# The Role of Leader Drivers in Limiting the Organizational Capacity for Innovation

Dragana Mitrić - Aćimović, Ivana Jošanov Vrgović, Jelena Đorđević

Boljanović, Filip Đoković, Duško Petrović, Marija Popović

► To cite this version:

Dragana Mitrić - Aćimović, Ivana Jošanov Vrgović, Jelena Đorđević Boljanović, Filip Đoković, Duško Petrović, et al.. The Role of Leader Drivers in Limiting the Organizational Capacity for Innovation. 7th International Conference on Management and Organization: MANAGING PARADOXES IN AND ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS, 2024, ISBN 978-961-94726-5-1. hal-04693869

HAL Id: hal-04693869

https://hal.science/hal-04693869v1

Submitted on 11 Sep 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

The Slovenian
Academy of Management

The Slovenian Academy of Management
Kardeljeva ploščad 17

1000 Ljubljana
Slovenia

University of Ljubljana

SEB SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE

Faculty of Economics
and Business

BOOK OF ABSTRACTS

MANAGING PARADOXES IN AND
ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS

7th International Conference on Management and Organization:
MANAGING PARADOXES IN AND ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS

Belgrade, Serbia (June 20-21, 2024)

Edited by: Ana Aleksić Mirić, Matej Černe, Tomislav Hernaus, Amadeja Lamovšek, Maša Košak
**Editors:**

Ana Aleksić Mirić

Matej Černe

Tomislav Hernaus

Amadeja Lamovšek

Maša Košak

**Publisher:**

Slovenian Academy of Management [Društvo slovenska akademija za management]

Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Ljubljana, 2024

Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani

COBISS.SI-ID 200063235

ISBN 978-961-94726-5-1 (PDF)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

<table><tr><td>DRIVERS OF INDIVIDUAL AMBIDEXTERITY: LEADERSHIP, AUTONOMY AND PERSONALITY*</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>PARADOXICAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND TASK PERFORMANCE: THE MULTILEVEL MEDIATING ROLE OF JOB DESIGN</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Cross-level performance effects of multilevel integrative ambidexterity: A two-field study evidence</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Navigating through paradoxical tensions inherent to creative and innovation processes in organizations: A multi-level theory</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>The Role of Post-Heroic Leadership in Addressing Paradoxical Tensions within the Innovation</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Paradoxical Leadership: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Paradoxical Leadership in the Context of Organizational Change: Concept Expansion,</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Measurement and the Impact Mechanisms on Employees Resistance to Change</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>From Think-Manager-Think-Male to Think-Leadership-Think-Female: The “Paradox” of Leadership Effectiveness in the Post COVID Era</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Ethics and social responsibility: ensuring ethical behaviour in educational organizations</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>The relationship between project portfolio management and project success</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Project portfolio management as a critical success factor</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS IN A NAME? – THE JANUS-FACED AGILE/SCRUM APPROACH TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Sport managers facing changes in environment and competition</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Indicator based identification of eras in basketball</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate Governance Quality and Organizational Performance: Empirical Evidence from the Serbian Banking Sector</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Intellectual Capital and Enterprise Performance – Business Life Cycle Perspective</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Dimensions of organizational ambidexterity in Top Management Teams in the context of dynamic capabilities</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>NUMBERS AND WELLNESS: STRIKING A BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNTING WORLD</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>A Paradox of Organizational Misfit with New Generations of Employees: Gamified Organizational Design</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Organizational characteristics and business performance of small and medium enterprises in Bosnia and Herzegovina: the role of green innovations</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>ORGANIZATIONAL DIFFERENTIATION-INTEGRATION PARADOX: HOW DOES IT REALLY WORK AND PERFORM?</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Paradox of social entrepreneurship and issue of measuring the value that social enterprises are creating in Western Balkan</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td>Investigation of an affective pathway from daily spiritual experience to daily engagement</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND COMPETITIVENESS: SOME PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND INSIGHTS</td><td>70</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Wise model of holistic response to ambivalence through flexible (paradoxical) disengagement</td>
      <td>73</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION</td>
      <td>75</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>THE ROLE OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR</td>
      <td>77</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>PRODUCTIVITY MAXIMIZATION VS MAINTAINING EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION</td>
      <td>82</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Navigating the State Revenue Challenge of Electric Vehicle Adoption and Traditional Fuel Taxation</td>
      <td>85</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>MANAGING PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS MODELS IN FUNCTION OF INCREASED ROLE-BASED ENGAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY, EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF JAPAN AND NORTH MACEDONIA</td>
      <td>87</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>STRIKING THE BALANCE: UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN AMBIDEXTERITY AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT</td>
      <td>89</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>THRIVING AND FEELING ACCOMPLISHED WITH CARRER SUCCESS: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF ACTION REGULATION WORK-FAMILY STRATEGIES</td>
      <td>93</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Relationship conflict and observers' work engagement: A paradox perspective</td>
      <td>97</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>MODERATING EFFECTS OF QUALIFICATION PERCEPTION AND SKILLS MISMATCH ON EMPLOYEE OVERQUALIFICATION, JOB SATISFACTION AND RELATIVE INCOME</td>
      <td>104</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Not All Causal Effects Are Created Equal: A Tutorial on Uncovering Heterogeneity in Causal Treatment Effects</td>
      <td>107</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>TIME PARADOX IN TEAMING PROCESS (THE PAST - IS IT CHANGING?)</td>
      <td>109</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>EXPLORING EMPLOYEE AUTONOMY: TRACING THE ROOTS AND CHARTING FUTURE STEPS THROUGH BIBLIOMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND REVIEW</td>
      <td>111</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME? THE EFFECT OF EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTION OF SUPERVISORS' VIRTUAL LISTENING ON HIGH TECH EMPLOYEES' TURNOVER BEHAVIOUR DURING THE COVID-9 PANDEMIC IN ISRAEL</td>
      <td>114</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>The Paradox of Virtual Organizational Socialization</td>
      <td>116</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>PARADOXES OF PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES</td>
      <td>121</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>The role of leader drivers in limiting the organizational capacity for innovation</td>
      <td>125</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Dynamic capabilities: The main area that the Business Ecosystem navigates</td>
      <td>127</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Balancing the paradoxical effects of conflict on creative behaviour: Dualities and the optimal level of conflict in organizations</td>
      <td>131</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Navigating Sustainable Innovation: Exploring the Dynamics of Individual Sustainable Attitudes, Team Collaboration, Sustainable Teamwork, and Organizational Sustainable Strategy</td>
      <td>135</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>The Blueprint of Innovation: An fsQCA study of Personality Configurations in Teams</td>
      <td>139</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>What is (not) necessary for team performance? A method triangulation approach</td>
      <td>142</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>CHANGE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND JOB SATISFACTION DURING TRANSITION OF HOTEL INDUSTRY IN MONTENEGRO</td>
      <td>145</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>THE DIGITAL LEADERSHIP: HOW TO MEASURE?</td>
      <td>148</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Thriving Through Setbacks: Unpacking the Role of Psychological Safety in Fostering Organizational Commitment Post-Failure 149

Stereotypes' Impact on Multilevel Distances in International Business and Implications for Management: The Case of Western Balkans 153

Decentralised functions of the centralised project management office (PMO) 157

Exploring Emotional Intelligence Competences of Generation Z University Students: Implications for Future Project Managers 160

INFLUENCE OF BRAND COLLABORATION ON CONSUMER PERCEPTION 163

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPLEMENTATION IN BUSINESS PROCESSES: IMPACT ON COMPANY PERFORMANCE AND EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION 166

Interlinking AI Use with Transformational Leadership to Foster Employee Creativity 169

THE ENABLERS OF SUCCESSFUL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ADOPTION IN COMPANIES 172

Understanding the Relationship Between the Meaning of Work and Work-Related Identity Loss in Retirement Dynamics 175

In the Shadows of Post-Heroic Leadership: Supervisor's Sleep, Daily Leadership and LMX outcome Engagement 178

The Role of Hybrid Work for Proactivity in Work Relationships - extended abstract 180

Unlocking Athletic Potential: The Mediating Influence of Sleep on Stress and Engagement - extended abstract 183

Title: Understanding the interplay of meaningful and meaningless work 186

THE DUAL ROLE OF PRICE IN CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING 189

Beyond Algorithms: How Authentic Leaders Shape the Future of AI-Driven HRM 190
# DRIVERS OF INDIVIDUAL AMBIDEXTERITY: LEADERSHIP, AUTONOMY AND PERSONALITY*

Aleša Saša Sitar ¹, Sabine Bergner ², Nina Flatscher ², Katarina Katja Mihelič ¹, Miha Škerlavaj ¹,³, Aljoša Valentinčič ¹, Ajda Merkuž ¹

¹ School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

² Institute for Psychology, University of Graz, Austria

³ BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

alesa-sasa.sitar@ef.uni-lj.si,
katja.mihelic@ef.uni-lj.si,
ajda.merkuz@ef.uni-lj.si

sabine.bergner@uni-graz.at,
miha.skerlavaj@ef.uni-lj.si

nina.flatscher@edu.uni-graz.at,
aljosa.valentincic@ef.uni-lj.si,

**Theoretical background.** Contemporary work environments are paradoxical, where organizations, managers, and employees are expected to combine opposing views and make “both/and” decisions (Lewis & Smith, 2022). Competing demands at work require employees to apply exploitative and explorative behavioral strategies, commonly called in the literature as individual ambidexterity (Schnellbächer et al., 2019). Employees are expected to work on tasks that are novel and require divergent thinking. At the same time, they need to perform tasks, which require convergent thinking (Good & Michel, 2013). Using both of these behavioral strategies is challenging as they require shifts between different mindsets and actions (Bledow et al., 2009).

**Purpose of study.** Existing research has not adequately addressed how organizational and individual factors together facilitate individual ambidexterity, despite the recent discoveries in the area of organizational factors (e.g. empowerment, transformational leadership, job enrichment) (Tarba et al., 2020), and individual characteristics (Mom et al., 2018) that help employees in the struggle to perform dual roles. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to investigate the role of leadership behavior (i.e. transformational leadership), job design (i.e. task autonomy) and personality characteristics (i.e. Big Five) as drivers of individual ambidexterity in different national contexts.

**Method.** A 2x2 between-subject vignette experiment was used. Overall, 200 master students with a business background from Austria and Slovenia participated in the experiment (M<sub>age</sub>=22.32, SD<sub>age</sub>=2.59). Four different vignette descriptions were randomly assigned to students, varying on whether task supervision was done either by a transformational or non-transformational leader/professor (description developed from Bass and Avolio (1994)) and on whether students had either high or low level of autonomy (description developed from Morgeson & Humphrey (2006)) when planning and organizing the event. After reading the vignettes students were asked to rate their exploration/exploitation tendency in approaching the tasks (scale adjusted to student setting from Mom, Bosch and Volberda (2009)). Additionally, personality characteristics were examined (Big Five Inventory scale adopted from Rammstedt and John (2007)) and Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level were measured (CVSCALE adopted from Yoo, Donthu and Lenartowicz (2011)). We developed the vignettes and pretested them on sample of 60 students, prior to the actual study.
**Findings.** Results show that the students' exploration tendency more strongly depends on leadership and task autonomy than their exploitation tendency. In fact, those who were supervised by a transformational leader and could complete the tasks in a highly autonomous manner, showed the strongest tendency to explore new ways for organizing the event. This was particularly true when they were highly open to new experiences and felt lower power distance. In essence, this outcome suggests that the combination of transformational leadership and high task autonomy fosters the individual tendency to be more explorative at work. This holds particularly true for highly open individuals and situations described by lower power distance. Further, the results show significant effect of task autonomy on ambidextrous behavior, meaning that task autonomy is necessary for individuals to exploit existing practices and explore new ways of solving problems when performing tasks. However, the effect of transformational leadership on individual ambidexterity was not confirmed.

**Theoretical contribution.** This study extends research on organizational paradoxes by addressing organizational, leadership and individual level drivers of individual ambidexterity (Tarba et al., 2020). Results show that autonomy is not only the antecedent of exploratory behavior, but is a necessary precondition also for individual ambidexterity, extending job design literature. Further, despite results confirming transformational leadership is supporting explorative behavior of individuals, results show it is not supporting subordinates to be ambidextrous, indicating other leadership approaches are necessary to balance conflicting task demands, thus contributing to current knowledge on limitations of transformational leadership (Jansen et al., 2008). Results also provide valuable new insights into personality characteristics and national culture dimensions as related to individual ambidexterity.

**Practical implications.** Our study offers implications for leaders, organizational design (OD), and HR managers. Mastering ambidextrous behavior is not easy for employees as it requires them to decide between conflicting approaches to performing task. Our study shows employees need autonomy to decide which behavior in more suited for the task at hand, shifting between exploration and exploitation. Leaders need to provide conditions enabling them to be use existing knowledge and expertise or push boundaries of what is known to find novel solutions, depending on what is needed to perform tasks. When designing jobs, OD and HR professionals could implement these findings into practices of designing jobs, HR policies and leadership development trainings, thus providing necessary support for individuals facing challenging and conflicting jobs of the future.

**Keywords:** individual ambidexterity, transformational leadership, job autonomy, personality, national culture
## References

1. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. SAGE Publications.

2. Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337.

3. Good, D., & Michel, E. J. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of Psychology, 147(5), 435–453.

4. Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.

5. Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2022). Reflections on the 2021 Decade Award: Navigating Paradox is Paradoxical. Academy of Management Review, 47(4), 528-548.

6. Mom, T. J. M., Bosch, F. A. J. v. d., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812-828.

7. Mom, T. J. M., Chang, Y.-Y., Cholakova, M., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2019). A Multilevel Integrated Framework of Firm HR Practices, Individual Ambidexterity, and Organizational Ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45(7), 3009-3034.

8. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and Validating a Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339.

9. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212.

10. Schnellbächer, B., Heidenreich, S., & Wald, A. (2019). Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity – A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level. European Management Journal, 37(4), 442-454.

11. Tarba, S. Y., Jansen, J. J. P., Mom, T. J. M., Raisch, S., & Lawton, T. C. (2020). A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: Critical review and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 102048.

12. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of international consumer marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210.

13. Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees' self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24–46.

## Acknowledgements

*This study is part of research activities of the bilateral project BI-AT/23-24-033, co-financed by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) and the Austria's Agency for Education and Internationalisation (OeAD) under the programme "Scientific & Technological Cooperation (WTZ)" and was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency, Program P5-0364.
Lorena Pikl

Faculty of Organization and Informatics, University of Zagreb

[lpikl@foi.unizg.hr](mailto:lpikl@foi.unizg.hr)

**Theoretical background:** Successful leaders search for creative, both/and solutions that enable fast-paced, adaptable decision-making in organizations (Lewis and Smith, 2014). Likewise, leaders design jobs on an individual and team level, thus enabling higher or lower job performance. Job performance has been the most addressed outcome variable in paradoxical leadership behavior (Backhaus et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). Employees who understand paradoxical leadership behavior can see conflicting and competing demands as intrinsic phenomena in organizations (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018) and can combine different demands so that the contradiction between them can increase job performance (Smith and Lewis, 2012). Paradoxical leaders enable their employees to observe how to deal with paradoxical situations constructively, and employees can work more confidently and purposefully by observing and modeling leaders behavior (Sparr et al., 2022). Paradoxical leadership is helpful for the employee because their paradoxical demands towards their leader are fulfilled, and therefore such employees and teams can better deal with paradoxes in their tasks. On the other hand, some authors investigated the relationship between paradoxical leadership behavior and job demands such as job complexity and role ambiguity (Backhaus et al., 2022; Geng et al., 2023) and job resources such as work autonomy (Fürstenberg et al., 2021). Literature shows that leaders influence job performance through their behavior by shaping their working conditions through job demands and resources. More precisely, job demands are negatively related to job performance (Abramis, 1994; Backhaus et al., 2022), while job resources are positively related to job performance (Javadian and Hosseini, 2020; Johari et al., 2018).

**Purpose of study:** By applying the paradox theory and job demands and resources (JD-R) theory, the paper aims to examine the intervening (mediating) effect of job design on the paradoxical leadership behavior and task performance. Since, in modern business conditions, managers take responsibility for making decisions and leading their organizations forward, it is important to determine how their behavior affects the job design to achieve a certain level of productivity because the success of the organization's business ultimately depends on it. The results offer an interesting theoretical and practical contribution.

**Method:** A time-lagged field survey was conducted on 512 employees from 37 Croatian organizations; of the 512 employees, 426 completed the full survey. First, employees retroactively self-report the nature of their jobs (job complexity, role ambiguity, job autonomy, and social support), reflecting on their experiences three months before the survey. Second, employees were retrospectively assessed for paradoxical leadership behavior exhibited by their immediate supervisors, considering events six months before the survey. Ultimately, the immediate supervisors evaluated the employees' task performance. MLMED macro for SPSS (Rockwood, 2024) was performed to test the cross-level mediation model.
**Findings:** A multilevel mediation analysis revealed that job design has an intervening (mediating) effect on paradoxical leadership behavior and task performance. Specifically, paradoxical leadership behavior (i.e., using the power of opposites) directly and indirectly affected task performance. Findings highlight the leader's responsibility to design congruent jobs to increase task performance.

**Theoretical contribution:** The research is important for adaptation and actively shaping changing work situations. By examining the mediating effect of job design, one can better understand how job demands and resources are related to job performance and how paradoxical leadership behavior is related to job design. The theoretical framework of the research is manifested in the paradox theory (Cunha and Putnam, 2019; Smith and Lewis, 2011) and the job demands-resources theory, JD-R (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). Although these two theories seem incompatible initially, their integration offers a different perspective.

**Practical implications:** An important message for managers is that they must develop skills to manage paradoxical situations successfully. This includes recognizing contradictory demands, flexibility in adaptation and decision-making, and balancing competing goals. Also, managers should carefully design employees' jobs to minimize paradoxical expectations that can lead to conflict and maximize task performance.

**Keywords:** paradoxical leadership behavior, task performance, job design, job demands-resources, multilevel mediation

## REFERENCES

1. Abramis, D. J. (1994). Work Role Ambiguity, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance: Meta-Analyses and Review. *Psychological Reports*, 75(3_suppl), 1411–1433.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.75.3f.1411

2. Backhaus, L., Reuber, A., Vogel, D., and Vogel, R. (2022). 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

3. Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. *Journal of Managerial Psychology*, 22(3), 309–328.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

4. Cunha, M. P. E., and Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. *Strategic Organization*, 17(1), 95–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017739536

5. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 86(3), 499–512.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

6. Fürstenberg, N., Alfes, K., and 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

7. Geng, Z., Wang, Y., Fan, Y., and Shan, C. (2023). Motivation and hindrance: The mixed blessing of paradoxical leader behaviour for workplace creativity in China. *Asia Pacific Business Review*, 29(1), 206–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2022.2134965

8. Javadian, S. R., and Hosseini, A. (2020). The Relationship between Social Support and Job Performance of Social Workers. *Social Behavior Research & Health*.
https://doi.org/10.18502/sbrh.v4i1.2827
9. Johari, J., Tan, F. Y., and Tjik, Z. I. (2018). *Autonomy, workload, work life balance and job performance teachers*. 32(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226

10. Lewis, M. W., and Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective: Sharpening the Focus and Widening the Scope. *The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science*, 50(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322

11. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem. *Academy of Management Journal*, 61(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594

12. Rockwood, N. J. (2024). *Multilevel Mediation in SPSS*. https://njrockwood.com/mlmed

13. Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing. *Academy of Management Review*. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223

14. Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2012). Leadership Skills for Managing Paradoxes. *Industrial and Organizational Psychology*, 5(2), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01435.x

15. Sparr, J. L., Van Knippenberg, D., and Kearney, E. (2022). Paradoxical leadership as sensegiving: Stimulating change-readiness and change-oriented performance. *Leadership & Organization Development Journal*, 43(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2021-0161

16. Zhang, W., Liao, S., Liao, J., and Zheng, Q. (2021). Paradoxical Leadership and Employee Task Performance: A Sense-Making Perspective. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753116

**Lorena Pikl** is a Ph.D. student in postgraduate university (doctoral) study of business economics at the Faculty of Economics and Business in Zagreb and a teaching assistant at the Faculty of Organization and Informatics in Varaždin. Her research interests cover paradoxical leadership, job performance, and job design.
Sara Melkić

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb

Tomislav Hernaus

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb and School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana

**Theoretical background** – The ambidexterity-performance relationship has entered a mature research stage. Spotlighted three decades ago as a trade-off between exploration and exploitation (March, 1991), a continuous scholarly effort has mainly evidenced the positive (although to a large extent moderated by contextual factors) role of organizational ambidexterity (i.e., “the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation strategies,” cf. He & Wong, 2004) in enhancing firm performance (see Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Junni et al., 2013). Recently, multilevel (e.g., Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2021) and other-level perspectives of ambidexterity—i.e., team/unit (Jansen et al., 2012) and individual (e.g., Rosing & Zacher, 2017)—emerged as a topic of inquiry. However, we still lack insights and must decode organizational ambidexterity to understand how to successfully cascade this paradoxical tension within an organization.

**Purpose of the study** – The present research aims to simultaneously address different levels of ambidexterity and performance outcomes. We strive to provide rigorous empirical evidence and offer practical recommendations on whether and how organizational-, unit- and individual ambidexterity should be aligned and contextualized to assure high unit performance and attain employee performance paradox (that is, high task performance supplemented with high helping behavior). Specifically, potential boundary conditions of organizational centralization (i.e., top management’s relative influence or control in relevant unit decision-making processes; Tsai, 2002) and team cross-training (i.e., a training program where each team member learns about and receives instruction regarding the roles and responsibilities of his or her teammates, Volpe et al., 1996) were examined in the light of multilevel (integrative) ambidexterity.

**Method** – Two retrospective time-lagged multisource and multilevel field survey studies have been conducted. In Study 1, we sampled 93 Croatian organizations (Level-3 self-reported data on organizational ambidexterity and centralization at Time 1, and Level-2 supervisor-rated data on unit performance at Time 3) and 311 nested unit managers (Level-2 self-reported data on unit ambidexterity and team cross-training at Time 2), to test a dual-stage moderated cross-level mediation model (see Figure 1). In Study 2, we sampled 161 unit managers (Level-2 self-reported data on unit ambidexterity and team cross-training at Time 1 and Level-1 supervisor-rated data on employee paradox performance at Time 3) from 38 Croatian organizations as well as their 485 nested employees (Level 1 self-reported data on individual ambidexterity at Time 2) to test another moderated cross-level mediation model (see Figure 2). Multilevel analyses were conducted using Mlmed beta version 2 (Rockwood, 2024). Additionally, simple slope tests of cross-level interactions were run using an interactive calculation tool for probing significant 2-way interaction effects in multilevel modeling (Preacher et al., 2006).
**Findings** – Our multilevel field studies confirmed the following theory-derived causal assumptions: (1) Unit ambidexterity mediates the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and unit performance; (2) Organizational centralization and team cross-training moderate the indirect effect of organizational ambidexterity on unit performance through unit ambidexterity; (3) Individual ambidexterity partially mediates the relationship between unit ambidexterity and employee performance paradox; and (4) Team cross-training moderates the indirect effect of unit ambidexterity on employee performance paradox through individual ambidexterity.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Research model (Study 2)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**Theoretical contribution** – This research contributes to ambidexterity theory (by explaining the underlying path from organizational ambidexterity toward unit- and individual performance outcomes) and organizational paradox theory (by addressing the performance effects of a nested, homologous paradox of ambidexterity). In addition, organizational design and human resource management (HRM) scholars can find valuable evidence-based insights into the boundary roles of organizational centralization and team cross-training, respectively.

**Practical implications** – Managers can increase unit performance by coordinating explorative (adaptation) and exploitative (alignment) unit-level practices with organizational-level strategic ambidexterity initiatives. Likewise, an employee performance paradox can be achieved if the unit and individual ambidexterity are in place. Nevertheless, special attention should be given to team cross-training. When this HRM practice is low, increasing unit ambidexterity leads to higher unit- and individual performance. On the contrary, when organizations cross-train their employees, increasing unit ambidexterity decreases individual ambidexterity, thus leading to the deteriorated bottom-level performance results.

**Keywords** – multilevel ambidexterity, unit performance, employee performance paradox, team cross-training, multilevel moderated mediation
REFERENCES

1. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

2. He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.

3. Jansen, J. J. P., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q. (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1286–1303.

4. Junni, P. P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.

5. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

6. Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorin, J. F., Tari, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Lopez-Gamero, M. D. (2021). The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. Business Research Quarterly, 24(4), 355–371.

7. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. *Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics*, 31(4), 437–448.

8. Rockwood, N. J. (2024). Multilevel Mediation in SPSS, https://njrockwood.com/mlmed

9. 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*, 26(5), 694–709.

10. Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. *Organization Science*, 13(2), 179–190.

11. Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Spector, P. E. (1996). The impact of cross-training on team functioning: An empirical investigation. *Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society*, 38(1), 87–100.
Milica Čučković,

PhD student, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade,
e-mail: radovanovic.milica18@gmail.com, presenting author

Biljana Bogićević Milikić,

Dept. of Management and Business Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business, University
of Belgrade,
e-mail: [biljana.bogicevic@ekof.bg.ac.rs](mailto:biljana.bogicevic@ekof.bg.ac.rs)

**Theoretical background and purpose of study**

Decades long research on creativity has yielded numerous theoretical approaches which are
aiming at explaining this complex and intriguing phenomena. Creativity, consensually defined
as process, activity or ability which bears to world both **novelty** and **usefulness** (Amabile, 1988)
is considered to be a close cousin to innovation (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) which
perpetuates organizational progress and shapes our modern world.

Even though we are not fully able to comprehend creativity in its phenomenological
occurrences which may sometimes understand sudden, transcendental moments that have lead
great artists and scientist to **Eureka** moments, researchers are, however, able to argue that even
the greatest creative minds can be inhibited to make creations, and that least creative persons
could be lead to elicit some creative performance, which should mean that environmental
influences do create conditions for creativity to be inherited or encouraged (in line with
Amabile, 1996). Literature seem to be unequivocal in that for creativity to be elicited, it takes
creator's interaction with environment (Amabile, 1988), situation (Woodman & Schoenfeldt,
1989) or broader context (Ford, 1996) in which individual's actions are embedded which is
exactly the needed **liaison** that enables us to shift from trying to answer what creativity is to
how it is triggered, fostered and enhanced.

Defining innovation in accordance to Amabile & Pratt (2016, p. 158) as the **successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization**, we pose the research questions:
Where inherent paradoxes in organizational creativity and innovation process reside?
Furthermore, we aim at answering What mechanisms to navigate paradoxical tensions in organizational realm does literature offer?

Conveniently, even though paradoxical tensions occur on multiple levels and numerous
occasions as creative idea travels from its initial conceivers to its broader organizational
utilization, literature does offer theoretical proposals and some intriguing research results.

Just as creativity is considered to be **in the eye of the beholder** (Amabile & Pratt, 2016), the
answer to tolerating opposing, yet inevitable tensions, arising from creativity and innovation
processes in organizational context reveals itself to those who juxtapose seemingly distinct
fields: organizational theory, sociology and psychology, which is exactly we will be free to do.
**Method**

By conducting an extensive literature review, taking as theoretical standpoint **evolutionary approach to creativity and innovation in organization** (Staw, 1990), we attempt to explore and pinpoint paradoxical tensions that exist on individual, group, organizational and institutional level. Inspired by Ford's (1996) theory of creativity and innovation, further dwelling on creativity construct and its consensual assessment, we draw line to Csikszentmihályi's (1988) social system view of creativity to inductively prove the inherently existing paradox between originality and isomorphism that pertains on institutional level.

**Findings**

We identify, analyse and synthesize theoretically and empirically grounded guidelines for navigating between paradoxical tensions that are either socially constructed or inherent to creative processes as such. We start by analysing creative process and its inherent nature of duality that is inseparably connected to psychological mechanisms of idea generation. Further on, we discuss empirical results of dyadic and group dynamics which portray paradox of differentiation and integration in organizations.

Later on, inspired by Perry-Smith & Mannucci's (2017) model of idea journey in organizations we discuss paradoxical tensions occurring between different stages of innovative process in order to investigate means for finding the fit between what is needed to lead idea from elaboration to implementation, and the resources needed to avoid creative idea being trapped in recursive loops inside organization. Drawing on idea of cognitive flexibility (De Dreu et al, 2008), paradox mindset (Miron-Spektor, 2018) and paradoxical leadership (Zhang et al, 2015) we propose strategies for dealing with intraorganizational paradoxical tensions.

Last but not least, to address innate nature of creativity, which is context-bound and assessed in relation to time-space-situation grid in which it is brought up, we discuss inherent paradox of organizational endeavours to both to thrive and survive. We explain isomorphism as phenomena drawing on institutional theory, only to make parallel with variation-retention-selection models of creativity (Drazin, Glynn & Kazajian, 1999). To fight fire one needs fire, so to resolve paradoxical tensions emerging from interorganizational and institutional realms, we search for knowledge and research directions offered by scholars of institutional theory approach (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

**Theoretical contribution**

We attempt to provide the multilevel approach to addressing paradoxical tensions that inevitably emerge with creative and innovation processes in organizations. We expect that literature review would allow for the development of theory of multi-level creative action taking. By bringing together different theoretical views we aim to provide more integrative interpretations of previous research findings.

**Practical implications**

The overall implication of research findings can be found in identifying managerial strategies and actions for successful dealing with paradoxical tensions arising from creative and innovation processes in organizations at different organizational levels.

**Keywords**

Organizational creativity; innovation; paradox; paradoxical tensions; multi-level approach
**Bojana Markovska Klepec,**

PhD student, School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Zavarovalnica
Triglav, d.d.

, bojana.markovska-klepec@triglav.si

**Miha Škerlavaj,**

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana,
miha.skerlavaj@ef.uni-lj.si

**Keywords:** Post-heroic leadership, Shared leadership, Servant leadership, Idea generation, Idea championing, Idea implementation.

**1. Theoretical background**

Innovation is a complex, interdependent socially dynamic process marked by uncertainty (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Fletcher, 2004), involving innovation phases: idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Each phase, from inception to transformation into a final product or service, faces challenges due to uncertain outcomes, making stakeholder participation hesitant. Thus, managing innovation presents a significant challenge for contemporary leaders (Oke et al., 2009).

The innovation process is evolving in a comparable context to the conceptual model of postheroic leadership. Post-heroic leadership, one of the newer genre leadership theories, emphasizes human interactions and collaboration between different stakeholders (Fletcher, 2004). Post-heroic leadership is valuable for the innovation process through its building blocks: shared leadership (D'Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2016; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014) and servant leadership (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Eva et al., 2019; Liden et al., 2014) in response to managing workplace complexity (Wu, Cormican, & Chen, 2020; Hærem, Pentland, & Miller, 2015) especially in interdependent environments (Pearce, 2004).

Post-heroic leaders empower capable individuals (Pearce & Manz, 2005; Škerlavaj, 2022) to accomplish innovation tasks, emphasize collaboration between team members (Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2008), promote learning through knowledge sharing (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004), which all contribute to greater unity and agreement among team members (Bergman et al., 2012). Post-heroic leaders provide direction and set explicit expectations while demonstrating trust in employees to take responsibility and complete tasks (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Employees are thus encouraged to actively contribute to the creation of innovative services, products, and processes (Lee et al., 2020), which leads to improved team coordination, employee satisfaction (Hoch & Dulebohn, 2013) and efficiency in achieving organizational goals, encompassing successful innovation as well (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016).
## 2. Purpose of study

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, we analyze the role of post-heroic leadership through its building blocks – shared leadership and servant leadership, as enablers of the innovation process. More specifically, we examine the moderated mediation of shared leadership and servant leadership on the relationship between idea generation and idea championing and on the relationship between idea generation and idea implementation. Second, we examine the role of the idea championing phase – a prosocial motivational factor – in the innovation process as a mediator between idea generation and idea implementation phases.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Conceptual model</figcaption></figure>

Source: Author's conceptualization.

## 3. Method

We conducted a quantitative analysis in a multinational service company involving 689 individuals. We used established and widely used measurement tools, ensuring the relevance of our study. To mitigate common method bias, we collected data at three distinct time intervals and used a unique identification code in each survey, to maintain anonymity. The research model's validity was evaluated with a confirmatory factor analysis. We used Process Model 4 and Model 12 to test the hypotheses. Furthermore, a simple slope analysis was used to represent the interaction between idea generation, individually perceived team environment for shared leadership, and servant leadership in stimulating idea implementation.

## 4. Findings

Our findings support the hypothesis that post-heroic leadership promotes idea implementation in a context where numerous ideas are generated. We also find that the idea championing phase partially mediates the relationship between idea generation and idea implementation phases but find insufficient evidence to suggest that post-heroic leadership leads to greater championing of generated ideas.

## 5. Theoretical contribution

We contribute to the framework of creative synthesis (Harvey, 2014), which describes how different perspectives foster creativity within a group. By investigating how post-heroic leadership impacts the engagement of participants throughout the innovation process, we extend the theory from idea generation to implementation, revealing that the key elements of post-heroic leadership — shared and servant leadership — enhance the relationship between idea generation and implementation.
We further extend the creative synthesis theory (Harvey, 2014) by including the idea championing phase as an intermediate phase in the innovation process and showing that the potential success of idea implementation depends not only on idea generation but also on effective idea championing. The partial mediation of the idea championing phase broadens our understanding of the innovation journey, supports researchers who emphasize the nonlinear links between idea generation and idea implementation (Škerlavaj et al., 2014; Rosing, Frese & Bausch, 2011) and enhances literature on merging idea generation and idea implementation subfields (Anderson, Potočnik & Zhou, 2014).

We contribute to the post-heroic leadership conceptual model (Škerlavaj, 2022) by empirically demonstrating its positive impact on the innovation process. Additionally, we contribute to the shared leadership literature by examining mediating mechanisms (Zhu et al., 2018) related to shared leadership and work outcomes. Our research extends our understanding of leadership's influence throughout the entire innovation process, going beyond the scope of idea generation (Slavich and Svejenova, 2016) or idea implementation (Anderson et al., 2014).

**6. Practical implications**

Our study indicates that shared leadership acts as a positive mediator for servant leadership, boosting relational collaboration and active participation among participants of the innovation process. Post-heroic leadership is therefore a good facilitator for ideas generated to be implemented, especially in an environment with an abundance of ideas. Our study further implies that while idea generation is crucial, idea championing also significantly impacts idea implementation. Consequently, individuals - idea champions - who can inspire others to implement generated ideas play a significant part in the innovation journey.

A possible explanation of not confirmed positive moderation of post-heroic leadership on the relationship - idea generation and idea championing, could be that psychological ownership of generated ideas was not transmitted to idea champions. We did not test for psychological ownership and merely assumed that post-heroic leadership subtly transmits psychological ownership of ideas to all participants in the innovation process (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001), necessary for change to occur (Škerlavaj, 2022).

Another explanation might be related to the "innovation paradox" (Spar et al., 2022) and the paradox mindset of individuals. The innovation process is driven by various tensions involving multiple actors (Choi et al., 2001) with different mindsets who respond differently to these tensions (Tsoukas and Chia, 2011). Individuals with a paradox mindset recognize tensions and deal with them efficiently (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). They can skillfully manage ambiguity, foster a culture of continuous learning, and see diversity as catalysts for innovative solutions to complex tasks (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989). Individuals with a paradox mindset not only continuously adapt to the evolving needs of the organization, but also mobilize other participants according to the demands of the innovation process (Zhang, Zhang, & Law, 2022; Laurey, Berends & Huysman, 2017). Because they recognize and combine opposing elements to find new integrative solutions that enable innovation (Smith and Tushman, 2005), we assume that individuals with paradox mindset may be idea champions.
References:

1. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. *Journal of Management, 40*(5), 1297–1333.

2. Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The Shared Leadership Process in Decision-Making Teams. *The Journal of Social Psychology, 152*(1): 17-42.

3. Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., Lee, K., & Cho, D.-S. (2011). Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32*(1), 107–124.

4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). 16 implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. *Handbook of creativity, 313*. (n.d.).

5. Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. *The Leadership Quarterly, 15*(6): 857–880.

6. de Jong, J., & den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. *Creativity and Innovation Management, 19*(1), 23–36.

7. D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations. *Journal of Management, 42*(7), 1964–1991.

8. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. *The Leadership Quarterly, 30*(1), 111–132.

9. Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. *The Leadership Quarterly, 15*(5), 647–661.

10. Herem, T., Pentland, B. T., & Miller, K. D. (2015). Task complexity: Extending a core concept. *Academy of Management Review, 40*(3), 446-460.

11. Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity. *Academy of Management Review, 39*(3), 324-343.

12. Hoch, J. E., & Dulbeonh, J. H. (2013). Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementation. *Human Resource Management Review, 23*(1): 114-125.

13. Laurey, N., Berends, H., & Huysman, M. (2017). Creativity as a service: how creative agents foster a liminal experience. *Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017*(1), 16220.

14. Paradox mindset not only continuously adapt to the evolving needs of the organization, but also mobilize other participants according to the demands of the innovation process (Zhang, Zhang, & Law, 2022; Laurey, Berends & Huysman, 2017). Because they recognize and combine opposing elements to find new integrative solutions that enable innovation (Smith and Tushman, 2005), we assume that individuals with paradox mindset may be idea champions.

15. References:

16. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. *Journal of Management, 40*(5), 1297–1333.

17. Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The Shared Leadership Process in Decision-Making Teams. *The Journal of Social Psychology, 152*(1): 17-42.

18. Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., Lee, K., & Cho, D.-S. (2011). Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32*(1), 107–124.
19. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). 16 implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. Handbook of creativity, 313. (n.d.).

20. Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6): 857–880.

21. de Jong, J., & den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36.

22. D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991.

23. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132.

24. Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647–661.

25. Herem, T., Pentland, B. T., & Miller, K. D. (2015). Task complexity: Extending a core concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446-460.

26. Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324-343.

27. Hoch, J. E., & Dulbeonh, J. H. (2013). Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementation. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1): 114-125.

28. Laurey, N., Berends, H., & Huysman, M. (2017). Creativity as a service: how creative agents foster a liminal experience. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 16220.

29. Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. 2020. Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1): 1–44.*

30. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant Leadership and Serving Culture: Influence on Individual and Unit Performance. *Academy of Management Journal, 57*(5), 1434–1452.*

31. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem. *Academy of Management Journal, 61*(1), 26–45.*

32. Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. *The Leadership Quarterly, 25*(5), 923–942.*

33. Oke, A., Munshi, N., & Walumba, F. O. (2009). The Influence of Leadership on Innovation Processes and Activities. *Organizational Dynamics, 38*(1), 64–72.*

34. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. *Academy of Management Perspectives, 18*(1): 47–57.*

35. Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The New Silver Bullets of Leadership: Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130–140.

36. Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2008). Shared leadership theory. *The Leadership Quarterly, 19*(5): 622–628.*

37. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. *Academy of Management Review, 42*(1), 53–79.*

38. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations. *Academy of Management Review, 26*(2), 298–310.*
39. Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. *The Academy of Management Review, 14*(4), 562.*

40. Škerlavaj, M. (2022). Post-Heroic Leadership. Springer International Publishing.

41. Slavich, B., Cérne, M., & Dyne, L. A. (2014). I get by with a little help from my supervisor: Creative-idea generation, idea implementation, and perceived supervisor support. *The Leadership Quarterly, 25*(5), 987–1000.*

42. Smith, B., & Svejenova, S. (2016). Managing Creativity: A Critical Examination, Synthesis, and New Frontiers. *European Management Review, 13*(4), 237–250.*

43. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. *Organization Science, 16*(5), 522–536.*

44. Sparr, J. L., Miron-Spektor, E., Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2022). From a Label to a Metatheory of Paradox: If We Change the Way We Look at Things, the Things We Look at Change. *Academy of Management Collections, 1*(2), 16-34.

45. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change. *Organization Science, 13*(5): 567–582.

46. van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. *Journal of Business and Psychology, 26*(3), 249–267.

47. Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 99*(2), 181–198.

48. Wu, Q., Cormican, K., & Chen, G. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of Shared Leadership: Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderators. *Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27*(1): 49-64.

49. □Zhang, M. J., Zhang, Y., & Law, K. S. (2022). Paradoxical Leadership and Innovation in Work Teams: The Multilevel Mediating Role of Ambidexterity and Leader Vision as a Boundary Condition. *Academy of Management Journal, 65*(5), 1652–1679.
**Djordje Zivkovic,**
University of St. Gallen,
djordje.zivkovic@unisg.ch

**Mirjam Roswitha Langenbacher,**
University of Liechtenstein,
mirjam.langenbacher@uni.li

**Alexander Zimmermann,**
University of St. Gallen
alexander.zimmermann@unisg.ch

## ABSTRACT

Research on paradoxical leadership (PL), defined as leaders' seemingly contradictory, yet interrelated behaviors that entail a 'both-and' approach to address tensions has gained increasing momentum in recent years. However, to date, there is no literature review that integrates the partly disconnected research streams and cumulates empirical findings. In this article, we distinguish between different types of paradoxical tensions on multiple levels of analysis and discuss individual and organizational management approaches to cope with these tensions. By doing so, we extend the notion of PL to the management of paradoxes on the individual and organizational level. Based on our framework, we discuss shortcomings and gaps with respect to the interplay of drivers, different levels of analysis as well as boundaries and outcomes and present an agenda for future research that contributes to a more holistic understanding of PL.

Keywords: Paradox; Leadership; Paradoxical Leadership; Multi-level Management

## INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY

Recent research has highlighted the relevance of studying paradoxes (i.e., “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time”) (Smith & Lewis, 2011: 382) in different research fields with varying methodologies (Schad et al., 2016). PL is broadly defined as leaders’ seemingly contradictory, yet interrelated behaviors that entail a “both-and” approach to address tensions (Zhang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2015). Emanating from an increasing variety of research streams, studies on PL have addressed different research questions, employing various theoretical and methodological approaches. Given this fragmented picture of the PL literature, this review has four main purposes. First, we account for the multi-level nature of PL and describe the emergence and salience of tensions as well as the management of these tensions as two different, but interrelated elements of PL. Second, we provide an overview of findings on PL’s effects on individual- and organizational-level outcomes as well as their boundary conditions and organize these relationships in a comprehensive framework. Third, we derive and suggest opportunities for future research and take a more holistic view on PL, considering the interplay of individual- and organizational-level PL as well as their separate and integrative drivers and outcomes. Finally, we propose avenues for future research that may contribute to a more comprehensive and integrative understanding of PL.
## METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF REVIEW

To ensure a comprehensive coverage of the most relevant PL literature, we followed a multistep approach (Parmigiani & King, 2019). First, we searched in leading electronic databases, such as the EBSCO Business Source Premier database and Science Direct search engine, for academic articles containing the term “paradoxical leadership” in the title, abstract, or text. Our first overall search yielded a total of 231 papers. As a second step we focused on top-tier journals from the broader management, psychology, and leadership sections to cover the different theoretical perspectives on PL in the literature. After excluding repetitions, our search yielded a total of 143 unique papers. We then excluded articles that studied paradoxes and leadership separately (14 articles) and eliminated publications that merely considered PL in the future studies or limitations section (7 articles). After conducting these steps, we included 122 studies in our review.

## THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Lives are prone to paradoxical tensions and individuals and organizations work within a web of opposing and persistent, yet interrelated demands (Smith & Lewis, 2022). Leaders in these organizations are thereby confronted with individual-level and organizational-level paradoxical tensions (Waldman & Bowen, 2016). Once paradoxical tensions become salient and leaders feel the need to take action, they may embrace these tensions by deploying individual-level and organizational-level capabilities. Individual-level capabilities relate to how leaders address competing demands in terms of traits, cognitive capabilities (such as holistic thinking, integrative complexity, and paradoxical frames), or leadership styles. By contrast, organizational-level capabilities mainly describe what paradoxical leaders do in their organizations to manage paradoxical tensions.

## FINDINGS AND CONTRIBUTION

Based on our framework, we propose several promising avenues for future research concerning (1) the antecedents of individual-level PL, (2) the interplay of individual- and organizational-level PL, and (3) the recursive effects of PL's outcomes on PL. We conclude that PL research is rather fragmented and that individual- and organizational-level research streams have mainly examined PL independently from each other. Studies to date predominantly either focused on leaders' underlying characteristics, such as cognitive or emotional capabilities, (e.g., Miron-Spektor et al., 2018) or on management approaches to embrace the navigation of paradoxes in organizations. However, we argue that this either/or approach does not fully reflect the complex nature of PL. This is aligned with recent paradox research indicating that paradoxes are nested across different levels of analysis suggesting that they are interdependent and interwoven (Schad & Bansal, 2018).

## IMPLICATIONS

Paradoxes and the related leadership dimension have become prominent topics in management research over the last few decades. Despite the valuable insights and contributions of the existing studies, our review revealed that the PL literature is still characterized by some conceptual ambiguity and disconnected research efforts. We propose that future articles should consider the multitude and interconnectedness of individual- and organizational-level tensions and management approaches.
(SELECTED) REFERENCES

1. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem. *Academy of Management Journal*, 61(1), 26-45.

2. Parmigiani, A., & King, E. (2019). Successfully proposing and composing review papers. *Journal of Management*, 45(8), 3083-3090.

3. Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018). Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. *Journal of Management Studies*, 55(8), 1490-1506.

4. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. *Academy of Management Annals*, 10(1), 5-64.

5. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. *Academy of Management Review*, 36(2), 381-403.

6. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2022). Both/and thinking: Embracing creative tensions to solve your toughest problems. *Harvard Business School Publishing Cooperation*.

7. Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Learning to Be a Paradox-Savvy Leader. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, 30(3), 316-327.

8. Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Law, K. S., & Zhou, J. (2022). Paradoxical Leadership, Subjective Ambivalence, and Employee Creativity: Effects of Employee Holistic Thinking. *Journal of Management Studies*, 59(3), 695-723.

9. 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.
PARADOXICAL LEADERSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:
CONCEPT EXPANSION,

MEASUREMENT AND THE IMPACT MECHANISMS ON EMPLOYEES RESISTANCE
TO CHANGE

Le Tan

Northwest University
School of Economics and Management
No. 1, Xuefu Avenue, Guodu Education Industrial Park
Xi'an, Shaanxi,
P.R. China
Email: tanle@nwu.edu.cn

Po Hao

Northwest University
School of Economics and Management
No. 1, Xuefu Avenue, Guodu Education Industrial Park
Xi'an, Shaanxi, P.R. China
Email: Haopo88@126.com

Hanyu Gao

University of Macau
Faculty of Business Administration
Avenida da Universidade
Taipa, Macau, China
Email: hy.g0111@outlook.com

Xiaonan Wang

Northwest University
School of Economics and Management
No. 1, Xuefu Avenue, Guodu Education Industrial Park
Xi'an, Shaanxi, P.R. China
Email: lawwye@126.com.

Author Notes:

Provisional indication of the presenting author: Le Tan, Associate Professor, PhD.

Funding: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of China [grant numbers 19YJA630064]; the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 72172122]; and the Shaanxi Provincial Social Science Foundation of China [grant number 2022R054].
**Extended Abstract**

As the shift from VUCA to BANI era, organizational change has become the "new normal" of organizational management. However, managing change is a challenging task and complex process. Leaders' effectiveness in dealing with the complexity, uncertainty and contradiction related to the change process becomes a key factor to reduce employees' resistance to change and further promote the success of organizational change (Islam, 2023; Sparr, 2018). Existing literature in leadership and organizational change has found leaders as change decision-makers and initiators (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), effective advocates (Oxtoby et al., 2002) and crucial sense-giver of change (Robert & Ola, 2020), influencing both the process of organizational change and the outcome of change (Walk, 2023; Oreg & Berson, 2019).

Existing literature paid limited attention to the dynamics and contradictions behind organizational change. Considering the prominent nature of organizational change paradox and the key role of leaders who can embrace paradox that plays in the successful organizational change (Nasim & Sushil, 2011; Sparr, 2018), it is necessary to explore leaders' paradoxical behaviour and its impact on organizational change from the paradox perspective. However, existing research on paradoxical leadership behaviour (PLB) has mainly focused on PLB in people management (Zhang et al., 2015) and PLB in long-term corporate development (Zhang & Han, 2019), which can be limited in covering paradox management under organizational change regarding the situational relevance of the paradox (Schad et al., 2016). Therefore, the present study aims to extend the concept of PLB into the context of organizational change, develop a measurement scale, and further explore the impact of PLB on employee resistance to change in the context of organizational change.

The research includes 3 studies. In Study 1, we explored the conceptual framework of PLB in the context of organizational change. Based on 15 semi-interviews with Chinese managers from different industries, we explored the paradox management issues during organizational changes encountered by the managers, as well as their approaches of how to deal with such paradoxes. Through a three-phase coding analysis, we developed a framework for the PLB in the context of organizational change. With 81 first-order concepts and 17 second-order theoretical level of themes, we developed a framework of PLB in the context of organizational change including five dimensions: (1) "Both strategic thinking and operational thinking (SO)", (2) "Pay attention to both the description of the specific change goal and the abstract long-term vision (GV)", (3) "Take both gradual change and radical change into account (GR)", (4) "Take both exploratory activities and exploitative activities into account (EI)", and (5) "Maintain both strict rules and flexible adaptation (SF)".

In Study 2, we develop a measure of PLB in organizational change based on the Study 1 results and various leadership behaviors on organizational change literature (e.g., Oreg & Berson, 2019). We initially generated 23 items for PLB in the context of change for measurement development (SO, 5 items; GV, 4 items; GR, 4 items; EI, 5 items; SF, 5 items). The results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (sample 1) demonstrated five suitable factors after deleting 4 items: (1) SO, 5 items; (2) GV, 4 items; (3) GR, 4 items; (4) EI, 3 items; and (5) SF, 3 items. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (sample 2) further validated the five-dimensional measure of PLB in the context of change ($\chi^2/df=1.65, CFI=.92, TLI=.91, RMSEA=.046$). The alpha coefficients PLB in the context of change dimensions were $SO=.82, GV=.83, GR=.87, EI=.82, SF=.89$. The AVE results further showed the discriminant validity for PLB in the context of change measures. We thus developed a 19-item measurement as the final version for the PLB in the context of organizational change.
In Study 3, we further explored the effectiveness of paradoxical leadership in the context of organizational change. Drawing from the social learning theory, we focused on the effect of PLB in the context of change on employee resistance to change. Using a field sample of 405 Chinese employees (sample 3), we found that PLB in the context of organizational change negatively associated with employee resistance to change (β= -.594, p<.01), and the indirect effect of PLB in the context of organizational change on employee resistance to change through cognitive flexibility was -.217 (95% CI = [-.367, -.074]). In addition, interaction of promotion regulatory focus and PLB in the context of organizational change has a statistically significant and positive effect on cognitive flexibility (β=.174, p<.01). Finally, for higher promotion regulatory focus employees, the indirect effect of PLB in the context of organizational change on employee resistance to change through cognitive flexibility was -.137 (95% CI = [-.240, -.043]), which supported the moderated mediating hypothesis.

Our research provides several theoretical contributions. Firstly, the research extends the concept of PLB into the context of organizational change with a 5-dimensional construct, indicating a new direction for the development of PLB concept. Secondly, the research developed a new 19-item measurement for PLB, which particularly targeted in organizational change context, supporting future empirical studies. Finally, the application of paradox theory (Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011) in the research provides a new theoretical perspective for our understanding of followers' responses to organizational change. This study highlights the effectiveness of PLB in decreasing employee resistance to change by guiding the followers to embrace paradox in the change (Boemelburg et al., 2023). The findings demonstrated Batool et al. (2023) 's view on contextual effectiveness of PLB.

Our research also provides several practical implications. The research acknowledges the paradoxical nature of change and different paradoxical problems which leaders endeavour in the change process. For organizations, it's important to cultivate awareness of the paradoxical nature of change in employees. Embracing paradoxical tensions is the key to an organization's success in adapting and sustaining change. Finally, it is worth noting that individual cognitive differences can significantly affect the effectiveness of PLB in the change management, for which organizations should also promote improvements on employees' cognitive abilities through job rotation and training.

**Keywords** Paradoxical leadership, Organizational change, Resistance to change, Cognitive flexibility, Promotion-focused regulation
References

1. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. *Journal of Management, 40*(5), 1297-1333.

2. Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The Shared Leadership Process in Decision-Making Teams. *The Journal of Social Psychology, 152*(1): 17-42.

3. Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., Lee, K., & Cho, D.-S. (2011). Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32*(1), 107-124.

4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). 16 implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. *Handbook of creativity, 313*. (n.d.)

5. Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. *The Leadership Quarterly, 15*(6): 857-880.

6. de Jong, J., & den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. *Creativity and Innovation Management, 19*(1), 23-36.

7. D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership-Team Performance Relations. *Journal of Management, 42*(7), 1964-1991.

8. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. *The Leadership Quarterly, 30*(1), 111-132.

9. Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. *The Leadership Quarterly, 15*(5), 647-661.

10. Herem, T., Pentland, B. T., & Miller, K. D. (2015). Task complexity: Extending a core concept. *Academy of Management Review, 40*(3), 446-460.

11. Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity. *Academy of Management Review, 39*(3), 324-343.

12. Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2013). Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementation. *Human Resource Management Review, 23*(1): 114-125.

13. Laurey, N., Berends, H., & Huysman, M. (2017). Creativity as a service: how creative agents foster a liminal experience. *Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017*(1), 15620.

14. Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93*(1): 1-44.

15. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant Leadership and Serving Culture: Influence on Individual and Unit Performance. *Academy of Management Journal, 57*(5), 1434-1452.

16. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem. *Academy of Management Journal, 61*(1), 26-45.

17. Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. *The Leadership Quarterly, 25*(5), 923-942.

18. Oke, A., Munshi, N., & Walumba, F. O. (2009). The Influence of Leadership on Innovation Processes and Activities. *Organizational Dynamics, 38*(1), 64-72.
19. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. *Academy of Management Perspectives, 18*(1): 47–57.

20. Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The New Silver Bullets of Leadership: Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130–140.

21. Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2008). Shared leadership theory. *The Leadership Quarterly, 19*(5): 622–628.

22. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. *Academy of Management Review, 42*(1), 53–79.

23. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations. *Academy of Management Review, 26*(2), 298–310.

24. Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. *The Academy of Management Review, 14*(4), 562.

25. Škerlavaj, M. (2022). Post-Heroic Leadership. Springer International Publishing.

26. Škerlavaj, M., Černe, M., & Dysvik, A. (2014). I get by with a little help from my supervisor: Creative-idea generation, idea implementation, and perceived supervisor support. *The Leadership Quarterly, 25*(5), 987–1000.

27. Slavich, B., & Svejenova, S. (2016). Managing Creativity: A Critical Examination, Synthesis, and New Frontiers. *European Management Review, 13*(4), 237–250.

28. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. *Organization Science, 16*(5), 522–536.

29. Sparr, J. L., Miron-Spektor, E., Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2022). From a Label to a Metatheory of Paradox: If We Change the Way We Look at Things, the Things We Look at Change. *Academy of Management Collections, 1*(2), 16–34.

30. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change. *Organization Science, 13*(5): 567–582.

31. van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. *Journal of Business and Psychology, 26*(3), 249–267.

32. Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 99*(2), 181–198.

33. Wu, Q., Cormican, K., & Chen, G. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of Shared Leadership: Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderators. *Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27*(1): 49–64.

34. Zhang, M. J., Zhang, Y., & Law, K. S. (2022). Paradoxical Leadership and Innovation in Work Teams: The Multilevel Mediating Role of Ambidexterity and Leader Vision as a Boundary Condition. *Academy of Management Journal, 65*(5), 1652–1679.
FROM THINK-MANAGER-THINK-MALE TO THINK-LEADERSHIP-THINK-FEMALE: THE “PARADOX” OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS IN THE POST COVID ERA.

Alexander D. Stajkovic,

University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Business.

[adstajkovic@wisc.edu](mailto:adstajkovic@wisc.edu)

Ana Aleksić Mirić,

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade

[ana.aleksic@ekof.bg.ac.rs](mailto:ana.aleksic@ekof.bg.ac.rs)

**Theoretical background.** Because most human behaviors are contextualized, social learning theory (Bandura 1977) defines social learning as the acquisition of knowledge for adaptive functioning through the ongoing interface between individuals and their social environment. These interactions have historically resulted in learning that has fostered unprecedented behavioral diversity, leading humans to a remarkable evolutionary adaptation across domains of functioning, including in organizations (Bandura, 2018; Eden and Zuk 1995; Mathew & Perreault 2015; Wealsh et al. 1993). However, “the mechanisms that support adaptive social learning under uncertainty ... are still poorly understood” (Lamba et al. 2020, p. 1). Addressing this question is pertinent, as the context of learning has changed radically. That is, social learning and acting adaptively in organizations before COVID-19 crisis is qualitatively different from what it means to do so in after the pandemic, mostly due to the rise in work from home (WFH).

Traditionally, learning was tied to some institutional context, i.e., a classroom, organizations, formal/informal training. COVID has widened a window of opportunity to learn from digital media, and most welcomed these trends (Bozkurt et al., 2022 Chiodaroli et al., 2024). The possibility of following the daily rhythm of life and learning at the same time is both personally and professionally rewarding. For example, one can enter the wealth of educational content online in pursuits of both formal and informal educational goals, e.g., an overworked mom feeding her desire for professional development while driving to pick up her children from school, a student listening to the curriculum while on the treadmill, a professional updating the skills set with the latest podcast, to name a few alternatives.

This research investigates the paradoxes related to learning and leadership effectiveness in the post COVID era. That is, briefly, work before the crisis was characterized by going to an organization, following procedures, and using power and hierarchy, the latter two generally being associated with men and their agency (Schein & Schein et al., 1996). After the pandemic, we have flexible schedules, juggling multiple obligations, handling “isolation” from work, caring for others, and creativity versus procedures, all typically associated with women and their communality (Stajkovic & Stajkovic, 2023).

**Research propositions.** Building upon the recent research on female leadership advantage in uncertain contexts (FLA) (Post et al., 2019; Sergent & Stajkovic, 2020), we further theorize that the post COVID-19 changes in the circumstances of work necessitate communality in leadership, and that women might be more effective leaders then men in such environments. Results of this research demonstrate that the old paradigm of “think manager-think male”
(Schein et al., 1996, p. 33) might change soon to “think-leadership-think female.” Our conceptual model is shown in Figure 1, and three hypotheses follow.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Conceptual model</figcaption></figure>

Hypothesis 1: Social isolation makes it hard for information to become knowledge because there is no context to juxtapose it against, i.e., social interaction in the broadest sense. As a result, individual learning based on digital platforms may lead to high information acquisition but a low level of knowledge creation.

Figure 2 below visually presents our theory arguments pertaining to Hypothesis 2.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Hypothesis 2: Women have been socialized to seek social interaction, and are consequently more likely to expose information gained from a digital context to a social context, increasing the possibility for information to transform into knowledge.
<table><caption>Table 1 summarises the conceptualizations pertaining to Hypothesis 3.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Low knowledge-intensive task</th><th>High knowledge-intensive task</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Highly social intensive task</th><td>Female</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><th>Low social intensive task</th><td>AI</td><td>Male</td></tr></tbody></table>

Hypothesis 3: Women will be more effective in taking on both socially and information intensive tasks. As a result, they are likely to be more successful future leaders at work because AI will displace more socially-isolated jobs that men prefer to take on.

**Purpose.** The prevailing view for generations has been that agency was the driving force of leadership in organizations. This belief, coupled with the stereotype that women are not agentic, resulted in a “think manager-think male” bias. This contributed to discrimination against women leaders, as they were perceived as communal, which was considered to not be leadership material (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Based on the recent FLA research, we challenge these stereotypes and demonstrate that what constitutes effective leadership might change in the post-COVID organizations. Unravelling of the new combination of social and cognitive factors embedded in effective leadership of tomorrow might be summarized in the maxim “think-leadership-think female” going forward.

## REFERENCES

1. Allen TD, Golden TD, Shockley KM (2015) How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific understanding. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 16: 40-68.

2. Bandura A (1977) *Social Learning Theory*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

3. Bandura A (1999) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), *The Self in Social Psychology* (pp. 285-298). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

4. Bandura A (2018) Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 13: 130-136.

5. Bozkurt A, Karakaya K, Turk M, Karakaya Ö, Castellanos-Reyes D. 2022, The Impact of COVID-19 on Education: A Meta-Narrative Review. TechTrends.;66(5):883-896. doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00759-0. Epub 2022 Jul 5. PMID: 35813033; PMCID: PMC9255479.

6. Brummelhuis LL, Greenhaus JH (2018) How role jugglers maintain relationships at home and at work: A gender comparison. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 103: 1265-1282.

7. Chiodaroli, M., Freyhult, L., Solders, A., Tarrío, D., & Günter, K. P. (2024). “Every morning I take two steps to my desk...”: students’ perspectives on distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. *Higher Education*, 1-20.

a. crisis: Under what conditions? *Psychology of Women Quarterly*, 43, 215-231.

8. Dilmaghani M, Tabvuma V (2019) The gender gap in work-life balance satisfaction across occupations. *Gender in Management: An International Journal*, 34: 398-428.

a. during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 105, 771-783.

9. Eagly AH, Steffen VJ (1984) Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 46: 735-754.

10. Eden D, Zuk Y (1995) Seasickness as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Raising self-efficacy to boost performance at sea. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 80: 628-635.
11. Lamba A, Frank MJ, Feldman-Hall O (2020) Anxiety impedes adaptive social learning under uncertainty. *Psychological Science*, 31: 592-603.

12. Margolies J (2020) What will tomorrow's workplace bring? More elbow room, for starters. *The New York Times*, April 7th, 2020.

13. Mathew S, Perreault C (2015) Behavioral variation in 172 small-scale societies indicates that social learning is the main mode of human adaptation. *Proceedings of the Royal Society*, B 282: 1-7.

14. Miller J (1975) Isolation in organizations: Alienation from authority, control, and expressive relations. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 20: 260-271.

15. Ozcelik, H., & Barsade, S. G. (2018). No employee an island: Workplace loneliness and job performance. *Academy of Management Journal*, *61*(6), 2343-2366.

16. Post C (2015) When is female leadership an advantage? Coordination requirements, team cohesion, and team interaction norms. *Journal of Organizational Behavior*, 36: 1153-1175.

17. Post, C., Latu, I. M., & Belkin, L.Y. (2019). A female leadership trust advantage in times of

18. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. *Research in Organizational Behavior*, 28, 61-79.

19. Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. (1993). Think manager, think male. *Management Development Review*, 6, 24-28.

20. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager, think male: A global phenomenon? *Journal of Organizational Behavior*, 17, 33-41.

21. Sergent, K., & Stajkovic, A. D. (2020). Women's leadership is associated with fewer deaths

22. Stajkovic, K., & Stajkovic, A. D. (2023). Ethics of care leadership, racial inclusion, and economic health in the cities: Is There a female leadership advantage? *Journal of Business Ethics*, 1-23.

23. Wealsh DH, Luthans F, Sommer SM (1993) Managing Russian factory workers: The impact of US-based behavioral and participative techniques. *Academy of Management Journal*, 36: 58-79.
Mag. Katja Arzenšek Konjajeva,

Zavod RS za šolstvo, Šola za ravnatelje:

e-mail: katja.arzensekkonjajeva@zrss.si

Theoretical background: Ethics is an important part of professionalism and influences decisions and behaviour in organizations. In doing so, we want to highlight educational organizations and the impact of ethical action on social responsibility. Social responsibility is the obligation of organizations to act for the benefit and interest of the community, even if this means giving up profitable opportunities that could harm the environment or people. Both concepts are linked and contribute to the creation of a culture of trust and transparency. The concept of integrity is defined in different ways in the literature, depending on the professional field that deals with it. In 2022, a definition of integrity within the educational system was created. The concepts, summarized in the definition, are strengthened by a description at the level of organizational integrity: "An educational institution with integrity (organizational integrity) is an institution that, in accordance with the principles and goals of education, applicable law and ethical norms defined in its acts, ensures and implements a quality educational process. It operates transparently in its operations and relations with stakeholders. The educational institution enjoys the trust, reputation and respect of students, parents, employees and the public with integrity."

On the level of integrity of all employees, and in particular, the area of professional integrity of professionals is highlighted. A key element of achieving integrity in the school environment is the establishment of a safe and stimulating learning environment: "The learning environment that strengthens the integrity of students is an environment that is inclusive, fair, builds a culture of cooperation and care for others, and is based on the ethical, professional and responsible behaviour of professionals.

Purpose of the study: The purpose of the study is to investigate how educational organizations incorporate ethics and social responsibility into their business strategies and practices. The study aims to find out what are the challenges and benefits of such an approach, what is the role of managers in promoting ethical values, and what are the expected trends and recommendations for the future. The values in the educational organization structure and inhabit the school. We highlight two interrelated concepts: globalization and individualization. The effects of the process of individualization are not only manifested at the level of each individual, but also in wider social life; a high degree of individualization is also associated with a decrease in the "sense of community" as well as through a relative absence of optimism about the future of the society in which young people live. The trends that indicate the retreat of individuals into privacy also affect their low willingness to engage in public and political life, or conventional political participation, and their lack of trust in democratic institutions. The school helps students think through implicit values and make them their own. The school reproduces values by acting in accordance with them, which also means that it acts as if the students already have these values. The reproduction of value autonomy is thus also the reproduction of the possibility of non-autonomy and therefore also the reproduction of the limits of reproduction.
**Method:** The study is based on a qualitative methodology and uses semi-structured interviews with leaders from the field of education. The study is ongoing and is designed as a long-term (three-year) research. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis and coded according to the main themes related to ethics and social responsibility.

**Results:** The research is still in progress. The intermediate results show that educational organizations understand the importance of ethics and social responsibility, but face various challenges in their implementation. Some of these challenges are the lack of clear guidelines, the conflict between economic and social goals, the different expectations of stakeholders and the need to adapt to different cultural and legislative environments. HR professionals play an important role in supporting ethical values and culture in organizations, as they can influence strategy, policies, processes and training.

**Theoretical contribution:** The study contributes to the theory of ethics and social responsibility in organizations by providing insight into various aspects that influence ethical behaviour and social responsibility. The study also explores the link between ethics and social responsibility and the role of managers and professionals in promoting them. Although there is little research on the impact of teaching about the norms and values of integrity on public integrity, as noted by the OECD in one of its reports, it is increasingly recognized that social norms and values are also crucial for the effective prevention of corruption. In a general sense, integrity can be understood as high-quality behaviour in accordance with relevant moral values, norms and rules. While specific values, norms and principles vary in their degree of importance and visibility in societies and communities, some ethical values are widely accepted, including courage, honesty, justice, responsibility, transparency and integrity. The educational system in the Republic of Slovenia is based on fundamental values, which are reflected in the goals of education, which ensures quality education, equality of educational opportunities and justice. Justice in upbringing and education and equality of educational opportunities are the basis for social justice and thus represent the foundation of public interest in education.

**Practical Implications:** The study offers practical implications for educational and other leaders who wish to improve their ethical and socially responsible practices. The study suggests some recommendations, such as developing clear and consistent guidelines, harmonizing economic and social goals, engaging stakeholders in dialogue, adapting to local conditions, and educating and raising employees' awareness of ethics and social responsibility.

**Keywords:** ethics, social responsibility, culture, educational organizations,
ABRSTRACT

Theoretical background and purpose of the study

Nowadays projects are present at almost every part of our life, not only at works. Even making
everyday decisions needs such preparation and organization with deadlines, budget and quality
requirements that reflect to the project triangle. If only R&D and construction industry is
considered, the share of the World's GDP is more than 10% (UNECE and World Bank
database, 2020), so that the real share of GDP spent on projects is supposedly much higher.
Paradoxically, while these project intensive sectors contribute substantially to GDP, success
rates are alarmingly low: regarding to the Standish Group's Chaos Report (2020), 42% of the
projects prove successful applying agile method, while using the waterfall method the success
rate is only 13%. Since 2015 the success rate increased only 1%. This paradox underscores the
need to delve deeper into the dynamics of project success. Success interpretation depends on
the success criteria considered, but Standish Group (2020) adopts a multilevel interpretation of
these, similarly to Shenhar and Dvir (2007), Görög (2019). However, the research of project
success was on its peak at the beginning of the 2000s (Blaskovics, 2015), the percentage of
successful project is still low. Success factors influence the completion of success criteria
(Collins and Baccarini, 2004). Critical success factors are those success factors that primarily
contribute achieving success. (Rockart, 1982), but the relationship and interdependencies of
these factors would have been also considered, as well as the dynamic nature of projects
(Fortune and White, 2006). A number of authors have discussed the critical success factors and
have proposed a set of them (e.g.: Bryde, 2008; Chen - Chen, 2007, Boonstra - Wortmann,
2010; Fiedler, 2010; etc.), but they never took in consideration the project portfolio
management ("PPM") as a success factor.

PPM is an integrative science, is the interface of project management and strategy. PPM has its
origin in the economics (Markowitz, 1952, Martin, 1955 and Morris, 1958). The work of these
authors is about maximising profit while minimising risk (Hansen and Svejvig, 2022).
Markowitz (1952) came to the conclusion that an investment portfolio is more than a set of
securities, and that with the right combination of risky investments, the portfolio as a whole
becomes less risky (Andor, 2018). Instead of securities project portfolio itself includes set of
project programmes and single projects, which are connected by the common scope, the usage
of common resource, or both (Görög, 2019). The objective of PPM is profit maximization while
maximizing sales and market share, as well as maintaining the company's competitive
advantage and efficient allocation of resources at the same time (Cooper et al., 2002). The
process of portfolio planning, selection and completion includes several steps which are
considered also as critical success factors.

The present study investigates the impact of PPM on project success, in particular the
consideration of PPM as a critical success factor, an aspect which is often overlooked in existing
literature.
## Methods

The present research aims to address the following questions:

* Which project success criteria are influenced by the interpretation of PPM as project success factor?

* What is the substantive relationship between PPM and project success?

* What is the substantive relationship between PPM and client satisfaction, i.e. the degree of awareness of PPM and how it contributes to strategic objectives?

In order to answer the above questions, exploratory case study will be carried out, analysing the following aspects:

* organizational framework of the PPM;

* the methodology of assign projects to the strategic objectives;

* the changes of the strategic objectives managed in the projects;

* the relationship between the portfolio malmanagement and the project management team, after the portfolio selection;

* the nature of control by the PPM department on the projects of a portfolio

* evaluation of success.

The primary expectation of this research is whether PPM can be a response to criticisms of critical success factor theory, in case it can address the interrelationships between success factors and take into account the time-varying nature of a project. Deeper understanding of Hungarian PPM practice also expected, as to find out, on which success criteria contributes fundamentally the PPM as a success factor.

This research focuses on the energy, banking and communication sectors.

### Findings and theoretical contributions

While the study is ongoing, preliminary findings suggest that PPM, by embracing paradoxes inherent in project management, offers a promising avenue for enhancing project success. The research contributes to the understanding of project success by highlighting the significance of PPM as a critical success factor, regarding to its integrative nature.

### Keywords

\#project portfolio management, \#PPM, \#project success, \#critical success factors
## Mihály Görög (PhD, DSc), Professor Emeritus

University of Pannonia, Faculty of Business and Economics
gorog.mihaly@gtk.uni-pannon.hu

During the last few decades the project management community might has faced a couple of project management fad (e.g. critical chain, PRINCE, OPM3), and each of them was considered to be such a panacea which could provide ultimate solution for project managers. Agile approach to managing projects, although it is not a new phenomenon, is our current panacea. This approach includes a couple of genres, e.g. Extreme Programming, Kanban, Feature Driven Development, Scrum etc. This proposed presentation's aim includes revealing the fundamental contradictions and pitfalls inherent to Scrum (which are highlighted in brief here), as one of the most defined agile framework, based on library research, i.e. based on published studies and documents.

Although agile project management has emerged in the context of software development projects (Kauffman, Kock & Gemünden, 2020), nowadays it is also applied in case of new product development projects (Malik, Sarwar & Orr, 2021; Meier & Kock, 2023), while it is defined as substantially different (in terms of flexibility) from classical project management (Tam et al., 2020). Bechtel, Kaufmann and Koch (2023) summarise the fundamental characteristics of agile project management in terms of iterative approach (i.e. flexibility), delivering interim results, and intensive collaboration with the client and stakeholders. While Serrador and Pinto (2015) state that primary feature of the classical project management, such as plan-driven attitude, low collaboration with clients, fix project scope etc. are symptoms of failed projects. At the same time, authors (Burga et al., 2022; Malik, Sarwar & Orr, 2021) say that these differences are primarily due to the different approach to leadership of a self-organising team, and the underlying flexibility in terms of scope definition and planning project implementation.

As to the success achieved on projects, authors (Sithambaram, Nasir & Ahmad, 2021) emphasise the higher success rate and lower failure rate of projects adopting agile methods. In this respect Marnewick and Marnewick (2022) draw the attention on potential for measuring project success more frequently and much earlier due to the incremental realisation and delivery of completed parts of the final project outcome. Tam et al (2020) in their study on success of agilely managed projects consider the following success criteria: a) scope (i.e. achieving the requirements); b) quality (i.e. appropriateness of the outcome); c) time (i.e. delivering on time), and d) cost (i.e. delivering within predefined effort). Although, Serrador and Pinto (2015) consider stakeholder satisfaction as further success criterion, while Paulk (2012) emphasises the importance of customer satisfaction and business success.

Further to protagonists of agile project management there are critical voices as well. Criticisms focus on the way in which protagonists differentiate agile project management from classical project management. Protagonists postulate only one classical project management method which insists on following predefined plans regardless the client's or other stakeholders' need, while project managers direct and control team members to achieve the unchangeably predefined project outcome. Bearing in mind this approach, Stare (2013, p 53) summarises his criticism as follows: "as if the authors had never worked in real teams, as if managers never planned projects together with team members (and vice versa), as if team members never
collaborate with managers on project planning, as if managers were not team leaders but estranged administrators, and as if teams have never regularly collaborated with the client or end users”.

Unlike to the firm intent to strictly differentiate agile project management from classical project management, there are efforts devoted to identifying similarities between the two approaches. Klimkó (2014) identified the following similarities: a) planning; b) self-organising project team; c) monitoring progress; d) collaboration with client and stakeholders; and e) reflecting on how to be more effective.

Bearing in mind the above cited authors' interpretations, one might summarise the fundamental features of agile approach to project management as follows:

* the scope of the project outcome is flexible, while the time and cost constraints are fixed

* instead of managing the project team, the focus is on facilitating a self-organised team

Thus, we are focusing on these two features based on the Scrum/agile framework as one of the most spread and defined agile approach to managing project. This framework is outlined in the Scrum guide (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017) which, relying on the Agile Manifesto, defines artifacts, events and team roles.

One of the fundamental artefacts is the product backlog which provides a detailed introduction of the (functional) capabilities (and their priority) of the desired project result, and also the resources needed to bring about them. At the same time, the release plan, which is not mandatory, highlights the project goal, the major risks, and the overall features of the project outcome, and the likely duration and cost (Paulk, 2012), i.e. it defines the project triangle. Bearing in mind both the product backlog and the success criteria (scope/quality, time and cost) considered by Tam et al (2020) in their study on the success of agilely managed projects, it can be realised with ease that evaluating success achieved on an agilely managed projects is a mission impossible. These criteria are not independent from each other, time and cost are related to scope/quality, and measure the efficiency of project management. It does not make any sense saying that within the predefined time and cost constrains four (or two, or six etc.) from the 12 functional capabilities were completed. Thus, PM efficiency could not be evaluated in the context of the Scrum/agile framework properly.

One of the primary role players is the product owner who is responsible for ensuring the adoption of agile values and principles by the team in the course of implementing the project. His/her tasks include organising and moderating project meetings, doing the project-related administrative work, and providing support to overcome likely difficulties of implementation. Unlike to a classical project manager this role resembles to a mentor who is coaching a self-organised team. Although, a project manager in the context of classical approach do the same when a project is characterised by high level of uncertainty and complexity. In this case project team members need to rely on mutual adjustment (self-organising), while the project manager need to exercise engaging leadership style, i.e. mentoring/coaching team members (Turner & Müller, 2005).

An other primary role player is the product owner, who (on behalf of the client) is responsible for defining the (functional) capabilities of the project result, making decision related to the capabilities, and prioritising the implementation of capabilities. Does this role resembles to a project sponsor's role, or that of the client's project manager? I think so.
Thus, one might say that Scrum/agile framework has developed primarily a new project management vocabulary without considering the different solutions evolved in classical project management. The above highlighted Janus-faced feature of Srum/agile approach will be revealed in detail during the presentation.

**Keywords:** agile project management, agile vs. classical project management, contradictions in Scrum/agile project management, novelty in Scrum/agile project management

REFERENCES

1. Bechtel, J., Kaufmann, C., Koch, A. (2023). The interplay between dynamic capabilities' dimensions and their relationship to project portfolio agility and success. International Journal of Project Management. 41, 1024-69.

2. Burga, R., Spraakman, C., Balestreri, C., Rezania, D. (2022). Examining the transition to agile practices with information technology projects: Agile teams and their experience of accountability. International Journal of Project Management. 40, 76-87.

3. Kauffman, C., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G. (2020). Emerging strategy recognition in agile portfolios. International Journal of Project Management. 38, 429-440.

4. Klimkó, G. (2014). Az agilis szemléletmód első két évtizede. Vezetéstudomány. XLV. 86-96.

5. Malik, M., Sarwar, S., Orr, S. (2021). Agile practices and performance: Examining the role of psychological empowerment. International Journal of Project Management. 39, 10-20.

6. Marnewick, C., Marnewick, A.L. (2022). Benefits realisation in an agile environment. International Journal of Project Management. 40, 454-465.

7. Meier, A., Kock, A. (2023). The human factor in agility: Exploring employee dedication in agile project organizations. International Journal of Project Management. 41, 1025-27.

8. Paulk, M.C. (2011). On Empirical Research Into Scrum Adoption. retrieved from: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mcp/agile/oersa.pdf

9. Serrador, P., Pinto, J.K. (2015). Does Agile work? — A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management. 33, 1040-1051.

10. Sithambaram, J., Nasir, M.H.N.B.M., Ahmad, R. (2021). Issues and challenges impacting the successful management of agile-hybrid projects: A grounded theory approach. International Journal of Project Management. 39, 474-495.

11. Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J. (2017). The Scrum Guide. retrieved from: https://www.scrumguides.org

12. Stare, A. (2013) Agile project management – a future approach to the management of projects? Dynamic Relationships Management Journal. 2, 43 – 53.

13. Tam, C., Moura, E.J.d.C., Oliveira, T., Varajão, J. (2020). The factors influencing the success of on-going agile software development projects. International Journal of Project Management. 38, 165-176.

14. Turner, J. R., Müller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal. 36, 49–61.
Bálint Blaskovics, PhD, PMP

Corvinus University of Budapest, Associate Professor, Head of Department of Project Management

Máté Molnár

Corvinus University of Budapest, PhD Student

**Keywords:** sport management, eras, performance, project management

In the ever-evolving landscape of sports management, understanding the dynamic interplay between trends and regulations is paramount for effective decision-making by general managers in the field. Since the beginning of the 21st century, several factors showed emerging trends such as the amount of player salaries and the increase in the number of player transactions (Glade, Irwin & Sutton, 2001), while the relevance of business-based decisions and globalization gain further influence in the entire industry of professional sport (Ratten, 2011). As the attention and the amount of investments in sport increase, decision-makers encounter paradoxical situations that demand astute navigation. Sport managers draw upon their personal intuitions based on past experiences across different times and situations. However, within in the top professional leagues, the opportunity exists to augment and support decision-making processes through the utilization of data-driven insights and metrics, thereby affording a broader perspective. (Zambom-Ferraresi, Rios & Lera-López, 2018; Simsek et al., 2021). These managers form their organizations as they bear the responsibility of allocating the two most important finite resources - money and players - dealing with risks facing a dynamically changing environment and competitors as most profit-driven entities. (Nourayi, 2006; Barden, J. & Kozlak, S., 2023)

The subject of this research is the North American professional basketball league - the National Basketball Association (from now on: NBA) - and the sport-specific and financial performance of its teams, with the aim to identify the current era of the league and check the current trends and attributes of the sport.

The analysis begins by examining the historical trends that have shaped the landscape of the league - and therefore the sport of basketball as well - encompassing aspects of team and individual performance - such as team efficiency on the offensive and defensive end, shot selection patterns, individual season highs, statistical category leaders. By charting the trajectory of these trends over time, this study elucidates their impact on the strategic decision-making processes of general managers within their profession.

Furthermore, the study investigates the regulatory landscape governing the franchises of the organization, including league policies, and especially financial regulations. Through a detailed examination of regulatory changes and their influence on team spending, player selection, player transactions, and contract through which manager build their teams to succeed on and off the court, as a sport team and as a business as well.

After a brief literature review, the method of the research is a time-series analysis with data gathered about team specific statistics, season specific specialties and financial information.
Besides the NBA's own database, other genuine basketball-related databases such as Basketball Reference are the source of information, while financial information is gathered from the current and former Collective Bargaining Agreements of the league and authentic online sources.

The aim of this study to identify the current era of basketball based on trends and significant attributes on and off field, in order to lay the down the foundation for further data analysis. The findings of this study will culminate in a summary of the evolutionary epochs within the NBA, emphasizing the contemporary era as its focal point. This investigation will delineate the defining characteristics and distinctive attributes of the present one, providing insight into its unique attributes and specialized components. With this knowledge about the relevant timeframe in which the different metrics should be investigated by managers leaning on data-based decision making might help to find new ways and perspectives to apply tools of different fields such as project management and utilizing their approach and toolsets, especially the ones reflecting on planning and control performance management.

## References

1. Barden, J. & Kozlak, S. (2023). Resource deprivation, decision stakes, and the selection of foreign players in the NBA draft, Sport Management Review, DOI: 10.1080/14413523.2023.2259147

2. Gladden, J. M., Irwin, R. L., & Sutton, W. A. (2001). Managing North American Major Professional Sport Teams in the New Millennium: A Focus on Building Brand Equity. Journal of Sport Management, 15(4), pp. 297–317. doi:10.1123/jsm.15.4.297

3. Nourayi, M. M. (2006). Profitability in professional sports and benchmarking: the case of NBA franchises. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(3), 252–271. doi:10.1108/14635770610668776

4. Ratten, V. (2011). International sports management: Current trends and future developments. Thunderbird International Business Review, 53(6), pp. 679–686. doi:10.1002/tie.20444

5. Simsek, S., Albizri, A., Johnson, M., Custis, T. and Weikert, S. (2021). Predictive data analytics for contract renewals: a decision support tool for managerial decision-making. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34(2), pp. 718-732. doi:10.1108/JEIM-12-2019-0375

6. Zambom-Ferraresi, F., Rios, V., & Lera-López, F. (2018). Determinants of sport performance in European football: What can we learn from the data? Decision Support Systems, 114, pp. 18–28. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2018.08.006
Jelena Nikolić,

Faculty of Economics University of Kragujevac

Dejana Zlatanović,

Faculty of Economics University of Kragujevac

Julija Vidosavljević,

Faculty of Economics University of Kragujevac

**Abstract:** The quality of corporate governance is a significant prerequisite for enhancing the organizational performance of companies. Numerous mechanisms are ensuring effective management and governance of organizations in line with the best practices of corporate governance. Various authors explore how internal and external mechanisms of corporate control influence different aspects of organizational performance. Previous research on corporate governance mechanisms primarily focuses on measuring the internal mechanisms' impact on company performance, such as ownership structure and board characteristics, as well as mergers and acquisitions as external mechanisms of corporate governance. However, the quality of corporate governance also depends on legislative and regulatory frameworks. Accordingly, OECD principles guide corporate governance initiatives both within OECD member countries and beyond, making them highly relevant for the Republic of Serbia and other developing economies. Given the scarcity of research related to OECD principles in the Republic of Serbia, the study aims to overcome this research gap. It aims to determine how the application of the OECD principles influences organizational performance in the banking sector of the Republic of Serbia. The focus is on the following OECD principles: dedication to corporate governance principles, relationship with shareholders and other stakeholders, disclosure of information and transparency, and the accountability of the board of directors and the supervisory board. The importance of researching the relationship between the implementation of OECD principles and the organizational performance of companies arises from the need to harmonize the country's legal regulations with EU directives.

The research was conducted in the Republic of Serbia during 2023. The sample consisted of 82 respondents employed in six banks in the Central Serbia region. The study applied descriptive statistical analysis, reliability analysis, correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis to determine the effects of implementing OECD principles on organizational performance. The results show that selected OECD principles have a positive impact on organizational performance. This indicates the following implications for theory, practice and society. Taking into account that previous research, particularly in domestic literature, has focused on internal mechanisms of corporate control or the use of secondary data, there is a limited number of empirical studies based on the application of external mechanisms, particularly OECD principles, confirming the originality of this research. In the banking sector, the regulatory framework is one of the important mechanisms of corporate governance contributing to economic growth, especially when it comes to developing economies. The research findings indicate the necessity of raising awareness of the importance of implementing OECD principles for improving bank performance. Therefore, the results can also be useful for legislative institutions in terms of tightening control systems for redefining and improving the regulatory and institutional frameworks to facilitate the implementation of principles.
As a primary limitation, besides the time frame of the research, it can be noted that the study
does not include all defined and revised OECD principles. Therefore, it is preferred that future
models include other principles and performance categories and that respondents be segmented
according to their position within the organization.

**Keywords:** corporate governance, external mechanisms, OECD principles, financial institutions, performance
Matea Zlatković Radaković

orcid.org/0000-0002-2472-5407

Faculty of Economics University of Banja Luka, Majke Jugovića 4, 78 000, Banja Luka,
Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
matea. zlatkovic@ef.unibl.org

Theoretical background: According to the previous theoretical and empirical researches, there is consensus among researches that intellectual capital represents the valuable resource for value creation and achievement of the enterprise performances (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Nimtrakoon, 2015; Xu & Wang, 2019; Chowdhury et al., 2019; Ting et al., 2020; Xu & Liu, 2020, 2021). Current economy is transformed from capital-based into knowledge-based where knowledge, ideas and information play dominant role (Nadeem et al., 2019; Xu & Li, 2019). However, despite the rising intellectual capital importance, the intangible resources are not still recognized completely in balance sheets of enterprises as accounting assets (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Liang & Lin, 2008; Nadeem et al., 2019).

There is a broad discussion on IC definitions and its taxonomy resulting in the need to adopt the multidimensional view of intellectual capital. There are numerous definitions of the intellectual capital term. For instance, the intellectual capital represents the sum of knowledge, information, intellectual property and employees' experience (Stewart, 1997). It exists in enterprises and, even though it does not appear in financial statements, creates values for various shareholders (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997). It is generally acknowledged that intellectual capital could be divided into human, structural, relational and renewal capital (Kianto et al., 2010; Rehman et al., 2021). Human capital represents the core element of the intellectual capital (Ali et al., 2023) that produces creative ideas and increase the innovation capability of the enterprises. Structural capital reflects tacit knowledge retained in the enterprises through the knowledge codification and transfer process (Buenechea-Elberdin et al., 2018), comprised of documents, databases, manuals, procedures, and etc. Relational capital refers mainly to customers relationships which are the essence of this type of capital (Kianto et al., 2010). Renewal capital, as learning and renewing knowledge fund of enterprises, depends on existing knowledge (Kianto et al., 2010), especially in the form of tacit cognitive knowledge and tacit technical knowledge like capabilities and skills (Maharani et al., 2023). It has an important role in the relationship between intellectual capital and enterprise performance (Ritala et al., 2023).

Many researchers (Pal & Soriya, 2012; Nimtrakoon, 2015; Bontis et al., 2018; Sardo & Serrasqueiro, 2018; Xu & Wang, 2019; Xu et al., 2019; Xu & Liu, 2020, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2022) have revealed the positive relationship between intellectual capital and enterprise performance. However, only few researches by authors acknowledgment have paid attention to apply more holistic approach to identify the nature of the intellectual capital-enterprise performance relationship (Zlatkovic, 2018).

Enterprise effectiveness became a central topic in the field of business performance and sustainability. Enterprise effectiveness is a multidimensional construct that determines several aspects of enterprise effectiveness, in particular processes and goal orientation with broader approach to performance evaluation. There is no consensus on how to define the enterprise effectiveness but the competing value approach can be single out as frequently applied.
The competing values approach (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) views the enterprise as a dynamic and contradictory entity established to fulfil the objective of the enterprise. It defines the four aspects of effectiveness based on three value dimensions: internal-external focus, control-or-flexibility, and means and ends. The core of this approach is to strive to achieve a balance between the effectiveness models, regardless of the conflicting and contradictory nature of their objectives. The same authors have revealed business life cycle stages that correspond to previously identified effectiveness models highlighting the mutual dependence of life cycle stage and pronouncement of certain effectiveness criteria. Business life cycle indicates the development stages of the enterprise cyclically appearing (Liang & Lin, 2008; Xu et al., 2022). Each business life cycle stage has dominant criteria of effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Zheng et al., 2010), reshaping the business strategies in respect to innovation, marketing, service and other activities. Adoption of the various intellectual capital management strategies suitable to life stage characteristics can lead to establishment of intellectual capital as main factor for above-average performance and sustainable competitiveness advantage (Xu et al., 2022). The shift of the importance of the criteria effectiveness due to entrance in different business life cycle stages was identified (Quinn & Cameron, 1983; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) but poorly empirically investigated especially in context of intellectual capital perspective.

**Purpose of the study:** The aim of this paper was to investigate the impact of the intellectual capital and its components (human, relational, structural and renewal capital) on enterprise performance at different business life cycle stages.

**Method:** The data were collected using a questionnaire delivered to enterprises listed in Chamber Commerce of Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, to evaluate proposed research model. The modified Bontis's intellectual capital model (Bontis, 1998) as measure of the intellectual capital efficiency is applied. The multidimensionality of the enterprise performance concept was addressed using competing value instrument. All variables were measured using seven-point Likert's scale where 1 represents "strongly disagree" and 7 represents "strongly agree". The partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to test the research hypotheses and perform moderation-mediation analysis.

**Findings:** This study showed that the impact of intellectual capital on the enterprise performance differs across business life cycle stages. Specifically, at early stages, entrepreneurial and collectivism stages, an intellectual capital component, such as human capital, had positive effect on enterprise performance. At the formalisation and control and elaboration and structure stages, all intellectual capital components contributed to enterprise performance improvement.

**Theoretical contribution:** This study represents one of the few studies to explore the impact of intellectual capital on enterprise performance of listed companies in the research context, from a business life cycle perspective. It also makes novel contributions in investigating the intellectual capital-enterprise performance linkage with inclusion of the life cycle stages that are largely neglected in previous research.

**Practical contribution:** The research findings may help enterprise managers to establish optimal strategies to improve enterprise performance through effective intellectual capital management in competitiveness and unpredictable business environment. Meanwhile, enterprise can allocate their resources into crucial elements of the intellectual capital according to life cycle stage to maximize the IC contribution to value creation in the enterprises

**Keywords:** Intellectual Capital, Enterprise Performance, Business Life Cycle, PLS-SEM
References

1. Ali, M. A., Hussin, N., Flayyih, H. H., Haddad, H., Al-Ramahi, N. M., Almubaydeen, T. H. & Hasan Abunaila, A. S. (2023). A Multidimensional View of Intellectual Capital and Dynamic Innovative Performance. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(3), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16030139

2. Bontis, N. (1998), "Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models", Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749810204142

3. Bontis, N., Ciambotti, M., Palazzi, F., & Sgro, F. (2018). Intellectual capital and financial performance in social cooperative enterprises. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(4), 712-731. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2017-0049

4. Buenechea-Elberdin, M., Sáenz, J., & Kianto, A. (2018). Knowledge management strategies, intellectual capital, and innovation performance: a comparison between high- and low-tech firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(8), 1757-1781.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2017-0150

5. Chowdhury, L. A. M., Rana, T., & Azim, M. I. (2019). Intellectual capital efficiency and organisational performance: In the context of the pharmaceutical industry in Bangladesh. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(6), 784-806.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2018-0171

6. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company's true value by finding its hidden roots.

7. Kianto, A., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Ritala, P. (2010). Intellectual capital in service-and product-oriented companies. Journal of intellectual capital, 11(3), 305-325.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931011064563

8. Liang, C. J., & Lin, Y. L. (2008). Which IC is more important? A life-cycle perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1), 62-76.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930810845803

9. Maharani, I. A. K., Sukoco, B. M., Usman, I., & Ahlstrom, D. (2023). Learning-driven strategic renewal: systematic literature review. Management Research Review.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2023-0377

10. Nadeem, M., Dumay, J., & Massaro, M. (2019). If you can measure it, you can manage it: a case of intellectual capital. Australian Accounting Review, 29(2), 395-407.
https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12227

11. Nimtrakoon, S. (2015). The relationship between intellectual capital, firms’ market value and financial performance: Empirical evidence from the ASEAN. Journal of intellectual capital, 16(3), 587-

12. Pal, K., & Soriya, S. (2012). IC performance of Indian pharmaceutical and textile industry. Journal of Intellectual capital, 13(1), 120-137.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931211196240

13. Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management science, 29(1), 33-51.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.1.33.

14. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363

15. Rehman, S. U., Elrehail, H., Alsaad, A., & Bhatti, A. (2021). Intellectual capital and innovative performance: a mediation-moderation perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(5), 998-1024. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2020-0109
16. Ritala, P., Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., & Hussinki, H. (2023). To protect or not to protect? Renewal capital, knowledge protection and innovation performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(11), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2021-0866

17. Sardo, F., Serrasqueiro, Z., & Alves, H. (2018). On the relationship between intellectual capital and financial performance: A panel data analysis on SME hotels. International Journal of

18. Stewart, T.A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Doubleday, New York, NY.

19. Ting, I. W. K., Ren, C., Chen, F. C., & Kweh, Q. L. (2020). Interpreting the dynamic performance effect of intellectual capital through a value-added-based perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(3), 381-401. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2019-0098

20. Xu, J., & Wang, B. (2019). Intellectual capital and financial performance of Chinese agricultural listed companies. Custos e Agronegocio On Line, 15(1), 273-290.

21. Xu, J., & Liu, F. (2020). The impact of intellectual capital on firm performance: A modified and extended VAIC model. Journal of Competitiveness, (1). https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2020.01.10

22. Xu, J., & Liu, F. (2021). Nexus between intellectual capital and financial performance: An investigation of Chinese manufacturing industry. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 22(1), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13888

23. Zhang, L., Yu, Q., Jin, Z., & Xu, J. (2021). Do intellectual capital elements spur firm performance? Evidence from the textile and apparel industry in China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7332885

24. Zlatkovic, M. (2018). Intellectual capital and organizational effectiveness: PLS-SEM approach. Industrija, 46(4). https://doi.org/10.5937/industrija46-19478
Saša Novosel, PhD Student

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Rijeka

I.Filipovića 4

Rijeka, Croatia

e-mail: snovosel@student.uniri.hr

In today's volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) business environment companies must constantly adapt and innovate to survive. Examples of former market leaders Kodak, Xerox and the Swiss watch industry show the consequences of failure in embracing change. However, mistakes in the timing of new products and business models can also result in profit erosion and company failure. When looking from another perspective too much efficiency can hinder innovation and vice versa, so both should always be aligned. Research in organizational ambidexterity highlights the importance of balance between the exploitation of existing products and organizations and exploration of new ones (March, 1991). Ambidextrous integration is achieved at the level of Top Management Team (TMT) which must deal with the paradox of opposing goals and provide overarching leadership (Berkinshaw et al., 2016).

Another way of looking at the problem of changing business environment is dynamic capabilities (DC) theory which emphasizes an organization's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure its core competencies (Teece et al., 1997). Both organizational ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities build on the same set of paradigms of the evolutionary view and the notion of achieving strategy fit between the dynamic environment and internal capabilities. In recent years both concepts are well developed and popular. Still, there is potential for research of ambidexterity in less explored areas like TMT leadership role, especially in a multi-level approach (Kassotaki, 2022) or in different dimensions. From my personal managerial experience, ambidexterity is important but often misunderstood, which motivated me to work on my PhD in the strategic management research field.

There are slightly different focal points of the theories as ambidexterity is mostly concerned with organizational design (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004) while DC is mostly concerned with strategic choices regarding capabilities required to address dynamic environments (Teece et al., 1997). However, the prevailing view is that organizational ambidexterity is a dynamic capability per se (Simsek, 2009; Raisch and Berkinshaw, 2008; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2008) which can be further confirmed on the micro-level. Sensing of new opportunities by exploring and innovating (Teece, 2007) is connected to exploration, seizing is the commercialization of new products (Teece, 2007) and connected to exploitation and finally reconfiguration, the continuous alignment and realignment of specific tangible and intangible assets (Teece, 2007) can be viewed as balanced exploration and exploitation - ambidexterity.

This paper is at the heart of both theories, in the point of their intersection - Reconfiguring (DC) and aligning exploration/exploitation (ambidexterity). Through the application of micro-foundations of DC, we can better explain the paradox of the explore/exploit tension faced by TMT. Leaders must have attention and awareness to deal effectively with ambidexterity (Koryak, O. et al., 2018), confront these issues within themselves and embrace paradoxes which brings us to the questions how can we (re)define ambidexterity, how can we measure and improve it?
There are various research approaches and we have selected three as preferred 'lenses' for viewing the research objectives. Firstly, managerial cognitive capabilities (Helfat and Peteraf, 2015) applied to define optimal cognitive capabilities. Managerial cognition extends the DC view with a higher focus on the role of the manager in strategic change. We could review ambidexterity in context of some managerial cognitive capabilities like perception and attention for sensing, problem-solving and reasoning for seizing and language and communication and social cognition for reconfiguring (Helfat and Peteraf, 2015). Apart from that there is a second avenue of analysis through social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001) applied to analyze the ambidexterity paradox. This theory states that we can learn through observing others, understand better the consequences of our actions, and foster self-regulation. Thus, when TMT has the needed awareness about ambidexterity, they can also initiate activities to assure organizational ambidexterity. Consequently, van Neerijnen, P. et al. (2022) developed a model which applies reflexivity and paradoxical cognitive processing for improving ambidexterity. Reflexivity, the ability to question assumptions and engage in critical self-reflection, leads to greater awareness of the exploration/exploitation paradox and a willingness to engage with it. Paradoxical cognitive processing, on the other hand, enables TMT to overcome tensions between exploration and exploitation activities through cognitive differentiation and integration. Finally, the third approach or 'lens' is strategic thinking (Liedtka, 1998; Jelenc, 2008) as possible explanation for managerial decision making. Strategic thinking is a continuous process with the goal of evaluating information, giving it meaning and acting upon it by shaping the behavior accordingly (Jelenc, 2008). As TMT needs to constantly rethink the relationship between exploration and exploitation this approach could provide insights into achieving ambidexterity. The possible operationalization is defining characteristics relevant for exploration/exploitation with strategic thinking as second order construct to explain managerial behavior and decision making. Additionally, paradox mindset as a way we think about tensions (Miron-Spektor, E. et al., 2017) could be an interesting additional viewpoint within the strategic thinking approach. At this stage in PhD thesis development, we are still reviewing these approaches and will choose the most appropriate later.

Our paper looks at organizational ambidexterity multi-dimensional regarding two types of the explore/exploit relationship. The first dimension focuses on maintaining a balance between exploration and exploitation, known as "balance dimension" (BD). The second dimension concerns the overall magnitude of both exploration and exploitation, known as the "combined dimension" (CD). In BD there are limits of explore/exploit resources available, while in CD there is no competition for limited resources which makes them more appropriate for larger organizations (Cao, Q. et al., 2009). Furthermore, from the DC point of view our paper analyses how TMT can achieve ambidexterity by applying DC micro-foundation. This question opens an additional dimension in the research by reviewing how managers can sense, seize and reconfigure the ambidexterity as a dynamic capability?

Original theoretical contributions and practical implications of our work will be the definition and measurement of various dimensions and approaches for organizational ambidexterity of TMT from the dynamic capability perspective. We will apply original approaches by using the lenses of managerial cognitive capabilities, social cognitive theory, and strategic thinking.

Keywords: organizational ambidexterity, dynamic capabilities, paradox theory.

This work has been partially supported by the University of Rijeka project uniri-iskusni-drustv-23-161.
LITERATURE

1. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.

2. Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinous change? *Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives*. California Management Review, 58(4), 36–58.

3. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H. (2009) Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects. *Organization Science* 20(4):781-796.

4. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. *Academy of Management Journal*, 47(2), 209–226.

5. Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2015), Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. *Strat. Mgmt. J.*, 36: 831-850.

6. Jelenc, L. (2008). The Impact of Strategic Management Schools and Strategic Thinking on the Performance of Croatian Entrepreneurial Practice. Doctoral thesis, Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.

7. Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research. SAGE Open, 12(1).

8. Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. *Research Policy*, 47(2), 413–427.

9. Liedtka, J.M., 1998. Strategic thinking: Can it be taught? *Long Range Planning* 31, 120–129

10. March, J.G. (1991) ‘Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning’, *Organization Science*, 2(1), pp. 71–87.

11. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W.K., and Lewis, M.W. 2018: *Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem*. AMJ, 61, 26–45

12. O'Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008) ‘Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma’, *Research in Organizational Behavior*, 28, pp. 185–206.

13. Simsek, Z. (2009), *Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding*. *Journal of Management Studies*, 46: 597-624.

14. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. *Strategic Management Journal*, 18, 509–533.

15. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. *Strategic Management Journal*, 28(13), 1319–1350.

16. van Neerijnen, P., Tempelaar, M. P., & van de Vrande, V. (2022). Embracing Paradox: TMT paradoxical processes as a steppingstone between TMT reflexivity and organizational ambidexterity. *Organization Studies*, 43(11), 1793–1814.
Tamara Stanković

Department of Accounting and Auditing
2nd year doctoral student

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana,
Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana

tamara.stankovic@ef.uni-lj.si

Abstract

This article investigates the evolving workplace dynamics, particularly the sedentary nature further impaired by technological advances and the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting accountants and auditors. Focusing on the crucial role of organizations in promoting healthy habits, the study utilizes Heider's Attribution theory and a vignette experiment to understand internal and external determinants influencing accounting professionals' engagement in physical activity. The research explores preferences for physical activity initiatives, evaluates their impact on the attractiveness of the accounting profession, and delves into the perceived relationship between physical activity and job performance. Beyond conventional stress recovery, the study highlights various performance-related benefits, proposing a physical activity – job performance framework, urging accounting and auditing organizations to integrate physical activity as an investment in employee well-being into mandatory health promotion initiative and corporate social responsibility criteria, recognizing it as a strategic imperative for organizational growth, competitiveness and long term sustainability.

Keywords: physical activity, sedentary behaviour, accounting, vignette experiment, job performance

Introduction

The workplace has changed: today it is characterized by increasingly sedentary work, with modern technological advances seen as the main driver of this change (Church et al., 2011; Woessner et al., 2021). Covid-19 pandemic has encouraged telecommuting (i.e., working from home), which further increased sedentary behaviour among employees (Fukushima et al., 2021; Wilms et al., 2022), leaving accountants and auditors as no exception (Mulei, 2023; Piccone, 1996). Accounting professionals routinely contend with a demanding work environment, where work deadlines take priority over healthy activities, exposing them to work-related stress and having an adverse effect on their well-being and work-life balance (Rodrigues et al., 2022). In such circumstances, organizations play a crucial role in encouraging their employees to adopt healthy lifestyle habits, including engaging in regular physical activity (Bakker et al., 2013; ECORYS, 2017). Seen as an important job stress recovery strategy (Bakker et al., 2013; Sonntag & Fritz, 2015), integrating some form of regular physical activity into the daily routine of accountants and auditors can have a multifaceted positive impact on their behaviour at work, i.e., help alleviate stress, enhance cognitive functions, improve communication and cooperation skills, and improve mental health, consequently leading to better job performance, job satisfaction and overall well-being.
## Theoretical background

The inherently stressful and sedentary nature of the accounting profession poses unique challenges for incorporating physical activity into daily life. Therefore, it is first important to understand, what are the most important internal (personal) and external (situational) determinants that drive their decision to engage in physical activity.

Heider's (1958) Attribution theory applied in functional HR attributions theory (FHRA) explores how managers and employees attribute causes to their own and each others' behaviours, how they make attributions in the context of work-life balance initiatives, employee monitoring, or assessment centres (Hewett et al., 2018). The attribution theory will serve as a foundation to investigate the antecedents of accountants' and auditors' physical activity.

## Purpose of the study

We will try to obtain the answers to the above research question designing a vignette experiment illustrating the delicate balance that accountants and auditors must navigate, considering both (a) internal factors (e.g., health awareness, stress management), and (b) external factors (e.g., top management support, social norms), coupled with (c) physical activity mode (e.g., uninterrupted sitting, active breaks), and (d) physical activity initiative (e.g., workplace-driven facilitated by the organization or self-initiated).

Vignette experiment as the core element of the study is usually accompanied by a traditional survey or an interview for the parallel and supplementary material, which will allow us to (a) examine whether the chosen population demonstrates a preference for this kind of additional benefit as part of mandatory health promotion initiative, and as accountants and auditors might make attributions about the causes of the job's attractiveness, (b) does caring for accountants' and auditors' well-being in such a way, play an important role in the attractiveness of such a profession, both attracting new and retaining existing employees, thus reducing turnovers.

Last but not least, we are interested in understanding accountants' and auditors' perceptions of the relationship between physical activity and job performance, from the perspective of identifying (a) potential areas where the relationship between physical activity and performance-related outcomes may be observed or anticipated at work and (b) which of those outcomes hold the highest value to these employees. In line with 'what gets measured can be managed' we will seek to identify (c) which of those outcomes are most practical, can have data collected on, and are feasible to monitor and measure in practice. Participating in physical activity within accounting profession can yield outcomes that extend beyond the conventional perspective of mere job stress recovery or enhanced occupational health (Jones et. al., 2010), as foundational cognitive skills like memory, attention, and task focus are one of the pivotal skills for accountants' effective and accurate task performance (Birnberg & Shields, 1984). Additionally, creative thinking in auditors allows to look beyond evident risks, considering unique factors to identify red flags and hidden irregularities, to adapt successfully to the turbulent environments in which they operate and finally together with critical thinking and decision-making skills enhancing audit quality, which is one of auditors' primary goals (Hammersly et al., 2011).
## Methods

First, we conducted a literature review to identify a broad spectrum of physical activity determinants, narrowing it down to the context of accounting professionals (e.g., Holderness & Hunton, 2010; Jones et al., 2010; Prasetyo & Hoesada, 2023). With our target population, accountants and auditors in accounting and auditing organizations, operating in Slovenia, semi-structured interviews will serve as a pilot study also helping us obtain manageable number of determinants included in our final vignette universe. The population will then evaluate the healthiness and attractiveness of vignettes. Research questions will be analysed either in Nvivo software or through coding matrices and presented in thematic clusters.

## Contributions and Conclusion

Expected theoretical contributions involve contributing to Behavioural Accounting Research (BAR) by exploring the interplay of physical activity, technical functions, behaviour, and job performance among accounting professionals, and contributing to Attribution Theory by expanding the current understanding of antecedents and outcomes of physical activity of accounting professionals.

Expected practical implications include (a) recommendations for accounting and auditing organizations how to encourage their employee physical activity and communicate the benefits to employees in order to increase participation rates, and (b) how to plan, implement and monitor employee physical activity interventions.

Understanding the interplay between internal and external factors can contribute to the development of tailored wellness programs within the accounting profession. Developing the physical activity – job performance framework to monitor and evaluate the benefits might encourage organizations to integrate such an investment into their employees - a vital source of organizational competitive advantage - into corporate social responsibility (CSR) context and environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria, to be seen as a part of their business strategy, and paramount to the growth of the organization itself.

## References

1. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Oerlemans, W., & Sonnentag, S. (2013). Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34*, 87–107.

2. Birnberg, J.G. & Shields, M.D. (1984). The role of attention and memory in accounting decisions. *Accounting Organization and Society, 9*(3/4): 365-382.

3. Church, T.S., Thomas, D.M., Tudor-Locke, C., Katzmarzyk, P.T., Earnest, C.P., Rodarte, R.Q., Martin, C.B., Blair, S.N., & Bouchard, C. (2011). Trends over 5 Decades in U.S. Occupation-Related Physical Activity and Their Associations with Obesity. *PloS ONE, 6*(5): e19657.

4. ECORYS (2017), *“Physical activity at the workplace: literature review and best practice case studies”*, A final report to the European Commission, Brussels.

5. Fukushima N., Machida M., Kikuchi H., Amagasa S., Hayashi T., Odagiri Y., Takamiya T. & Inoue S. (2021). Associations of working from home with occupational physical activity and sedentary behavior under the COVID-19 pandemic. *Journal of Occupational Health, 63*: e12212.

6. Hammersley, J. S., K. Johnstone, and K. Kadous. (2011). How do audit seniors respond to heightened fraud risk? *Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30*(3): 81–101.

7. Hewett, R., Shantz, A., Mundy J. & Alfes, K. (2018). Attribution theories in Human Resource Management research: a review and research agenda. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29*(1), 87-126.
Mladen Čudanov

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences

mladenc@fon.bg.ac.rs

## Theoretical background

A paradoxical relationship can be identified between the rigidity of existing organizational structures in the corporate world and the values, attitudes, and behaviors of new employees, digital natives who grew up on video games and the internet environment. Gamification of organizational structure, a digital transformation equivalent of organizational structure design, may answer the related challenges. Gamification can, from a scientific perspective, be defined as a "social scientific, post-positivist subdiscipline of game science that explores the various design techniques, and related concerns, that can be used to add game elements to existing real-world processes" (Landers, Auer, Collmus & Armstrong, 2018). The practice has been criticized widely (González-González & Navarro-Adelantado, 2021; Kim 2018; Nyström 2021) and even called "exploitationware", but Gajanova (2020) elaborates that gamification in business disciplines, in marketing in particular for her article, is not just another "management fad". Gamification is applied in both business (Parlić, Čudanov & Săvoiu 2014) and in other contexts (Čudanov, Parlić & Sofronijević, 2014; Jaško, Maljković & Čudanov, 2015). Recent studies find wide organizational applications of gamification (Bizzi, 2023; Butler & Spoelstra, 2024; Khodabandelou, Roghanian, Gheysari & Amoozegar, 2023; Sharma et al, 2024).

## Purpose of study

Rigid organizational structures are not to be expected to fit future generations, which have grown in a completely different world. Inspired by the thinking of SF writer Arthur C. Clarke in his "Childhood's end" book, we can predict that new generations of Homo Sapiens will evolve, leading even to the emergence of a new species of humans. Looking at the life values, behavior, technology immersion, attention span, vocabulary, attitudes, and other traits of the new generations, an objective observer might often think that the moment has already arrived. As the next generation of corporate leaders takes shape in today's kindergartens, we ponder potential monikers for their cohort. However, one thing is certain: their relationship with digital technology will be markedly different from that of current generations. Research conducted by AVG company reveals that young "Techno-toddlers" (Jones, 2011), aged 2-5, already possess basic digital skills, with 58% able to play rudimentary computer games, 28% capable of making calls on mobile phones, and 25% able to launch web browsers. Surprisingly, only 9% of them can tie their shoelaces. Consider the profound economic and social implications of these individuals ascending the corporate ladder in the next decade. Picture their astonishment and frustration upon encountering organizational structures and hierarchies designed for a different era of technology and social norms. Despite some evolution, contemporary organizational frameworks still largely adhere to the principles of Frederick Winslow Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber. These frameworks emphasize hierarchical structures, division of labor, authority, chains of command, and delineated rules and responsibilities. For instance, the relationships within the organizational hierarchy, e.g. between managers and operative labour, full professors and teaching associates, or seasoned experts and juniors, often mirror military hierarchies, resembling those between colonels and captains. Even in more modern matrix structures proposed by Galbraith (2012), hierarchies can be plagued by sluggish feedback mechanisms, limited avenues for formal advancement, and outdated performance evaluation practices. An apparent disparity emerges when comparing advancements in organizational design with technological support for such designs, highlighting a distinct favor toward the latter.
## Methods

This study is limited to the literature review and secondary source analysis. Following the theory of punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner & Jones, 1991), we expect that periods of relative stability in organizations, like in public policies, be interrupted by short periods of dynamic, transformative change. In order to envision that change, we cannot rely on hard-fact empirical research methods but trust in port-positivism research values and subjective interpretations of objective facts. This study does not present significant empirical findings. Still, it proposes a framework for future research, which can first be aimed at self-reporting studies based on adoption surveys of different employee groups to the gamified organizational structures, as well as longitudinal studies of behaviour, satisfaction and performance within those organizations.

## Findings and theoretical contribution

Traditional hierarchies often limit formal employee progression mainly in vertical directions. When employees seek horizontal or diagonal advancement, formal opportunities diminish, forcing them to resort to unconventional or informal means. Drawing from consulting experience across various companies, I've observed that employees with versatile horizontal and diagonal skills can offer as much, if not more during the organizational crises, benefits to business as those highly specialized in a single vertical function. With the widespread availability of information and communication technologies enabling comprehensive feedback mechanisms for employee progress in multiple directions, companies now possess the means to support such advancements, mimicking the progress in Role-Playing Games (RPG). Management development has long been likened to a game (House 1963), albeit with limited changes in organizational design. Introducing game design elements (Deterding et al, 2011) into organizational hierarchy design seems logical, following the examples in different business areas described in the current literature. This approach aims to enhance employee motivation, not just the younger gaming population. It's worth noting that even a decade ago, the average social gamer was a 43-year-old female (Ingram, 2010). However, it's important to recognize that gamification isn't a panacea for organizational motivation; it's merely a wrapper for the underlying work. While employees may appreciate the gamification layer, it doesn't guarantee satisfaction with the work itself. Ignoring that can lead to practices which have justified harsh criticism of gamification in business practices. Nonetheless, future research would likely show that both gamers and non-gamers prefer a correctly developed and applied gamified system over the existing military-style hierarchy, titles, and advancement structures.

## Practical implications

In practice, this concept can be applied through matrix organizational structure and balanced scorecard with simple intranet software support for distributing and administrating "games" and "raids". The following figure presents the proposed structure based on Čudanov (2022). Project line managers in matrix structure become game designers, and in collaboration with top management, game designers they translate "Balanced scorecard" perspectives Kaplan & Norton 1996) into tangible initiatives with objectives, measures and targets: 1) "games," long-term strategic projects, and 2) "raids," short-term of less value. Games/raids are linked to enterprise value, e.g. $100 equating to 1 point. Points reflecting project success are allocated to employees. Games/raids are tailored to engage corporate skills, distributed through corporate software, and led by designers to achieve objectives. Guild leaders, replacing functional managers in traditional matrix structures, oversee skill requirements, advise on design, and recruit external staff, ensuring steady capabilities.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig1: Gamified matrix organization</figcaption></figure>

This organizational structure should provide more freedom, alignment with the values of new cohorts of employees, and give an objective, meritocracy-based system of organizational advancement.

Keywords

Organizational structure; Matrix organization; Gamification; Techno-toddlers; Digital transformation; Digital natives.

REFERENCES:

1. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044-1074.

2. Bizzi, L. (2023). Why to gamify performance management? Consequences of user engagement in gamification. Information & Management, 60(3), 103762.

3. Bogost, I. (2013). Exploitationware. In Rhetoric/composition/play through video games: Reshaping theory and practice of writing (pp. 139-147). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.

4. Butler, N., & Spoelstra, S. (2024). Redemption Through Play? Exploring the Ethics of Workplace Gamification. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-12.

5. Čudanov, M. (2022) Gamified organizational design. HR World, 7, 52-56.
6. Čudanov, M., Parlić, D., & Sofronijević, A. (2014, October). Proposed framework for gamifying information retrieval: case of DART-European research theses portal. In *Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality* (pp. 185-190).

7. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. *Proceedings of the CHI EA '11, ACM Press* pp.2425-2428

8. Gajanova, L. (2020). Gamification in marketing–A fad of current times?. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 287-293.

9. Galbraith, J.R. (2012). The Evolution of Enterprise Organization Designs. *Journal of Organization Design*, 1(2): 1-13

10. González-González, C. S., & Navarro-Adelantado, V. (2021). The limits of gamification. Convergence, 27(3), 787-804.

11. House, P. J. (1963). Management Development Is a Game. *Harvard Business Review*, 41(4), 130-143.

12. Ingram, M. (2010), 'Average Social Gamer is a 43 Year Old Woman' Gigaom [Online, last accessed 16th Feb. 2024 at: https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2010/02/17/17gigaom-average-social-gamer-is-a-43-year-old-woman-19735.html]

13. Jaško, O., Maljković, A., & Čudanov, M. (2016) Student's Attitudes to Gamification in The Learning Process, Econophysics, Sociophysics & Other Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal (ESMSJ). 6(1), 7-12.

14. Jones, T. (2011). Techno-toddlers: A is for Apple. The Guardian.

15. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. *Harvard Business Review*, 74(1): 75-85.

16. Khodabandelou, R., Roghanian, P., Gheysari, H., & Amoozegar, A. (2023). A systematic review of gamification in organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 30(2), 251-272.

17. Kim, T. W. (2018). Gamification of labor and the charge of exploitation. Journal of business ethics, 152, 27-39.

18. Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Collmus, A. B., & Armstrong, M. B. (2018). Gamification science, its history and future: Definitions and a research agenda. Simulation & Gaming, 49(3), 315-337.

19. Nyström, T. (2021). Exploring the darkness of gamification: you want it darker?. In *Intelligent Computing: Proceedings of the 2021 Computing Conference, Volume 3* (pp. 491-506). Springer International Publishing.

20. Parlić, D., Čudanov, M., & Săvoiu, G. (2014). Multidisciplinary Apporach To Increasing Creativity: Gamification In Organizational Context. *Econophysics, Sociophysics & Other Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal (ESMSJ)*, 4(1), pp. 21-26. Online: http://www.esmj.upit.ro/ESMSJ%204_1_2014.pdf

21. Sharma, W., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., Verma, A., & Kumra, R. (2024). Game on! A state-of-the-art overview of doing business with gamification. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 198, 122988.
Emil Knezović, Ph.D.

Faculty of Business and Administration
International University of Sarajevo
eknezovic@ius.edu.ba

**Theoretical background:** Companies must promptly adapt to environmental changes to maintain, acquire, or enhance their competitiveness and effectiveness, ensuring not only survival but success in the marketplace. One such response is going or being “greener.” Innovation serves as a tool for introducing changes, regardless of whether they are revolutionary or incremental. Green innovations are no exception, but systematic changes are needed in order to support such an approach. Besides, such adjustments are often late in developing countries and emerging economies. However, on their path to the EU, Bosnia and Herzegovina committed itself to the so-called “Green Agenda”, and the main pressure will be on the business sector, where small and medium enterprises could be key players. The literature on green innovations has grown steadily in the last decade, and it has evolved and extended primarily due to interdisciplinary interest and societal change. However, the recent evidence shows that several issues are presented, such as implementation, green innovations performance, and market response.

**Purpose of the study:** The aim of this study is twofold. First, to assess the extent of green sation within the small and medium enterprises in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Second, to examine the role of green innovations within the business processes and its role in business performance. In particular, the study examines whether green innovations play a role in business performance and whether they mediate the relationships between organizational characteristics (organizational support, learning, and cooperation) and business performance indicators (economic, ecological, and social).

**Methods:** Using a cross-sectional survey design, the data is collected from small and medium enterprises in Bosnia and Herzegovina following a convenience method. After cleaning the data, 140 responses from small and medium enterprises were considered useful (the data collection is still ongoing). A structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses.

**Findings:** The results show that green innovations play both a determinant and mediating role when it comes to business performance.

**Theoretical contribution:** The study fills two gaps within the current literature. First, it addresses the conflicting results regarding the role of green innovations in business performance. Second, it extends the literature to the less-represented contexts of developing countries.

**Practical implication:** As the data was collected from small and medium enterprises, the study provides some useful recommendations for managerial practice within small and medium enterprises.

**Key words:** Green innovation, organizational characteristics, business performance, SMEs, Bosnia and Herzegovina
ORGANIZATIONAL DIFFERENTIATION-INTEGRATION PARADOX:
HOW DOES IT REALLY WORK AND PERFORM?

Ana Juras *

University of Split
Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism
ajuras@efst.hr

Ivan Matić **

University of Split
Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism
imatic@efst.hr

Tomislav Hernaus

University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business
_thernaus@efzg.hr_

and

University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business

* corresponding author

** presenting author

Complexity is an unavoidable part of doing business. Managers struggle to address changing environmental uncertainty through organizational design (OD). Their first and foremost OD priority is balancing organizational differentiation and integration (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). These opposing poles of the organization's structural arrangement condition each other and should co-exist to create alignment and reach performance targets. Problems arise when an excessive level of external or internal complexity causes a series of organizational consequences that can be critical for the very success of the organization (Warren, 2018). Therefore, organizations should avoid generating unnecessary complexity not conditioned from outside the organization (Vogel & Lasch, 2016).

Adopting the perspective and postulates of complexity theory derived from natural sciences (e.g., von Bertalanffy, 1968), this paper offers a new approach to conceptualizing organizational complexity. Building on the recent work in the organizational design research domain (Cunha et al., 2022), we approached organizational complexity from a paradoxical perspective. Specifically, we suggested and investigated the interplay among vertical differentiation (i.e., the average number of hierarchical levels) and both horizontal integration (i.e., the extent to which organizations use cross-functional interfaces; see Jansen et al., 2009) and vertical integration (i.e., the degree to which vertical communication is low, difficult, and limited versus fast, easy, and abundant; Nahm et al., 2003) to determine whether it yields a true measure of organizational success (see Figure 1).
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 Research model</figcaption></figure>

A field multisource survey has been conducted on a cross-industry sample of a hundred organizations (100+ employees) listed in an online database of the Croatian Chamber of Economy. Human resource (HR) or OD managers within companies reported vertical differentiation and integration (vertical and horizontal) of their organizations. In addition, companies' publicly available financial reports were used to calculate revenue per employee as a financial performance measure. We tested our moderated moderation model (i.e., a three-way interaction) using PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2022).

The results suggested that vertical differentiation (our independent variable) does not statistically affect the revenue per employee (our dependent variable). Vertical and horizontal integration, examined independently in separate two-way interaction models, did not moderate the focal relationship significantly. However, when examined together in a three-way interaction model, vertical and horizontal integration significantly influenced the relationship between vertical differentiation and revenue per employee (see Figure 2). Namely, when an organization increases its vertical differentiation, the revenue per employee will be higher only if there is at the same time in place greater horizontal and vertical integration. In other words, organizations can achieve higher revenue per employee if they perceive organizational alignment of vertical differentiation and integration as a prerequisite. To check for robustness, additional models were ran (i.e., testing for profit per employee as an alternative outcome measure). We also tested the model's performance by taking outcome measures in three subsequent years, yielding similar results.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Three-way interaction simple slope graph</figcaption></figure>

By moderating the influence of vertical differentiation on financial performance, having organizational integration as a moderator, the model presumes better performance when the level of integration corresponds to the level of vertical differentiation, i.e. organization will be more successful when there is achieved fit (organizational alignment) between vertical differentiation and integration (Ketokivi et al., 2006). Our findings show that organizational complexity, even at its high est) levels, can positively impact an organization's performance/success. Moreover, by questioning a prevailing stance on organizational complexity's negative and disastrous effects (Ashkenas, 2010; Collinson & Jay, 2012), we offered insights into how, if designed appropriately, even high levels of organizational complexity can positively impact its financial performance.

**Keywords:** differentiation-integration paradox, organizational complexity, three-way interaction, financial performance
References:

1. Ashkenas, R. (2010). Simply Effective: How to Cut through Complexity in Your Organization and Get Things Done. Harvard Business Press, Boston.

2. Collinson, S., & Jay, M. (2012). From Complexity to Simplicity: Unleash Your Organisation's Potential. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

3. Cunha, M. P., Clegg, S., Gaim, M., & Giustiniano, L. (2022). *Elgar Introduction to Designing Organizations*. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

4. Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. *Organization Science*, *20*(4), 797-811.

5. Ketokivi, M., Schroeder, R. G., & Turkulainen, V. (2006). *Organizational Differentiation and Integration: A New Look at an Old Theory*. Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Working Paper, (2006/2), Espoo.
http://www.tuta.hut.fi/library/working_paper/pdf/Ketokivi_et_at_2006.pdf

6. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, *12*, 1-47.

7. Nahm, A. Y., Vonderembse, M. A., & Koufteros, X. A. (2003). The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance. *Journal of Operations Management*, *21*(3), 281-306.

8. Vogel, W., & Lasch, R. (2016). Complexity Drivers in Manufacturing Companies: A Literature Review. *Logistics Research*, *9*(1), 1-66.

9. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). *General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications*. New York: George Braziller.

10. Worren, N. (2018). *Organization Design: Simplifying Complex Systems*. London: Routledge.
Ivana Tomašević

Sandra Đurović

Nikola Abramović

Ivan Radević

Abstract

Concept of social entrepreneurship turn two completely different and paradox ideas into one centric approach of finding innovative solutions to social problems. Western Balkan countries don't have same definition of social entrepreneurship in some cases low doesn't recognize social enterprises as specific type of hybrid organization.

This paper addresses the paradox of entrepreneurship and social development. Entrepreneurship is focused on measuring performance using business metrics like profit, revenues and increases in stock prices. Social development on the other side is focused on generating a positive "return to society" regardless of the expenses created to bring that impact. We argue that social entrepreneurship can bring economic change and development. Using business logic can bring to sustainable social development and use of the resources in more efficient way. In research that we have conducted regarding measuring performance of social enterprises we were able to demonstrate social enterprises need different methodology that can be used for consistent measurement of social value creation across countries allowing comparability between social enterprises. We also argue that social enterprises as hybrid organizations need to be further researched regarding: accounting and managing performance, general management, leadership, strategic development, talent acquisition, long term motivation etc. When it comes to external conditions for development of social entrepreneurship laws and financial support need to be improved in Western Balkan countries in order to create better environment to develop this dualistic organizations.

Key words: Entrepreneurship, Performance Measurement, Accounting, Social
Entrepreneurship, Social Enterprise, Social Innovation

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Social entrepreneurship started to evolve and develop in second part of XX century. Definitions of social entrepreneurship are changing in order to capture innovative approaches that are using economic approach to address social problems and find solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues (Miculaiciuc Holovcsuk, 2019). Interest in social entrepreneurship grows when the state and enterprises face challenges such as growing inequalities in society and social exclusion This approach then provides innovative solutions for employment, poverty reduction and inclusion of vulnerable groups (Chichevaliev, Debarliev & Iliev, 2023). Activities that bring to achievement higher values for society, can be classified as social entrepreneurship and they can be inf form of one-time activity (action or project) or in form of more sustainable and long-term approach like social enterprises (Hota., Subramanian & Narayanamurthy, 2020). Where the paradox comes from?

There is no common definition of entrepreneurship but research state that the common
perspective is that entrepreneurship is linked to risk taking, establishing new companies and
making profits (Miculaiciuc Holovcsuk, 2019). Entrepreneurial activities are practiced in
factor-driven, efficiency-driven, or innovation-driven economies. Entrepreneurs have
motivation to enter in business venture in order to gain personal profit and wealth (Abu-Saifan,
2012). By contrast social entrepreneurship is focused on creating social value even when it is
in paradox with economic value. Social entrepreneurship is seen as differing from other forms
of entrepreneurship in the relatively higher priority given to promoting social value and
development versus capturing economic value (Chichevaliev, Debarliev & Iliev, 2023).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Social entrepreneurship is focused business with the aim of environmental protection, social inclusion, fighting poverty, employment or any other social goal - business activities are directed towards achieving social goals. On the other side profit is not excluded -we argue that financial benefits and creating economic value are necessary for sustainability social entrepreneurship initiatives. The purpose of this study is to present that seemingly paradox concept of economic vs social goal can generate dynamic changes in way we think of business today. Social enterprises create value at various levels and that value needs to be measured in order that we can observe their impact and innovations that they bring to market. Current business performance measurement standards (accounting and finance) are not able to capture that value. This leads to situation where social entrepreneurship is developing initiatives that create value which is not visible and therefore not adequately supported by national laws nor by national and international funding (Tosheva & Petrishkova, 2020).

METHOD

Methods that can be used as standards for performance evaluation in social enterprises can vary
from quantitative to qualitative. Models are divided into 4 model clusters based on: qualitative,
holistic, quantitative and managerial aspect (Kocollari & Lugli, 2020). We propose holistic
model that measures blended value in form of value from business added with value of social
impact (Mamabolo & Myres, 2020; Young, 2017). We are proposing modified Kaplan and
Norton Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan, 1999) putting both financial and social goals together. The
central argument of the balanced scorecard is that financial measures are not enough to measure
the performance of social enterprises therefore additional elements need to be included
(Mamabolo & Myres, 2020). Using this approach, we will be able to capture and measure value,
innovation and impact creating of social enterprise and develop standard that can be useful for
policy development.

FINDINGS

We have compared 20 social enterprises from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia trying to identify most successful business model in terms of profit and in terms of impact. Business model was reflection of financial conditions and legal framework in the specific country and it was directly affecting success of social enterprise – limit of enhance growth possibilities. Another common problem that we have perceived in Western Balkan countries is that there is lack in supervising laws (Tosheva & Petrishkova, 2020). Specifics of social enterprise as hybrid organization were not analyzed nor reflected in legal framework. We have also noticed the lack of knowledge and common understanding of social enterprises especially in business community. Some of the entities that were researched didn't understand that they have qualification of social enterprises - they consider themselves and NGO, public entity, public-private partnerships and measure their performance only with business indicators (profit, revenue etc.) or focusing only on social indicators regardless of expenses. Social entrepreneurship paradox is evident in financial and accounting monitoring of the performance of social enterprise where they are categorized as business or social entities therefore separating reflecting the basic reason for which they were formed.
## THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

While in business accounting we have International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) that enable comparability and equal measurement of performance for business entities that operate in different countries in social entrepreneurship, we don't have similar standard (Rawhouser, Cummings & Newbert, 2019). Our research shows that at the end of year social enterprises are viewed as any other business entity without consideration of their specific impact like: reducing poverty and unemployment, increasing social inclusion, developing social innovation, preserving environment etc. (Ronchetti, 2006; Dees, 2016). We argue that entrepreneurship and social goals are not in paradox – they are not mutually exclusive but this hybrid approach can bring higher benefits to economy, society as well as to owner of the resources. In the long run social entrepreneurship leads to better use of resources, environment sustainability, innovation and networking, better shareholder value. We can see that in examples of big companies like: Apple, Tesla, Meta and others but we need to be able to measure impact and make it more visible. Depending on context capturing value can be challenging- social value (Abu-Saifan, 2012), social performance (Nicholls, 2009), social return on investment (SROI) (Rania et al., 2020; Hall & Millo, 2018), and social accounting (Nicholls, 2009). New research in this area also recognizes new term – social innovation (Barman, Hall & Millo, 2020), synergic effect with digitalization (Miloseska et al., 2021) and researchers are actually proposing new accounting methods that will promote and demonstrate the value of innovation and implement at the appropriate infrastructure to measure this value (Mamabolo & Myres, 2020; Tomašević & Abramović, 2023).

Understanding paradox concept of social entrepreneurship will have practical implementation in various areas like: policy development, legal framework analysis and development, strategy development for business entities. In addition to this it can contribute to development of theory and research in: accounting, finance, leadership, motivation etc.

## LITERATURE

1. Abu-Saifan, S. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Definition and boundaries. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(2), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview523

2. Barman, E., Hall, M. & Millo, Y. (2020). Demonstrating value: How entrepreneurs design new accounting methods to justify innovations. European Accounting Review, 30(4), 675-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2020.1770113

3. Chichevaliev, S., Debarliev, S. & Iliev, A. J. (2023). How is social entrepreneurship pursuing the path of development? Regional perspectives in the Western Balkans. In V. Ramadani, S. Kjosev & B. S. Sergi (Eds.), Entrepreneurship Development in the Balkans: Perspective from Diverse Contexts (Lab for Entrepreneurship and Development) (pp. 33-68). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-454-820231003

4. Dees, J. G. (2016). Social entrepreneurship. In M. Augier & D. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_373-1

5. Hall, M. & Millo, Y. (2018). Choosing an accounting method to explain public policy: Social return on investment and UK non-profit sector policy. European Accounting Review, 27(2), 339-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2016.1261721

6. Hota, P. K., Subramanian, B. & Narayanamurthy, G. (2020). Mapping the intellectual structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(1), 89-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04129-4

7. Kaplan, R. S. (1999). The Balanced Scorecard for Public-Sector Organizations. Harvard Business School Publishing. Reprint No. B9911C.
8. Kocollari, U. & Lugli, E. (2020). Social accounting at work: An analysis of social impact measurement models. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 16(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6583/2020.01.003

9. Mamabolo, A. & Myres, K. (2020). Performance measurement in emerging market social enterprises using a Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1561499

10. Miculaiciuc Holovcsuk, A. (2019). Social entrepreneurship: evolutions, characteristics, values and motivations. The Annals of The University of Oradea. Economic Sciences, 28(1), 63–71.

11. Miloseska, S., Kostadinoska, S., Popovski, V. & Djambaska, E. (2021). Digital perspectives of social entrepreneurship in Western Balkan countries. Economic Development/Ekonomiski Razvoj, 23(1), 5–16.

12. Nicholls, A. (2009). ‘We do good things, don’t we?’: ‘Blended value accounting’ in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6-7), 755–769.

13. Rania, S. Y., El Talla, A. S., Shobaki Mazen, J. & Abu-Naser, S. S. (2020). Performance improvement and its impact on the application of the Balanced Scorecard in business incubators. International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR), 4(6), 101–131.

14. Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M. & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*, 43(1), 82–115.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718

15. Ronchetti, J. L. (2006). An integrated Balanced Scorecard strategic planning model for nonprofit organizations. Journal of Practical Consulting, 1(1), 25–35.

16. Tomašević, I. & Abramović, N. (2023). Accounting for social entrepreneurship development and growth. In *Proceedings of the Employment, Education, and Entrepreneurship Conference*. October 26-88, 2023 (p. 51). Belgrade, Serbia.

17. Tosheva, E. & Petrishkova, I. (2020). Social Economy as a Main Driver of Economic and Social Development in the Western Balkans and Visegrad Region. Towards Social Economy: Young Social Innovators as Forerunners of Positive Change in V4 and WB6. Association for Education – MladiInfo International, Skopje, Macedonia.

18. Young, D. R. (2017). Financing nonprofits and other social enterprises: A benefits approach. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mehmet Cetin (PhD)

University of Oslo

mehmetce@uio.no

Abstract

Despite the growing attention on workplace spirituality, the link between spiritual experiences and work engagement remains understudied. The gap is more notable for investigating how daily spiritual experiences (DSE) are associated with daily work engagement and possible underlying mechanisms in this relationship. However, advantages in addressing daily fluctuations in engagement are evident. The current study proposes an affective pathway and tests the mediating role of daily positive affect between DSE and daily work engagement. Day level (328) and person level (41) data collected from 41 participants during eight consecutive workdays were investigated using multilevel analyses through HLM statistical program. Results indicate substantial variance in all daily measured study variables at both person and day level. Finding also show that, controlling for person level positive affect, engagement, life satisfaction and spirituality; daily positive affect fully mediates the positive relationship between DSE and work engagement. The study provides significant contributions regarding the daily antecedents of work engagement and how spirituality links with engagement at the day level.

**Keywords:** Daily spiritual experience, daily work engagement, daily positive affect, multilevel analysis

Work engagement has been a center of attention among researchers and practitioners. The concept traditionally has been conceptualized and measured through one measurement point designs and as a trait-like concept (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). However, recent studies (e.g., Sonnentag et al., 2010; Ouweneel et al., 2012; Bakker, 2014) suggest day level measurement and conceptualization of work engagement emphasizing theoretical and statistical advantages of capturing within individual fluctuations in engagement.

Although several studies exploit affective events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano 1996) to explain how experiences in the workplace affect work related outcomes, very few studies (e.g., Jannah & Santoso, 2017) used AET to link spirituality and work outcomes. AET suggests that daily events can result in daily affective experiences (such as positive and negative affect) and these affective responses lead to work attitudes and behaviors. There is a gap remaining in the exploration of daily variance in DSE and how it relates to affective states. Moreover, although no studies that we acknowledge directly link DSE and daily work engagement, empirical evidence (e.g., Lizano et al., 2019) supports the significant links between spirituality and work engagement.

H1: Controlled for person level spirituality, life satisfaction, positive affect and engagement, DSE (daily measures at the day-level) is positively and significantly related to day level engagement.

Responding to the above-mentioned gaps and building on AET, this study aims to investigate, controlled for person level variables (spirituality, work engagement, positive affect and life satisfaction), the mediating role of daily PA between DSE and daily work engagement through a multilevel longitudinal research design.
In the present study, we address positive affect as a potential mediator between DSE and daily work engagement. In other words, we suggest that enhanced daily positive affect (PA) through higher levels of DSE will lead to daily work engagement.

H2: Daily positive affect mediates the relationship between DSE (measured in day level) and daily work engagement.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Research model of the study</figcaption></figure>

## Measures:

We used five-point Likert-type for all measures used in the study. We adapted the instructions of the scales to use at the day level by asking participants to provide answers for their daily experiences. Shorter versions or selected items were used to keep the questionnaires feasible for repeated daily measurement.

The PANAS scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used for assessing the positive affect levels of participants. The scale has 10 items measuring positive affect and in the second level (person level) measure we used all the items. Gençoz (2000) validated the Turkish version of the scale. For the daily questionnaire, we selected 3 items (high scoring and more relevant to day level experience) to keep the questionnaire short.

Items selected from Underwood (2011)'s Daily Spiritual Experience Scale (DSES) were used to measure daily spiritual experience at the day level. The scale was adopted to Turkish by Akın et al. (2013).

A three-item short version (UWES-3) of the work engagement scale was used for assessing the work engagement levels (Schaufeli et al., 2017). We used a six-item version of the same scale suggested and validated by Guler et al. (2019) using the nine-item version of the same scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006) for measuring work engagement at the person level.

Life satisfaction was measured only in the second level as a control variable. Diener et al. (1985)'s scale was used for measuring life satisfaction. The scale consists of five items and all items of the measure were used in the questionnaire. Bekmezci and Mert (2018) translated and validated the scale to Turkish.

The spirituality scale developed by Delaney (2005) and validated in Turkish by Bedel (2009) was used in the person level to assess participants' spirituality levels.

Results indicate substantial variance in all daily measured study variables at the both person and day level. Findings also show that, controlling for person level positive affect, engagement, life satisfaction and spirituality; daily positive affect fully mediates the positive relationship between DSE and work engagement. The study provides significant contributions regarding the daily antecedents of work engagement and how spirituality links with engagement at the day level.

The present study provides two significant contributions to the literature. First, we enhance the research between spirituality and work engagement by providing a with-in person perspective.
We argue that, controlled for the general person-level spirituality, engagement, PA, and life satisfaction, day level fluctuations in DSE will be significantly related to day level changes in work engagement. Second, we exploit AET to test an affective pathway between DSE and daily work engagement.

## References

1. Akın, A., Özbek, R., Toprak, H., Akbaş, ZŞ, & Çitemel, N. (2013, May 24-26). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Daily Spiritual Experience Scale (DSES) [Paper presentation]. 4th World Conference on Psychology, Counseling and Guidance (WCPCG-2013), İstanbul, Turkey

2. Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily Fluctuations in Work Engagement. *European Psychologist*, *19*(4), 227-236.

3. Bedel, G. (2009). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the spirituality scale (Doctoral dissertation, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi).

4. Bekmezci, M., & Mert, İ. S. (2018). Yaşam tatmini ölçeğinin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik çalışması. *Toros Üniversitesi İİSBF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi*, *5*(8), 166-177.

5. Delaney, C. (2005). The spirituality scale: Development and psychometric testing of a holistic instrument to assess the human spiritual dimension. *Journal of Holistic Nursing*, *23*(2), 145-167.

6. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. *Journal of personality assessment*, *49*(1), 71-75.

7. Gençoz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve negatif duygu durum " olçe " gi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik " çalışması [Positive and negative affect schedule: a study of validity and reliability]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15, 19-28. DOI: 10.31461/ybpd.475567.

8. Guler, M., Çetin, F., & Basim, H. N. (2019). İşe Tutulma Ölçeği çok kısa versiyonu (UWES-3) geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması: Alternatif bir versiyon (UWES-6) önerisi. *İş ve İnsan Dergisi*, *6*(2), 189-197.

9. Jannah, S. M., & Santoso, C. B. (2017). The impact of workplace spirituality on organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of organizational identification and perceived organizational supports. *Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Business and Social Studies*, *3*(2), 13-20.

10. Lizano, E. L., Godoy, A. J., & Allen, N. (2019). Spirituality and worker well-being: examining the relationship between spirituality, job burnout, and work engagement. *Journal of religion & spirituality in social work: Social thought*, *38*(2), 197-216.

11. Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & van Wijhe, C. I. (2012). Good morning, good day: A diary study on positive emotions, hope, and work engagement. *Human relations*, *65*(9), 1129-1154.

12. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. *Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior*, *25*(3), 293-315.

13. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. *Educational and psychological measurement*, *66*(4), 701-716.

14. Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2017). An ultra-short measure for work engagement. *European Journal of Psychological Assessment*.