Cultural Dynamics and Ambidextrous Innovation: Insights from Saudi Arabia’s Project-Based Organizations—A Thematic–Explorative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject is relevant and the context unexplored, but major modifications are needed for the potential publication of this manuscript. I suggest to consider the following:

1. Title Misalignment with Content:
   The title of the paper does not correspond to its content. Specifically, organizational ambidexterity is absent from the methodological approach of the paper, as well as from its fundamental bibliography. Similarly, cultural aspects are not addressed in a focused manner but are instead interwoven with a wide range of management variables in a broad sense. For instance, applying the classification of management elements from McKinsey's 7S framework -in which culture will be only one of them- shows that the variables considered cultural in this paper are drawn from all categories. Therefore, I suggest completely revising the title to align it with the actual scope of the study after its final revision.
2. Focus on Project-Based Organizations:
   The paper centers on organizations that employ project-based approaches, implying that this inherently enables innovation and the creation of ambidextrous organizations. This inference needs to be adequately justified, or at the very least, the rationale for selecting project-based organizations as the foundation of the study must be clearly explained. If the justification is that project-based organization is the chosen approach for fostering innovation and that all identified projects are innovative, this should also be substantiated in the methodology.
3. Study Context in Saudi Arabia and Cultural Variables:
   Given that the study focuses on Saudi Arabia and aims to analyze specific cultural traits, one would expect the list of variables under analysis to include specific cultural variables relevant to this context. However, there are no references to prior studies addressing this issue, which is a critical omission.
4. Misalignment of Interview Questions with Study Objectives:
   The questions posed for initiating the in-depth interviews do not align with the objectives of the study. They focus on the success or failure of projects, without addressing reflections related to organizational ambidexterity or cultural variables, whether at the national or organizational level.
5. Sample Size and Variable Reduction:
   The number of interviews conducted is limited to 36, from which 227 variables are identified in a first step, subsequently reduced to 67, and finally consolidated into 56 variables grouped into 10 highly diverse themes. This progression is not sufficiently substantiated and clearly highlights the lack of structure in the interviews and focus groups. With such a small sample of executives, it would have been more appropriate to focus on a few cultural variables and analyze in depth how common variables emerge across Saudi organizations that differentiate them from companies in other regions. Additionally, the analysis could explore how organization-specific variables emerge and whether these have already been described in the literature for other regions, or whether they remain unique to the context analyzed.

Summary Recommendation:

While the paper addresses interesting objectives, leveraging the collected data effectively will require a complete rewrite. This includes defining objectives that are measurable and achievable with the available data and methodology, and consequently, selecting a new title.

 If the current title is to be retained, significant changes will be required in the methodology, interview design, and the demonstration of whether the organizations analyzed are ambidextrous.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment1: Title Misalignment with Content: The title of the paper does not correspond to its content. Specifically, organizational ambidexterity is absent from the methodological approach of the paper, as well as from its fundamental bibliography. Similarly, cultural aspects are not addressed in a focused manner but are instead interwoven with a wide range of management variables in a broad sense. For instance, applying the classification of management elements from McKinsey's 7S framework -in which culture will be only one of them- shows that the variables considered cultural in this paper are drawn from all categories. Therefore, I suggest completely revising the title to align it with the actual scope of the study after its final revision.

Response1: Thank you very much. We have revised our title, which, now, more reflects comments and suggestions presented here 

Comment2: Focus on Project-Based Organizations: The paper centers on organizations that employ project-based approaches, implying that this inherently enables innovation and the creation of ambidextrous organizations. This inference needs to be adequately justified, or at the very least, the rationale for selecting project-based organizations as the foundation of the study must be clearly explained. If the justification is that project-based organization is the chosen approach for fostering innovation and that all identified projects are innovative, this should also be substantiated in the methodology

Response2: Thank you very much for this detailed comment. We, the authors, in light of the comment, have attempted our best to revise the introduction in a way that we can address such important aspects of highlighting the inference of “project-based approaches…inherently enables innovation and the creation of ambidextrous organizations”. The revised introduction parts are all highlighted in yellow and changed with more references in light to substantiate our inference and comment.  

Comment3: Study Context in Saudi Arabia and Cultural Variables: Given that the study focuses on Saudi Arabia and aims to analyze specific cultural traits, one would expect the list of variables under analysis to include specific cultural variables relevant to this context. However, there are no references to prior studies addressing this issue, which is a critical omission

Response3: 

Thank you very much for this comment and focus on cultural issues. We strongly corroborate with the reviewer regarding the contextual cultural traits. However, the aim of the present research is to study culture within project-based organizations in relation to the innovation paradox. For example, our results suggest that project managers have pointed out cultural elements, such as Language Barriers, Sensitivity to Criticism, Management Styles, Policy Barriers, Bureaucracy, and Cultural Diversity. These are specific variables that are inherent elements of Saudi Arabia, Middle Eastern and to a larger extent global south culture.
However, we are open to making any further changes that can help us to rectify the very important comment.

Secondly, we really appreciate the comment with regard to the previous literature on the intersection of project culture, and ambidextrous innovation in Saudi Arabia context. Thus, to address this aspect of the comment, we have added a section in the literature review. The section tends to summarize the existing literature and the gap that is evident and the present study attempts to fulfill. 

Comment4: Misalignment of Interview Questions with Study Objectives: The questions posed for initiating the in-depth interviews do not align with the objectives of the study. They focus on the success or failure of projects, without addressing reflections related to organizational ambidexterity or cultural variables, whether at the national or organizational level

Response4: 

Thank you very much for this comment and for pointing out towards the important aspect of our data collection.

The interviews which were conducted as part of our study were semi-structured. So, semi-structured interviews have helped us to get data about culture, and ambidextrous innovation while inquiring about the about success, and failure of the projects and the role of innovation.  

For example, while asking about the success of innovation, we quickly inquired about whether it was incremental innovation or radical innovation. 

Further in the same way, when we have inquired about for example “project you worked on where innovation implementation didn't work well”. We quickly ask about the (a) scope of innovation either incremental or radical (b) cultural aspect of failure. 

This way, it have helped us to fulfill our purpose for which we employed interviews. This is mentioned in lines 218-224 “The purpose of the main interviews was to conduct open and free discussion which allowed participants to express themselves and their views on culture, organization, innovation, and ambidexterity within the organizations” 

Comment5: Sample Size and Variable Reduction: The number of interviews conducted is limited to 36, from which 227 variables are identified in a first step, subsequently reduced to 67, and finally consolidated into 56 variables grouped into 10 highly diverse themes. This progression is not sufficiently substantiated and clearly highlights the lack of structure in the interviews and focus groups. With such a small sample of executives, it would have been more appropriate to focus on a few cultural variables and analyze in depth how common variables emerge across Saudi organizations that differentiate them from companies in other regions. Additionally, the analysis could explore how organization-specific variables emerge and whether these have already been described in the literature for other regions, or whether they remain unique to the context analyzed

Response5: 

Thank you very much for this important comment.

We would like to respectfully inform and correct some of the information. We conducted 36 interviews. The sample of interview 36 as lines 341-343 highlighted in yellow color suggests that is based on saturation level. 

Secondly, we would also clarify respectfully that, as sections 4.2.3 and 352-356 highlighted in yellow color suggest that we initially had the 62 aspects (variables) which were further refined in focus group discussion and review literature up to 56. 

Finally, we believe that what has been done in the present research completely matches with suggestion of the reviewer. The suggestion as we are quoting is “it would have been more appropriate to focus on a few cultural variables and analyze in depth how common variables emerge across Saudi organizations that differentiate them from companies in other regions”. The purpose of the focus group and in-depth review of the literature was to examine each and every variable (aspect) in depth and refine and group into themes which provide us with a comprehensive picture of the culture that can adopt ambidextrous innovation.  

Comment6:

Summary Recommendation: While the paper addresses interesting objectives, leveraging the collected data effectively will require a complete rewrite. This includes defining objectives that are measurable and achievable with the available data and methodology, and consequently, selecting a new title. 

If the current title is to be retained, significant changes will be required in the methodology, interview design, and the demonstration of whether the organizations analyzed are ambidextrous

Response6: 

Thank you very much for your time, efforts and suggestions. We are witnessing significant changes and improvements in the paper. We are very thankful for the comments made. We have significantly addressed comments. We are more than happy to listen to the reviewer once again in case anything needs to be changed. In general, we have made significant changes to our paper. We have improved the introduction and extended our literature review which needed to clarify much much-needed gap in the literature. Secondly, we have also changed the title to reflect the objectives of our research. 

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We have changed the title and reflecting in a way that is consistent with our research aim, objectives and purposes.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), 

 

The manuscript is very interesting and very factual. However, there are some improvement suggestions I would like to point out, which are highly recommended:

- the tables are very large and difficult to follow. Usually, in the context of a qualitative research the important information was selected, and the rest was submitted as additional files;

- It is highly recommended to include a limitations section in the discussion section. These limitations may refer to the method of research, the inclusion criteria of the participants, the number of participants, etc. 

- It is also highly recommended to include a further research section in the discussion section and try to find the answer to the following questions: who can use the results of the study? how can the results of the study be used in practice? 

 

Thank you and good luck!

Author Response

Comment1: The manuscript is very interesting and very factual. However, there are some improvement suggestions I would like to point out, which are highly recommended:

Response1: Thank you very much. We, the team of authors, express our profound gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our research. We believe that your comments have helped us to improve our research papers. 

Comment2: the tables are very large and difficult to follow. Usually, in the context of a qualitative research the important information was selected, and the rest was submitted as additional files;

Response2: Thank you very much for this comment. We believe that we should make our research more readable and understandable. By taking this comment have decided that we will attempt to make some information as part of the appendixes.  

Comment3: It is highly recommended to include a limitations section in the discussion section. These limitations may refer to the method of research, the inclusion criteria of the participants, the number of participants, etc.  

Response3: Thank you very much for this important comment. We have added a limitation section. Please refer to section 7.1 as a limitation highlighted in green color for your kind reference. 

Comment4: It is also highly recommended to include a further research section in the discussion section and try to find the answer to the following questions: who can use the results of the study? how can the results of the study be used in practice?

Response4: Thank you very much for this important comment. We also believe that the literature needed further extension and our research recommendation can provide an initial base for any future studies. Thus, we have added a section on limitations. Please refer to section 7.2 as future research recommendations highlighted in green color for your kind reference. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf