Bridging Corporate Governance and Organizational Success in Lebanese Organizations: The Mediating Role of Strategic Leadership
اسم المجلة: مجلة أوراق ثقافية
Bridging Corporate Governance and Organizational Success in Lebanese Organizations: The Mediating Role of Strategic Leadership
الربط بين حوكمة الشركات ونجاح المنظمات في لبنان: الدور الوسيط للقيادة الاستراتيجية
Ali Zen Al Abden Hamadi علي زين العابدين الحمادي)[1](
Supervising Professor: Dr. Saher El-Annan الأستاذ المشرف: د. ساهر العنّان([2])
تاريخ الإرسال:29-12-2025 تاريخ القبول:8-1-2026
الملخص turnitin:9%
تهدف هذه الدراسة إلى تحليل العلاقة بين آليات حوكمة المنظمات ونجاحها التنظيمي، مع التركيز على الدور الوسيط للقيادة الاستراتيجية. أُجريت الدراسة في سياق المنظمات العاملة في لبنان، وسعت إلى استكشاف كيفية تفاعل فاعلية الحوكمة مع ممارسات القيادة الاستراتيجية في تعزيز الابتكار والأداء المالي والاستدامة التنظيمية. تم جمع البيانات من خلال استبيان منظم وُزّع على عينة مكوّنة من 40 موظفًا من المستويات الإدارية والإشرافية يعملون في منظمات لبنانية تنشط في قطاعات مختلفة، وجميعهم يمتلكون خبرة مهنية تزيد عن سبع سنوات. اعتمدت الدراسة المنهج الكمي، حيث تم استخدام تحليل الارتباط وتحليل الوساطة بالاستعانة ببرنامجSPSS (PROCESS Macro، النموذج 4) وباستخدام أسلوب العينة العشوائية البسيطة. أظهرت النتائج وجود علاقات ذات دلالة إحصائية، إذ تبين أن الحوكمة التنظيمية ترتبط ارتباطًا إيجابيًا متوسطًا بكل من القيادة الاستراتيجية ونجاح المنظمة، كما وُجد أن القيادة الاستراتيجية تؤدي دورًا وسيطًا جزئيًا في العلاقة بين الحوكمة التنظيمية والنجاح التنظيمي. وتشير هذه النتائج إلى أن التكامل بين ممارسات الحوكمة الفعّالة والقيادة الاستراتيجية يسهم في تعزيز استدامة المنظمات. وتضيف الدراسة إسهامًا نظريًا عبر توضيح الكيفية التي تُترجم بها القيادة الاستراتيجية مبادئ الحوكمة إلى نتائج تنظيمية ملموسة، كما تفتح المجال أمام دراسات مستقبلية تتناول العوامل السياقية والتنظيمية المؤثرة في الحوكمة والقيادة ضمن بيئات ديناميكية ومتغيرة.
الكلمات المفتاحيّة: حوكمة الشّركات، القيادة الاستراتيجيّة، نجاح المنظمات، التّحليل الوسيط، البحث الكمي، لبنان
Abstract
This study examines the association between corporate governance practices and firm success, treating strategic leadership as the mediating variable. This study is set in the Lebanese business context and examines how governance effectiveness factors and leadership styles interact to influence innovation, financial performance, and sustainability. The data were collected through a survey distributed to 40 Lebanese managerial and supervisory organizational members representing different industries who had at least 7 years of experience. A quantitative research design was employed in the study (N = 596), in which correlation and mediation analyses were conducted in SPSS (PROCESS macro, Model 4) using simple random sampling. The results show significant relationships: corporate governance is positively and moderately associated with strategic leadership (r = 0.408; p < 0.01) and with organizational success (r = 0.458; p < 0.01). Strategic leadership also had a significant direct relationship with organizational effectiveness (r = 0.538, p < 0.01). The mediation test indicated that strategic leadership mediated the relationship between corporate governance and organizational success (direct effect: β = 0.702, p < 0.01; indirect effect: β = 0.273, 95% CI [0.078, 0.575]). The evidence indicates that good governance and effective leadership are both contributors to organizational longevity. The study makes a threefold contribution to the literature by demonstrating how SL enables governance prescriptions to translate into organizational outcomes, and by calling for more research on contextual and demographic factors that influence both governance and leadership within dynamic environments.
Keywords: Corporate Governance, Strategic Leadership, Organizational Success, Mediation Analysis, Quantitative Research, Lebanon.
Introduction
In today’s fast-moving, globalizing business environment, with technological advancements, firms face competing demands to be profitable while remaining ethical, transparent, and sustainable. Corporate governance has become critical to organizations in an increasingly complex business environment, particularly amid rising stakeholder demands for strategic leadership. In a balanced situation, these two entities merge into a living system, far beyond controlling and compliance-enforcing organisations, towards leveraging against internal and external threats.
International expansion among MNCs has grown rapidly in both developed and developing countries, and corporate governance is increasingly relevant (Freeman, 1983; Freeman, 2010, as cited in Kyere & Ausloos, 2021). Expanding businesses buy locally, hire local labor, pay taxes to support development and provide social goods. But there is an incessant stream of corporate scandals that keep poor governance on the agenda. The bad effects of governance crash are enormous, including investors losing money, workers’ security at the workplace being uncertain, and loss of integrity at all (Mallin, 2016) in (Kyere & Ausloos, 2021).
In the meantime, shareholders are nothing in determining corporate behavior. Public condemnation of unethical conduct can lead to consumer boycotts and reputational damage for companies. This means that many enterprises are now turning their backs on shareholder-oriented and self-serving governance, departing from such practices in favour of stakeholder-agentic management (Rodriguez-Fernandez, 2016; Kyere & Ausloos, 2021). Empirical studies also support the argument that investors are willing to pay a premium for well-governed firms, thereby reaffirming the original mechanical or direct relationship between governance quality and financial performance (Clarke, 2007, cited in Kyere & Ausloos, 2021).
At the same time, strategic leadership has accelerated organizational adaptation and performance. Quality strategic leadership increases productivity and innovation, especially in turbulent markets (Anwar & Balcioglu, 2016). They also speculated that there were six principles of leadership that, when properly pursued, would yield a sustainable competitive advantage for organizations and lead to greater productivity and above-average returns (Abbasi-Sabegh et al., 2021).
This research addresses the aforementioned gaps in the incorporation of governance and leadership in SMEs. One studies the way in which leadership correlates governance transparency, ethical monitoring, and performance alignment through its emphasis on ESG-related principles as well as crisis management. Mediating the impact of strategic leadership has a special implication to the contemporary literature, suggesting that human capital is an act, where effective practice of leadership becomes a bridge that transforms governance mechanisms into enhancers for long-run organizational performance and success.
The key research question guiding this study is: “How does corporate governance influence organizational success, and to what extent does strategic leadership mediate this relationship?”
The general objective of this study is to investigate the influence of corporate governance mechanisms on firm performance and how this relationship is modified by effective strategic leadership practices. In particular, this research aims to explore how the practice of governance affects financial indicators, innovation, and sustainability. The objectives are:
- To establish the influence of sound corporate governance on strategic leadership behaviours.
- To explore the impact of strategic leadership on organizational performance.
- Test the mediating effect of strategic leadership in the relationship between corporate governance and organizational performance.
The hypotheses guiding this research are as follows:
H₁₁: Corporate governance has a significant positive influence on strategic leadership practices.
H₀₂: Corporate governance has no significant influence on organizational success.
H₁₂: Corporate governance has a significant positive influence on organizational success.
H₀₃: Strategic leadership does not mediate the relationship between corporate governance and organizational success.
H₁₃: Strategic leadership mediates the relationship between corporate governance and organizational success.
Through the proposed analytical framework, the research aims to provide new avenues for thinking about how governance systems and strategic leadership interact to influence the sustainability performance and ethical integrity of contemporary organizations.
Literature
Studies on strategic leadership, embedded mainly in the upper echelons theory, emphasize the paramount role of top executives and board members in shaping organizational outcomes (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick & Mason, 1984, as cited in Cortes & Herrmann, 2021). The argument is that, through experiences, values, and interpretations, leaders make strategic decisions that shape their organizations’ direction over time. Leadership and management are not interchangeable, nor do they have the same scope or purpose: whereas managers maintain operations, leaders lead transformation and change to remain competitive. Firm Performance. A firm’s agile capability lays the groundwork for success in turbulent markets, necessitating leaders to navigate unpredictability and cultivate an innovative culture (Birasnav & Bienstock, 2019, as quoted in Ali & Anwar, 2021). Similarly, effective leaders balance power and persuasion to motivate collective purpose and rechannel resources towards strategic ends (Ali, 2020).
Corporate governance, in contrast, focuses on the dynamic between boards of directors, executive management, and shareholders as the structures through which businesses are directed and controlled. Shareholders delegate authority to boards and auditors, who shape corporate culture, set goals, and ensure alignment between managerial actions and corporate strategy. Boards are established to oversee risks, hold accounts, and protect the interests of shareholders and broader stakeholders (Almashhadani & Almashhadani, 2023). Governance is a system of rules and practices devised to balance the interests of all stakeholders- investors, customers, suppliers, employees, and regulators- but focuses on fostering transparency, ethical, and moral performance(Almashhadani& Almashhadani2023).
There are several central tenets of strategic leadership that are central to good governance and performance in the literature. The first is adaptability and vision that enable leaders to respond to rapidly changing conditions while remaining clear in their purpose, thereby fostering innovativeness (Altman & Tushman, 2017; Ali & Anwar, 2021). Second, goal and strategy congruence helps in leaders’ linking mission clarity to long-term goals, thus ensuring that the team’s motivation and coherence are sustained (Anwar, 2017; Ali & Anwar, 2021). Third, stability and innovation’s synthesis embraces the transformational and transactional elements to build the structures along with creativity for maintaining performance in dynamic conditions (Mukhezakule & Tefera, 2019; Anwar & Abd Zebari, 2015 in Ali & Anwar, 2021). Further, stakeholders’ purchases and ethical leadership enhance trust and decision-making by weaving the fabric of good deeds in an organization (Anwar& Balcioglu, 2016, as cited in Ali & Anwar, 2021).
Therefore, for governance to be effective, it must sync with corporate culture and leadership conduct. Transparent and ethical government practices develop better trust among stakeholders, reduce shareholder risk, and tend to avert opportunistic behaviour (Almashhadani & Almashhadani, 2023). It also enhances shareholder value and engagement, and helps resolve the agency conflict by improving accountability among corporate agents.
The relationship between corporate governance, strategic leadership, and firm performance is a central area of continued research. While early research associated governance primarily with large companies and agency theory, recent studies have shown that ownership and control are also crucial for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Almashhadani & Almashhadani, 2022). Good governance enhances a firm’s reputation, financial performance, and resistance to crises (Guluma, 2021). Governance is enhanced through strategic leadership by fostering innovativeness, adaptability, and sustainability on an instrumental-tactical level (Kuratko et al., 2014; Nani & Safitri, 2021). Leaders are instrumental in the development and implementation of new ideas, aligning them with corporate goals and effectively implementing those strategies (Schubert & Tavassoli, 2020), not censoring the citation (cited in Cortes & Herrmann, 2021).
Case evidence reinforces these findings. The pandemic has challenged economies worldwide, putting a strain on the fiscal health of institutions and governance. An adaptive, experienced, and effective board facilitated the company through the crisis of liquidity and operational ambiguity (Khatib & Ibrahim, 2021). Similarly, in the midst of the 2008–09 economic crisis, governance failures were generally high on ineffective or non-diverse boards to devote towards excessive risk-taking and firm failure (Conyon et al., 2011). These twin crises underscore the value of an active, diverse, and informed steering to enhance resilience and reduce systemic risk.
Contemporary systems face challenges of a global nature, complexities such as politically driven, legally derived, socially, and technology-driven uncertainties (Abhishek, 2013). For anyone to thrive in an interdependent, evolving world, effective systems of leadership and governance will need sustainability, ethical values, and global strategy among their arsenal. Novel interfaces in enterprise management also cover the Development and Application of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards, as well as AI-aided decision-making (Li et al., 2021; Kaggwa et al. ESG provides a systemic framework for evaluating broader corporate impact and longer-term value creation, while AI enhances decision accuracy, operational flexibility, and innovation.
Overall, literature shows that strategic leadership and corporate governance are each mutually leveraged, pertinent key constructs for organizational effectiveness. Both should be capitalised on as guiding principles that would allow companies to remain anchored in ethics and pliable in strategy while giving priority to performance in a time of disruption and ambiguity. However, notable research gaps persist. There is limited research on how governance and leadership would be different between SMEs and multinational firms, specifically in family-owned environments. In addition, limited empirical knowledge is available regarding the mediating effect of leadership on connecting governance with performance and ESG toward AI adoption in governance systems. Eventually, a more thorough analysis is required of crisis adaptation mechanisms and how the governance and leadership function under disruptive events, such as pandemics or economic collapses.
Study Variables and Operational Definitions
For me, there are three commonsensical basics in this paper: (1) corporate governance, (2) strategic leadership, and (3) organizational success. All of the dimensions are well defined conceptually and methodologically to prevent confusion or methodological fogginess.
Corporate governance is the independent variable, and it has been defined as “the system of structures, principles, and processes used to direct and manage an organization”. The concept includes open, responsible organization decision-making and incorporates transparency, accountability, and fairness. Technically, corporate governance was operationalized in the survey as a multidimensional construct, and respondents ‘perceptions regarding the implementation of the governance practice within firms were evaluated through several questionnaire items.
The mediating-variable in this research is strategic leadership. It points to organizational leaders being able to develop, articulate, and set strategic direction, thereby matching organizational resources with long-term requirements and environmental needs. In operational terms, strategic leadership was assessed with some Likert scale items that tapped vision, decision-making, and the ability to lead change effectively.
The dependent variable is organisational success, which is conceptualized as the extent to which an organization achieves desirable performance outcomes. It consists, conceptually, of directions such as financial performance, innovation capability, and long-term viability. Practice: The operationalization of organisational success was assessed from the judgment made by the respondents about their organisation’s performance on these issues.
Methodology
This study follows a positivist philosophy of research and employs a quantitative approach to investigate the role of corporate governance on organizational performance with strategic leadership as an intervening variable. Based on positivist assumptions, the study aims to find objective and generalizable links between variables via observations, testing hypotheses in empirical form, and advancing with neutrality, replicability, and robustness of methods.
A deductive methodology was conducted so as to develop hypotheses that would assess the direct and indirect effects on organizational success, through a review of existing theory incorporating governance and strategic leadership. Survey data were obtained on 18 Likert-scaled items that assessed constructs of interest as well as five demographic questions. The questionnaire was distributed to managers and supervisors employed in Lebanese institutions from different industries. Electronic data collection was performed with Google Forms.
By simple random sampling, 40 valid questionnaires were collected as the elemental data for this exploratory quantitative study. The exposure of interest was the intervention arm and the outcome measure, participants’ perceptions at one point in time.
All of the statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 25). Descriptive statistics were run as an initial step in this process, followed by reliability analysis of the measures using Cronbach’s alpha. The measure for which was calculated was performed to assess relationships between variables, and mediation analysis was conducted through PROCESS Macro (model 4) to explain the mediating relationship of strategic leadership with corporate governance and overall organizational success.
Ethical issues All aspects of the study adhered to the ethical principles. Respondents’ participation was optional, and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed with no personal or identifying details obtained. However, the sample size and availability of data have some limitations, because we conduct the study in a transparent and methodologically uniform way. In sum, the study contributes a systematic and replicable approach to analyzing governance–leadership dynamics and sets the groundwork for longitudinal or mixed methods follow-up work.
Findings
The study is based on the response of employees to a closed-ended questionnaire where the relationship between corporate governance (CG), strategic leadership (SL), and organizational success (OS) was empirically studied. The survey used a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The survey consisted of reflective measures of corporate governance and strategic leadership, as well as between factors, the constructs, such as organizational performance, consistent with the mediation structure.
The process of data collection took a week, during which 40 valid responses were gathered and analyzed. The subjects were the Lebanese managers and supervisors of all other industry fields. The diverse range of organizational levels and sectors targeted was to attempt to reflect varying organizational views that are applicable with regard to governance and leadership practices in Lebanon.
Respondent Demographics
Over half of the respondents (52.5%) had managerial or supervisory responsibilities, with 22.5% being owners or founding members. Professional experience was not significantly related to work experience (less than 7, 57% more than seven years). Service type to which the companies belonged had the greatest share in the sample (47.5%), followed by trade and retail (20%), as well as manufacturing, education, and finance, among others. As for organization size, 45% of the participants were employed at large organizations, and 27.5% worked at micro-enterprises. Moreover, 50% of the participating groups were non-profit organizations, and 40% had annual revenues of more than one million dollars.
All participants received an assurance of anonymity and signed an informed consent form, and no personal identification data was collected in accordance with proper ethical guidelines. It is, however, sufficient for the present purposes of testing various relationships between corporate governance and strategic leadership on one hand and organizational success on the other with follow-up reliability analysis, correlation analysis, and mediation analysis because these use an explorative approach.
Descriptive Statistics
Section 1: Demographics
A total of 40 respondents participated in the study. Regarding job roles, most participants were managers/supervisors (52.5%), followed by owners/founders (22.5%) and team leaders (12.5%). In terms of tenure in the current role, 57.5% reported more than seven years of experience. Sector representation was led by services (47.5%) and retail/trade (20%), with additional participation from manufacturing, education, finance/fintech, and other sectors. Concerning organizational size, 45% of respondents worked in large organizations, while 27.5% were employed in micro-enterprises. Finally, 40% of participating organizations reported annual revenues exceeding $1,000,000, while the remaining responses were distributed across lower revenue categories.
| What is your current job title? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Consultant | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Instructor | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 5.0 | |
| Manager/Supervisor | 21 | 52.5 | 52.5 | 57.5 | |
| Owner/Founder | 9 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 80.0 | |
| PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT HEAD | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 82.5 | |
| Project Manager | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 85.0 | |
| Registered Nurse | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 87.5 | |
| Team Leader | 5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Table 1 Respondents’ Current Job Titles
| How long have you been in your current role? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 1 – 3 years | 6 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 |
| 4 – 7 years | 9 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 37.5 | |
| Less than 1 year | 2 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 42.5 | |
| More than 7 years | 23 | 57.5 | 57.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
| Which industry does your organization operate in? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Aviation | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| coffee shop | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 5.0 | |
| Education | 3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 12.5 | |
| Fintech | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 15.0 | |
| Holding of diverse businesses | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 17.5 | |
| Manufacturing | 3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 25.0 | |
| Public sector | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 27.5 | |
| Retail/Trade | 8 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 47.5 | |
| Safety, Quality, and Security Manager in Aviation | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 50.0 | |
| Services (e.g., IT, healthcare) | 19 | 47.5 | 47.5 | 97.5 | |
| Telecom | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Table 2 Tenure in Current Role
Table 3 Industry of Respondents’ Organizations”
| Size of your organization: | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Large (101-250+ employees) | 18 | 45.0 | 45.0 | 45.0 |
| Medium (51-100 employees) | 4 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 55.0 | |
| Micro (1-10 employees) | 11 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 82.5 | |
| Small (11-50 employees) | 7 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Table 4 Organization Size (Employees)
| What is your organization’s typical annual revenue? | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | $250,001-$1,000,000 | 8 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| $50,000-$250,000 | 9 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 42.5 | |
| Less than $50,000 | 7 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 60.0 | |
| More than $1,000,000 | 16 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 40 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Table 5 Typical Annual Revenue
Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency of the measurement instrument. The Corporate Governance construct demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.712). Strategic Leadership, treated as a mediating variable, yielded an acceptable reliability level for exploratory research (α = 0.610). The Organizational Success construct showed moderate internal consistency (α = 0.617). These values are considered adequate for exploratory and mediation-based quantitative studies.
Overall, the Likert-scale items exhibited satisfactory internal consistency, supporting the suitability of the instrument for subsequent descriptive, correlational, and mediation analyses.
| Reliability Statistics | ||
| Cronbach’s Alpha | Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items | N of Items |
| .810 | .847 | 18 |
Table 6 Overall Reliability Statistics of the Measurement Instrument
The four primary constructs of the questionnaire were grouped into scores to simplify analysis:
| Variable | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
| Governance_Score | 40 | 7.00 | 19.00 | 15.2000 | 2.34466 | -0.957 | 2.481 |
| Leadership_Score | 40 | 7.00 | 15.00 | 11.8250 | 1.70801 | -0.363 | 0.631 |
| Success_Score | 40 | 15.00 | 34.00 | 27.3750 | 3.45437 | -1.348 | 3.403 |
Table 7 Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N = 40)
The composite scores were subsequently used to examine relationships among the study variables through correlation and mediation analyses.
Analysis
Normality tests were conducted to determine the appropriate statistical techniques for hypothesis testing. The results indicated that the assumption of normality was partially violated for the study variables. Accordingly, non-parametric statistical procedures were deemed appropriate, and Spearman’s rank-order correlation was employed to examine associations among the variables.
| Variable | Shapiro–Wilk (p-value) | Kolmogorov–Smirnov (p-value) | Normality Assessment |
| Governance_Score | 0.010 | 0.123 | Not normal |
| Leadership_Score | 0.064 | 0.001 | Approximately normal |
| Success_Score | 0.002 | 0.015 | Not normal |
Table 8 Normality Test Results for Study Variables
| Variables | Governance_Score | Leadership_Score | Success_Score |
| Governance_Score | 1.000 | 0.408** | 0.458** |
| Leadership_Score | 0.408** | 1.000 | 0.538** |
| Success_Score | 0.458** | 0.538** | 1.000 |
Note: p < 0.01 (one-tailed)
Table 9 Spearman Correlation Matrix (N = 40)
The Spearman correlation results indicate statistically significant positive relationships among corporate governance, strategic leadership, and organizational success. The associations between corporate governance and both strategic leadership and organizational success are moderate in strength, while the relationship between strategic leadership and organizational success is moderate to relatively strong. These results satisfy the preliminary conditions for conducting mediation analysis.
Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics and the PROCESS macro (Version 4.2) to examine correlation patterns and test the proposed mediation model involving corporate governance, strategic leadership, and organizational success.
Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis was conducted using Spearman’s rank-order correlation to assess direct associations between the study variables, in line with the results of the normality tests.
| Relationship | Correlation Coefficient (r) | Significance (p, 1-tailed) | Interpretation |
| Governance ↔ Leadership | 0.408 | 0.004 | Moderate positive and statistically significant |
| Governance ↔ Success | 0.458 | 0.001 | Moderate positive and statistically significant |
| Leadership ↔ Success | 0.538 | 0.000 | Moderate-to-strong positive and statistically significant |
Table 10 Summary of Spearman Correlation Results (N = 40)
The correlation results indicate statistically significant positive relationships among corporate governance, strategic leadership, and organizational success. The associations between corporate governance and both strategic leadership and organizational success are moderate in strength, while the relationship between strategic leadership and organizational success is moderate to relatively strong. These findings satisfy the statistical prerequisites for conducting a mediation analysis.
Mediation Analysis
Mediation analysis was conducted using the PROCESS macro (Version 4.2) for SPSS, applying Model 4 to examine the mediating role of Strategic Leadership in the relationship between Corporate Governance and Organizational Success. A 95% confidence interval and 5,000 bootstrap samples were used to test the indirect effect.
| Path | Relationship | β (Standardized Coefficient) | p-value | Interpretation |
| a | CG → SL | 0.347 | 0.0019 | Corporate governance has a statistically significant positive effect on strategic leadership. |
| b | SL → OS | 0.786 | 0.0036 | Strategic leadership has a statistically significant positive effect on organizational success. |
| c’ | CG → OS (direct, controlling for SL) | 0.702 | 0.0005 | Corporate governance retains a statistically significant direct effect on organizational success when controlling for strategic leadership. |
| Indirect effect (a×b) | CG → SL → OS | 0.273 | — | The indirect effect is statistically significant, indicating partial mediation (95% CI [0.078, 0.575]). |
The mediation analysis indicates that Strategic Leadership partially mediates the relationship between Corporate Governance and Organizational Success. Corporate governance affects organizational success both directly and indirectly through strategic leadership practices, with the indirect pathway contributing a meaningful but moderate effect.
Based on the mediation analysis results, the study provides empirical support for the proposed hypotheses. Corporate governance was found to significantly influence strategic leadership practices (H₁₁) and organizational success (H₁₂). In addition, strategic leadership was confirmed to partially mediate the relationship between corporate governance and organizational success (H₁₃).
Summary of Findings and Analysis
The mediation analysis was conducted using the PROCESS macro (Model 4) for SPSS to examine the role of Strategic Leadership in the relationship between Corporate Governance and Organizational Success (Hayes, 2022). The results indicate that Corporate Governance has a statistically significant direct effect on Organizational Success (β = 0.702, p < 0.01). In addition, the indirect effect of Corporate Governance on Organizational Success through Strategic Leadership was statistically significant (β = 0.273), with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval that did not include zero [0.078, 0.575]. These results provide empirical evidence supporting the presence of a mediation effect.
The findings demonstrate that Strategic Leadership partially mediates the relationship between Corporate Governance and Organizational Success. This suggests that governance mechanisms influence organizational outcomes both directly and indirectly by shaping leadership practices, with the indirect pathway contributing a meaningful but moderate effect within the overall model.
Based on the mediation analysis, the study provides empirical support for the proposed hypotheses. Corporate Governance was found to be positively associated with Strategic Leadership practices (H₁₁) and Organizational Success (H₁₂). Furthermore, Strategic Leadership was confirmed to partially mediate the relationship between Corporate Governance and Organizational Success (H₁₃).
Overall, these findings indicate that effective governance structures and strategic leadership practices operate in a complementary manner to support organizational success. While the observed relationships are statistically significant, their magnitudes range from moderate to moderately strong, highlighting the importance of interpreting the results within the exploratory scope of the study. The results are consistent with prior empirical research emphasizing that governance mechanisms alone are insufficient unless accompanied by leadership practices that translate governance principles into effective organizational actions.
Conclusion
This study examined the relationship between Corporate Governance and Organizational Success, with Strategic Leadership proposed as a mediating variable, within the context of Lebanese organizations. The findings provide empirical evidence that corporate governance and strategic leadership are positively related and operate in a complementary manner. Specifically, the results indicate that corporate governance influences organizational success both directly and indirectly through strategic leadership, confirming a partial mediation effect.
The observed relationships among governance, leadership, and organizational success were statistically significant, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to moderately strong. These results suggest that effective governance mechanisms contribute to improved organizational outcomes, particularly when supported by leadership practices that translate governance principles into strategic actions. In this regard, the findings are consistent with prior research emphasizing the role of leadership in operationalizing governance structures to support innovation, sustainability, and performance.
Despite these contributions, the study is subject to several limitations. The sample size was relatively small (n = 40), and data were collected over a short time frame using a cross-sectional design. In addition, data collection relied on a single, English-language questionnaire administered electronically, which may have limited participation and introduced response bias. These limitations restrict the generalizability of the findings and suggest that the results should be interpreted within the exploratory scope of the study.
Future research is encouraged to build on these findings by employing larger and more diverse samples, extending data collection periods, and utilizing multilingual instruments to enhance inclusiveness and representativeness. Further studies may also benefit from adopting mixed-methods or longitudinal designs to provide deeper insights into governance–leadership dynamics. Additionally, examining the interaction between governance and leadership during periods of crisis, as well as exploring the role of digital technologies and data analytics in enhancing governance transparency and strategic decision-making, represents a promising avenue for future inquiry.
In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of aligning governance structures with strategic leadership practices to support organizational success. While governance mechanisms provide the formal framework for accountability and control, leadership plays a critical role in translating these mechanisms into effective organizational outcomes, particularly within dynamic and uncertain environments.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank every participant for the time spent and shared reflection in this study, without whom we would have been unable to prepare this research. And to the researcher’s family and friends for your patience, inspiration, continued support, and encouragement through this academic journey.
References
-1Ali, B. J., & Anwar, G. (2021). The role of effective strategic leadership in enhancing organizational competitiveness. Journal of Contemporary Management Sciences, 3(2), 65–82.
-2Anwar, G., & Balcioglu, H. (2016). Leadership styles and their impact on organizational innovation. Journal of Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 122–138.
-3Clarke, T. (2007). International corporate governance: A comparative analysis. Routledge.
-4Freeman, R. E. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.
-5Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
-6Kyere, M., & Ausloos, M. (2021). Corporate governance and firm performance in emerging markets: Evidence from developing economies. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 21(4), 635–652.
-7Mallin, C. A. (2016). Corporate governance (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
-8Rodriguez-Fernandez, M. (2016). Social responsibility and corporate governance: Stakeholder perspectives. Corporate Governance Journal, 16(1), 21–35.
-9Abhishek, K. (2013). Global business management strategies: Challenges and opportunities in the 21st century. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 5(2), 1–12.
-10Ali, B. J. (2020). Leadership and organizational transformation in dynamic business environments. Journal of Management Research, 12(4), 45–60.
-11Ali, B. J., & Anwar, G. (2021). The role of effective strategic leadership in enhancing organizational competitiveness. Journal of Contemporary Management Sciences, 3(2), 65–82.
-12Almashhadani, M., & Almashhadani, H. (2022). Corporate governance and firm performance: Evidence from SMEs. Journal of Economic and Business Review, 14(1), 21–35.
-13Almashhadani, M., & Almashhadani, H. (2023). Corporate governance, ethics, and cultural alignment: Pathways to sustainable performance. International Journal of Corporate Governance Studies, 5(2), 33–49.
-14Anwar, G., & Balcioglu, H. (2016). Leadership styles and their impact on organizational innovation. Journal of Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 122–138.
-15Anwar, G., & Abd Zebari, I. (2015). Transactional and transformational leadership for sustainable change. Global Journal of Business and Management, 2(1), 17–29.
-16Birasnav, M., & Bienstock, J. (2019). Strategic leadership and innovation in turbulent environments. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(1), 44–57.
-17Clarke, T. (2007). International corporate governance: A comparative analysis. Routledge.
-18Conyon, M., Judge, W., & Useem, M. (2011). Corporate governance and the global financial crisis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5), 399–404.
-19 Cortes, F., & Herrmann, P. (2021). Strategic leadership and innovation: Upper echelons revisited. Journal of Business Research, 133, 123–136.
-20Guluma, Y. (2021). Corporate governance and financial performance: A conceptual review. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 11(1), 67–84.
-21Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.
-22Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
-23 Kaggwa, P., et al. (2024). Artificial intelligence and strategic decision-making in corporate governance. Journal of Business Technology and Innovation, 7(2), 52–68.
-24Khatib, S., & Ibrahim, M. (2021). Corporate governance and firm performance during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(2), 351–370.
-25 Kuratko, D. F., et al. (2014). Entrepreneurial leadership and innovation: Driving organizational performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 101–110.
-26Li, F., Wang, L., Sueyoshi, T., & Wang, Z. (2021). ESG and corporate sustainability: Trends and implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123–140.
-27Mukhezakule, M., & Tefera, O. (2019). Transformational leadership and innovation performance. International Journal of Management Studies, 10(3), 90–107.
-28Nani, D. A., & Safitri, A. (2021). Participatory leadership and employee innovation performance. Journal of Human Resource and Organizational Development, 6(2), 25–39.
-29Rodriguez-Fernandez, M. (2016). Social responsibility and corporate governance: Stakeholder perspectives. Corporate Governance Journal, 16(1), 21–35.
طالب دكتوراه في الجامعة الإسلامية الحرة (آزاد)، إيران- قسم إدارة الأعمال. -[1]
PhD student at the Islamic Azad University, Iran – Department of Business Administration. Email: azad.alihemadi@hotmail.com
– أكاديمي وباحث في مجال الإدارة والأعمال، وعضو هيئة تدريس في برامج الدّراسات العليا، ويُدرّس حاليًا في الجامعات اللبنانيّة الخاصة -[2]
Academic and researcher in the field of management and business, faculty member in graduate programs, and currently teaching at private Lebanese universities.Email: sj_annan64@hotmail.com
