.
     Google Scholar
  15. Cavico, F. J., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2016). Developing a Legal, Ethical, and Socially Responsible Mindset for Sustainable Leadership. Florida: ILEAD Academy.
     Google Scholar
  16. Chang, Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  17. Chen, S., Zhang, Y., Liang, L., & Shen, T. (2021). Does paradoxical leadership facilitate leaders’ task performance? A perspective of self-regulation theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3505. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073505.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  18. Cunha, M. P., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017739536.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  19. Danzinger, F., & Dumbach, M. (2011). Communities for innovation as enablers of cyclical ambidexterity in SMEs. www.user.tu-berlin.de/komm/CD/paper/060233.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  20. Dashuai, R., & Bin, Z. (2020). How does paradoxical leadership affect innovation in teams: An integrated multilevel dual process model? Human Systems Management, 39(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-190593.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  21. Dell, D., & Kramer, R. (2003). Forging strategic business alignment. The Conference Board. https://books.google.com/books/about/Forging_Strategic_Business_Alignment.html?id=Ys5AnQEACAAJ.
     Google Scholar
  22. Donsophon, K., Jhundra-Indra, P., & Raksong, S. (2016). Managerial professionalism strategy and firm success: Empirical investigation of hotel businesses in Thailand. AU-GSB e-JOURNAL, 8(2), 141. http://www.assumptionjournal.au.edu/index.php/AU-GSB/article/view/2231.
     Google Scholar
  23. Eisenhardt, K. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 703–705. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707694.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  24. Fleck, D. (2009). Archetypes of organizational success and failure. Brazilian Administration Review, Curitiba, 6(2), 78–100. https://www.scielo.br/j/bar/a/FRGddFYdZHLFY9Nw66Txy3N/?format=pdf&lang=en.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  25. Furstenberg, N., Alfes, K., & Kearney, E. (2021). How and when paradoxical leadership benefits work engagement: The role of goal clarity and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(3), 672–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12344.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  26. Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  27. Han J., Kim N., & Kim H. (2001). Entry barriers: A dull-, one-, or two-edged sword for incumbents? Unraveling the paradox from a contingency perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.1.1.18133.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  28. He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  29. Hoch, J., & Dulebohn, J. (2013). Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementation. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.007.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  30. Howell J., Neufeld D., & Avolio B. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.004.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  31. Huang, P. (2008). The relationship between environmental factors, innovation strategy and organizational capabilities. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=3f952c89588985dce888899752fce2da3b716e32.
     Google Scholar
  32. Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term inter organizational relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281–1296. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0902.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  33. Jansen, J. (2005). Ambidextrous organizations, a multiple-level study of absorptive capacity, exploratory and exploitative innovation and performance [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
     Google Scholar
  34. Jansen, J., George, G., Van, D., Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  35. Jansen, J., Tempelaar, M., Vanden, B., Frans, A., & Volberda, H. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0415.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  36. Jones T., Felps W., & Bigley G. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23463924.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  37. Jurksiene, L., & Pundiziene, A. (2016). The relationship between dynamic capabilities and firm competitive advantage: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. European Business Review, 28(4), 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2015-0088.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  38. Kaifi, B. A., Mujtaba, B. G., & Mujtaba, M. G. (2022). The impact of acculturation on the leadership style of Afghan American registered nurses working in the United States’ healthcare system. Public Organization Review, 22(1), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00525-5.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  39. Kaifi, B. A., Mujtaba, B. G., Mujtaba, M. G., & Younos, F. (2023). Assessing the leadership orientation of Afghan American registered nurses based on acculturation factors. Journal of Cultural Leadership Studies, 4(4), 95–118. http://clsj.ir/https://clsj.ir/lastno.php.
     Google Scholar
  40. Kearney, E., Shemla, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Scholz, F. A. (2019). A paradox perspective on the interactive effects of visionary and empowering leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.001.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  41. Kenny, G. (2001). Strategic Factor: Developing and Measure Winning Strategy. 1st ed. President Press, National Library of Australia.
     Google Scholar
  42. Kreiner G., Hollensbe E., & Sheep M. (2006). Where is the me among the we? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798186.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  43. Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.01.001.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  44. Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.2307/259204.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  45. Liu, B., Liu, J., & Hu, J. (2010). Person-organization fit, job satisfaction, and turnover intention: An empirical study in the Chinese public sector. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(5), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.5.615.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  46. Lubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., & Veiga, J. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  47. Lüscher, L., & Lewis, M. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  48. Maccoby, M. (2004). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 92.
     Google Scholar
  49. Muharrem, T. (2020). Paradoxical Leadership Behavior, Readings in Management. University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  50. Mujtaba, B. G. (2007). The Ethics of Management and Leadership in Afghanistan. 2nd ed. Florida: ILEAD Academy.
     Google Scholar
  51. Mujtaba, B. G. (2014). Managerial Skills and Practices for Global LeaDership. Florida: ILEAD Academy.
     Google Scholar
  52. Mujtaba, B. G. (2019). Leadership and management philosophy of guzaara or cooperating to Get along in South Asia’s Afghanistan. Business Ethics and Leadership, 3(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.3(1).44-57.2019.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  53. Mujtaba, B. G. (2023). Task and relationship orientation of aspiring leaders: A study of male and female adults in business education. Business Ethics and Leadership, 7(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.61093/bel.7(3).1-12.2023.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  54. Ouchi, W. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/255753.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  55. Patel P., Messersmith J., & Lepak D. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1420–1442. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0255.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  56. Popoviˇ c, A., Coelho, P., & Jakliˇ c, J. (December 21, 2009). The impact of business intelligence system maturity on information quality. Information Research, 14(4), 1–26. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1625573.
     Google Scholar
  57. Prieto, I., & Santan, P. (2012). Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain. Human Resource Management, 51(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21463.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  58. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 4(3), 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  59. Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  60. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  61. Schad, J., Lewis, M., & Smith, W. K. (2019). Quo Vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786218.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  62. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 7th ed. West Sussex: Wiley & Sons.
     Google Scholar
  63. Shaked, H. (2020). A paradoxical approach to instructional leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(10), 1637–1646. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2020-0181.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  64. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90003-9.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  65. Simon, A., Kumar, V., Schoeman, P., Moffat, P., & Power, D. (2011). Strategic capabilities and their relationship to organizational success and its measures: Some pointers from five Australian studies. Management Decision, 49(8), 305–1326.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  66. Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  67. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  68. Sparr, J. (2018). Paradoxes in organizational change: The crucial role of leaders’ sense giving. Journal of Change Management, 18(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1446696.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  69. Subramaniam, S. A. P., Salamzadeh, Y., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2023). The mediating role of dynamic capability on the relationship between E-leadership qualities and innovation management: Insights from Malaysia’s medical device industry. Sustainability, 15(24), 16778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416778, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16778.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  70. Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718–739. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0429.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  71. Tempelaar, M. (2010). Organizing for Ambidexterity: Studies on the pursuit of exploration and exploitation through differentiation, integration, contextual and individual attributes [Doctoral thesis]. Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/18457/EPS2010191STR9789058922311.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  72. Torfing, J., Andersen, L. B., Grave, C., & Klausen, K. K. (2020). Public governance paradigms. In Competing and Co-existing Cheltenham. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  73. Tran, Y. (2008). Ambidextrous organizational design in rapidly changing environment: A process perspective. Working Paper in 25th DRUID Conference Proceedings, Copenhagen.
     Google Scholar
  74. Tripathi, S., & Dixon, J. (2008). Leadership in a paradoxical public-sector environment: The challenges of ambiguity. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 4(3), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/17479886200800025.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  75. Vroom, V., & Jago, A. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  76. Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0070.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  77. Walrave, B., Oorschot, K., & Romme, G. (2010). Ambidexterity and getting trapped in the suppression of exploration: A simulation model. Proceedings of the 17th International Product Development Management Conference, At Murcia, Spain.
     Google Scholar
  78. Wei Z., Zhao J., & Zhang C. (2014). Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33(4), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2014.06.001.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  79. Whitney, D. (2010). Appreciative inquiry: Creating spiritual resonance in the workplace. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 7(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766080903497656.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  80. Xue, Y., Li, X., Liang, H., & Li, Y. (2020). How does paradoxical leadership affect employees’ voice behaviors in workplace? A leader-member exchange perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041162.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  81. Yagil, D. (1998). Gender and age-related differences in attitudes toward traffic laws and traffic violations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1F(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(98)00010-2.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  82. Yi, L., Mao, H., & Wang, Z. (2019). How paradoxical leadership affects ambidextrous innovation: The role of knowledge sharing. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7636.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  83. Yigit, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration in organizations. Blekinge Institute of Technology School of Management Master in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
     Google Scholar
  84. Zacher, H., Robinson, A., & Rosing, K. (2014). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.66.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  85. Zareen, M., Razzaq, K., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2015). Impact of transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles on motivation: A quantitative study of banking employees in Pakistan. Public Organization Review, 15(4), 431–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-014-0287-6.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  86. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar