The Relationship Between Management Competence and Organizational Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Review of Manuscript sustainability-3550109 “The Relationship Between Management Competence and Organizational Resilience”

 

Summary

This paper primarily examines the impact of Management Competence on Organizational Resilience using data from Chinese listed companies between 2011-2022. This article lacks an in-depth discussion of the underlying mechanisms, and the content in each section is overly simplistic. Consequently, the paper requires numerous revisions and further refinement. Below are the specific suggestions.

Comments

1. Research Contributions

• What is the difference between the fourth research contribution and the second research contribution?
• I don’t agree with the third research contribution. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance are the mechanisms of this study. Is there any existing research that has established a relationship between corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, and organizational resilience? If previous studies have already provided evidence supporting this relationship, then this should not be considered a research contribution of this paper.

2. Theoretical Analysis

• Hypothesis 1: In the process of proposing hypothesis 1, the author(s) lacks an analysis of the relationship between management competence and organizational resilience. What theoretical framework supports the author's viewpoint? Additionally, what is the connection between the cited literature and this study?
• Hypothesis 2: The first paragraph extensively discusses the quality of corporate information disclosure and the capital market response, which addresses a different issue from the focus of this paper, namely whether the company has taken on more corporate social responsibility. The author(s) analyze from the stakeholder perspective, suggesting that corporate social responsibility can enhance organizational resilience. Is there existing literature to support this claim?
• Hypothesis 3: Corporate governance undoubtedly contributes to corporate development, but what is the rationale behind its enhancement of organizational resilience?

3. Empirical Analysis

• The calculation process for the main independent variable (MA_Score) needs to be explained more clearly and accurately. Regarding the dependent variable, is it reasonable to use growth indicators to measure a company's resilience? Additionally, the author has mixed up the terms for the independent variable and the dependent variable.
• The selected control variables are somewhat limited, and the interpretation of the descriptive statistics for the main variables in the article is not sufficiently clear.
• The regression results in the paper lack an interpretation in terms of their economic significance. Both in the theoretical and empirical sections, there is a lack of discussion on the impact of corporate social responsibility and corporate governance on organizational resilience.
• In the robustness tests, what are the reasons for adding DER, FIXED, and EM as control variables? Additionally, the PSM test section lacks the balance test after PSM.
• Does the instrumental variable satisfy the relevance assumption? Why would a company's management competence be influenced by other companies in the same region?
• Format: All the variables mentioned in the paper should be introduced and accompanied by descriptive statistics. The number of decimal places should be consistent. It is recommended to retain three decimal places for the coefficients in the regression results. Additionally, the model specification is not standardized.

Author Response

Comments 1: Research Contributions

What is the difference between the fourth research contribution and the second research contribution?

I don’t agree with the third research contribution. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance are the mechanisms of this study. Is there any existing research that has established a relationship between corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, and organizational resilience? If previous studies have already provided evidence supporting this relationship, then this should not be considered a research contribution of this paper.

Responds 1:

Thank you for your valuable comments regarding the distinction and originality of our research contributions.

In response to your concern about the third contribution, we agree that prior studies have examined the individual relationships between CSR/governance and firm performance or risk. However, our contribution lies in identifying CSR and corporate governance as parallel mediating mechanisms through which managerial ability affects organizational resilience. While elements of these relationships have been discussed in isolation, few have integrated them into a unified causal framework with formal empirical testing using panel data. Our study addresses this gap by systematically modeling and testing the pathway from managerial ability→CSR/governance→resilience, offering a more nuanced and mechanism-based explanation of how internal capabilities shape organizational outcomes in uncertain environments.

Regarding the difference between the second and fourth contributions, the second contribution emphasizes the theoretical expansion of resilience antecedents by introducing managerial ability and institutional mechanisms, whereas the fourth contribution highlights the empirical and contextual relevance of applying this framework specifically to Chinese firms, whose resilience dynamics are shaped by distinctive institutional settings, government intervention, and corporate culture. This allows our study to offer context-specific insights into resilience formation under transitional economies.

We have revised the contribution section to more clearly reflect these distinctions. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

Comments 2: Theoretical Analysis

Hypothesis 1: In the process of proposing hypothesis 1, the author(s) lacks an analysis of the relationship between management competence and organizational resilience. What theoretical framework supports the author's viewpoint? Additionally, what is the connection between the cited literature and this study?

Hypothesis 2: The first paragraph extensively discusses the quality of corporate information disclosure and the capital market response, which addresses a different issue from the focus of this paper, namely whether the company has taken on more corporate social responsibility. The author(s) analyze from the stakeholder perspective, suggesting that corporate social responsibility can enhance organizational resilience. Is there existing literature to support this claim?

Hypothesis 3: Corporate governance undoubtedly contributes to corporate development, but what is the rationale behind its enhancement of organizational resilience?

Responds 2:

Hypothesis 1:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We would like to clarify that in developing Hypothesis 2, we draw on stakeholder theory to argue that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not only a reflection of external disclosure quality but also a strategic behavior that fosters long-term organizational resilience.

To support this argument, we have established a solid theoretical foundation by incorporating the Dynamic Capability Theory and the Resource-Based View (RBV). The dynamic capability perspective highlights that organizations operating in turbulent environments must rely on managerial ability to rapidly sense changes, reconfigure internal resources, and adapt strategically. Within this framework, CSR initiatives—when driven by capable managers—are not passive disclosures but active adaptive responses that strengthen stakeholder trust, internal cohesion, and long-term flexibility, all of which are essential components of resilience.

Complementarily, the RBV treats managerial competence as a rare, valuable, and inimitable organizational resource. From this view, CSR practices reflect strategic resource allocation decisions made by high-capacity managers. Such managers are better equipped to align stakeholder expectations, manage external relationships, and mitigate risks, thereby reinforcing resilience through both internal capability and external legitimacy.

Empirically, our study draws on the work of Yang Xudong et al. [24], who find that stronger managerial capabilities are positively associated with innovation, long-term performance, and organizational resilience. Additionally, reference [25] emphasizes that managers with high cognitive and processing ability contribute to improved risk prediction and information management, both of which are foundational to resilience under uncertainty.

We have revised the manuscript to make these theoretical linkages and literature references more explicit. We hope this addresses your concern and helps clarify the logic and novelty of Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2:

Thank you to the reviewer for providing valuable feedback on hypothesis 2. We highly value a clear definition of the theoretical foundation and thank you for providing us with the opportunity to further elaborate on this part.

In this study, hypothesis 2 is explicitly based on stakeholder theory (Freeman, 2010) [26]. This theory holds that in the process of actively fulfilling social responsibility, enterprises can build stable trust relationships with key stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, customers, and communities, thereby obtaining necessary resource support and emotional recognition in the face of external shocks, enhancing their organizational resilience and recovery ability. This theoretical logic provides a solid theoretical framework for explaining how corporate social responsibility enhances organizational resilience.

In addition, we cited empirical research by Li Hong et al. (2017) [28] as supporting evidence, which showed that companies with strong management capabilities are more inclined to fulfill social responsibilities and perform better in CSR. This discovery not only validates the impact of management capability on CSR behavior, but also further strengthens the core logic of stakeholder theory that 'management enhances corporate resilience by responding to stakeholder needs'. Therefore, we have constructed a logical chain of "management capability→corporate social responsibility→organizational resilience" by combining theoretical and empirical research, with sufficient theoretical support and clear literature foundation. We also further clarified the logical expression of this section during the revision process to present the theoretical basis for hypothesis 2 more clearly. Thank you again to the reviewer for their attention and guidance on this issue.

Hypothesis 3:

Thank you for raising the important question. We further clarified and enriched the relevant explanations regarding the theoretical logic of enhancing organizational resilience through corporate governance during the revision process.

The core of why corporate governance can enhance organizational resilience of enterprises lies in its institutional support for internal control systems, strategic execution efficiency, and risk response capabilities. Based on agency theory, governance mechanisms effectively alleviate short-term behavior and opportunistic tendencies of management by strengthening board supervision, regulating executive behavior, and improving incentive and constraint structures, enhancing organizational consistency and action capability in complex environments. In addition, enterprises with clear governance structures usually have higher information transparency and resource allocation efficiency, which can achieve rapid response and orderly mobilization in emergencies, thereby demonstrating stronger crisis response and resource reallocation capabilities.

Meanwhile, from the perspective of dynamic capabilities, corporate governance is not only a set of institutional arrangements, but also an important mechanism to ensure that enterprises achieve learning, restructuring, and adaptation. High quality governance helps to build agile organizational feedback mechanisms, promote efficient collaboration between departments, and facilitate rapid identification of risks and strategic adjustments in the face of uncertainty, thereby supporting the resilience evolution process of the organization.

In existing empirical studies, such as Gompers et al. (2003) and Li Hong et al. (2017), it has been found that the higher the level of corporate governance, the better the market value, performance, and environmental disclosure quality of the enterprise. These factors together constitute the institutional and relational foundation that organizations rely on when responding to external shocks.

In summary, corporate governance has built a more adaptable and stable operating platform for enterprises through institutional norms, process optimization, and external communication. Therefore, we believe that it has a solid theoretical foundation and practical role in enhancing organizational resilience. We have further clarified the internal logic of corporate governance and its path mechanism in enhancing resilience in the article. Please review.

Comments 3:Empirical Analysis

The calculation process for the main independent variable (MA_Score) needs to be explained more clearly and accurately. Regarding the dependent variable, is it reasonable to use growth indicators to measure a company's resilience? Additionally, the author has mixed up the terms for the independent variable and the dependent variable.

The selected control variables are somewhat limited, and the interpretation of the descriptive statistics for the main variables in the article is not sufficiently clear.

The regression results in the paper lack an interpretation in terms of their economic significance. Both in the theoretical and empirical sections, there is a lack of discussion on the impact of corporate social responsibility and corporate governance on organizational resilience.

In the robustness tests, what are the reasons for adding DER, FIXED, and EM as control variables? Additionally, the PSM test section lacks the balance test after PSM.

Does the instrumental variable satisfy the relevance assumption? Why would a company's management competence be influenced by other companies in the same region?

Format: All the variables mentioned in the paper should be introduced and accompanied by descriptive statistics. The number of decimal places should be consistent. It is recommended to retain three decimal places for the coefficients in the regression results. Additionally, the model specification is not standardized.

Responds 3:

Answer to variable description and calculation:

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on variable construction and clarity of expression. We have made the following responses and improvements in the revised manuscript:

Regarding the measurement method of the main explanatory variable "Management Capability (MA_Score)", this article draws on the classic two-stage method proposed by Demerjian et al. (2012) and Li Yangzi (2022). Firstly, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used to evaluate the management efficiency of enterprises. Then, Tobit regression is used to control for company level characteristics and fixed effects. Finally, the residual is used to represent the score of "excess management capability", in order to more accurately separate the impact of non management factors at the enterprise level on performance and ensure the representativeness and comparability of MA_Score. In terms of the dependent variable "organizational resilience", this article does not simply use the growth rate indicator, but draws on classic literature on resilience structures such as Duchek (2020), constructs a multi index system from the dimensions of "rebound resilience" and "rebound resilience", and uses factor analysis to comprehensively score, aiming to measure the ability of enterprises to recover from shocks and rebound. This method balances financial stability and growth, and has a solid foundation in both theoretical and empirical aspects. The relevant measurement details and literature sources have been clarified in the methodology section. At the same time, we also conducted a comprehensive proofreading of the confusion in the expression of dependent and independent variables in the text to ensure standardized and consistent use of terminology.

In addition, to address the issue of limited control variable settings, we have further introduced key control variables such as property rights structure (DER), asset composition (FIXD), and earnings management (EM) in the robustness analysis, and provided detailed explanations of the distribution, heterogeneity characteristics, and economic explanations of the main variables in the descriptive statistics section to improve the clarity and explanatory power of data understanding. The above revisions have been reflected in the "Variable Description", "Descriptive Statistical Analysis", and "Robustness Testing" sections of the paper. We kindly request the reviewer to review and provide further guidance and suggestions.

Discussion on the Impact of Economic Significance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Governance on Organizational Resilience through Regression Analysis:

Thank you for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the interpretation of the regression results by discussing not only their statistical significance but also their economic implications. Specifically, we clarify that a one-unit increase in managerial ability (MA_Score) leads to an approximate 0.27 standard deviation increase in organizational resilience, which is economically meaningful given the standardized nature of the dependent variable. Furthermore, we have expanded the theoretical and empirical discussions regarding the mediating roles of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate governance. Drawing on stakeholder theory and agency theory, we explain how CSR enhances external legitimacy and stakeholder trust, while sound governance structures improve internal coordination and risk control—both of which are critical in shaping a firm’s resilience to external shocks. These mediating pathways are supported by empirical results showing that both CSR and governance partially transmit the effect of managerial ability to organizational resilience. We believe these enhancements have clarified the underlying mechanisms and reinforced the practical relevance of our findings.

The reasons for introducing DER, FIXD, and EM in robustness testing are unclear:

Thank you for your thoughtful question regarding the inclusion of additional control variables in the robustness tests. In the revised manuscript, we incorporate three firm-level variables—DER (debt-equity ratio), FIXED (fixed asset ratio), and EM (equity multiplier)—to account for potentially omitted factors that may influence organizational resilience.

Specifically, DER reflects a firm’s capital structure and financial leverage, which directly relates to its exposure to financial risk and its ability to withstand external shocks. FIXED captures asset allocation rigidity; a high proportion of fixed assets may reduce a firm’s flexibility in reallocating resources under uncertainty. EM, often used as a proxy for earnings management, represents the quality of financial reporting and management transparency, which in turn affects stakeholder trust and access to external resources during crises.

By introducing these variables, we aim to control for heterogeneity in risk exposure, resource mobility, and information quality across firms, thus improving the explanatory power and robustness of our regression model. The results (see Column 1 of Table 4) show that even after controlling for these variables, the positive and significant relationship between managerial ability (MA_Score) and organizational resilience remains consistent, reinforcing the stability and reliability of our findings.

Propensity score matching and balance test:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding balance checks after matching. To assess the quality of PSM, we conducted standardized bias tests under both 1:1 and 1:3 nearest-neighbor matching. The results show that both approaches substantially improved covariate balance, with all standardized mean differences reduced below 5%. The 1:1 match yields slightly better balance for variables like Cashflow and Leverage, while the 1:3 match maintains comparability and enhances efficiency by increasing matched sample size. These results confirm the robustness of our matched sample across different matching strategies.

Answer to the endogeneity problem of instrumental variable method:

Thank you for this insightful and important question regarding the validity of the instrumental variable (IV) used to address potential endogeneity. In our study, we employ the average managerial ability (MA_Score) of other listed firms in the same province and year as the instrumental variable for a given firm's managerial ability.

We believe this IV satisfies both the relevance and exogeneity assumptions required for a valid instrument:

Relevance Assumption: The managerial competence of firms within the same geographical area tends to be correlated due to shared labor markets, regional managerial talent pools, and peer benchmarking practices. Firms often face similar recruitment channels and are influenced by local management norms, leading to spatial spillovers in managerial quality. This institutional and cultural embeddedness within regions makes it reasonable to expect a firm’s managerial capability to be influenced by managerial characteristics prevailing in its local environment.

Empirical Support: In the first-stage regression of the 2SLS model, the coefficient of the instrumental variable is significantly positive at the 1% level, and the F-statistic exceeds the standard threshold (typically >10), indicating strong relevance.

Exogeneity Assumption: While managerial ability in neighboring firms may shape local norms or expectations, it does not directly affect the focal firm’s organizational resilience, which is determined by firm-specific capabilities, structures, and strategic choices. Therefore, the instrument is unlikely to be correlated with the error term in the second-stage regression. Additionally, the over-identification test supports the instrument’s exogeneity.

In summary, the chosen instrument is both theoretically justified and empirically validated. We have added these explanations to the revised manuscript to strengthen the clarity and credibility of our methodology.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please examine existing theories and empirical research in the field more closely.

To strengthen the contextual foundation, it would be helpful to include a comparative analysis with similar studies on organizational resilience and management capabilities. This could add valuable depth to your discussion.

Additionally, the clarity of the research design and methodology could be improved. Clearly outlining the research questions and hypotheses at the beginning, along with a detailed explanation of your methods (including any limitations), would provide a clearer understanding of your approach and strengthen the study's overall rigor.

While your arguments are engaging, the structure could be refined for greater clarity. By improving the balance and coherence of your points and addressing possible alternative interpretations, you can make your findings even more compelling and nuanced.

The presentation of empirical results could also benefit from being more straightforward. Consider incorporating visual aids, such as charts or tables, to help summarize key findings. This would not only enhance the readability of the data but also make it easier for readers to interpret.

Although you reference significant studies, expanding your literature review to include a wider range of current sources would further strengthen the academic foundation of your work. Ensuring that relevant references properly support all claims will elevate the scholarly rigor of the article.

Your conclusions should also be more tightly connected to the data and literature you’ve presented.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Consider reviewing the text for more concise and precise language.

Author Response

Comment 1:

Please examine existing theories and empirical research in the field more closely… expanding your literature review to include a wider range of current sources would further strengthen the academic foundation…

Response 1：
Thank you for your valuable feedback. In the revised version, we have systematically reviewed the theoretical and empirical research related to management capabilities and organizational resilience, particularly supplementing the latest research on dynamic capability theory, resilience dimension measurement, and CSR mechanisms in journals such as Journal of Management and Sustainability in the past three years (such as: Duchek, 2020； Sajko et al.,  2021). In addition, we have also incorporated research findings from Chinese management practices to enhance the theoretical applicability and academic depth of this study in the context of emerging economies.

Comment 2:

Highlight the background explanation of why the study was conducted on Chinese companies… elaborate the unique characteristics of the Chinese economy, policies, or corporate culture…

Response 2：

We have clarified the contextual significance of studying Chinese firms by discussing how unique institutional factors—such as state ownership, government intervention, and policy-driven CSR—affect resilience mechanisms. This study offers new theoretical insights into how resilience is built under state–market hybrid conditions.

Comment 3:

What is the difference between the second and fourth contributions? I don’t agree with the third…

Response 3：

We clarified the distinction between our contributions: Contribution 2 emphasizes the identification of CSR and governance as dual mediators; Contribution 4 highlights the China-specific adaptation of the resilience model. While CSR/governance has been studied individually, our model uniquely integrates them as transmission mechanisms from managerial ability to resilience—this path has not been empirically verified in prior literature.

Comment 4：

The clarity of the research design and methodology could be improved… clearly outlining the research questions and hypotheses at the beginning…

Response 4：

We have revised the research design section to clearly articulate the research questions and hypotheses at the outset. We also provided detailed explanations of key variables, model structure, matching diagnostics (PSM), and instrument relevance, thereby improving the methodological transparency and rigor.

Comment 5:

Consider incorporating visual aids, such as charts or tables… make the results easier to interpret…

Response 5：

We incorporated additional summary tables and included balancing test visuals (PSM 1:1 and 1:3) to demonstrate the quality of matching and enhance the readability of our results. Regression coefficients are now consistently presented with three decimal places.

Comment 6:

Your conclusions should also be more tightly connected to the data and literature you’ve presented…

Responds 6：

In the revised conclusion, we structured the section into “Key findings – Theoretical implications – Practical insights – Limitations,” clearly aligning each claim with empirical and theoretical evidence presented earlier in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This study focuses on the topic of 'organizational resilience', which is essential for the survival and prosperity of organizations in a business environment full of uncertainty, and is therefore timely and important. In particular, it has practical significance in that it analyzes factors that enhance the organizational resilience of Chinese companies in a rapidly changing economic environment. However, the originality of the study was not sufficiently emphasized. It should clearly present the differences from existing studies and specifically explain what new contributions this study makes academically and practically. It should further highlight the background explanation of why the study was conducted on Chinese companies and the importance of the study. The value of the study can be increased by explaining the impact of the unique characteristics of the Chinese economy, the influence of government policies, or the unique aspects of Chinese corporate culture on organizational resilience. 2. The attempt to link the relationship between management ability, organizational resilience, and corporate social responsibility is positive. However, this conceptual link is somewhat abstract, and the logical basis for the causal relationship between each variable is not sufficiently presented. In particular, an in-depth discussion on the conceptual definition and measurement method of 'organizational resilience' is needed. You should distinguish between the various dimensions of organizational resilience (e.g., pre-planning capability, crisis response capability, learning capability) and explain how each dimension is connected to management capability, CSR, and governance. In addition, you should clearly present the theory and discuss how the relationship between each variable can be explained from this theoretical perspective. When setting up hypotheses, you should clearly present how each hypothesis is derived from the theoretical background. 

3. This is connected to the review comment in No. 2. The theoretical background and hypothesis development should be clearly separated(The current manuscript is bound to Chapter 2). In the theoretical background, you should define the main concepts related to the research topic based on previous research and present a theoretical model that explains the relationship between variables. In the hypothesis development, you should set specific research hypotheses based on the theoretical background and clearly present that each hypothesis is derived based on theoretical grounds.
4. The conclusion should be written by dividing the chapters into "Key findings / lmplications (academic, practical) / Limitations and future research".

Author Response

Comments 1:

This study focuses on the topic of 'organizational resilience', which is essential for the survival and prosperity of organizations in a business environment full of uncertainty, and is therefore timely and important. In particular, it has practical significance in that it analyzes factors that enhance the organizational resilience of Chinese companies in a rapidly changing economic environment. However, the originality of the study was not sufficiently emphasized. It should clearly present the differences from existing studies and specifically explain what new contributions this study makes academically and practically. It should further highlight the background explanation of why the study was conducted on Chinese companies and the importance of the study. The value of the study can be increased by explaining the impact of the unique characteristics of the Chinese economy, the influence of government policies, or the unique aspects of Chinese corporate culture on organizational resilience.

Responds1:

Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript to better highlight the originality and contextual importance of this study.

While prior research has examined the economic consequences of managerial ability, few studies have explored its role in shaping organizational resilience, especially through CSR and governance as mediating mechanisms. Our study fills this gap by establishing a new theoretical framework and empirically testing it using panel data from Chinese firms.

Furthermore, we emphasize the unique institutional features of the Chinese context—such as strong government influence, state ownership, and relationship-based governance—which shape how resilience is built in practice. By focusing on Chinese firms, our study offers valuable insights into resilience formation in emerging economies, extending the relevance of existing theories.

We believe this enhances both the academic contribution and practical significance of our research.

Comments 2:

The attempt to link the relationship between management ability, organizational resilience, and corporate social responsibility is positive. However, this conceptual link is somewhat abstract, and the logical basis for the causal relationship between each variable is not sufficiently presented. In particular, an in-depth discussion on the conceptual definition and measurement method of 'organizational resilience' is needed. You should distinguish between the various dimensions of organizational resilience (e.g., pre-planning capability, crisis response capability, learning capability) and explain how each dimension is connected to management capability, CSR, and governance. In addition, you should clearly present the theory and discuss how the relationship between each variable can be explained from this theoretical perspective. When setting up hypotheses, you should clearly present how each hypothesis is derived from the theoretical background.

Responds2:

Thank you to the reviewer for providing valuable feedback on hypothesis 2. We highly value a clear definition of the theoretical foundation and thank you for providing us with the opportunity to further elaborate on this part.

In this study, hypothesis 2 is explicitly based on stakeholder theory (Freeman, 2010) [26]. This theory holds that in the process of actively fulfilling social responsibility, enterprises can build stable trust relationships with key stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, customers, and communities, thereby obtaining necessary resource support and emotional recognition in the face of external shocks, enhancing their organizational resilience and recovery ability. This theoretical logic provides a solid theoretical framework for explaining how corporate social responsibility enhances organizational resilience.

In addition, we cited empirical research by Li Hong et al. (2017) [28] as supporting evidence, which showed that companies with strong management capabilities are more inclined to fulfill social responsibilities and perform better in CSR. This discovery not only validates the impact of management capability on CSR behavior, but also further strengthens the core logic of stakeholder theory that 'management enhances corporate resilience by responding to stakeholder needs'. Therefore, we have constructed a logical chain of "management capability→corporate social responsibility→organizational resilience" by combining theoretical and empirical research, with sufficient theoretical support and clear literature foundation. We also further clarified the logical expression of this section during the revision process to present the theoretical basis for hypothesis 2 more clearly. Thank you again to the reviewer for their attention and guidance on this issue.

Comments 3:

This is connected to the review comment in No. 2. The theoretical background and hypothesis development should be clearly separated(The current manuscript is bound to Chapter 2). In the theoretical background, you should define the main concepts related to the research topic based on previous research and present a theoretical model that explains the relationship between variables. In the hypothesis development, you should set specific research hypotheses based on the theoretical background and clearly present that each hypothesis is derived based on theoretical grounds.

Responds 3:

Thank you to the reviewer for their professional suggestions on the structure of the theoretical background and hypothesis derivation section. We fully understand the structural value of separating the two, which has clear logical clues and organizational advantages in many theoretical studies.

However, due to considerations of logical coherence and narrative rhythm in this study, we chose to retain the structural approach of combining theoretical background and hypothesis deduction. We believe that immediately presenting the theoretical origins and logical deductions of each variable concept, and introducing corresponding hypotheses, can help readers understand the causal role of variables in the research model more directly while comprehending their connotations. Especially in the framework of complex research mechanisms and progressive paths, this "nested" structure can reduce the cognitive burden of readers jumping between different chapters.

In response to the reviewer's concerns about clarity, we have refined and logically organized the format of this chapter, ensuring that each section follows the structural pattern of "variable definition theoretical support mechanism explanation hypothesis formulation". We hope that this embedded deployment method can enhance theoretical rigor while maintaining content coherence.

Thank you again for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer, which prompted us to deeply reflect on and optimize the structure of the article.

Comments4:

The conclusion should be written by dividing the chapters into "Key findings / lmplications (academic, practical) / Limitations and future research".

Responds 4:

Thank you very much for your constructive and detailed suggestion regarding the structure of the conclusion. We fully agree that clearly segmenting the conclusion enhances clarity, improves reader comprehension, and better reflects international academic standards.

In response, we have thoroughly revised the conclusion section by explicitly dividing it into four sub-sections:
(1) Key Findings, where we summarize the major empirical results of the study based on panel data from Chinese A-share listed firms;
(2) Theoretical Implications, where we elaborate on how this study contributes to the literature on dynamic capabilities, stakeholder theory, and agency theory;
(3) Practical Implications, where we offer specific and actionable recommendations for enterprises in strengthening organizational resilience through managerial capacity, CSR embedding, governance optimization, and digital transformation; and
(4) Limitations and Future Research, where we acknowledge the study’s boundaries in terms of sample and methodology, and suggest possible directions for cross-national comparisons, qualitative extensions, and deeper mechanism exploration in future research.

This restructuring ensures that the conclusion not only synthesizes the key contributions of the study but also provides clear theoretical grounding and actionable insights for both scholars and practitioners.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, which helped us significantly improve the logical coherence and formal quality of the conclusion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your diligent efforts in the preparation of this paper; your hard work has greatly enhanced its quality and impact in this manuscript.

The paper is generally well written and structured, and authors picked an interesting topic related to the dynamics and relationship between management competence and organizational resilience.

The paper examines the impact of management capabilities on organizational resilience using annual data from 2011 to 2022 and applied to Chinese A-share listed companies. In this study authors employed a two-way fixed effects model to analyze the relationship between management competence and organizational resilience. Authors found firstly that management capability in Chinese market significantly enhances organizational resilience. They highlighted that companies with long years of establishment and high management shareholding ratios showed a more pronounced effect. Secondly, they concluded that management capability positively impacts corporate social responsibility improving therefore organizational resilience. In fact, authors distinguished that skilled managers provide high-quality information and can reduce the risk of stock price crashes caused by unexpected statements. Finally, authors concluded that good governance structures enable companies to achieve good performance and contribute to the increase of corporate value.

Although the efforts made by authors, in my opinion the paper has some shortcomings in regards of the following:

1. In my opinion, the authors could have included the main contribution of their study in the summary, as this would create more value and offer the reader a broader view of the breadth of the study carried out.
2. Authors mentioned that their paper can be considered a novel procedure that treat the relationship between management capability and organizational resilience, but I think that works of Schoemaker et al. (2018) and Duchek (2020) examined the same theme.
3. Empirical analysis is applied to Chinese A-share listed companies only, can the obtained results in this work be generalized to the overall market?
4. Authors briefly mention limitations; I think that they could benefit from a more thorough discussion of the limitations and their implications for their findings.
5. External Shocks such as trade war and COVID-19 outbreak are not taken in this study to control for specific crises. These events may disproportionately affect resilience.
6. The DEA-Tobit model’s inputs/outputs are described, but the weighting mechanism or sensitivity analysis is not provided.
7. For the most of estimations, values of R² are close to 1 (e.g., 0.9942). May be there is a problem of potential over-fitting or collinearity among control variables. Authors should verify the statistical properties of their estimations.
8. Authors address endogeneity using instrumental variables, but they didn’t verify the choice of instrumental variables. May be the chosen instrumental variables do not fully satisfy the exclusion restriction, as regional trends could independently affect resilience.
9. In the future research, it is suggested to address the identified weakness and to explore new future research regarding this work. What are the next logical steps for this research? What are some of the open questions or limitations that could be addressed in future studies?
10. The conclusion is too short and not coherent. The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings but could be strengthened by including specific policy recommendations or practical implications for investors and policymakers in the cryptocurrency markets. The authors could have ended the paper with an indication of the limitations of this study.  It is advisable to include them.

Overall, the paper is well written and structured. It provides valuable insights, but I think that its methodological, theoretical and empirical sections should be improved regarding the above comments. Additionally, I think that the findings are more indicative than definitive, especially for broader contexts.

Author Response

Comments 1:
In my opinion, the authors could have included the main contribution of their study in the summary, as this would create more value and offer the reader a broader view of the breadth of the study carried out.

Responds 1:

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. In response, we have revised the abstract to clearly highlight the main contributions of our study. Specifically, we now emphasize that the study not only empirically verifies the positive impact of managerial ability on organizational resilience using panel data of Chinese A-share listed firms from 2011 to 2022, but also constructs and tests a novel mediating framework involving CSR and corporate governance. Moreover, we clarify that this study extends the theoretical boundary of research on resilience by embedding it within the institutional context of emerging economies. We believe these additions enrich the abstract, enhance its academic value, and offer readers a broader understanding of the study’s depth and significance.

Comments 2:

Authors mentioned that their paper can be considered a novel procedure that treat the relationship between management capability and organizational resilience, but I think that works of Schoemaker et al. (2018) and Duchek (2020) examined the same theme.

Responds 2:

Thank you for your valuable observation. We fully acknowledge the foundational contributions of Schoemaker et al. (2018) and Duchek (2020), which conceptually highlight the importance of strategic foresight and adaptive capacity in organizational resilience. However, their work primarily provides theoretical and qualitative insights, without offering a systematic empirical assessment of managerial ability or its causal impact on resilience. In contrast, our study introduces a novel empirical framework by quantifying managerial capability through a DEA-Tobit approach and examining its effect on organizational resilience via two mediating mechanisms: corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate governance. This dual-path model, tested with panel data from Chinese A-share listed firms (2011–2022) using PSM and IV-2SLS methods, provides both methodological and contextual contributions. Moreover, by focusing on the Chinese institutional environment—characterized by government intervention and unique governance structures—we extend existing theory into an underexplored yet highly relevant setting. We have revised the manuscript to further clarify these distinctions and highlight our study’s unique contribution.

Comments 3:

Empirical analysis is applied to Chinese A-share listed companies only, can the obtained results in this work be generalized to the overall market?

Responds 3:

Thank you for your thoughtful observation. We acknowledge that this study focuses solely on Chinese A-share listed companies, which may raise questions about the broader applicability of our findings. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that the unique institutional features of the Chinese market—such as state involvement, concentrated ownership structures, and policy-driven governance—play a significant role in shaping managerial behavior and organizational resilience mechanisms. Therefore, while the conclusions are particularly relevant to emerging market economies with similar institutional conditions, caution should be exercised in generalizing the results to different national contexts. Nevertheless, the theoretical framework we propose, linking managerial ability to resilience via CSR and governance mechanisms, is adaptable and may serve as a useful reference for future comparative studies across countries or regions.

Comments 4:

Authors briefly mention limitations; I think that they could benefit from a more thorough discussion of the limitations and their implications for their findings.

Responds 4:

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the limitations section. In the revised version, we have substantially expanded our discussion of the study’s limitations in Section 6.4.

Specifically, we acknowledge the following key issues: (1) The sample is limited to Chinese A-share listed firms, which may restrict the generalizability of our findings to other institutional or organizational contexts; (2) Although we employ several robustness methods—including DEA-Tobit modeling, fixed effects, PSM, and IV-2SLS—to address endogeneity concerns, we recognize that model misspecification or omitted variables may still introduce bias; (3) The measurement of both organizational resilience and managerial ability is based on secondary data and financial indicators, which may not fully capture subjective or behavioral dimensions—future studies could integrate survey or event-based methods These additions clarify the boundaries of our findings and provide a stronger foundation for future research development.

Comments 5:

External Shocks such as trade war and COVID-19 outbreak are not taken in this study to control for specific crises. These events may disproportionately affect resilience.

Responds 5:

Thank you for the valuable comment. We acknowledge that major external shocks such as the trade war and COVID-19 may have affected firm resilience. Since our focus is on the long-term impact of managerial ability, we did not include crisis-specific controls in the main model. This limitation has been noted in the revised manuscript.

Comments 6:

The DEA-Tobit model’s inputs/outputs are described, but the weighting mechanism or sensitivity analysis is not provided.

Responds 6:

Thank you for the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the weighting mechanism in the DEA-Tobit model. We would like to clarify that the DEA method used in this study is a non-parametric approach that does not rely on pre-assigned or fixed weights. Instead, it allows each decision-making unit (DMU) to select the most favorable set of input-output weights within a feasible space to maximize its own efficiency score. This weighting is derived endogenously through linear programming, which is one of the core strengths of the DEA framework—it avoids subjective weighting and enhances comparability. Since the weights are customized for each unit and are not directly used in the subsequent Tobit regression, we did not initially elaborate on them in the main text. However, in response to your suggestion.We kindly request the reviewer to review and provide further guidance and suggestions.

Comments 7:

For the most of estimations, values of R² are close to 1 (e.g., 0.9942). May be there is a problem of potential over-fitting or collinearity among control variables. Authors should verify the statistical properties of their estimations.

Responds 7:

Thank you for pointing out the concern regarding the high R² values and the potential risks of overfitting or multicollinearity. In response, we conducted a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test for all key explanatory variables. The results indicate that all VIF values are below the critical threshold of 10, suggesting that multicollinearity is not a significant issue. Additionally, the relatively high R² values are primarily due to the inclusion of firm and year fixed effects, which capture unobserved heterogeneity across entities and time—this is a standard approach in panel data analysis. Furthermore, we performed a series of robustness checks, including propensity score matching (PSM), instrumental variable estimation (2SLS), and heterogeneity analysis. The consistent results across these methods suggest that our findings are robust and not driven by overfitting.

 

Comments 8:

Authors address endogeneity using instrumental variables, but they didn’t verify the choice of instrumental variables. May be the chosen instrumental variables do not fully satisfy the exclusion restriction, as regional trends could independently affect resilience.

Responds 8:

Thank you for this insightful and important question regarding the validity of the instrumental variable (IV) used to address potential endogeneity. In our study, we employ the average managerial ability (MA_Score) of other listed firms in the same province and year as the instrumental variable for a given firm's managerial ability.

We believe this IV satisfies both the relevance and exogeneity assumptions required for a valid instrument:

Relevance Assumption: The managerial competence of firms within the same geographical area tends to be correlated due to shared labor markets, regional managerial talent pools, and peer benchmarking practices. Firms often face similar recruitment channels and are influenced by local management norms, leading to spatial spillovers in managerial quality. This institutional and cultural embeddedness within regions makes it reasonable to expect a firm’s managerial capability to be influenced by managerial characteristics prevailing in its local environment.

Empirical Support: In the first-stage regression of the 2SLS model, the coefficient of the instrumental variable is significantly positive at the 1% level, and the F-statistic exceeds the standard threshold (typically >10), indicating strong relevance.

Exogeneity Assumption: While managerial ability in neighboring firms may shape local norms or expectations, it does not directly affect the focal firm’s organizational resilience, which is determined by firm-specific capabilities, structures, and strategic choices. Therefore, the instrument is unlikely to be correlated with the error term in the second-stage regression. Additionally, the over-identification test supports the instrument’s exogeneity.

In summary, the chosen instrument is both theoretically justified and empirically validated. We have added these explanations to the revised manuscript to strengthen the clarity and credibility of our methodology.

Comments 9:

In the future research, it is suggested to address the identified weakness and to explore new future research regarding this work. What are the next logical steps for this research? What are some of the open questions or limitations that could be addressed in future studies?

Responds 9:

Thank you for the insightful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the "Limitations and Future Research" section to outline several meaningful directions for future inquiry.

First, to improve external validity, future studies could conduct cross-country comparative research to examine how institutional environments and cultural contexts moderate the relationship between managerial ability and organizational resilience. Second, while our study employs a quantitative panel-based approach, future work could integrate qualitative methods such as case studies or executive interviews to gain deeper insights into managerial decision-making under uncertainty. Third, additional mediators or moderators—such as digital transformation, technological capabilities, or strategic flexibility—can be explored to enrich the theoretical framework and test its robustness in different contexts. Lastly, as organizational resilience is a multidimensional construct, future research could develop more refined measurement strategies by combining survey-based data or event-based shock responses to enhance the conceptual and empirical validity of resilience assessments.

We believe these directions will meaningfully extend the scope and depth of current research on managerial capability and organizational resilience.

Comments 10:

The conclusion is too short and not coherent. The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings but could be strengthened by including specific policy recommendations or practical implications for investors and policymakers in the cryptocurrency markets. The authors could have ended the paper with an indication of the limitations of this study. It is advisable to include them.

Responds 10:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion regarding the conclusion. In the revised version, we have substantially expanded and reorganized the conclusion section for greater coherence and clarity. The conclusion now explicitly summarizes the key findings, outlines both theoretical and practical implications—including actionable recommendations for corporate decision-makers and policy regulators—and underscores the study’s academic contribution. Furthermore, we have added a detailed discussion of the study's limitations, such as issues of generalizability due to the focus on Chinese A-share listed companies, potential measurement bias, and endogeneity concerns. Correspondingly, we propose future research directions, including comparative cross-country analysis, qualitative approaches, and exploration of other mediating variables such as digital transformation and innovation mechanisms. We believe these improvements significantly enhance the robustness, relevance, and readability of the paper’s conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for improving the paper.

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for improving the paper.

Respond 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging comment. We are pleased that the revisions have met your expectations. Your recognition of our improvements is greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your effort

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for your effort.

Respond 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging comment. We are pleased that the revisions have met your expectations. Your recognition of our improvements is greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a considerable effort to respond to the comments, and I thank them very much.

They have tried to come back to the comments point by point and make the necessary corrections. But there is one comment to which I am not convinced by the authors' response, and that concerns the high value of R2.

The high values of R2 needs to be checked carefully:

- the adjusted R2 values

- the specification tests (Ramsey RESET, stability tests).

- residuals (autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity).

- unit root tests (in time series, an R² > 0.9 may indicate a spurious regression)

Author Response

Comments 1: 

They have tried to come back to the comments point by point and make the necessary corrections. But there is one comment to which I am not convinced by the authors' response, and that concerns the high value of R2.

The high values of R2 needs to be checked carefully:

- the adjusted R2 values

- the specification tests (Ramsey RESET, stability tests).

- residuals (autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity).

• unit root tests (in time series, an R² > 0.9 may indicate a spurious regression)

Responds 1: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Regarding the issue of multicollinearity, we conducted a VIF test on the variables. Please refer to the Word document for specific results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf