Management, Faculty of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Alrebdi, Suad
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
CEOs play a major role in startups’ operations and development processes and are sometimes instrumental for startup survival. Accordingly, the strategic management literature proposes human capability as a source of competitive advantage. This dissertation explores the startup CEOs’ integration collaborative competencies (CEOs’ ICCs). Newly developed measures for the internal and external competencies were developed and resulted in findings of differential CEOs’ perceptions of firm performance and ability to survive. Based on the dynamic capabilities framework, the research link individual CEO social dynamic capability with the ICCs to explore startup-specific capabilities. Three modes of startup dynamic capabilities emerged from analyses of seven startup cases. Specifically, the traditional collaborative CEOs’ ICCs mode was shown to build business relations with external partners, reduce cost, and improve value. The competitive integration mode was associated with integrative processes that improved the effectiveness of internal capabilities. Finally, the ambidexterity mode was associated with the effectiveness of external collaboration and the integration of internal competencies. The findings indicate the three ICCs modes develop dynamic capabilities differently in startups based on the diversity of CEOs’ ICCs and organizational processes, while providing a greater balance among these CEOs’ ICCs both internally and externally. In other words, what CEOs do is just as important as who they are (personality traits and personal values) when it comes to performance and startup survival.
UNDERSTANDING AND CONCEPTUALIZING CEOs’ INTEGRATION COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES (CEOs’ ICCs) FOR STARTUPS IN CANADA AND SAUDI ARABIA by Suad Alrebdi MBA, Qassim University, 2008 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) April 2022 © Suad Alrebdi, 2022 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: Understanding and Conceptualizing CEOs’ Integration Collaborative Competencies (CEOs’ ICCs) for Startups in Canada and Saudi Arabia submitted by Suad Alrebdi in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of philosophy Dr. Barb Marcolin, Faculty of Management Supervisor Dr. Eric Li, Faculty of Management Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Arjun Bhardwaj, Faculty of Management Supervisory Committee Member Dr. John Graham, School of Social Work University Examiner Dr. Bruce Martin, Thompson Rivers University External Examiner Additional Committee Members include: Dr. Andrew Gemino, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract CEOs play a major role in startups’ operations and development processes and are sometimes instrumental for startup survival. Accordingly, the strategic management literature proposes human capability as a source of competitive advantage. This dissertation explores the startup CEOs’ integration collaborative competencies (CEOs’ ICCs). Newly developed measures for the internal and external competencies were developed and resulted in findings of differential CEOs’ perceptions of firm performance and ability to survive. Based on the dynamic capabilities framework, the research link individual CEO social dynamic capability with the ICCs to explore startup-specific capabilities. Three modes of startup dynamic capabilities emerged from analyses of seven startup cases. Specifically, the traditional collaborative CEOs’ ICCs mode was shown to build business relations with external partners, reduce cost, and improve value. The competitive integration mode was associated with integrative processes that improved the effectiveness of internal capabilities. Finally, the ambidexterity mode was associated with the effectiveness of external collaboration and the integration of internal competencies. The findings indicate the three ICCs modes develop dynamic capabilities differently in startups based on the diversity of CEOs’ ICCs and organizational processes, while providing a greater balance among these CEOs’ ICCs both internally and externally. In other words, what CEOs do is just as important as who they are (personality traits and personal values) when it comes to performance and startup survival. iv Lay Summary In the startup context, CEOs interact with people and organizations outside their company to acquire required competencies, and CEOs integrate internal processes and resources to build competencies within the marketplace. Accordingly, the startup CEOs’ integration collaborative competencies (CEOs’ ICCs) represent the activities that startup CEOs use when collaborating and integrating with people and organizations within their company and in the marketplace. The present study reveals three modes of CEOs’ collaboration and integration processes in startups, each of which relies on specific CEO abilities, and emphasizes the strengths of startup’s leaders to improve the startup performance and survival. First, the traditional collaborative mode identifies a CEOs’ ability to build capabilities with people and organizations within the marketplace. Second, the competitive integration mode identifies a CEOs’ ability to build capabilities with internal teams. Finally, the ambidexterity mode identifies the ability to build capabilities that balance and align external collaboration with internal integration and the benefits of simultaneously performing internal and external collaboration process. v Preface This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, Suad Alrebdi. The fieldwork involving four Canadian cases and three Saudi Arabian cases reported herein was approved by the University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus Behavioral Research Ethics Board. vi Table of Contents Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures .................................................................................................................................x Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ..............................................................................................................12 1.1 The Motives and Research Questions ....................................................................... 16 Chapter 2: Literature Review .....................................................................................................19 2.1 Theoretical Background .............................................................................................. 19 2.1.1 The Nature of Firm-specific Capabilities ............................................................. 23 2.1.2 Heterogeneity ........................................................................................................ 24 2.1.3 Competitive Advantage ........................................................................................ 25 2.1.4 Evolution ............................................................................................................... 26 2.1.5 Startups-specific capability ................................................................................... 28 2.2 Definitions of Collaboration and Integration ............................................................... 29 2.3 Startups’ Open Innovation and Integration Collaboration .......................................... 31 2.3.1 Exploration, Exploitation and Organizational Ambidexterity .............................. 34 2.4 The Conceptual Model ................................................................................................ 35 2.4.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 37 2.4.2 The CEO’s Internal Influence ............................................................................... 37 2.4.3 The CEO’s External Influence .............................................................................. 38 2.4.4 CEO balance and change ...................................................................................... 40 vii Chapter 3: Methodology..............................................................................................................42 3.1 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 42 3.2 Sampling Plan ............................................................................................................. 46 3.2.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria ........................................................................... 46 3.2.2 Purposeful sampling strategy ................................................................................ 49 3.2.3 The Unit and Level of Analysis ............................................................................ 52 3.3 Data Collection and Sources ...................................................................................... 52 3.3.1 Shadowing............................................................................................................. 53 3.3.2 Interviews .............................................................................................................. 55 3.3.3 Documentation ...................................................................................................... 55 3.4 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 57 3.4.1 Within-case Analysis ............................................................................................ 57 3.4.1.1 Open coding .................................................................................................. 58 3.4.1.2 Axial Coding ..................................................................................................... 59 3.4.2 Cross-case Analysis .............................................................................................. 59 3.4.2.1 Selective coding ............................................................................................ 60 3.5 Defining Measures ...................................................................................................... 60 3.5.1 The CEOs’ ICCs Measure .................................................................................... 61 3.5.2 Startup Performance and Survival Measure ......................................................... 64 3.6 Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................. 68 Chapter 4: Findings .....................................................................................................................72 4.1 Findings Summary ...................................................................................................... 72 4.2 (Q1) CEOs ICCs in Startups Are Created in Three Modes ....................................... 73 4.2.1 Traditional Collaborative Mode ............................................................................ 83 viii 4.2.2 Competitive Integration Mode .............................................................................. 86 4.2.3 Ambidexterity Mode ............................................................................................. 90 4.3 (Q2) The CEOs ICCs for Firm-level Development ..................................................... 93 4.3.1 CEOs’ ICCs Relate to CEOs’ Perceptions of Startup Performance ..................... 95 4.3.2 CEOs’ ICCs’ Influence Startup Survival .............................................................. 98 4.3.3 CEOs’ ICCs and Startup Settings ....................................................................... 101 Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................103 5.1 Research Questions Revisited ................................................................................. 103 5.2 A Winning Combination: The Importance of All Three CEOs’ ICC .......................... 107 5.3 Discussion on the Ambidexterity ICCs ..................................................................... 111 5.4 Theoretical Implications ............................................................................................ 116 5.5 Practical Implications ................................................................................................ 119 Chapter 6: Conclusion ...............................................................................................................123 6.1 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 125 6.2 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................. 128 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................132 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................141 Appendix A: Interview Guides ............................................................................................ 141 Appendix B: Within-Case Coding Scheme ......................................................................... 144 Appendix C: Certificate of BERB Approval ....................................................................... 183 ix List of Tables Table 2. 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 3. 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Table 3. 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 48 Table 3. 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 3. 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Table 3. 5 ........................................................................................................................................ 54 Table 3. 6 ........................................................................................................................................ 56 Table 3. 7 ........................................................................................................................................ 56 Table 3. 8 ........................................................................................................................................ 61 Table 3. 9 ........................................................................................................................................ 62 Table 3. 10 ...................................................................................................................................... 65 Table 3. 11 ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Table 3. 12 ...................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 4. 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 75 Table 4. 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 79 Table 4. 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 96 Table 5. 1 .................................................................................................................................... 105 x List of Figures Figure 2. 1....................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 3. 1....................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 3. 2....................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3. 3....................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 4. 1....................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 4. 2....................................................................................................................................... 98 Figure 4. 3....................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 5. 1..................................................................................................................................... 111 xi Acknowledgements Completion of this doctoral research would not have been possible without the support and assistance of several key people throughout the process. I would like to begin by expressing my deepest appreciation for my supervisor, Dr. Barbara Marcolin, who continued to demand of me the highest level of work and provided key insights and support throughout the research process. I would also like to thank my Supervisory Committee members, Drs. Arjun Bhardwaj, Eric Li, and Andrew Gemino. Their ongoing support and enthusiasm for my research has been vital to maintaining momentum. I would like to acknowledge the financial support I have received from the government of Saudi Arabia and King Suad University that fully sponsored my PhD degree education. Special thanks are owed to my parents, who have supported me throughout my years of education. Their love and support have been important throughout, despite the distance and time between us, but just knowing they were there if I needed them was enough to propel me through the most troublesome days of this journey. Finally, to my wonderful husband, you have been a true comrade and scholarly companion in this process, thank you for providing the grounding, broader life-perspective, and faith in my abilities when I could not. 12 Chapter 1: Introduction What were the competencies that Airbnb CEO, Brian Chesky, developed when working with Paul Graham, the co-founder of Y combinator, who invested in Airbnb in their early stage of development? Did that collaboration improve his understanding of the target market, allow him to develop better marketing plans, or reduce costs by sharing resources? Did this relationship develop stronger CEO capabilities that continue to exist and improve the Airbnb business to this day? The question of interest in thesis is how do CEOs’ collaborations improve startups’ capabilities. As an example, Noon Academy, a Saudi startup based in Riyadh, was growing slowly due to a very limited Saudi market. The CEO and the team needed to build a platform that served other markets in order to expand their business. They changed their business model and product several times, but they were still struggling to save their business more than six years later (Alsaeed, 2020). Their biggest challenge was determining how to act in unfamiliar markets. They didn't know where to start or what to do. In the words of Noon Academy co-founder, “We were like a contractor who lives in the desert, has never seen snow, and has to build a snow resort” (Alsaeed, 2020, p. 4). The company tried to hire local experts who had previously built products that served multiple markets to help them build the open platform they wanted. After many attempts to convince local talents with specialized competencies to work with them, almost all of their offers were rejected. They eventually realized that convincing people to work in a startup in Riyadh, where the startup market is still developing, is difficult. Talented individuals have better alternatives in other places that have the name, experience, career opportunities, and better salaries (none of which Noon Academy could offer at the time). In addition, the idea of looking for experts outside the country (e.g., India, Europe, and America) was not considered. It was argued that if Noon Academy was unable to convince local experts, it would be even harder to entice foreigners 13 to join an unknown startup. In 2017, the CEO made a crucial decision to leave their comfort zone and look for partnerships, not for financial support, but primarily for access to new minds and experiences (Alsaeed, 2020). Thus, the Noon Academy’s CEO not only sold part of their company to one partner, but also developed a map for their learning needs and targeted the “golden squad” (in terms of startup’s human competencies) in the Middle East market. Since then, Noon Academy has collaborated and created partnerships with some of the most talented individuals who have specialized competencies in the Middle East market, including Mudassir Sheikha (CEO and Co-Founder of Careem, Middle East's first unicorn startup), Abdulla Elyas (software programmer and entrepreneur who has founded several technology-based companies), and Abhishek Mittal who has worked as Vice President in Unacademy, the Indian educational tech company. As a result of these bold changes, the CEO, co-founder, and the team that started together six years ago have turned Noon Academy into an open platform for teachers and students globally, and have become the fastest growing EdTech startup in the Middle East with over seven million student users (Alsaeed, 2020). Thus, to answer the question how CEOs’ collaboration competencies impact startups’ capabilities, it is evident that external collaboration processes in a startup can influence the competencies CEOs exhibit internally within the startup, but also the vice versa, CEOs require integration competencies (whereby CEOs and internal teams come together to learn the know-how to attain successful collaboration and grow their company) that may benefit the marketplace. In the Noon Academy example, the startup built stronger startup-level capability, which the CEO utilized to strengthen the collaborations and integration with other individuals locally and internationally. This suggests that integration and collaboration can accelerate the startups’ scaling process when CEOs preform them simultaneously. It also indicates that startup success might be 14 driven by CEOs’ impact which highlights the importance of CEOs’ integration collaboration competencies. The phenomenon of startup CEOs’ integration and collaboration competencies are typically viewed under firm-specific capabilities, which are recognized as the main source of competitive advantage in the field of strategic management. Barney (1991) for instance, discussed firm-specific capabilities under the resource-based view (RBV) which emphasizes the strategic internal components of firms’ “bundle of resources,” including human competencies (e.g., CEO skills and capabilities), that are heterogeneously distributed across the firms. On the other hand, Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) examined firm-specific capabilities from the dynamic capability perspective, which emphasizes the entrepreneurial side of strategy and the importance of coordinating and combining competencies and resources, such as the organizational processes that are embedded internally within the firm and the collaboration across the firms externally. Although Sarasvathy (2001) complements this view by discussing Effectuation Theory in new venture creation processes, her constructs involve seizing and exploitation through an expanding network of human alliance at the firm-level. On the other hand, Teece (2012) highlighted the role of individual executives in the dynamic capabilities framework, as “the entrepreneurial managerial capitalism” (p. 1398), which is required in both large and small firms to establish and sustain competitive advantage, and enables focus on the CEO level. This, in turn, entails not only the execution and improvement of existing routines, as well as the creation of new ones, but also necessitates transforming the firm and shaping the ecosystem through one-of-a-kind strategic acts that do not stem from routines and do not necessitate the creation of new ones. Teece (2012) further stated that capabilities are developed by drawing upon not only individual skills, but also through integration of knowledge generated by teamwork, and the larger a firm is, the less its capabilities 15 are reliant on particular individuals. In addition, according to Chesbrough (2003), research and practice on open innovation, which is also linked to dynamic capabilities of the firm, requires firms to combine both external and internal ideas of know-how and developing innovation Thus, firms should not rely exclusively on their own ideas and internal R&D, but should also seek input from external sources, the concept known as “outside-in” open innovation. From the dynamic capabilities perspective, this type of open innovation requires sensing, sense-making, and the filtering of externally developed competencies, as well as establishing collaborations beyond the firm boundaries (Bogers, Chesbrough, Heaton, & Teece 2019). Conversely, “inside-out” branch of open innovation allows underutilized ideas to be shared with others outside the firm. However, its benefits are less well explored and thus less understood (Chesbrough, 2017). According to the extant literature, the dynamic capabilities of the firm (firm-specific capabilities) refer to the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to respond to, and perhaps shape, rapidly changing business environments (Teece, 2012; Teece et al., 1997). CEOs, according to the dynamic capabilities framework, are the key players in an organization, as they are the primary decision makers, and are responsible for identifying opportunities and threats, and bringing change in uncertain business contexts (Augier & Teece, 2009; Teece, 2016). However, CEOs’ competencies are usually conceived as a source of firm-level productivity (Teece, 2016), as many startups are initiated with the CEO as the only employee who collaborates and integrates within the market, due to which the measures that can capture the CEO’s role are lacking. Given the dynamic context facing CEOs of startups there is great value in examining collaboration and integration competencies simultaneously and not separately as it has been studied in the extant literature. However, the startup CEOs’ specific dynamic capabilities lack operationalization that can capture the alignment of CEOs’ competencies 16 exhibited internally and externally which examining collaboration and integration competencies both as combined construct. Hence, the startup CEOs’ dynamic capability, the ability to perform and align external collaboration (outside-in) and integration (inside-out) competencies, is an essential CEO-specific capability that has not been explored in pertinent literature. Yet, at present, studies that directly focus on startup-specific CEO-level capabilities or CEO-level dynamic capabilities in startups are lacking, even though these are essential components for the success of emerging startups. 1.1 The Motives and Research Questions The main objective of this study is to address an important gap in the dynamic capability literature and explore the startup CEOs’ dynamic capability expressed through integration (inside-out) and collaboration (outside-in) processes. As such dynamic capabilities are typically viewed as firm-level capabilities, relevant CEO-level measures are lacking. Hence, as a part of this research, startup CEOs’ Integration Collaborative Competencies (ICCs) are introduced as combined construct of both collaboration and integration competencies which is part of a social dynamic capability model that facilitates exploration of individual social level of dynamic capabilities demonstrating the links to firm-level capabilities. Specifically are there discernible patterns in the startup CEO’s integration collaborative competencies? If so, do these patterns in CEO ICC influence CEO perceptions of startup performance and startup growth? Social collaboration and integration practices employed in startups differ from those adopted in large companies where the influence of specific people and the CEO is limited, and focus is given to information, skills, values, and strategies that are embedded in various processes and structures. As Teece’s (2016, 2018) recent research offers valuable insights into entrepreneurial/managerial dynamic capabilities, and highlights the need to gain a better 17 understanding of these startup-specifics’ dynamic processes and capabilities, this focal research brought forward the importance of detailed competence-building processes. The author stated: “Much like the founders of start-up companies, entrepreneurial managers in established firms assemble and deploy resources in pursuit of fresh opportunities, while imparting their vision of the future to the employees within their purview. They excel at the scanning, learning, creative and interpretive activity needed to sense (and later seize) new technological and market opportunities that may require building new capabilities” (Teece, 2016, p. 209) Hence, startups are highly dependent on specific individuals, whose skills, knowledge, and strategies are embedded within specific people and their individual abilities to operate, build, and improve the business survival before scaling it to a more independent organizational entity and self-sustained medium or larger business. Research on startups’ dynamic capabilities and how they can benefit the business scaling process is still lacking, and research on entrepreneurial management in large enterprises is also scarce because leadership roles are context-specific. Consequently, most researchers underestimate the influence of the business environment on the needed management competencies (Teece, 2016). Therefore, further empirical studies in startup-specific contexts are needed to fill some of these gaps. Through seven case studies, I addressed this missing gap and adapted the concepts and measures in dynamic capability research to the startup CEO level. The startup CEOs’ ICCs concept is introduced in this research as a CEO-level capability based on conceptualizations provided by the dynamic capabilities framework which can be related to startup-specific capability. Specifically, this study explores how these capabilities are developed through collaboration and 18 integration simultaneously, with the CEO as the key player because no individual-level concepts and measures presently exist. The rich qualitative descriptions of these startup CEO-led processes better explain the integration and collaboration in startups which is different than other larger firms where the dynamics of market more stable and the collaboration and integration processes are embedded within corporate strategies not as an individual role. I found three patterns of startup CEOs’ ICCs which illustrated combinations of traditional collaborative, competitive integration, and ambidexterity modes of capabilities that lead to startup survival and increase its performance. This research addressed the startups’ dynamic capabilities, allowing comparisons between entrepreneurial/managerial dynamic capabilities of small organizations. It extends these concepts to the startup CEOs’ motives (both internal and external) for preforming integration and collaboration processes simultaneously when bringing change in startups and startup markets. In short, the research illustrated three patterns of CEOs’ dynamic capabilities discovered through the iterative thematic case analysis in seven startups situated in two cities. It demonstrated how CEOs in the startup creation stage must use these complex patterns. 19 Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter provides the theoretical basis of this research and outlines the conceptual framework adopted in the study. The chapter begins with an overview of the theoretical foundation followed by a review of recent studies exploring the collaboration and integration practices in the field of management. The conceptual model using individual dynamic CEO capabilities adapted from Teece et al. (1997) is presented next, followed by the outline of the internal and external activities relevant to the study concept. 2.1 Theoretical Background Three theoretical lenses provide a conceptual base for the research problem addressed in the present study, namely (1) resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991), (2) dynamic capabilities (DC) (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997; Teece & Pisano, 1994), and (3) open innovation (OI (Chesbrough, 2010)) (Chesbrough, 2010), which are fundamental strategic theories pertaining to competitive advantage, firm performance and survival, individual CEO dynamic capabilities with the last specifically aimed at digital strategic management integrated between people and the firm actions. The RBV provides a general perspective on firm-specific capabilities which are posited to contribute to efficiency (Barney, 1991), which contribute to the growth and the problem of scaling of new venture firms (DeSantola & Gulati, 2017; Hughes, Morgan, Ireland, & Hughes, 2014). For example, some of these constructs aimed at improving firm competitive advantages are offered by Packard, Clark, and Klein (2017) for the firm’s dynamic uncertainty, risks, and ambiguity. Moreover, the set of constructs introduced by Sarasvathy (2001) to consider the means, affordable loss, partners, co-creation, and leveraging surprises. 20 Whereas the DC perspective (Teece et al., 1997), which has strong roots in the RBV, explains the nature of this capability, with suggestions of individual CEO capabilities. According to the RBV, competitive advantage of firms, and thus firm performance and survival, is driven by firm-specific resources including the CEO, suggesting that firms should focus on developing internal and external resources which recognize the heterogeneity of firms. For example, (Barney, 1991) classified the capital resources as physical (e.g., technology, location, etc.), human (e.g., training, experience, judgment, etc.), and organizational (e.g., coordinating system, reporting structure, informal relations within and between firms), all of which should be controlled by the firm to conceive and implement strategies that improve efficiency and effectiveness. This perspective suggests that strategic choices are predicated on the internal analysis of firms’ resources and capabilities. In addition, a large body of social science literature focuses on the role of different personality types (Clough, Fang, Vissa, & Wu, 2019; Zhao, Seibert, & Lumpkin, 2010) in guiding decision makers and resource acquisition. However, at any one point in time, we cannot change individuals’ characteristics and it is very difficult to identify the mechanism underlying these relationships. For example, some Big-5 personality models (i.e., more open to new experiences, more conscientious, more extraverted, agreeableness, and neuroticism) are positively related to entrepreneurial intentions (Zhao et al., 2010). Social science researchers (e.g. Clough et al., 2019 ; Zhao et al., 2010) concur that the entrepreneurial personality is complex in nature and explain how personality constructs interact with each other. For example, some personality characteristics, which are capabilities we are born with (e.g., gender, physiology) or develop through interactions with our environment (e.g., attitudes), interact with other personality characteristics through learned capabilities (e.g., education, income), and are also shaped by the external environments 21 (e.g., communities, governments, cities). Thus, this research focused more on the learning constructs and the literature sources that helped outline CEO-level learning skills and abilities. In other entrepreneurship and social science literature, positionality concepts (Clough et al., 2019; García-Villaverde, Parra-Requena & Molina-Morales, 2018) such as race, class, or belonging to a cluster, which also determine who we are, are discussed, but it does not help to outline the learning processes. The intersectionality of social science research nonetheless helps gain a better understanding of how whole aspects of individual’s identities and circumstances combine to create overlapping advantages or disadvantages. In parallel with these views, this study focused on combinations of factors that must work together in a dynamic setting to help startup CEOs develop integration and collaboration competencies. On the other hand, many previous studies on strategy are based on externally-oriented products and market analyses (e.g., Porter's Model) (Porter, 1989), with industry analysis as the starting point in strategy formulation. However, the dynamic capabilities approach introduced by Teece and Pisano (1994) combines these opposing views, further recognizes the importance of both internal and external competencies. Teece et al. (1997) defined dynamic capabilities as “the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments”(p. 516). Similarly, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) discussed integration of organizational resources in the context of alliance routines, which requires that firms combine their varied skills including people’s, technology, and functional backgrounds to create value, as a process to integrate, reconfigure, gain, and release resources to respond to or even create market change. Although, the literature of creation of new firms (e.g. Sarasvathy (2001) described entrepreneurial decisions and emphasizes strategic alliances, it is at a higher firm-level of capabilities. Also, Packard et al., 2017 examined the dynamic of entrepreneurial process by posing 22 a typology of uncertainties, which involve experimentation, learning, and selection depend upon various internal and external factors. These were also higher level and less detailed of the competitive advantage perspective than the dynamic capabilities literature. Thus, in extant literature, the strategic choices are considered dynamic processes of adaptation and change. Although the body of open services innovation literature is extensive, as open innovation phenomenon has gained extensive attention in recent years, Chesbrough (2003) provided a major shift toward a new paradigm in research of innovation and entrepreneurship by proposing that the innovation processes should be more open. The author defined open innovation as “a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as they look to advance their technology” (p. 37). This view implies that useful knowledge should be widely distributed which is done by people communicating in the organization and R&D should be structured as an open system, allowing information to come from inside and outside the firm, although recognizing that all is only done by people (Chesbrough, 2006). Table 2.1 contrasts the conceptions of the firm’s competitive advantage and the firm-specific capabilities across the four theoretical perspectives based on the following four aspects proposed by Eisenhardt and Martin (2000): (1) the definition of nature of firm-specific capabilities, (2) heterogeneity—whether a firm owns a resource or capability that its key competitors also possess, and the level of diversity in such capability or resource that would yield additional competitive advantage, (3) the type and source of competitive advantage, and (4) evolution or the trajectory of the firm, which allows establishing how capabilities emerge and explains why some firms outperform others 23 Table 2. 1 Contrasting Different Conceptions of Firm-specific Capabilities and Competitive Advantage RBV Barney (1991) DC Teece et al. (1997) Teece and Pisano (1994) DC Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) OSI Chesbrough (2010) Nature Specific-resources; physical, human & organizational resources (e.g., assets, organizational processes, experiences, etc.) controlled by the firm Organizational processes (e.g., people’s routines and learning) shaped by a specific asset position (e.g., technology, intellectual property, customer base, external relations) Specific organizational and strategic processes (e.g., product innovation, strategic decision making, alliances,) by which managers alter their resource base Open organizational processes (i.e., people’s knowledge inflows and outflows) between firms by utilization of assets (e.g., technology, intellectual property). In startups, this would also include collaboration and sharing of technology Heterogeneity Idiosyncratic (i.e., immobility of firm resources including people’s) Idiosyncratic (i.e., firm specific including people) Commonalities (i.e., managers’ best practices) with some idiosyncratic details Commonalities including people’s Competitive Advantage Sustained competitive advantage from valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable, sustainable resources including people’s Sustained competitive advantage from adapting, integrating, and reconfiguring internal and external resources including people Competitive advantage from valuable, somewhat rare, equifinal, substitutable, and fungible dynamic capabilities including people’s Competitive advantage from best utilization of a business model in which external and internal knowledge plays an equal role including people’s Evolution Unique path through history including people’s Unique learning opportunities and routines emerge from path process (e.g., trial-and-error, feedback, evaluation) for people Unique path shaped by learning mechanisms such as best practices, codification, mistakes, and pacing for people Strategic unique path based on an open business model as the source of both value creation and value capture (e.g., customer co-creation) through people 2.1.1 The Nature of Firm-specific Capabilities According to the RBV, firm-specific capabilities are tied to the firm’s resources—which can be broadly classified into three categories (physical capital, human capital, and organizational capital)—that enable firms to implement strategies aimed at enhancing efficiency and 24 effectiveness (Barney, 1991). Although Barney (1991) provided examples of each resource type (e.g., training, experience, and judgment as examples of human capital), Teece et al. (1997) posited that firm-specific capabilities are in fact a “combination of competences and resources” (p. 510), which suggests that CEO organizational processes and strategies need to be continuously adjusted to the external environmental conditions, and the CEO competencies and other internal competencies need to be aligned with these strategies. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000),) subsequently extended this definition, emphasizing the strategic side of these organizational processes. They provided empirical examples demonstrating that these views are both theoretically valid and beneficial in practice (e.g. alliancing, and product development processes). Still, they cautioned that these capabilities are highly dependent on market dynamism and evolve by applying well-established learning mechanisms. By proposing the open innovation paradigm, Chesbrough (2003, 2010) further augmented this perspective by claiming that competitive advantage primarily arises from the openness of organizational processes. In this context, the term “open” indicates that “there are many ways for ideas to flow into the process, and many ways for it to flow out into the market” (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006, p. 3). However, due to their size, startups involve fewer organizational processes than larger established companies, which results in greater openness in their business model. Moreover, their resources primarily comprise of human capital. According to Chesbrough (2006), collaboration and sharing of technology are thus most suitable means for leveraging open innovation in startups, as this includes other parties in the business model. 2.1.2 Heterogeneity According to the RBV postulates, firm-specific capabilities are heterogeneous, immobile firm resources that create sustainable competitive advantages (Barney, 1991). However, this 25 assumption does not apply to startups because startups cannot afford to own all the necessary resources including people. Hence, they need to share some resources and capabilities with others, build on each other’s competencies, and develop unique capabilities. Teece and Pisano (1994) argued that firm-specific resources are developed as a response to shifts in the environment and suggested that dynamic capabilities are unique processes that can be idiosyncratic, adopted and inherited by the firm. However, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), argued that commonalities in capabilities occur frequently, as firms can gain the same capabilities via different paths, given that “commonalities imply the efficacy of particular dynamic capabilities…because they need to have key features in common to be effective, but they can actually be different in terms of many details” (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p. 1110). They further opined that dynamic capabilities may offer common features because some firms may be less effective in dealing with organizational processes and there are various degrees of effectiveness in executing capabilities. Consequently, dynamic capabilities can be equated with any other organizational process in terms of level of performance. According to Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), “Effective product development routines typically involve the participation of cross-functional teams that bring together different sources of expertise, which are essential for superior products because each addresses a unique aspect of product quality or related production” (p. 1108). In addition, commonalities are inevitable in open innovation, which relies on knowledge and resource sharing. 2.1.3 Competitive Advantage While Barney (1991) argued that sustainable competitive advantage stems from resource heterogeneity and immobility, Teece and Pisano (1994) linked it to dynamic capabilities arising from organizational processes (e.g., people’s learning and routines embedded in the firm) adopted to integrate, build, or reconfigure competencies. However, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), 26 suggested that dynamic capabilities are specific organizational and strategic processes that can be a source of competitive but not sustainable advantage. Hence, they proposed that competitive advantage through “loosely structured organization” (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p. 1108), which indicate the need of flexibility and openness in the organizational process (p. 1108). However, the open innovation model brings the attention to the business model as a source of competitive advantage that utilizes equally external and internal ideas to create value and renew competitive advantage. Chesbrough (2003) also argued for the potential of opening up business models in other industries such as low-tech industries, as this would allow firms to use both internal and external resources to create and capture value. In 2010, Chesbrough extended the open innovation model and introduced the open services innovation, which suggests a way to escape from commoditization pressures that lead to reduced cost of goods in the marketplace. The open service innovation model also demonstrates the benefits of user experience in creating value for a firm’s striving to differentiate from competitors in order to mitigate this commoditization pressure. It also emphasizes the role of ecosystem, as firms can interact with both internal and external partners to accelerate service innovation by promoting specialization within the ecosystem (e.g., among suppliers, customers, partners, and/or third parties) (Chesbrough, 2010). For example, the customer-centric concepts, the user experience, or user co-creation are based on open business model that integrates individual competencies within the ecosystem to enhance their influence on the firm-level benefits. 2.1.4 Evolution RBV recognizes the importance of history as a determinant of firm performance. According to Barney (1991), “If a firm obtains valuable and rare resources because of its unique path through history, it will be able to exploit those resources in implementing value-creating 27 strategies that cannot be duplicated by other firms, for firms without that particular path through history cannot obtain the resources necessary to implement the strategy” (p. 108). Teece and Pisano (1994) similarly discussed dynamic capabilities in the context of path dependencies, stating that “a firm's previous investments and its repertoire of routines (its 'history') constrain its future behavior” (p. 547), as managers learn through experience, feedback, and evaluation processes. Teece and Pisano (1994), nonetheless, opined that, if the path ahead is extremely attractive, there may be incentive for firms to shift away from traditional processes. Moreover, they argued that, when several aspects of firm's environment change simultaneously, its capacity for learning diminishes. In addition to the well-known learning mechanisms that underlie the evolution of dynamic capability (such as trial-and-error, feedback, evaluation, etc.). However, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), recognized market dynamism as a crucial aspect of that evolution, arguing that in “high-velocity” markets learning can be too rapid, making it difficult to generalize the acquired knowledge. The open innovation model augments that logic of evolution of competitive advantage by balancing firm’s internal and external trajectory. In addition, Teece et al. (1997) discussed co-evolutionary paths to explain the nature of the firm’s dynamic capabilities and its competitive advantage, claiming that “What the firm can do and where it can go are thus rather constrained by its positions and paths. Its competitors are likewise constrained” (p. 524). Barney (1991), on the other hand, highlighted the value of informal strategic planning and its potential for generating competitive advantage by ensuring its rareness and imitability. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) opined that commonalities across firms’ specific-capability development processes can evolve from firms’ external linkages, which can take varied forms, including informal personal relationships. 28 2.1.5 Startups-specific capability In view of these four theoretical conceptions, the nature of startup-specific capability is tied to the startups’ resources, mainly human resources (RBV) which are a combination of competencies (DCs) and open organizational processes (OI) allow the flow of internal and external information. Although, authors examined the RBV, DC, and OI perspectives where they discussed the mechanisms and benefits of firm’s capabilities both internally and externally through examining internal integration or external collaboration independently, the startups’ capabilities remain insufficiently studied. Although the new firms creation literature may have addressed the decision-making processes in firms, which involves understanding how startups come to be (e.g., Sarasvathy, 2001), the details of what the skills and abilities at the individual level are in focus of this study. In startups’ context, an important role is played by founders, CEOs and other categories of individuals within startups’ ecosystems. It is expected that these individuals play a vital role in the evolution of startups’ capabilities. Although successful startups are more likely to focus on forming alliances and partnerships rather than extensive market research and formal management practices, there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of recognizing and classifying these specific decisions (Sarasvathy, 2001). In addition, in today’s digital markets (including startups market), firms’ competitive advantage and specific capabilities are not controlled only by the provider of products or services, by the company internally, or by the competitors and partners externally, and is not stable or fixed. Rather, it is controlled by different ecosystems and actors that influence each other in dynamic organizational processes where individuals, such as startups’ CEOs, enhance their own performance and survival by leveraging their competencies. The startups’ capabilities and resources in isolation are insufficient for successful strategy execution, as this requires both collaboration and integration of individual competencies (human capital) internally and externally. 29 While collaboration allows organizations to share resources and to create open alternatives with the new resource options, integration of these is an essential process to ensure effective collaboration and strong relationships among startups’ CEOs and partners. It is the CEOs and other people who do this integration. The combined collaboration and integration processes of CEO in startups, in which startups’ organizational processes are open, are critical and play different roles in flow of information. Therefore, the collaboration and integration in startups increase the effectiveness of products and services. Thus, the section below provides a review of pertinent literature devoted to exploring the startups’ integration and collaboration processes, interrelating these with dynamic capability, open innovation concepts 2.2 Definitions of Collaboration and Integration As a part of this investigation, an extensive review of collaboration and integration in management literature has been conducted. Given the broad meaning of the two concepts under review (“integration” and “collaboration”), it was difficult to review all trends and approaches of these two terms in the management field literature. For that reason, the search was restricted to focus in the studies that addressed the concepts of collaboration and integration together as combined capabilities, which also meets the study goal to address the benefits of implementing collaboration and integration capabilities together in startups. Some examples of combined integration and collaboration capabilities are often cited in supply chain management literature and logistics literature. In this study, the researcher adopt Fawcett, Magnan, and Mccarter (2008) definition of supply chain collaboration to define startup’s collaboration in its broad organizational sense as "the ability to work across- organizational boundaries to build and manage unique value‐added processes to better meet customer needs" (p. 30 93). This definition is also parallel with definitions of other management literature’s authors who define collaboration as “interorganizational” process, and characterized as "continuing" (Castañer & Oliveira, 2020; Gazley, 2017; Knoben & Oerlemans, 2006; Lawrence, Hardy, & Phillips, 2002; Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa, & Bagherzadeh, 2015) which emphases the dynamic process of internal and external flow of information. It involves joint human activity, two or more people working together based on mutual goals, and joint performance(Castañer & Oliveira, 2020; Durugbo, 2016; Gazley, 2017; Lakshminarasimha, 2017; Tsanos,Zografos, & Harrison, 2014). It entails, for example, coordination and cooperation skills (Castañer & Oliveira, 2020; Durugbo, 2016; Gazley, 2017; Gulati, Wohlgezogen, & Zhelyazkov, 2012). In addition, some literature addressed collaboration in wide range of collaborative examples such as alliances, joint ventures and associations (Lawrence et al., 2002). However, this study emphasized an important feature of collaboration that distinguish startups’ collaboration from other forms of the larger firms’ collaboration, which is the individuals’ role. It is important to include the individuals’ role in these interactive processes who are the actual players conducting collaboration in startups. This individual distinction is important because it was not been recognized by many literatures. It is because this type of individual collaboration can be a source of change in institutional fields, sometimes more than markets or hierarchy of control (Lawrence et al., 2002). Individual collaboration emphasizes the meaning that collaboration is not only between firms but more specifically between people who conduct firm roles, where the CEOs that represent startups as the top person. In addition, this study focuses on the concepts of collaboration and integration, in which the meaning of two terms (“collaboration" and “integration”) are likely to meet at one point. The study adopted the definition of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) who defined integration as the quality 31 of collaboration that exists between various departments or "subsystems" that is required to achieve unity of effort, "the process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems in the accomplishment of organizational task" (p. 4). This definition emphasizes the use of integration in terms of the processes to attain for “unity of effort” or in another word the processes to achieve collaboration. This feature distinguishes integration from collaboration as some literature tend to use integration as another meaning of collaboration. It also closely parallels to other authors definition of integration as process that allows the coordinating of the firm resources (Chen, Daugherty, & Landry, 2009; Michalski et al., 2017; Tsanos et al., 2014). It includes processes that sustain collaboration, engenders mutual trust and reduces uncertainty (Flynn, Huo, & Zhao, 2010; Michalski et al., 2017) among people in collaboration which ensures the dynamic nature of collaboration. Also integration can includes activities such as strategic operational coordination, which maintain cooperative relationships (Krause, Handfield, & Tyler, 2007; Michalski et al., 2017) and activities that enhance the firm efficiency and organizational values such creation of new management styles (Chen & Paulraj, 2004; Michalski et al., 2017). 2.3 Startups’ Open Innovation and Integration Collaboration The literature that focuses directly on startups’ collaboration and integration, and how startups create such collaboration and integration processes, is surprisingly limited. A quick search on ABI/INFORM index in articles with titles that contain "startup" and "collaboration" showed six articles only, and four articles only when searched for "startup" and "integration". Researchers however build on relevant research streams using different terminology which were found when reviewing collaboration and integration in the startup context. For example, the open innovation literature touches on the two-sided network, complements and externalities used between startups and other organizations. Few researchers in open innovation literature have focused on startups, 32 and most studies focused on the role of startup’s network and characteristics on the innovation performance of startups (Spender, Corvello, Grimaldi, & Rippa 2017). It appears that researchers' attention has been drawn more to the innovation collaborations of startups with large organizations (e.g., Chesbrough, 2012; de Groote & Backmann, 2020) and has been considering collaboration either to improve value and acquisition of resources (e.g., Soetanto & van Geenhuizen, 2015) or to build new products/services (e.g., Ferrary & Granovetter, 2009). The combination between entrepreneurial and corporate capability seems to be an ideal fit, but it can be difficult to achieve (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015). Although most startups are aware that they must "co-operate" with other businesses from the outset and both parties face challenges in finding the right partners, the win-win concept is one of the significant importance by startups in fostering collaboration (Mercandetti, Larbig, Tuozzo, & Steiner, 2017). It is important for startups to build a culture that fosters and protects collaboration by demonstrating trustworthiness, keeping commitments, adapting to changing conditions and avoiding behaviors that are viewed by the ecosystem members as opportunistic and self-serving (Ferguson, Schattke, & Paulin, 2016). Openness, transparency, and flexibility were additional embedded processes considered by startups in building collaboration (Mercandetti et al., 2017). In addition, Gray and Jones (2016) suggested that shared identity, shared values, and shared goals can serve as a business alliance mechanism contribute towards business resilience and sustainability. In open innovation context, an important role played by startups’ ecosystems, which are groups of actors including individuals and organizations interact formally and informally with startups (e.g. customers, new ventures, universities, and others) and have the role to facilitate the success of startups. For example, coming together as a "larger organization" is one way for SMEs and startups’ owners to solve the obstacle of having insufficient employees needed to execute broader strategic organizational development, 33 and gain access to wider organizational learning programs that contribute to a wider culture (Gray & Jones, 2016). The embeddedness of micro-level in value co-creation and R&D success in startups, such as peer quality and trustworthiness facilitate innovation. In their study, Allen, Gloor, Fronzetti, Woerner, and Raz (2016) compared the informal communications networks of senior R&D staff members from over 70 biotech start-ups. They found that the informal communication networks of researchers with dynamic communication style and diverse social ties are beneficial to firm-level innovation at biotech startups. Moreover, their analyses revealed that alternating changes in leadership among communications partners is a predictor of innovative performance. Specifically, according to the authors, “while location matters for the quantity of communication, the embeddedness of a startups’ R&D members in the core of their peer communication network matters for the innovative capability of their company” (p. 636−637). Although extant literature clarifies the impact of networks and networking on aspects of startup’s collaboration (i.e., shared knowledge, shared resources) and integration (i.e., trustworthiness, openness, transparency), the collaboration and integration were more studied independently and not simultaneously. Also the attention of these interactive activities focused mainly on large organization and corporate point of view (e.g. incumbent, university, venture capital). The possible collaboration and integration between startups and local communities or other external individuals were not studied. The evolution of startups’ partnership networks is characterized by collaborative relational norms more than opportunistic and self-serving behaviors, which suggest to examine multiple bases of social dimension (Ferguson et al., 2016). Social capital are one of elements cited in the literature as crucial for startups which is important way to analyze the ability of startups to keep advantage of opportunities in open innovations (which include collaboration and integration) (Spender et al., 2017). This refers to the 34 entrepreneur's (i.e., startups’ CEOs) ability to control the network as a function of his or her social capital (Spender et al., 2017). More research is thus needed to fully elucidate the centrality of the social capital in startups, which is largely overlooked in extant literature, as focus is given to physical and organizational resources. This gap in pertinent literature has motivated the present study, the aim of which is to connect CEO competencies to firm-level competencies in the startup context. The startup CEOs integration and collaborative activities are an example of social capital capability that can manifest as firm-level benefits. In addition, most of open innovation studies focused on particularly on innovative performance of startups (e.g., Neyens, Faems, & Sels, 2010) which refer to the quality and quantities of innovation ideas and the efficiency and effectiveness of their implementation (Spender et al., 2017). Other form of startup’s organizational performance such as CEOs’ perceptions of startup performance and survival have been less investigated. 2.3.1 Exploration, Exploitation and Organizational Ambidexterity Some authors expressed exploration/exploitation capabilities of organizations with different terminology such as alignment/adaptability (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), strong ties and bridging ties (Tiwana, 2008). The two contradictory processes of exploration and exploitation in capability development are found in different areas and more often examined in large established firms (Carter, 2015; O’Reilly, & Tushman, 2011), and in SMEs (Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006; Volery, Mueller, & Siemens, 2015). One of the many other organizational capabilities included organizational ambidexterity which is a term to explain the firms’ ability to manage exploitative and exploratory activities, as a way of survival (Carter, 2015; O'Reilly, & Tushman, 2011). When the research began, this term was not highlighted in the literature; it was one of many concepts that might emerge in the results. The research can also be informed by the emerging 35 literature on ambidexterity, where organizational ambidexterity explains how firms manage the paradox of exploration and exploitation (Müller, Påske, & Rodil, 2019). However, it is an outcome of the results achieved and only became clear at the end of the study. 2.4 The Conceptual Model With this literature review in mind, gaps appear to be around individual startups’ CEO collaborative capabilities, not for large organizations. The literature gaps broadly speaking include lack of focus on startups’ CEOs context, lack of dynamic capabilities in startups, lack of social internal and external capabilities for startups which combined collaboration and integration, lack of measures pertaining to startups, lack of analysis to CEOs’ perceptions of startup’s performance, and lack of rich description of these startups’ processes to better explain and understand the motivations. Although the most relevant and recent open innovation literature recognized the important of social capital as capability to keep advantage of opportunities for startups (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2016), a research gap still exists regarding the mutual influence between the startup’s management (individual level) and startups’ capabilities (firm level). Also what seems missing is the local or regional settings as influencers in capability development for startups. Although some studies recognize the role of managers in organization performance (e.g., Chesbrough, 2012), the analysis of performance in terms of commercialization of the startups innovation however is not appropriately measured for the managerial activities in the startups. There is a need for more research that measures startups’ management organizational processes with startup performance and survival in terms of CEOs' perceptions of these processes which is more appropriate for measuring the collaboration and integration capability of the small startups, where financial reports are rarely available. To do that, we see Teece et al. (1997) defined dynamic capabilities as “the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external 36 competencies to address rapidly changing environments” (p. 516). The concept of CEOs’ ICCs in the startup context extends the dynamic capabilities view proposed by emphasizing that the dynamic capabilities possessed by the CEOs lead to firm-level dynamic capabilities. In other words, the concept and the theory of ICCs is grounded in the work of Teece and Pisano (1994) and Teece et al. (1997), but is further refined by providing the operationalization and the measurements for the startups’ CEOs level. As such, CEOs’ ICCs in startups are defined by shifting the definition provided by Teece et al. (1997) from the firm level to the CEO level. However, as these authors neglected the role of individual CEOs in the external environment, the ecosystem concept considered in the present study is grounded in the work of Chesbrough (2003), which is not limited to the firm-level network but also applies to different components of external environment, including individuals, community, third parties, culture, etc. In sum, the following definition of startup CEOs’ ICCs is adopted in the present study: “The startups’ CEOs’ ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure their internal and external competencies in order to enhance startup’s performance and survival in rapidly changing environments” (see Figure 2.1). 37 Figure 2. 1 Startup CEOs’ ICCs theoretical framework with a conceptual model. 2.4.1 Research Questions The conceptual model implies broad research questions: (1) How are CEOs’ Integration Collaborative Competencies (CEOs’ ICCs) in startups created, and (2) Does the startup CEOs’ ICCs improve the CEOs’ perceptions of startups performance and survival? Each of the concepts suggests improved understanding of the causal relationships, influencers and outcomes for startups’ and firm activities. A few key concepts and relationships in the startup CEOs’ ICCs are described below. 2.4.2 The CEO’s Internal Influence Internal activities in startups rely primarily on the human capital (mostly the startup CEO) as the key internal resource. According to Teece and Pisano (1994) and Teece et al. (1997), human capital activities result from organizational processes that are in turn shaped by specific human Startups -Specific Capability in a firmCEOs Perceptions of StartupsPerformance& SurvivalExternal Activities(Chesbrough, 2003a)partnersThird party Complementors Customers CompetitorsSuppliersInternal Activities Teece et. al (1997)Startups EcosystemsCEOs Behavior & Skills CEOs ICCs: reconfigureintegratebuild Organizational Processes Learning & Routines RBV (Barny,1991)Balance & Change 38 capital resources, CEO behaviors and skills in particular. In this context, CEO behavior refers to the actions or attitudes of a CEO in response to certain ideas, values, people, systems, or institutions. CEO skills denote specific aptitudes that develop through education, training, or experience. Organizational processes are similarly defined as patterns of interactions between individuals or groups that yield successful solutions to particular problems. Learning and routines is also an organizational process involving repetition and experimentation (utilizing organizational as well as individual skills) aimed at improving effectiveness and efficiency (e.g., imitation and emulation). Dynamic capabilities have three categories in the pertinent literatures, which are -the learning and routines of CEOs can take different forms and rely on different organizational processes, as outlined: CEOs build (sense) common codes of communication and coordinated search procedures needed in an organization. For example, knowledge generated by an activity (e.g., collaboration) results in new patterns that can lead to new routines or a new organizational logic (e.g. new sales strategy). CEOs integrate (size) or coordinate activities within the firm, which includes recognizing the congruencies and complementarities among processes, and between processes and incentives (e.g. strong team, embedded organizational process, self-directed teams). CEOs reconfigure or sense the ability to reconfigure the firm's asset structure, and to accomplish the necessary internal and external transformations. This requires constant surveillance of markets and technologies, as well as willingness to adopt best practices and balance internal and external organizational processes. 2.4.3 The CEO’s External Influence CEOs’ learning and routines can involve external activities, especially in the startup ecosystem. The term ecosystem was used by Chesbrough (2003) to describe the various actors in 39 a firm’s environment that play a significant role in creating value in the larger ecosystem, and in expanding the evolution path from the individual firm to its interconnectivity with other relevant parties. Startups’ ecosystems defined in this research as a individuals and groups of individuals interact to build and facilitate the success of startups’ companies ( e.g. new ventures, universities, communities, customers, etc.) (Spender et al., 2017). These actors are not necessarily directly linked to startups but may create activities that can enhance startups development. Firms’ external activities express how CEOs interact with outsiders, such as partners, third parties, customers, suppliers, etc. For example, alliance and acquisition CEO activities allow startups’ CEOs to acquire different competencies that may bring new strategic assets into the firm. Similarly, formal and informal collaboration within ecosystem parties can advance the current CEO competencies that would benefit the firm internally. Empirical evidence also indicates that certain open innovation activities (e.g., open R&D, co-creation) allow startups’ CEOs to allocate outside resources, transfer information, and achieve knowledge integration within the firms’ ecosystem. Although some authors argue that external competencies are firm-level competencies, CEOs also undertake activities external to the company, such as influencing other groups in how they perform. Hence, in the proposed CEOs’ ICCs model, it is assumed that dynamic organizational processes may focus on integration and collaboration within the startup, but certain ICCs would also manifest externally. Although empirical evidence suggests that alliance and acquisition events allow firms to acquire different competencies that may bring new strategic assets into the firm from the external environment, extant research in this field focuses primarily on partnership competencies that stem from adaptation to change. Thus, CEO-level competencies need to be examined in more depth. In startups’ settings, CEOs’ external activities encompass different sources of external information 40 that can be integrated, reconfigured, and transformed to improve the existing CEOs’ competencies. However, this requires integration collaborative activities that may allow executives to identify the competencies most likely to create strategic assets for the company. 2.4.4 CEO balance and change The CEOs ability to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability within startup and across its ecosystem is important constructs of this model. The previous literature suggested that for effective startups, CEOs should promote change and adaptability while facilitate the context of change by balance between internal and external activities. For example the ability to modify business model and ability to change across tasks of business model, need alignment between internal and external activities, alignment of tasks across ecosystem. These require to sense the available resources in ecosystem and facilitate the contextual change, and integrating law, policy and rules for the new change in business model. It is also important to consider differences in startup setting and culture, as these will impact the manner in which external activities are executed. The startup setting defined as the setting regulating the startups’ ecosystems which may facilitate startup creation and growth. for example, formal and informal governance models (e.g. financing system) and cultural differences (organizational and national) that may regulate the interactions among startups’ CEOs and other actors. The startup setting and organizational cultural differences among collaborators could also shape how CEOs perform, and how relationships between leaders can be established. In sum, the CEOs’ ICCs model describes the activities that CEOs in startups undertake to create startup—specific capabilities that require balancing internal and external organizational learning processes, routines, strategies, and governance that drive CEOs to improve startup 41 performance and survival. In other words, CEOs can build capabilities, and one way to do this is by integrating or combining resources both internally and externally. 42 Chapter 3: Methodology The aim of this study was to understand the startup CEOs’ Integration collaborative competencies (CEOs’ ICCs) as constructs that effect CEOs' perceptions of startup performance and survival, where CEOs’ ICCs are the CEOs’ capabilities needed to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies through many interactions of startups’ ecosystems. Therefore, the research design had to capture rich qualitative data as seen in the gold-standard multiple-case study of Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2003), and continuing to be used recently in top journals (Davis, 2016). The multiple-case study design is first described below, and then the chapter describes the sampling strategy adopted, including the research setting and the case selection criteria. Descriptions of the unit and level of analysis are then provided before presenting the data collection methods. A detailed description of data analysis methods, including coding procedures, and measure definitions, are provided next. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the criteria for evaluation and the trustworthiness of the findings generated. 3.1 Research Design In choosing the research method it was important to employ a research design that provided the best demonstration of qualitative data, respected the needs for qualitative rigor, and effectively captured the natural setting of the dynamic capabilities of startup CEOs, the startup CEOs’ ICCs. Yin’s holistic multiple-case design (p 41) which also parallels Eisenhardt multiple case design was chosen (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994) in the present study because this methodology helps study “the dynamics present within … settings” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534), and is an exemplar in systems and business studies. The unit of analysis is the startup CEO, which requires individual-level data. 43 Holistic multiple-case design also offers “replication logic” which helps select cases to confirm or deny constructs and patterns (Yin, 1994, p 45). In other words, cases that confirm emergent patterns enhance confidence in the validity of the findings. It is ideally suited for addressing the “how” and “why” questions and providing causal explanations (Yin, 2003) Figure 3. 1 Multiple-case design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994) As shown in Figure 3.1, the methodology included three phases suggested by Yin (1994), each phase involves several steps including framework development, data collection protocol, the exemplar cases, and a number of replications. After the conceptual CEOs’ ICCs framework developed in Chapter 2 illustrated the research questions, then important concepts, and measures, the steps to study began. A case study protocol was prepared including preparing semi-structured interview questions to be asked in the field, by considering flexibility and enabling new data to emerge. Table 3.1 outlines the case studies protocol approach, adapted from Pervan and Maimbo DEFINE & DESIGN• Research questions• Prior constructs • Initial model • Literature reviewPREPARE, COLLECT & ANALYZE• Sampling and inclusion criteria • Unit of analysis• Source of data• Conduct 1st case study• Within case analysis• Pattern matchingMethod Output • Identify CEO ICCs construct • Purposeful sampling• Single unit of analysis • Shadowing• Interview questions• Documentation review ANALYZE & CONCLUDE • Cross case analysis• Confirm pattern taken • Disconfirm patten and test other perspective • Enfolding the literatureDevelop Framework CEO ICCsDesign Data Collection ProtocolExemplar Case Literal Replication Theoretical ReplicationFuture research Output • OKL, Kelowna, Ca • 2 Cases confirm pattern • 4 Cases test other perspective • STX, Kelowna, Ca• LEN, Riyadh, KSA • HMS, Kelowna, Ca• HMK, Riyadh, KSA • HSO, Kelowna, Ca• MLH, , Riyadh, KSA 44 (2005) based on Eisenhardt (1989). During fieldwork, data collection started with semi-structured interview questions. In addition, purposeful sampling strategy was employed and the exemplar case that fits the conceptual model of CEOs’ ICCs was chosen, OCL, Kelowna, Canada. The first case (OCL, Kelowna, Canada) was conducted, a systematic process of coding commenced and CEOs’ ICCs themes and pattern were noted. The within-case analyses started in this exemplar case, which involved generating individual within-case report for OCL, Kelowna, Canada. The study focused on CEOs who are the most influential individuals in organizations and hold the greatest decision-making authority while controlling the budget. This process continued with the remaining cases in which first case, the OCL, Kelowna, Canada was subsequently subjected to replication by other remaining cases which required moving across cases. The cross-case comparison was performed, striving to reach a certain replication logic in the evidence, as different cases may yield similar results (a literal replication) or contrasting results (theoretical replication (Yin, 1994) to the exemplar first case, OCL, Kelowna, Canada and thus building evidence. A predetermined criteria relevant to research problem which are years of operation, business model and tech-level of the digital startups were considered in replication across cases. The analysis phase in the process involved tabulation of findings to show consistency within- and across-cases and to fully display the evidence, allowing readers to apply their own judgment (Eisenhardt, 1989). Tables and figures were used to summarize and tabulate the evidence, such as qualitative descriptions, quantitative scores, and quotation examples. The questions were also used to enhance theoretical sensitivity by probing more deeply, and sampling more cases to confirm or discover new points (Yin, 1994). In analysis, exemplar cases were chosen 45 to illustrate "within-case similarities" and across-case "intergroup differences" for selected concepts, categories or dimensions. Table 3. 1 Case Studies Protocol Framework Phase Stage Activity Reason Phase 1 1. Getting started Defining the research question: 1. How are CEOs’ Integration Collaborative Competencies (CEOs’ ICCs) in startups created? 2. Does the startups CEOs’ ICCs improve CEOs' perceptions of startups performance and survival? • To focus efforts and define the research questions 2. Selecting cases Digital services and/or products startups in Kelowna, Canada and Riyadh, KSA (a purposeful sampling) • For more context and setting diversity across cases 1. Purposeful convenience sampling • To select 1st case that capture CEOs’ ICCs which replicate and extend DC theory in startups 2. Purposeful replication sampling • To select the remaining cases that confirm or disconfirm CEOs’ ICCs patterns 3. Crafting instruments and protocols Qualitative data through: 1- Shadowing 2- Interviews 3- Documentation review • Triangulation Phase 2 1. Entering the field Incorporating shadowing notes with data analyses and using flexible opportunistic data collection methods • Expedites analysis • Facilitates emergence of themes 2. Analyzing the data Within-case analysis • Gains familiarity with data • Looks beyond initial impressions 3. Shaping the concepts • Iterative tabulation of evidence for each construct • Sharpens constructs definition, validity, and measurability (determine the way of replication) • Builds internal validity (linked to theory ) 46 Table 3. 1 Case Studies Protocol Framework Phase Stage Activity Reason Phase 3 1. Cross-case comparison 2. Enfolding the literature • Comparing cases and building evidence by replicate similar results (a literal replication) or contrasting results (theoretical replication • Comparison with conflicting and similar findings reported in literature • Builds internal validity • Improves generalizability and external validity 3. Reaching closure Theoretical saturation • Ends process when marginal improvement becomes small 3.2 Sampling Plan Following the qualitative holistic multiple-case study methodology, the inclusion criteria for this study were flexible, with the understanding that additional sampling would be adopted if indicated by the analysis findings. Purposeful sampling was thus adopted, whereby cases were selected based on the researcher’s judgment and the research purpose. More details in the sampling strategy and inclusion criteria including defining the research setting are described below. 3.2.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria The inclusion criteria for this study were in six characteristics that each case must have, explained in Table 3.2. First, the study focus on the startups’ companies. However, there is no universally accepted definition of startups, and different countries and regions define them in a variety of ways in keeping with their laws and governance systems. Nonetheless, for this study, the Investopedia definition was adopted, whereby “startup” is a term pertaining to a company that is in the first stage of its operations, often initially financed and operated by their entrepreneurial founders, and usually offer a product or service which they believe there is demand (Grant & 47 James, 2020) . In addition, there is a variety of view in the period consider as “first stage of operation”, while some said minimum three years, other said six years, and some argue that it is not a matter of years but matter of growth and ability to scale up in scalable business model. However, the study includes 10 years of operation from the year of establishment. Because some startups fail within the first few years, but some of them pivot multiple times and resume with new business model. For that reason, the 10 years’ period of establishment is important to include to get as much of these type of startups and the CEO experience of ICCs. However, the study excludes any startup that goes public, offering shares of stock for sale and becoming a publicly traded. Because this would affect the assessment of startup growth and impact the CEOs’ ICCs influence in CEOs' perceptions of startups performance and survival. Second, the study focus in startups founded by one or more entrepreneurs who are CEO because startups’ CEOs particularly benefit from developing ICCs both internally and externally, where sometimes they lag on one or both of these. Third, the study focus on the digital startups. The startups that contributing to the digital economy and reliant on technology for producing, marketing, developing, and/or selling services and products. The study includes digital startups with low or high technology support for the firm as a whole, which means partly (low tech) or fully (high tech) reliant on technology. In addition, the study focuses on CEO, founders of digital startups engaged in the services and products industry. Startups with 100% products -based business model are excluded because within todays digital economy and the fast technological change products- based startups have to integrate some services in their business model to avoid commodity trap. 48 Table 3. 2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion Exclusion 1- Startups, a company in the first stages of operations Startups go public 2- Startups founded by one or more entrepreneurs who are CEO - 3- Digital startups, low/tech startups, partly or fully reliant on technology for producing, marketing, developing, and/or selling services or products - 4- Digital Startups with service or products with some service business model 100 % products-based business model 5- Form collaboration and integration with different party within ecosystem. - 6- Located in Kelowna, Canada and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - In addition, the study includes the CEO of startups who forms collaboration and integration business activities within the startups’ ecosystems which includes individuals, groups, communities, companies, universities, government institution, etc. These collaboration and integration business activities are related to executing and managing the startups’ operations, development and keep making money. Last, while the research setting.is digital startups, two different startups’ settings, Kelowna, Canada and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were considered, to allow comparison of CEOs within different ecosystem and to produce a wide range of information about CEOs’ ICCs. The ecosystems in Kelowna and Riyadh cities are still young and developing, but they are attractive for startups creation as they offer different opportunities, such as supports from institutions, academia, and government, which may be lacking in other cities. However, the two cities offer different government system, differences in organizational practices which are shaped by the economic conditions faced by the industry as well as the cultural differences between the countries. 49 3.2.2 Purposeful sampling strategy The purposeful sampling is to select cases (startups) and individuals (startups’ CEOs) who are experienced with the phenomenon of interest (Yin, 2015) being CEOs’ ICCs. In addition to knowledge of phenomenon, the accessibility of participants and the capacity to communicate experiences and viewpoints in reflective way (Bernard, 2002). Therefore, the identification and selection of two cases in Kelowna, Canada and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were due to their accessibility to the researcher and meet some predetermined criterion of CEOs’ ICCs (e.g. activities of collaboration and integration within different actors within ecosystem). In addition, these two cities, Kelowna and Riyadh, feature growing and developing ecosystems which are ideally suited for examining different startup creation stages and the opportunities for collaboration and integration at the CEO level. Kelowna startups are located in Okanagan Valley in British Columbia that is considered an attractive destination for tech startups, as its ecosystem is one of top startups ecosystems in Canada. Startups in Kelowna are taking advantage of connecting to different people, ideas, and trends within this growing ecosystem. However, Riyadh startups are still in the earlier development stages and have a smaller ecosystem, which is still thriving and has been steadily growing since investment in this field began 2−4 years prior. Startups in Riyadh take advantage of different financial support opportunities, such as more direct access to government funding. While both cities are striving to ensure the development of startups, Riyadh’s government has more regulations and policies for startups creation, which may tend to be greater in amount of command and control. On the other hand, startups regulation and policy in Kelowna is geared toward collaborations and creating more innovation opportunities for businesses. However, this may relate to differences in culture (e.g., hierarchy and power, communication styles, etc.) which will affect how people work together and how CEOs integrate and collaborate. 50 In addition, the purposeful sampling strategy was designed to build replication, to confirm and disconfirm potential patterns, comparing with additional cases and new data which were identified based on the relevance of emergent findings, See Table 3.3. The replication sampling strategy was used considering three characteristics. The years of operation of startups, the type of business model, (services or products) based digital startups, and the level of technology (low or high) tech digital startups. This ensures consistency in finding, allowing differences and similarities to emerge. Table 3. 3 The purposeful sampling strategies employed in the research Strategy Data Objective Convince From two different settings, Kelowna, Canada and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Convenience and availability to collect information when no specific emphasis of data needed Fits the initial model One case fits CEOs’ ICCs in each setting, Kelowna, Canada and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to ensure that selected cases are likely to replicate or extend emergent theory (Eisenhardt 1989) Replication Confirming and disconfirming (contrasting) data Employed in later data collection stage and case are carefully selected to confirm or contrast results (Yin, 1994) based on predetermined criteria relevant to research problem which are years of operation, business model and tech-level of the digital startups As shown in Figure 3.2, Case 1 (OCL, Kelowna, Canada) was identified as an exemplar case that fits the conceptual model of CEOs’ ICCs well. OCL is a shared co-working space for independent professionals and startups’ founders who thrive on social contact. Although OCL provides a physical co-working space, the company invests in transforming the businesses within the collaborative creative community by using different tools and digital services (e.g. digital 51 customer services, consultation services etc.), and is instrumental in the way they collaborate, launch, and grow businesses together. In the next step, replication sampling strategy was used in the selection of Case 2 and Case 3, considering the years of operation between startups to determine if this would confirm emergent themes or would result in contrasting themes. Different business models were also considered, whereby Case 1 represents predominately a service-based business model, while Case 2 is predominately a products-based business. The aim of Case 4 was to replicate and confirm or disconfirm the themes with high tech service-based models. Figure 3. 2 The purposeful sampling strategy The cases in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia started with Case 5 (HMK) which was also chosen via purposeful sampling as it theoretically fit the study framework. The same technique was used when selecting the remaining cases in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Case 7 is predominantly a products-based Case 6LENRiyadh, KSACase 1 OKL Kelowna, Ca Case 4 STXKelowna, CaCase 7 MLHRiyadh, KSACase 2HMCKelowna, CaCase 3HSOKelowna, CaCase 5 HMK Riyadh, KSAPURPOSEFUL SAMPLINGReplicationReplication ReplicationReplicationReplicationReplicationReplication with high tech startupReplication with different ecosystem Replication with product-based business model & early years of operation startup Replication with service-based business model & early years of operation startup ReplicationReplicationReplication with & early years of operation startup PURPOSEFUL SAMPLINGStart 52 startup that is in very early stages of development and has very limited resources (it thus shares some similarities and differences with Case 2 and Case 3 in Kelowna, Canada). Case 6 was high tech service-based model which chosen to replicate, to confirm or disconfirm the themes that emerged from Case 4. 3.2.3 The Unit and Level of Analysis The study focus on the startup CEO as a unit of analysis. The CEO in this research is the participant who is the business owners, individual founders, startups’ managers or entrepreneurs, who manage and run the business. If multiple entrepreneurs, founders were involved in the creation of the startups, at least one of these individuals was considered in the research. The "case" in this research refers to the startup business itself. Each case was assessed individually to compare CEOs’ activities (activities related to executing and managing the startups’ operations, development and keep making money) that exist within the startup and external to the startup. This issue of influence and group membership was considered during the interviews and analyses to determine at what point CEOs integrate and/or collaborate in startups or it is personality trait reflected in their personal characteristics, which are posited to be the driving force behind the decision making in the startup. 3.3 Data Collection and Sources Interviews served as the main data collection method (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994) and were supplemented by shadowing, which is observing the CEOs patterns during site observations. Secondary data were reviewed such as websites and archival records and are explained in detail below. 53 Canadian data collection phase lasted for two months, includes five interviews were conducted and 45 days of shadowing. The subsequent month was spent in Saudi Arabia, where three interviews with the CEOs along with onsite observation were made. 3.3.1 Shadowing To explore the research domain and gain a rich understanding of the startup CEOs’ ICCs, shadowing was conducted in the first stage of data collection. This involved observing the startups’ CEOs/founders over a period of time to examine what these individuals really do in the course of their daily working routines not what their jobs dictate of them, and documenting behaviors, opinions, actions and explanations (Gilliat-Ray, 2011; Quinlan, 2008). It also involved asking questions for clarification and prompting participants to explain their actions and choices (McDonald, 2005). In total, the researcher spent 45 days (2−3 hours per day) shadowing the CEOs of four startups located in Kelowna. As shown in Table 3.4, the shadowing was structured in three sessions, which started with observing the startup business processes and the CEO’s role. After gaining a broad understanding of the startup business and the CEO’s role, the researcher then asked each startup CEO to attend one internal meeting to observe the internal activities. In addition, the researcher spent about 8 hours of observation of each CEO to capture any external interactions. The dataset that emerged from shadowing, as shown in Table 3.5, resulted in overall picture of the startups’ business models, ecosystems, startup culture and the CEOs roles and tasks. Table 3. 4 Shadowing Sessions and Setting Session Shadowing Hours Shadowing Setting General observing 15 hours Informal observation of general business activities of the CEO and the startup team Internal observing 1 hour Formal observation during internal CEO meeting 54 Table 3. 4 Shadowing Sessions and Setting Session Shadowing Hours Shadowing Setting External observing 8 hours Informal observation of CEO’s interactions with external entities Table 3. 5 Shadowing Description Category of observation e.g. Data captured Method of Shadowing Changed the interview guide Management role and tasks » CEO and teams’ role » Number of teams » Numbers of employee » Teams focus ( external or internal ) o CEO or teams’ conversations o CEO or teams’ explanations o CEO meeting » Remove demographical questions » Remove the team management questions » Focus in CEO not team in the questions Business model » High level understanding of the startup business model- products/services, cost, revenue, customers, financing etc. o CEO or teams’ conversations o CEO or teams’ explanations o CEO meeting » More opened questions and directly use names of projects or teams when needed Startup ecosystem and setting » The players in startups such as, accelerators, mentors, suppliers, universities, etc. » Particular changes in market policies and government systems » Specific circumstances or challenges o CEO & teams’ conversations o CEO or teams’ explanations o CEO meeting o Breaks conversations o Replace “Change Management” category to “Startup ecosystem and setting” o More opened questions and directly use name of subject matter when needed Startup culture o CEO Encourage social interaction » Teamwork » CEO talk with everyone in the startup » CEO Encourage exercise » CEO always around » Design of place and offices » Music and arts » Teams have sense of happiness » Teams seems stressed and not happy » Teams are connected » CEO body language, mood, and expression » Teams relations and reactions » Place vibes » Coffee break conversations » Events » Opened questions in internal and external collaboration and integration categories » More focus in examining the startup culture as a part of organizational and ecosystem setting not as national culture. 55 3.3.2 Interviews In each startup, one interview was conducted with the startup CEO. The interviews took about 45 minutes and were held at locations convenient for the participants, typically at their startups’ offices. In total, the researcher conducted eight interviews, as shown in Table 3.6. All eight interviews were transcribed, which resulted in about 18,522 words of text. At the start of each interview, the participants received a copy of the consent form and the researcher verbally reviewed the study procedures with them All participants independently read and signed two copies of the consent form and were given one copy for their records. All participants voluntarily agreed to have the interview audio recorded. The researcher used a semi-structured interview guide shown in Appendix A, which was translated into Arabic for the three KSA interviews. All interviews were subsequently transcribed in the language in which they were conducted. Thus, for KSA cases, the transcript in Arabic was subjected to thematic analysis and only participant quotes used in the thesis were translated to English. 3.3.3 Documentation Some archival documents, websites, social media, and onsite observations were used as secondary data sources. As described in Table 3.7 the business models, growth indicators and setting details were searched as preliminary step to prepare for the interviews using the startup’s website or social media page that don’t not have a website. Tour of company offices gave the location details. Clarifying startups’ CEOs statements were checked on websites and social media for more information and details. The researcher also examined some financial reports offered by one startup's CEO to in assessing the startup performance and the potential of growth. 56 Table 3. 6 Case Descriptions Case No. Startup Country Service/ Product Year found Buss. Type Funding Num of Empl Informant Background Interv. Words /firm Additional Data 1 OCL Canada Co-working space 2011 B2B Bootstrap 6 CEO (founder) Software & Design 1 2,586 - Onsite meeting & observation - Advisories meetings - 2 Archival documents 2 HMC Canada Digital mattress 2016 B2C Bootstrap 3 CEO (founder) Sales & Startups 1 2,847 - Onsite meeting & observation - Weekly meetings - Website review 3 HSO Canada Affordable mentorship 2018 B2B Bootstrap 2 CEO (Co-founder) 1-year College Co-Founder 1 year College 2 2,485 - Onsite meetings & observation - Weekly meeting - Facebook page 4 STX Canada Facebook advertising 2009 B2B Bootstrap 11 CEO (Co-founder) Business Degree and Technology 1 4,986 - Onsite meeting & observation - Weekly meeting 5 HMK KSA Digital law consultation 2016 B2B Bootstrap 3 CEO (founder) Law degree 1 1,839 - Onsite meeting & observation - Twitter page 6 LEN KSA Business & Tech services 2017 B2G Gov. Venture Capital 95 CEO Business and Strategy 1 2,580 - Onsite meeting & observation - Web page 7 MLH KSA Digital Abaya (cloths) store 2018 B2C Bootstrap 4 CEO Co-founder Business Degree 1 1,199 - Facebook page - Instagram page Table 3. 7 Description of Secondary Data Employed in Research Type of data collected Quantity Use in the analysis Archival documents 2 » Assessing startup growth using future strategic plan » Assessing startup performance using financial performance 57 Table 3. 7 Description of Secondary Data Employed in Research Type of data collected Quantity Use in the analysis Startup’s website review 3 » Assessing the potential of startup growth in checking the relevance of products/services to what mentioned in interview » Assessing the digital services business model in relevant to what stated in interview Social media pages Facebook Twitter Instagram 2 1 1 » Assessing growth indicators and to learn about collaboration mentioned in interview » to learn about ads mentioned in interview » in startups that not have website to understand more about the business model (e.g. tweets about startup’s service) » to learn about startups’ events and type of ecosystem actors Onsite observation 2 » Assessing startup culture, such as design of place and offices, music and arts, teamwork, CEO body language, and expression. 3.4 Data Analysis The data gathered for this study was subjected to qualitative content analysis and constant comparative analysis, which were conducted in two phases (within-case and cross-case analysis). 3.4.1 Within-case Analysis In the first phase, each individual case was treated as a "whole" study (Yin, 1994), aiming to identify codes, concepts, categories, and the relationships among them. The within-case analysis started with the content analysis, which focused on the interview content, aiming to identify the contextual meaning of the information conveyed during the interview (which was transcribed for this purpose) and classify text into categories that represent similar meanings (Weber, 1990). This approach is known as grounded coding, and helped to determine the coding scheme, by performing open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). After coding the first case (Case 1), the case analysis report was generated, in which startup CEOs’ ICCs were defined and key concepts and categories represented by CEOs’ ICCs were 58 specified for that case (OCL, Kelowna Canada). The same coding process was adopted for the remaining cases, which resulted in seven individual reports. Analyses of the remaining cases generated similar categories, along with some different integration collaborative processes and routines. The coding procedures are depicted in Figure 3.3. 3.4.1.1 Open coding Open coding is “the interpretive process by which data are broken down analytically” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 12) which includes assigning conceptual labels to actions or incidents of data , and grouping those concepts into categories (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). In this stage of analysis, the researcher reread the transcripts several times in order to identify the initial codes for concept seen in the segments of data. This method of coding reduced the risk of forcing Figure 3. 3 Data analysis procedure Data Collection Shadowing fieldnoteDocumentation Interview transcriptsOpen CodingContent analysis Conceptual labelingForming preliminarily codesAxial CodingCodes groupingFinding relationships between codes Individual Cases ReportConstant ComparativeComparing codes and categories applicable to each caseSelective CodingAggregating categories Constant ComparativeComparing incidents to incidents applicable to each caseWithin-Case AnalysisCross-Case AnalysisFind a Common Pattern 59 preconceived ideas and theories on the data, but rather looking closely at the data and creating codes that best fit the data under analysis. During shadowing, detailed notes and memos were produced, especially during important meetings and discussions. For each case, these memos served as a source of additional information, and helped guide thematic analysis. The researcher then coded some incidents and labelled certain concepts these had in common. Similar logic applied to the interview data, whereby transcripts were closely read before proceeding with the previously outlined initial coding process. However, rather than applying preexisting categories to the data, content was coded using words that reflected actions or incidents. As a result, not all initial codes related to the research questions. The openness of initial coding allowed for new ideas to emerge. Further, in some situations, these initial codes allowed gaps in the already gathered data to be identified and filled by seeking more information during subsequent interviews. This is the key advantage of this case studies. 3.4.1.2 Axial Coding Axial coding is the process of relating pieces of data to each other and trying to make connections among initial codes. In each case analysis, the initial open codes were carefully scrutinized to establish relationships among them. Axial codes are thus groups of codes that can be seen as one category or core variable. For this purpose, the researcher adopted the 1st and 2nd order concept technique (Corley & Gioia, 2004). 3.4.2 Cross-case Analysis Next, cross-case analysis was conducted, aiming to achieve literal or theoretical replication (Yin, 1994). After producing an individual report for each case, it was used for comparison with other cases (Yin, 1994). In this stage of analysis, the researcher applied the constant comparative 60 method across cases, which required looking for within-group similarities and intergroup differences Eisenhardt (1989). The constant comparative method thus necessitates comparing incidents across cases (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). Content analysis adopted in this study involved two constant comparative analysis procedures. First, a feature-by-feature comparison of open codes was performed across cases in order to infer the properties of each case. Next, category-by-category comparisons of selective codes across cases were conducted to infer the overall concept across all cases. Finally, the researcher focused on identifying the similarities and differences among cases, as this could result in new categories and concepts (Eisenhardt, 1989). 3.4.2.1 Selective coding Selective coding involved conducting a cross-case analysis, focusing on the aggregated themes developed across cases. Once all categories or core variables were identified in the axial coding phase, these concepts were aggregated into themes. For this purpose, groups of categories that relate to the core variables identified in the axial coding were selectively coded, as the axial codes can sometimes be subcategories that have been identified through selective coding. The 1st and 2nd order concept technique (Corley & Gioia, 2004) was adopted again, to produce within-case reports which helped in forming themes of the aggregated categories across cases. 3.5 Defining Measures As seen in the literature review of Chapter 2, all available measures in the literature pertain to large established companies and the firm-level. There is a lack of empirical research and available measures focusing specifically on dynamic capabilities for the CEO and startup context. Because the CEO is a key role in the early stages and often the only employee, it is an important gap to fill. An operationalization of the CEOs’ ICCs at the individual level was created in this research that will help to measure startup's dynamic capability and then link it to CEOs’ perception 61 of firm performance and survival. Thus, as part of the study, startup-specific dynamic capabilities measures were adapted from the firm level definitions and measures in Chesbrough (2010) and Teece and Pisano (1994) by rewording the constructs and measures from firm to individual CEO. These CEOs’ ICCs are crucial for studying CEOs’ perception of startup performance and survival especially as the firm emerges. 3.5.1 The CEOs’ ICCs Measure The CEOs’ ICCs measures adopted in this research refer to the CEOs’ competencies pertinent to the effectiveness of organizational processes (learning and routines), such as strategic decisions, products development, marketing collaboration, alliance building, and execution. Moreover, focus is given to competencies needed for interacting with others internally and externally, which can be a source of competitive advantage. As conceptualized in chapter two, which is summarized in Table 3.8, the CEOs’ ICCs constructs were operationalized with a number of sub-constructs: CEOs’ internal competencies, CEOs’ external competencies, CEOs’ competencies to balance, and CEOs’ competencies to change, which were measured by counts of coding. Table 3.9 shows the operationalization of CEOs’ ICCs which was measured by the quotes representing these qualities in the data. The qualities of codes in these sub-constructs were based on what been suggested in the literature of the conceptions of the constructs of CEOs’ ICCs. Table 3. 8 Summary of CEO ICC Constructs Construct Definition Internal activities Human capital activities result from organizational processes that are in turn shaped by specific human capital resources. CEO behavior The actions or attitudes of a CEO in response to certain ideas, values, people, systems, or institutions. 62 Table 3. 8 Summary of CEO ICC Constructs Construct Definition CEO skills The specific aptitudes that develop through education, training, or experience. Organizational processes Patterns of interactions between individuals or groups that yield successful solutions to particular problems. CEO learning and routines Organizational process involving repetition and experimentation (utilizing organizational as well as individual skills) aimed at improving effectiveness and efficiency (e.g., imitation and emulation). CEO build (sense) Common codes of communication and coordinated search procedures needed in an organization. CEO integrate (size) Coordinating activities within the firm, which includes recognizing the congruencies and complementarities among processes, and between processes and incentives. CEO reconfigure The ability to reconfigure the firm's asset structure, and to accomplish the necessary internal and external transformations. Startup-specific capability Combination of resources that allow the flow of internal and external knowledge to attain sustainable competitive advantage. CEOs’ ICCs The startup CEOs’ ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure their internal and external competencies in order to enhance the startup’s performance and survival in rapidly changing environments. CEO external activities Learning and routines with external parties. ecosystem The individuals and groups of individuals interact to build and facilitate startup success. CEO change Promoting change and adaptability. CEO balance Facilitating the context of change and alignment. Startup setting Setting that regulates the startups’ ecosystems which may facilitate startup creation and growth. Startup culture Cultural differences (organizational and national) that may regulate the interactions among startups’ CEOs and other actors. CEOs’ perceptions of startup performance and survival Combination of CEO-perceived growth (e.g., partnerships, acquisitions, new product and services, employment) and CEO-perceived satisfaction (customer satisfaction and business satisfaction). Table 3. 9 CEOs ICCs Constructs Operationalization Organizational Process (Learning and routines that CEO perform in organization with others) Measured by A. Internal competencies (organizational processes that had been performed within startup) a. CEO Build e.g. products and services, marketing plan, sales strategy, etc. Number of quotes b. CEO integrate e.g. embedded skills, strong team, embedded transparency, etc. Number of quotes 63 Table 3. 9 CEOs ICCs Constructs Operationalization Organizational Process (Learning and routines that CEO perform in organization with others) Measured by c. CEO reconfigure e.g. new business model, new sales strategy, new line of product or service, etc. Number of quotes B. External competencies (organizational processes that had been performed within ecosystem) a. Formal & informal exchange Number of quotes b. Collaboration, alliance or acquisition Number of quotes c. Co-creation and open R&D Number of quotes C. CEO competencies to balance e.g. an alignment between internally and externally, alignment between tasks, internal and external activities have connection, internal and external activities are built in each other. Number of quotes D. CEO competencies to change e.g. Switch between tasks, modify and adjust to tasks, remodel or retransform tasks Number of quotes The CEO's internal competencies were defined in the CEOs’ organizational processes performed within startup which are represented the CEOs learning & routines that CEOs perform to (1) builds common organizational processes for communication and coordination, (2) integrates and coordinates activities inside the firm (which includes recognizing the congruencies and complementarities among and between processes), and/or (3) reconfigures or senses the firm's asset structure. The external CEO competencies is the CEO's organizational processes performed within ecosystem in three different incidents of external as suggested in literature: open innovation activities such as open R&D customer, co-creation, alliance and accusation As the aim of this research was to identify the key CEO competencies, focus was given to the balance and adaptability of the qualities among these competencies. The CEO competencies to balance which were operationalized in the ability to perform both internal and external competencies and the 64 alignment between them. In addition, the CEO competencies to change were operationalized by the ability to change and fit between tasks and activities, modify and transform to the change when needed. These quotes were analyzed and compared across cases, such as comparing number of quotes representing organizational process preformed internally versus those performed externally, and the frequency of some quotes across categories. 3.5.2 Startup Performance and Survival Measure Startup performance and survival in the creation stage are often measured by its capacity for growth (Desantola & Gulati, 2017; Hughes et al., 2014). In the startups growth literature, researchers tend to track startups’ financial growth through financial statements (Hughes et al., 2014) or other forms of quantitative data such as amount of production, and number of partnerships (Hughes et al., 2014), while some mention employee turnover (Desantola & Gulati, 2017). However, as these startups are in the creation stage, their financial and quantitative data are not always available. Therefore, the researcher had to develop relevant performance and survival measures for these early stages startups using CEOs’ perceptions of these qualities, which are representative of a subset of typically considered performance and survival measures. This research thus focused on a combination of CEO-perceived growth using growth qualities suggested in pertinent literature, complemented with CEO-perceived satisfaction which provides the basis for evaluating the startups’ performance and survival. Therefore, the CEOs’ perceptions of startup performance and survival were operationalized from CEOs’ statements in interviews and secondary data based on six type of dependent constructs. The first four constructs are based on assessing the startup growth, which was considered to comprise of the access to complementary assets, and strategic and operational know-how (Teece, 1992) and was defined by (1) CEOs’ perceptions of growth through partnerships, (2) 65 CEOs’ perceptions of growth through acquisitions, (3) CEOs’ perceptions of growth through new products or services, and (4) CEOs’ perceptions of growth through employment. The remaining two constructs are based on (5) the CEOs’satisfaction with their work and business, and (6) the CEO -perceived customer satisfaction. As explained in Table 3.10, the dependent constructs were operationalized by counting quotes of data describe the CEOs’ perceptions of the qualities of startup growth, and CEOs’ satisfaction with their work and business, as well as their perceptions of customer satisfaction. A ranking system was used in these quotes of statements which provide an ordered scale showing different levels in these growth qualities. Table 3. 10 Operationalization of CEOs’ Perceptions of Startups’ Performance and Survival − Dependent Constructs and Measures Dependent constructs Operationalized by Dependent Measures 1. CEOs’ perceptions of growth through partnerships Counted the quote statements from interview transcripts and secondary data about startups’ partnerships, listed them in a document, and then coded them into scores between 1 and 5 based on the quantity of partnership that represented more or less. 1=no partners; 2=one partner; 3= partnership in different market; 4=partnerships within market and in different markets; 5=multiple partnerships within the ecosystem. 2. CEOs’ perceptions of growth through acquisitions Counted the quote statements from the interview transcript and secondary data about startups’ acquiring activities, listed them, and then coded them with ranking scores between 1 and 5 based on the quantity of acquiring activities that represented more or less. 1= no acquisition; 2=one acquisition; 3= acquisition in different market; 4= one acquisition within the same market and in different markets; 5=multiple acquisition within the ecosystem. 3. CEOs perceptions of growth through new products or services Counted the quote statements from the interview transcript and secondary data about startups’ products or services development, listed them, and then coded them with ranking scores between 1 and 5 based on the quantity of products or services developed that represented more or less. 1= no new products or services; 2=one products or services within the same market; 3= products or services in different market; 4= products or services within the same market and in different markets; 5=multiple products or services within the ecosystem. 4. CEOs’ perceptions of growth through employment Counted the quote statements from the interview transcript and secondary data about CEOs hiring activities, listed them, and then coded them with ranking scores between 1 and 5 based on the quantity of new positions that represented more or less. 1= no hiring; 2 = part-time hiring; 3 = full-time hiring; 4 = part-time and full-time hiring; 5 = multiple hiring. 66 Table 3. 10 Operationalization of CEOs’ Perceptions of Startups’ Performance and Survival − Dependent Constructs and Measures Dependent constructs Operationalized by Dependent Measures 5. CEOs’ satisfaction with their work or business Counted the quote statements from the interview transcript and secondary data about CEO statements of their satisfaction performance, listed them, and then coded them with ranking scores between 1 and 5 based on the level of satisfaction CEO stated. 1 = very unsatisfied statements, 2 = unsatisfied statements, 3 = slightly satisfied statements, 4 = satisfied statements, 5 = very satisfied statements 6. CEOs’ perception of customer satisfaction Counted the quote statements from the interview transcript and secondary data about CEO statements of customer satisfaction, listed them, and then coded them with ranking scores between 1 and 5 based on the level of customer satisfaction CEO stated. 1 = very unsatisfied statements, 2 = unsatisfied statements, 3 = slightly satisfied statements, 4 = satisfied statements, 5 = very satisfied statements For meaningful comparison across cases, we needed a comparable overall CEOs’ perceptions of performance for the startup, and hence this had to be tallied from the data. As shown in Table 3.11, the calculation of these qualitative assessments, and the weighting between constructs had to be considered. The six measures of CEOs’ perceptions of startup performance and survival were summed by the researcher based on the scores in the sub-constructs. For example, the researcher scored growth in partnerships with 1 = no partners, 2 = one partner, 3 = partnership in different market; 4 = partnerships within the same market and in different markets, and 5 = multiple partnerships within the ecosystem. In addition, because the growth construct has been adopted from pertinent literature (e.g., Desantola & Gulati, 2017; Hughes et al., 2014), the researcher assigned it a higher weight (60%), while the CEOs’ satisfaction construct was assigned the remaining 40%. These measures were used to evaluate the CEO’s perception of the startup’s ability to grow based on its capabilities, rather than from the market perspective. Therefore, the perceived growth and satisfaction dependent measures were informed by the interviews and shadowing activities, given that these were small startups with limited historical data and financial 67 records. Hence, the dependent constructs and measures had to be adapted to this setting and could not include other forms of growth measures that are typically used in the literature because the researcher could not acquire pertinent data. Each case was compared to itself for its CEOs’ perceptions of growth over time and CEOs perceptions of satisfaction , allowing the CEOs’ journey to be traced. The cases are illustrative situations and not directly compared to one another, only used as exemplars in a startup and CEO journeys Table 3. 11 CEOs’ Perceptions of Startups’ Performance and Survival − Calculation Analysis Construct Definition Measure CEOs’ perceptions of growth based on the access to strategic and operational know-how (Teece, 1992) (worth 60% of the total score) For example, multiple partnerships ((5/5) *15) + multiple acquiring activities ((5/5) *15) + multiple products or services ((5/5) *15) + multiple hiring ((5/5) *15) ▪ CEOs’ perceptions of growth through partnerships 1. Number of partnership in 2018−2019, based on 5-1 scores where 1 = no partnerships, 2 = partnerships within the same market, 3 = partnerships in different markets, 4 = partnerships both within the same market and in different markets, 5 = multiple partnerships within the ecosystem 2. Number of acquiring activities in 2018−2019, based on 5-1 scores where 1 = no activity, 2 = acquiring within the same market, 3 = acquiring in different markets, 4 = acquiring within the same market and in different markets, 5 = multiple activities within the ecosystem 3. Number of new products or services in 2018−2019, based on 5-1 scores where 1 = no new products/services, 2 = new products/services within the same market, 3 = new products/services in different markets, 4 = new products/services within the same market and in different markets, 5 = multiple products/services within the ecosystem ▪ CEOs’ perceptions of growth through acquisitions ▪ CEOs’ perceptions of growth through new products or services ▪ CEOs’ perceptions of growth through employment 4. Number of new positions in 2018−2019, based on 5-1 scores where 1 = no hiring, 2 = part-time hiring, 3 = full-time hiring, 4 = part-time and full-time hiring, 5 = multiple hiring opportunities 68 Table 3. 11 CEOs’ Perceptions of Startups’ Performance and Survival − Calculation Analysis Construct Definition Measure CEOs’ satisfaction with performance (worth 40%) For example, CEO very satisfied with the way the firm is operating (5/5*20 + CEO believes that customers are very satisfied (5/5*15)) ▪ CEOs’ satisfaction with their work and business 5. Assessed by the CEO’s perception of performance, based on 5-1 scores where 1 = very unsatisfied statements, 2 = unsatisfied statements, 3 = slightly satisfied statements, 4 = satisfied statements, 5 = very satisfied statements ▪ CEO-perceived customer satisfaction 6. Assessed by the CEO’s perception of customer experience, based on 5-1 scores where 1 = very unsatisfied statements, 2 = unsatisfied statements, 3 = slightly satisfied statements, 4 = satisfied statements, 5 = very satisfied statements Overall CEOs’ perception of startups performance and survival (100%) Assess how well the startup CEO is achieving the firm’s desired objectives (perceived satisfaction), and the startups’ ability to stay in business (perceived startups growth) Sum of CEOs’ perception of growth and CEOs’ satisfaction ;]]\/ 3.6 Validity and Reliability The validity and reliability must be established in all stages of the study, from forming the questions and data collection to the conclusion. Table 3.11 display an illustration of the techniques employed in evaluating validity and reliability as suggested by Yin (1994), and Eisenhardt (1989). Table 3. 12 Evaluation validity and reliability Yin and Eisenhardt Test and Steps Techniques for this study Phase of research Construct Validity a chain of evidence, Interview questions were built based on concept grounded in previous literature of DC and open innovation Open-ended questions and a semi-structured interview were conducted with CEOs, Research design and Data collection Archival records were reviewed Data collection 69 Table 3. 12 Evaluation validity and reliability Yin and Eisenhardt Test and Steps Techniques for this study Phase of research Observation of some hours of CEOs and staff during working hours in startups’ locations. CEOs meetings were attended. Data collection member reviews, and During interview, participant were asked to restate information in another way and then question the participant to determine accuracy. Data collection Triangulation. Using multiple sources of data to compare similar and different concepts. Construct definition Internal validity Pattern matching, Matched patterns founded in the exemplar case study with literal replications of concept. Data analysis and explanation building Linked data to theory, and adding explanations through investigating across different setting. . Data analysis External Validity Purposeful sampling Cases were selected based on theoretical phenomenon in two different settings ( two cities) which provide a framework for assessing the transferability of the results Sampling and replication logic Replication across cases was conducted analytically to replicate results across cases Data analysis Reliability Case study protocol and study data base Case protocol was developed which define all study phases Research design Carful write up interview data Data collection Procedures adopted from Yin (1994), Eisenhardt (1989) First, interview questions were based on predetermined constructs which is grounded in previous literature of DC and open innovation. In addition, the researcher adopted open-ended questions and a semi-structured interview format which improve constructs validity. Also, the researcher employed different sources of information which increase the richness of the data gathered. During an interview, the researcher tends to restate information in another way and then question the participant to determine accuracy. Building trust with participants is also considered, as when participants feel comfortable in disclosing information they are more likely to be truthful in their accounts. The researcher spent sufficient time with participants which facilitated 70 understanding and construction of common language meanings. The researcher was in the field for more than two months, which is long enough to go beyond personal beliefs and preconceptions, and allow real concepts to evolve. Also, triangulation was used to ensure validity and credibility, which involves cross-checking information obtained from multiple resources whereby the researcher used different sources of information and gathered data from multiple perspectives. Shadowing notes, and secondary data helped verify the informants’ interview responses. For example, when CEO mentioned an activity of collaboration that CEO learned from it and added to its startup the researcher review and check the shadowing notes or look within the secondary data for validation of theses information. Internal validity was ensured by using literal and theoretical replication which allow confirming or disconfirming pattern across cases. Also the replication was based on certain characteristics such as age of startup, business model, and level of technology of startup which were linked to theory of CEOs’ ICCs that explains that patterns and allow building of evidence. The transferability, which is also known as external validity. As the study employed purposeful sampling strategy, it provides a framework for assessing the transferability of the results of empirical study of CEOs’ ICCs as dynamic capability and open innovation in startups context and create a detailed explanation of the data that can be checked by researchers. The two months spent at Kelowna startups’ cases provided insight into the CEOs’ ICCs in particular setting in which cases are closely related to the dynamic capability and open innovation context being studied. Moreover, the replication process in the three Riyadh cases helped the researcher better understand the contextual boundaries of the findings (e.g., governance, funding, ecosystem culture) which may help to simplify transferability of the results in other contexts. 71 A case study protocol was developed, which was used as robust plan for the study that illustrate all essential phases and processes that was employed. Also interviews data and notes from participant observation were carefully transcript and saved as data bases. 72 Chapter 4: Findings This chapter reports the qualitative findings yielded by seven case studies exploring the CEOs’ Integration Collaborative Competencies (CEOs’ ICCs) in startups and their influence on startup performance and survival. The chapter commences with a summary of findings before discussing the key results in more detail, presenting both qualitative within-case findings, and across-case comparisons, and relating those to the research questions. The chapter closes with the strengths and limitations of this research. 4.1 Findings Summary The present study revealed three modes of developing and utilizing startup CEOs’ competencies which are based on how CEOs perform organizational processes and routines internally and externally in markets and partnerships. The three CEOs’ ICCs modes are denoted as traditional collaboration, competitive integration, and ambidexterity. In line with the approach adopted by Teece et al. (1997) who defined and operationalized the dynamic capability of the firm (rather than the individual), the resulting three ICCs modes correspond to Teece’s three dynamic capability categories (build, integrate, and reconfigure for a firm) and relate to specific CEOs’ capabilities, whereby “build” and “integrate” competencies are antecedents of “reconfigure” competencies. The present study findings indicate presence of an interdependence between the startup CEOs’ three modes from traditional collaboration to competitive integration and then an ability to use the ambidexterity mode. Qualitative analyses conducted in this study revealed that CEOs of some of the examined startups employed the three modes simultaneously and some focused on one at the time. Moreover, most CEOs focused on the external environment that allows commonalities across firms to be 73 identified (traditional collaboration), but very few CEOs dedicated sufficient attention inward with the goal of capitalizing on complementary skills within the firm (competitive integration). However, in line with the findings yielded by the literature review, as CEO is the most important resource in a startup, the CEO-specific capabilities should balance organizational processes and routines internally and externally in networks and partnerships. Yet, as demonstrated in this study, the ambidexterity CEOs’ ICCs mode achieves the best balance between complementarity and commonalities, internally and externally, and the best use of competencies (best performance and survival). These three ICCs modes exert different impacts on the overall startup performance and the firms’ ability to remain operational, as revealed by analyzing the seven cases examined here. 4.2 (Q1) CEOs ICCs in Startups Are Created in Three Modes The findings yielded by the within-case analyses and by the qualitative aggregation of coding themes helped define the three CEOs’ ICCs modes, which demonstrate how CEOs use collaboration and integration within organizational processes for strategic gains. In the traditional collaborative mode, CEOs build foundational business activities with others, internally and externally, which includes employees or other individuals external to the startup. CEOs’ traditional collaboration mainly comprises of two parts, one of which relates to the activities aimed at building the business model in order to add value or improve outcomes, such as collaboration in new services or improved products and services. The second part involves executing business strategies, such as exchanging benefits (formal and informal), to reduce costs and improve sales. The traditional collaborative mode thus necessitates capitalizing on learning opportunities and building collaboration skills, such as co-planning and co-organizing, as this allows identifying commonalities among firms that can be a source of competitive advantage. In the competitive integration mode, some CEOs integrate complementary skills (such as interpersonal, problem-74 solving, decision-making, and design and analytical skills) that, when combined with other skills, become stronger and more useful. When CEOs integrate these complementary skills into internal organizational processes, and somewhat externally, this allows them to attain complementarity of their startups’ internal capabilities. For example, a CEO who possesses good interpersonal competencies may partner with or hire individuals with good modeling and design skills, as this will facilitate skill exchange and productivity enhancement. In addition, CEOs’ complementary skills allow people to develop mutual trust and adaptability, which is essential for startups, given the need to integrate different teams, systems, technologies, and goals, while navigating these valuable capabilities that can be a source of competitive advantage. Hence, the CEOs strive to balance complementary and common ICCs both internally and externally in order to sustain good performance and survival in the marketplace with complex sets of partners; it’s a delicate balancing act requiring much skill and abilities. In the ambidexterity mode, CEOs achieve balance in developing unique organizational processes which are implemented in innovative ways both internally and externally thereby allowing these ICCs to evolve into firm-specific capabilities that can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage and enhance firm performance and survival. Ambidextrous CEOs develop teams internally and externally with a positive and motivational approach, motivating their team members to pursue continual development. These CEOs rely on building trust-based relationships and creating an inspiring vision within startups and in their external environment, emphasizing common team values. The CEOs foster an ethical work environment within startups and in their external environment that encourages the same attitude in others. Table 4.1 shows the generic coding themes, along with an example quote for each theme (full details of the coding process can be found in Appendix B), which accompany the results 75 reported in Table 4.2 which summarizes the within-case evidence supporting the CEO-led organizational processes of the seven startups in three ICCs modes which illustrate the key qualities of each mode, how CEOs preform different organizational processes, and how they build their ICCs using different paths internally and external Table 4. 1 CEOs’ ICCs generic coding theme Patterns 2st order code 1nd order code Example quotes Traditional collaborative mode (External focus) Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration Build products/services with external teams "For example, one of the projects on which we operate is school health. We work with a team in the health sector which goes to visit the schools and examines the students. We are responsible for providing a complete system for this examination." Build and improve marketing value based on external collaboration (collaboration to attract customers) “We collaborate with home builders to let customers try our mattresses.” Grow sales based on external collaboration “[For sales] we do have partnerships with companies within the real estate industry.” Learning and building knowledge with external partners Build knowledge of business from external collaboration “Sure, our work with them [partners and customers] and the success we made gives us a lot of learning and experience." Borrowing ideas from other startups "Borrowing from other startups’ companies and learning a lot.” Learning about business from external sources (events, courses, conferences, mentors) “Our first mentor really taught us how to act with these successful businesses." Exchange benefits with externals to reduce costs Formal exchange (trade services or benefits with external partners) “We provide a completely free service to the health sector but the outcome is the data that is provided to other customers for sale.” Co-support and informal exchange (free services with external partners) “I sit with D. A. [photography business owner], he has done photography for me, M. A. [copywriting business owner] has done copywriting for me, and A. X. [graphics business owner] has done graphics for me. It is so efficient for me to lean from them to exchange relationships.” Shared resources with external partners “Economy share, which means the lawyers register with us from their office or home, answer the questions from clients, and there is rating or evaluation.” 76 Table 4. 1 CEOs’ ICCs generic coding theme Patterns 2st order code 1nd order code Example quotes Collaboration skills externally Co-organizing and co-planning with external teams “We were just about eight people doing it [organizing startups’ events] and a lot of them were in the tech industry and working for AO [accelerator for tech companies].” Collaboration processes within internal teams Build and improve products/services within internal teams "We co-design, my brother [co-founder] will bring you know some of the technical then I will bring in what is the goal for the customer." Promote learning within internal teams by training and disseminating knowledge internally "It is really really need for us to learn disseminate that one amongst the entire team" Coordinating and co-planning internally “Obviously, we have the production team, we have to deal with the orders the accuracy the mistakes, the shipping all of the others .." Competitive integration mode (Internal focus) Integrate complementary skills internally Flexibility (open to new ideas or adjusting current goals and objectives) “The entire team looks at the goals and as a team you can create your own objectives typically based on the goals.” Perseverance (persistence) “I think perseverance really is the name of the game.” Joint decision-making skills “Everything we take as a decision together and create the right environment for everyone to produce dynamically and actively.” Joint problem-solving skills “The sales guys have a lot of input all through customer support on the front line with a customer. The dev team know how to approach from the coding standpoint. So, you know, it is always good to have those two parties talk as frequently as possible." Modeling and visualization skills “I can see things at a high level. I am good at models, good at visualizing." Design and analytical skills “I am fantastic with design and process.” Connecting processes to people “Understand personalities . . . [The CEO] placed each team member in positions that suits their personality. For example, you are good with the audience so you should deal with sales, and so on.” Interpersonal skills “I know how to connect within people in good ways, motivate them (people) to work.” Integrate common Similar experiences and personal stories “We have personality types that we really care about people and we really like working with people.” 77 Table 4. 1 CEOs’ ICCs generic coding theme Patterns 2st order code 1nd order code Example quotes interests internally Interest in startups digital markets “We have a shared interest in social media and social media influencers.” Interest in tech and fast-moving economy “We all share a common interest in technology.” Experience working together as a team “We [the internal team] experienced working together as a team in our main job.” Embedded trust and transparency internally Giving (encouraging collaboration by being able to give) “I think it helps profit sharing plan [with internal teams], you know, everything is transparent.” Open-mindedness (encouraging collaboration by being open to new ideas) “To encourage that collaborative mindset you have to be very open.” Compassion (considering the needs of others and willingness to take action to help) “We don't maintain that relationship just because it would be like strategic for business, because we really don't believe in that and we don't want to take advantage of people in that sense.” Transparency and integration within internal teams “In our external meetings in the Ministry of Health or other organizations, the person who speaks on the portfolio would possibly talk about all the second projects and this shows that we have high integration in our teams.” Integrity and honesty “It’s been very high integrity, very transparent, very honest over the years and people respect myself and the brand of .. for that reason.” Being approachable (friendly and easy to talk to) “J. A. [the co-founder] and I are very approachable.” Fairness (treating everyone equally) “We really treat the company as everyone's company.” Embedded trust and transparency externally Optimization of processes with external collaboration “Efficiency and transparency have increased, and all this in the process of optimization.” Adaptability to change externally and internally Ability to reconfigure resources (remodel business) “Over the nine years working in StreetText we have pivoted three times, and which means that we are completely rebuilt and have entirely new product.” Ability to adapt to external changes to be productive “Because Facebook changes a lot of the things, that we had to adapt adjust and it is pushing us back a little bit too.” 78 Table 4. 1 CEOs’ ICCs generic coding theme Patterns 2st order code 1nd order code Example quotes Ability to retain the capacity to be productive during challenges “Many things are considered big changes and with the new changes in the KSA market, which has become less resistant now, the decisions became faster and this has a significant positive impact on the projects.” Integrate external capability Unique external capability “I would say each [member of the advisory team] has a unique capability.” Open R&D within the ecosystem "Learned from involving in startup community." Ambidexterity mode (External and internal) Transformational leadership internally Co-inspirational (positive influence within teams) “The reason that I do the exchange or trade benefits in the animators’ team that I don’t believe it is just for the six months’ membership without having other things for them or solving other problems for them will be relevant” Enthusiasm and confidence “Enthusiasm is very high [within teams] and confidence exists among everyone." “I’m inspired by them and they give me a lot of energy to press forward for that vision.” Co-resistance and shared vision “We have done that [failing and trying] and a lot of our team has been with us for a lot in that.” Co-experience internally Creating experience with internal teams “I was really fundamentally believing it, I know when my brother [co-founder] does too, and I think most of our team does that.” Co-experience within the ecosystem Community co-creation “Broaden our partner network and we’re engaged with the angel investment network.” Customer co-creation “Its culture was actually a fusion of the customer culture and the company culture into one.” External alignment strategies Build one-to-one relationships with partners or other external entities “Some of it [referring to customer value, such as subscriptions or collaborations] comes from one-to-one relationship building.” “We like really have those like long-term relationships” Define mutual value within ecosystem “I have to be able to tap into this network to realize quite a lot of potential from that.” Align processes with external collaboration projects “You have a theory but then, you should get into market, you get insight and then within sight. . . you can take action, provided it is that you're able to learn from your mistakes and you have a large late insight to make a better decision.” Internal alignment Alignment between tasks (and internal processes) “There is a great transformation in the use of digitalization in the health sector [partner], such as in medicine, robotics, prescription; therefore, we have many projects under it.” 79 Table 4. 2 Within-case Evidence of Startup CEOs’ Integration Collaboration Competencies by Mode Case No. Name Country Traditional Collaborative Mode Occur Competitive Integration Mode Occur Ambidexterity Mode Occur 1: OCL, Canada ▪ To add value or improve outcomes, e.g., focus on building services within the community, build customer experience, and improve products and services. ▪ Seek learning opportunities and build knowledge, e.g., borrowing ideas from startups and hosting events. ▪ Exchange benefits and execute strategies by offering free services, co-supporting roles, or sharing resources. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with external partners, such as co-planning and co-organizing. ▪ CEOs collaborate with the team internally by testing new ideas and delivering the service of business model. 3 2 3 3 2 ▪ CEOs have complementary skills, e.g., modeling, visualizing, design, connecting processes to people, and motivating people. ▪ CEOs find missing skills in others, such as the advisory team. ▪ CEOs integrate an open R&D within the market community. ▪ Embedded trust and transparency through honesty, giving, compassion, and open information sharing. ▪ Ability to adapt with integrity and retain the capacity to be productive and true to their core purpose while dealing with disruptions. 5 1 1 5 2 ▪ Transformational leadership: CEOs co-inspire and create positive change ▪ Co-experience: CEOs build experience and culture with others. ▪ Strategic external alignment: CEOs define individual & mutual value within the ecosystem, one-to-one relationships, understand markets, and build trust based on giving 3 3 5 2: HMS Canada ▪ To add value or improve outcomes, e.g., to grow sales, attract customers, or enhance internal product development. ▪ Seek learning opportunities and build knowledge from external entities, such as identifying customer needs, market, and partner characteristics. ▪ Exchange benefits and execute strategies via formal and informal 2 2 3 ▪ CEOs have complementary skills, such as visualizing the future. ▪ CEOs find missing skills in others. ▪ CEOs look for common interests in others. ▪ Embedded trust and transparency through honesty, openness, and compassion. 2 0 0 4 ▪ Transformational leadership ▪ Co-experience ▪ Alignment: Doing two things at once or ability to switch between tasks. 0 0 1 80 Table 4. 2 Within-case Evidence of Startup CEOs’ Integration Collaboration Competencies by Mode Case No. Name Country Traditional Collaborative Mode Occur Competitive Integration Mode Occur Ambidexterity Mode Occur exchanges, co-supporting roles, and sharing resources. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills externally. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with their team internally by coordinating, co-planning, and co-organizing. 0 4 ▪ Ability to adapt with integrity and retain the capacity to be productive and true to their core purpose while dealing with external disruptions. 0 3: HSO Canada ▪ To add value or improve outcomes, e.g., grow sales, marketing, products and services development. ▪ Seek learning opportunities and build knowledge from external partners, e.g., learning business functions, delivering and improving services. ▪ Exchange benefits and reduce costs by volunteering or offering free services. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with external entities, such as coordinating and co-organizing with external teams. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with the team internally. 3 3 3 2 0 ▪ CEOs have complementary skills, such as visualizing and detail-oriented. ▪ CEOs find missing skills in others at, for example, e-commerce events. ▪ CEOs look for common interests in others and love participating in the market. ▪ Embedded trust and transparency: Caring, trust, and not taking advantage of people. ▪ Adaptability: CEOs adapt with integrity and retain the capacity to be productive and true to their core purpose while dealing with unforeseen external disruptions. 2 0 4 3 0 ▪ Transformational leadership ▪ Co-experience: CEOs build experience and culture with others. ▪ Strategic external alignment: One-to-one relationships, long-term relationships, understanding markets, and building trust based on giving. 0 0 4 4: ▪ To add value or improve outcomes, e.g., sales value or 3 ▪ CEOs have complementary skills, such as perseverance, 6 ▪ Transformational leadership: CEOs co-inspire, create positive change. 3 81 Table 4. 2 Within-case Evidence of Startup CEOs’ Integration Collaboration Competencies by Mode Case No. Name Country Traditional Collaborative Mode Occur Competitive Integration Mode Occur Ambidexterity Mode Occur STX Canada product value using external resources. ▪ Seek learning opportunities and build knowledge from external platforms and take courses while offering training internally. ▪ CEOs exchange benefits and reduce costs. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with external partners. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with their team internally by training, co-planning, and coordinating. 2 0 0 3 flexibility, openness, joint decision making, and joint problem solving. ▪ CEOs find missing skills in others. ▪ CEOs look for common interests, e.g., CEO and staff are tech and business administration enabled. ▪ Embedded trust & transparency: approachable, fairness, open-mindset, and giving. ▪ Adaptability: CEOs adapt with integrity and retain the capacity to be productive and true to their core purpose while dealing with unforeseen external disruptions. 0 2 4 5 and build internal team persistence. ▪ Co-experience: Build co-experience with internal teams. ▪ Strategic external alignment and internal alignment between tasks. 1 2 5: HMK, KSA ▪ To add value or improve outcomes via marketing to attract customers and grow sales. ▪ Seek learning opportunities and build knowledge at business functions and by improving products or services. ▪ Exchange benefits and reduce costs, e.g., formal and informal exchange and shared resources. 2 2 3 ▪ CEOs have complementary skills, such as flexibility, openness, and perseverance. ▪ CEOs find missing skills in others. ▪ CEOs look for common interests in working with others. ▪ Embedded trust & transparency: Faithful and honest and not 3 0 1 2 ▪ Transformational leadership, co-enthusiasm, and creating shared vision with partners. ▪ Co-experience: Build customer and partner co-experience. ▪ Strategic alignment, understanding markets, and able to remodel the business to align with the market. 1 0 1 82 Table 4. 2 Within-case Evidence of Startup CEOs’ Integration Collaboration Competencies by Mode Case No. Name Country Traditional Collaborative Mode Occur Competitive Integration Mode Occur Ambidexterity Mode Occur ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with external partners. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with the team internally. 0 0 taking advantage of people. ▪ Adaptability: CEOs adapt and retain the capacity to be productive and true to their core purpose while dealing with external disruptions 2 6: LEN, KSA ▪ To add value or improve outcomes, e.g., increase awareness and devolve products using external collaboration. ▪ Seek learning opportunities and build knowledge, e.g., to deliver and improve services/products and offer internal training. ▪ Exchange benefits and reduce costs, e.g., free services and shared resources. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with external entities. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with the team internally, such as build products, attend training, and engage team members in co-planning and coordinating. 2 3 3 0 4 ▪ CEOs have complementary skills, such as perseverance, openness, and joint decision making. ▪ CEOs find missing skills in others. ▪ CEOs look for common interests in working with others. ▪ Embedded trust & transparency: Open information sharing, integration within the team, and optimization of internal processes. ▪ Adaptability: CEOs adapt with integrity and retain the capacity to be productive and true to their core purpose while dealing with external disruptions. 3 0 0 5 3 ▪ Transformational leadership: CEOs create positive change, enthusiasm, and shared vision. ▪ Co-experience: CEOs build experience and culture with others. ▪ Strategic external alignment: CEOs understand the market and define individual & mutual value within the ecosystem and strive for internal alignment between tasks. 5 0 2 7: MLH, KSA ▪ To add value or improve outcomes, e.g., marketing value (building relationships) ▪ Seek learning opportunities and 1 3 ▪ CEOs have complementary skills, e.g., connecting processes to people and joint decision making. 2 ▪ Transformational leadership: CEOs inspire others and create positive change. ▪ Co-experience: CEOs build 0 0 83 Table 4. 2 Within-case Evidence of Startup CEOs’ Integration Collaboration Competencies by Mode Case No. Name Country Traditional Collaborative Mode Occur Competitive Integration Mode Occur Ambidexterity Mode Occur build knowledge, e.g., by attending business functions and delivering products or services. ▪ Exchange benefits and reduce costs by volunteering, offering free services, and co-supporting roles. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with external partners. ▪ CEOs build collaboration skills with their team internally by coordinating business needs and co-organizing and guiding team members 2 0 3 ▪ CEOs find missing skills in others. ▪ CEOs look for common interests in working with others. ▪ Embedded trust & transparency: Honesty, open information sharing. ▪ Adaptability: CEOs adapt with integrity and retain the capacity to be productive and true to their core purpose while dealing with external disruptions. 0 4 0 0 experience and culture with others. ▪ Strategic external alignment: CEOs define individual & mutual value within ecosystem, e.g., relationship with a social media influencer. 1 4.2.1 Traditional Collaborative Mode The study findings show that, in the context of regular business activities, CEOs collaborate to build their startup's business model in order to add value or improve outcomes. In addition, CEOs collaborate to execute their business strategies, which involves seeking learning opportunities in sales, marketing, or financing. Their strategies include formal and informal exchange of benefits and reducing costs, while building collaborative skills such as co-planning and co-organizing. CEOs start their business with some initial management competencies pertinent to the day-to-day business activities envisaged within the traditional collaboration models, which involve skills needed for integration or external collaboration with partners. These processes and routines require CEOs to exhibit common collaboration competencies, such as ability to provide 84 staff training, learning about market trends, or exchanging services to ensure business visibility. HMS’s CEO highlighted some examples of these processes: “If we’re working with sponsored partners; generally, we are responsible for going out forming all of the partnerships. Then we need to bring back those assets for the marketing team to figure out how to use them and [determine] what is acceptable in marketing.” The analyses further show that the CEOs’ organizational processes and routines share some similarities in terms of the main management competencies involved in collaboration. First, they must ensure the efficiency of marketing strategies (e.g., increasing awareness and attracting customers), as HMK’s CEO expressed: “We have benefited from marketing. In this field, many of our customers come from attending these events and exhibitions organized by incubators and business accelerators.” HMS’s CEO similarly stated: “We collaborate with home builders to let customers try our mattresses.” Such collaborations, whether forged at marketing events or initiated with partner intermediaries, are popular and effective ways to reach customers. CEOs understand that they have to work with partners to promote their business, minimize costs, and increase sales. This also indicates that CEOs possess sound financial management skills in terms of cash flow, sales, and cost reduction, as HMS’s CEO stated: “[We] do partnerships to bring in more sales and growth.” In addition, the study data shows that most CEOs focus on the initial R&D, as STX’s CEO expressed: “We are all researching and developing our product and it never ends.” This involves learning about products/services or identifying problems and finding solutions, as HMS’s CEO explained: “We co-design, so my brother [co-founder] will bring some of the technical skills and I will bring in what is the goal for the customer.” It may also involve training, as explained by HMK’s CEO: “We spend a lot on training and development either by attending conferences . . . or training courses in places outside [external to organization locally and internationally],” or hiring, 85 as indicated by MLH’s CEO: “We learned to work with different tailors depending on which design they know most.” Furthermore, all CEOs that took part in this study sought to learn from these collaboration processes and to combine capabilities in the pursuit of their own strategic objectives. HSO’s CEO described this competency as follows: “We do a lot of networking events [business-related events] . . . we attend every single event, a lot of free ones and some paid ones. . . . It's kind of you go there volunteering to get more connections and you build a relationship.” However, in some startups, the CEO collaboration competencies in these traditional collaborative processes are limited to co-planning (CEOs plan and manage decisions with their teams) and co-organizing (CEOs execute actions with their teams). As an example of traditional collaborative competencies, a CEO may plan the yearly strategic plan with an external advisory team, and then organize marketing events with the internal team, while planning and developing products with partners. The study findings, however, show that CEOs pursuing traditional ICCs have limited influence both internally and externally. Internally, CEOs exert their authority on the team by adopting basic communication strategies and offering training, but pay less attention to complementary skills. In addition, the CEOs’ influence on external exchanges is limited to improving outcomes for involved parties, which focuses on the commonalities among startups and hinders their competitive performance and survival. The analyses further revealed that CEOs pursuing traditional ICCs are trying to build their startup-specific capabilities that cannot be replicated by their competitors based on the individual benefits, such as access to market advantages, rather than based on collaboration within their ecosystem, which would be a focus of their supply chain. HMS’s CEO justified this approach as follows: “Because we don't want to put 86 a lot of money at risk . . . . If you're playing poker, you know, you put a little chip down and wait until you have a good card. Then you put a big chip down. . . . Some people just put a big chip down and it pays, but sometimes it doesn't.” CEOs often wait for opportunities to manifest, rather than actively looking for them, and are unwilling to take chances for creating opportunities, which often results in missed opportunities. Therefore, the traditional collaborative mode mainly comprises of building collaboration capabilities aimed at adding value or improving outcomes, and focuses on the external environment that allows commonalities across firms to be identified. The learning processes and routines involved in the traditional collaborative mode are pertinent to the day-to-day business activities (in marketing, financing, developing products or services, etc.), and building basic collaboration skills such as co-planning and co-organizing. This passive strategy results in a narrow focus on achieving traditional goals, while overlooking future market relationships. Consequently, it is difficult for traditional CEOs that rely on this model to sustain competitive performance and ensure survival because they are not capitalizing on the benefits of collaboration, an important competency. Moreover, this lack of collaboration prevents them from accessing external partners’ capabilities and strengthening their unique skills. 4.2.2 Competitive Integration Mode According to the study findings, a few CEOs adopt organizational processes and routines specifically aimed at capitalizing on this integration of competencies. Analysis results further show that some CEOs are developing their management competencies to higher levels that require utilization of their complementary skills with others internally and externally, to combine their efforts with those of others in order to be most effective. The complementary skills are skills that, when integrated, become more effective than individual skills in achieving a task as a result of 87 coordinated efforts. For example, OCL’s CEO uses “visualizing” or envisioning skills, for building communication and networking that takes the partner’s needs into consideration: “I am good at models, good at visualizing, fantastic with design and process. I can see things at a high level. . . . I know how to connect with people in good ways, motivate them to work.” On the other hand, STX's CEO relies on perseverance, which manifests in the ability to take risks and not being afraid to fail, and thus creates a competitive integration competency: “I have a healthy dose of vulnerability, like we feel as though we're always in danger. . . . But also I know how much healthy adults have confidence in what we do and so I think that we can recover those together . . . persistence is the secret.” LEN's CEO similarly expressed: “Always, there is resistance . . . it must be . . . many things were considered big changes, which have become doable with resistance.” Others developed common interests with their team and were thus exploiting the R&D competency to a higher level of integration, which entails the ability to appreciate joint decision making and joint problem solving. As STX’s CEO explained, “The sales guys have a lot of input all through customer support on the front line with a customer. The dev team know how to approach from the coding standpoint. So, you know, it is always good to have those two parties talk as frequently as possible, but we typically don't know where any case right now that every team are looking on it (alone) and we get a lot of buying from every single member in team.” LEN’s CEO similarly shared, “It is not a single person’s decision, but everyone’s; everything we take as a decision together and create the right environment for everyone to produce dynamically and actively.” Some CEOs also find skills they do not possess in others to ensure that the company has the capability to execute any task. For example, OCL’s CEO changed advisers based on the 88 execution level needed: “The previous advisory team from 2015 to 2017 was a mix of selected members. It was less focused on the business and more focused on member experience. Then, the second advisory group came from the research project that I was engaged with through . . . and I'd gone through some internal discussions around whether I should start an official board through the company or if I would have more of an ad hoc group, just colleagues within the community . . . and so I chose to go with the ad hoc casual route . . . and I have now brought in four other advisory members.” CEOs that adopt the competitive integration mode also use embedded processes to increase trust and transparency within the team, thus relying on honesty, giving, compassion, and open information sharing. OCL’s CEO expressed this as follows: “To be collaborative you need to be not only active in collaboration, but I think you need to be also compassionate and empathetic, and I feel that in every situation for me to be collaborative with others, our partners, our members and so on that I need to be compassionate and empathetic and I practice that all the time.” LEN’s CEO explained the integration in internal teams and open information sharing as follows: “First, internally we have high transparency, and trust exists among everyone . . . in our external meetings . . . the person who talks about one portfolio, would possibly talk about other projects and this shows that we have high integration in our teams.” STX's CEO described their open information sharing as a flexible strategic plan, noting: “We have common strategic goals . . . the entire team looks at the goals and as team you can create your own objectives typically based on the goals . . . every staff member free to feel a tightness in their goal setting.” Within the competitive integration mode, these organizational embedded processes (e.g., transparency, flexibility of information sharing, and openness), aimed at building and integrating CEOs’ management competencies, often result in better adaptability and resilience within the 89 startup. While CEOs successfully manage the conflict between benefits among and between teams, which is essential for developing complementary CEO competencies, this creates competitive integration ability that reduces changes overall because the CEO and the organization become more adept at configuring various options. In addition, all staff gain configuring competencies and become more productive over time. As STX's CEO explained: “Because Facebook changes a lot of things that we had to adapt and adjust ... so really in our team… I.. [am] seeing if we should go for it, it is really really needed for us to learn [to] disseminate that one amongst the entire team and then really be able to get a ride on that learning so that we all get better and I think as long as we do that well, and . . . that's why we're very open to partners . . . . we defiantly having plans of risking ourselves in the future and adding ... other platforms… which [we] currently don't have a team size to do that location.” The quote above suggests that learning is akin to getting a ride on the next wave of competence building that the organization needs, and CEOs are risking a lot in this process both personally and organizationally, which requires greater competence to integrate skills and processes. Even if complementary skills are embedded internally, required changes must be configured for startups to remain productive. Throwing more people at the problem is not always an option because they do not have a large enough team to do that and Hence, the CEO must ensure that these complementary skills are embedded internally in the organization. In the competitive integration mode, CEOs lead mostly through strong internal influence, which allows them to involve their teams and cooperate to execute startups’ processes and functions. Hence, they co-handle challenges and obstacles, and jointly make decisions and solve problems by harnessing and integrating the full potential of the internal human resources available within their startups. Although developing strong internal capabilities and complementary skills 90 increases CEOs’ ability to manage change, modify processes, configure resources, or remodel the business, the CEOs that focus solely on the competitive integration mode are still susceptible to market changes because they have turned inward and often lag checking external. Therefore, these CEOs strive to sustain good performance for as long as possible until their target market experiences a significant change, and then these focused internally integrate the external change into their firm processes and structures, as indicated by STX’s CEO: “I think we're only going to make better decisions as we get more seasons much longer, then we can add people that you're going to help us see around corners that we can't see in relationship.” Hence, competitive integration mode for CEOs that focus solely on the competitive integration mode lack knowledge of the capabilities of external parties which is needed to see what opportunities exist around their corner, which they needed to respond effectively to any changes. 4.2.3 Ambidexterity Mode The study results show that a few CEOs possess external collaborative competencies (e.g., capacity to instigate formal/informal exchanges to add value, external co-planning) and a few have integrated internally (e.g., exhibit the competencies of embeddedness, internal shared vision, etc.). Many have adopted dynamic organizational processes and routines aimed at balancing collaboration and integration, as well as building strategic alignment by adopting a culture of co-experience both internally and externally. Analysis results further show that these ambidextrous dynamic organizational processes are led by CEOs within their ecosystems, as explained by OCL’s CEO: “Our culture was actually a fusion of the customer culture and the company culture into one. I’m inspired by them [partners and customers] and they give me a lot of energy to press forward for that vision.” OCLs' CEO. The OCL’s CEO showed more of these incidents with dynamic processes for a startup, while few other CEOs tried to develop these. 91 While CEOs who only focused on competitive integration mode developed co-adaptability and co-perseverance with their internal teams, ambidextrous CEOs exploited internal and external competencies, which facilitated adoption of repeatable and scalable processes when searching for solutions. Although competitive integration mode may enable the startup to pivot and adapt, sustainable solutions cannot be found without efficient use of external networks, or by leveraging traditional collaboration opportunities for learning purposes only (i.e., without giving back). The CEOs that manage organizational processes ambidextrously tend to balance integration (exploitative) activities with collaboration (exploration) activities, and develop these processes both internally and externally. When ambidextrous CEOs simultaneously pursue complementary capabilities in internal and external collaboration, they exhibit transformational leadership that may inspire others internally and externally, as well as build experience and culture with others internally and externally, which strategically helps them enhance their firm’s capabilities. The current investigation revealed three competencies of ambidextrous CEOs, as discussed below. First, an ambidextrous CEO accesses the transformational complementary capabilities of external partnerships within the ecosystem. This leadership quality simultaneously promotes collaboration and integration and involves the ability to communicate a shared vision effectively while motivating others to co-inspire, and creates enthusiasm in others to be productive together. For example, one CEO explained their transformational influence on one of their special partners as follows: “When competitors entered the market, we suggested that they go to the insurance companies, which are sometimes less demanding, and possibly get high profits . . . they lead the market now we can say.” However, these processes are not straightforward and involve other competencies, such as adaptability and embeddedness that allow CEOs to integrate and transform. Ambidexterity is a quality that necessitates reconfiguration of collaboration and integration 92 processes. For example, OCL's internal team were retransformed into a dynamic team that changed every six months using exchange collaboration while building complementary skills internally within startup and external to the startup. As OCL's CEO explained, “The reason that I do the exchange or trade benefits in the animator team is that I don’t believe it is just for the six months’ membership without having other things for them or solving other problems for them will be relevant.” And some of these team members actually built their own business after working with OCL’s CEO. Second, ambidextrous CEOs possess the ability to create co-experiences with partners within the ecosystem and serve partners who bring inputs that they create and build experiences together. This is aptly surmised by the OCL's CEO: “We care about the arts and music and the feel of the environment.” For this reason, all art pieces in the startup are exchanged collaboration with other members. Also, when ambidextrous CEOs strive for co-experience they tend to help others to move forward, which may result in long-term advantages, such as “creating experiences for others to reach their professional lives” (OCL’s CEO). Third, ambidextrous CEOs adopt alignment strategies aimed at strengthening internal unique skills while searching for competitive capabilities externally. They also determine strategies based on the ecosystem and seek collaboration with partners to develop multiple products and services. These win-win strategies focus on aligning the ecosystem advantages with the startups’ advantages. According to LEN’s CEO, “There is a great transformation in the use of digitalization in the health sector [partners], in medicine, robotics, prescription . . . Therefore, we have many projects under it.” As a result, ambidextrous CEOs define the ecosystem value, not only firm value. For example, OCL’s CEO defines trust as ecosystem value as follows: “I’m not very fast-moving; everything is built on trust here." Therefore, the CEO built one-to-one 93 relationships while “sustaining regular community programming for free.” The alignment strategies involve alignment of values in the ecosystem and determining the processes that can serve others, as explained by HMK's CEO: “We've adjusted the business model with demand and focused on what the markets need and sell. . . . Sure, our work with them [partners] and the success we made together gives both of us a lot of learning and experience.” Also feeding the community while building relationships and understanding within the network. HSO’s CEO noted We started like in-person to build that community and building credibility.”, and OCL's CEO emphasized the need to, create common value and connect to people, “I have to be able to tap into this network to realize quite a lot of potential from that.” 4.3 (Q2) The CEOs ICCs for Firm-level Development During cross-case analysis, the aim was to ascertain how CEOs’ ICCs, as the dynamic capability of startups, are developed, and relate to the CEOs’ perceptions of startup firm performance in the future. When considering how CEOs’ ICCs are developed, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) argued that dynamic capabilities involve processes and routines that are not necessarily rare or inimitable, but rather represent the “industry best practices.” The findings yielded by the current study indicate that different CEOs may develop different dynamic capabilities within their startups based on a combination of ICCs modes. For this purpose, CEOs would perform traditional ICC processes and routines, and identify commonalities across firms, thus building collaboration capability within the startup. They also develop integration capability by identifying and building complementary competencies internally. Finally, ambidexterity is achieved when CEOs find the optimal balance between internal integration and external collaboration competencies. Thus, the diversity in these competencies among these modes highlighted the effectiveness of the startups’ capability and CEOs’ ICCs, as seen in the OCL case. 94 Figure 4.1 shows the three CEOs’ ICC modes in relation to dynamic capability and survival, based on the accumulation of organizational processes (learning and routines, as shown in Table 4.2) across the three categories identified above. While the traditional collaborative CEOs ICC mode (dynamic capability as build) focuses on developing business relations with external partners to reduce cost and improve value, competitive integration mode (dynamic capability as integrate) is associated with some integrative processes that improve the effectiveness of internal capabilities. However, the ambidexterity mode (dynamic capability as reconfigure) is allows for the greatest collaboration and integration advantages, the highest effectiveness of external collaboration, and the best integration of internal competencies. These findings indicate that CEOs that adopt these three ICCs modes develop dynamic capabilities differently in startups based on the diversity of organizational processes and the balance of CEOs’ ICCs internally and externally. Figure 4. 1 CEOs ICCs modes and startups’ dynamic capabilities CEO ICCsStartups Dynamic Capability Internal External Integrate internally•Competitive Integration mode Reconfigure•Ambidexterity mode Build with externals •Traditional Collaborative mode 95 4.3.1 CEOs’ ICCs Relate to CEOs’ Perceptions of Startup Performance Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) suggested that firms do not possess the same level of effectiveness in executing their capabilities because different CEOs develop different levels of competencies. The case comparison performed as a part of the present study shows that CEOs that focus on dynamic organizational processes within their target ecosystems are better at building strategic alignment, transformational leadership, and co-experience culture. In other words, ambidextrous CEOs help balance the ICC processes both internally and externally. Table 4.3 summarizes the findings related to the overall startup performance in the seven cases analyzed in this research, whereas the growth indicators plotted in Figure 4.3 show exemplars of the collaborative modes in various growth patterns. The graph reveals that the ambidexterity mode is highly suitable for forming partnerships (OCL, Canada) as it allows accessing strategic resources, as well as improving products and services. Ambidextrous CEOs focus on the quality and value of products/services that are derived from collaboration and integration within their ecosystems, which allows them to create more open and collaborative relationships. This ambidextrous strategy can provide sustainable benefits in the long term. Conversely, competitive integration (STX, Canada) yields the highest performance in terms of hiring and internal growth internally, while not fully capitalizing on external capabilities. CEOs that focus on competitive integration rely primarily on developing internal human capability while overlooking potential complementarities within the ecosystem. Finally, the traditional collaborative mode (HMS, Canada), while capable of yielding some benefits, is not conducive to partnerships or hiring practices that could improve products and services. This limitation stems from CEOs’ focus on the products and services that bring more sales, while neglecting the cost of future relationships within the ecosystem. 96 The study findings related to CEOs’ perception of their firms’ overall performance and customer satisfaction indicate that participants believes that they are performing well currently, even though only the ambidexterity mode has shown long-term sustainability. Table 4. 3 Overall Startup Performance Case No. Name Country 1 OCL Canada 4 STX Canada 6 LEN KSA 2 HMS Canada 5 HMK KSA 3 HSO Canada 7 MLH KSA Displayed in Figure 4.2 Displayed in Figure 4.2 Displayed in Figure 4.2 Growth (60%) (5-point Likert scale) Partnerships Out of 5 points 5 3 4 3 2 1 1 Acquiring activities Out of 5 points 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 New products/services Out of 5 points 5 4 4 1 1 2 1 Hiring Out of 5 points 4 5 1 3 2 1 1 Sum of Growth (out of 20 points) 15/20 points 13/20 points 10/20 points 9/20 points 6/20 points 5/20 points 4/20 points Total growth (in % value) Sum of growth/20*60 = __/60% 49─60 = Strongly growing 37─48 = Growing 25─36 = Slightly growing 13─24 = Likely growing 0─12 = Likely not growing 45%/60% Strongly growing 39%/60% Growing 30%/60% Growing 27%/60% Slightly growing 18%/60% Likely growing 15%/45% Likely growing 12%/60% Likely not growing CEO satisfaction with performance (40%) (5-point Likert scale) CEOs’ overall satisfaction 4.25/5.0 4.3/5.0 4.5/5.0 3.5/5.0 3/5.0 3.5/5.0 2/5.0 CEOs’ perception of customer satisfaction 4.5/5.0 3.5/5.0 3.5/5.0 4.6/5.0 4.5/5.0 3/5.0 3/5.0 97 Table 4. 3 Overall Startup Performance Case No. Name Country 1 OCL Canada 4 STX Canada 6 LEN KSA 2 HMS Canada 5 HMK KSA 3 HSO Canada 7 MLH KSA Sum of CEO satisfaction (out of 10 points) 8.75/10 points 7.8/10 points 8/10 points 8.1/10 points 7.5/10 points 6.5/10 points 5/10 points Total CEO satisfaction with performance (in % value) Sum of CEOs’ satisfaction /10*40 = __/40% 33─40 =Very satisfied 25─32 = Satisfied 17─24 = Slightly satisfied 9─16 = Unsatisfied 0─8 = Very unsatisfied 35%/40% Very satisfied 31.3%/40% Very satisfied 32/40% Satisfied 32.6%/ 40% Satisfied 30%/40% Satisfied 26%/40% Satisfied 20%/40% Slightly satisfied Overall CEOs’ perception of startups performance and survival (Growth + CEO satisfaction) 80─100 = Very good 60─79 = Good 40─59 = Acceptable 20─39 = Poor 0─19 = Very poor 80 Very good 70.3 Good 62 Good 59.6 Acceptable 48 Acceptable 41 Acceptable 32 Poor 98 4.3.2 CEOs’ ICCs’ Influence Startup Survival Figure 4.4 shows the levels of CEOs’ ICCs in the three modes across the seven cases and years of operation. Some similarities in the traditional collaborative levels are evident, as are some Figure 4. 2 Exemplars of CEOs’ perception of startups performance and survival 99 divergences in competitive integration levels. The levels of ambidextrous activities diverge most strongly, as indicated in the previous discussion. The three CEOs’ ICCs modes also exert different influences on startup survival, but this effect is also dependent on the years of operation. The startups that have been operational for longer (OCL, Canada, and STX, Canada) still rely primarily on competitive integration processes. In contrast, greater ambidexterity is achieved in recently established startups (LEN, KSA) relative to those that have been in operation for longer (e.g., STX, Canada). This finding suggests that CEOs need ambidexterity in the early stages of establishing their business. Figure 4. 3 Levels of three CEOs’ ICC modes across seven cases The study findings also indicate that the right balance of the ICC processes and routines is essential for developing ambidexterity, as is the optimal alignment between internal and external capabilities. Hence, to reach the highest levels of ambidexterity (sustainable competitive Years of OperationAmbidexterityCompetitive IntegrationTraditional Collaborative024681012141618 #1 OCL,CA#4 STX,CA#6 LEN,KSA#2 HMS,CA#5 HMK,KSA#3 HSO,CA#7 MLH,KSA81023 31 111671241141711689613812117119100 advantage), collaborative integration competencies must be developed both internally and externally. This is best exemplified by the practices adopted by the OCL’s CEO. The study findings further indicate that the CEOs who do not balance the ICC processes internally and externally are less capable of developing ambidexterity but they may still survive in the business. For example, CEOs of two recently established startups (LEN, KSA, and HSO, Canada) practiced comparable levels of competitive integration activities and traditional collaborative activities, and adopted a greater number of ambidexterity-related activities than CEOs of other startups that failed to correctly balance competitive integration and traditional collaborative strategies internally and externally. This is best exemplified by the practices adopted by the STX’s CEO with more than nine years of operation, who focused on building strong teams and integrating firm’s capability to work with different business to exchange ideas and overcome challenges: “Over the nine years working in STX we have pivoted three times which means that we are completely rebuilt and have entirely new product. . . . We have gone to market to get validation, and then failed . . . so this is our third attempt. . . . So, in our history, we had number of things that I would say that could have ended us and almost did, and probably ended other companies.” In sum, CEOs may rely on the competitive integration and traditional collaborative ICCs in the process of founding the startup, and some may give precedence to one over the others, but ambidexterity ICCs can be instrumental in startup long-term sustainability. Hence, for attaining the highest level of skills needed for reconfiguring collaborative and integration competencies, CEOs must balance their efforts both internally and externally, and create ambidexterity 101 4.3.3 CEOs’ ICCs and Startup Settings The study findings indicate that the Canadian setting differs considerably from that in Saudi Arabia, where value is given to the established routines of collaboration, making it challenging to adopt the two higher CEOs’ ICCs modes. Conversely, in Kelowna, Canada, CEOs rely on competitive integration and ambidexterity, more than traditional collaboration. For example, because startups’ ecosystems in Riyadh, KSA, are still developing, in order to attain the levels that already exist in Canada, some changes in the government systems must be overcome, and the country must be more open for international business and foreign investment. This was one of the challenges that HMK’s CEO commented on, stating: “One of the biggest challenges we face is that if government systems change, it is difficult to modify.” Although the Saudi Arabian government supports startups and is actively involved in the creation of new jobs by developing the Riyadh startup ecosystem, according to LEN’s CEO, “With the new KSA 2030 vision . . . now the decisions became faster and this has had a significant positive impact on the projects.” However, the KSA startup setting is still not attractive for top talent and foreign investors, as their experience with this culture is limited or has not been very positive in the past. As HMK’s CEO explained, “The problem we face in the Saudi market is the employment of Saudis. This problem we’ve faced with startup as well as with their employees. The Saudi employee in any field is looking for those who pay more. Retaining the employees for a long time is difficult for the startup as is creating loyalty within the company.” In sum, startups’ CEOs working in Riyadh might be missing valuable opportunities to acquire more advanced integrative collaborative capabilities inside and outside their organization that would lead to better performance in the long term, and should focus on developing integrative and ambidexterity competencies. The Riyadh setting particularly affects ambidexterity, as this 102 mode was much more developed in startups operating in Kelowna, Canada, while being practically nonexistent in the startups located in Riyadh. 103 Chapter 5: Discussion The findings yielded by the present study confirm that startups rely on the development of dynamic capabilities that can be mapped to specific CEOs’ competencies and their collaboration and integration models, which emphasizes the strengths of startup’s leaders and the benefits of their ambidexterity over and above internal collaboration and traditional external foundations. In this section, the key study findings are discussed in relation to the extant literature on RBV, dynamic capabilities, open innovation, and ambidextrous’ startups, thus highlighting the research contributions and theoretical and practical implications of this investigation. 5.1 Research Questions Revisited Although most prior literature on startups’ CEOs’ integration and collaboration focused on the network or firm level, and not at the individual CEO level, this study provides evidence that some startups have CEOs whose capabilities set them apart from leaders of other companies. This is the basis of competitive advantage, because the CEOs’ Integration Collaborative Competencies (CEOs’ ICCs) may lead to different startups’ capabilities, such as internal integration capability, external collaboration capability, and ambidexterity (integrative ─ collaborative) competencies within and beyond the firm boundaries. As researchers in this domain tend to view collaboration processes as traditional organization processes that improve startups value and networking capabilities, they overlook the CEOs’ influence and interference in these startups’ collaborative capabilities. Using a multiple-case study qualitative methodology, as a part of this investigation, seven CEOs leading the startups in the Canadian and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA) digital business industry were interviewed (and, in the case of Canadian startups, shadowed as they executed their 104 duties) with the aim of developing a better understanding of the CEOs’ collaborative strategies and the organizational processes used to develop startups’ capabilities within their respective markets and partnerships. The study findings illustrate that the competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997; Teece & Pisano, 1994) of startups may manifest in the differences between CEO-level competencies which determine the extent of collaborative integration capability. The analyses conducted as a part of this research revealed that (1) some CEOs developed traditional collaboration competencies centered on external partners with common traditional objectives and acquired common capabilities to survive in the marketplace, while (2) others focused internally on developing complementary skills and integrating internal collaboration of competencies to strengthen internal capabilities, whereby (3) only a few CEOs balanced complementary and common features both internally and externally to achieve ambidexterity, which allowed reconfiguration of startups’ resources, capabilities, and structures. A better understanding of startup CEOs’ capabilities may be possible by gaining insight into the CEOs’ integration and collaborative organizational processes, which requires examining CEOs’ learning routines and processes as an integral part of startups’ dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997; Teece & Pisano, 1994). Although each CEO exerts unique influence on these processes, they all require ICCs, which were in this study classified under three categories of dynamic capability that varied according to the types of organizational learning routines and the CEOs’ ability to change and balance these organizational processes internally and externally. Table 5.1 summarizes the results obtained in the present study, illustrating the overall pattern of each of the seven cases, and links the CEOs’ ICCs to the startup performance and survival. As can be seen from these findings, the three CEOs’ ICCs modes—traditional collaborative, collaborative integration, and ambidexterity—exhibit different impacts on the overall firm performance and its 105 ability to stay in business or survive in the long term. By comparing the CEOs’ ICCs identified in the seven cases, some similarities can be noted, such as those in traditional collaborative activities adopted within the firm (Mode 1) by CEOs with high and medium ICC levels. On the other hand, those that rely on competitive integration (Mode 2) differ significantly from this group, whereby some CEOs adopted high, medium, and low levels of ICCs, and only one CEO (OCL, Canada) relied on ambidexterity-level ICCs (Mode 3). These findings demonstrate a wide range of CEO influences and possible strategies that can be adopted by startups. Given the evidence presented above, the research questions have been answered. Table 5. 1 Summary of Evidence Linking CEOs’ ICCs Modes, Startup Performance, and Years of Operation Case No.: Name Country CEOs’ Integration Collaborative Competencies Modes Overall pattern Traditional Collaborative Mode Sum in Table 4.4 Competitive Integration Mode Sum in Table 4.4 Ambidexterity Mode Sum in Table 4.4 Overall Firm Performance and Survival Years of Operation 1: OCL Canada Ambidexterity 13 High 14 High 11 High 80 8 4: STX Canada Competitive Integration 8 Moderate 17 Very High 6 Low 70.3 10 6: LEN KSA Competitive Integration 12 High 11 High 7 Moderate 60 2 2: HMS Canada Traditional collaborative 11 High 6 Low 1 Very Low 59.6 3 5: HMK KSA Competitive Integration 7 Moderate 8 Moderate 2 Very Low 48 3 3: HSO Canada Traditional collaborative 11 High 9 Moderate 4 Low 41 1 7: MLH KSA Traditional collaborative 9 Moderate 6 Low 1 Very Low 32 1 Very High = 15─17 occurrences, High = 11─14 occurrences, Moderate = 7─10 occurrences, Low = 3─6 occurrences, Very Low = 0─2 occurrences. Overall performance: 80─100 = Very Good, 60─79 = Good, 40─59 = Acceptable, 20─39 = Poor, 0─19 = Very Poor. 106 However, the influence of the CEO perceived ICCs on startup performance and survival is also dependent on the years of operation. The startups that have been operational for longer (OCL, Canada, and STX, Canada) have been shown to rely on competitive integration processes more than on traditional collaborative processes. In contrast, CEOs of some more recently established startups that successfully balanced ICC processes internally and externally (HMK, KSA, and HSO, Canada) focused on ambidexterity more than CEOs that did not achieve such a balance (HMS, Canada, and MLH, KSA). This finding suggests that CEOs need ambidexterity in the early stages of operating their business to adapt to the dynamic markets and changing digital economies. However, higher level of integration in ICC processes and routines is essential for long-term startup survival. The results yielded by the present study further indicate that certain cultural settings may have an impact on the emergence of ICCs in startups. Although the culture in Kelowna, Canada, differs considerably from that in Riyadh, KSA, no differences between the CEOs’ ICCs and the emergence of the three modes of competitive performance were found between Canadian and KSA cases. Nonetheless, CEOs working in KSA are more traditional, and tend to rely on well-established market routines, which might not be suitable for the highly dynamic economy that is rapidly emerging at the global level. Hence, going forward, it remains to be established if the traditional management ICCs will be sustainable in disrupted marketplaces and economies. Conversely, Canadian CEOs relied more on collaborative integration and ambidexterity than did their Saudi counterparts. Particularly, the startup setting was found to affect ambidexterity, which was much more developed in the Canadian startups, while being practically nonexistent in the KSA cases. 107 5.2 A Winning Combination: The Importance of All Three CEOs’ ICC The current findings indicate that the highest-performing startups (OCL, Canada) have CEOs that effectively combine traditional ICCs (Mode 1), with competitive integration (Mode 2), and ambidexterity (Mode 3). Indeed, startups’ CEOs needed traditional collaborative competencies (externally oriented management), integration competencies (internally oriented development), and ambidexterity competencies (balancing exploration with exploitation) in order to achieve optimal results and sustain their success. Finding the right combination of all three modes (i.e., OCL, Canada) seems to allow startup to survive in the long term. Thus, it can be said that the CEOs who have highly developed competencies in all three ICC modes have found a winning combination. Consequently, it can be argued that a mixture of these CEOs’ competencies is an essential startup-specific capability. This adds to the body of research in which the concepts of collaboration and integration are considered jointly as interrelated capabilities. For example, recent RBV-based research on the role of human resources in creating competitive advantage (Zahra, 2021) highlights the CEOs’ ability to collaborate and integrate as a combined capability that can create such advantage for startups. However, such benefits cannot be attained solely through the selection and evaluation process, but rather require a dynamic interaction with internal and external human resources, as this helps develop heterogeneity among startups and in particular the effect of contextual variables in these resources. CEOs may work with people, create experience, and build long-term relationships, which necessitates internal alignment and better integration, which would generate further advantages. This research also contributes to the recent dynamic capabilities literature, as it primarily focuses on the role of external environment in supporting these internal resources and emphasizes 108 strategies that should be adopted to deal with uncertainties in the external environment (Teece & Leih, 2016). CEOs thus need to develop the competencies needed for startups to succeed in uncertain environments. Although CEOs need to adapt and adjust to external environment by integrating internally and attracting collaboration externally, they must also develop the capability to reconfigure. In some cases, CEOs may need to change their entire business model, rebuild their business, and develop new products and services in order to respond to the demands and challenges imposed by the uncertain environment. CEOs’ ICCs also contribute to the better understanding of the complexities of open innovation, such as crowdfunding or coopetition (Bogers et al., 2018). Startups CEOs may share resources and exchange knowledge and skills with external partners to improve efficiency and reduce costs. CEOs may manage these joint concepts through formal and informal networking by participating in community and customer co-creation initiatives, which requires coordination of internal and external processes. To fully capitalize on the advantages of two sides of this network, CEOs need to focus on both processes. In a complementary way, authors of extant ambidexterity studies appear to have adopted three key approaches, namely a sequential, structural and contextual approach, which resulted in different levels of analysis. While sequential and structural approaches are more focused, the exploitation and exploration at the firm level must be linked to the individual level. Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004, p. 209) defined contextual ambidexterity as “the behavioral capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across an entire business unit” (p. 209). Research on contextual ambidexterity, on the other hand, tends to focus on individuals and their role in balancing the alignment and adaptability in their daily activities within the firm. According to O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) however, for contextual ambidexterity to be effective, it is 109 necessary for “senior managers to provide the resources and legitimacy for the new technology or business model” (p. 329). Still, it must be recognized that the influence of management is less important in large firms than in smaller ones, where top managers are more accessible and frequently interact with others (Carter, 2015). Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) are also of view that a context characterized by a combination of stretch, discipline, and trust are not substitutable, and all must be present in order to facilitates alignment and adoptability as collaboration cannot compensate for the lack of integration because strong ties complement bridging ties, which in turn provide access to diverse capabilities, and strong ties help integrate them to make an innovation alliance (Tiwana, 2008). This study has increased the current understanding of the dynamics of internal and external processes in the startup context, and its findings confirm that CEOs should focus on both collaboration and integration in order to balance alignment and adoptability processes in the startup context. Further, in terms of startup-specific capabilities, the CEOs’ ICC model developed in this study resembles that proposed by Müller et al. (2019) who proposed a portfolio of competencies that can affect ambidextrous behavior in the startup context. This study extends the work conducted by these authors by elucidating how startups’ CEOs integrate competencies as portfolios of detailed behavioral qualities to enhance their firms’ performance and ensure survival. The results yielded by the present study indicate that a right combination and balance of these behavioral competencies at the internal and external level is essential for creating startup-specific ICCs, including ambidexterity capability. The present study also answers the call for more research on the potential for individuals to excel at both exploitation and exploration due to their different personalities and preferences 110 (Gupta et al., 2006) which is directly linked to CEO ambidexterity competencies. While some authors focused on structural separation (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), others examined different combinations of competencies (Müller et al., 2019). However, as these investigations are not particularly detailed, they are augmented by the current study findings, which revealed that startups can achieve ambidexterity capability through a combination of three CEOs’ ICCs modes (as shown in Figure 5.1). The analyses further reveal that this necessitates acquisition of knowledge and skills in order to build and integrate competencies, as well as reconfiguration of these competencies by balancing the (build competencies) collaboration (exploration) and the (integrate competencies) integration (exploitation). The competencies needed to develop traditional collaboration ICCs (Mode 1) rely on iterative learning processes to leverage the collaboration routines with opportunities in external environments to achieve mutually beneficial knowledge and facilitate common competence sharing. The collaborative integration competencies required to integrate internal organizational processes (Mode 2) include iterative learning processes and activities aimed at combining existing knowledge and focusing on leveraging on the startup’s existing strengths to create complementary skills. Finally, the competencies required to reconfigure ambidextrous ICCs (Mode 3) rely on learning processes and routines that allow CEOs to overcome the conflicting nature of Mode 1 and Mode 2 by rebuilding and reintegrating the core competencies and competitive advantages. Hence, startups’ CEOs need to enact a mixture of all three ICC modes in order to succeed in business in the long term. 111 Figure 5. 1 Startup’ CEOs’ ICCs ─ Emergent conceptual model with startup performance and growth 5.3 Discussion on the Ambidexterity ICCs The findings yielded by the present study align with those reported in pertinent literature focusing on the nature of the explorative and exploitative activities CEOs perform. Several authors have discussed ambidextrous strategic orientation (e.g., Lubatkin et al., 2006; Volery et al., 2015) which focuses on the role of the top management in the behavioral integration aimed at facilitating ambidexterity within SMEs. Moreover, Carter (2015) deconstructed ambidexterity from managerial capabilities and depicted it as zero-, first- and second-order ambidexterity levels that are interrelated in a system for sustaining ambidexterity over time. This view is advanced in this research by providing a more explicit examination of startup-specific capabilities, which are classified under three interrelated CEOs’ ICCs modes. More recently, Müller et al. (2019) investigated how startups manage ambidexterity when pursuing innovation. The present study Startups -Specific CapabilitypartnersThird party Complementors Customers Competitors SuppliersInternal Activities Teece et. al (1997)External Activities(Chesbrough, 2003a)Startups EcosystemsCEO Behavior & Skills Integrate internally CEOs ICCs Organizational ProcessBuild with externals Learning & Routines •Competitive IntegrationReconfigure•Ambidexterity•Traditional CollaborativeCEOs Perceptions of StartupsPerformance& Survival112 contributes to this body of knowledge by identifying startup CEOs’ competencies and linking these to startup-level competitive advantage. In their study involving seven startups, Müller et al. (2019) demonstrated the value of having access to eight key competencies at the executive (CEO), team, and ecosystem levels in order to execute both explorative and exploitative processes and achieve ambidexterity. Although Müller et al. (2019) studied behavioral capabilities in startups that led to ambidexterity, they provided no evidence suggesting that these capabilities led to successful startup performance and survival. In addition, their theoretical explanation for how behavioral capability influences ambidexterity is underdeveloped. Consistent with the work of O’Reilly and Tushman (2011) that connected firm ambidexterity to the core dynamic capabilities and linked ambidextrous strategic management to firm performance, the present study illustrates how multiple CEOs’ competencies can affect startup performance and survival. The current findings further reveal that startups’ CEOs need ambidextrous competencies early in the company operation, which requires more than traditional organizational decisions and should include some ambidextrous processes that are integrated in a value-enhancing way. The present study findings are also consistent with those obtained in other ambidexterity studies in which perceptual measures (e.g., CEO evaluation of performance) are used for assessing company performance and survival. For example, Lubatkin et al. (2006) relied on CEOs’ evaluations in determining SME performance because objective data on the financial performance are rarely available. Other authors that adopted objective measures (e.g., growth) included items such as growth in sales, growth in market (Lubatkin et al., 2006; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011) and new products launched in recent years (Volery et al., 2015). In this respect, the current study findings related to the traditional collaborative pattern extend the results reported by Volery et al. (2015), indicating that entrepreneurs need to examine 113 their everyday competencies from both exploration and exploitation perspective to achieve ambidexterity. When startups’ CEOs are overly reliant on the traditional collaborative mode (Mode 1), they focus on learning processes, managing day-to-day business, and ensuring the ongoing running of the business. Müller et al. (2019), for example, noted that CEOs who learn from external environment are actively searching for insight and input from others (e.g., business orchestration, networking). In Mode 1, CEOs build traditional collaboration competencies through iterative learning processes to leverage the collaboration capability which only achieves short-term strategic results that can be burdensome for the CEO and startup’s human capital. Consistent with the findings reported by Volery et al. (2015), traditional collaborative CEOs’ ICCs, defined in the present study as Mode 1, require the CEOs to play multiple strategic roles in order for their startups to survive. As they learn common business activities and routines, they build commonalities with others in partnerships and networks that constrain both startups and CEOs. Although these competencies may reduce cost and time, or improve value in the short term, the potential drawbacks include losing identity, risk of being easily displaced by fast followers, and falling behind the market trends in the long term. The Mode 1 traditional competencies will therefore not be sufficient for startups during disruptive economic times because CEOs lack that solid strategic basis to enable them to choose the steps that need to be taken for recovery in the increasingly dynamic marketplace, or to identify and adopt the right evolution paths for the firm. Compared to the traditional collaborative mode, the startups that exhibit high degree of competitive integration (STX, Canada, LEN, KSA, and HMK, KSA), denoted here as Mode 2, compete by developing specific capabilities. Their CEOs spend time, money, and effort on building a solid internal base of integrative competencies and skills. These Mode 2 competitive integration patterns extend some of CEO key competencies proposed by Müller et al. (2019), such 114 as digital product development and commercialization, which the CEOs, through their learning processes render more focused on strengthening the internal existing knowledge and competencies. This research thus extends the work conducted by Müller and colleagues by providing qualitative evidence in support of the value of bottom-up integration learning processes for startups success. Specifically, current analyses revealed that Mode 2 must be focused on the quality of the learning processes, as well as on the quality of integration. Further, the current research emphasizes that CEOs that adopt Mode 2 are less involved in the external environment, which exposes them to threats from their competitors. However, the current findings are aligned with the view put forth by Parida et al. (2016), who noted that creating an integration mindset within the firm can be a challenge for CEOs. Although these Mode 2 competitive integration competencies allow CEOs to build solid startups’ capabilities, they must strive to be inimitable to attain stronger strategic advantage. However, they cannot see what opportunities exist within their target ecosystems because they are primarily focused inward. As they are less focused on leveraging competencies in partnerships or networking, they cannot detect upcoming opportunities within the ecosystems and may lose out to their competitors. The current study findings are also consistent with the results reported in the existing ambidexterity literature in which the need for strategies aimed at exceling at both exploitation and exploration is highlighted, and the steps needed to achieve ambidexterity by arranging internal and external resources are proposed (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Lubatkin et al., 2006). The CEOs that wish to develop ambidextrous ICCs (Mode 3) must overcome the conflicts between internal and external environment and balance the benefits of both Mode 1 and Mode 2. This includes integrating existing knowledge to fully capitalize on the startups’ existing strengths. Although Müller et al. (2019) identified a portfolio of competencies that startups’ CEOs need at the 115 individual level in order to achieve organizational ambidexterity, the present study augments these findings by identifying CEOs’ ambidexterity competencies and linking these to startup-level competitive advantages. The findings further reveal how startups’ CEOs may exhibit ICCs in three modes and show the different competencies CEOs require in each mode. The existing strategic management literature has focused on the effect of ecosystems on entrepreneurs and startups (an outside-in perspective) through culture of a shared learning environment, the social dimensions of entrepreneurial networks, culture and language skills, community logic, informal communication networks, etc. (Allen et al., 2016; Ferguson et al., 2016; Gray & Jones, 2016). Consequently, this study broadens the current understanding of CEOs’ ICCs and their influence on the external ecosystem (an inside-out perspective), thus addressing the gap in pertinent literature. The CEO ambidexterity ICCs exhibited externally represent a new contribution to the knowledge on this phenomenon. Although Müller et al. (2019) suggested that ecosystem can be an equally important contributing factor in achieving organizational ambidexterity, the CEOs’ competencies exhibited in the external environment were not their focus, and this omission was addressed in this work by focusing on CEOs’ behavioral patterns. However, Müller et al.’s (2019) findings also support the results reported by Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) which accentuate the importance of the elements of stretch, trust, and support in achieving ambidexterity in startups, which tend to rely on a facilitating ecosystem as well as the CEO’s leadership in creating favorable context needed for developing ambidexterity. As explained by Müller et al. (2019), “The CEO may nurture such a context by enacting the empowerment competency” (p. 293). Therefore, this study emphasizes that the CEO-led competencies are in fact important behavioral factors that should be given equal weight as the ecosystem factors (e.g., culture, network, etc.) 116 In addition, the findings related to the CEOs’ ambidexterity ICCs contribute to transformational leadership studies. They are in line with the Hensel and Visser’s (2018) assertion that personality traits and personal values are key transformational leadership qualities in small self-directed teams. However, this study further establishes the importance of linking the CEOs’ traits and personal values to their transformational leadership competences as one of CEO ambidexterity ICCs with specific behavioral patterns. In other words, what CEOs do is just as important as who they are (personality traits and personal values). This study reveals that startups’ CEOs execute explorative and exploitative learning processes to develop transformational leadership competencies, which enables them to attain startup-specific capabilities. 5.4 Theoretical Implications The present study offers some implications for research in the strategic management field and specifically for the theory of dynamic capabilities. The study findings add to the dynamic capability literature (Teece et al., 1997; Teece & Pisano, 1994) because they emphasize the external ecosystem path dependencies of startups, as well as CEOs’ internal and external capabilities. Most studies in this field are conceptual and their authors are of view that dynamic capabilities lack empirical grounding (e.g., Grant & Verona, 2015; Laaksonen & Peltoniemi, 2016; Williamson, 1999, as cited in Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). However, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) argued that dynamic capabilities as specific processes are supported by empirical research focusing on management’s applicability. Still, in their view, “observing superior performance and then attributing that performance to whatever unique resources the firm appears to possess, the theory becomes tautological” (p. 1108). Therefore, this research redefines dynamic capabilities in startups in terms of specific learning processes and routines linked to CEOs’ perceptions of startups’ performance and survival. Focus was given to CEOs’ activities and their organizational processes, 117 which were defined and measured independently of firm performance. Firm performance and survival are thus measured based on the CEOs' perceptions of startup growth and their satisfaction with the startup performance. Whereas in previous literature these phenomena were linked to the ambidextrous strategic orientation of the firm(Kuckertz, Kohtamäki, & Droege gen. Körber, 2010), in this study, CEOs’ behavioral ICCs were shown to effect ambidextrous capability in startups, which may be linked to CEOs’ perceptions of startup performance. In addition, the current research strengthens the theoretical foundation of the RBV (Barney, 1991) while elucidating the nature and effects of CEO-level competencies. In particular, the study sheds light on the way integration and collaboration of CEOs’ competencies can be attained and outlines their relationship with the capability development in the context of startup, while providing examples from startup-specific practices that can be rare. Specifically, it demonstrates that behavioral capabilities at the CEO level are crucial for attaining a successful collaboration capability at the firm level. In this conceptualization, CEOs’ human capital is linked to firm-level capabilities, which strengthens the RBV notion that firms’ performance is determined by their resources, as CEOs’ ICCs can also be seen as core startups’ resources, as well as the key determinant of firm performance. This study also provides empirical grounding to the open innovation literature (Chesbrough, 2003) focusing on startups, and more specifically to the open service innovation research (Chesbrough, 2010) on the organizational process aimed at internal and external integration and collaboration in startups’ ecosystems focusing on services. As markets are increasingly services oriented, startups’ founders and CEOs need to develop collaborative capabilities and this study is a valuable step in that direction. 118 To conclude, the main contribution of this study stems from the operationalization and measurement methods that can be used to assess dynamic capabilities at the individual level. Because the current investigation draws on the framework developed by Teece and Pisano (1994) and Teece et al. (1997) in defining and analyzing the three CEOs’ ICCs modes, it offers new concepts and measures for dynamic capability at an individual CEO level which links CEOs’ perception of startups’ performance and survival. As the capability measurement needs to be linked to more subjective performance measures (Laaksonen & Peltoniemi, 2018), the present study contribute new CEOs’ organizational processes that are linked to CEOs’ perceptions to improve their startups performance. In particular, the work presented here highlights the CEOs’ integrative collaborative competencies as essential for the startup survival in terms of CEOs’ behavioral activities and not just who they are and what resources they command. For example, the concept of CEOs ambidexterity—the behavioral orientation of CEOs for combining exploitation and exploration, collaboration and integration activities within the startup and in the external environment, such as processes related to strategic external alignments, and co-experience gained through external collaborations, and transformational leadership with partners. All these qualities are linked to CEOs' positive perceptions of startups performance in terms of ability to grow and survive in business. To attain these benefits, CEOs need to perform a wide range of activities, such as external collaborations needed for building the startups, and execute strategies in sales, marketing, or financing. They must also focus on the internal integration processes, the embedded processes and R&D competencies, as this will enhance the startups’ dynamic capability, which is linked to different CEOs' perceptions of startup performance and survival. These measures and concepts of CEOs’ organizational processes and routines are not necessarily rare or inimitable resources, but they are dynamic resources that rely on different 119 combinations of these organizational processes for which CEOs are responsible that cross the startups’ boundaries and integrate in ways that enrich the ecosystem capabilities. Thus, they are startup-specific capabilities and the startup CEOs’ orientations that are harder to replicate in different contexts. 5.5 Practical Implications The present study offers guidance to help startups’ leaders plan their business routines, organizational processes, and their personal behavioral patterns internally and externally, as all three are needed for success. Startup CEOs who face uncertainty or difficulty often forget that solutions could come from the available competencies that they are not fully exploiting. For instance, in the case of OCL, the CEO scored high in ambidexterity as well as in the traditional collaborative and competitive integration modes. He executed a large number of processes as his aim was to cooperate with external partners to build the business, which included regular business operations, collaborations to execute joint business strategies, seeking learning opportunities in sales, marketing or finance, building the business model, adding value, or improving outcomes. However, he did not neglect the internal development and he integrated high amount of internal complementary skills, which included developing common interests with the internal team. In that sense, he was exploiting the R&D competency, which allowed him to balance collaboration and integration and to exploit competencies internally and externally. Thus, he primarily relied on the competencies for building co-experience with external partners, but also leveraged traditional collaboration opportunities for more than learning purposes but giving back to partners, and exhibited transformational leadership that inspired partners, and built experiences of a win-win culture with partners so not always competing. 120 On the other hand, many of the CEOs who scored low on the ambidexterity scale tended to devote their time and effort to traditional collaborations as a means of operating or expanding the business, or focused more on internal development while neglecting alignment of external relationships and opportunities. For example, LEN’s CEO scored moderately on the ambidexterity scale, as he primarily focused and do more activities of external collaboration without making adequate use of external networks that build co-experience. Although he scored highly on the internal integration competencies, such as co-adaptiveness and co-perseverance with internal teams, he did not develop and stretch these competencies to reach external partners in order to jointly search for solutions. He thus needs more strategic alignment of advantages to help external partners to move forward, which will result in long-term advantages for all involved. The STX case demonstrates that, when the CEOs focus on internal learning as a way to get to the next wave of competence building, this results in adequate competitive integration but is insufficient to achieve ambidexterity in aligning with external markets. This particular CEO was risking a lot in this process because it is hard to adapt internal competencies later. CEOs need a high level of complementary skills that are embedded not only internally, they also required higher changes to be configured for startups in order for startups to remain productive in critical times, and this sometimes requires rebuilding the business with external focus. Therefore, STX’s CEO needs to engage more in external collaboration to ensure that these complementary skills are integrated in the market and should more actively explore opportunities while developing these skills with external partners. By learning how to identify and prioritize between internal and external competencies, CEOs develop behavioral patterns that lead to better firm performance. In order to attain strategic gains, CEOs should rely on collaboration and integration within organizational processes, which are their inherent behavioral abilities. 121 Although some CEOs achieved high to moderate scores on the traditional collaborative scale where they collaborate to improve (1) marketing efficiency (e.g., increase awareness, attract customers), (2) financial management, which concerns collaboration to ensure cash flow and financial performance (e.g., grow sales and reduce cost), (3) initial R&D, which concerns collaboration processes to learn about products/services or identify problems and find solutions (e.g., hiring and execute training), and (4) networking, which pertains to collaboration processes to learn market and competitors, they are doing the basics of business in order to be in business. For example, HMS's CEO scored high on the traditional collaborative scale, but focused solely on these business competencies (e.g., acquiring activities), which is not enough in the long term, as the CEO needs to strengthen his internal behavioral capabilities as well. In contrast, OCL’s CEO and STX’s CEO strive to learn from all collaboration processes,(1) and integrating complementary unique skills, such as exploiting modeling and design skills associated with “visualizing” or envisioning competency, (2) develop common interests with their teams, such as exploiting R&D competency to achieve higher level of integration, which entails the ability to appreciate joint decision making and joint problem solving, (3) find missing skills to ensure the capability to execute any task and get things done, which necessitates collaborating and integrating with team members and filling gaps in the skills the team possesses, and (4) focus on embedded processes that increase trust and transparency within the team by exhibiting honesty and compassion, and by being dedicated to open information sharing. These internal integration processes, when accompanied by traditional collaborative competencies, will result in a high degree of adaptability and perseverance by both the CEO and the internal teams. However, a higher score on the traditional collaborative scale may help CEOs to manage and learn to execute business fundamentals, but they are still at risk of external market changes. Hence, they need to strengthen 122 their internal organizational processes and resources to make them adaptable to external market changes. Moreover, when CEOs’ external influence is limited, they miss opportunities that ecosystems offer and they do not realize that external collaborative processes could help them detect the next opportunity. CEOs should ambidextrously balance collaboration and integration externally and internally and reconfigure learning processes with relevant organizations or individuals within the ecosystem to pursue new and strengthen the existing competencies in collaboration with other partners. The CEOs who manage organizational processes more ambidextrously tend to successfully balance these processes both internally and externally, adopt transformational leadership style may inspire others, build experience, share behavioral culture with others, motivate others, and create enthusiasm in others to be productive both individually and as a team. They are also capable of aligning and strengthening unique internal skills while searching for competitive capabilities externally. In other words, CEOs should not only focus on their teams or partnerships, but should also exploit the entire ecosystem for their startup survival. In sum, CEOs must attend to both internal and external elements and these CEOs exhibit startup-specific ICCs behaviors. The three CEO ICC modes identified in this work may benefit a wide range of startup ecosystem actors, including CEOs, entrepreneurs, mentors, universities, and communities, all of which play roles in attaining the optimal results from each mode. 123 Chapter 6: Conclusion This investigation builds on the extant research on dynamic capability and offers a contribution to that body literature by shedding light on the individual CEO-level startup dynamic capabilities affecting these processes, denoted in this work as startup CEOs’ Integration Collaboration Competencies (startup CEOs’ ICCs). Individual CEO-level organizational processes in the startups creations stage play an important role in the dynamic capability of startups measures and concepts, which was a gap identified in the literature. By drawing upon case studies pertaining to seven small startups in two cities—Kelowna, Canada, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia—a detailed framework of CEOs’ ICCs dynamic capabilities in startups was developed by investigating the startup CEOs’ ICCs. Available evidence suggests that external collaboration processes that CEOs needed for building the startups, and execute strategies in sales, marketing, or financing, influence the competencies CEOs exhibit internally within the startup, such as integrating complementary unique skills or exploiting R&D competencies, and also the vice versa. CEOs require integration competencies to attain successful collaboration and grow their company that may benefit the marketplace. This also suggests that, for the best CEOs perceptions of startups performance and survival in the creation stage, CEOs must collaborate with external parties within their ecosystem, and simultaneously integrate key competencies internally, which requires balancing the internal integration and external collaboration processes, and thus attaining ambidexterity as a crucial asset for their startups. Three CEOs’ ICCs modes emerged during the qualitative, iterative, theme-based analysis of the seven case studies, and were denoted as: (1) the ambidexterity mode, whereby startup CEOs balance their activities and focus on developing unique organizational processes which are implemented in innovative ways both internally and externally through transformational 124 leadership, strategic alignments, and co-experience; (2) the competitive integration mode, as a part of which startups’ CEOs integrate internal complementary skills, such as interpersonal, problem-solving, decision-making, modeling, design, and analytical skills with internal teams, and use embedded processes to increase trust and transparency within the team, thus relying on honesty, giving, compassion, and open information sharing; and (3) the traditional collaboration mode, whereby startup CEOs collaborate to build foundational business activities, such as adding value and building products and services with external partners. As a result of these three modes of CEOs’ ICCs, three levels of startup-specific capability evolved, each of which can be a source of competitive advantage and are linked to CEOs’ perceptions of startups’ performance and survival. Specifically, the study findings revealed that, in the ambidexterity mode, there exist qualitative indicators of higher-order capability of the ambidextrous CEOs’ competencies relating to better CEOs’ perceptions of startup performance in terms ability to growth, and thus longer survival. CEOs that do not balance ICCs processes internally and externally are less capable of developing ambidexterity, but they may still survive in business. These CEOs tend to be primarily focused on the integration competencies, while overlooking the need for ambidexterity, which undermines CEOs perceptions of startup performance. Hence, for the best outcomes, startups’ CEOs need the ambidexterity competencies to improve their firm’s performance though both internally and externally oriented actions. As such, the results reported in this work complement the view of dynamic capabilities in large organizations, which are classified by Birkinshaw et al. (2016) under three categories (sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring), while indicating that startups’ CEOs must also be able to employ all three modes simultaneously, such as forming ambidexterity, while balancing between collaboration and integration externally and internally. 125 In addition, the study results indicate that startup CEOs’ ICCs depend on the setting, and more specifically on the culture and systems regulating the startups’ ecosystems. With well-established startups’ ecosystems and a more open culture, startups’ CEOs have greater opportunities to acquire more advanced integrative collaborative capabilities inside and outside their organization, which would lead to better performance and greater ambidexterity competencies in the long term. While the present study supplements the theoretical studies focusing on dynamic capabilities in large organizations by providing the individual CEOs’ ICCs framework of dynamic capability in startups in the creation stage, it also complements the extant research in this domain by suggesting that ambidexterity is an integral part of a firm’s dynamic capability (Jurksiene & Pundziene, 2016) as it requires balancing between the internal and external processes, which need to be configured through flexible and efficient collaboration and integration in startups. In sum, the startup CEOs’ ICCs are necessary for startups’ foundation, whereby ambidexterity ICCs are particularly important for their long-term sustainability. Hence, startups’ dynamic capabilities imply that CEOs should adapt or align external and internal processes to address the dynamism of their market, focusing on developing collaboration and integration competencies and creating ambidexterity. 6.1 Limitations of the Study The present study has a number of limitations, many of which suggest further opportunities for future research. One limitation stems from the fact that the proposed CEOs’ ICC framework is unlikely to be comprehensive, as further details are expected to emerge from further research in this domain. It is envisaged that, as additional dimensions of startup CEOs’ capabilities are identified, such as governance and culture influences, the role of CEOs in the startups success will 126 be better understood. In that sense, the proposed framework should serve as a starting point for future research on the dynamic capabilities needed for small startups in creation stage, as well as startup survival and performance. Another limitation relates to the overly narrow study focus, as only CEOs’ perspective was sought during the data collection process, eliciting information specifically related to startups’ dynamic capabilities. Thus, in future studies, it would be beneficial to include input from other individuals, such as startups’ team members or top management teams (TMT). Still, it is important to note that the focus on CEOs’ ICCs is not intended to promote the idea that managers are solely responsible for producing firm-level capacities, but rather to highlight the major roles that individuals (not only CEOs) play in small organizational contexts when orchestrating firm-level capability. In addition, it is important to acknowledge the existence of the methodological limitations of qualitative research. First, the samples in qualitative research are generally small and may thus be considered unrepresentative of the whole population of small startups in the creation stage. Because the aim of qualitative research is to capture the thoughts, motives, beliefs, values, and attitudes of the research participants, the results obtained should be cautiously generalized beyond the studied sample. For example, the research convenience sample involve homogeneous set of all CEOs who are all male, and no CEOs females were in the sample. In addition, this limited sample of men in the in two specific national contexts did not include women and other people who may face challenges due to their social identity. Moreover the sample did not include Individuals from different socio-economic status which may have very limited opportunity to become entrepreneurs and be associated with startups. Therefore, when interpreting the findings reported here, these 127 limitations must be acknowledged and further research is needed to establish if the CEO's ICCs identified in the present study are generalizable to other contexts and populations. The second limitation relates to the methodological rigor of qualitative studies, which are prone to researcher bias. As objective evaluation of information shared by the participants and the interpretation by the researcher is limited, any conclusions reached must be interpreted with caution. For example, to develop a performance measure, CEO perception on startup performance was obtained, which may not be sufficiently quantified for capturing all performance variables, such as those that can be obtained from comprehensive financial reports. In addition, the research sample chosen for this study represents two contrasting startups’ settings, pertaining to Kelowna, Canada, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, respectively. For the Kelowna sample, shadowing data obtained by observing four CEOs was complemented by interviews, while the data related to the Riyadh sample mainly comprised from the information three startups’ CEOs shared during interviews, as shadowing was not conducted in this setting. Consequently, the comparison between the two countries is not based on the same data sources. In addition, influence of culture and governance is hard to capture, as the data on such issues tends to be limited. It is also necessary to acknowledge the limitations imposed by non-response bias, as having a small sample size necessitated exclusion of some startups whose CEOs might have contributed different information from that presented here. There is non-response bias from not choosing some of the startups that are available in the two cities Kelowna and Riyadh. The researcher certainly missed out other startups that in the same set of data chosen in the two cities. Further bias may arise from interviewees’ unwillingness to be fully open in their disclosures, as well as from the bias introduced by the presence of the researcher. Thus, when interpreting the study results, caution needs to be applied, as these are solely based on the 128 statements and perceptions of the startups’ CEOs, which may not necessarily reflect the actual organizational processes in their firms. The study is also subject to the limitations inherent in self-selective and self-reporting data collection methods, and potentially to researcher bias, as the interviews and shadowing were conducted, transcribed, coded, and interpreted by a single researcher, who was also solely responsible for identifying and interpreting meaning units and for their allocation to categories. While this data analysis process may guarantee consistency, the researcher might have unconsciously influenced the results, which would consequently be biased by the subjective nature of this approach. 6.2 Recommendations for Future Research As startups have less complicated organizational systems and fewer governing levels than large established companies, authors of future studies focusing on startups should consider most dominant forces in startup performance and survival. Human dynamic capability and the individual-level capabilities are crucial for startup survival. Therefore, further empirical research is recommended to measure the CEOs’ ICCs as individual-level dynamic capabilities. The present study provides a framework for measures and concepts that can serve as a guide for further empirical research in this area of startup-specific capabilities. A further investigation of these three modes of CEOs’ ICCs identified in this study and the relationship between CEOs’ integration and collaborative competencies internally and externally is important to develop a comprehensive picture of these measures and concepts pertaining to startups’ dynamic capability. Interesting research challenges may arise from multi-level investigations of the suggested internal and external CEOs’ ICC framework. Authors of future studies may, for example, examine multiple levels of internal CEOs’ ICCs (such as those related to the internal teams or co-founders), 129 as well as multiple levels of external CEOs’ ICCs. A multi-level correlation of CEOs’ ICCs might be useful for distinguishing the effects of competencies at the CEO ICC level from their effects on other internal and external team levels. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to elucidate how culture and governance act as mediators or moderators of other CEOs’ ICCs outcomes. Further research is also needed to better understand the contextual differences in startups’ settings, industries, business models, and ecosystems, as the findings yielded are likely to improve upon the current conceptualization of CEOs’ ICCs. Specifically, the level of technology in the startups and the type of products or services they provide may influence the adaptation and alignment processes adopted by the CEOs. According to the current research findings, CEOs of a higher tech startups tend to have better developed adaptation competencies, and are more likely to implement internal integration. Similarly, CEOs of service-based startups tend to focus on alignment processes, and are more likely to achieve a right balance between internal and external competencies than those leading product-based startups. For example, in service-based industries, shifting the strategy direction between integration and collaboration internally and externally may be easier than in product-based sectors. Similarly, CEOs of high-tech startups tend to focus on one strategy direction, such as integration internally, as they are typically more concerned with in-house technology development and may not seek opportunities for collaboration with external partners. Therefore, it would be beneficial to examine how different startup’s technology levels effect CEOs’ ICCs. Extensions of the present study to other cities in the same geographic contexts might also reveal whether the startup’s setting really supports the identified CEOs’ ICC activities. It could be a milestone for undertaking such research in different cities in the two countries, Canada and Saudi Arabia. 130 In addition, future studies may explore the association between CEOs’ identity (e.g., race, gender), or CEOs status (e.g., position in a social class, clubs, political organizations), with the emergence of ambidexterity competencies. For example, as social interactions of CEOs with in-group members (e.g., persons of the same race or gender) may be more extensive than their interactions with out-group members, it would be valuable to examine if ambidextrous CEOs varied as a function of CEOs identity differences The integration collaborative competencies could also be different in CEOs that belong to a higher social class and their perceptions of business success and customer satisfaction may stem from these differences in their social identity or status relative to customers and partners. Therefore, it is important to explore the role of social identity and social status in the emergence of CEO ICCs. Finally, the role of ambidexterity-oriented leadership within startups’ dynamic capabilities requires further exploration. Although transformational leadership has emerged in this research as a critical competency for developing ambidextrous ICCs, it would be beneficial to determine the boundaries and conditions of different dynamic capability categories. The cross-cultural leadership style may be easier to develop and adopt in Kelowna, Canada, than in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where work opportunities for foreigners are relatively limited. It is also likely that cultural differences will impact the CEOs’ ability to influence and motivate others and achieve good performance. These aspects should be examined in future studies, as it is important to determine the role of culture in the development of ambidexterity competencies. For example, the presence of transformational leadership of ambidextrous CEOs could impact the CEOs culture in Kelowna, which is consider within the western culture which characterized by lower power distance than in Riyadh as eastern culture, and group members expect power to be shared equally to unite individuals around a common goal. On the other hand, due to the collectivist culture in Riyadh, 131 leaders encourage group work, which could impact the emergence of collaboration and integration competencies of CEOs, as some CEOs’ competencies are culturally dependent. In sum, the similarities as well as differences across cultures may emphasize some modes of CEOs’ ICCs more than others. 132 Bibliography Allen, T. J., Gloor, P. A., Fronzetti Colladon, A., Woerner, S. L., & Raz, O. (2016). The power of reciprocal knowledge sharing relationships for startup success. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(3), 636–651. Alsaeed, A. (2020, June 27). Do you recommend I give up my stake in my startup to investor? [Tweet]. Twitter. Https://Twitter.Com/Azizmh90/Status/1276842170650148871?S=12. Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization Science, 20(2), 410–421. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. In Journal of Management ~ (Vol. 17, Issue 1). Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). AltaMira Press. Bogers, M., Foss, N. J., & Lyngsie, J. (2018). The “human side” of open innovation: The role of employee diversity in firm-level openness. Research Policy, 47(1), 218−231. Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. J. (2019). Strategic management of open innovation: A dynamic capabilities perspective. California Management Review, 62(1), 77–94. Carter, W. R. (2015). Ambidexterity deconstructed: A hierarchy of capabilities perspective. Management Research Review, 38(8), 794–812. Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Management, 46(6), 965–1001. 133 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage. Chen, H., Daugherty, P. J., & Landry, T. D. (2009). SUPPLY CHAIN PROCESS INTEGRATION: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. Journal of Business Logistics, 30(2), 27–46. Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2), 119–150. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, 400, 0–19. Chesbrough, H. (2010). Open services innovation: Rethinking your business to grow and compete in a new era. John Wiley & Sons. Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open innovation: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20–27. Chesbrough, H. (2017). The future of open innovation: The future of open innovation is more extensive, more collaborative, and more engaged with a wider variety of participants. Research-Technology Management, 60(1), 35–38. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press on Demand. Clough, D. R., Fang, T. P., Bala Vissa, B., & Wu, A. (2019). Turning lead into gold: How do entrepreneurs mobilize resources to exploit opportunities? Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 240–271. 134 Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208. Davis, J. P. (2016). The Group Dynamics of Interorganizational Relationships: Collaborating with Multiple Partners in Innovation Ecosystems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4), 621–661. de Groote, J. K., & Backmann, J. (2020). Initiating Open Innovation Collaborations between Incumbents and Startups: How Can David and Goliath Get Along? International Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2). DeSantola, A., & Gulati, R. (2017). Scaling: Organizing and growth in entrepreneurial ventures. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 640−668. Durugbo, C. (2016). Collaborative networks: A systematic review and multi-level framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(12), 3749–3776. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. In Source: The Academy of Management Review (Vol. 14, Issue 4). Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. Fawcett, S. E., Magnan, G. M., & Mccarter, M. W. (2008). a Three-Stage Implementation Model for Supply Chain Collaboration. In Journal Of Business Logistics (Vol. 29, Issue 1). Ferguson, R., Schattke, K., & Paulin, M. (2016). The social context for value co-creations in an entrepreneurial network: Influence of interpersonal attraction, relational norms and partner 135 trustworthiness. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 22(2), 199–214. Ferrary, M., & Granovetter, M. (2009). The role of venture capital firms in Silicon Valley’s complex innovation network. Economy and Society, 38(2), 326–359. Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 58–71. García-Villaverde, PM, Parra-Requena, G and Molina-Morales, FX (2018). Structural social capital and knowledge acquisition: Implications of cluster membership. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(5−6), 530−561. Gazley, B. (2017). The Current State of Interorganizational Collaboration: Lessons for Human Service Research and Management. In Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership and Governance (Vol. 41, Issue 1, pp. 1–5). Routledge. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Source: The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. Grant, M., & James, M. (2020, November 7). Startup. Investopedia. Grant, R. M., & Verona, G. (2015). What’s holding back empirical research into organizational capabilities? Remedies for common problems. Strategic Organization, 13(1), 61−74. Gray, D., & Jones, K. F. (2016). Using organisational development and learning methods to develop resilience for sustainable futures with SMEs and micro businesses: The case of the “business alliance.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(2), 474–494. 136 Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The Two Facets of Collaboration: Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Alliances. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 531–583. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. Hensel, R., & Visser, R. (2018). Shared leadership in entrepreneurial teams: the impact of personality. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 24(6), 1104–1119. Hughes, M., Morgan, R. E., Ireland, R. D., & Hughes, P. (2014). Social capital and learning advantages: A problem of absorptive capacity. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(3), 214−233. Jurksiene, L., & Pundziene, A. (2016). The relationship between dynamic capabilities and firm competitive advantage: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. European Business Review. Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. In International Journal of Management Reviews (Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 71–89). Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 528–545. Kuckertz, A., Kohtamäki, M., & Droege gen. Körber, C. (2010). The fast eat the slow–the impact of strategy and innovation timing on the success of technology-oriented ventures. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(1/2), 175–188.Laaksonen, O., & 137 Peltoniemi, M. (2018). The essence of dynamic capabilities and their measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 184−205. Lakshminarasimha, A. (2017). A concept note on the relationship between empowerment, collaboration and selected outcomes in a supply chain. IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, 14(3), 26–48. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1–47. Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration: The Emergence of Proto-Institutions. Source: The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281–290. https://about.jstor.org/terms Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712 Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2015). A Review of Interorganizational Collaboration Dynamics. In Journal of Management (Vol. 41, Issue 5, pp. 1338–1360). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314563399 Mercandetti, F., Larbig, C., Tuozzo, V., & Steiner, T. (2017). Innovation by collaboration between startups and SMEs in Switzerland. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(12). Michalski, M., Montes-Botella, J. L., & Piedra, W. G. (2017). Can asymmetry impact performance, collaboration & integration? An empirical study. International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(4), 939–963. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-03-2016-0084 138 Mueller, S., Volery, T., & von Siemens, B. (2012). What do entrepreneurs actually do? An observational study of entrepreneurs’ everyday behavior in the start–up and growth stages. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 995–1017. Müller, S. D., Påske, N., & Rodil, L. (2019). Managing ambidexterity in startups pursuing digital innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44(1), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04418 Neyens, I., Faems, D., & Sels, L. (2010). The impact of continuous and discontinuous alliance strategies on startup innovation performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4), 392–410. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers explore and exploit. In CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW (Vol. 53, Issue 4). O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. Packard, M. D., Clark, B. B., Klein, P. G. (2017). Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process. Organization Science, 28(5), 840−856. Pervan, G., & Maimbo, M. (2005). Designing a case study protocol for application in IS research. Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 1281–1292. Porter, M. E. (1989). How competitive forces shape strategy. In Readings in strategic management (pp. 133–143). Springer.Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243−263. 139 Soetanto, D., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2015). Getting the right balance: University networks’ influence on spin-offs’ attraction of funding for innovation. Technovation, 36, 26–38. Spender, J. C., Corvello, V., Grimaldi, M., & Rippa, P. (2017). Startups and open innovation: a review of the literature. In European Journal of Innovation Management (Vol. 20, Issue 1, pp. 4–30). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation, and innovation Organizational arrangements for. regimes of rapid technological progress. In Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (Vol. 18). Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic Capabilities: Routines versus Entrepreneurial Action. In Journal of Management Studies (Vol. 49, Issue 8, pp. 1395–1401). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01080.x Teece, D. J. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. European Economic Review, 86, 202–216. Teece, D., & Leih, S. (2016). Uncertainty, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: An introduction. California Management Review, 58(4), 5−12. Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272. Tsanos, C. S., Zografos, K. G., & Harrison, A. (2014). Developing a conceptual model for examining the supply chain relationships between behavioural antecedents of collaboration, 140 integration and performance. International Journal of Logistics Management, 25(3), 418–462. Volery, T., Mueller, S., & von Siemens, B. (2015). Entrepreneur ambidexterity: A study of entrepreneur behaviours and competencies in growth-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 33(2), 109–129. Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with startups to enhance corporate innovation. California Management Review, 57(2), 66–90. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods: Vol. 5;5.; (2nd ed.). Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods: Vol. 5;5.; (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford publications. Zahra, S. A. (2021). International entrepreneurship in the post-COVID world. Journal of World Business, 56(1), 101−143. Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381−404. 141 Appendices Appendix A: Interview Guides A. Initial Interview Guide (Feb 2019 ) Construct Questions o Demographic Questions o What is your experience? o What is the highest level of education that you have completed? o What is your nationality? o What is your background culture? o How old is your company? o How many people are working in your company? o Management Team o Describe who is in your team? Probe for: the names and role of the management team o Technical and functional skills o Tell me what functions your team performing including yourself? and what technical skills you all have? Probe for: technical and functional skills o Strategic Orientation: o Tell me how do you determine your company current and future strategic direction? o How does your teams meets these strategic goals for the market conditions? o What is the basis of its unique advantage? Probe for: Specific strategic goals, market condition, business model and unique advantage. o Change Management o Tell me about the market place is there are changes in the market since you start? probe for: new tech, new platforms, way of communication. Opportunities. o How do you react? How do you ensure that business changes are implemented? o Does your team have influence or help in this? Probe for: managerial style, task-oriented, risk-taking, and hiring and promotion decisions etc. o Marketing o How does your team assess potential new market? o How does your team build relationship in new market? o How does your team set up new distribution channels? Probe for: marketing strategies or methods. o R&D o How does your team learn about new technologies? o How does your team assess the feasibility of new technologies? o How does your team identify new types of services or production processes? Probe for : any research or development activities 142 o Internal Team collaboration integration competencies o How does your team integrate and collaborate for strategic choice? o How does your team configure and implement change within team? o How does your team accomplish tasks activities? o How does your team get along with each other? what are their attitude? o How does your team exchange idea and solutions within the team? o What is your team good and not good at? Probe for: long term planning, adaptiveness, resilience, transparency. o External Team competencies o How about the external examples in these questions? o How does you integrate and collaborate in team outside your company? o How does you configure and implement change through external events? o How does you get along with other teams in other firms? o How does you exchange idea and solutions within team in external events? Probe for: long term planning, adaptiveness, resilience, transparency external to the startup. o Culture o How does culture get created in your startup? o How easy or difficult to change your culture o How does your national culture influence inside and outside your startup? Probe for: type of organizational culture and national culture qualities B. Interview Guide last version (April 2019) 143 144 Appendix B: Within-Case Coding Scheme Case 1: OCL, Kelowna, Canada Case 1 Coding and Patterns Quotes (organizational process CEO build) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “tried lots of idea (with teams)" learning within internal team by trying Trying idea internally Team collaboration internally 1 “Learned a lot about agency style delivered services business model” Learn about delivering service internally within team delivering service internally within team Team collaboration internally 2 Quotes (organizational process CEO integrate) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “I can see things at a high level” big picture thinking - ability envision Visualization skills Complementary skill 1 “I am good at models, at good visualizing" ability visualizing Model & visualization skills Complementary skill 2 “I am fantastic with design and process” design and process skills Design and analytical skills Complementary skill 3 “I know how to connect process to people” connect process to people connect process to people Complementary skill 4 “I know how to connect within people in good ways, motivate them(people) to work” networking- communication Interpersonal skills Complementary skill 5 “to encourages that collaborative mindset, you have to be very giving" Encourage collaboration by being able to give practice social skills (giving) Embedded trust & transparency 1 “to encourages that collaborative mindset, you have to be very open” Encourage collaboration by being open-mindedness and open to new ideas practice social skills (open-mindedness) Embedded trust & transparency 2 145 “I read quite a lot about these things, I think that shows and how we act and how the brand is perceived because it should always start with compassion” consider the suffering of others and willing to take action to help. practice social skills (compassion) Embedded trust & transparency 3 “I need to be compassionate and empathetic and I practice that all the time that’s why I meditate" consider the suffering of others and willing to take action to help. practice social skills (compassion) Embedded trust & transparency 4 “it’s been very high integrity, very transparent, very honest over the years and people respect myself and the brand of coLab for that reason” practice social skills to encourage integrity, trust, honest and transparent practice social skills to encourage integrity, trust, honest and transparent Embedded trust & transparency 5 Quotes (organizational process CEO reconfigure) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “the reason that I do the exchange or trade benefits in the animators’ team that I don’t believe it is just for the six months’ membership without having other things for them or solving other problems for them will be relevant” positive influence with collaboration co-inspirational Transformational leadership 1 “I’m inspired by them and they give me a lot of energy to press forward for that vision” enthusiasm and create shared vision co-inspirational Transformational leadership 2 “I want to be part of startups stories” See mutual value with startups Create shared vision Transformational leadership 3 Quotes (organizational process CEO preformed externally) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts " investing to make the members happy" Invest in customer experience Build and improve services with external collaboration Add value and grow sales 1 146 “creating experiences for others to reach their professional lives” create customer experience Build and improve services with external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 2 “coLab focused on community coworking" focus on services of community collaboration Build and improve services based on external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 3 "learned from hosting events" hosting networking events Learning about business from external sources Learning and build knowledge with externals 1 "borrowing from other startup companies and learned a lot” Borrowing idea from startups Learning by borrowing from externals Learning and build knowledge with externals 2 "building on services and (computer) programming which are less resource intensive” Formal exchange of computer programing services Formal exchange (sell and trade services/products with externals) Exchange benefit with externals to reduce cost 1 "The animator team and content team all work as an in-trade relationship” Provide free services in trade of other services Informal exchange (free services/products with external) Exchange benefit with externals to reduce costs 2 [trade the space location witan community events] Exchange location within community Shared resources with external Exchange benefit with externals to reduce cost 3 “I always work with the team (members) in organizing community events” co-organizing with customers team collaboration skills Build collaboration skills with externals 1 “I always work with the team (members).. and planning community events” Co-planning with customers team collaboration skills Build collaboration skills with externals 2 “I co-organize within the community with (OCL) members” Co-organizing within community collaboration skills Build collaboration skills with externals 3 "learned from involving in startups community " involving and engaging in activities within community open R&D with market community Integrate external capability 1 “I would say each [the advisory team] has a unique capability” team with others who has team with external unique capability Integrate external capability 2 147 unique capability “broaden our partner network and we’re engaged with the angel investment network” ability to benefit from network - understand and see into network Community c-creation Co-experience within ecosystem 1 “its culture was actually a fusion of the customer culture and the company culture into one” build culture with customer Customer- co culture Co-experience within ecosystem 2 “We care about the arts and music and the feel of the environment” [all art pieces in space are by one of coLab's members] Customer Co-creation Customer Co-creation Co- experience within ecosystem 3 "In Kelowna, it is very slow moving or very high trust Network.” Define trust as ecosystem value define the ecosystem value Alignment: align ecosystem value (trust) with individual and social skills 1 “I’m not very fast-moving everything is built on trust here [Kelowna market] Define trust as ecosystem value define the ecosystem value Alignment: align ecosystem value (trust) with individual and social skills 2 Quotes (CEO competencies to balance) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “I have to be able to tap into this network in to realize quite a lot of potential from that” Ability to benefit from network Ability to benefit from network Alignment between personal and network value 3 “we sustain regular community programming for free” Sustain free services within community ability to maintained giving externally External Alignment 4 “some of it [referring to customer value, such as subscription or collaborations] comes from one to one relationship building” one-to one relationship one-to one relationship External Alignment 5 Quotes (CEO competencies to change) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns "we had a more formal like a typical coworking space business model” Typical product (working space) changed to co Re-model busines tasks, (Ability to configure Adaptability 1 148 working services resources and retain the capacity to be productive “I went out and actually interviewed many other co-working spaces globally” Integrate global experience of other co-working space as action to improve services Re-model, Ability to configure resources and retain the capacity to be productive Adaptability 2 149 Case 1 CEO ICCs Themes build Integrate Reconfigure Internal 1. Team collaboration internally: trying and practicing new ideas 2. Team collaboration internally: delivering services business model 1. ability to envision 2. ability to visualize 3. design and process skills 4. connect process to people 5. Interpersonal skills: networking & communication 6. practice social skills (giving) 7. practice social skills (open-mindedness, and willing to consider new ideas) 8. practice social skills (compassion) 9. consider the suffering of others and willing to take action to help. 10. practice social skills to encourage integrity, trust, honest and transparent 1. co-inspirational: positive influence with collaboration 2. co-inspirational: enthusiasm and create shared vision 3. mutual value :create shared vision External 3. Build and improve services with external collaboration: customer experience 4. Build and improve services with external collaboration: community collaboration 5. Add value and grow sales 6. Borrowing idea from startups 7. Build knowledge: by hosting events. 8. Informal exchange: free services in trade of external services 11. Open R&D: Learning by involving and engaging in events and activities within community 12. Integrate external unique capability 4. Community co-creation 5. Customer co-creation 6. Customer co-culture 7. Understand and define the ecosystem value (trust) 8. ability to maintained giving externally 150 9. Shared resources to reduce costs 10. Formal exchange benefits with community 11. co- organized with community 12. co-organizing with customers 13. co-planning with customers To change 13. Adaptability : retain the capacity to be productive 14. Adaptability: Re-model resources and reconfigure resources To balance 9. Alignment between personal and others value 10. Personal and ecosystem value are built in each other. 11. Alignment tasks: doing two things at once or ability to switch between tasks 151 Case 2: HMS, Kelowna, Canada Case 2 Coding and Patterns Quotes (organizational process CEO build) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts "we co-design my brother (co-founder) will bring you know some of the technical then I will bring in what is the goal for the customer" Collaboration in improve value build products value Collaboration skills within team internally 1 “generally I'm responsible for going out making all of the partnerships. then I need to bring back those assets for the marketing team to figure out how to use and what acceptable to do in marketing" Co-organizing with production team Build collaboration skills Collaboration skills within team internally 2 “obviously we have the production team we have to deal with the orders the accuracy the mistakes, the shipping all of the others .." Co-planning with production team Build collaboration skills Collaboration skills within team internally 3 “I don't involve in production but sometimes I have influence over and I have to manage what comes of it” coordinating Build collaboration skills with externals Collaboration skills within team internally 4 Quotes (organizational process CEO integrate) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “I am very optimistic very excited, and at the same time you need to be very conservative” optimistic and excited Visualization skills Complementary skill 1 “that could become a job for some staff member to just manage that the 50 in Canada store and maybe the 500 store in America” optimistic and excited Visualization skills Complementary skill 2 “bluntly honest and willing to accept” Being honest and able to accept practice social skills (open and honest) Embedded trust & transparency 1 “I want him [a employee] to see the rocks that I see because I believe that builds trust” Encourage openness and trust practice social skills (open-mindedness) Embedded trust & transparency 2 152 Quotes (organizational process CEO preformed externally) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “we collaborate with home builders to let customers try our mattress” attract customers and showing services Build and improve marketing value based on external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 1 “do partnerships to bring on more sales growth” Grow sales Grow sales based on external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 2 “for example, show homes, pop up stores in malls.. lots of market research” Learn customer needs Learning about business from external sources Learning and build knowledge with externals 1 “I now [after collaborating with home builders]have figured out how and what to bring on with a partner” Learn partners needs Learn business from external collaboration Learning and build knowledge with externals 2 “I know you have to keep thinking about something similar so both parties work and both parties are happy” sell services in exchange of money or other value Formal exchange Exchange benefits with externals to reduce costs 1 “I sit with D.A ( photography business owner), he has done photography for me, M.A (copywriting business owner ) has done copywriting for me... A.X ( graphics business owner) has done graphics for me. It is so efficient for me to lean on them to exchange relationships” co-supporting role Informal exchange Exchange benefits with externals to reduce costs 2 [CEO reduce cost by trade benefit with others, e.g. working space, marketing] shared resources shared resources to reduce costs Exchange benefits with externals to reduce costs 3 “I’m sitting with other entrepreneurs helping them in their business listening to their problems helping make connections” consider the suffering of others and willing to take action to help. practice social skills (compassion) Embedded trust & transparency 3 153 “I just would always tell any entrepreneur you need to be honest with yourself on the lot timelines” Encourage honesty. practice social skills (honesty and compassion) Embedded trust & transparency 4 Quotes (CEO competencies to balance) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts "So the line will expand yet again, BF(acquired company) with the sheets complement that also needs pillow protector or some other supporting products.. so all of that needs to happen" ability align between internal process Alignment between tasks Internal Alignment 1 154 Case 2 CEO ICCs Themes build Integrate Reconfigure Internal 1. Build products within teams 2. Coordinating within team 3. Co-planning with production team 4. Co-organizing with production team 1. ability to envision 2. ability to visualize 3. Embedded trust & transparency: practice social skills (trust) 4. Embedded trust & transparency: practice social skills (open-mindedness) External 5. Build and improve marketing value based on external collaboration 6. Grow sales based on external collaboration 7. Learning about business from external sources: customer needs 8. Build knowledge of business from external collaboration 9. Execute business: formal exchange 10. Execute business: informal exchange benefits 11. Execute business: shared resources. 5. practice social skills (honesty) 6. practice social skills (compassion) To change 155 To balance 1. Internal Alignment: Alignment between tasks or between internal process 156 Case 3: HSO, Kelowna, Canada Case 3 Coding and Patterns Quotes (organizational process CEO build) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “also, I think what makes us different is that we're always together (CEO and co-founder). So, there's always two of us” Coordinating business together Build collaboration skills internally Collaboration skills within team internally 1 Quotes (organizational process CEO integrate) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “having someone like SP (co-founder) is really valuable because she’s like a details person..” detail-oriented Design and analytical skills Complementary skill 1 “I'm(CEO, and founder) being open (bring idea) to ideas and ideas, she (co- founder ) listening to ideas and then like imagining.” Openness and visualizing Visualization skills Complementary skill 2 “we both have similar personal stories where you got separated from our family” Similar personal stories Common interest and story Integrate a common interest internally 1 “we have personality types that we really care about people and we really like working with people” Similar personality type Common interest and story Integrate a common interest internally 2 “we want to belong to this environment and to be connected to the all these kind of people” Want to be in the environment and connect to people Interest in startups market and people Integrate a common interest internally 3 “it's not hard for us to maintain the relationship because we truly loved being in that industry and meeting people” Love being in the industry Interest in startups market and people Integrate a common interest internally 4 “we usually focus on personal story rather than business story Look for personal story practice social skills (compassion) Embedded trust & transparency 1 157 “we don't maintain that relationship just because it would be like strategic for business. because we really don't believe in that and we don't want to take advantage of people in that sense” Not taking advantage of people practice social skills (compassion) Embedded trust & transparency 2 Quotes (organizational process CEO preformed externally) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “I think we’ve seen that (benefit of collaboration) since we started and until now. We understand the need to strengthen those relationships” attract customers and showing services Build and improve marketing value based on external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 1 “So for him is to get known as the e-commerce guy. That's all I'm people coming to him for that, for us organizing the event and I like getting paid for that work” Grow sales with collaboration externally Grow sales based on external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 2 “it is a good opportunity to strengthen our relationship with AO (accelerator for tech companies)” Sensing opportunities externally Build and improve marketing value based on external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 3 “Our first Mentor really taught us how to act with theses successful business" Learn partners needs Learning about business from external sources Learning and build knowledge with externals 1 “We do a lot of networking events(business related events) ... we attend every single event, a lot of free ones and some paid ones … it's kind of you go there volunteering(informal exchange)" Learn business from attending collaboration events Learning about business from external sources Learning and build knowledge with externals 2 “a hackathon ( an event the startup created) is where people like code are coming Learn coding and build connection Learning about business from Learning and build 3 158 together and collaborate with a three-day event and where you build a store from zero and you collaborate with everybody in the room.. we got approach by J.U (owner of tech startup) he was running that... and now he has his own tech company” external sources knowledge with externals "it's kind of you go there volunteering to get more connection and you build a relationship" volunteer to build relationship Informal exchange for marketing strategies Exchange benefits with externals to reduce cost 1 “"for example the AO (accelerator for tech companies) we tried to be part of their events and (then ) we just have the startup weekend event which is a big event” (informal exchange)" Offer free services for building connection Informal exchange for executing collaborative business Exchange benefits with externals to reduce cost 2 [CEO reduce cost by trade benefit with others, e.g. working space, marketing] shared resources shared resources to reduce cost Exchange benefits with externals to reduce cost 3 “we were just about eight people doing it[ organizing startups weekend event] and a lot of them were in the tech industry and working for AO (accelerator for tech companies)” Co-organizing with external teams Build collaboration skills Build collaboration skills with externals 2 “and now we take his kid (partner) to school or to hockey practice” Build trust and caring practice social skills (trust) Embedded trust & transparency 3 Quotes (CEO competencies to balance) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “we talked to the to the owners of any business and connect to them personally” One-to-one relationship Bonding and strong relationship Alignment between personal and others value 1 159 “they're just growing [ the connections] and becoming more personal” One-to-one relationship Bonding and strong relationship Alignment between personal and others value 2 “We really connected with people really strongly and then we felt comfortable to ask someone within this network we built to be in our own event” understanding markets Define partners value Alignment between personal and others value 3 “we like really have those like long-term relationships” Long-term relationship Bonding and strong relationship Alignment between personal and others value 4 160 Case 3 CEO ICCs Themes build Integrate Reconfigure Internal 1. Build collaboration skills by coordinating business together as internal team. 1. Complementary skills: Detail-oriented 2. Complementary skills: Openness and visualizing 3. Integrate a common interest internally similar personal stories 4. Integrate a common interest internally: similar personality type 5. Integrate a common interest internally: interest in entrepreneurs 6. Integrate a common interest internally: interest in startups market 7. Embedded trust & transparency: practice social skills (compassion) 8. Embedded trust & transparency: practice social skills (trust) External 2. Build and improve marketing 3. Grow sales based on external collaboration 4. Improve products/services with external team 5. Learning coding from external events 9. Embedded trust & transparency: practice social skills (compassion) 161 6. Learning business from external Mentor 7. Learning business from organizing events collaboration. 8. Informal exchange for marketing strategies 9. Informal exchange for executing collaborative business 10. Shared resources for reducing cost 11. Build collaboration skills by co-organizing with external teams To change To balance Alignment between personal and others value 1. define mutual value(understand market) 2. bonding and strong relationships 3. personal relationships 4. long-term relationships Case 4: STX, Kelowna, Canada Case 4 Coding and Patterns Quotes (organizational process CEO build) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts "it is really …really need for us to learn disseminate that one amongst the entire team" Disseminate knowledge within internal team Learning within internal team by training and disseminate knowledge Collaboration skills within team internally 1 162 “we have a sales team, we have the dev product team and we have some of the customer experience team and there's some crossover between” Coordinating internally Collaborative skills Collaboration skills within team internally 2 “we operate under the OKR ..we have conman strategic goals the whole team sets and the OKR stands for objective and key results” Co-planning internally Collaborative skills Collaboration skills within team internally 3 Quotes (organizational process CEO integrate) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “I think perseverance really is the name of the game...” persist in doing what they do Perseverance Complementary skill 1 “Persistence is the secret.. .I was really fundamentally believing it (the startup business)” persist in doing what they do Persistence Complementary skill 2 “the entire team looks at the goals and as team you can create your own objectives typically based on the goals” Open to other objectives and goals Flexibility Complementary skill 3 “so it (their operation system) gives ...every staff member freedom to feel a tightness in their goal setting” freedom to fixed their goal setting Flexibility Complementary skill 4 "The sales guys have a lot of input all through customer support on the front line with a customer. The dev team know how to approach from the coding standpoint. So, you know, it is always good to have those two parties talk as frequently as possible" CEO and internal teams joint problem solving Joint problem solving Complementary skill 5 "we typically don't know where any case right now that every team are looking on it (alone) and we get a lot of buying from CEO and internal teams joint decision making joint decision making Complementary skill 6 163 every single member in team" “we all share a common interest in technology” CEO and internal teams share the tech interest Shared interest internally (tech) Integrate a common interest internally 2 “So I think as long as they're more of an interest in growth and they were just very tech enabled” CEO and internal teams share the interest of business Shared interest digital business Integrate a common interest internally 3 “J.A (co-founder) and I are very approachable” friendly and easy to talk to practice social skills (approachable) Embedded trust & transparency 1 “We really treat the company as everyone's company” Fair and treat everyone equally practice social skills (fairness ) Embedded trust & transparency 2 “everybody has a voice" Open for idea from everyone practice social skills (open- mindset) Embedded trust & transparency 3 “I think it helps profit sharing plan, you know, everything is transparent” profit sharing practice social skills (giving) Embedded trust & transparency 4 Quotes (organizational process CEO reconfigure) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts "I think at the same time they've (internal teams) seen us accomplish a remarkable thing in the past... so they have faith that we will get through it" positive influence with collaboration Co-inspirational Transformational leadership 1 “I think many team members were aware of how bad it was... We’re just going to forgot it was there” enthusiasm and create shared vision Co-inspirational Transformational leadership 2 “we have done that (failing and traying) and a lot of our team has been with us for a lot in that” internal team persistence Co-resistance Transformational leadership 3 “I was really fundamentally believing it, I know when my brother does (co-founder) Create experience with internal teams Co-experience Co-experience 1 164 too and I think most of our team does that” Quotes (organizational process CEO preformed externally) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “(for sales) we do have partnership with companies within real estate industry” Partner with externals for selling products Improve sales value Add value and grow sales 1 “we are always doing R&D (using Facebook Ads, or Google external flatform)” build product based on external platform Build products value Add value and grow sales 2 “we are all researching and developing our product and it never ends (using Facebook Ads, or Google external flatform)” build product based on external platform Build products value Add value and grow sales 3 “You always having to learn and stay ahead” [CEO offer courses for internal team] Be updated and keep learning Learning about business from external sources (courses ) Learning and build knowledge with externals 1 “learn Facebook ads and then you can think the creative that you're going to use” Learn Facebook Ads Learning from external platform learning and build knowledge 2 Quotes (CEO competencies to balance) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “then really be able to get a ride on that learning so that we all get better” and I think as long as we do that well, and that's why we're very open to partners...” Able to get ride of external learning while getting partner doing two things at once or ability to switch between tasks Internal Alignment between tasks 1 “you have a theory but then you should get into market you get insight and then within sight you can take action provided it is that you're able to learn from your mistakes and understand and see into market and business align business value with market value Strategic Alignment 2 165 you have a large late insight to make a better decision” Quotes (CEO competencies to change) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns “because Facebook changes a lot of the things that we had to adapt adjust and it is pushing us back a little bit too” Adopt and adjust to changes Ability to adopt to external changes to be productive Adaptability 1 “we thought we could possibly end business and it’s been an enormous problem for about 5 months’ worth of some ads as you just go missing our clients” Deal with problems in long period of time Ability to retain the capacity to be productive during challenges Adaptability 2 “in our history we had number of things that I would say that could have ended us and almost did and probably ended up other companies” Deal with problems that could ended business Ability to retain the capacity to be productive during challenges Adaptability 3 “over the 9 years working in StreetText we have pivoted three times and which means that we are completely rebuilt and have entirely new product” rebuilt business and have new product Re-model business, (Ability to configure resources and retain the capacity to be productive Adaptability 4 “We have gone to Market to get validation, and then failed ...so this is our three attempt and we have done that” 2 time failed and tray again Keep traying until success Adaptability 5 166 Case 4 CEO ICCs Themes build Integrate Reconfigure Internal 1. Internal training within teams 2. Build collaboration skills: co-planning with internal teams 3. Build collaboration skills: coordinating with internal teams 1. Complementary skill: perseverance 2. Complementary skill: persistence 3. Complementary skill: flexibility (open for ideas) 4. Complementary skill: flexibility (fixed current ideas) 5. Tech enabled 6. Shared Tech interest with teams 7. Shared business interest with co-founder and team 8. Shared vision internally 9. Embedded trust & transparency: 10. Embedded trust & transparency: 11. Embedded trust & transparency 12. Embedded trust & transparency 1. Co-inspirational: positive influence with collaboration 2. Co-inspirational: enthusiasm and create shared vision 3. Co-resistance: internal team persistence 4. Internal team co-experience External 4. Build products based on external platform (Facebook) 5. Improve products based on external platforms 6. Improve sales value with collaboration with externals 7. Learning: Facebook Ads 8. Learning : be updated taking courses when needed 167 To change 13. Adaptability : adopt to external changes 14. Adaptability: keep traying until success 15. Adaptability: re-model business and resources 16. Adaptability: deal with problems in long period of time 17. Adaptability: deal with big problems that could ended business To balance 5. Alignment between personal and others value 6. Alignment tasks: doing two things at once or ability to switch between tasks 168 Case 5: HMK, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Case 5 Coding and Patterns Quotes (organizational process CEO integrate) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “this method we took with the startups (partners) that we work with... because the system in Saudi Arabia not allows including employees as partners or owning share in the company” freedom to fixed their goal setting Flexibility Complementary skill 1 “Yes we could do other services, we see their requests (entrepreneur partners) and the contracts and we directed them based on that” Open to other objectives and services Flexibility Complementary skill 2 “We undertake the tasks of any investment that the founder (an entrepreneur partner) we works with from A to Z, from the beginning of the work to enter the investors… and to apply them on the ground and reflect them on the company records” Persist in doing what they do Perseverance Complementary skill 3 CEO and team are sharing interest in technology and economy share Shared tech and business interest with partners Shared tech and business interest with partners Integrate a common interest internally 1 Quotes (organizational process CEO reconfigure) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “For example, in M (partner) when competitors entered the market, we suggested that they go to the insurance companies, which are sometimes less demand, but possibly get high profits, but they lead the market we can say” enthusiasm and create shared vision Co-inspirational Transformational leadership 1 169 Quotes (organizational process CEO preformed externally) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “any business in entrepreneurship we try to get into because they are the customers we attract and we need our services at a price that suits them” attract customers and grow sales Grow sales based on external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 1 “We have benefited in marketing, in this field many of our customers comes from attending these events ,exhibitions organized by incubators and business accelerators ” Increase awareness and attract customers Build and improve marketing value based on external collaboration Add value and grow sales based on external collaboration 2 “these government institutions have served us and all startups (in terms of learning)” Learn business execution from government institution support startups Learning about business from external sources (mentors) Learning and build knowledge with externals 1 “Sure, our work with them (partners and customers) and the success we made, gives us a lot of learning and experience" Learn business execution from collaboration with startups Build knowledge of business from external collaboration learning and build knowledge with externals 2 “Yes, it is collaboration and we have many startup customers, starting from the beginning of the establishment of the company through the investment tours that we have made and to the extent of what is now” Sell services to startups partners Formal exchange - exchange for executing business strategies together Exchange benefits with externals to reduce costs 1 “in the beginning, we need funding for the project and we need investors to enter because we have a high amount of operations and development of the site as well” Informal exchange by volunteering Informal exchange for reducing cost Exchange benefits with externals to reduce costs 2 170 “economy share, which means the lawyers register with us from their office or home, answer the questions from clients and there are rating or evaluation” shared resources shared resources to reduce cost Exchange benefits with externals to reduce costs 3 “we suggested to them [startup partner] to produce a film and now we are looking for a financier” Giving and not taking advantage of partners practice social skills (giving) Embedded trust & transparency 1 CEO treats the partners company as they are their company. faithful and honest practice social skills (faithful and honest ) Embedded trust & transparency 2 Quotes (CEO competencies to balance) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “we've adjusted the business model with demand and focused on what the markets need and sell” Able to see what market need and remodel align business value with market value Strategic Alignment 1 Quotes (CEO competencies to change) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns “we have challenge that if the systems (government systems) have changed the difficulty of the adjustment (working for a optimization) ” Adopt and adjust to changes Ability to adopt to external changes to be productive Adaptability 1 “the system in Saudi Arabia not allows including employees as partners or owning share in the company, which made us to use the BVI (a solution )” Deal with problems and find solution Ability to retain the capacity to be productive during challenges Adaptability 2 171 Case 5 CEO ICCs Themes build Integrate Reconfigure Internal 1. Complementary skill: perseverance 2. Complementary skill: Flexibility (open to new idea) 3. Complementary skill: flexibility ( fixed current goal or objective) 4. Shared Tech and business interest with internal team 1. Co-inspirational: positive influence enthusiasm External 1. Build marketing value: increase awareness and attract 2. Build sales value with collaboration startups at low price 3. Learning: from business events 4. Learning: from startups collaboration 5. Exchange benefits: informal collaboration by volunteering 6. Exchange benefits: formal collaboration to execute business 7. Exchange benefits: shared resources 5. Embedded trust & transparency: honest and faithful 6. Embedded trust & transparency: giving and not taking advantage 172 To change 7. Adaptability : adopt and adjust model to external changes 8. Adaptability: deal with problems and find solitons To balance 2. Alignment between personal and others value 173 Case 6: LEN, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Case 6 Coding and Patterns Quotes (organizational process CEO build) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “we invest these data first (health sector data ) and then enable it in the health sector as second” Work internally in building value of data build products within teams Internal Collaboration skills 1 “one of the things that distinguishes us is the ‘share of knowledge,’ for example by weekly if one has some special competencies in any field, he/she will give internal training for employees who are interested” Encourage internal training and learning from each other Internal training within teams Internal Collaboration skills 2 “We have the business development team... and then the project goes to the product manager.. and we have a team for operations ..and if these teamwork of three were not integrated we wouldn't be there” Co-planning internally Build collaboration skills (co-planning) Internal Collaboration skills 3 “We meet weekly and we are seven which includes our VPs from shared services; HR and Finances and the government and legal beside our directors of business... and myself” coordinating within teams Build collaboration skills (coordinating) Internal collaboration skills 4 Quotes (organizational process CEO integrate) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “Always there is resistance .. it must be” persist in doing what they do Persistence Complementary skill 1 “our culture here is information sharing and be very open” open information sharing flexibility (open for new idea) Complementary skill 3 174 “everything we take as a decision together and create the right environment for everyone to produce dynamically and actively” CEO and internal teams joint decision making joint decision making Complementary skill 3 “First, internally we have high transparency” transparency within teams Internal transparency Embedded trust & transparency 1 “we are keen on that [information sharing] and this is one of the things that invests in” Encourage collaboration by being open-for information sharing practice social skills (open-mindedness) Embedded trust & transparency 2 “We actually have the MCO team to get departments closer to each other” Encourage integration within teams Internal integration within teams Embedded trust & transparency 3 “in our external meetings in the Ministry of Health or other organizations, the person who speaks on the portfolio would possibly talk about all the second projects and this shows that we have high integration in our teams.” High integration within internal teams Internal integration within teams (transparency) Embedded trust & transparency 4 Quotes (organizational process CEO reconfigure) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “we have lots of teamwork and less politics and no parties exist and of course this because the management always enforce this internally” positive influence with teams co-inspirational Transformational leadership 1 “enthusiasm are very high (within teams)” enthusiasm co-inspirational Transformational leadership 2 “confidence exists among everyone" enthusiasm co-inspirational Transformational leadership 3 “making mistakes is okay and we encourage trying” positive influence with teams co-inspirational Transformational leadership 4 175 “ created a pool of shared employees, for example, from the business analysis departments, and we have from management department [Top management team]. When we have a load in one of the departments, they work there” Create Shared vision Create shared vision Transformational leadership 5 Quotes (organizational process CEO preformed externally) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “We work together so that they are the experts [the health sector] in the health and in the messages, that we produce” Improve marketing based on external collaboration Build marketing value with external team Add value and grow sales 1 "for example, one of the projects on which we operate is school health. We work with a team in the health sector which goes to visit the schools and examine the students. We are responsible to provide a complete system for this examination" Build system product with external team Build products value with externals Add value and grow sales 2 “We spend a lot in training and development either in the presence of conferences, to be up to date or attend training courses in places outside the Kingdom or within the Kingdom” Learning from external courses and conferences Learning from external courses and conferences Learning and build knowledge with external 1 “One of our main goals is we do not compete with private sector, and if any solution in the private sector we try to enable it” Learn from partners and not compete with them Enable learning from partners Learning and build knowledge with externals 2 176 “We work with the health sector and we don’t try to compete with them (learn from them)” Learn from partners and not compete with them Enable learning from partners Learning and build knowledge with externals 3 “We provide a completely free service to the health sector but the outcome is the data that is provided then goes to other customers for sale” Sell product with other in exchange with money Formal exchange Exchange benefits with externals to reduce cost 1 “managing the data that comes with it (free service or system product and solutions)” Free product/service in exchange with data Informal exchange Exchange benefits with externals to reduce cost 2 “there is large amount of data is now produced in the health sector, that not been used or take advantage of them in the decision making” Free product/service in exchange with data Informal exchange Exchange benefits with externals to reduce cost 3 “Efficiency and transparency have increased, and all this in the process of optimizations” Optimization process with external collaboration integration externally (optimization) Embedded trust & transparency 5 Quotes (CEO competencies to balance) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “Yes, we believe that we should align with whomever to work externally when we have a project externally. For example, we suggested to the Ministry of Health that they have a team for this project, to deal with the messages from patients” Alignment with collaboration project Alignment with external collaboration project Alignment between personal and network value 1 “there is a great transformation in the use of digital or digitalization in health sector (partner), examples in medicine, robotics, prescription, Alignment with partners values ability to do two things and align between different process Alignment personal and network value and between tasks 2 177 therefore, we have many projects under it” Quotes (CEO competencies to change) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns “Many things are considered big changes and with the new changes in KSA market, which has become less resistance now the decision became faster and this has a significant impact positively on the projects” Deal with changes in Saudi market systems Re-transform busines tasks, (Ability to configure resources and retain the capacity to be productive Adaptability 1 “we did not see new services in which the resistance is also high” New services comes with resistance Ability to retain the capacity to be productive while dealing with challenges Adaptability 2 “we always look at the bright side of how to solve things other than looking at who is the failure” Encourage traying and accept failure Ability to retain the capacity to be productive Adaptability 3 178 Case 6 CEO ICCs Themes Build Integrate Reconfigure Internal 1. Build products within teams 2. Internal training within team 3. Co-planning within teams 4. coordinating within team 1. Complementary skills: flexibility 2. Complementary skills: persistence 3. Complementary skills: joint decision making 4. Embedded trust & transparency 5. Willing to consider new ideas (open-mindedness 6. Internal transparency within teams 7. High integration within teams 1. Transformational leadership: 2. co-inspirational: 3. positive influence with team 4. enthusiasm 5. create shared vision External 5. Build marketing value form external collaboration 6. Build products with external team 7. Learning: by attending conferences and taking courses 8. Learning from partners and not compete with them 9. Enable Learning from partners 10. Formal exchange to manage data value 11. Provide Free service in exchange with data 12. Informal exchange of services 8. Embedded trust & transparency: Optimization process with external collaboration To change 9. Adaptability: resistance to change as way to build new services 179 10. Adaptability: keep traying and accept failure 11. Adaptability: Re-transform busines tasks, (configure resources and retain the capacity to be productive in dealing with Saudi systems changes) To balance 6. Alignment between personal and other external collaboration projects 7. Alignment tasks: ability to do two things and align between different process 180 Case 7: MLH, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Case 7 Coding and Patterns Quotes (organizational process CEO build) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “The decoration and presentation make a big difference which we learned” Learning what business needs within team Coordinating business needs within team Collaboration skills internally 1 “we are a team of four.. started in 2018. and have been in the business about a year and a half.. Of course, we take all decisions together” Co- organizing within team internally Co- organizing within team internally Collaboration skills internally 2 “understands (CEO) how to guide the team very well” Guide team internally Guide the ream to work together internally Collaboration skills internally 3 Quotes (organizational process CEO integrate) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “understand personalities (the CEO) placed each of team member in positions that suits their personality ... for example, you are good with the audience so you should deal with sales, and so on” Connect process to people Connect process to people Complementary skill 1 “we take all decisions together” Joint decision making Joint decision making Complementary skill 2 “we have a shared interest in social media and social media influencers” CEO and internal team share same interest in business Interest in startups digital market Integrate a common interest internally 1 “we (internal team) all have business education" CEO and internal team share same education interest Shared similar education Integrate a common interest internally 2 181 “we (internal team) always talk about new digital businesses and social media marketing” CEO and internal team share same interest trend in business Interest in startups digital market Integrate a common interest internally 3 “we (internal team) experienced working together as a team in our main job CEO and internal team worked previously together Experience working together as team Integrate a common interest internally 4 Quotes (organizational process CEO preformed externally) 1st order code 2nd order code Patterns counts “collaborate with (domestic) influencers and give attention to the people (perspective clients) coming from the same network" attract customers and build relationships Marketing value Add value and grow sales 1 “Also we learn that fashion shows that people attend are limited ..not any fashion show is worth to ” Learn customers’ needs Learn business from working with external Learning and build knowledge with externals 1 “In our beginnings, for example, with the tailors, we didn’t have experience on how to collaborate with them, but over time we learned” Learn what to need to bring in external collaboration Learn partners needs Learn partners needs Learning and build knowledge with externals 2 “We learned to work with different tailors depending on which design they know most” Learned to collaborate with different partners based on what business need Learn business need Learning and build knowledge with external 3 “We tried to rent a closet to put our products in traditional shops … It was very competitive” Rent closet to sell products in stores Formal exchange collaborative sales Exchange benefits with externals to reduce cost 1 “Y.R is one of the influencers that we’ve built a continues exchange free products Informal exchange Exchange benefits with 2 182 relationship with. We’ve continued our giving and she has continued her supports” with free marketing post externals to reduce cost 183 Appendix C: Certificate of BREB Approval The University of British Columbia OkanaganResearch ServicesBehavioural Research Ethics Board3333 University WayKelowna, BC V1V 1V7 Phone: 250-807-8832Fax: 250-807-8438CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL- MINIMAL RISK RENEWAL PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: DEPARTMENT: UBC BREB NUMBER: H17-03376Barbara Marcolin UBC/UBCO Management/UBCO Management Dean's Office PAA #: H17-03376-A006INSTITUTION(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT:Institution SiteUBC Okanagan CO-INVESTIGATOR(S):Suad Alrebdi SPONSORING AGENCIES: King Saud University - "UNDERSTANDING AND CONCEPTUALIZING FIRM INTEGRATION COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES FOR START-UPS DIGITAL SERVICES IN CANADA AND SAUDI ARABIA " PROJECT TITLE:UNDERSTANDING AND CONCEPTUALIZING FIRM INTEGRATION COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES FOR START-UPS DIGITAL SERVICES IN CANADA AND SAUDI ARABIA EXPIRY DATE OF THIS APPROVAL: October 25, 2022APPROVAL DATE: October 25, 2021 The Annual Renewal for Study have been reviewed and the procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subjects. This study has been approved either by the full Behavioural REB of the UBC Okanagan or by an authorized delegated reviewer
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Marcolin, Barbara L.
Understanding and conceptualizing CEOs’ integration collaborative competencies (CEOs’ ICCs) for startups in Canada and Saudi Arabia
Text