1- Department of Management, Faculty of Accounting and Management, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran.
2- Department of Management, Faculty of Management, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran ,mamiry@ut.ac.ir
3- Department of Management, Faculty of Management, Amin University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Management, Faculty of Management, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Department of Management, Faculty of Management, Amin University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (651 Views)
Purpose: This study aimed to develop a context-specific model of organizational agility aligned with the new generation within Iranian knowledge-based firms. It explains how the characteristics, expectations, and values of the new generation can be translated into agile structures, processes, and leadership practices to strengthen organizational responsiveness to environmental turbulence and an emerging workforce.
Methodology: The research adopted a qualitative, interpretive, and applied approach. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews and focus groups with sixteen information-rich participants. Analysis followed Diekelmann’s seven-step hermeneutic model and a three-level coding process (descriptive–interpretive–conceptual), with sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved.
Findings: A total of 460 interpretive codes were distilled into 36 sub-themes and eight core themes: (1) sensing and monitoring the new generation, (2) data-drivenness and futurity, (3) participatory governance and transparency, (4) aligned culture and values, (5) empowerment and continuous learning, (6) structural and operational agility, (7) digital infrastructure and tools, and (8) strategic alignment and translating insight into action. Together, these themes form a dynamic cycle extending from sensing to strategic enactment.
Originality: The study’s novelty lies in integrating the digital business agility framework with Fietz’s adaptive cycle while incorporating a generational lens. It provides the first model that systematically links organizational agility with the behaviors and preferences of the new generation in knowledge-based contexts. By shifting Gen Z from a descriptive attribute to an explanatory mechanism, the research offers actionable, policy-oriented guidance for designing agile systems, data-driven HR practices, and generation-responsive leadership.
Methodology: The research adopted a qualitative, interpretive, and applied approach. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews and focus groups with sixteen information-rich participants. Analysis followed Diekelmann’s seven-step hermeneutic model and a three-level coding process (descriptive–interpretive–conceptual), with sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved.
Findings: A total of 460 interpretive codes were distilled into 36 sub-themes and eight core themes: (1) sensing and monitoring the new generation, (2) data-drivenness and futurity, (3) participatory governance and transparency, (4) aligned culture and values, (5) empowerment and continuous learning, (6) structural and operational agility, (7) digital infrastructure and tools, and (8) strategic alignment and translating insight into action. Together, these themes form a dynamic cycle extending from sensing to strategic enactment.
Originality: The study’s novelty lies in integrating the digital business agility framework with Fietz’s adaptive cycle while incorporating a generational lens. It provides the first model that systematically links organizational agility with the behaviors and preferences of the new generation in knowledge-based contexts. By shifting Gen Z from a descriptive attribute to an explanatory mechanism, the research offers actionable, policy-oriented guidance for designing agile systems, data-driven HR practices, and generation-responsive leadership.
Keywords: New Generation Human Resources, Knowledge-Based Organization, Organizational Agility, Monitoring the New Generation, Organization’s Internal Dynamicity.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Development Process
Received: Oct 09 2025 | Accepted: Dec 02 2025
Received: Oct 09 2025 | Accepted: Dec 02 2025
References
1. Aghaee, R., Aghaee, R., & Aghaee, A. (2018). Determination of key employee dexterity factors with a focus on promoting social welfare and functioning: A case study of Iran health and cellulose industry. Journal of Productivity Management, 12(3), 179-210. (In Persian)
2. Ahmadi,M. , Sufiabadi,M. , Asgari,N. and Seyyed Zamani,S. F. (2024). Generation Z's message to managers: Our expectations of the workplace. Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(3), 1-35. (In Persian)
3. Akbari, S., Gholipour, A., & nargesian, A. (2023). Identification the Factors Affecting Retention of Generation Z Employees in the Capital Market (Compensation System). Journal of Research in Human Resources Management, 15(1), 11-52. (In Persian)
4. Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001) Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management System: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107-136. [DOI:10.2307/3250961]
5. Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [DOI:10.4135/9781412986335]
6. Arbussa, A., Bikfalvi, A., & Marquès, P. (2017). Strategic Agility-Driven Business Model Renewal: The Case of an SME. Management Decision, 55, 271-293. [DOI:10.1108/MD-05-2016-0355]
7. Asadi A, Farsijani H. (2024). Dynamic capabilities of human resources in the oil industry with an agile approach. JMDP. 37(2), 125-154. (In Persian) [DOI:10.61186/jmdp.37.2.125]
8. Bahadori, S., Abdollahnia, H., Maleki, S., & Bagheri Tanha, M. (2022). Investigating the relationship between organizational entrepreneurship and organizational agility in knowledge-based companies. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies and Business Research, 12(23), 0-0. (In Persian)
9. Bahadori, sekhavat, Abdollahnia, Hamideh, maleki, samad, bagheri Tanha, mahnaz. "Investigating the relationship between organizational entrepreneurship and organizational agility in knowledge-based companies." , vol. 12, no. 23, 2022, pp. 0-0. (In Persian)
10. Bandarian, R. (2016). Developing a conceptual model of strategic agility in research and technology organizations (RTOs). Roshd-e Fanavari, 12(46), 1-10. (In Persian)
11. Barkema, H. G., & Shvyrkov, O. (2007). Does leadership matter in high-performance teams?. Journal of Management, 33(2), 101-123.
12. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. [DOI:10.1177/014920639101700108]
13. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.
14. Bazgir R, Badi'zade A, Sanaei M, Zaboli R. (2025). A Model for New Product Development in Startups with a Digital Entrepreneurship Approach. JMDP. 38(3), 126-145. (In Persian) [DOI:10.66224/jmdp.38.3.117]
15. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
16. Chen, H., Chiang, R. H. L., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188. [DOI:10.2307/41703503]
17. Chen, I. J., & Popovich, K. (2003). Understanding customer relationship management (CRM) in the e-business era. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(6), 464-476.
18. Chillakuri, B. (2020). Understanding Generation Z expectations for effective onboarding. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(7), 1277-1296. [DOI:10.1108/JOCM-02-2020-0058]
19. Choi, B., & Kim, Y. (2016). Digital business agility: A strategic framework for enterprises in the digital era. Journal of Strategic Management, 25(2), 125-140.
20. Coccia, M. (2017). Sources of technological innovation: Radical and incremental innovation problem-driven to support competitive advantage. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 2(3), 145-156. [DOI:10.1080/09537325.2016.1268682] [PMCID]
21. Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375-394. [DOI:10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4]
22. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.).
23. Crocitto, M. M., & Youssef, M. A. (2003). The human side of organizational agility. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(5), 388-397. [DOI:10.1108/02635570310479963]
24. Cubukcu Cerasi, C., & Balcioglu, Y. S. (2024). Bridging generations and values: Understanding Generation Z's organizational preferences and the mediating role of sustainability and innovation attitudes in Turkey. Administrative Sciences, 14(9), 229. [DOI:10.3390/admsci14090229]
25. Çubukçu Çerasi, C., & Balcıoğlu, Y. S. (2024). Bridging generations and values: Understanding Generation Z's organizational preferences and the mediating role of sustainability and innovation attitudes in Turkey. Administrative Sciences, 14(9), 229. [DOI:10.3390/admsci14090229]
26. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. [DOI:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01]
27. Diekelmann, N. L., Allen, D., & Tanner, C. A. (1989). The NLN criteria for appraisal of baccalaureate programs: A critical hermeneutic analysis. National League for Nursing.
28. Dwivedula, R., Bosak, J., & Kesti, M. (2025). Why is Generation Z motivated at work? A qualitative inquiry using self-determination theory. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance. Advance online publication.
29. Ebrahimi Kiasari, H. , Alvani, S. M. and Memarzadeh Tehran, G. (2023). Combinational Assessment of the Factors Affecting Public Participation in Iranian Educational Policies. Journal of Public Administration, 15(2), 230-257. (In Persian)
30. Ebrahimikiasari,H. , Alvani,S. M. and Memarzadeh,G. (2023). Designing Public Participation Model in Iranian Educational Policies by Multi-Method Orientation. Strategic Studies of public policy, 13(46), 66-93. (In Persian)
31. Ebrahimiyan Jelodar, S. Y., & Ebrahimiyan Jelodar, S. M. (2012). Organization agility: Organization flexibility and responsion speed. Police Human Development, 8(39), 13-34. (In Persian)
32. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. [DOI:10.2307/258557]
33. El Nsour, J. A. (2021). Investigating the impact of organizational agility on the competitive advantage. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 10(1), 153-157. [DOI:10.22495/jgrv10i1art14]
34. Farsijani, Hasan. (2013). Explaining and identifying the factors affecting organizational agility in universities. Journal of Business Management Perspective, 12(15). (In Persian)
35. Febriana, A., & Mujib, M. (2024). Increasing productivity of Gen Z employees: The role of flexible work arrangements and participative style. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, a2489. [DOI:10.4102/SAJHRM.v22i0.2489]
36. Fietz, M. (2013). Approaches to adaptive iteration: A comparative review (Discussion draft). Discerning Action Pty. Ltd.
37. Gabrielova, K., & Buchko, A. A. (2021). Here comes Generation Z: Engaging the next generation of employees. Business Horizons, 64(4), 405-414. [DOI:10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.013]
38. Gede, D. U., & Huluka, A. T. (2023). The impact of strategic alignment on organizational performance: The case of Ethiopian universities. Cogent Business & Management, 10(2), 2247873. [DOI:10.1080/23311975.2023.2247873]
39. Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2022). Developing a leadership potential model for the new era of work and organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(2). [DOI:10.1108/LODJ-06-2021-0258]
40. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. [DOI:10.1177/1525822X05279903]
41. Hagaman, A. K., & Wutich, A. (2017). How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes? Field Methods, 29(1), 23-41. [DOI:10.1177/1525822X16640447] [PMCID]
42. Hajipour, M., & Razavi, S. (2022). Designing an organizational agility model in Iranian technology-based companies. Journal of Management and Future Studies, 18(2), 99-124. (In Persian)
43. Harsch, K., & Festing, M. (2019). Dynamic talent management capabilities and organizational agility-A qualitative exploration. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 43-61. [DOI:10.1002/hrm.21972]
44. Heidari , Esmaeil , Khavari hashemi, Seyed vahid. "Investigating the relationship between transformational leadership, organizational commitment and employee performance with the mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior." journal of development studies and resource management, vol. 2, no. 7, 2024, pp. 93-110. (In Persian)
45. Indroputri, I. A., & Sanjaya, R. (2024). Digital transformation in human resource management and its role in Gen Z career development: A systematic literature review. Petra International Journal of Business Studies, 7(1), 48-56. [DOI:10.9744/petraijbs.7.1.48-56]
46. Jafar Zadeh Zarandi,M. , Sharifian,E. and Ghahreman Tabrizi,K. (2019). Explaining Organizational Agility Model Based on Information Technology from the Perspective of Sports Experts. Sport Management Studies, 10(52), 137-160. (In Persian)
47. Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3), 504-522. [DOI:10.1080/09585190500521581]
48. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.).
49. Kwasek, A., Kocot, M., Radowicki, S., Kandefer, K., Szymańska, M., Soboń, D., & Trzaskowska-Dmoch, A. (2025). The Impact of Organizational Agility on the Sustainable Development of the Organization in the Context of Economy 5.0. Sustainability, 17(15), 6907. [DOI:10.3390/su17156907]
50. Levenson, A. (2005). Harnessing the power of HR analytics. Strategic HR Review, 4(3), 28-31. [DOI:10.1108/14754390580000607]
51. Li, J.-H., Anderson, A. R., & Harrison, R. T. (2003). The evolution of agile manufacturing. Business Process Management Journal, 9(2), 170-189. [DOI:10.1108/14637150310468380]
52. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. [DOI:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8]
53. Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 265-339.
54. Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (2011). Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 931-954. [DOI:10.2307/41409967]
55. Lyons, S. T., & Kuron, L. K. J. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(1), 35-55. [DOI:10.1002/job.1913]
56. Madankan, S. , Damghanian, H. , Azar, A. and Moghaddam, A. (2025). Developing a Qualitative Framework for Empowering Expert Talents of the Digital Native Generation in the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB): A Grounded Theory Approach. Media Management Review, 4(2), 216-244. (In Persian)
57. Madhoshi, Mehrdad, haditabar, javad. "Developing a Local Model of Organizational Agility in Knowledge based Firms: Applying the Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach." The Journal of Productivity Management, vol. 12, no. 1, 2018, pp. 7-34. (In Persian)
58. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. [DOI:10.2307/258792]
60. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Mohammadi,M. , Hamidi,M. , Mahmoudi,B. and Javadi,S. (2015). Identifying, Analyzing and Categorizing Factors Affecting the Formation of Innovation Networks in Knowledge-Based Firms: A Case Study of the University of Tehran Science and Technology Park. Innovation Management Journal, 3(4), 1-24. (In Persian)
62. Osorio, M. L., & Madero, S. (2025). Explaining Gen Z's desire for hybrid work in corporate, family, and entrepreneurial settings. Business Horizons, 68(1), 83-93. [DOI:10.1016/j.bushor.2024.02.008]
63. Özkan, M., & Solmaz, B. (2015). The changing face of the employees: Generation Z and their perceptions of work. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 134-143.
64. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. [DOI:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y] [PMID] [PMCID]
65. Parry, E., & Tyson, S. (2011). Desired goals and actual outcomes of e‐HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 335-354. [DOI:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00149.x]
66. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.).
67. Rajabzadeh Ghatari, A., Ramezani, A., Seyedhosseini, S. M., & (2012). Designing a dynamic model of business agility in manufacturing organizations using a system dynamics approach. Researches of Management Organizational Resources, 2(1), 45. (In Persian)
68. Roghani Mamaghani, Eisa, Haghighat monfared, Jala, Jafarnejad, Ahmad. "Identifying Agility Assessment Factors using a mixed approach of qualitative and quantitative methods (case study: Automotive Industry)." Journal of Strategic Management in Industrial Systems, vol. 16, no. 55, 2021, pp. 137-156. (In Persian)
69. Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018). Generations and generationally based differences: Debunking myths in organizational science and practice. Work, Aging and Retirement, 4(2), 119-135.
70. Saati Gharehmoosi, A., Shakerian, H., & Joraini, M. M. (2019). The role of transformational and transactional leadership through knowledge management and organizational performance. Quarterly Journal of New Research in Human Sciences, 17(Spring), 323-342. (In Persian)
71. Safdarian, A., & pourkiani, M. (2017). Explaining the Relationship between Organizational Capability and Agility and Providing a Model in Line with General Policies of the Administrative System. Journal of Research in Human Resources Management, 9(3), 147-178. (In Persian)
72. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237-263. [DOI:10.2307/30036530]
73. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
74. Schwartz, W. J. (2020). From generation to generation. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 35(1), 3-4. [DOI:10.1177/0748730420903521]
75. Shailaja, B. (2025). Agility in the workplace: A conceptual framework for understanding Gen Z workforce engagement. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 7(3) [DOI:10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i03.43373]
76. Sharifi, H., & Zhang, Z. (1999). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: An introduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 7-22. [DOI:10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5]
77. Shmueli, G., Bruce, P. C., Gedeck, P., Patel, N. R., & Bruce, A. (2017). Data mining for business analytics: Concepts, techniques, and applications in R. Wiley.
78. Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421-442. [DOI:10.1037/a0022777] [PMID]
79. Strohmeier, S. (2020). Digital human resource management: A conceptual clarification. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(3), 345-365. [DOI:10.1177/2397002220921131]
80. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40-49. [DOI:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007]
81. Teece, D. J., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13-35. [DOI:10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.5]
82. Toleti, B., & Murti, A. B. (2025). Designing inclusive organizational business policies for multigenerational social enterprises: A human-centered design perspective. Social Enterprise Journal. Advance online publication. [DOI:10.1108/SEJ-06-2025-0130]
83. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117-1142. [DOI:10.1177/0149206309352246]
84. Van Der Meijden, A., Hülsheger, U., & Kleinmann, M. (2017). Using personality to predict performance in dynamic environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1063-1086.
85. van Manen, M. (1990/2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge. Routledge
86. Yazdanpanah, S. and Shafiei Nikabadi, M. (2022). The Effect of Knowledge Management Capabilities on Organizational Agility with an Emphasis on the Role of Strategic Flexibility and Organizational Learning. Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 31(106), 155-190. (In Persian)
87. Yusuf, Y. Y., & Gunasekaran, A. (2002). Agile manufacturing: A taxonomy of strategic and technological imperatives. International Journal of Production Research, 40(6), 1357-1385. [DOI:10.1080/00207540110118370]
88. Zhao, H., & Wu, C. (2024). Learning agility and digital innovation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(6), 1021-1045.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
