Designing and validating a balanced ambidextrous university model for entrepreneurship development

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD in Educational Management, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

10.22035/isih.2026.5730.5290
Abstract
Entrepreneurship is among the most important outcomes of university development and requires novel management approaches such as "organizational ambidexterity," which refers to the simultaneous pursuit of exploiting existing capacities and exploring knowledge for the future. This paper aims to design and validate a balanced ambidextrous university model for entrepreneurship development. The research method is mixed-methods with a sequential exploratory design. The target population in the qualitative phase consisted of higher education management experts, with whom 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted purposefully. The statistical population in the quantitative phase included managers and relevant faculty members of Iranian public universities, of whom 256 were selected through stratified random sampling and responded to a researcher-developed questionnaire. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis, while structural equation modeling was employed in the quantitative phase to validate the model. Instrument validity was confirmed using convergent (AVE>0.5) and discriminant validity indices, and reliability was confirmed through Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability. The findings in the exploitation dimension include components such as university policies and structures, university-industry interaction, education-research development, budget, and university culture. In the exploration dimension, components include needs assessment and training, forward-looking structure, financial resources, innovative policy and culture, future-oriented management, and strategic innovation. Furthermore, ambidexterity balancing strategies were identified in the form of policy and evaluation - resources and structure components. Factor analyses confirmed the validity of the components, and fit indices confirmed the overall validity of the model. The proposed ambidexterity model, by preventing unproductive stagnation and fruitless innovation, paves the way for university-centered entrepreneurship development and, through establishing an effective linkage between university and industry, lays the groundwork for the formation of entrepreneurial ecosystems within universities.

Keywords

Subjects

Alavi, H., & Hąbek, P. (2016). Optimizing outcome in the university-industry technology transfer projects. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 22(2), 94-100. doi: 10.12914/MSPE-04-02-2016
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256. doi: 10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
Beyhan, B., & Findik, D. (2018). Student and graduate entrepreneurship: Ambidextrous universities create more nascent entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1346-1374. doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9590-z
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Burgess, N., Strauss, K., Currie, G., & Wood, G. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity and the hybrid middle manager: The case of patient safety in UK hospitals. Human Resource Management, 54, 87–109. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21725
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Esposito, E. (2019). Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 172-194. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.014
Colombelli, A., De Marco, A., Paolucci, E., Ricci, R., & Scellato, G. (2021). University technology transfer and the evolution of regional specialization: The case of Turin. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(4), 933-960. doi: 10.1007/s10961-020-09801-w
Compagnuccia, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The third mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 161. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2018). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240).
García-Hurtado, D., Devece, C., Hoffmann, V. E., & Camargo-Vera, C. (2024). On entrepreneurial and ambidextrous universities. Comparative study in Ibero-American higher education institutions. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 100077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2024.100077
García-Hurtado, D., Devece, C., Zegarra-Saldaña, P. E., & Crisanto-Pantoja, M. (2022). Ambidexterity in entrepreneurial universities and performance measurement systems. A literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-022-00795-5
Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(350), 320-328. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865
Gianzina-Kassotaki, O. (2017). Leadership and ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis of the aerospace and defense organizations [Doctoral dissertation, Warwick Business School]. https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/95904/1/WRAP_Theses_Gianzina-Kassotaki_2017.pdf
Guerrero, M. (2021). Ambidexterity and entrepreneurship studies: A literature review and research agenda. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 17(5–6), 436-650.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Harder, B. T., & Benke, R. J. (2005). Transportation technology transfer: Successes, challenges, and needs (Vol. 355). Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/13923
Hosseinzadeh Arablouiyekan, R., Rahnavard, F., & Alinezhad, A. (2024). Explaining the dimensions and components of ambi/tridexterity universities in Iran. JMDP, 37(3), 81-118. https://doi.org/10.61882/jmdp.37.3.81
Johnston, A., Woodhouse, D., & Wells, P. (2025). University ambidexterity: Assessing the nature of interdependence between knowledge exchange and knowledge creation in UK universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 50(3), 1297-1323.
Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796-812. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0286
Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of organizational ambidexterity research. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221082127. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221082127
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
Klofsten, M., Fayolle, M., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D., & Wright, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change – Key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 149-158. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004
Kolster, R. (2021). Structural ambidexterity in higher education: Excellence education as a testing ground for educational innovations. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1850312
Kusumastuti, R., Safitri, N., & Rusmaningsih, P. N. (2017). Towards research university through ambidexterity practice: A lecturer perspective. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 20(2), 163-174.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications.
Lackner, H., Güttel, W. H., Garaus, C., Konlechner, S., & Müller, B. (2011). Different ambidextrous learning architectures and the role of HRM systems. Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics.
Lin, J. Y. (2021). Collaboration exploitation and exploration: Does a proactive search strategy matter? Scientometrics, 126(10), 8295-8329.
Mansourian Ravandi, F., Ganji, M., & Nikkhah Ghamsari, N. (2019). A qualitative meta-analysis on occupation status of graduates in Iran. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 12(1), 145-172. https://doi.org/10.22035/isih.2020.3466.3679
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634940
Mason, C., Anderson, M., Kessl, T., & Hruskova, M. (2020). Promoting student enterprise: Reflections on a university start-up programme. Local Economy, 35(1), 68-79. doi: 10.1177/0269094219894907
Meijer, L. L. J., Huijben, J. C. C. M., Van Boxstael, A., & Romme, A. G. L. (2019). Barriers and drivers for technology commercialization by SMEs in the Dutch sustainable energy sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112, 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.050
MIT Corporate Relations. (2025). Report to the President year ended June 30, 2025. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T. C., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2016). Brand ambidexterity and commitment in higher education: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3105–3112.
NUS Impact Report. (2023). https://nus.edu.sg/impactreport/wp-content/uploads/NUS-Impact-Report-2023.pdf
Oxford University Innovation. (2024). Shaping the future: Oxford's innovation impact (2024 impact report). University of Oxford. https://www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/news/oxford-university-innovations-2024-impact-report-showcases-a-year-of-transformative-research
Parmentola, A., Ferretti, M., & Panetti, E. (2020). Exploring the university-industry cooperation in a low innovative region. What differences between low tech and high tech industries? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 1469–1496.
Peris-Ortiz, M., García-Hurtado, D., & Román, A. P. (2023). Measuring knowledge exploration and exploitation in universities and the relationship with global ranking indicators. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 29(2), 100212.
Pohlmann, J. R., Duarte Ribeiro, J. L., & Marcon, A. (2022). Inbound and outbound strategies to overcome technology transfer barriers from university to industry: A compendium for technology transfer offices. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(6), 1166-1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2077719
Ripkey, S. L. (2017). Organizational change and ambidexterity in higher education: A case study of institutional merger. Advances in Educational Administration, 25, 165-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620170000025008
Sardasht, P., Abolghasemi, M., Ghahramani, M., & Alami, F. (2025). Identifying the core components of an ambidextrous university with a balanced approach between exploitation and exploration. Applied Educational Leadership, 6(3), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.22098/ael.2025.18042.1619
Sengupta, A., & Ray, A. S. (2017). University research and knowledge transfer: A dynamic view of ambidexterity in British universities. Research Policy, 46(5), 881-897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.008
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Management, 46(5), 865–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x
Sliż, P., & Dobrowolska, E. (2023). The ambidextrous university concept: Balancing exploitation and exploration in higher education. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, (177). doi:10.29119/1641-3466.2023.177.34
Sliż, P., Siciński, J., Antonowicz, P., & Bęben, R. (2022). The BPM governance supporting factors and implementation barriers – The experience of a public university. In A. Marrella & B. Weber (Eds.), Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2021. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (Vol. 436). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94343-1_12
Tahar, S., Niemeyer, C., & Boutellier, R. (2011). Transferral of business management concepts to universities as ambidextrous organisations. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(4), 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.589536
Thomas, E., Pugh, R., Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. L. (2023). Beyond ambidexterity: Universities and their changing roles in driving regional development in challenging times. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09992-4
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Zand, M., Shahtalebi, B., & Nadi, M. A. (2023). Presenting a paradigm model of organizational ambidexterity in the Iranian public education system. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 14(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.30495/jedu.2023.31143.6244
Zhang, J., Sun, T., & Yang, T. (2024). Balance or combine? Ambidextrous innovation strategy selection of international entrepreneurial-oriented enterprises in China. Systems, 12(6), 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12060207
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 23 September 2026

  • Receive Date 11 December 2025
  • Revise Date 21 April 2026
  • Accept Date 18 May 2026