Impact of Entrepreneurial Mindset on the Relationship Between Leadership Style and Organisational Agility: An Empirical Study in the Digital Era

Firms that operate in digitally driven environments are always changing markets, technologies as well as work structures. Hence organisational agility is not so much about systems or speed as much as about how leaders think, decide and act under uncertainty. The way you lead affects direction, coordination and trust - but it affects agility differently in different contexts. During this relationship the entrepreneurial mindset is a critical driver of how leadership behaviours become adaptive action. Opportunity recognition, calculated risk-taking, learning orientation and comfort with ambiguity are part of an entrepreneurial mindset. If leaders and teams do this, leadership styles affect organisational agility more. Vision-based leadership encourages exploration. Participative leadership allows quick decisions. Adaptive leadership changes structure and process very quickly. If you do not have an entrepreneurial mindset, these styles are often symbolic and you get alignment without movement. With it, leadership intent becomes experimentation, responsiveness and constant adjustment. But agility nowadays is about fast learning instead of fixed planning. But digital tools make things happen - mindset decides how organisations respond. An entrepreneurial mindset links leadership style to agile outcomes by inciting initiative, decentralised action, tolerance for iteration. Teams act rather than wait.  Errors become inputs for learning and not just sources of restraint. Hence organisational agility is a behavioural capability and not a structural design. So, understanding how this interacts explains why organisations with similar styles of leadership achieve different agility results. Leadership behaviour becomes more agile where there is an entrepreneurial way of thinking embedded across roles. These findings suggest both mindset and leadership development are needed for agility in digitally changing environments. A sample of 219 was collected to find the result of the study.