How well does the review avoid "reinventing the wheel"? Does it provide a fresh perspective on existing theories, or does it merely restate established knowledge? answer from "The field of organizational effectiveness $($OE$)$ has seen a variety of theoretical frameworks emerge over the past few decades. Early works, such as those by Taylor $(1911),$ focused on efficiency$-$driven models, which were later critiqued for their limited focus on human factors $($Mayo$,1933).$ Recent scholarship, particularly from the mid$-1990$s onward, has emphasized the role of culture, leadership, and adaptability in driving OE $($Pfeffer$,1994$; Schein, $1996).$ Despite these advancements, there remains a lack of consensus on the relative importance of these factors in different organizational contexts. For instance, while some scholars argue that leadership is the critical determinant of organizational success $($Kotter$,1996),$ others suggest that cultural adaptability plays a more significant role in dynamic environments $($Heifetz & Linsky, $2002).$

$$

More recent studies have sought to quantify OE using various performance metrics, such as employee satisfaction, productivity rates, and financial outcomes $($Cameron & Quinn, $2011).$ However, these metrics are often context$-$specific, which raises questions about their generalizability. In particular, much of the literature has focused on Western organizations, leaving a gap in understanding how these models apply in non$-$Western settings $($Hofstede$,2001$; Trompenaars & Hampden$-$Turner, $2012).$ This study aims to build on these foundations by exploring the application of organizational effectiveness frameworks in Middle Eastern corporations, with a specific focus on leadership and culture."