The Relationship Between Management Competence and Organizational Resilience

Abstract

Enhancing the resilience of organizations is crucial for enterprises to thrive amidst uncertainties. Given the unprecedented shifts over recent decades, understanding how to strengthen the resilience of Chinese enterprises against various unpredictable shocks has become a critical issue. Utilizing annual data from Chinese A-share listed companies spanning 2011 to 2022 and using a two-way fixed effects model, this paper empirically investigates the impact of management capabilities on organizational resilience. The results show that management capability has a significant role in promoting organizational toughness. In companies with long years of establishment and high management shareholding ratio, the role of management ability in improving the Organizational Resilience of enterprises is apparent. Enhancing management capacity can boost corporate social responsibility and corporate governance, thereby increasing the organizational resilience of enterprises. This study has positive theoretical and practical implications for corporate internal governance and is conducive to the sustainable development of enterprises. This study not only expands the theoretical exploration of the relationship between management capability and organizational resilience, but also constructs and verifies for the first time the mediating model of “management capability institutional mechanism organizational resilience”. It also provides a theoretical reference and practical inspiration for understanding how emerging economic enterprises can build dynamic resilience in institutional environments.

1. Introduction

Financial crises, economic cycle fluctuation, systemic financial risk outbreaks, trade friction escalation, debt default tide, and other financial and economic emergencies have occurred frequently in recent years. Among them, the sudden “black swan” and “grey rhinoceros” have made the business environment more volatile, uncertain, complex, and fuzzy (VUCA) [1,2]. Organizational resilience is a critical capability for modern businesses to thrive and progress in the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment [3], as evidenced by their capacity to develop risk evaluation frameworks and early alert systems, quickly alter strategic goals and plans, refine organizational structure, adeptly secure and judiciously deploy resources, foster innovation alongside swift learning, create effective communication and collaboration channels, devise and execute crisis response measures, and motivate staff through the cohesion of corporate culture in the face of perceived existential threats [4]. Enterprises with higher organizational resilience have a stronger ability to deal with crises such as business interruption and structural disruption. In the corporate realm, an enterprise’s resilience is often characterized by its capacity to swiftly bounce back and regain its operational equilibrium, thereby restoring growth momentum amidst diverse adversities and obstacles. The Organizational Resilience of enterprises emphasizes that enterprises can flexibly adjust strategies, processes, structures, etc., after being damaged and forced to suspend operations to ensure that enterprises can quickly return to the right track and achieve stable and sustainable development [4]. Meanwhile, it helps the company keenly perceive the dynamic changes in the external environment and quickly adjust its state to adapt to the new situation. When facing the impact of adverse events, the company can quickly get out of the predicament with its strong recovery ability. More importantly, during the phase of reflecting and enhancing oneself subsequent to encountering setbacks, the company can thoroughly learn lessons and realize counter-trend growth. This element significantly contributes to the company’s establishment of a competitive edge that is hard for others to replicate and serves as a crucial catalyst for driving the company’s enduring and balanced growth [5,6,7]. Therefore, in a dynamic business environment, the question of how to boost organizational resilience has emerged as a crucial subject for entrepreneurs and scholars.

The ability to manage is crucial for businesses to maintain a competitive edge and achieve enduring growth amidst complex and unpredictable market conditions. The strategic leadership demonstrated by top management teams is crucial for establishing a robust framework for business resilience [8]. Specifically, enhancing managerial capabilities can contribute to building enterprise resilience from various angles. First, in terms of innovation strategy, managers with exceptional abilities are likely to adopt a dual approach to innovation [9], aiming to achieve a dynamic balance between exploratory and exploitative innovations [10]. Furthermore, improved managerial skills can significantly enhance the efficiency of corporate investments, ensuring optimal resource allocation through precise market analysis and rational decision-making mechanisms, thereby maximizing profitability [11]. Moreover, when facing challenges posed by VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) environments, managers with strong abilities can construct adaptive organizational structures and agile operation models from a more proactive and comprehensive perspective. Therefore, bolstering capacity development in business management is essential for companies to address challenges and seize opportunities effectively in a VUCA context. Management skills can substantially improve strategic decision-making quality, resource allocation efficiency, and innovative capability, laying a solid foundation for businesses to establish long-lasting competitive advantages in a dynamically competitive landscape, ultimately enhancing organizational robustness.

In recent years, research on the economic consequences of management capabilities in enterprises has received increasing attention. The previous literature has explored the importance of managerial competence in business operations from the perspectives of innovation capability [12], sustainable development [13], and investment efficiency [14], providing rich experience for understanding the mechanism of managerial competence [15]. However, current research generally focuses on the “performance driven path” and has limited attention to how management capabilities can enhance organizational resilience in dynamic and risky environments. On the other hand, the literature on organizational resilience mostly focuses on the “rebound” process under environmental uncertainty [16]. In terms of rebound, organizational resilience mainly focuses on the potential ability of organizations to predict, prevent, and adjust to environmental shocks [17]. In terms of counterattack, organizational resilience places greater emphasis on the ability of organizations to quickly learn from adverse events and surpass their previous operational state [18]. Emphasis is placed on the importance of rapid organizational recovery and learning capabilities [19], but there are few studies that systematically reveal how endogenous management factors affect the construction of organizational resilience systems from the perspective of “management capabilities institutional mechanisms resilience enhancement”.

In addition, although previous studies have separately verified the positive effects of corporate social responsibility and corporate governance on corporate performance or risk resistance, there is still a lack of literature on the mediating path of “management capability CSR/governance organizational resilience”, especially in terms of data processing, mechanism identification, and model setting, which lacks systematic exploration. More importantly, there is still a lack of research on organizational resilience in the context of Chinese enterprises, and China’s unique institutional arrangements, policy guidance, and management culture may profoundly affect how enterprises identify risks, allocate resources, and reconstruct operational models under pressure. Therefore, there are still significant gaps and room for improvement in theoretical logic, variable paths, and practical applicability in existing research.

Based on this, the possible innovation of this article lies in the following methods: Firstly, starting from the perspective of management capabilities, constructing a theoretical framework of “capabilities institutional mechanisms resilience performance”, and expanding the theoretical boundaries of research on the antecedents of organizational resilience. Secondly, identifying corporate social responsibility and corporate governance as key intermediary mechanisms, and verifying their chain of action through empirical path identification methods, fills the gap of unclear mechanisms. Thirdly, using data from Chinese A-share listed companies from 2011 to 2022 to construct a panel model, combined with propensity score matching, instrumental variables, and other methods, effectively identified the causal effect of management ability on resilience, and improved the identification validity in terms of methodology. Fourthly, focusing on the Chinese context and responding to the research needs of the unique background of “system culture organizational response”, this provides practical insights for understanding how Chinese enterprises cope with uncertainty and build stress resistance systems.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis

2.1. Management Capability and Organizational Resilience

As the key decision-makers, managers hold a pivotal role in steering enterprise operations and growth [20]. The response of management teams to shifts in external factors, such as market conditions, varies with their skill level, leading to distinct strategic approaches [21]. Based on the Dynamic Capability Theory, when facing unexpected events and environmental changes, excellent management can keenly perceive external changes and quickly integrate and reconstruct internal resources and capabilities [22]. This dynamic adaptability ensures that enterprises not only recover quickly under uncertain impacts but also take the opportunity to achieve strategic improvement and transcendence. In addition, from the Resource Based View perspective, management capability, as a scarce and difficult to replicate endogenous resource of the organization, effectively enhances the competitive advantage of enterprises in responding to risks and crises, ultimately enhancing organizational resilience [23]. Studies by Yangxudong et al. revealed that heightened managerial capabilities prioritize innovation and sustainable development within firms, enhancing organizational resilience [24]. Consequently, these businesses exhibit more substantial incentives for capital preservation for financial purposes. High-performing companies with superior management tend to enjoy improved operational results and enhanced transparency in their reporting, which diminishes information disparities between enterprises and finance entities like banks. This reduction mitigates financing obstacles and bolsters companies’ capacity to manage unanticipated risks. Furthermore, adept managers excel at information collection, comprehension, and analysis, enabling them to anticipate potential company threats and devise proactive defenses. This capability helps distribute innovation-induced risks and facilitates risk-taking behaviors conducive to innovative endeavors [4], elevating an organization’s resilience to unforeseen challenges.

To conclude, navigating through an intricate and unstable market climate along with various risks and obstacles, a management team equipped with robust capabilities can promptly react, devise well-founded strategic decisions, and execute them diligently, safeguarding the company’s financial stability and ensuring its ongoing operation. Therefore, this kind of enterprise has a high level of organizational toughness. Therefore, hypothesis $H_1$ is proposed.

H₁: 

Improving the management ability is conducive to enhancing the Organizational Resilience of enterprises.

2.2. Management Capability, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Organizational Resilience

Based on theoretical and empirical research, there is a significant logical correlation between management capability, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and organizational resilience. According to Freeman’s stakeholder theory [25], by actively fulfilling social responsibility, companies can effectively strengthen their relationship networks with stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, customers, communities, and the environment, significantly accumulate corporate social capital, enhance their ability to acquire external resources and internal cohesion, and thus demonstrate higher strategic flexibility and resilience in the face of external shocks [17].

The empirical research by Li Hong et al. [26] suggests that companies with higher management capabilities often have a stronger sense of social responsibility. This is because outstanding managers are usually more concerned about their own reputation and the long-term development interests of the company and tend to actively respond to the demands of stakeholders, incorporating social responsibility into the strategic management scope of the company. In addition, capable management not only pursues economic benefits but also considers social and environmental benefits when making decisions, thereby gaining wider recognition and support from stakeholders. In the long run, better fulfilling social responsibility has a positive impact on the development of enterprises, and therefore the management’s ability will also significantly affect the effectiveness of fulfilling corporate social responsibility [27]. According to reputation theory, managers with stronger abilities place greater emphasis on their reputation and are more inclined to cater to the needs of different stakeholders, thereby gaining more trust and generating excess profits for the company, thus forming a virtuous cycle. Therefore, when management has strong capabilities, they are more likely to recognize the importance of corporate social responsibility and incorporate it into the company’s strategic planning. This understanding prompts management to not only consider the economic interests of the company when making decisions, but also fully consider the rights of society, the environment, and stakeholders. It can be seen that companies with higher management capabilities also have a stronger sense of social responsibility.

In the past thirty years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gradually become a hot topic in both theoretical and practical fields [28]. Numerous studies have shown that corporate participation in social responsibility activities is an intrinsic mechanism that enables companies to benefit from various aspects of performance at the company level [29,30,31]. Stakeholders believe that within the scope of “corporate social responsibility”, the concept of “society” encompasses a wide range of stakeholder groups, including employees, suppliers, customers, the environment, and surrounding communities. The well-being and satisfaction of these groups largely determine the success or failure of enterprises [32,33]. Corporate initiatives with a sense of social responsibility can help build good relationships with these key stakeholders and sustain them for a long time, thereby gaining their strong support. This is of great significance for enterprises to achieve sustainable development. The emergence of stakeholder theory provides us with a new perspective and method for thinking about corporate responsibility and the benefits that companies can reap after fulfilling their responsibilities. In a complex and ever-changing business environment, actively fulfilling social responsibility can enhance corporate resilience from multiple dimensions. Specifically, if companies can take proactive measures in employee benefits, supply chain relationships, brand building, and community interaction, they can foster stronger employee loyalty and corporate culture internally. Externally, it can establish stable supply chain relationships and enhance brand trust and loyalty among customers and consumers. In addition, actively participating in community building and environmental protection activities can help enterprises establish social identity and external support networks, quickly mobilize various resources to effectively respond to external shocks, and significantly improve the organizational resilience level of enterprises. Consequently, the stronger the commitment to corporate social responsibility, the greater the Organizational Resilience. Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes the hypothesis, $H_2$.

H₂: 

Management capability can improve organizational resilience by improving corporate social responsibility.

2.3. Management Capability, Corporate Governance Level, and Organizational Resilience

Extensive studies have unveiled a significant positive link between management proficiency and corporate governance standards. Effective teams are known for their strategic acumen in decision-making processes and operational effectiveness, facilitating the development and implementation of robust governance practices. The agency theory introduced by Jensen and Meckling (1976) [34] posits that superior management capabilities lead to more effective reduction in agency costs through refined governance frameworks and prioritization of shareholder welfare. Furthermore, the upper-echelon theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1982) [35] suggests that managerial cognitive skills, experiences, and values significantly influence their decision-making approaches, favoring transparent and streamlined governance systems that enhance long-term organizational success. Findings from Lihong et al. (2018) [26] highlight that enhanced management competencies markedly improve the quality of corporate environmental disclosures—a vital metric of governance strength. Concurrently, investigations by Gompers et al. (2003) [36] reveal a trend where firms adhering to higher governance benchmarks often feature seasoned leadership, which correlates with increased market valuations and financial health. In essence, heightened management expertise directly contributes to elevating corporate governance levels via optimization of governance structures, reinforcement of oversight mechanisms, and enhancement of incentive systems, collectively fostering enduring competitive advantage for businesses.

Corporate governance constitutes the core of modern enterprise systems, and its degree directly influences the Organizational Resilience of enterprises. Continuous improvement of corporate governance and improvement of the modern financial enterprise system are the basis and guarantee for promoting high-quality financial development. Good corporate governance is the cornerstone for financial institutions to effectively prevent operational risks, maintain healthy development, and achieve stability [37]. From the perspective of corporate governance theory, good corporate governance can enable companies to achieve excellent performance and increase corporate value [38,39]. On the one hand, the perfect corporate governance structure can divide the responsibilities and powers of various departments and levels, making the company’s decision-making process more scientific and efficient and avoiding the risk of decision-making errors caused by excessive concentration of power. Under this structure, different departments cooperate, check, and balance each other, and information can flow smoothly within the company, improving the overall operation efficiency [40]. Conversely, excellent corporate governance can build an efficient supervision system. Rigorously monitor the management’s actions to guarantee that their decisions and actions are for the long-term benefits of the company rather than the pursuit of personal gains [41]. It will not only help prevent the illegal operation and corruption of internal personnel but also urge the management to treat risks more carefully and plan the company’s development strategy reasonably so that the enterprise can respond quickly in the face of external shocks and challenges, maintain stable operation in a complex and volatile environment, and realize the company’s long-term, high-quality development. Therefore, the higher the level of corporate governance, the stronger the Organizational Resilience of enterprises. Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes the hypothesis, $H_3$.

H₃: 

Management capability can improve organizational resilience by improving the level of corporate governance.

3. Research Design

3.1. Sample Selection and Data Sources

This study utilizes data from 2011 to 2022 of A-share companies listed in China, meticulously preprocessed as follows: (1) elimination of firms marked with st or *st; (2) exclusion of financial institutions; (3) removal of entries with incomplete data. The resultant dataset encompasses 26,641 annual observations. We have capped the dataset at the 99th and 1st percentiles to mitigate any distorting effects of outliers on our findings. Data for this study were sourced from the CSMAR database.

3.2. Description of Variables

3.2.1. Independent Variable: Management Capability (MA_Score)

This article draws on the research of Demerjian et al. (2012) [42] and Li Yangzi (2022) [10] and uses a two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA Tobit) method to measure and evaluate the indicator of management ability. Moreover, the DEA model allows each sample to customize the optimal weight based on its own characteristics, without the need to manually set a unified indicator weight, thus having the advantages of non-parametric and strong flexibility.

Firstly, this paper adopts the DEA approach to assess the relative production efficiency level of enterprises in the industry. Herein, net fixed assets (PPE), Goodwill, intangible assets (Intan), operating costs (CoGS), and selling expenses (SG&A) are taken as inputs, while operating income is the sole output variable.

Secondly, in order to more accurately measure the management capability (MA_Score), this paper uses the Tobit model to control for company characteristics, industry, and annual fixed effects, and obtains residuals. The residuals are extracted as the management’s “excess efficiency” score, which serves as a measure of management capability. In the Tobit model, this article incorporates multiple company characteristic variables that may affect production efficiency, including firm size (Size), debt to asset ratio (Lev), free cash flow (FCF), length of listing (Lisy), market share (Ms), degree of financialization (Finratio), and environmental uncertainty (EU). Specifically, the Tobit model is expressed as follows:

$$\mathsf{\theta }={\mathrm{a}}_1+{\mathrm{a}}_2\mathrm{S}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{z}\mathrm{e}+{\mathrm{a}}_3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}+{\mathrm{a}}_4\mathrm{F}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}+{\mathrm{a}}_5\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{y}+{\mathrm{a}}_6\mathrm{M}\mathrm{s}+{\mathrm{a}}_7\mathrm{F}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}+{\mathrm{a}}_8\mathrm{E}\mathrm{U}+\mathsf{\epsilon }$$

(1)

where θ represents the production efficiency of the enterprise, and the residual $\epsilon$ obtained from the model regression is used as the measurement index of management capability (MA_Score).

3.2.2. Dependent Variable: Organizational Toughness (Resilience)

In light of the theory of dynamic capabilities, this article draws on the research of Li Xiaoxiang and Kong Mengqing (2023) [16,43], aiming to construct an organizational resilience score as the dependent variable through factor analysis from two perspectives: rebound dimension (such as asset liability ratio, current ratio) and rebound dimension (income, assets, and net profit growth rate). Among them, growth indicators are not independently used as resilience proxies, but are used to measure the ability of enterprises to “recover from crisis and surpass”, which is in line with Duchek’s (2020) [18] definition of resilience dimensions:

Resilience refers to the ability of an organization to quickly rebound and restore its original state or function after encountering challenges and setbacks. To comprehensively evaluate this capability, this article referred to existing research on enterprise resilience and selected the following four key indicators: quick ratio of sample enterprises, accumulated redundant resources, non-accumulated redundant resources, and return on equity. These indicators collectively constitute a comprehensive evaluation of rebound resilience.

Anti-super resilience emphasizes that organizations can not only recover from challenges but also take this opportunity to surpass them and become stronger, which reflects the growth potential and strength of the enterprise. To measure this ability, this article draws on the research methods of Zhou Ping and Lin Nan (2015) [44] and Guo Xiaochuan et al. (2019) [45], selecting the following three core indicators: year-on-year growth rate of total assets, year-on-year growth rate of operating income, and year-on-year growth rate of net profit. These indicators can intuitively reflect the growth ability of the enterprise.

In terms of data processing, this article standardized all the indicators mentioned above to ensure comparability between different indicators. Then, take the average value to obtain the comprehensive value of organizational resilience, and name it “Resilience”.

3.2.3. Control Variable

Referring to existing relevant research [46,47,48], this article selects the following control variables: enterprise size (Size), asset liability ratio (Lev), total asset net profit margin (ROA), property ownership (SOE), current ratio (Liquid), cash flow ratio (Cashflow), inventory ratio (INV), and revenue growth rate (Growth). In addition, this article also controls for the influence of year (Year) and industry (Ind). Therefore, the control variables cover key dimensions such as company size, financial stability, asset composition, and governance orientation. For a comprehensive understanding of these variable definitions, refer to

Table 1. Variable definition.

Variable	Variable Symbol	Variable Definition
Independent Variable	MA_Score	Management capability
Dependent Variable	Resilience	Organizational toughness
Control variable	Size	Enterprise size
	Lev	Asset liability ratio
	ROA	Net profit/average total assets
	SOE	Property right nature (1 for state-owned enterprises, otherwise 0)
	Liquid	current ratio
	Cashflow	Cash flow ratio
	INV	Inventory proportion
	Growth	Growth rate of operating revenue
	Year	Year dummy variables
	Ind	Industry dummy variables

.

3.3. Model Building

In order to test the essential relationship between management capability and Organizational Resilience, this paper establishes a two-way fixed effect model:

$${\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}={\mathsf{\alpha }}_0+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_1{\mathrm{M}\mathrm{A}\_\mathrm{S}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_2{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{s}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}+\sum \mathrm{Y}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}+\sum \mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}+{\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$$

(2)

where ${Resilience}_{i,t}$ represents the Organizational Resilience of the enterprise, ${MA\_Score}_{i,t}$ represents the management capability, ${\alpha }_0$ represents the intercepted item, ${Controls}_{i,t}$ represents the set of control variables, ${\epsilon }_{i,t}$ represents the random interference item, Year represents the fixed effect of the year, and Ind represents the fixed effect of the industry.

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistical results of the main variables are shown in

Table 2. Variable description statistics.

Variable	N	Mean	SD	Min	p50	Max
Resilience	26,641	−0.020	0.124	−0.138	−0.059	0.636
MA_Score	26,641	−0.015	0.180	−0.353	−0.047	0.434
Size	26,641	22.35	1.263	20.01	22.16	26.06
Lev	26,641	0.433	0.200	0.065	0.428	0.868
ROA1	26,641	0.038	0.062	−0.190	0.036	0.213
SOE	26,641	0.377	0.485	0	0	1
Liquid	26,641	2.249	1.990	0.366	1.620	12.23
Cashflow	26,641	0.048	0.066	−0.140	0.046	0.234
INV	26,641	0.144	0.127	0.001	0.113	0.654
Growth	26,641	0.155	0.357	−0.508	0.100	1.866

. The mean of organizational resilience in enterprises is −0.020, with a standard deviation of 0.124, a maximum value of 0.636, and a minimum value of −0.138. This indicates that the organizational resilience of each enterprise is in a relatively stable state, but some enterprises have strong rebound and rebound capabilities (with a maximum value of up to 0.636), reflecting significant heterogeneity in organizational resilience among sample enterprises, and some enterprises have significant recovery and growth capabilities after shocks. The mean of management ability (MA_Score) is −0.015, with a standard deviation of 0.18. The minimum value is −0.353 and the maximum value is 0.434, indicating that the management efficiency of the sample enterprises is generally concentrated, and some enterprises have significant inefficiencies, but the difference is not significant.

4.2. Basic Regression Analysis

This article conducted benchmark regression tests on management ability (MA_Score) and organizational resilience, and the regression results are shown in

Table 3. Benchmark regression analysis.

	(1)
VARIABLES	Resilience
MA_Score	0.0027 **
	(2.23)
Size	0.0003 *
	(1.93)
Lev	0.0560 ***
	(39.09)
ROA1	0.0914 ***
	(24.15)
SOE	−0.0010 **
	(−2.44)
Liquid	0.0637 ***
	(330.60)
Cashflow	−0.0055 **
	(−2.45)
INV	−0.1142 ***
	(−44.17)
Growth	0.0090 ***
	(7.62)
Constant	−0.1804 ***
	(−49.65)
Observations	26,641
YearFE	YES
IndustryFE	YES
$R^2$	0.9942

Robust-statistics in parentheses. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

. The regression results show that the regression coefficient of management ability (MA_Score) on organizational resilience is 0.0027, which is significantly positive at a 5% confidence level and remains stable in various robustness tests. The marginal effect explanation shows that, when the management ability is improved by one unit, the organizational resilience score can be increased by about 0.27 standard deviations, indicating the important role of managers in enhancing enterprise resilience.

Considering resilience as a standardized indicator, this magnitude has considerable economic significance, indicating that enhancing managerial capabilities has a significant promoting effect on organizational rapid adaptation and recovery. That is to say, the stronger the management capabilities of an enterprise, the higher its organizational resilience level, and the stronger its ability to flexibly adapt or adjust in a timely manner.

4.3. Robustness Check

4.3.1. Adding Control Variables

To test the robustness of the empirical results, this article further added important variables that may have been missed at the company level to the regression model, including ownership ratio (DER), fixed asset ratio (FIXD), and equity multiplier (EM). DER reflects the capital structure of a company and is directly related to its financial risk and debt-paying ability; FIXD reflects the flexibility of enterprise asset allocation, and a high proportion of fixed assets may limit the ability to reallocate resources; EM serves as a proxy indicator for earnings management, representing the quality of accounting information and the level of management transparency in enterprises. These three variables help control for potential heterogeneity in risk exposure, resource mobilization, and information disclosure of enterprises, and enhance the explanatory power of the regression model. The regression results are shown in column (1) of

Table 4. Robustness test.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
VARIABLES	Resilience	Resilience	Resilience	Resilience
MA_Score	0.0015 *	0.0028 ***		0.0040 ***
	(1.88)	(3.38)		(3.21)
MA_rank	/	/	0.0004 **	/
	/	/	(2.41)	/
Size	0.0002	0.0003 ***	0.0003 *	0.0007 ***
	(1.45)	(2.63)	(1.85)	(3.95)
Lev	0.0631 ***	0.0559 ***	0.0560 ***	0.0513 ***
	(41.94)	(54.10)	(39.44)	(32.52)
ROA1	0.0859 ***	0.0912 ***	0.0917 ***	0.0924 ***
	(34.51)	(36.63)	(24.31)	(21.84)
SOE	−0.0007 ***	−0.0009 ***	−0.0010 **	−0.0007 *
	(−2.59)	(−3.02)	(−2.44)	(−1.76)
Liquid	0.0637 ***	0.0637 ***	0.0637 ***	0.0634 ***
	(715.18)	(763.14)	(331.61)	(272.08)
Cashflow	0.0001	−0.0055 ***	−0.0055 **	−0.0022
	(0.04)	(−2.72)	(−2.44)	(−1.09)
INV	−0.1171 ***	−0.1142 ***	−0.1142 ***	−0.1107 ***
	(−91.75)	(−88.30)	(−44.21)	(−44.65)
Growth	0.0089 ***	0.0090 ***	0.0090 ***	0.0060 ***
	(26.13)	(26.16)	(7.63)	(7.80)
DER	0.2326	/	/	/
	(1.36)	/	/	/
FIXED	−0.0151 ***	/	/	/
	(−14.39)	/	/	/
EM	−0.2338	/	/	/
	(−1.36)	/	/	/
Constant	0.0585	−0.1816 ***	−0.1811 ***	−0.1884 ***
	(0.34)	(−56.12)	(−48.51)	(−44.37)
Observations	26,641	26,641	26,641	22,306
YearFE	YES	YES	YES	YES
IndustryFE	YES	YES	YES	YES
ProvinceFE	/	YES	/	/
$R^2$	0.9943	0.9942	0.9942	0.9937

z-statistics in parentheses. *** p < 0.01,** p < 0.05,* p < 0.1.

. After introducing the above variables, the positive impact of management ability (MA_Score) on organizational resilience of enterprises is still significant. The results are highly consistent with the benchmark regression mentioned earlier, indicating that the research conclusions of this article have good robustness and reliability.

4.3.2. Increase the Fixed Effect of Provinces

Discrepancies in economic development and market integration. Discrepancies in economic development market integration cultural backgrounds are evident across market integration and regulatory policies, and cultural backgrounds are evident across various regions of a nation. Such differences may exert an influence on the regression analysis. The research incorporates a provincial dummy variable (Pro) to ensure that major macroeconomic factors are considered. The regression results in column (2) of Table 4 show that the coefficient of MA_score is significantly positive at the 1% confidence level, consistent with the standard benchmark findings. As a result, the inferences made from this research are dependable.

4.3.3. Replace Dependent Variable

The DEA Tobit model fails to fully account for all firm-level factors significantly impacting operational performance, which may result in regression residuals that do not accurately reflect management capabilities. To address this limitation, following the approach by Zhang Lu et al. (2019) [49], the study categorizes these residuals into four groups, assigning them values from 1 to 4 based on ascending order. Higher values denote stronger management capabilities (MA_rank). The data are displayed in column (3) of Table 4, revealing no substantial discrepancies from the baseline regression outcomes, affirming the findings’ reliability.

4.3.4. Variable Lagged

Drawing inspiration from Wang Hongjian’s (2014) [50] treatment approach, the study examines the explanatory variable in a delayed period. This method is employed to mitigate potential biases caused by the explanatory variable’s exceptional performance during a specific period, which could influence its relationship with the dependent variable. The regression analysis findings are presented in the fourth column of Table 4. These data unequivocally demonstrate a substantial positive association between corporate management proficiency and organizational resilience at the 1% significance threshold, mirroring the results of the benchmark regression study.

4.3.5. PSM

In order to alleviate the problem of sample selection bias, this study adopts the propensity score matching technique through PSM (Propensity Score Matching), taking the median of corporate management capabilities as a threshold. Companies with management abilities exceeding this median are designated as the treatment group, to which a value of 1 is assigned, whereas those not meeting this criterion form the control group and receive a value of 0. Key matching variables include firm size, leverage ratio (LEV), liquidity, cash flow, and growth in operating revenue. These variables have successfully passed balance tests after conducting regression analyses following 1:3 and 1:1 nearest neighbor matching and kernel matching.

Table 5. Propensity matching score.

	(1) PSM (1:3)	(2) PSM (1:1)	(3) Kernel Matching
VARIABLES	Resilience	Resilience	Resilience
MA_Score	0.0028 ***	0.0026 **	0.0027 **
	(3.37)	(2.02)	(2.24)
Size	0.0004 ***	0.0002	0.0003 *
	(3.12)	(0.97)	(1.93)
Lev	0.0551 ***	0.0553 ***	0.0559 ***
	(52.90)	(32.83)	(39.07)
ROA1	0.0886 ***	0.0946 ***	0.0914 ***
	(35.69)	(16.04)	(24.15)
SOE	−0.0009 ***	−0.0012 ***	−0.0010 **
	(−2.90)	(−2.85)	(−2.44)
Liquid	0.0637 ***	0.0637 ***	0.0637 ***
	(767.19)	(288.60)	(330.55)
Cashflow	−0.0042 **	−0.0043 *	−0.0055 **
	(−2.09)	(−1.85)	(−2.45)
INV	−0.1163 ***	−0.1135 ***	−0.1142 ***
	(−87.91)	(−41.20)	(−44.16)
Growth	0.0077 ***	0.0063 ***	0.0090 ***
	(22.60)	(5.93)	(7.60)
Constant	−0.1838 ***	−0.1737 ***	−0.1804 ***
	(−56.40)	(−43.78)	(−49.60)
Observations	23,011	14,482	26,639
YearFE	YES	YES	YES
IndustryFE	YES	YES	YES
$R^2$	0.9943	0.9942	0.9941

z-statistics in parentheses. *** p < 0.01,** p < 0.05,* p < 0.1.

’s regression results indicate that the coefficient associated with corporate management capability is significantly positive. In other words, higher management capabilities correlate with stronger Organizational Resilience, aligning with the benchmark regression outcomes discussed earlier and further affirming the positive link between management competency and Organizational Resilience.

To ensure comparability between sample groups, this study conducted balance tests on propensity score matching methods for PSM (1:3) and PSM (1:1) separately. As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, both matching methods significantly reduced the standardized deviation of the treatment group and the control group on each covariate. The matching bias of all covariates is controlled within 5%, with variables such as Size and Liquid almost completely balanced. By comparison, 1:1 matching has a slightly better balance effect on indicators such as Cashflow and Lev, but 1:3 matching can improve estimation efficiency while maintaining good balance. Both meet the quality requirements of PSM matching and provide a reliable basis for subsequent analysis of processing effects.

4.3.6. Instrumental Variable Method

In order to further overcome the influence of endogeneity issues, this article refers to the research of Cai Wanxiang and Li Peikai (2021) [51] and selects the regional mean (IV) of management ability of other listed companies in the same year and region as the instrumental variable. This variable reflects the collective characteristics of the management level of enterprises in the region, and has good representativeness and externalities. The reason is that, firstly, the instrumental variable satisfies the hypothesis of correlation. In the same region and year, enterprises often face a common management talent market, with similar recruitment channels, cultural norms, and industry practices, which can easily lead to a convergence of peer learning and management behavior, resulting in a linkage of management capabilities within the region. The first stage regression results showed that the instrumental variable was significantly positive at the 1% significance level, and the F-statistic was higher than the threshold for weak instrumental variables, verifying its strong correlation with endogenous explanatory variables. Secondly, this variable also satisfies the assumption of exogeneity. This mean is constructed based on other enterprises within the region and will not directly affect the organizational resilience of the target enterprise. Its impact is mainly transmitted through the management’s capabilities. There is no structural correlation between the error terms of the instrumental variable and the explained variable, and the results of the over identification test support their exogeneity. And it has passed the weak instrumental variable test and over identification test, meeting the basic requirements for instrumental variable selection. Based on the above settings, this article uses the two-stage least squares (2SLS) method for testing. The regression results are shown in

Table 6. Instrumental variable method.

	(1)	(2)
VARIABLES	MA_Score	Resilience
IV	0.2495 ***	/
	(7.86)	/
Size	−0.0192 ***	0.0031 **
	(−7.64)	(2.35)
Lev	0.1202 ***	0.0356 ***
	(9.10)	(3.66)
ROA1	0.6427 ***	0.0078
	(28.72)	(0.20)
SOE	0.0076	−0.0032 ***
	(1.45)	(−3.07)
Liquid	0.0074 ***	0.0628 ***
	(8.07)	(142.45)
Cashflow	0.0422 ***	−0.0142 ***
	(2.73)	(−3.02)
INV	0.0980 ***	−0.1231 ***
	(5.15)	(−26.48)
Growth	0.0339 ***	0.0061 ***
	(13.50)	(4.23)
MA_Score	/	0.1080 **
	/	(2.22)
Constant	0.3172 ***	−0.2304 ***
	(5.68)	(−9.66)
Observations	26,583	26,580
YearFE	YES	YES
IndustryFE	YES	YES
$R^2$	0.3902	0.9634

z-statistics in parentheses. *** p < 0.01,** p < 0.05,* p < 0.1.

. It can be seen that, in the first stage regression results, the regression coefficient of the instrumental variable is significantly positive at the 1% level, indicating a strong correlation between the instrumental variable and the endogenous variable management ability. Similarly, in the second stage, the estimated coefficient of MA_Score is significantly positive at the 5% level, indicating that the baseline regression results remain stable after considering endogeneity issues, further verifying the robustness of the regression results and the reliability of causal explanations.

5. Further Study

5.1. Heterogeneity Analysis

5.1.1. Years of Incorporation

Within this study, the chronological age of a company (firmage) serves as the categorization criterion, with sample divisions based on the median age. The data are bifurcated into two cohorts: those with extended establishment durations and those with shorter periods.

Table 7. Heterogeneity analysis.

	(1) Long	(2) Short	(3) High	(4) Low
VARIABLES	Resilience	Resilience	Resilience	Resilience
MA_Score	0.0019 *	0.0015	0.0053 ***	0.0008
	(1.90)	(1.16)	(4.28)	(0.69)
Size	0.0003 *	0.0013 ***	0.0004 **	0.0002
	(1.71)	(3.34)	(1.97)	(1.25)
Lev	0.0488 ***	0.0569 ***	0.0599 ***	0.0517 ***
	(32.75)	(37.92)	(39.73)	(33.23)
ROA1	0.0947 ***	0.0953 ***	0.0800 ***	0.1077 ***
	(24.87)	(31.95)	(24.16)	(27.68)
SOE	−0.0008 **	−0.0009	−0.0017 ***	−0.0009 **
	(−2.13)	(−1.51)	(−3.12)	(−1.98)
Liquid	0.0625 ***	0.0638 ***	0.0640 ***	0.0630 ***
	(343.77)	(609.51)	(612.25)	(405.06)
Cashflow	−0.0049 *	−0.0061 ***	−0.0081 ***	−0.0026
	(−1.77)	(−2.61)	(−2.85)	(−0.91)
INV	−0.0950 ***	−0.1304 ***	−0.1273 ***	−0.1045 ***
	(−57.79)	(−61.39)	(−63.98)	(−55.32)
Growth	0.0120 ***	0.0047 ***	0.0075 ***	0.0104 ***
	(26.62)	(11.28)	(15.45)	(21.82)
Constant	−0.1823 ***	−0.1956 ***	−0.1822 ***	−0.1762 ***
	(−35.80)	(−22.74)	(−37.29)	(−36.39)
Observations	13,404	12,630	13,686	12,955
YearFE	YES	YES	YES	YES
IndustryFE	YES	YES	YES	YES
$R^2$	0.9865	0.9838	0.9936	0.9874

z-statistics in parentheses. *** p < 0.01,** p < 0.05,* p < 0.1.

, columns (1) and (2), present regression analyses for these cohorts. The findings reveal a significant positive association at the 10% level between management prowess and organizational resilience in companies established for many years. Conversely, no such correlation exists between management capabilities and organizational resilience among newer firms. This disparity can be attributed to the potential advantages that long-standing companies gain from sustained operation, enhancing their organizational robustness. Firms with extensive histories typically undergo rigorous market validation and accumulate considerable industry expertise. Such prolonged exposure necessitates management’s adaptive responses to diverse challenges and opportunities, fostering continuous refinement of managerial skills through practical engagement and learning. Consequently, this accumulated experience cultivates a more refined and steady management approach and bolsters managers’ capacity for adaptation and strategic decision-making in tumultuous market landscapes. Thus, within the dataset comprising mature firms, the impact of enhanced management competencies on organizational resiliency proves notably more pronounced.

5.1.2. Management Equity Incentive

This study employs the management shareholding ratio (Mshare) as a categorization variable, dividing the sample into two segments: one with a comparatively high Mshare and another with a relatively low Mshare. Regression analyses are independently conducted on these two datasets, and the results are presented in columns (3) and (4) of Table 7. The discoveries imply that, in the subset with a high Mshare, there is a remarkable positive connection between corporate management abilities and Organizational Resilience at a 1% significance level. By contrast, such a correlation is not obvious in the group with a lower Mshare. This divergence can be attributed to managerial ownership functioning as a potent incentive. When managers possess shares, their personal goals align with the company’s, promoting stronger motivation and confidence. This alignment urges them to prioritize long-term value rather than short-term gains, allowing competent managers to utilize their strengths more efficiently. With extensive experience, insightful market understanding, and exceptional leadership, they can better navigate market trends and the company’s trajectory, facilitating sustainable development in competitive and ever-evolving business environments. Consequently, under the influence of this ownership-based incentive mechanism, stronger management capabilities correlate with higher Organizational Resilience.

5.2. Mechanism Analysis

5.2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility

This paper uses a two-step method to test the basic relationship between corporate social responsibility and Organizational Resilience. The model is as follows:

$$\mathrm{C}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{R}={\mathsf{\alpha }}_0+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_1{\mathrm{M}\mathrm{A}\_\mathrm{S}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_2{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{s}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}+\sum \mathrm{Y}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}+\sum \mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}+{\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$$

(3)

Managers with limited capabilities, driven by self-serving career-development motives, often attempt to conceal information detrimental to corporate social responsibility (CSR) during their tenure. This behavior exerts a negative impact on the effectiveness of CSR initiatives. In contrast, highly capable managers are less preoccupied with career-related concerns and are more focused on maximizing benefits. As a result, they exhibit a stronger impetus to engage in CSR activities [52]. With their exemplary capabilities, these managers can shape a positive CSR mindset within the enterprise through their personal values and perspectives. They prioritize social interests and long-term development, thereby inspiring enterprises to emphasize CSR performance more. Consequently, competent managers can define clear CSR objectives, ensuring enterprises actively discharge their obligations towards society, the environment, and stakeholders while pursuing economic gains. CSR activities sometimes compel enterprises to explore novel business models or technological innovations to achieve sustainable development goals. These innovative outcomes can translate into competitive advantages and enhanced adaptability during crises, strengthening the enterprise’s Organizational Resilience.

The research delves into the five main aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): accountability to stakeholders, employees, suppliers, clients, and society, environmental management, and social impact. An assessment framework is constructed to measure CSR, and a regression analysis is conducted to examine the link between managerial proficiency and CSR. The results are shown in

Table 8. Mechanism analysis.

	(1)	(2)
VARIABLES	CSR	Govern
MA_Score	0.9056 ***	0.0798 ***
	(4.15)	(4.33)
Size	0.3852 ***	0.0873 ***
	(9.85)	(19.81)
Lev	−0.0782	0.0537 **
	(−0.29)	(2.29)
ROA1	16.7200 ***	0.3509 ***
	(28.03)	(7.47)
SOE	0.2260 **	0.7888 ***
	(2.45)	(70.83)
Liquid	0.0226	−0.0029
	(1.11)	(−1.50)
Cashflow	−0.8888 **	0.0250
	(−1.97)	(0.72)
INV	2.8521 ***	0.1160 ***
	(8.20)	(3.68)
Growth	0.0432	0.0107 *
	(0.60)	(1.84)
Constant	−6.5972 ***	−2.2070 ***
	(−6.87)	(−19.58)
Observations	20,487	26,641
YearFE	YES	YES
IndustryFE	YES	YES
$R^2$	0.4317	0.5541

z-statistics in parentheses. *** p < 0.01,** p < 0.05,* p < 0.1.

. Specifically, column (1) indicates a significant positive correlation between Management Ability scores (MA_score) and CSR at the 1% significance level, with a coefficient of 0.9056. It suggests that enhancing management capabilities can improve the toughness of organizations by promoting their corporate social responsibilities.

5.2.2. Corporate Governance Level

The study employs a two-step approach to examine the fundamental link between corporate governance and organizational resilience. The methodology is described as follows:

$$\mathrm{G}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{n}={\mathsf{\alpha }}_0+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_1{\mathrm{M}\mathrm{A}\_\mathrm{S}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_2{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{s}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}+\sum \mathrm{Y}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}+\sum \mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}+{\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$$

(4)

High-ability management teams can formulate more scientific and rational strategic decisions and long-term development plans. They have a more nuanced grasp of market trends, industry dynamics, and corporate internal resources. In corporate governance, they can steer enterprises towards sustainable development and avoid myopic behaviors, thereby enhancing corporate governance. Enterprises with a high level of governance typically have well-established supervision and balance mechanisms. The board of directors, supervisors, internal audit department, and other institutions collaborate to monitor the management’s actions effectively. It can prevent the management from undermining the long-term interests of the enterprise due to personal interests or short-sighted decisions. Such a supervision and balance mechanism ensures the rational utilization of enterprise resources and bolsters the organization’s risk-handling capabilities.

Based on the discussion of Lin Shu regarding the modern economy in 2023 [53], this study determined 19 corporate governance factors. These included the nature of property rights, fair checks and balances, the proportion of independent directors, the ratio of management shareholding, the size of the board, the compensation for the top three executives, the shareholding ratio of the largest shareholder, the institutional shareholding ratio, and the duality of positions. The principal component analysis was adopted to acquire the first principal component as a comprehensive index representing the degree of corporate governance. A subsequent regression analysis probed into the relationship between the enterprise management ability and the degree of corporate governance. Table 8 presents the regression outcomes: column (2) reveals that the regression coefficient between MA_Score and the corporate governance degree is 0.0798, which is significant at the 1% level. This finding suggests that management capabilities can enhance the organizational resilience of enterprises by elevating the degree of corporate governance.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Key Findings

In the present commercial landscape, external factors abound with unpredictable uncertainties. Therefore, enhancing managerial capabilities to bolster organizational resilience is of paramount importance. Utilizing annual panel data from China’s A-share listed companies spanning from 2011 to 2022, this study empirically examines the impact of managerial competencies on organizational resilience. The findings are as follows: Firstly, managerial capabilities can markedly enhance organizational resilience, a conclusion that remains valid following rigorous robustness checks. Secondly, heterogeneity tests reveal that in firms with extended establishment years and higher proportions of management ownership, the positive effect of managerial skills on organizational resilience is more pronounced. Thirdly, mechanism analysis indicates that managerial prowess strengthens internal management, optimizes resource allocation efficiency, boosts risk resistance capacities, and ultimately augments organizational resilience by elevating corporate social responsibility and governance practices.

6.2. Theoretical Inspiration

This study constructs a dynamic path mechanism of “management capability corporate social responsibility and governance organizational resilience” from a theoretical perspective, expanding the understanding of the relationship between management capability and organizational resilience. Specifically reflected in the following aspects:

Firstly, this article introduces management capability as an antecedent variable of organizational resilience, enriching the application of dynamic capability theory in the study of enterprise risk resistance. Empirical results show that highly capable managers can not only enhance the company’s strategic foresight and resource integration capabilities, but also significantly improve the level of CSR fulfillment and governance efficiency, thereby building the organization’s institutional and behavioral resilience.

Secondly, CSR and corporate governance, as dual intermediary mechanisms, have been incorporated into the resilience formation pathway, responding to the classic claims of stakeholder theory and agency theory. At the level of path mechanism, CSR provides “relational resilience” by enhancing external reputation and social trust, while governance mechanism constructs “institutional resilience” by optimizing the structure of rights and responsibilities, improving information transparency and resource-scheduling efficiency.

Thirdly, this article breaks down the three-dimensional structure of organizational resilience (predictive ability, coping ability, and learning reconstruction ability), and identifies its driving factors from a mechanism perspective, providing an analytical basis for the measurement, modeling, and theoretical evolution of resilience in the future.

Finally, based on the existing literature, it has been pointed out that the impact of managerial competence on CSR and governance is moderated by the nature of property rights, concentration of power, and compensation incentive structure. This suggests that future research should incorporate it as a boundary condition in modeling to enhance the interpretability of the model and its relevance to reality.

6.3. Practical Insights

At the practical level of enterprise management, the research results of this article provide the following suggestions for enterprises to build a dynamic resilience system in complex environments:

Firstly, establish a mechanism for identifying and empowering highly capable managers. Enterprises should establish a management competency model centered on “strategic insight organizational execution resource coordination” to guide the identification and selection of talents. At the same time, institutional mechanisms such as equity incentives and long-term performance linkage should be established to link management capabilities with the medium and long-term goals of the enterprise, stimulate its active actions in uncertain situations, and enhance the organization’s internal responsiveness and resilience.

Secondly, the strategic embedding of corporate social responsibility. Enterprises should elevate CSR from marginal compliance behavior to an endogenous component of organizational strategy. By integrating social responsibility into the company’s vision, cultural system, and daily operations, trust capital can be accumulated during stable periods, external support can be obtained during crisis periods, and the company’s ability to withstand pressure and adapt to environmental turbulence can be enhanced.

Thirdly, the structural optimization of corporate governance mechanisms. Enterprises should strengthen the independence of the board of directors, enhance the information processing and supervision efficiency of the supervisory board, and continuously improve internal control processes. On this basis, we will promote the transformation of governance structure from compliance oriented to strategic support, providing institutional guarantees and rapid collaboration platforms for enterprises in the event of sudden shocks.

Fourthly, the resilience support role of digital capabilities. With the accelerated flow of information and increased decision-making complexity brought about by technological development, enterprises urgently need to incorporate digital capabilities into their resilience management systems. By building efficient data platforms, promoting digitalization of business processes, and strengthening the training of managers’ data insights, enterprises can enhance their perception, scheduling, and response speed in emergency situations.

Therefore, in the process of enhancing organizational resilience, enterprises should use high-level management capabilities as the engine, responsibility and governance mechanisms as the path, institutional resilience, and relationship resilience as the goals, and build a dynamic resilience system with multi-level and multi factor collaborative evolution.

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

Although this study has achieved relatively systematic results in the theoretical construction and empirical verification of the relationship between management capabilities and organizational resilience, there are still several limitations that need further improvement in future research. Firstly, the research sample only covers Chinese A-share listed companies, and the external applicability of the conclusions needs to be verified. Secondly, this paper does not set control variables for specific external shocks (such as Sino US trade friction, COVID-19 epidemic, etc.). In addition, there may still be endogeneity issues in causal identification. On this basis, future research can also attempt comparative analysis of cross-border samples and incorporate qualitative research methods to enhance the depth and breadth of theoretical explanations. At the same time, introducing potential intermediary mechanisms such as technological innovation and digital capabilities is also expected to expand the theoretical boundaries of the impact path of management capabilities and enrich the connotation of organizational resilience formation mechanisms.