The Impact of Ambidextrous Leadership on Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis of Syrian SMEs

— This study investigates the impact of ambidextrous leadership on firm performance among Syrian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Ambidextrous leadership, which entails the ability to adapt and balance between competing demands, has been identified as a key driver of organizational success. Using a sample of 381 SME business owners in Syria, the study employs multiple linear regression analysis to test the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and firm performance. The results indicate a positive and significant relationship between ambidextrous leadership and firm performance, thus suggesting that business owners who effectively balance both exploratory and exploitative activities are better positioned to enhance their firms' performance. The findings contribute to the existing literature on ambidextrous leadership and provide practical recommendations for business owners and policymakers in the Syrian context.


INTRODUCTION
Ambidextrous leadership has emerged as a critical factor in organizational success, with an increasing number of studies examining its role in promoting firm performance (Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011;Zacher & Rosing, 2015). This form of leadership focuses on the ability of individuals to balance between competing demands and adapt to changing circumstances (Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). As the business environment becomes more dynamic and uncertain, especially in conflict-affected regions like Syria, the importance of ambidextrous leadership in enhancing firm performance becomes even more pronounced.

Problem Statement
Despite the growing interest in ambidextrous leadership, the relationship between this leadership style and firm performance remains underexplored, particularly in the context of Syrian SMEs. This study aims to address this gap by examining the impact of ambidextrous leadership on firm performance among SME business owners in Syria, a region where businesses face unique challenges due to ongoing conflict and instability.

Ambidextrous Leadership
Ambidextrous leadership is defined as the ability of a leader to balance between exploration and exploitation activities (Rosing et al., 2011). Exploration refers to the pursuit of novel opportunities and the development of new knowledge, while exploitation involves refining and extending existing knowledge to enhance efficiency (March, 1991). Ambidextrous leaders are capable of switching between different leadership styles, depending on the situation and the needs of the organization (Zacher & Rosing, 2015). The concept of ambidexterity in organizations was first introduced by Duncan (1976), who argued that organizations must balance the demands of adapting to changes in their environment while maintaining their current performance. Building on this concept, Tushman and O' Reilly (1996) proposed the idea of ambidextrous organizations, which are capable of managing both exploratory and exploitative activities. Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) further refined the concept of organizational ambidexterity by emphasizing the role of contextual factors, such as culture, structure, and systems, in promoting the balance between exploration and Ambidextrous leadership is characterized by the ability to switch between different leadership styles, depending on the situation and the needs of the organization (Rosing et al., 2011). This involves balancing between opening behaviors, which promote exploration, and closing behaviors, which foster exploitation (Zacher & Wilden, 2014). Previous studies have shown that ambidextrous leadership is positively associated with various organizational outcomes, such as innovation (Rosing et al., 2011), team effectiveness (Zacher & Rosing, 2015), and organizational learning (Jansen, Vera, & Crossan, 2009).

III. FIRM PERFORMANCE
Firm performance is a multidimensional construct that encompasses various aspects of an organization's outcomes, such as profitability, growth, and market share (Richard et al., 2009). Several factors contribute to firm performance, including organizational strategy, resources, and capabilities (Barney, 1991 There is an extensive body of literature that investigates the factors influencing firm performance. Some studies have focused on the role of strategy, arguing that firms with a well-defined and executed strategy are more likely to achieve superior performance (Barney, 1991;Porter, 1985). These studies highlight the importance of competitive advantage and strategic positioning in determining firm performance.
Other research has emphasized the role of organizational capabilities, such as dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) and innovation capabilities (Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996), in driving firm performance. These studies suggest that firms with strong internal capabilities are better equipped to adapt to changing environments and exploit market opportunities, ultimately leading to better performance outcomes.
Firm performance has also been linked to corporate governance practices. For example, Fama and Jensen (1983) argued that effective corporate governance mechanisms, such as board independence and executive compensation policies, can help align the interests of managers and shareholders, leading to improved firm performance. Similarly, Shleifer and Vishny (1997) suggested that wellgoverned firms are more likely to make better investment decisions and maximize shareholder value.
In addition to these factors, the role of leadership in shaping firm performance has received significant attention in the literature. Researchers have examined various leadership styles, such as transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977), and ambidextrous leadership (Rosing et al., 2011), and their impact on firm performance. These studies emphasize the importance of effective leadership in guiding organizations towards achieving their strategic objectives and improving performance outcomes.
In conclusion, the literature on firm performance is vast and diverse, exploring numerous factors that can influence performance outcomes. Understanding the factors that drive firm performance is crucial for organizations seeking to enhance their competitive advantage, as well as for policymakers aiming to promote economic growth and development.

Ambidextrous Leadership and Firm Performance
Ambidextrous leadership has garnered significant attention in recent years as a critical driver of firm performance. Ambidextrous leadership involves the ability of leaders to balance the seemingly contradictory demands of exploration and exploitation activities within an organization (Rosing et al., 2011). Exploration activities are characterized by experimentation, innovation, and risktaking, while exploitation activities involve efficiency, refinement, and execution of existing knowledge and resources (March, 1991 (2007) found that ambidextrous leaders were better equipped to navigate the complexity and uncertainty of today's business environment, resulting in improved firm performance.
In conclusion, the literature on ambidextrous leadership and firm performance is growing and highlights the importance of leaders who can effectively balance exploration and exploitation activities. These studies emphasize the critical role of ambidextrous leadership in fostering innovation, adapting to changing environments, and ultimately, improving firm performance.

IV. METHODOLOGY
The study utilizes a sample of 381 SME business owners in Syria, with data collected through a structured questionnaire. Ambidextrous leadership is measured using the Ambidextrous Leadership Scale (Rosing et al., 2011), while firm performance is assessed using a combination of financial and non-financial indicators (Richard et al., 2009).

Sample and Data Collection
A sample of 381 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Syria was selected for this study. The sample consisted of business owners from various industries, ensuring a diverse representation of firms. Data were collected through a survey questionnaire, which was distributed to the business owners via email and personal contacts. The questionnaire included items measuring ambidextrous leadership, firm performance, and control variables (firm size, firm age, and industry). The response rate was 75%, resulting in a final sample of 286 SMEs. 2. Firm Performance: Firm performance was assessed using a subjective measure, asking business owners to rate their company's performance relative to competitors in terms of profitability, growth, and market share.
3. Control Variables: Firm size was measured by the number of employees, firm age was measured in years since the company's inception, and industry was measured using industry classification codes.

Reliability Analysis
Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the ambidextrous leadership scale.
The following table shows the reliability analysis results:

Scale Cronbach's Alpha
Ambidextrous Leadership 0.88 The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the ambidextrous leadership scale is 0.88, which indicates a high level of internal consistency and reliability.

V. DATA ANALYSIS
Multiple linear regression was used to test the relationship between ambidextrous leadership, control variables, and firm performance. The regression model included ambidextrous leadership as the independent variable and firm performance as the dependent variable, with firm size, firm age, and industry as control variables.

VI. RESULTS
The results of the multiple linear regression analysis are presented in two tables: the model summary In conclusion, this study provides empirical evidence for the positive impact of ambidextrous leadership on firm performance in the context of Syrian SMEs. The results highlight the importance of developing ambidextrous leadership capabilities in order to enhance firm performance. In addition, the significant relationships between firm performance and control variables, such as firm size and industry, emphasize the need to consider contextual factors when examining the impact of leadership on performance outcomes.
The results of the present study, which indicate a positive and significant relationship between ambidextrous leadership and firm performance, are consistent with previous research findings. For example, Rosing et al. (2011) found that ambidextrous leadership was positively related to team innovation, suggesting that leaders who can balance exploration and exploitation behaviors are more likely to foster innovative outcomes. Similarly, Zacher and Rosing (2015) showed that ambidextrous leadership was positively associated with employees' innovative behavior, highlighting the important role of ambidextrous leaders in promoting innovation within organizations.
The current study also aligns with the findings of Cao et al.
(2016), who reported a positive relationship between ambidextrous leadership and firm performance in the context of Chinese SMEs. Their study suggested that ambidextrous leaders can adapt to the dynamic and complex environment faced by SMEs and effectively manage the tension between exploration and exploitation activities. Moreover, Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) proposed that organizational ambidexterity, which is closely related to ambidextrous leadership, is a key determinant of firm performance. They argued that organizations that can simultaneously pursue exploration and exploitation activities are more likely to achieve superior performance compared to those that focus solely on either exploration or exploitation.
In terms of control variables, the present study's finding of a significant positive relationship between firm size and firm performance is consistent with previous research. For instance, Davidsson et al. (2005) found that larger firms tend to have greater access to resources, economies of scale, and market power, which can contribute to superior performance. Similarly, Penrose (1959) argued that larger firms can capitalize on their size to exploit growth opportunities and achieve better performance outcomes.
Regarding the industry variable, the significant relationship with firm performance in this study aligns with the notion that industry-specific characteristics can influence firm performance. Porter (1980) suggested that factors such as competitive intensity, technological change, and market growth within industries can have significant impacts on firm performance. In addition, Rumelt (1991) found that industry effects played a crucial role in explaining variations in firm performance, underscoring the importance of considering industry context when examining performance outcomes. Conversely, the non-significant relationship between firm age and firm performance found in the present study is consistent with some previous research. Coad et al. (2013) and Strotmann (2007) found no clear relationship between firm age and performance, suggesting that the age of a firm might not be a critical determinant of performance when accounting for other factors.
In summary, the findings of this study support and extend the existing literature on the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and firm performance. By examining the impact of ambidextrous leadership in the context of Syrian SMEs and controlling for firm size, firm age, and industry, the study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the role of ambidextrous leadership in shaping firm performance outcomes. Future research should continue to explore the mechanisms through which ambidextrous leadership affects performance, as well as the contextual factors that may influence this relationship.

VII. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, ambidextrous leadership plays a vital role in driving firm performance by effectively balancing the opposing demands of exploration and exploitation activities. The growing body of literature in this area highlights the importance of ambidextrous leaders in fostering innovation, adapting to dynamic environments, and ultimately enhancing firm performance. The relationship between ambidextrous leadership and firm performance is influenced by various factors, including organizational context, strategic orientation, and external environment.

VIII. ACADEMIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Future research should explore the antecedents of ambidextrous leadership and investigate how individual and contextual factors influence the development of ambidextrous leadership capabilities.
Researchers should examine the boundary conditions that may moderate the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and firm performance, such as organizational size, industry, and national culture.
Longitudinal studies could provide insights into the dynamic nature of ambidextrous leadership and its impact on firm performance over time.
Investigate the role of ambidextrous leadership in different organizational contexts, such as startups, family businesses, and multinational corporations, to uncover potential differences in the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership across various settings.

IX. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Organizations should identify and develop ambidextrous leaders who can effectively balance exploration and exploitation activities, thus fostering innovation and driving firm performance.
Leadership development programs should emphasize the importance of ambidextrous leadership and provide training in the skills and competencies required to balance exploration and exploitation activities.
Organizations should create a supportive environment that facilitates ambidextrous leadership, including establishing clear communication channels, promoting cross-functional collaboration, and encouraging risk-taking and experimentation.
Top management should align organizational strategy with the demands of ambidextrous leadership, ensuring that both exploration and exploitation activities are adequately resourced and prioritized.
Organizations should consider the role of ambidextrous leadership when designing their organizational structure, ensuring that it supports the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation activities.
By implementing these academic and practical recommendations, organizations can leverage the potential of ambidextrous leadership to drive innovation, adapt to changing environments, and ultimately improve firm performance.