Developing Organizational Agility in SMEs: An Investigation of Innovation’s Roles and Strategic Flexibility
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Organizational Agility and Dynamic Capabilities in SMEs
2.2. Social Capital and Collaborative Knowledge Creation
2.3. Social Capital and Firm Innovation
2.4. Collaborative Knowledge Creation and Organizational Agility
2.5. Innovation and Organizational Agility
2.6. The Mediating Role of Collaborative Knowledge Creation
2.7. Mediating the Role of Firm Innovation
2.8. The Moderating Role of Strategic Flexibility
3. Methodology
3.1. Data and Sampling Method
3.2. Measurements
4. Results
4.1. Respondent Profile
4.2. The Assessment of the Measurement Model
4.3. Structural Model Testing
4.4. Hypotheses Testing
4.5. Mediation Testing
5. Discussion and Research Implications
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Managerial Implications
6. Conclusions and Future Study
Limitations and Further Study
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Baškarada, S.; Koronios, A. The 5S organizational agility framework: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2018, 26, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Audretsch, B.D.; Belitski, M. The limits to open innovation and its impact on innovation performance. Technovation 2022, 102519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miroshnychenko, I.; Strobl, A.; Matzler, K.; de Massis, A. Absorptive capacity, strategic flexibility, and business model innovation: Empirical evidence from Italian SMEs. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 130, 670–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yildiz, T.; Aykanat, Z. The mediating role of organizational innovation on the impact of strategic agility on firm performance. World J. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 17, 765–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, T.-T.; Liang, T.-P.; Peng, C.-H.; Chen, D.-N.; Sharma, P. Knowledge Creation and Organizational Performance: Moderating and Mediating Processes from an Organizational Agility Perspective. AIS Trans. Hum. -Comput. Interact. 2019, 11, 79–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.M.; Yang, H.F. Network resource meets organizational agility: Creating an idiosyncratic competitive advantage for SMEs. Manag. Decis. 2020, 58, 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Omoush, K.S.; Simón-Moya, V.; Sendra-García, J. The impact of social capital and collaborative knowledge creation on e-business proactiveness and organizational agility in responding to the COVID-19 crisis. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabić, M.; Stojčić, N.; Simić, M.; Potocan, V.; Slavković, M.; Nedelko, Z. Intellectual agility and innovation in micro and small businesses: The mediating role of entrepreneurial leadership. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Z.; Liu, H.; Huang, Q.; Liang, L. Developing organizational agility in product innovation: The roles of IT capability, KM capability, and innovative climate. R D Manag. 2019, 49, 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, J.I.L.; Muthuveloo, R. Vital organisational capabilities for strategic agility: An empirical study. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2020, 12, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koçyiğit, Y.; Akkaya, B. The Role of Organizational Flexibility in Organizational Agility: A Research on SMEs. Bus. Manag. Strategy 2020, 11, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.; Peteraf, M.; Leih, S. Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2016, 58, 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teixeira, E.d.O.; Werther, B.W., Jr. Resilience: Continuous renewal of competitive advantages. Bus. Horiz. 2013, 56, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belhadi, A.; Mani, V.; Kamble, S.S.; Khan, S.A.R.; Verma, S. Artificial intelligence-driven innovation for enhancing supply chain resilience and performance under the effect of supply chain dynamism: An empirical investigation. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganguly, A.; Talukdar, A.; Chatterjee, D. Evaluating the role of social capital, tacit knowledge sharing, knowledge quality and reciprocity in determining innovation capability of an organization. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 1105–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.K.; Mazzucchelli, A.; Vessal, S.R.; Solidoro, A. Knowledge-based HRM practices and innovation performance: Role of social capital and knowledge sharing. J. Int. Manag. 2021, 27, 100830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harsch, K.; Festing, M. Dynamic talent management capabilities and organizational agility—A qualitative exploration. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 59, 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felipe, C.M.; Roldán, J.L.; Leal-Rodríguez, A.L. Impact of organizational culture values on organizational agility. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Özbuğday, F.C.; Fındık, D.; Özcan, K.M.; Başçı, S. Resource efficiency investments and firm performance: Evidence from European SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravichandran, T. Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2018, 27, 22–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsawan, I.W.E.; Koval, V.; Duginets, G.; Kalinin, O.; Korostova, I. The impact of green innovation on environmental performance of SMEs in an emerging economy. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 255, 1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsawan, I.W.E.; Koval, V.; Rajiani, I.; Rustiarini, N.W.; Supartha, W.G.; Suryantini, N.P.S. Leveraging knowledge sharing and innovation culture into SMEs sustainable competitive advantage. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2022, 71, 405–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parwita, G.B.S.; Arsawan, I.W.E.; Koval, V.; Hrinchenko, R.; Bogdanova, N.; Tamosiuniene, R. Organizational innovation capability: Integrating human resource management practice, knowledge management and individual creativity. Intellect. Econ. 2021, 15, 22–45. [Google Scholar]
- Arsawan, I.W.E.; Kariati, N.M.; Shchokina, Y.; Prayustika, P.A.; Rustiarini, N.W.; Koval, V. Invigorating Employee’s Innovative Work Behavior: Exploring the Sequential Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment and Knowledge. Verslas Teor. Ir Prakt. Vilnius 2022, 23, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.H.; Majid, A.; Yasir, M. Strategic renewal of SMEs: The impact of social capital, strategic agility and absorptive capacity. Manag. Decis. 2020, 59, 1877–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherehiy, B.; Karwowski, W.; Layer, J.K. A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2007, 37, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wageeh, N.A. Organizational Agility: The Key to Organizational Success. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016, 11, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Žitkienė, R.; Deksnys, M. Organizational agility conceptual model. Montenegrin J. Econ. 2018, 14, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadi, S.; Ershadi, M.J. Investigating the role of social networking technology on the organizational agility: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2021, 18, 568–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Bi, G.; Liu, H.; Fang, Y.; Hua, Z. Understanding employee competence, operational IS alignment, and organizational agility—An ambidexterity perspective. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 695–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panda, S.; Rath, S.K. Investigating the structural linkage between IT capability and organizational agility: A study on Indian financial enterprises. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2016, 29, 751–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, A.T. Organizational agility: Ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization. Manag. Rev. Q. 2021, 71, 343–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Falahat, M.; Ramayah, T.; Soto-Acosta, P.; Lee, Y.Y. SMEs internationalization: The role of product innovation, market intelligence, pricing and marketing communication capabilities as drivers of SMEs’ international performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 152, 119908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciszewska-Mlinarič, M. Foreign market knowledge and SME’s international performance: Moderating effects of strategic intent and time-to-internationalization. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2016, 4, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gavrila, S.G.; Ancillo, A.d.L. Spanish SMEs’ digitalization enablers: E-Receipt applications to the offline retail market. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 162, 120381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stekelorum, R.; Laguir, I.; ElBaz, J. Can you hear the Eco? From SME environmental responsibility to social requirements in the supply chain. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 158, 120169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosenz, F.; Bivona, E. Fostering growth patterns of SMEs through business model innovation. A tailored dynamic business modelling approach. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 130, 658–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faccin, K.; Balestrin, A. The dynamics of collaborative practices for knowledge creation in joint R&D projects. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2018, 48, 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weaven, S.; Quach, S.; Thaichon, P.; Frazer, L.; Billot, K.; Grace, D. Surviving an economic downturn: Dynamic capabilities of SMEs. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 128, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quaye, D. Marketing innovation and sustainable competitive advantage of manufacturing SMEs in Ghana. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 1535–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azudin, A.; Mansor, N. Management accounting practices of SMEs: The impact of organizational DNA, business potential and operational technology. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2018, 23, 222–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chege, S.M.; Wang, D. The influence of technology innovation on SME performance through environmental sustainability practices in Kenya. Technol. Soc. 2020, 60, 101210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, L.L.J.; Huijben, J.C.C.M.; van Boxstael, A.; Romme, A.G.L. Barriers and drivers for technology commercialization by SMEs in the Dutch sustainable energy sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 112, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, S.; Lusher, D.; Hopkins, J.; Simpson, G.W. Industrial symbiosis in Australia: The social relations of making contact in a matchmaking marketplace for SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayton, J.C. Competing in the new economy: The effect of intellectual capital on corporate entrepreneurship in high-technology new ventures. R D Manag. 2005, 35, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Ke, W.; Wei, K.K.; Lu, Y. The effects of social capital on firm substantive and symbolic performance: In the context of E-business. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2016, 24, 18–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J.B. Year Retrospective on The Resource-Based. 2001. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602 (accessed on 23 July 2022).
- Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Knowl. Strategy 2009, 18, 77–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabetzadeh, F.; Tsui, E. An effective knowledge quality framework based on knowledge resources interdependencies. Vine 2015, 45, 360–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Shami, S.; Rashid, N. A holistic model of dynamic capabilities and environment management system towards eco-product innovation and sustainability in automobile firms. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2022, 37, 402–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, J. The role of dyadic social capital in enhancing collaborative knowledge creation. J. Informetr. 2020, 14, 101034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ode, E.; Ayavoo, R. The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calantone, R.J.; Cavusgil, S.T.; Zhao, Y. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2002, 31, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, S.; Jiang, Y.; Peng, X.; Hong, J. Knowledge sharing direction and innovation performance in organizations: Do absorptive capacity and individual creativity matter? Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 24, 371–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonaka, I.; von Krogh, G. Perspective—Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organ. Sci. 2009, 20, 635–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ooi, C.A.; Hooy, C.W.; Som, A.P.M. The influence of board diversity in human capital and social capital in crisis. Manag. Financ. 2017, 43, 700–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Jiao, H.; Zeng, Q.; Wu, J. Ios-Enabled Collaborative Knowledge Creation and Supply Chain Flexibility: The Moderate Role of Market 2016. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2016/37/ (accessed on 23 July 2022).
- Steinmo, M.; Rasmussen, E. The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 1964–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeşil, S.; Doğan, I.F. Exploring the relationship between social capital, innovation capability and innovation. Innov. Organ. Manag. 2019, 21, 506–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, M. Social capital, innovation and economic growth. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2018, 73, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, L.; Zheng, W.; Yang, B.; Bai, S. Transformational leadership, social capital and organizational innovation. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2016, 37, 843–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bouton, E.; Tal, S.B.; Asterhan, C.S.C. Students, social network technology and learning in higher education: Visions of collaborative knowledge construction vs. the reality of knowledge sharing. Internet High. Educ. 2021, 49, 100787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dung, T.Q.; Bonney, L.B.; Adhikari, R.P.; Miles, M.P. Entrepreneurial orientation, knowledge acquisition and collaborative performance in agri-food value-chains in emerging markets. Supply Chain. Manag. 2020, 25, 521–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, F.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, C.; Ding, K.; Cheng, W.; Chang, F. A maintenance decision-making oriented collaborative cross-organization knowledge sharing blockchain network for complex multi-component systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 124541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Hu, Q. Technovation Knowledge sharing in supply chain networks: Effects of collaborative innovation activities and capability on innovation performance. Technovation 2020, 94–95, 102010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hock-Doepgen, M.; Clauss, T.; Kraus, S.; Cheng, C.F. Knowledge management capabilities and organizational risk-taking for business model innovation in SMEs. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 130, 683–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Liu, L. Customer participation, and green product innovation in SMEs: The mediating role of opportunity recognition and exploitation. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 119, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cepeda, J.; Arias-Pérez, J. Information technology capabilities and organizational agility: The mediating effects of open innovation capabilities. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2019, 27, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, L.; Wang, Y.; Upadhaya, B.; Zhao, S.; Yin, Y. Knowledge spillover, knowledge management capabilities, and innovation among returnee entrepreneurial firms in emerging markets: Does entrepreneurial ecosystem matter? J. Bus. Res. 2021, 130, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamboj, S.; Rahman, Z. Market orientation, marketing capabilities and sustainable innovation: The mediating role of sustainable consumption and competitive advantage. Manag. Res. Rev. 2017, 40, 698–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, J.; Coelho, A.; Moutinho, L. Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Technovation 2020, 92–93, 102061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brozovic, D. Strategic Flexibility: A Review of the Literature. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 3–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorondutse, A.H.; Arshad, D.; Alshuaibi, A.S. Driving sustainability in SMEs’ performance: The effect of strategic flexibility. J. Strategy Manag. 2020, 14, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Zhang, F.; Jiang, X.; Sun, W. Strategic flexibility, green management, and firm competitiveness in an emerging economy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 101, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiu, L.; Liang, X.; Chen, Z.; Xu, W. Strategic flexibility, innovative HR practices, and firm performance. Pers. Rev. 2017, 46, 1335–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cingöz, A.; Akdoğan, A.A. Strategic Flexibility, Environmental Dynamism, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 99, 582–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thomas, E.F. Platform-based product design and environmental turbulence: The mediating role of strategic flexibility. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2014, 17, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Ngo, L.V.; O’Cass, A. Creating value offerings via operant resource-based capabilities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2009, 38, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nafei, W.A. The Role of Organizational Agility in Reinforcing Job Engagement: A Study on Industrial Companies in Egypt. Int. Bus. Res. 2016, 9, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preston, D.S.; Leidner, D.E.; Chen, D.; Uarterly, M.Q.; Xecutive, E. Created CIO 2008. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00206.x (accessed on 23 July 2022).
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.; Tomas, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Sauzend oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, S.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, X. Effects of proactive environmental strategy on environmental performance: Mediation and moderation analyses. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1438–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 655–690. [Google Scholar]
- Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.-M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Matthews, L.M.; Ringle, C.M. Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I–method. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2016, 28, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Fassott, G. Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An illustration of available procedures. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 713–735. [Google Scholar]
- Leckel, A.; Veilleux, S.; Dana, L.P. Local Open Innovation: A means for public policy to increase collaboration for innovation in SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 153, 119891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patricio, J.; Axelsson, L.; Blomé, S.; Rosado, L. Enabling industrial symbiosis collaborations between SMEs from a regional perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 1120–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaridis, A.; Vlachos, I.; Bourlakis, M. SMEs strategy and scale constraints impact on agri-food supply chain collaboration and firm performance. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 32, 1165–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Q.; Sousa, C.M.P. Leveraging marketing capabilities into competitive advantage and export performance. Int. Mark. Rev. 2015, 32, 78–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, C.; Du, J.; Zhang, H. International orientation of Chinese internet SMEs: Direct and indirect effects of foreign and indigenous social networking site use. J. World Bus. 2020, 55, 101051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.H.; Wong, K.H.; Chiu, W.S. The effects of business systems leveraging on supply chain performance: Process innovation and uncertainty as moderators. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 103140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cegarra-Navarro, J.G.; Martelo-Landroguez, S. The effect of organizational memory on organizational agility: Testing the role of counter-knowledge and knowledge application. J. Intellect. Cap. 2020, 21, 459–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arain, G.A.; Bhatti, Z.A.; Hameed, I.; Fang, Y.H. Top-down knowledge hiding and innovative work behavior (IWB): A three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and local/foreign status. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 24, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassani, A.A.; Aldakhil, A.M. Tackling organizational innovativeness through strategic orientation: Strategic alignment and moderating role of strategic flexibility. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haider, S.A.; Kayani, U.N. The impact of customer knowledge management capability on project performance-mediating role of strategic agility. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 25, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, H.; Liu, S.; Zhang, J. How the effects of IT and knowledge capability on organizational agility are contingent on environmental uncertainty and information intensity. Inf. Dev. 2015, 31, 358–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Sources |
---|---|
Social capital | [7,45,46] |
Collaborative knowledge creation | [7,38,59,81] |
Firm innovation | [54,55,82] |
Organizational agility | [7,83,84] |
Strategic flexibility | [3,74] |
Description | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Age | <25 | 35 | 8.5 |
25–30 | 142 | 34.3 | |
31–35 | 135 | 32.6 | |
36–40 | 79 | 19.1 | |
41–45 | 23 | 5.5 | |
Gender | Male | 239 | 57.7 |
Female | 175 | 42.3 | |
Education | Bachelor | 277 | 66.9 |
Master | 126 | 30.4 | |
Doctor | 11 | 2.7 | |
Experiences | <5 | 2 | 0.5 |
6–10 | 181 | 43.7 | |
11–15 | 129 | 31.2 | |
16–20 | 102 | 24.6 |
Indicators | Loading | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|
Social capital | 0.928 | 0.725 | |
| 0.940 | ||
| 0.904 | ||
| 0.935 | ||
| 0.752 | ||
| 0.696 | ||
Collaborative knowledge creation | 0.911 | 0.564 | |
| 0.691 | ||
| 0.639 | ||
| 0.626 | ||
| 0.862 | ||
| 0.783 | ||
| 0.757 | ||
| 0.788 | ||
| 0.831 | ||
Firm innovation | 0.932 | 0.582 | |
| 0.830 | ||
| 0.775 | ||
| 0.775 | ||
| 0.718 | ||
| 0.634 | ||
| 0.692 | ||
| 0.817 | ||
| 0.834 | ||
| 0.836 | ||
| 0.687 | ||
Organizational Agility | 0.921 | 0.701 | |
| 0.732 | ||
| 0.835 | ||
| 0.849 | ||
| 0.911 | ||
| 0.849 | ||
Strategic flexibility | 0.919 | 0.657 | |
| 0.888 | ||
| 0.888 | ||
| 0.898 | ||
| 0.723 | ||
| 0.737 | ||
| 0.702 |
Original Sample (O) | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | p Values | Decision | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SC → Collaborative K C | 0.442 | 0.446 | 0.054 | 8.232 | 0.000 | Sig |
SC → Org Agility | 0.198 | 0.194 | 0.058 | 3.413 | 0.001 | Sig |
SC → Firm Innovation | 0.534 | 0.535 | 0.047 | 11.287 | 0.000 | Sig |
Collaborative K C → Org Agility | 0.062 | 0.059 | 0.053 | 1.177 | 0.240 | Non-sig |
Firm Innovation → Org Agility | 0.375 | 0.376 | 0.054 | 7.012 | 0.000 | sig |
Link | Mediator | Independent Variable-Mediator | Mediator-Dependent Variable | Direct | Indirect | Total Effect | VAF (%) | Decision |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SC-OA | CKC | 0.442 | 0.062 | 0.198 | 0.274 | 0.472 | 0.581 | Partial mediation |
SC-OA | Innov | 0.534 | 0.375 | 0.198 | 0.200 | 0.398 | 0.503 | Partial mediation |
Original Sample (O) | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | p Values | Decision | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Firm_in → Stra_Flex → Org Agility | 0.084 | 0.086 | 0.044 | 1.912 | 0.056 | Non-sig |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Arsawan, I.W.E.; Hariyanti, N.K.D.; Atmaja, I.M.A.D.S.; Suhartanto, D.; Koval, V. Developing Organizational Agility in SMEs: An Investigation of Innovation’s Roles and Strategic Flexibility. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030149
Arsawan IWE, Hariyanti NKD, Atmaja IMADS, Suhartanto D, Koval V. Developing Organizational Agility in SMEs: An Investigation of Innovation’s Roles and Strategic Flexibility. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2022; 8(3):149. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030149
Chicago/Turabian StyleArsawan, I Wayan Edi, Ni Kadek Dessy Hariyanti, I Made Ari Dwi Suta Atmaja, Dwi Suhartanto, and Viktor Koval. 2022. "Developing Organizational Agility in SMEs: An Investigation of Innovation’s Roles and Strategic Flexibility" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8, no. 3: 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030149