Leadership Practices and Innovation-Related Outcomes in Higher Education Institutions: An Audit-Ready Meta-Analysis

Higher education institutions (HEIs) increasingly depend on innovation to navigate digital transformation, resource constraints, and rising performance accountability. Although leadership is widely viewed as a managerial lever for enabling innovation, empirical evidence in HEIs remains fragmented across overlapping leadership labels and unevenly defined innovation outcomes. This study synthesises quantitative evidence on the association between leadership practices and innovation-related outcomes in HEIs using a random-effects meta-analysis. A multi-database search of Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, CNKI, and Google Scholar identified 16 independent studies that met pre-defined inclusion and auditability criteria, retaining only extractable zero-order correlations with verifiable sample sizes. Leadership constructs were consolidated into three mechanism-based practice families (change/energising/developmental; enabling/condition-building; strategic orchestration/ambidexterity), and innovation outcomes were organised using a tiered framework spanning behavioural/process enactment and innovation performance/output. Effect sizes were synthesised on Fisher’s z and back-transformed to r for interpretation. The pooled association between leadership practices and innovation-related outcomes was positive (r ≈ 0.52, 95% CI ≈ 0.43–0.59), indicating that stronger leadership practice exposure is linked to higher innovation outcomes in HEIs. Heterogeneity was substantial (I² > 90%), suggesting meaningful contextual variation across institutional settings and study designs. Subgroup analyses across leadership families, outcome tiers, and an institutional configuration proxy (China vs non China) were directionally consistent but did not provide decisive contrast evidence under modest subgroup sizes. Findings provide an evidence-based correlational benchmark for education leadership research and support practical governance guidance for university leaders seeking to strengthen innovation conditions.

leadership practices; innovation-related outcomes; higher education institutions; mechanism-based coding; meta-analysis

1. Aboramadan, M., Dahleez, K. A., & Farao, C. (2022). Inclusive leadership and extra-role behaviors in higher education: does organizational learning mediate the relationship? International Journal of Educational Management, 36(4), 397-418. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2020-0290 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abudetse, R. K., & Sikalumbi, D. A. (2025). LEADERSHIP STYLES AND OPEN INNOVATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A THEORETICAL REVIEW OF EMPLOYEE ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE IN COLLEGES OF EDUCATION IN GHANA. Journal for Business, Development and Leadership, 1(2957-7136). https://doi.org/10.47941/jep.3072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Acharya, C. (2016). Cooperative strategy and sources of knowledge integration capability and innovation: A relational view. University of North Texas Digital Library. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://doi.org/10.12794/metadc862852 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Addo, A. (2022). Orchestrating a digital platform ecosystem to address societal challenges: A robust action perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 37(4), 359–386. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962221088333 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Adeoye, M. A., Baharun, H., & Munawwaroh, I. (2025). Transformational Leadership in Education: Harmonising Accountability, Innovation and Global Citizenship. Kharisma: Jurnal Administrasi Dan Manajemen Pendidikan, 4(1), 14-30. https://doi.org/10.59373/kharisma.v4i1.68 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-Practice Recommendations for Defining, Identifying, and Handling Outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270-301. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112470848 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Al Abdulqader, A. K., Ali, S., Alamoudi, F., & Shaban, M. (2025). Still just the nurse? A critical inquiry into nurses’ struggles for autonomy in interprofessional hospital teams. BMC Nursing, 24, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03967-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Al-Husseini, S., El Beltagi, I., & Moizer, J. (2021). Transformational leadership and innovation: the mediating role of knowledge sharing amongst higher education faculty. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(5), 670–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1588381 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Alkhaledi, N. G., Alabdalhai, S. A., Awaji, N. Y., Baker, O. G., Alyasin, A. M., Al Hnaidi, B. J., Alayed, A. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. S., & Ashour, Y. O. (2024). Utilizing competency-based education to evaluate the research skills of nursing students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus, 16(3), e62549. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.62549 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1995). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ, 311(7003), 485. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7003.485 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Alvesson, M., & Jonsson, A. (2018). The bumpy road to exercising leadership: Fragmentations in meaning and practice. Leadership, 14(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715016644671 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Alzawahreh, A. A. S. (2011). Transformational leadership of superiors and creativity level among faculty members in Jordanian universities. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia (JIRSEA), 9(1), 125–132. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the science review. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ardianti, T., Tukiran, M., & Mariana, D. (2024). Innovative work behavior in higher education: A systematic literature review. Research and Development Journal of Education, 10(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. https://doi.org/10.30998/rdje.v10i2.23807 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Arnold, A., Cafer, A., Green, J., Haines, S., Mann, G., & Rosenthal, M. (2021). Perspective: Promoting and fostering multidisciplinary research in universities. Research Policy, 50(9), 104334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104334 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Awuah-Gyawu, M., Fianko, A. O., Halidu, O. B., Gyamfi, B., & Asongu, S. A. (2025). Corporate governance practices and circular supply chain management relationship: Eco-innovation leadership and the perceived urgency paradox based on a three-way interaction model. Business Strategy & Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.70188 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Batra, I., Preethi, P., & Dhir, S. (2022). Organizational ambidexterity from the emerging market perspective: A review and research agenda. Thunderbird International Business Review, 64(6), 661–678. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22271 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Bawa, S., Attah, P. K., Agougil, A., & El Harch, M. (2023). Impact of knowledge management on firms’ innovation performance. Technology and Investment, 14(4), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.4236/ti.2023.144018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Beaudry, J. (1989). The effectiveness of continuing medical education: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 9(4), 285–307. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.4750090414 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Bendermacher, G., de Grave, W. D., Wolfhagen, I., Dolmans, D., & oude Egbrink, M. O. (2020). Shaping a culture for continuous quality improvement in undergraduate medical education. Academic Medicine, 95(12), 1907–1916. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000003406 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Bian, X., & Wang, B. (2024). Enabling innovative governance: Ethical leadership and dynamic capabilities in government digital transformation. Business Ethics and Leadership, 8(4), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.61093/bel.8(4).186-200.2024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Bogacz-Wojtanowska, E., Jedynak, P., Wrona, S., & Pluszyńska, A. (2022). Universities, Stakeholders and Social Mission: Building Cooperation Through Action Research(1sted.).Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003227069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Bolzani, D., Fini, R., Napolitano, S., & Toschi, L. (2019). Entrepreneurial teams: An input–process–outcome framework. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 15(2), 61–123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000077 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Booth, A., Martyn-St James, M., Clowes, M., & Sutton, A. (2021). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. https://digital.casalini.it/9781529759648 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., Schmittmann, V. D., Epskamp, S., & Waldorp, L. J. (2009). The small world of psychopathology. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e27407. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Bouguettaya, S., Pupo, F., Chen, M., & Fortino, G. (2025). A meta-survey of generative AI in education: Trends, challenges, and research directions. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 9(9), 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc9090237 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., De Jonge, G. B., Holland, L., & Bekhuis, T. (2016). De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(3), 240. https://doi.org/ 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (2018). The science of organizational design: Fit between structure and coordination. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0029-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Canavesi, A., & Minelli, E. (2021). Servant leadership: A systematic literature review and network analysis. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 34(3), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-02109381-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Chen, C., Luo, B., Li, N., Wang, B., Yang, H., Guo, J., & Xu, M. (2025). Spec-Driven AI for Science: The ARIA framework for automated and reproducible data analysis. ArXiv, abs/2510.11143. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2510.11143 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Chen, J.-K., & Chen, I.-S. (2013). Don’t worry, I’m with you: Can visionary leadership release neurotic employees for more perceived innovative interactions? Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2013.15.2.215 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Cheung, M. W.-L. (2019). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review, 29(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Chiavaroli, N., Reid, K., Mitchell, P., & Trevitt, J. (2020). Systematic review of the literature on professional education accreditation. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286711-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Choi-Lundberg, D. L., Butler-Henderson, K., Harman, K., & Crawford, J. (2023). A systematic review of digital innovations in technology-enhanced learning designs in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7615 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Clayton, H. (2019). Strategically engaging the Third Mission: A comparative international case study of alternative revenue strategies between the U.S. flagship university and the European world-class university. Louisiana State University Dissertations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. https://doi.org/10.31390/gradschool_dissertations.5014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Conry-Murray, C., Waltzer, T., DeBernardi, F. C., Fossum, J. L., Haasova, S., Matthews, M. S., McSweeney, K. (2024). Validity and transparency in quantifying open-ended data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7, Article 25152459241275217. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241275217 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Cooper, H. (2015). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (Vol. 2). Sage publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Crocetti, E. (2016). Systematic reviews with meta-analysis: Why, When, and How? Emerging Adulthood, 4(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815617076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Cummings, G. G., Tate, K., Lee, S., Wong, C. A., Paananen, T., Micaroni, S. P., & Chatterjee, G. E. (2018). Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: A systematic review. International journal of nursing studies, 85, 19-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.04.016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Damanpour, F. (2017). Organizational innovation. In Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.19 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00233.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 217–235. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980500117827 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177– 188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., et al. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Dunn, J. (2025). Subordination by design: Rethinking power, policy, and autonomy in perioperative nursing. Nursing Inquiry, 32(1), Article e70043. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.70043 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006341X.2000.00455.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Dwyer, D. (2011). Experiences of registered nurses as managers and leaders in residential aged care facilities: A systematic review. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 9(4), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2011.00239.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Evans, M., James, E., & Mi, M. (2023). Leadership training in undergraduate medical education: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Students. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2023.1717 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1189–1210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44699371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of applied psychology, 94(3), 604. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014367 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Faruq, M. O. (2025). A meta-analysis of cybersecurity framework integration in GRC platforms: Evidence from U.S. enterprise audits. Journal of Sustainable Development and Policy. https://doi.org/10.63125/kwhkmb57 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Fendt, J. (2023). Qualitative studies in management research: An emerging epistemology of meta-analysis. Current Research in Psychology and Behavioral Science (CRPBS). https://doi.org/10.54026/crpbs/1084 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Ferguson, C. J., & Brannick, M. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological methods, 17(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024445 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Fosah, R., & Llahana, S. (2025). Barriers and enablers to leadership in advanced practice nursing: A systematic review. International Nursing Review, 72(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.70034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Fourné, S., Rosenbusch, N., Heyden, M. L. M., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2019). Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies. European Management Journal, 37(6), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.04.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, Mass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Gehanno, J.-F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews? BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Gerring, J. (2011). Social science methodology: A unified framework. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Giancola, O., & Viteritti, A. (2014). Distal and proximal vision: A multi-perspective research in sociology of education. European Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.1.47 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Gosling, J., Jia, F., Gong, Y., & Brown, S. (2016). The role of supply chain leadership in the learning of sustainable practice: Toward an integrated framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1458–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.029 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ, 331(7524), 1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta‐organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic management journal, 33(6), 571-586. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1975 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003859026301 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Guolo, A., & Varin, C. (2017). Random-effects meta-analysis: The number of studies matters. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26(3), 1500–1518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215583568 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Habersang, S., & Reihlen, M. (2024). Advancing qualitative meta-studies (QMS): Current practices and reflective guidelines for synthesizing qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 28(2), 210– 244. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281241240180 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Hafeez, A., Shamsuddin, A. B., & Saeed, B. (2023). An empirical investigation of absorptive capacity on technology transfer effectiveness through organizational innovation. International Journal of Professional Business Review: Int. J. Prof. Bus. Rev., 8(2), 2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i2.1550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Hagelskamp, C., Brackett, M., Rivers, S., & Salovey, P. (2013). Improving classroom quality with the RULER approach to social and emotional learning: Proximal and distal outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3-4), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9570-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook (p. 197). Springer Nature. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. Hao, T., Winn, J. G., & Qiang, Q. (2023). Unlocking potential: Systematic review of the use of gamification in leadership curriculum. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12332-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6(3), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.3.203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect sizes estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115– 135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2022). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6.3). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

108. Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in metaanalyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Hila, A., & Hauser, E. (2025). Assessing the reliability of large language models for deductive qualitative coding: A comparative intervention study with ChatGPT. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62, Article e1255. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1255 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. Hill, B., Britton, K. N., Hunter, D., Olin, J., & Padilla, S. (2023). Inconsistencies in variable reporting and methods in larval zebrafish behavioral assays. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 96, 107163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2023.107163 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

111. Hodgkinson, I. R., Ravishankar, M. N., & Aitken-Fischer, M. (2014). A resource-advantage perspective on the orchestration of ambidexterity. The Service Industries Journal, 34(14), 1234–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2014.942655 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

112. Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313001300339897 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

113. Hoidn, S., & Kärkkäinen, K. (2014). Promoting skills for innovation in higher education: A literature review on the effectiveness of problem‐based learning and of teaching behaviours. OECD Education Working Papers No. 100. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3tsj67l226-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

114. Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

115. Hull, C. E., & Covin, J. (2010). Learning capability, technological parity, and innovation mode use. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00702.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

116. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398105 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

117. Hussain, H. K., Abu Talib, N., & Mad Shah, I. (2014). Exploring the impact of transformational leadership on process innovation and product innovation: A case of Iraqi public universities. Asian Social Science, 10(21), 168–174. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n21p168 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

118. Ilyas, I., Kammerlander, N. H., Turturea, R., & van Essen, M. (2023). When business model innovation creates value for companies: A meta-analysis on institutional contingencies. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12966 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

119. Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology, 19(5), 640-648. https://10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818131e7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

120. Jameson, J., Rumyantseva, N., Cai, M., Markowski, M., Essex, R., & McNay, I. (2022). A systematic review and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

121. Jameson, J., Rumyantseva, N., Cai, M., Markowski, M., Essex, R., & McNay, I. (2022). A systematic review, textual narrative synthesis and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education. Computers and Education Open. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

122. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behaviour. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

123. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

124. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

125. Jantz, R. C. (2012). A framework for studying organizational innovation in research libraries. College & research libraries, 73(6), 525-541. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3474885 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

126. Jayasekara, R., Schultz, T., & McCutcheon, H. (2006). A comprehensive systematic review of evidence on the effectiveness and appropriateness of undergraduate nursing curricula. JBI Evidence Implementation, 4(3), 191-207. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

127. Jernigan, M. A., & Carbonneau, K. J. (2025). Advancing health professions education: A review of holistic admissions and competency-based admissions practices. Medical Education Online, 30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2025.2486979 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

128. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

129. Jyoti, S. N. (2025). A meta-analysis of business intelligence decision support systems in large enterprises through SQL-driven reporting. ASRC Procedia: Global Perspectives in Science and Scholarship. https://doi.org/10.63125/t44ank03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

130. Karna, A., Richter, A., & Riesenkampff, E. (2016). Revisiting the role of the environment in the capabilities– financial performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 37(6), 1154–1173. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2379 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

131. Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of organizational ambidexterity research. SAGE Open, 12(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221082127 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

132. Kebede, A. G., Terefe, S. D., & Ijigu, A. W. (2024). Ambidextrous leadership and academic staff innovative behavior at Debre Berhan University, Ethiopia: the mediating role of workplace happiness. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2307564. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2307564 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

133. Khosravi, P., Newton, C., & Rezvani, A. (2019). Management innovation: A systematic review and metaanalysis of past decades of research. European Management Journal, 37(6), 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

134. Killen, C. P., & Kjaer, C. (2012). Understanding project interdependencies: The role of visual representation, culture and process. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 554-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

135. Kim, S., & Jeong, S. H. (2020). A meta-analytic path analysis on the outcome variables of nursing unit Managers’ transformational leadership: Systemic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 50(6), 757-777. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.20205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

136. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

137. Kopelyan, S. (2018). Academic ‘boundary work’ in a regionally engaged university. Higher Education Policy, 31(4), 563–582. https://doi.org/10.3990/4.2535-5686.2018.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

138. Kurzhals, C., Graf‐Vlachy, L., & König, A. (2020). Strategic leadership and technological innovation: A comprehensive review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 28(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12351 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

139. Laczo, R. M., Sackett, P. R., Bobko, P., & Cortina, J. M. (2005). A Comment on Sampling Error in the Standardized Mean Difference With Unequal Sample Sizes: Avoiding Potential Errors in Meta-Analytic and Primary Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 758–764. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

140. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.90.4.758 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

141. Lajçi, R. (2025). Measures of individual-level intrapreneurship: A scoping review. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-025-00912-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

142. Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

144. Langseth, I. D., Jacobsen, D. Y., & Haugsbakken, H. (2024). Institutional entrepreneurship in loosely coupled systems: The subject position of MOOC entrepreneurs and their interpretive struggles in a Norwegian context. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(2), 617-654. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-02309647-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

146. Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D. J., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

147. Lin, Q., Beh, L.-S., & Mohd Kamil, N. L. (2025). Unlocking innovation: the power of two leadership styles in Chinese higher education. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-2023-1276 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

148. Liu, J.-X. (2025). Exploring the influence of green inclusive leadership on green creativity: examining the underlying mechanisms. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 46(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2024-0320 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

149. Lopez-Nicolas, R., López-López, J. A., Rubio-Aparicio, M., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2022). A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000–2020). Behavior research methods, 54(1), 334-349. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01644-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

150. Lua, E., Liu, D., & Shalley, C. E. (2023). Multilevel outcomes of creativity in organizations: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(3), 2690–2715. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

151. Lyons, O., George, R., Galante, J., Mafi, A., Fordwoh, T., Frich, J., & Geerts, J. (2020). Evidence-based medical leadership development: A systematic review. BMJ Leader, 5(4), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000360 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

152. Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist, and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161646 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

153. Mansur, S. M. A., & Jia, G. (2019). Transformational leadership and individual creativity: An integrated approach of empowerment as a mediator. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 322 (ISERSS 2019), 555–558. https://doi.org/10.2991/iserss-19.2019.142 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

154. Martinsuo, M. (2013). Project portfolio management in practice and in context. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 794–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

155. McAuley, L., Pham, B., Tugwell, P., & Moher, D. (2000). Does inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness? The Lancet, 356(9237), 1228–1231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(00)02786-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

157. McKimm, J., Ramani, S., Forrest, K., Bishop, J., Findyartini, A., Mills, C., Hassanien, M., Al-Hayani, A., Jones, P., Nadarajah, V., & Radu, G. (2022). Adaptive leadership during challenging times: Effective strategies for health professions educators: AMEE Guide No. 148. Medical Teacher, 45(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2022.2057288 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

158. Mehboob, F., & Haque, R. (2024). Empowering innovative work behaviors: unfolding the contextual, personal and behavioral spectrum. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 18(4), 1114-1132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-09-2023-0380 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

159. Mele, V., Compagni, A., & Cavazza, M. (2014). Governing through evidence: A study of technological innovation in health care. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), 843–877. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

160. Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success—A conceptual framework. International journal of project management, 28(8), 807-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

161. Meyer, H. D. (2002). From “loose coupling” to “tight management”? Making sense of the changing landscape in management and organization theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 515520. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210454992 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

162. Miles, M. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

163. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

164. Mokhtar, A. R. M., Genovese, A., Brint, A., & Kumar, N. (2019). Supply chain leadership: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. International Journal of Production Economics, 216, 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

165. Mora, L., Gerli, P., Ardito, L., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2023). Smart city governance from an innovation management perspective: Theoretical framing, review of current practices, and future research agenda. Technovation, 122, 102717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102717 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

166. Mrayyan, M. T., Abu Khait, A., Rababa, M. J., Algunmeeyn, A., Al-Rawashdeh, S., Al-Atiyyat, N., Rababa, M., Abu Saraya, A., & Al-Rjoub, S. (2024). Professional autonomy in nursing: A concept analysis. SAGE Open, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241302129 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

167. Mukhopadhyay, S., & Bouwman, H. (2019). Orchestration and governance in digital platform ecosystems: A literature review and trends. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 21(5), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-11-2018-0067 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

168. Musenze, I. A., & Mayende, T. S. (2023). Ethical leadership and innovative work behavior (IWB) in public universities: examining the moderating role of perceived organizational support (POS). Management Research Review, 46(5), 682–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2021-0858 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

169. Naing, C., Whittaker, M., Aung, H., Chellappan, D., & Riegelman, A. (2023). The effects of flipped classrooms to improve learning outcomes in undergraduate health professional education: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(1), e1339. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1339 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

170. Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

171. Nisula, A.-M., & Kianto, A. (2013). Evaluating and developing innovation capabilities with a structured method. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 8, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.28945/1902 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

172. Nong, T. X., Chan, S.-J., & Nguyen, T. T. T. (2025). Benevolent leadership and staff’s creative work behavior: The mediating role of an innovative climate and fear of failure. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 17(6), 2330–2351. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2024-0149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

173. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 18(S1), 187206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+%3C187::AID-SMJ936%3E3.0.CO;2-K [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

174. Ortiz-Avram, D., Ovcharova, N., & Engelmann, A. (2023). Dynamic capabilities for sustainability: Toward a typology based on dimensions of sustainability-oriented innovation and stakeholder integration. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3630 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

175. Paez, A. (2017). Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 10(3), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12266 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

176. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

177. Paschoiotto, W. P., Cunha, C. J. C. de A., & Silva, S. (2024). Leadership in the collaborative innovation process in the public sector: An integrative review. Revista de Administração Pública, 58(3), 525–552. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220230037x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

178. Pearson, A., Laschinger, H., Porritt, K., Jordan, Z., Tucker, D., & Long, L. (2007). Comprehensive systematic review of evidence on developing and sustaining nursing leadership that fosters a healthy work environment in healthcare. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, 5, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-6988.2007.00065.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

179. Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2007). Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 26(25), 4544–4562. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2889 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

180. Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

181. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES20-12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

182. Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

183. Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Cramer, C. (2020). Principals between exploitation and exploration: Results of a nationwide study on ambidexterity of school leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945705 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

184. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

185. Point, S., Fendt, J., & Jonsen, K. (2017). Qualitative inquiry in management: Methodological dilemmas and concerns in meta‐analysis. International Strategy & Policy eJournal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

186. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

187. Polanin, J., Hennessy, E., & Tsuji, S. (2020). Transparency and reproducibility of meta-analyses in psychology: A meta-review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 1026–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906416 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

188. Purcell, J. W., Pearl, A. J., & Van Schyndel, T. (2021). Boundary spanning leadership among community engaged faculty: An exploratory study of faculty participating in higher education community engagement. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning. https://doi.org/10.15402/esj.v6i2.69398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

189. Pursio, K., Kankkunen, P., Sanner-Stiehr, E., & Kvist, T. (2021). Professional autonomy in nursing: An integrative review. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(7), 1985–1997. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13282 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

191. R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

192. Rafique, M. A., Hou, Y., Chudhery, M. A. Z., Waheed, M., Zia, T., & Chan, F. (2022). Investigating the impact of pandemic job stress and transformational leadership on innovative work behavior: The mediating and moderating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(3), 100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100214 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

193. Ratajczyk, E., Brady, U., Baggio, J., Barnett, A., Pérez-Ibarra, I., Rollins, N., … Janssen, M. (2016). Challenges and opportunities in coding the commons: Problems, procedures, and potential solutions in large-N comparative case studies. The International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 440–466. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.652 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

194. Reichenpfader, U., Carlfjord, S., & Nilsen, P. (2015). Leadership in evidence-based practice: A systematic review. Leadership in Health Services, 28(4), 298–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhs-08-2014-0061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

195. Restivo, V., Minutolo, G., Battaglini, A., Carli, A., Capraro, M., Gaeta, M., Odone, A., Trucchi, C., Favaretti, C., Vitale, F., & Casuccio, A. (2022). Leadership effectiveness in healthcare settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and before–after studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10995. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710995 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

196. Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., et al. (2021). PRISMAS: an extension for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

197. Riess, M. (2022). Automating model management: A survey on metaheuristics for concept-drift adaptation. Journal of Data, Information and Management, 4, 211–229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42488-022-00075-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

199. Rietzschel, E. F., & Ritter, S. M. (2018). Moving from creativity to innovation. In R. Reiter-Palmon (Ed.), Creativity and Innovation (pp. 3–34). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813238-8.00001-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

200. Rojon, C., Okupe, A., & McDowall, A. (2021). Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(2), 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12245 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

201. Román-Cortéz, K. R., Calderón Cisneros, J. T., Alcívar Trejo, C., & Calderon Chapín, M. P. (2025). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

202. Transformational leadership and its impact on educational innovation in Ecuador: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1630004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

203. Rosenbusch, N., Gusenbauer, M., Hatak, I., Fink, M., & Meyer, K. (2018). Innovation offshoring, institutional context, and innovation performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 55(3), 373–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

204. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

205. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984997 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

206. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

207. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

208. Röver, C., Knapp, G., & Friede, T. (2015). Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies. BMC medical research methodology, 15(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0091-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

209. Rubio-Aparicio, M., López-López, J. A., Viechtbauer, W., Marín-Martínez, F., Botella, J., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2019). Testing categorical moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis in the presence of heteroscedasticity. The Journal of Experimental Education, 88(3), 288–310. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1561404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

211. Santoso, B., Fadillah, M. I., & Supriatna, D. (2025). Digital Leadership and Innovation: A Systematic [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

212. Literature Review of Theoretical Foundations, Research Emphases, and Methodological Approaches. CAKRAWALA: Management Science Journal, 2(2), 114-129. https://doi.org/10.63541/59ajhk72 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

213. Sarwar, U., Zamir, S., Fazal, K., Hong, Y., & Yong, Q. Z. (2022). Impact of leadership styles on innovative performance of female leaders in Pakistani Universities. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0266956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266956 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

214. Schiepe-Tiska, A., Schattke, K., Seeliger, J., & Kehr, H. (2021). Distal and proximal motivational processes related to flow experience: Investigating the role of implicit motives, affective and cognitive preferences, and perceived abilities. Current Psychology, 42(2), 1002–1012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-02101409-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

216. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K., Hirsh, H. R., Sackett, P. R., SCHMITT, N., & ZEDECK, S. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

217. (1985). FORTY QUESTIONS ABOUT VALIDITY GENERALIZATION AND META‐ANALYSIS: COMMENTARY ON FORTY QUESTIONS ABOUT VALIDITY GENERALIZATION AND META‐ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

218. ANALYSIS. Personnel psychology, 38(4), 697-798. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00565.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

220. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

221. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

222. Sharma, R. K., Kaur, S., & Mittal, A. (2024). Role of transformational leadership in implementation of [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

223. Education 4.0: A parallel mediation model in context of higher educational institutions (HEIs). Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

224. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC01-2024-0040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

225. Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2017). Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of management, 43(1), 59-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316647102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

226. Soukupová, N., & Kotková Stříteská, M. (2024). The significance of responsible leadership for innovative work behaviour: A conceptual framework. European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecmlg.20.1.2940 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

227. Spaic, D., Bukumirić, Z., Rajović, N., Markovic, K., Savić, M., Milin-Lazović, J., Grubor, N., Milic, N., Stanisavljević, D., Despotović, A., Bokonjić, D., Vladicic Masic, J., Janićijević, V., Mašić, S., & Milić, N. (2025). The flipped classroom in medical education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27. https://doi.org/10.2196/60757 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

228. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

229. Steel, P., Beugelsdijk, S., & Aguinis, H. (2021). The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00385-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

230. Stensaker, B., Frølich, N., Huisman, J., Waagene, E., Scordato, L., & Pimentel Bótas, P. (2014). Factors affecting strategic change in higher education. Journal of Strategy and Management, 7(2), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-12-2012-0066 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

231. Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Moher, D. (2011). Addressing reporting biases. In Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 297–333). The Cochrane Collaboration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

232. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

233. Strawbridge, R., Sharma, D., Kisely, S., Cristea, I. A., Young, A. H., & Kaufman, K. R. (2025). Enhancing the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BJPsych Open, 11(1), e10876. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

234. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10876 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

235. Strawbridge, R., Sharma, D., Kisely, S., Cristea, I. A., Young, A. H., & Kaufman, K. R. (2025). Enhancing the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BJPsych Open, 11(6), e266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

236. Talukder, K. A. (2025). The impact of data-driven decision support systems on governance and policy implementation in U.S. institutions. ASRC Procedia: Global Perspectives in Science and Scholarship, 3(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.63125/3v98q104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

237. Tan, H., Yang, L., Fan, Z., & Gao, Y. (2025). Beyond singularity and fragmentation: A dynamic and integrative model for explaining public sector innovation. Public Administration and Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.70017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

238. Tavasoli, A., Sharbaf, M., & Madani, S. M. (2025). Responsible innovation: A strategic framework for financial LLM integration. ArXiv, abs/2504.02165. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2504.02165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

239. Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22(13), 2113–2126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1461 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

240. Tipton, E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

241. Toprak, M., Karakus, M., & Chen, J. (2023). Transformational school leadership: A systematic review of research in a centralized education system. Journal of Educational Administration. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-10-2022-0185 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

242. Tran, H., & Freel, M. (2022). Ownership, innovation, and variable institutional quality. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 30(6), 1234–1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12477 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

243. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

244. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

245. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of management journal, 24(2), 289-305. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

246. https://doi.org/10.5465/255842 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

247. Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

248. van Aert, R. C. M., & Jackson, D. (2019). A new justification of the Hartung–Knapp method for random effects meta-analysis based on weighted least squares regression. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(4), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

249. Van den Noortgate, W., López-López, J. A., Marín-Martínez, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 576–594. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

250. Veroniki, A. A., et al. (2016). Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in metaanalysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(1), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1164 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

251. Veroniki, A. A., Jackson, D., Bender, R., Kuss, O., Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., Knapp, G., & Salanti, G. (2018). Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random-effects metaanalysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

252. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

253. Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

254. Viechtbauer, W., López-López, J. A., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2015). A comparison of procedures to test for moderators in mixed-effects meta-regression models. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 360–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

255. Vilaine, L., Aziz, M. R., Cruz, S., & Trnovský, K. (2025). Rethinking business schools: How employees’ voice and autonomy drive innovation in a norm‐constrained world. Strategic Change, 34(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.70016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

256. Volberda, H., Weerdt, N., Verwaal, E., Stienstra, M., & Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2012). Contingency fit, institutional fit, and firm performance: A metafit approach to organization–environment relationships. Organization Science, 23(5), 1040–1054. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0687 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

257. Wahab, F. A., Subramaniam, A., Ho, J. A., & Bali Mahomed, A. S. (2024). Augmenting effect of inclusive and ambidextrous leadership on public university academic staffs’ innovative performance: the mediating role of innovative work behavior. Sage Open, 14(1), 21582440241232761. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241232761 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

258. Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2005). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (Vol. 4). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

259. Wang, S. V., Pottegård, A., Crown, W., Arlett, P., Ashcroft, D., Benchimol, E., Schneeweiss, S., & Williams, R. J. (2022). HARmonized protocol template to enhance reproducibility of hypothesis-evaluating realworld evidence studies on treatment effects: A good practices report of a joint ISPE/ISPOR task force. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 32(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5507 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

260. Wang, X., Liu, M., Leung, A. Y., Jin, X., Dai, H., & Shang, S. (2024). Nurses’ job embeddedness and turnover intention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 11, 563–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2024.10.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

261. Wenke, K., Zapkau, F. B., & Schwens, C. (2020). Too small to do it all? A meta-analysis on the relative relationships of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity with SME performance. Journal of Business Research, 132, 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

262. West, M. (1997). Innovation and creativity at work. Training, Education and Employment, 21-24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

263. Westerlund, H., & Gaunt, H. (2021). Expanding professionalism in music and higher music education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003108337 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

264. Williamson, B. (2015). Governing methods: policy innovation labs, design and data science in the digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(3), 251-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.1038693 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

265. Wright, C. S. (2025). Peer review as structured commentary: Immutable identity, public dialogue, and reproducible scholarship. ArXiv, abs/2506.22497. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2506.22497 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

266. Wu, X., Zhan, F., Zhang, X., & Wang, T. (2025). Innovation and entrepreneurship education for medical students: A global bibliometric analysis (2000–2024). Medical Education Online, 30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2025.2515385 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

267. Xu, J., Ong, J., Trần, T., Kollar, Y., Wu, A., Vujičić, M., & Hsiao, H. (2021). The impact of study and learning strategies on post-secondary student academic achievement: A mixed-methods systematic review. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7ng5y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

268. Yassin, S. A. M., Ahmad, A. R., & Razak, N. A. (2021). Leadership and innovation in Malaysian higher education institutions: A systematic review. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 13(2), 79–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

269. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2021.13.02.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

270. Yassin, Y. N. H. M., Thangal, T. B. T., Bungsu, M. S., Osman, M. H. M., Othman, A., & Ismail, A. (2021). Transformation variables in higher education: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Education Studies. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i12.4008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

271. Yayeh, M. B., Dinkayehu, T. E., Endrias, E. E., & Assegie, M. T. (2025). Prevalence and associated factors of caring behavior among nurses in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12916-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

272. Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 147–197). Consulting Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

273. Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. (Eds.). (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

274. Zhang, H., Liu, W., Wang, M., & Wang, L. (2025). A systematic review of meta-analysis in marketing research: Theme analyses, variable selections, and future directions. Psychology & Marketing, 42(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

275. Zhang, S., Hanim A. Hamid, A., & Salwana Alias, B. (2025). Transformational leadership and scientific research performance of university faculty: a self-determination theory perspective. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2548950. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2548950 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria