Cultural dynamics and ambidextrous innovation: Insights from Saudi Arabia's project-based organizations. A thematic-explorative study

AlSaied, Mohammad; McLaughlin, Patrick; Afy-Shararah, Mohamed; Patsavellas, John; Alkhoraif, Abdullah Article Cultural dynamics and ambidextrous innovation: Insights from Saudi Arabia's project-based organizations. A thematic-explorative study Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: AlSaied, Mohammad; McLaughlin, Patrick; Afy-Shararah, Mohamed; Patsavellas, John; Alkhoraif, Abdullah (2025) : Cultural dynamics and ambidextrous innovation: Insights from Saudi Arabia's project-based organizations. A thematic-explorative study, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, pp. 1-38, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040116 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321260 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 27 December 2024 Revised: 17 March 2025 Accepted: 18 March 2025 Published: 21 March 2025 Citation: AlSaied, M., McLaughlin, P., Afy-Shararah, M., Patsavellas, J., & Alkhoraif, A. (2025). Cultural Dynamics and Ambidextrous Innovation: Insights from Saudi Arabia’s Project-Based Organizations—A Thematic– Explorative Study. Administrative Sciences,15(4), 116. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/admsci15040116 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Cultural Dynamics and Ambidextrous Innovation: Insights from Saudi Arabia’s Project-Based Organizations— A Thematic–Explorative Study Mohammad AlSaied 1,* , Patrick McLaughlin 1, Mohamed Afy-Shararah 1, John Patsavellas 1 and Abdullah Alkhoraif 2 1School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University, Cranfield MK43 0AL, UK; [email protected] (M.A.-S.); [email protected] (J.P.) 2Business Administration Department, College of Administrative and Finance, Saudi Electronic University, Riyadh 13316, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The implementation of ambidextrous innovation in project organizations within the cultures of the Global South, such as Saudi Arabia, is a significant problem. Organizational culture is positioned as a key factor that can help project organizations in cultures such as Saudi Arabia to implement ambidexterity as a key innovation framework. However, knowledge of ambidextrous innovations in such an important cultural and organizational context is highly limited. Thus, the aim of the present research is to explore key cultural aspects and themes based on action and a grounded theory research approach that can help organizations employ projects as a key work structure to implement ambidextrous innovations in project management offices (PMOs) in Saudi Arabia. To achieve this aim, the current study employed in-depth semi-structured interviews with 36 participants. The results, employing open coding procedures as a tool of data analysis using the NVivo 14.0 software package, revealed 62 key cultural aspects that can be critical in implementing the innovation of ambidexterity. To further validate and triangulate the findings, inter-rater reliability was undertaken with the help of two experts, and two sessions of focus group discussions were also conducted. The first session of the focus group helped us critically evaluate and filter the cultural aspects, resulting in the final 56 key cultural aspects. The second focus group session was undertaken with participants with the aim of grouping aspects into theoretical themes, which resulted in 10 themes. The research is novel in that it addresses both project organizations and the culture of the Global South, including Saudi Arabia. Empirical research needs to be conducted to predict and achieve other key outcomes. Keywords: ambidextrous innovation; organization culture; grounded theory; project organizations 1. Introduction Ambidextrous innovation is a strategic framework that enables firms to develop and sustain a competitive advantage over the long term (Grover et al.,2007). In particular, firms that utilize a project-driven structure to create value are better positioned to leverage the benefits of ambidextrous innovation (Binci et al.,2023). Firms and organizations employing a project-based structure are particularly suitable for nurturing and developing ambidextrous innovation (Eriksson,2013). Project-based firms are suitable for this due Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040116 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 2 of 38 to their inherent flexibility and dynamic structures. These project-based firms operate through temporary and goal-oriented projects that allow them to balance exploratory (radical) and exploitative (incremental) innovation more effectively (Binci et al.,2023). Thus, ambidextrous innovation can support both short-term operational efficiency and long-term strategic growth by promoting the integration of both (X. Zhang et al.,2021). Moreover, ambidextrous innovation is often defined as an innovation paradox in which firms have to undertake opposing but complementary types of innovation (AlSaied & McLaughlin,2024a), i.e., exploratory (or radical) innovation and exploitative (or incremental) innovation (Jansen et al.,2005). An increasing amount of academic literature has suggested that firms and projects adopting ambidexterity as an innovation strategy are able to perform better both operationally and financially (N. Turner et al.,2016;C.Lin & Chang,2015;Tsai & Wang,2017). Exploitative or incremental innovation helps firms and projects maintain and strengthen the current trajectory of their market position through continuous improvement of their current products and services (Eriksson,2013;Heidhues et al.,2016). Such continuous improvement of the current products and services makes them refreshingly novel. Explorative or radical innovation enables firms and projects to develop products and services that create new market opportunities, positioning them as leaders. These innovations can sustain long-term business performance by opening new avenues for growth (Larsson & Larsson,2018;Sheehan et al.,2023). Despite the significant and positive impact of ambidextrous innovation, firms often struggle with its adaptation (Birkinshaw et al.,2016). Similarly, projects within these firms face challenges in effectively implementing ambidextrous innovation due to the need to balance exploration and exploitation activities (X. Zhang et al.,2021). Although precise reasons for such struggles with ambidextrous innovation adaptations are yet to be found, some insights suggest that the key reasons include lack of knowledge, expertise (Rialti et al., 2020), financial and other resources (Rossi et al.,2020), and a range of dynamic capabilities needed to innovate (Popadiuk et al.,2018). The knowledge and expertise of technology, products, and other systems are prerequisites for developing something novel (Rialti et al., 2020). Furthermore, testing and experimenting with knowledge often require time and financial resources (Battaglia et al.,2018). Finally, various dynamic capabilities can play an important part in utilizing knowledge to develop, experiment, and commercialize an idea with minimum resources (Popadiuk et al.,2018). However, further evidence suggests that these dominant reasons, among others, are linked to organizational culture, which serves as the enabling force for ambidextrous innovation (AlSaied & McLaughlin,2024a). An organization’s culture, which includes its norms, beliefs, conventions, and behavioral patterns, establishes its fundamental character. It influences how members communicate, decide, and handle problems that arise from within and beyond (Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985). However, long-term success depends on a strong and flexible culture that not only directs day-to-day activities but also stimulates creativity and innovation (Akpa et al., 2021). Thus, based on these well-established insights from the literature with regard to the relationship between culture and firm performance, such as business (Pathiranage et al.,2020) and innovation performance (Büschgens et al.,2013), it can also be argued that culture can play an effective role in removing hurdles to the adaptation of ambidextrous innovation (AlSaied & McLaughlin,2024b). Culture can remove hurdles through different means, such as developing a collaborative environment where the acquisition and sharing of knowledge are appreciated (Donate & Guadamillas,2010), developing dynamic capabilities supporting innovation (Gupta & Gupta,2019), and providing resources (Do et al.,2016). Although there are some insights into how culture influences innovation and ambidextrous innovation, these insights remain highly limited. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 3 of 38 The present research’s aim is to explore the notions and aspects of the organizational culture in project driven organizations as a key ambidextrous innovation strategy in organizations (AlSaied & McLaughlin,2024b). Projects, due to their unique short-term, goal-oriented structures as compared to other organizations, necessitate constant adaptation and flexibility to satisfy the stakeholders’ demands. Thus, ambidexterity can be well-suited as an innovation framework that can help projects combine short-term goals with long-term strategic objectives. Thus, it can be argued that projects can naturally be ambidextrous as a result of their attempt to navigate complex and dynamic settings (Binci et al.,2023;Eriksson,2013). Furthermore, by encouraging cross-functional cooperation and quick information transfer, the adaptable cultural norms common in project-based businesses encourage both exploration and exploitation. Thus, the motivation to understand culture as a key force toward ambidextrous innovation in projects is the basis of the argument that culture can help build knowledge, expertise, and dynamic capabilities and channel the resources necessary to experiment with ideas for innovation (Donate & Guadamillas,2010;Gupta & Gupta,2019;Do et al.,2016). Further, it is quite interesting to explore the ways that culture can help navigate the paradox of ambidextrous innovation. The project culture, by developing an environment, tends to promote and balance both exploitative and explorative innovation, which secures long-term sustainability and a competitive edge in quickly evolving markets. Thus, understanding and exploring such key cultural components and aspects (i.e., adaptability and collaboration) can provide important insights with regard to the adaptation of ambidextrous innovation (Büschgens et al.,2013). The aim of this research is to explore key cultural aspects that influence the adoption of ambidextrous innovation in organizations, identifying internal environmental hurdles and developing theoretical themes that impact its adaptation. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Ambidextrous Innovation Ambidextrous innovation can be defined as an innovation paradox in which firms need to develop a dynamic capability to balance two opposing but complementary forms of innovation, i.e., exploratory and exploitative innovation (AlSaied & McLaughlin,2024b). Exploratory innovation is referred to as radical innovation, in which firms need to discover, acquire, and utilize new knowledge and ideas to develop novel products and services that can significantly enhance the competitiveness of the firm over a longer period of time (Z. Zhang & Luo,2020). However, exploitative innovation is known as incremental innovation, in which firms tend to utilize existing knowledge to further improve their existing products and services with the aim of strengthening the current market position of the firm (Xie & Wang,2021). Moreover, firms tend to strategize innovation activities in order to balance both exploratory and exploitative innovation for long-term competitive advantage (Yang et al.,2021). Ambidextrous innovation helps firms secure their long-term advantage by constantly staying relevant to existing market trends by using the strategy of exploitative innovation and developing a completely new market by addressing new needs or current needs in significantly different and novel ways (Ali,2021). Thus, it can be argued that both activities, which are completely different, can complement each other in a way that, for example, knowledge of the existing market can guide the exploratory team about radical products and services to be developed, and at the same time, new knowledge developed by the exploratory team can be used by the exploitative team to improve existing products and services in a significantly positive way (Jansen et al.,2005; Braunerhjelm & Thulin,2023). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 4 of 38 2.2. Organization Culture Organizational culture can be defined as a set of common and shared values, attitudes, norms, customs, and behaviors that impact the way employees within the organization interact and collaborate to accomplish common goals and objectives (Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985). Culture can also be referred to as a set of common presumptions that have grown through active interactions over time and influence the perception of members of the organization (Schein,2010). The culture of the organization significantly shapes the motivation, morale, and productivity of the employees (Deal & Kennedy,1983). Innovation in the organization is said to be one of the consequences of a strong organizational culture. A culture that promotes curiosity allows employees to experiment with new ideas and take risks and can promote innovation (W. Zhang et al.,2023). Such organizational culture often welcomes change and cultivates an atmosphere that supports and nurtures new ideas (Hogan & Coote,2014). Therefore, organizations with supportive and collaborative cultures find it easier to react to shifts in the market, technology, and competitive environments through innovation (Barjak & Heimsch,2023). In the context of balancing exploratory and exploitative innovation, culture is a significant force (C. L. Wang & Rafiq,2014). Ambidextrous firms cultivate a culture that promotes flexibility and cooperation, resulting in both the optimizations of current products and services and the innovation of newer and novel ones (Khan & Mir,2019). Such a culture effectively ensures that teams charged with exploration and exploitation communicate successfully without losing focus. Thus, ambidextrous innovation needs a culture that values diversity in ideas and behaviors in order to help firms stay competitive in quickly evolving contexts (Muhammad et al.,2020). 2.3. Project Innovation and Culture—Saudi Arabian Context The Saudi Arabian and larger cultural context of the Global South makes ambidextrous innovation both interesting and important, as well as challenging. Economies such as Saudi Arabia are experiencing rapid economic growth and development due to various macroeconomic factors (Pereira et al.,2022). However, increasing literature suggests an increasing focus on innovation as the key to sustaining such economic growth (Simeoni et al.,2020). However, business culture, practices, and the adoption of innovative methods are significantly shaped by both organizational and cultural traits. Cultural characteristics, such as collectivism, deference to authority, and conservative decision-making, may lead to sluggish innovation output (Y. Wang et al.,2021). However, as the literature suggests, the continuous positive impact of innovation in general can lead to a shift and change in the cultural traits that may inhibit any such innovation (Le,2023). Thus, ambidextrous innovation that balances the paradox of the radical and incremental can foster an atmosphere in which project-driven firms become more motivated to bring innovation, as they can experience continuous and short-term benefits as a result of incremental innovation and achieve long-term and sustained competitive advantage as a result of radical innovation (C. L. Wang & Rafiq,2014). Furthermore, with Saudi Arabia’s ambitious launch of several giga-projects, innovation has become a critical determinant of their success. The complexity and scale of these initiatives require organizations to leverage both exploratory and exploitative innovation strategies to navigate the challenges and opportunities they present (Mohiya & Sulphey,2021). Ambidextrous innovation, which balances radical and incremental innovations, is particularly well-suited for such large-scale projects, as it allows firms to adapt to dynamic environments while maintaining efficiency in ongoing operations. This dual approach can significantly enhance the sustainability and competitiveness of these projects, positioning them for long-term success in a rapidly evolving market (Batra & Dhir,2022). Thus, the present research can help us understand such cultural traits of project Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 5 of 38 organizations in Saudi Arabia for striking a balance between exploratory and exploitative innovation in promoting sustainable growth and competitiveness. 3. Research Methods The aim of the present research is to explore the aspects of organizational culture that can help foster innovation ambidexterity in the organization. Thus, we have employed the qualitative inductive research approach, which includes grounded theory and action research (J. M. Corbin & Strauss,1990). This study adopts an action research approach to collaboratively engage with participants in exploring and developing cultural aspects that promote ambidexterity. Secondly, the present study employed grounded theory with the aim of developing theoretical themes that define and combine cultural aspects grounded in the data collected from the participants (Strauss,1987;Glaser & Strauss,2017). Grounded theory is a widely used research methodology in social science, as it clearly helps the researchers develop and construct new theories that are focused (or grounded) on research participants’ views, thoughts, and perceptions within the complex settings of organizations (Locke,2001). Thus, it is highly useful for researchers to undertake new discoveries by developing novel theories with empirical consideration and support (Goulding,1998). Finally, in a situation where the existing literature lacks an explanation of phenomena, such as aspects of culture fostering ambidexterity, grounded theory has been suggested to fill the gaps (Silverman,2006). Hence, as the inquiry is clearly explorative in nature, an inductive research approach is well-suited because such an approach enables full engagement within organizational settings and helps extract insights with regard to organizational culture fostering ambidexterity (Walker & Myrick,2006). 3.1. Interview The present study employed data collection tools provided by the qualitative research design (Hennink et al.,2020). More specifically, this research employed semi-structured interviews to collect data and explore and develop the organizational culture aspects of ambidextrous innovation (Hennink et al.,2020). Semi-structured interviews are highly effective in that they help researchers explore a topic in depth while following the grounded theory framework (Glaser & Strauss,2017). Interviews in the present research were undertaken in two stages, i.e., pre-interviews and main interviews. The pre-interviews can also be understood as pilot interviews, undertaken with the aim of understanding the context of the research and its setting. Further, pre-interviews also provide some important information that can guide the extraction of key insights while undertaking the main interviews (Majid et al.,2017). Following the pilot interviews, we executed the main interviews with the aim of collecting in-depth data on participant’s observations, thoughts, and perceptions of the key cultural aspects of ambidextrous innovations. The purpose of the main interviews is to conduct open and free discussions, which allow participants to express themselves and their views on culture, organization, innovation, and ambidexterity within the organizations (Hennink et al.,2020). Such discussions will ultimately lead to the development of patterns in the data that can be coded as aspects and theoretical themes (Sackmann,1991), leading us to a comprehensive understanding of organizational culture as a way to foster ambidextrous innovation in organizations (Adeoye-Olatunde & Olenik,2021). Using semi-structured interviews to better understand the nature of cultural aspects, we have attempted to (1) uncover cultural components from an insider’s perspective (Sackmann,1991), (2) consider structural aspects like subcultures (Babbie,2015), and (3) enable comparisons among individuals and research settings (Birkinshaw et al.,2011). The main interviews were continued until the point of saturation, which refers to the stage where the researcher stops receiving any new and novel information Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 6 of 38 using interviews from participants (Hennink et al.,2020). The following key questions were used in order to start and stimulate the open discussion as a tool for data collection using semi-structured interviews. • Q1: Tell me about a project you worked on where innovation implementation worked well? • Q2: Tell me about a project you worked on where innovation implementation did not work well? • Q3: Tell me about working on your daily project operation and having a new innovative project work well? • Q4: Tell me about working on your daily project operation and having a new innovative project that did not work well? 3.2. Data Analysis of Interviews The present research, in order to analyze, attempted to prepare the data by recording and transcribing the interviews. We also incorporated verbatim to capture both verbal responses and relevant non-verbal cues (Bailey,2008). Following the transcription, we applied the coding procedure to allocate and locate similar and recurring concepts, which we identified as cultural aspects (J. Corbin & Strauss,2015). Such a process involves allocating a code to the meaningful words and phrases in the data (Miles,1994). As we progressed with identifying and locating aspects using coding, the process became structured, allowing us to validate the relationships within the data (Weston et al.,2001). The current research employed the NVivo 14.0 version to allocate the codes in the data (Azeem et al.,2012). NVivo 14.0 is a widely used and preferred software package among social science researchers for analyzing qualitative data collected using interviews. 3.3. Descriptive Analysis of Samples: Interviews The current research collected data from executives, project managers, and employees working in the project management offices of various public sector and semi-government organizations in Saudi Arabia. Table 1shows the designations of such employees working in project management offices and their respective numbers in interview participation. Table 1. Sample Characteristics. No Designation Sample 1. Executives Directors/CEO 5 2. Project Managers 19 3. Project team members 12 Table 2shows the descriptive statistics of the interview participant’s organizations. Moreover, Table 2illustrates that interview participants belong to a range of sectors and industries that are important and critical to modern economic development. Further, these organizations use projects as the dominant system of work organizations. Table 2. Organizational Characteristics. S.No Type of Organizations Type of Ownership Size 1. Government authorities State-Owned Small 2. Industrial and manufacturing State-Owned Large 3. Construction State-Owned Large Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 7 of 38 Table 2. Cont. S.No Type of Organizations Type of Ownership Size 4. Consulting services Semi-Government Small 5. Energy State-Owned Large 6. University State-Owned/Semi-Government Small 7. Information Technology Semi-Government Large 3.4. Focus Groups The present research has undertaken two sessions of focus group discussions in order to further validate the findings developed from the semi-structured interviews and the development of theoretical themes. This study also employed focus group discussion as a research and data collection tool. The in-depth interviews and subsequent analysis helped us to generate a list of important organizational culture aspects that can be critical to a firm’s ability to implement ambidexterity (Ennis & Chen,2012). However, from a triangulation perspective, we have undertaken two focus group discussion sessions with participants. The aim of the first focus group discussion was to refine and filter similar and critical cultural aspects that can help firms achieve the desired and required level of ambidexterity (Stokes & Bergin,2006). As the first session of the focus group discussion allowed us to filter and develop a concrete list of organizational culture aspects, the present research also undertook a second session of focus group discussion (Stokes & Bergin,2006). The aim of the second session of the focus group is to group these aspects into more advanced and meta-theoretical themes. The development of theoretical themes is a necessary task in arriving at a theory that clearly explains the relationship between organizational culture and ambidextrous innovation. Secondly, such theoretical themes, which are composed of grouped aspects, are necessary to be developed with the aim of developing a conceptual model that theoretically explains the interplay of cultural variables with exploratory and explanatory innovation (Morgan,1996). 3.5. Focus Group Participants This research further conducted a session of focus group discussions with experts and managers with the aim of refining the aspects developed in the current study as a result of data collected using the interview. The aim of the focus group discussion was to present the findings of the interviews using open coding with experts and managers. Secondly, the aim was to undertake an in-depth discussion and analysis of each of the aspects with the objective of completely refining them. The refined aspects were also compared with the existing literature with the aim of grouping such aspects into theoretical themes that can explain organizational culture and ambidextrous innovations (Powell & Single,1996). Table 3shows the participants in the focus group discussions who were invited and participated with the objective of discussing and refining the cultural aspects. The table shows that the profile of participants in relation to their education, expertise, and experience are highly suitable for the task of both discussing and refining the organizational cultural aspects. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 8 of 38 Table 3. Participant Profile of First Focus Group Discussion. No Designation Number Organizations 1. CEO/Director 2 Public Sector Organizations 2. Project Managers/Directors 4 Public and Semi-Government 3. Academic expert 1 University–Public Sector 4. Collection and Analysis of Data The present research began by collecting data. In stage 1, pilot interviews were undertaken. The purpose of pilot interviews was to understand the research context. Following the pilot interviews and subsequent understanding of the research context, main interviews were conducted. 4.1. Undertaking the Research Context The present study, in order to understand the research context, conducted 3 pilot semi-structured interviews. The pilot interviews helped the researcher understand the complexity, which is associated with the data collection instrument of semi-structured interviews, participant’s profiles, and the research area being investigated, i.e., organizational culture and ambidextrous innovation. These pilot interviews helped us understand the nuances associated with the interview setting, environment, participants’ points of comfort and discomfort, and other key issues associated with the data collection process. The pilot interviews were clearly helpful in improving the interview questions and their structure for effective data collection. The pilot interviews ceased when the researcher gained confidence in completely understanding the research context. 4.2. Main Interviews Apart from 3 pilot interviews, this research also conducted 36 semi-structured interviews based on the profiles, as shown in Table 1, and organizations, shown in Table 2. The profiles, as shown in Table 1, illustrate that data have been collected from a range of samples representing the various levels of experience and management in their organizations. The researcher made use of brief icebreakers in order to make participants feel at ease. Each interview’s duration lasted between 40 and 70 min. To enable participants to openly express their experiences, ideas, thoughts, and perceptions, which is the main aim of data collection, open-ended, issue-focused questions were utilized (Sackmann,1991). In order to guarantee accuracy throughout data analysis, interviewees were made aware that the sessions would be recorded. 4.2.1. Interviews Data Analysis: Organizational Cultural Aspects The data collected and recorded on the audiotape were transcribed using the method of verbatim. The verbatim method refers to transcribing the interview data into written form, word by word. It attempts to capture the exact spoken words and phrases. In order to analyze the transcribed data, the current study employed qualitative data analysis using the software package NVivo 14.0. NVivo 14.0 is a widely used software package for analyzing qualitative data, such as semi-structured interviews. Additionally, the NVivo 14.0 software package is highly helpful in coding data, such as words, based on their interrelationships and intricate patterns. Our research employed the open coding procedure aimed at identifying and segmenting the information into smaller parts and identifying sets of events or occurrences. This method is consistent with the grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin,1998). The present study conducted both data collection and analysis Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 15 of 38 Table 5. Cont. No Aspects Participant’s Point of View Theoretical Definitions 34 Radical Innovation Momentum For an organization to stay ahead of its competitors, radical invention is needed. However, this can also have some drawbacks, such as taking risks that may lead to various losses, both financial and non-financial. The quest of the organization/firm to undertake radical and new innovations that can help it develop a competitive advantage (O’connor,1998). 35 Pressure to Keep Up with Competitors The current competitive environment in the market creates pressure to keep up with the market trends. One of the key strategies for success is continuous and successful innovation in the market. Market pressure which pushes teams to match their competitors through various tactics and strategies, such as pricing, supply chain, and products and services (Clark,1998). 36 Turnover and Instability Projects are slowed down, and team stability is impacted by high turnover. Building momentum is difficult when team members are always changing. Establishing a steady workplace might increase our output. A higher ratio of new employees leaving the organization after joining. Such a higher ratio may create an unstable organizational environment (Parker & Skitmore,2005). 37 Flat Organizational Structure Cross-level communication and idea-sharing are facilitated by a flat organizational structure. Employees and teams can feel more appreciated and less threatened. However, occasionally, a little more hierarchy might aid in clarity. Type of organizational structure that is characterized by fewer hierarchical levels (Ghiselli & Siegel,1972). 38 Roles and Responsibilities Roles and duties that are well-defined help to avoid misunderstandings. It is easier to work together when employees and teams are aware of their precise responsibilities and it helps to avoid overlap. A role is a person’s position or job title within a company or team, while responsibilities are the specific tasks and duties associated with that role (J. K. Crawford et al.,2004). 39 Knowledge Share Employees may learn from one another when teams share expertise and knowledge. It expedites problem-solving and fosters a sense of teamwork. The activity within the organization in which team members share their knowledge, expertise, and skill with other members routinely (S. Wang & Noe,2010). 40 Short-Term Focus The teams’ and employees’ capacity to make future plans may be hampered by short-term emphasis and orientations. Therefore, teams must find a balance between short-term outcomes and long-term objectives. The strategy and type of organization that tends to focus on short-term gains while sacrificing long-term goals and objectives (Rappaport,2005). 41 Teamwork and Leadership Attitude A healthy work culture is fostered when leaders encourage cooperation. Knowing that efforts are appreciated is encouraging. Collaboration among the team is also strengthened by effective leadership. Teamwork refers to the collaborative efforts in which members leverage skills and knowledge to achieve goals, while a positive leadership attitude inspires and guides the team, characterized by traits like empathy, decisiveness, and accountability (Ibraimova et al.,2019). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 16 of 38 Table 5. Cont. No Aspects Participant’s Point of View Theoretical Definitions 42 Productivity Monitoring Employees may be held accountable through productivity tracking and monitoring, but occasionally, it comes off as micromanagement. It would be better to have a system that relies on employees to deliver while providing direction as required. Productivity monitoring can be referred to as the systematic approach of tracking and monitoring the performance of both individuals and teams performance (Alaloul et al.,2022). 43 Project Testing and Monitoring Project testing and monitoring initiatives aid in the early detection of problems. They make employees more confident about the finished tasks and outcomes. Employees could satisfy requirements and cut down on mistakes with more regular monitoring. Project testing and monitoring can be defined as structured activities that are necessary for ensuring that projects are being completed on time, within budget, and according to stakeholder requirements (P. Crawford & Bryce,2003). 44 Trust Development Although it takes time, developing trust among the team is crucial for productive cooperation. Team members can collaborate more freely when they have mutual trust. Progress would be aided by further team-building exercises. Trust development can be defined as the activities undertaken by the members of an organization to develop trust among themselves through various formal and informal channels of communication (Lewicki,2000). 45 Innovation Development– Innovation Interests It is inspiring to have freedom and room to pursue interests in innovation. When the company fosters such interest, it is fantastic and encouraging for individuals to be creative by contributing to the original ideas. Innovation development can be defined as the structured process of generating, refining, and implementing new ideas for the development of products, services, and processes that create value and competitive advantage (Zhou et al.,2013). 46 Cross-Functional Collaboration Working together across departments gives a variety of knowledge and expertise. It results in more thorough solutions to a variety of complex problems. To encourage this, teams would benefit from more organized cross-team projects. The ability of various and different team members to collaborate cross-functionally within the organization with the aim of bringing new ideas for exploration and exploitation (Bishop,1999). 47 Cultural Diversity Cultural diversity in teams encourages creativity and broadens perspectives. Collaborating with individuals from diverse backgrounds is motivating. Employees had a pleasant experience because of the respect and open-mindedness. The ability and willingness of teams and organizations to appreciate the different cultures of various team members and to create a values system that celebrates diversity (Ogbu,1992). 48 Entrepreneurship For innovation and success over a longer period of time, it is necessary that employees have an entrepreneurial mindset. It is necessary because an entrepreneurial mindset inculcates the spirit of developing new ideas, taking risks, and other innovative actions. Entrepreneurship encouragement is defined as the empowerment and motivation within an organization to become entrepreneurial (Hisrich,1990). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 17 of 38 Table 5. Cont. No Aspects Participant’s Point of View Theoretical Definitions 49 Reward Systems A system of rewards encourages employees to work harder. When effort is rewarded, it is uplifting. To preserve systemic trust, rewards must be equitable and constant. The system of compensation in which employees are rewarded based on various key performance metrics such as target accomplishment, sales and revenue increases, and others (Francis et al.,2020). 50 Innovation Pipeline An innovation pipeline guarantees that new ideas are taken into consideration and keeps them flowing. Seeing a methodical approach to concept development is encouraging. Employees can monitor the development of concepts from ideation to execution with the aid of a well-defined pipeline. The innovation pipeline refers to an organization’s plan for undertaking various innovations within a specified time period (Jost et al.,2005). 51 Customer-Centric Innovation Employees may provide pertinent products by concentrating on the demands of the customers. Knowing that innovation efforts directly affect consumers’ feelings and level of satisfaction, it is better to always gather data and information on consumers as input. The type of innovation in which customer inputs, needs, and demands take center-stage in developing new products and services (Selden & MacMillan,2006). 52 Open Innovation Open innovation introduces new viewpoints from outside the company, and it can result in organizations becoming and remaining both innovative and competitive. Employees would have a more comprehensive understanding of industry trends as a result of open innovations. Open innovation can be defined as a strategy that encourages teams to use internal and external resources, ideas, and technologies to develop their products and services (Huizingh,2011). 53 Digital Transformation Digital transformation might be difficult, but it is essential to remain relevant. It takes time to learn new tools, such as GenAI and others. Employees could adjust more readily if we had support during these changes. Digital transformation can be defined as the process of using digital technologies to change business operations, which includes customer handling (Kraus et al.,2021). 54 Learning and Development Learning and development opportunities keep teams and organizations more interested and competent in various key areas. The company’s investment in learning and development through training can demonstrate its importance for employees. Frequent training would enable them to stay abreast of developments in the industry. Learning and development can be defined as the systematic approach of enhancing the skills, knowledge, and competencies of the teams within an organization, enabling them to carry out innovation (Vygotsky,2011). 55 Organizational Agility Being flexible enables employees to react swiftly to obstacles and changes. When a company can adjust effectively, it is inspiring. The capacity to respond to evolving needs would be improved with more process flexibility. The organization’s ability to rapidly adapt and change according to the changing landscape of the external environment (Mrugalska & Ahmed,2021). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 18 of 38 Table 5. Cont. No Aspects Participant’s Point of View Theoretical Definitions 56 Strategic Alignment Being in line with the organization’s plan helps employees and teams feel like they have some real purpose. Knowing that employees’ aims contribute to the larger picture makes achieving them simpler. Frequent strategy updates help them stay motivated and focused. Strategic alignment is the process of ensuring that an organization’s resources, activities, and initiatives are in sync with its overall goals and objectives (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1999). 4.4. Focus Group Two: Developing the Themes The present research has further undertaken a second session of focus group discussion with participants, as mentioned in Table 6. The aim of the second session of the focus group was to group aspects into similar meta-theoretical themes (Braun & Clarke,2012). The metatheoretical themes are defined as the abstract and fuzzy constructs that a researcher tends to identify and develop during and after the data collection process (Bazeley,2009). The current research, corresponding to the guidelines of King and Brooks (2018), has utilized a two-stage process in order to develop meta-theoretical themes. The first stage involved identifying the similar and relevant themes corresponding to the literature that explain the established phenomena. The second stage involved grouping these aspects and labeling such groups of themes that explain the established phenomena as theoretical themes (Braun & Clarke,2023). Since the second session of the focus group was undertaken with the same participants, as mentioned in Table 6, introductory and icebreaking sessions were not needed. The participants began the in-depth and comprehensive discussion with regard to developing various meta-theoretical themes by grouping various aspects, as presented in Table 5. The results of the theoretical themes that were developed are presented in Table 7. Table 7shows the 10 meta-theoretical themes developed by grouping the similar and consistent aspects. Table 6. Aspect of Organizational Culture. No Aspects Literature Frequency (Respondents) 1 Allocated Budget (Zhao et al.,2019) 10 2 Adequate Project Time (Babu & Suresh,1996) 12 3 Tight Timeline Constraints (Pollack-Johnson & Liberatore,2006) 13 4 Effective Time Management (Atkinson,1999) 13 5 Experimental Space (Pisello et al.,2021) 11 6Lack of Knowledge and Experience (Terzieva,2014) 7 7 Expertise Support (Gillard,2009) 18 8 Language Barriers (Anderson et al.,2018) 8 9 Past Attitudes Reflection (Hall et al.,1999) 12 10 Sensitivity to Criticism (Gibson & Mumford,2013) 14 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 19 of 38 Table 6. Cont. No Aspects Literature Frequency (Respondents) 11 Fear of Failure (Dunbar & Guillet de Monthoux, 1979)10 12 Infrastructure and Tools (Raith et al.,2017) 10 13 Empowerment from Leadership (Nauman et al.,2010) 30 14 Expertise Utilization (Gillard,2009) 16 15 Psychological Safety in Teams (Shen et al.,2015) 28 16 Feedback Transparency (Nedbal et al.,2013) 15 17 Evaluation Impact (Golini & Landoni,2014) 17 18 Emotional Intelligence of Managers (Obradovic et al.,2013) 26 19 Job Security (M. Turner & Lingard,2016) 16 20 Management Styles (Shenhar,1998) 19 21 Contentment with Status Quo (Silver & Mitchell,1990) 14 22 Juniors’ Ideas Ignored (Sijbom et al.,2016) 13 23 Motivation for Creativity and Development (Tampoe & Thurloway,1993) 29 24 Change Resistance (Laframboise et al.,2002) 17 25 Theoretical vs. Practical Disconnect (Murray,2009) 12 26 Policy Barriers (Shenhar,2004) 11 27 Bureaucracy (Shenhar,2004) 9 28 Leadership Engagement (Nauman et al.,2010) 27 29 Documentation System (Eloranta et al.,2001) 8 30 Clear Deliverables and Metrics (Müller & Turner,2007) 22 31 Unclear Objectives and Goals (Müller & Turner,2007) 12 32 Evaluation Performance Review System (Golini & Landoni,2014) 15 33 Operational Efficiency (Hejna & Hosking,2004) 12 34 Emphasis on Time Over Quality (Salmasnia et al.,2012) 11 35 Workload Pressure (Chen et al.,2017) 9 36 Tension Between Exploration and Exploitation (N. Turner et al.,2015) 18 37 Radical Innovation Momentum (O’connor,1998) 17 38 Pressure to Keep Up with Competitors (Clark,1998) 13 39 Turnover and Instability (Parker & Skitmore,2005) 9 40 Flat Organizational Structure (Burford,2012) 8 41 Roles and Responsibilities (J. K. Crawford et al.,2004) 14 42 Knowledge Share (Terzieva,2014) 20 43 Short-Term Focus Not Found 13 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 20 of 38 Table 6. Cont. No Aspects Literature Frequency (Respondents) 44 Recruitment Process (Ahsan et al.,2013) 14 45 Ineffective Multi-Tasking (Park & Park,2019) 11 46 Teamwork and Leadership Attitude (Ibraimova et al.,2019) 29 47 Productivity Monitoring (Alaloul et al.,2022) 15 48 Project Testing and Monitoring (Montes-Guerra et al.,2014) 10 49 Trust Development (Bond-Barnard et al.,2018) 28 50 Innovation Development–Innovation Interest (O’connor,1998) 18 51 Cross-Functional Collaboration (Bishop,1999) 26 52 Cultural Diversity (Zein,2016) 15 53 Adaptability to Change (Conforto et al.,2016) 26 54 Reward Systems (Ahsan et al.,2013) 21 55 Innovation Pipeline (O’connor,1998) 19 56 Customer-Centric Innovation (Haverila & Haverila,2019) 16 57 Open Innovation (Bagherzadeh et al.,2019) 14 58 Digital Transformation (Kozarkiewicz,2020) 11 59 Learning and Development (Terzieva,2014) 19 60 Organizational Agility (Conforto et al.,2016) 18 61 Intrapreneurship Encouragement Not Found 20 62 Strategic Alignment (Ershadi et al.,2020) 24 Table 7. Theoretical Themes. Theme Aspects Definition Participant’s Perspective Resource Management: Allocated Budget, Adequate Project Time, Effective Time Management, Infrastructure and Tools, Documentation System, Operational Efficiency, Emphasis on Time Over Quality, Workload Pressure Resource management refers to effectively and efficiently managing existing resources with the aim of creating value for their customers. Resource management has various key aspects that are related to both physical or hard resources and soft resources, such as skills, motivation, and attitudes (Legge & Legge,1995). The foundation of employee and organizational productivity is effective resource management. We (employees) need to feel prepared to do things without worrying about the appropriate amount of resources, such as equipment, time, and financial resources. An organization can perform at its best when there is a well-structured system that strikes a balance between timelines and quality standards. If an organization does not achieve such balance, it can risk burnout and losing out on strategic opportunities. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 21 of 38 Table 7. Cont. Theme Aspects Definition Participant’s Perspective Skills and Capabilities Lack of Knowledge and Experience, Expertise Support, Expertise Utilization, Knowledge Share, Learning and Development, Trust Development The skills and capabilities, which are dynamic in nature, refer to various key aspects, such as knowledge, skills, and expertise, required to undertake innovation in general and ambidextrous innovation in specific (Heckman & Corbin, 2016). The organization’s ability to contribute to new innovation and adjust to the changing market environment is determined by a set of critical skills and capabilities. Therefore, having access to support networks for sharing knowledge and gaining skills is very important for such a set of skills and capabilities. The organization needs to become more confident and involved in roles that provide an opportunity for growth in skills and capabilities. Thus, by consistently enhancing skills, the organization not only becomes better but also creates and retains a strategic competitive advantage for the longer term. Leadership and Motivation Empowerment from Leadership, Emotional Intelligence of Managers, Motivation for Creativity and Development, Leadership Engagement, Reward Systems The themes of leadership and motivation are defined as behavioral and inner derives that push teams to seek new ideas for ambidextrous innovations (Roßnagel, 2017). Leaders who are emotionally intelligent and supportive have a discernible impact on the productivity of employees. The employees become more motivated and dedicated when leaders empower employees and genuinely appreciate their work. We, as employees, feel proud and motivated when our efforts are valued. This encouraging atmosphere is further reinforced by a compensation structure that is in line with employees’ efforts and motivates them to go above and beyond their normal responsibilities. Resistance to Change and Status Quo—(Change management and behavior patterns) Change Resistance, Adaptability to Change, Cultural Diversity, Roles and Responsibilities, Short-Term Focus, Bureaucracy Resistance to change and maintenance of the status quo refers to behaviors and attitudes that restrict any change, as such change is perceived to be very difficult to implement, and it can significantly threaten the status quo and the authorities of concerned people (Watson,1971). Although resistance to change is common, it is necessary for development and adaptability in the fast-paced world of today. Although short-term objectives and bureaucracy might occasionally impede our (employees) development, many viewpoints within the team help us in the ability to adjust to change. This shift can be facilitated by clearly defined roles and duties that offer a solid foundation. When the company helps employees at every stage, embracing change becomes easier to handle. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 22 of 38 Table 7. Cont. Theme Aspects Definition Participant’s Perspective Vision and Mission Vision and Mission, Strategic Alignment, Clear Deliverables and Metrics, Unclear Objectives and Goals The vision and mission refer to the strategic management of the teams and organizations that tend to develop long-term competitive positions in the competitive market and such positions’ relevancy for the strategic innovation of ambidexterity (Foreman,1998). A strong feeling of purpose always comes from aligning ourselves with the organization’s vision and mission. The employees become more motivated and involved when they see their jobs and work are related to the bigger mission and vision. However, an ambiguous and unclear mission and vision cause misunderstandings, which may lead to inefficiency. Employees can contribute more effectively when they stay focused and communicate the company’s vision and strategic goals on a regular basis. Organizational constraints Organizational Constraints, Policy Barriers, Flat Organizational Structure, Turnover and Instability, Pressure to Keep Up with Competitors The organization constraints theme refers to the various hurdles and constraints that members of teams have to face in order to carry out innovation. These constraints can be strategic (such as lack of vision, mission, bureaucracy, and others) and tactical (such as lack of operation efficiency, etc.) (Pindek & Spector, 2016). The organization’s efficiency and effectiveness may be hampered by organizational constraints such as strict policies, intricate systems, and others. Employees, once they start feeling constrained by rules, may be perceived as infuriating. Thus, it causes instability in the organization, leading to higher turnover in the organization. Resolving these problems could result in a more steady, concentrated workplace where employees can give their full effort to their tasks. Exploration and Exploitation Boundaries Exploration and Exploitation Boundaries, Tension Between Exploration and Exploitation, Radical Innovation Momentum, Innovation Pipeline, Customer-Centric Innovation, Open Innovation Ambidextrous innovation refers to paradoxical, in which both exploration and exploitation are considered opposites but complementary to each other. In the current themes, we tend to explore the way in which boundaries for each activity, i.e., exploration and exploitation, can be fixed so that it is possible to separate them while still allowing for overlapping activities (Russo & Vurro,2010). Sustainable and strategic innovation in the organization requires striking a balance between developing new concepts and improving the current methods. Our (employees) job feels exciting and forward-thinking when we have room to investigate customer-focused solutions and make bold proposals. However, it is crucial to have precise rules about when and how we can take these innovative opportunities. Employees could maintain competitiveness and alignment with objectives by striking a balance between radical innovation and operational effectiveness. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 23 of 38 Table 7. Cont. Theme Aspects Definition Participant’s Perspective Team Management Team Management, Psychological Safety in Teams, Juniors’ Ideas Ignored, Teamwork and Leadership Attitude, Project Testing and Monitoring, Cross-Functional Collaboration Effective team management refers to the development, integration, and cohesiveness of the teams to carry out new and radical innovations that can help a firm achieve a strategic position in the market (Scott-Young & Samson, 2008). Team management and dynamics have a big impact on how employees work together and fulfill the stakeholders’ demands. Prioritizing psychological safety allows the employees to express their thoughts and concerns without worrying about being judged. Even for junior team members, effective leadership that encourages teamwork and values everyone’s opinions makes a big impact. The project runs more smoothly and inclusively when cross-functional cooperation and open feedback channels are used. Integration and Communication Integration and Communication, Sensitivity to Criticism, Past Attitudes Reflection, Language Barriers, Evaluation Impact, Evaluation Performance Review System, Digital Transformation The communication and integration themes refer to the development and integration of various systems, such as customer management systems, information systems, and others, so that team members can easily access, share, and transfer necessary and critical information for innovation (Smith,2012). The team in an organization working on either explorative or exploitative innovation would remain cohesive and focused through both effective integration and communication. In order to avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to address communication barriers, including language and others. Further, it is also necessary to improve with the support of regular, constructive criticism that helps employees understand how they are performing and appreciate juniors’ ideas. By ensuring that everyone is in agreement, a clear communication mechanism fosters a more harmonious and effective team atmosphere. Knowledge management Knowledge Management, Innovation Development, Innovation Reset The theme of knowledge management refers to the acquisition, sharing, and applying knowledge for various key tasks of innovation (Mårtensson,2000). Knowledge management promotes both individual and team growth by assisting in capturing and expanding a set of new skills and experiences. This would help employees to propose novel concepts and ideas for effective explorative and exploitive innovation and growth. Employees can gain knowledge from prior failures, successes, and experiences by reviewing and improving earlier initiatives. The organization stays competitive and evolving when employees are allowed to experiment and expand their expertise. 4.5. Frequency Analysis of Aspects into Themes The present study, while employing the open coding procedure, has also conducted a frequency analysis of the aspects. The frequency analysis here suggests the number Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 24 of 38 of times each aspect of the study was mentioned by each participant (36) in the semistructured interviews. Figure 1shows the descriptive frequency analysis of the aspects within each theme. In other words, the frequency of aspects is summarized. The figure clearly shows that the aspects within each theme, such as leadership management, skills and capabilities, team management and resistance to the status quo, and resource management, together with boundaries between exploration and exploitation, are widely discussed among the participants. These results suggest that, from a meta-theoretical perspective, the aspects within these themes are considered to be significantly important for ambidextrous innovation. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 36 various key tasks of innovation (Mårtensson, 2000). novel concepts and ideas for effective explorative and exploitive innovation and growth. Employees can gain knowledge from prior failures, successes, and experiences by reviewing and improving earlier initiatives. The organization stays competitive and evolving when employees are allowed to experiment and expand their expertise. 4.5. Frequency Analysis of Aspects into Themes The present study, while employing the open coding procedure, has also conducted a frequency analysis of the aspects. The frequency analysis here suggests the number of times each aspect of the study was mentioned by each participant (36) in the semi-structured interviews. Figure 1 shows the descriptive frequency analysis of the aspects within each theme. In other words, the frequency of aspects is summarized. The figure clearly shows that the aspects within each theme, such as leadership management, skills and capabilities, team management and resistance to the status quo, and resource management, together with boundaries between exploration and exploitation, are widely discussed among the participants. These results suggest that, from a meta-theoretical perspective, the aspects within these themes are considered to be significantly important for ambidextrous innovation. Figure 1. Descriptive Analysis of Aspects and Themes. To elaborate on frequency analysis, the high frequency of certain aspects has revealed complex priorities that participants highlighted related to ambidextrous innovation. The importance of leadership management, for example, highlights the vital role that leaders play in promoting innovation. Similarly, seing strategic direction, empowering teams, Figure 1. Descriptive Analysis of Aspects and Themes. To elaborate on frequency analysis, the high frequency of certain aspects has revealed complex priorities that participants highlighted related to ambidextrous innovation. The importance of leadership management, for example, highlights the vital role that leaders play in promoting innovation. Similarly, setting strategic direction, empowering teams, and facilitating resource allocation that supports both exploratory and exploitative activities all seem to be facilitated by effective leadership. This is consistent with ambidexterity theories that emphasize how important it is for leaders to strike a balance between innovation and operational stability. In a similar vein, the frequent reference to talents and skills suggests that teams must be flexible and always learning. In order to successfully traverse complex and changing contexts, the participants stressed the value of acquiring abilities that support both radical innovation and small-scale changes. Furthermore, topics like resource management and opposition to the status quo point toward conflicts inside the company while introducing novel procedures. Although time and money restrictions sometimes make testing difficult, efficient resource management is essential for fostering new ideas. On the other side, organizational inertia that may impede innovation attempts Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 31 of 38 Since the nature of the problem is comprehensive, an exploratory nature of research needs to be undertaken. Although the existing literature has pointed out various key factors that need to be considered when implementing ambidextrous innovation in project-level organizations, organizational culture emerges as a key factor that must be manipulated for the successful and effective implementation of ambidextrous innovation. The present research’s aim was to undertake exploratory and qualitative research design to explore the key organizational culture elements and aspects that are highly necessary for implementing ambidextrous innovation. Since the literature with respect to ambidexterity in project-level organizations within Saudi Arabian culture is limited, it is pertinent to explore and understand the organizational culture aspects that could be critical to the implementation of ambidextrous innovation before making any empirical prediction. The current research, using the action and grounded theory approach, has employed semi-structured interviews to collect comprehensive data from participants on key issues of the culture with respect to ambidextrous innovation. The data analysis of semi-structured interviews helped us to collect comprehensive data on the cultural aspects. The subsequent analysis, using open coding, also helped us to identify 62 key cultural aspects that could be necessary for the implementation of ambidextrous innovation. To enhance the reliability, validity, and triangulation of the research, two sessions of focus group discussions were conducted. The first session of the focus group aimed at critically evaluating and filtering the aspects of organizational culture, which resulted in 56 aspects. The second session of the focus group resulted in the grouping of aspects into theoretical themes, which together explained key cultural factors that need to be manipulated for the implementation of ambidextrous innovation. These themes are relevant for both project-level organizations and the culture of Global South countries such as Saudi Arabia. 8.1. Limitations of Research The current research has undertaken a comprehensive research effort to understand cultural aspects and grouped them into themes, which can help us develop a culture that can adopt ambidextrous innovation. However, the present study also reports various limitations. A key limitation of this study is the lack of empirical evidence establishing the association between cultural aspects, key themes, and ambidextrous innovation, which needs to be developed urgently. Secondly, the present research relies on data collected from project-driven organizations in Saudi Arabia, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cultural or organizational contexts. Finally, although focus groups, interviews, and grounded theory for data collecting and analysis have provided us with rich insights, other methods, such as case studies, can also enhance the findings and overall conclusions, along with longitudinal data sources. 8.2. Future Research Recommendations The current study offers three significant research recommendations. First, it allows future researchers to empirically test and validate the findings using quantitative research methods, including both survey and experimenting interventions. This type of research design will provide evidence for theoretical validation. Secondly, although aspects and themes have been developed, insight is still missing from the implementation part. Thus, future researchers are recommended to review the literature and develop interventions that can help implement each of the cultural themes. Finally, it would be interesting to triangulate the findings using other methods of qualitative research, including case studies. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 32 of 38 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A. and P.M.; methodology M.A., P.M. and A.A.; software, M.A.; val-idation, M.A. and P.M.; formal analysis, M.A.; investigation, M.A.; resources, M.A. and P.M.; data curation, M.A. and P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A. and P.M.; writing— review and editing, M.A. and A.A.; visualization M.A. supervision, M.A., P.M., M.A.-S., J.P. and A.A.; project administration, M.A. and P.M.; funding acquisition, M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy reasons. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Adeoye-Olatunde, O. A., & Olenik, N. L. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: Semi-structured interviews. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy,4(10), 1358–1367. Ahsan, K., Ho, M., & Khan, S. (2013). Recruiting project managers: A comparative analysis of competencies and recruitment signals from job advertisements. Project Management Journal,44(5), 36–54. [CrossRef] Akpa, V. O., Asikhia, O. U., & Nneji, N. E. (2021). Organizational culture and organizational performance: A review of literature. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management,3(1), 361–372. Alaloul, W. S., Alzubi, K. M., Malkawi, A. B., Al Salaheen, M., & Musarat, M. A. (2022). Productivity monitoring in building construction projects: A systematic review. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,29(7), 2760–2785. [CrossRef] Ali, M. (2021). Imitation or innovation: To what extent do exploitative learning and exploratory learning foster imitation strategy and innovation strategy for sustained competitive advantage?✰.Technological Forecasting and Social Change,165, 120527. AlSaied, M., & McLaughlin, P. (2024a). Ambidextrous innovation in project management: A systematic literature review. Administrative Sciences,14(7), 151. AlSaied, M., & McLaughlin, P. (2024b). Organizational Culture enabler and inhibitor factors for ambidextrous innovation. Administrative Sciences,14(9), 207. [CrossRef] Anderson, E. G., Jr., Chandrasekaran, A., Davis-Blake, A., & Parker, G. G. (2018). Managing distributed product development projects: Integration strategies for time-zone and language barriers. Information Systems Research,29(1), 42–69. Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management,17(6), 337–342. Azeem, M., Salfi, N. A., & Dogar, A. H. (2012). Usage of NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. Academic Research International, 2(1), 262–266. Babbie, E. R. (2015). The practice of social research. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Babu, A. J. G., & Suresh, N. (1996). Project management with time, cost, and quality considerations. European journal of operational research,88(2), 320–327. Bagherzadeh, M., Markovic, S., & Bogers, M. (2019). Managing open innovation: A project-level perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,68(1), 301–316. Bailey, J. (2008). First steps in qualitative data analysis: Transcribing. Family practice,25(2), 127–131. [PubMed] Bans-Akutey, A., & Tiimub, B. M. (2021). Triangulation in research. Academia Letters,2, 1–6. Barjak, F., & Heimsch, F. (2023). Understanding the relationship between organizational culture and inbound open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management,26(3), 773–797. Batra, I. P. P., & Dhir, S. (2022). Organizational ambidexterity from the emerging market perspective: A review and research agenda. Thunderbird International Business Review,64(5), 559–573. [CrossRef] Battaglia, D., Neirotti, P., & Paolucci, E. (2018). The role of R&D investments and export on SMEs’ growth: A domain ambidexterity perspective. Management Decision,56(9), 1883–1903. Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing qualitative data: More than ‘identifying themes’. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research,2(2), 6–22. Binci, D., Cerruti, C., Masili, G., & Paternoster, C. (2023). Ambidexterity and Agile project management: An empirical framework. The TQM Journal,35(5), 1275–1309. [CrossRef] Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. (2011). From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies,42, 573–581. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 33 of 38 Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review,58(4), 36–58. [CrossRef] Bishop, S. K. (1999). Cross-functional project teams in functionally aligned organizations. Project Management Journal,30(3), 6–12. [CrossRef] Bond-Barnard, T. J., Fletcher, L., & Steyn, H. (2018). Linking trust and collaboration in project teams to project management success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,11(2), 432–457. [CrossRef] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be (com) ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health,24(1), 1–6. [CrossRef] Braunerhjelm, P., & Thulin, P. (2023). Does innovation lead to firm growth? Explorative versus exploitative innovations. Applied Economics Letters,30(9), 1179–1182. [CrossRef] Burford, L. D. (2012). Project management for flat organizations: Cost effective steps to achieving successful results. J. Ross Publishing. Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational culture and innovation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management,30(4), 763–781. [CrossRef] Carpenter, C. M., & Suto, M. (2008). Qualitative research for occupational and physical therapists: A practical guide. Wiley. Chen, J., Taylor, J. E., & Comu, S. (2017). Assessing task mental workload in construction projects: A novel electroencephalography approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,143(8), 04017053. [CrossRef] Claes, M. T. (1999). Women, men and management styles. International Labour Review,138, 431. [CrossRef] Clark, A., & Postel-Vinay, F. (2009). Job security and job protection. Oxford Economic Papers,61(2), 207–239. [CrossRef] Clark, I. (1998). Competitive pressures and engineering process plant contracting. Human Resource Management Journal,8(2), 14–28. [CrossRef] Conforto, E. C., Amaral, D. C., Da Silva, S. L., Di Felippo, A., & Kamikawachi, D. S. L. (2016). The agility construct on project management theory. International Journal of Project Management,34(4), 660–674. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology,13(1), 3–21. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 14). Sage. Crawford, J. K., Cabanis-Brewin, J., Bigelow, D., James, C., & Pennypacker, S. (2004). Project management roles and responsibilities. Center for Business Practices. Crawford, P., & Bryce, P. (2003). Project monitoring and evaluation: A method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International Journal of Project Management,21(5), 363–373. [CrossRef] Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture: A new look through old lenses. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,19(4), 498–505. Dean, B. P. (2022). Developing and leading ambidextrous teams: A team-centric framework of ambidexterity in volatile environments. Journal of Change Management,22(2), 120–146. Decuypere, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2021). Exploring the leadership–engagement nexus: A moderated meta-analysis and review of explaining mechanisms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(16), 8592. Do, B. R., Yeh, P. W., & Madsen, J. (2016). Exploring the relationship among human resource flexibility, organizational innovation and adaptability culture. Chinese Management Studies,10(4), 657–674. [CrossRef] Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2010). The effect of organizational culture on knowledge management practices and innovation. Knowledge and Process Management,17(2), 82–94. Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence—A review and evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology,15(4), 341–372. Dunbar, R., & Guillet de Monthoux, P. (1979). Fear of failure in project management. In Surviving failures: Patterns and cases of project mismanagement (pp. 199–217). Proceedings from the Stockholm Symposium on ‘Surviving Faures’. Almqvist & Wiksell International. Duwe, J. (2022). Success through ambidextrous communication. In Ambidextrous leadership: How leaders unlock innovation through ambidexterity (pp. 19–59). Springer. Eloranta, E., Hameri, A. P., & Lahti, M. (2001). Improved project management through improved document management. Computers in Industry,45, 231–243. Ennis, C. D., & Chen, S. (2012). Interviews and focus groups. In Research methods in physical education and youth sport (pp. 217–236). Routledge. Eriksson, P. E. (2013). Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: Development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies. International Journal of Project Management,31(3), 333–341. Ershadi, M. J., Edrisabadi, R., & Shakouri, A. (2020). Strategic alignment of project management with health, safety and environmental management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management,10(1), 78–93. Foreman, K. (1998). Vision and mission. In Strategic management in schools and colleges (pp. 18–31). Paul Chapman Publishing. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 34 of 38 Francis, F., Zirra, C. T. O., & Mambula, C. J. (2020). Reward system as a strategy to enhance employees performance in an organization. Archives of Business Review,8(6), 156–164. [CrossRef] Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B., & Vermeersch, C. M. (2016). Impact evaluation in practice. World Bank Publications. Ghiselli, E. E., & Siegel, J. P. (1972). Leadership and managerial success in tall and flat organization structures. Personnel Psychology, 25(4), 617–624. Gibson, C., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Evaluation, criticism, and creativity: Criticism content and effects on creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,7(4), 314. Gillard, S. (2009). Soft skills and technical expertise of effective project managers. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology,6. Gisev, N., Bell, J. S., & Chen, T. F. (2013). Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy,9(3), 330–338. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge. Golini, R., & Landoni, P. (2014). International development projects by non-governmental organizations: An evaluation of the need for specific project management and appraisal tools. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,32(2), 121–135. Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,1(1), 50–57. Grover, V., Purvis, R. L., & Segars, A. H. (2007). Exploring ambidextrous innovation tendencies in the adoption of telecommunications technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,54(2), 268–285. Gupta, A. K., & Gupta, N. (2019). Innovation and culture as a dynamic capability for firm performance: A study from emerging markets. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,20(4), 323–336. Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics,27(3), 39–53. Haverila, M. J., & Haverila, K. C. (2019). Customer centric success measures in project management. International Journal of Business Excellence,19(2), 203–222. Heckman, J. J., & Corbin, C. O. (2016). Capabilities and skills. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,17(3), 342–359. [PubMed] Heidhues, P., K˝oszegi, B., & Murooka, T. (2016). Exploitative innovation. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics,8(1), 1–23. Hejna, W. J., & Hosking, J. E. (2004). Five critical strategies for achieving operational efficiency. Journal of Healthcare Management,49(5), 289–292. Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1999). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal,38(2.3), 472–484. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative research methods. Sage. Hisrich, R. D. (1990). Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship. American Psychologist,45(2), 209. Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research,67(8), 1609–1621. Huizingh, E. K. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation,31(1), 2–9. Ibraimova, S. S., Seisenbaeva, Z. M., Karyakin, A. M., Genkin, E. V., & Velikorossov, V. V. (2019, February 13–15). Teamwork within agile project management technology. International Conference Industrial Technology and Engineering (pp. 235–237), Melbourne, Australia. Jakobsen, B. (2024). Working towards unclear goals: Exploring the concept of social sustainability in a city development project in Oslo, Norway [Master’s Thesis, University of Oslo]. 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. Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review,57, 351–363. Johnson, R., & Waterfield, J. (2004). Making words count: The value of qualitative research. Physiotherapy Research International,9(3), 121–131. Jost, A., Lorenz, T., & Mischke, G. (2005, July 17–21). Modeling the innovation-pipeline. System Dynamics Society Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, USA. Khan, S. J., & Mir, A. A. (2019). Ambidextrous culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovations: The role of organizational slack and environmental factors. Business Strategy and the Environment,28(4), 652–663. King, N., & Brooks, J. (2018). Thematic analysis in organisational research. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: Methods and challenges (pp. 219–236). Sage. Kozarkiewicz, A. (2020). General and specific: The impact of digital transformation on project processes and management methods. Foundations of Management,12(1), 237–248. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 35 of 38 Kozcu, G. Y., & Özmen, Ö. (2021). Effects of transformational leadership on organizational change management and organizational ambidexterity. Global Journal of Economics and Business Studies,10(20), 15–25. Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Digital transformation: An overview of the current state of the art of research. Sage Open,11(3), 21582440211047576. Laframboise, D., Nelson, R. L., & Schmaltz, J. (2002). Managing resistance to change in workplace accommodation projects. Journal of Facilities Management,1(4), 306–321. Larsson, L., & Larsson, J. (2018). Sustainable development in project-based industries–supporting the realization of explorative innovation. Sustainability,10(3), 683. [CrossRef] Le, P. B. (2023). Determinants of frugal innovation for firms in emerging markets: The roles of leadership, knowledge sharing and collaborative culture. International Journal of Emerging Markets,18(9), 3334–3353. Lee, C. Y., & Johnson, A. L. (2013). Operational efficiency. In Handbook of industrial and systems engineering, second edition industrial innovation (pp. 17–44). John Wiley & Sons. Legge, K., & Legge, K. (1995). What is human resource management? (pp. 62–95) Macmillan Education UK. Lewicki, R. J. (2000). Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In M. Deutsch, & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 86–107). Jossey-Bass. Lin, C., & Chang, C. C. (2015). A patent-based study of the relationships among technological portfolio, ambidextrous innovation, and firm performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,27(10), 1193–1211. Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Sage. Ma, J., Zhou, X., Chen, R., & Dong, X. (2019). Does ambidextrous leadership motivate work crafting? International Journal of Hospitality Management,77, 159–168. Majid, M. A. A., Othman, M., Mohamad, S. F., Lim, S. A. H., & Yusof, A. (2017). Piloting for interviews in qualitative research: Operationalization and lessons learnt. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,7(4), 1073–1080. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Mårtensson, M. (2000). A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool. Journal of Knowledge Management,4(3), 204–216. Miles, M. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (Version 2). SAGE Publications. Mohiya, M., & Sulphey, M. M. (2021). Do Saudi Arabian leaders exhibit ambidextrous leadership: A qualitative examination. Sage Open,11(4), 21582440211054496. Montes-Guerra, M. I., Gimena, F. N., Pérez-Ezcurdia, M. A., & Díez-Silva, H. M. (2014). The influence of monitoring and control on project management success. International Journal of Construction Project Management,6(2), 163–184. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology,22(1), 129–152. Mrugalska, B., & Ahmed, J. (2021). Organizational agility in industry 4.0: A systematic literature review. Sustainability,13(15), 8272. [CrossRef] Muhammad, F., Ikram, A., Jafri, S. K., & Naveed, K. (2020). Product innovations through ambidextrous organizational culture with mediating effect of contextual ambidexterity: An empirical study of it and telecom firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity,7(1), 9. Murray, C. E. (2009). Diffusion of innovation theory: Abridge for the research-practice gap in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development,87(1), 108–116. [CrossRef] Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management,25, 21–32. [CrossRef] Nauman, S., Khan, A. M., & Ehsan, N. (2010). Patterns of empowerment and leadership style in project environment. International Journal of Project Management,28(7), 638–649. Nedbal, D., Auinger, A., & Hochmeier, A. (2013). Addressing transparency, communication and participation in Enterprise 2.0 projects. Procedia Technology,9, 676–686. Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly,20(1), 19–33. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review,27(3), 521–535. Obradovic, V., Jovanovic, P., Petrovic, D., Mihic, M., & Mitrovic, Z. (2013). Project managers’ emotional intelligence–a ticket to success. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,74, 274–284. [CrossRef] O’connor, G. C. (1998). Market learning and radical innovation: A cross case comparison of eight radical innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association,15(2), 151–166. O’Donnell, A. B., Lutfey, K. E., Marceau, L. D., & McKinlay, J. B. (2007). Using focus groups to improve the validity of cross-national survey research: A study of physician decision making. Qualitative Health Research,17(7), 971–981. [CrossRef] Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher,21(8), 5–14. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 36 of 38 O’reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior,28, 185–206. Ouchi, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual review of Sociology,11(1), 457–483. Özlen, M. K., & Handzic, M. (2020). Ambidextrous organisations from the perspective of employed knowledge management strategies: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management,19(2), 2050003. Padgett, D. K. (2013). Qualitative research. In Encyclopedia of social work. Oxford University Press. Park, J., & Park, D. H. (2019). A sustainable project management strategy against multitasking situations from the viewpoints of cognitive mechanism and motivational belief. Sustainability,11(24), 6912. [CrossRef] Parker, S. K., & Skitmore, M. (2005). Project management turnover: Causes and effects on project performance. International Journal of Project Management,23(3), 205–214. Pathiranage, Y. L., Jayatilake, L. V., & Abeysekera, R. (2020). A literature review on organizational culture towards corporate performance. International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics,7(9), 522–544. Peng, H. (2019). Organizational ambidexterity in public non-profit organizations: Interest and limits. Management Decision,57(1), 248–261. Pereira, V., Temouri, Y., Arslan, A., Degbey, W. Y., & Tarba, S. (2022). Ambidextrous organizations in and from emerging markets— Editors’ special issue introduction. Thunderbird International Business Review,64(5), 101762. [CrossRef] Pindek, S., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Organizational constraints: A meta-analysis of a major stressor. Work & Stress,30(1), 7–25. Pisello, A. L., Pigliautile, I., Andargie, M., Berger, C., Bluyssen, P. M., Carlucci, S., Chinazzo, G., Belafi, Z. D., Dong, B., Favero, M., & Ghahramani, A. (2021). Test rooms to study human comfort in buildings: A review of controlled experiments and facilities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,149, 111359. Pollack-Johnson, B., & Liberatore, M. J. (2006). Incorporating quality considerations into project time/cost tradeoff analysis and decision making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,53(4), 534–542. [CrossRef] Popadiuk, S., Luz, A. R. S., & Kretschmer, C. (2018). Dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity: How are these concepts related? Revista de Administração Contemporânea,22(5), 639–660. Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care,8(5), 499–504. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Raith, F., Richter, I., & Lindermeier, R. (2017, July 12–14). How project-management-tools are used in agile practice: Benefits, drawbacks and potentials. Proceedings of the 21st International Database Engineering & Applications Symposium (pp. 30–39), Bristol, UK. Rappaport, A. (2005). The economics of short-term performance obsession. Financial Analysts Journal,61(3), 65–79. Rashid, H. (2010). Human factors effects in helicopter maintenance: Proactive monitoring and controlling techniques. Cranfield University. Rialti, R., Marzi, G., Caputo, A., & Mayah, K. A. (2020). Achieving strategic flexibility in the era of big data: The importance of knowledge management and ambidexterity. Management Decision,58(8), 1585–1600. Rossi, M., Festa, G., Fiano, F., & Giacobbe, R. (2020). To invest or to harvest? Corporate venture capital ambidexterity for exploiting/exploring innovation in technological business. Business Process Management Journal,26(5), 1157–1181. [CrossRef] Roßnagel, C. S. (2017). Leadership and motivation. In Leadership today: Practices for personal and professional performance (pp. 217–228). Springer. Russo, A., & Vurro, C. (2010). Cross-boundary ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation in the fuel cell industry. European Management Review,7(1), 30–45. [CrossRef] Sackmann, S. A. (1991). Uncovering culture in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,27(3), 295–317. Salmasnia, A., Mokhtari, H., & Nakhai Kamal Abadi, I. (2012). A robust scheduling of projects with time, cost, and quality considerations. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,60, 631–642. Santoro, G., Thrassou, A., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Do knowledge management and dynamic capabilities affect ambidextrous entrepreneurial intensity and firms’ performance? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,68(2), 378–386. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. Schmidt, C. (2004). The analysis of semi-structured interviews. In A companion to qualitative research (p. 253). Sage. Scott-Young, C., & Samson, D. (2008). Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations Management,26(6), 749–766. Selden, L., & MacMillan, I. C. (2006). Manage customer-centric innovation-systematically. Harvard Business Review,84(4), 108. [PubMed] Shaout, A., & Yousif, M. K. (2014). Performance evaluation–Methods and techniques survey. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology,3(5), 966–979. Sheehan, M., Garavan, T. N., & Morley, M. J. (2023). The microfoundations of dynamic capabilities for incremental and radical innovation in knowledge-intensive businesses. British Journal of Management,34(1), 220–240. Shen, Y., Tuuli, M. M., Xia, B., Koh, T. Y., & Rowlinson, S. (2015). Toward a model for forming psychological safety climate in construction project management. International Journal of Project Management,33(1), 223–235. Shenhar, A. J. (1998). From theory to practice: Toward a typology of project-management styles. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,45(1), 33–48. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 37 of 38 Shenhar, A. J. (2004). Strategic Project Leadership ® Toward a strategic approach to project management. R&D Management,34(5), 569–578. Sijbom, R. B., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2016). Leaders’ achievement goals and their integrative management of creative ideas voiced by subordinates or superiors. European Journal of Social Psychology,46(6), 732–745. Silver, W. S., & Mitchell, T. R. (1990). The status quo tendency in decision making. Organizational Dynamics,18(4), 34–46. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. Sage. Simeoni, F., Brunetti, F., Mion, G., & Baratta, R. (2020). Ambidextrous organizations for sustainable development: The case of fair-trade systems. Journal of Business Research,112, 549–560. Smith, B. G. (2012). Communication integration: An analysis of context and conditions. Public Relations Review,38(4), 600–608. Stokes, D., & Bergin, R. (2006). Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews. Qualitative market research: An international Journal,9(1), 26–37. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and technique for developing grounded theory. Sage. Tampoe, M., & Thurloway, L. (1993). Project management: The use and abuse of techniques and teams (reflections from a motivation and environment study). International Journal of Project Management,11(4), 245–250. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education,2, 53. Terzieva, M. (2014). Project knowledge management: How organizations learn from experience. Procedia Technology,16, 1086–1095. Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing,48(4), 388–396. [PubMed] Tsai, M. C., & Wang, C. (2017). Linking service innovation to firm performance: The roles of ambidextrous innovation and market orientation capability. Chinese Management Studies,11(4), 730–750. Turner, M., & Lingard, H. (2016). Improving workers’ health in project-based work: Job security considerations. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,9(3), 606–623. Turner, N., Maylor, H., & Swart, J. (2015). Ambidexterity in projects: An intellectual capital perspective. International Journal of Project Management,33(1), 177–188. Turner, N., Swart, J., Maylor, H., & Antonacopoulou, E. (2016). Making it happen: How managerial actions enable project-based ambidexterity. Management Learning,47(2), 199–222. Vygotsky, L. (2011). Interaction between learning and development (pp. 79–91). Linköpings Universitet. Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure. Qualitative Health Research,16(4), 547–559. Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, Contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech Firms. British Journal of Management,25(1), 58–76. Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131. Wang, Y., Farag, H., & Ahmad, W. (2021). Corporate culture and innovation: A tale from an emerging market. British Journal of Management,32(4), 1121–1140. Wassmer, U., Li, S., & Madhok, A. (2017). Resource ambidexterity through alliance portfolios and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,38(2), 384–394. Watson, G. (1971). Resistance to change. American Behavioral Scientist,14(5), 745–766. Weber, M. (2023). Bureaucracy. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 271–276). Routledge. Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology,24, 381–400. Xie, X., & Wang, H. (2021). How to bridge the gap between innovation niches and exploratory and exploitative innovations in open innovation ecosystems? Journal of Business Research,124, 299–311. Yang, M., Wang, J., & Zhang, X. (2021). Boundary-spanning search and sustainable competitive advantage: The mediating roles of exploratory and exploitative innovations. Journal of Business Research,127, 290–299. Zein, O. (2016). Culture and project management: Managing diversity in multicultural projects. Routledge. Zhang, W., Zeng, X., Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Cao, X. (2023). Understanding how organizational culture affects innovation performance: A management context perspective. Sustainability,15(8), 6644. [CrossRef] Zhang, X., Le, Y., Liu, Y., & Chen, X. (2021). Fostering ambidextrous innovation strategies in large infrastructure projects: A team heterogeneity perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,70, 2257–2267. Zhang, Z., & Luo, T. (2020). Network capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations—From the perspective of network dynamics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,152, 119910. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 116 38 of 38 Zhao, K., Hua, J., Yan, L., Zhang, Q., Xu, H., & Yang, C. (2019, August 4–8). A unified framework for marketing budget allocation. Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (pp. 1820–1830), Anchorage, AK, USA. Zhou, Z., Zang, Y., Luo, X., Lan, Y., & Xue, X. (2013). Technology innovation development strategy on agricultural aviation industry for plant protection in China. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering,29(24), 1–10. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.