ArticlePDF Available

Fostering firm resilience through organizational ambidexterity capability and resource availability: amid the COVID-19 outbreak

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Purpose This study aims to study the impact of organizational ambidexterity capability and resource availability on firm resilience along with perceived environmental uncertainty playing a moderating role. This study also intends to investigate the interplaying relationship between exploration capability and exploitation capability as components of organizational ambidexterity with resource availability. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative data was collected through self-administered surveys targeting 202 firms in Egypt. SEM (AMOS-SPSS) was used to test the proposed hypotheses. Findings The results indicated that both organizational ambidexterity capability and resource availability impact firm resilience. Moreover, the relationship between the enablers was found to be significant, where resource availability has a positive impact on the firm’s exploitation capability, the firm’s exploitation capability has a positive impact on its exploration capability and finally, the firm’s exploration capability has a positive impact on resource availability. However, the moderating role of perceived environmental uncertainty was found to be insignificant. Research limitations/implications Nonprobability convenience sampling technique, cross-sectional design and the relatively small sample size may hinder the ability to generalize this study. Practical implications This study identifies the importance of exploration (innovation) and exploitation (efficiency) capabilities for managers to build responsive organizations. Originality/value This study contributes to the understanding of firm resilience in times of uncertainties, where empirical research has not been enough. In addition, this study contributes to the identification of possible antecedents of firm resilience, highlighting the importance of certain strategic features including organizational ambidexterity capability and resource availability. This study also investigates the relationship between exploitation capabilities, exploration capabilities and resource availability, which was not empirically tested in the literature.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Fostering rm resilience through
organizational ambidexterity
capability and resource
availability: amid
the COVID-19 outbreak
Salma Gayed and Raghda El Ebrashi
Department of Management and Organization, German University in Cairo,
Cairo, Egypt
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to study the impact of organizational ambidexterity capability and resource
availability on rm resilience along with perceived environmental uncertainty playing a moderating role.
This study also intends to investigate the interplaying relationship between exploration capability and
exploitation capability as components of organizational ambidexterity with resource availability.
Design/methodology/approach Quantitative data was collected through self-administered surveys
targeting 202 rms in Egypt. SEM (AMOS-SPSS) was used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Findings The results indicated that both organizational ambidexterity capability and resource
availability impact rm resilience. Moreover, the relationship between the enablers was found to be
signicant, where resource availability has a positive impact on the rms exploitation capability, the rms
exploitation capability has a positive impact on its exploration capability and nally, the rms exploration
capability has a positive impact on resource availability. However, the moderating role of perceived
environmental uncertainty was found to be insignicant.
Research limitations/implications Nonprobability convenience sampling technique, cross-sectional
design and the relatively small sample size may hinder the ability to generalize this study.
Practical implications This study identies the importance of exploration (innovation) and
exploitation (efciency) capabilities for managers to build responsive organizations.
Originality/value This study contributes to the understanding of rm resilience in times of
uncertainties, where empirical research has not been enough. In addition, this study contributes to the
identication of possible antecedents of rm resilience, highlighting the importance of certain strategic
features including organizational ambidexterity capability and resource availability. This study also
investigates the relationship between exploitation capabilities, exploration capabilities and resource
availability, which was not empirically tested in the literature.
Keywords Organizational ambidexterity capability, Exploration capability, Exploitation capability,
Resource availability, Perceived environmental uncertainty, Firm resilience
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Black swan events are rare events that occur beyond ones expectations and usually have
adverse consequences (Taleb, 2007). The outbreak of COVID-19 is considered to be a black
swan event and a global emergency (Taleb, 2007;Papadopoulos et al.,2020), which affected
the supply of capital and disrupted supply chains (Papadopoulos et al.,2020). Consequently,
rms are more inclined toward adopting strategies and practices to combat crisis andfoster
Firm resilience
Received 30 September2021
Revised 26 January2022
27 February 2022
Accepted 17 March2022
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1934-8835
DOI 10.1108/IJOA-09-2021-2977
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1934-8835.htm
resilience (Dhoopar et al., 2021;Conz and Magnani, 2020). Resilience can be explained as the
exibility acquired by individuals that allows them to survive and bounce back in the wake
of unpleasant events (Conz and Magnani, 2020;Van Der Vegt et al., 2015;Kantur and Iseri-
Say, 2012). In a rm setting, resilience is the ability of organizations to avoid
discontinuation, by adapting with changes and major events (Beech et al.,2020;Clement and
Rivera, 2017), continuously renewing business operations (Stewart and ODonnell, 2007;
Scott, 2007;Mafabi et al., 2015) and maintaining above average returns (Van der Vegt et al.,
2015;Lampel et al.,2014;de Oliveira Teixeira and Werther, 2013).
Resilience is a dominant concept in some elds like psychology, yet it is considered to be
trending and booming in business and management research (Hillmann and Guenther, 2021;
Duchek, 2020;Linnenluecke, 2017;Van der Vegt et al.,2015). For rms to be resilient, they
have to use their resources and capabilities in a way that would allow them to adapt to the
changing environment (Duchek, 2020;Kantur and Iseri-Say, 2012; Lengnick-Hall and Beck,
2005) and hence attain competitive advantage (Lee and Rha, 2016;Teece, 2007). According
to recent research, organizational ambidexterity capability (OA) and resource availability
(RA) are the main antecedents for fostering rm resilience (FR) (Aslam et al.,2020;Iborra
et al.,2020; Lee and Rha, 2016; Duchek, 2020;Pal et al., 2014;Kantur and Iseri-Say, 2012).
This research focuses on explaining how OA and RA develop FR amid the COVID-19 crisis.
OA is looked at as a dynamic capability that serves in enhancing the competencies and the
resource base of the rms, hence better addressing the uncertain and dynamic environments
(Iborra et al., 2020;Lee and Rha, 2016). For rms to become ambidextrous, it is important to
make sure that both exploration and exploitation capabilities are simultaneously used (Dhir
and Dhir, 2018;Simsek et al.,2009;Katila and Ahuja, 2002). In addition, accessing resources
whenever required is crucial, specically during times of adversity and uncertainty (Kantur
and Iseri-Say, 2012).
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 covers a review of the relevant literature.
Section 3 presents the proposed research model andhypotheses. Section 4 provides details of
the methods used. Section 5 discusses the measurement and structural model evaluation.
Section 6 covers the discussion of results, followed by Section 7, which concludes the
research done along with the implications. Finally, Section 8 discusses the limitations and
suggestions for future research.
2. Literature review
2.1 Firm resilience and organizational ambidexterity capability
The term resilienceoriginally came from the Latin word reilireor resiliowhich means to
bounce back (Alexander, 2013). Extreme changes in the external environment caused
businessesto shift part of their focus from striving to create high prots to building resilience
(Dhoopar et al., 2021;Conz and Magnani, 2020;Williams et al.,2017). Studies that viewed FR
as an outcome are mainly concerned with the sources and factors that foster FR (Duchek,
2020) such as sufcient resources, redundancy, positive relationships and collective
behaviors. Another conceptualization looks at resilience as a process consisting of steps and
tackles what organizations should do to become resilient (Linnenluecke et al., 2012;Bhamra
et al.,2011). Finally, the last conceptualization looks at FR as an organizational capability
(Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal, 2016;Lengnick-Hall et al.,2011;Lengnick-Hall and Beck,
2005). This research uses the conceptualization of FR as a capability used to adapt and
quickly respond to changes brought by environmental uncertainty.
There are several contributing factors to organizational resilience including the
availability of capital, skilled labor, material supplies and managerial talent (Miller and
Friesen, 1982), as well as decentralized and exible organizational design (Duchek, 2020),
IJOA
and organization learning and leadership (Salwan and Gada, 2018). In line with the resource-
based view, rm resources andcapabilities lead to competitive advantage (Barney, 1991)for
resilience development (Pal et al.,2014). In a nutshell, RA is the accessibility of the rm to
resources and capabilities whenever it is required, specically during times of adversity and
uncertainty (Kantur and Iseri-Say, 2012). Recent research has shed light on the importance
of OA as a capability that enhances FR (Lee and Rha, 2016;Aslam et al., 2020), allowing
rms to achieve competitive advantage in an uncertain and dynamic environment by
attaining multiple contrasting objectives (Aslam et al., 2020;Iborra et al., 2020;Koryak et al.,
2018;OReilly and Tushman, 2013;Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;He and Wong, 2004;
Tushman and OReilly, 1996).
Ambidexterity is a trait that describes the ability of humans to use both hands with equal
dexterity (Simsek, 2009). Similarly, ambidextrous rms are the ones that apply two
opposing and converging strategies at a single time (Simsek et al., 2009). This can be
through focusing on efciency and exibility (Adler et al.,1999), alignment and adaptability
(Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004), search and stability (Rivkin and Siggelkow, 2003), scope and
depth (Katila and Ahuja, 2002), exploitative and explorative learning (Kang and Snell, 2009;
Im and Rai, 2008), incremental and discontinuous innovation (Benner and Tushman, 2003)
or pro-prot and pro-growth strategies (Han, 2005). The most commonly cited meaning for
an ambidextrous organization is coined by March (1991), which is the ability of the rm to
carry out exploration and exploitation at the same time (Anzenbacher and Wagner, 2020;
Panagopoulos, 2016;Zhang et al.,2016;Duncan, 1972).
Accordingly, organization ambidexterity is viewed as a dynamic capability (Teece, 2014;
OReilly and Tushman, 2008) that allows rms to use their exploitation and exploration
capabilities to recongure their resource base, adjust in a dynamic environment (Ferreira
et al.,2020;Snehvrat et al.,2018;Yalcinkaya et al.,2007;Lubatkin et al., 2006) and achieve
long-term success (Mafabi et al.,2015;Lin, 2014;Kang and Snell, 2009;Levinthal and March,
1993). Exploitation capability, on one hand, is the ability to commit to improve quality and
lower cost continuously, improve the reliability of products and services, increase the levels
of automation, constantly survey existing customerssatisfaction, ne-tune what is offered
to keep customers satised and penetrate more deeply into the existing customer base (Liu
et al., 2019; Lubatkin et al.,2006). On the other hand, exploration capability is the rms
ability to look for novel technological ideas, create innovative products or services, look for
creative ways to satisfy customersneeds, aggressively venture into new market segments
and actively target new customer groups (Liu et al., 2019; Lubatkin et al.,2006).
According to the literature mentioned above, this research proposes that OA and RA
play the role of two antecedents fostering FR, supporting the following two hypotheses:
H1. Organizational ambidexterity capability has a positive impact on rm resilience.
H2. Resource availability has a positive impact on rm resilience.
Both exploration and exploitation are considered to be self-reinforcing; focusing too much on
exploitation would result in success traps,where successful exploitation of a rms
resources might prevent it from further exploring new resources in a dynamic environment,
while focusing too much on exploration would result in failure traps,where the uncertain
results of exploration would eventually result infailure and minimize the levels of efciency
(Kafetzopoulos, 2020;Tian et al.,2020;Anzenbacher and Wagner, 2020;Gupta et al.,2006).
Therefore, March (1991) explained that achieving both exploration and exploitation is
important for the rm to achieve long-term performance.
Firm resilience
2.2 Interplay between exploration capability, exploitation capability and resource availability
With the organization being the unit of analysis, there are two streams of literature that
view ambidexterity in different ways continuity vs orthogonality. Starting rst with the
former and referring to the perspective of resource scarcity, this stream of literature looks at
exploration and exploitation as two incompatible capabilities because of the fact that both
capabilities compete for scarce organizational resources (March, 1991); hence, the interplay
between both capabilities occurs in the form of a zero-sum game (Gupta et al.,2006).
Moreover, both capabilities call for different processes, structures, afliations and cognitive
orientations (Kang and Snell, 200; Shi et al.,2020). Hence, exploration and exploitation in this
sense are viewed as two ends of a continuum and successful rms are the ones that balance
between both, nding an optimal point along this continuum (Gupta et al.,2006).
Moving to orthogonality and from the perspective of absorptive capacity and the
absorptive ability theory coined back to Cohen and Levinthal (1990), this stream of literature
looks at exploitation and exploration capabilities as two capabilities that complement each
other rather than compete against each other. This stream explains that successful rms are
the ones that achieve higher combined levels of both exploration and exploitation, through
forming a dynamic learning cycle (Gupta et al.,2006). To further explain this, exploitation
activities result in the cash ows needed for exploratory activities and such exploratory
activities provide the needed resources and capabilities for long-term performance of the
rm (Dhir and Dhir, 2018). Therefore, just as mentioned by Shi et al. (2020), the rms
explorative capabilities would be maximized only when the rm acquires strong
exploitative capabilities.
Looking at exploration and exploitation as two dynamic capabilities, this research
hypothesizes that RA plays a role in the relationship between both capabilities. A debate has
been ongoing regarding whether organizational resources foster exploration or exploitation
(Voss et al., 2008). On one hand, there seems to be a positive relationship between slack
resources and exploration activities like innovation, risk taking and adaptation. In other
words, when rms acquire more resources, they would be encouraged to explore (Nohria
and Gulati, 1996). On the other hand, slack resources would cause rms to become more
cautious during decision-making and avoid taking risks, hence exploiting more than
exploring (Katila and Shane, 2005;Levinthal and March, 1993). Referring to the
organizational inertia theory coined by Singh and Lumsden (1990), when rms enjoy current
resources, they are more reluctant to explore, to avoid putting their current resources in
jeopardy. Having said this, rms that acquire sufcient resources might focus more on the
benets of exploiting existing markets, products, technologies, customers and processes
rather than exploring new markets, products, technologies, customers and processes (Shi
et al.,2020). Therefore, this research hypothesizes the following:
H3. Resource availability has a positive impact onthe rms exploitation capability.
H4. Exploitation capability has a positive impact on exploration capability.
According to the literature, the other way round is also true where a rms exploration
capabilities would enhance its exploitation capabilities. To further explain this point, the
exploration activities would enhance the rms effectiveness, upgrading the assets,
resources and capabilities that would lead to the renewal of exploitation capabilities and
hence long-term prots (Shi et al., 2020;Yalcinkaya et al.,2007). Having said this, to ensure
optimum outcomes of those two dynamic capabilities, it is important to ensure the continual
renewal of such capabilities (Yalcinkaya et al.,2007), which is triggered by the availability of
resources. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed in the research:
IJOA
H5. Exploration capability has a positive impact on resource availability.
2.3 The moderating role of perceived environmental uncertainty
Crises have already been occurring during the past century, like global economies facing
recession due to sudden changes in policies, oil prices or nancial factors. However, scholars
and researchers have described the threat posed by COVID-19 as a global society shock
(Papadopoulos et al.,2020). The uncertainty tackled in the current research is the one caused
by the COVID-19 outbreak. As of late December 2019, it all started when the China County
Ofce of the World Health Organization got notied about cases of pneumonia (of an
unspecied cause). After investigations, it appeared that the cause of this pneumonia is an
unusual virus (SARS-CoV-2), which resulted in coronavirus disease 2019, known as COVID-
19 nowadays (Gaye et al.,2021). COVID-19 has quickly spread all over the world leading to
severe nancial and human losses (Haidar, 2021). A study done by Rezk et al. (2020)
recommended that governments, businesses, NGOs and citizens should recognize and
capitalize on the new opportunities created by this pandemic to become resilient. Hence, the
pandemic occurred to be a triggering event leading rms to reassess their operations and try
to grasp opportunities following the new changes in the rules and constraints (Rezk et al.,
2020).
According to the contingency theory (Fiedler, 1978), for organizations to be effective, it is
important to make sure that there is a t between their organizational design and practices
as well as the external environment, especially when the external environment is
characterized by high levels of environmental turbulence and uncertainty (Kafetzopoulos,
2020;Abu-Rahma and Jaleel, 2019) just as during COVID-19. Perceived environmental
uncertainty is an individuals perceived inability to comprehend the changes in the
environment, the possible effect of such changes on the organization as well as the possible
successful outcome of certain responses (Freel, 2005;Waldman et al., 2001). Environmental
uncertainty has been viewed as a subjective perception where top managers could
perceive the same objective environment as being uncertain while other top managers could
perceive it with no uncertainty. Having said this, the actions that rms take in response to
the external environment are more consistent with subjective rather than objective
interpretations (Sund, 2015;Waldman et al.,2001;Gordon and Narayanan, 1984;Duncan,
1972).
According to the literature, the relationship between dynamic capabilities and rm
performance could be moderated by several variables like environmental dynamism,
environmental turbulence and market turbulence. In fact, the moderating role of the
environment is the core of dynamic capabilities literature (Hern
andez-Linares et al., 2020;
Teece, 2007). Consequently, when faced with a dynamic environment, rms use their
dynamic capabilities (such as OA) to adapt (Kafetzopoulos, 2020). Therefore, just as
proposed by Aslam et al. (2020), the effect of ambidexterity on resilience will be higher given
a greater uncertain environment and vice versa. Having said this, the following hypothesis
is put forward:
H6. Perceived environmental uncertainty positively moderates the relationship between
organizational ambidexterity capability and rm resilience.
Traditionally, the RBV has been focusing on the ability of internal organizational resources
and capabilities to create a competitive advantage however, more importance needs to be
Firm resilience
placed on the general business environment. The contingency theory explains that a rm
could gain its competitive advantage through aligning its endogenous variables (such as
organizational resources) with the exogenous context variables (such as the COVID-19
pandemic). As mentioned in the literature, perceived environmental uncertainty increases
the likelihood that businesses will utilize their resources and capabilities to create a
proactive environmental state or, in other words, become more resilient (Arag
on-Correa and
Sharma, 2003). Consequently, this research proposed the following hypothesis:
H7. Perceived environmental uncertainty positively moderates the relationship between
resource availability and rm resilience.
3. Proposed research model and hypotheses
Following the literature review, it appears that certain areas in the literature need to be
further examined. More empirical research on dynamic capabilities is required as research
done on dynamic capabilities has been mainly conceptual (Hern
andez-Linares et al.,2020).
Additionally, more research is needed regarding the potential moderators or mediators of
OA so that practitioners could have better guidance for their ambidextrous efforts (Claudia
and Mihaela, 2019).
Even though the term resiliencehas been widely used in several elds, empirical
research on organizational resilience is not sufcient and its application in the management
eld seems to be fragmented (Williams et al., 2017;Van Der Vegt et al.,2015). Additionally,
Iborra et al. (2020) and DesJardine et al. (2019) stated that there is little management research
on organizational resilience at a strategic level of analysis in comparison with management
research on resilience from positive psychology at an individual level of analysis. Moreover,
it appears that more research is needed to identify the antecedents of organizational
resilience (Linnenluecke, 2017;Williams et al.,2017;Rodríguez-S
anchez et al.,2019) focusing
on the underlying mechanisms that promote the enablement/development of FR (Duchek,
2020).
In addition to what has been mentioned above, Aslam et al. (2020) claimed that previous
research tackled the impact of ambidexterity on rm performance. However, very little
research has been conducted to shed light on how OA could foster FR. Finally, although the
world witnessed several pandemics in the past, very little research has focused on the long-
term economic, behavioral or societal consequences of such outbreaks (Donthu and
Gustafsson, 2020). Building on this, Haidar (2021) stated that more research is needed to
understand how rms can adapt in light of this pandemic.
Therefore, based on the research gap and literature mentioned earlier, this research
presents the proposed research model in Figure 1 below.
4. Method
4.1 Research design and sampling
A cross-sectional research design was adopted, and a descriptive quantitative research
using self-administered surveys was conducted. A nonprobability sampling technique was
applied, specically through convenience sampling (Cooper et al., 2006). Following Hair et al.
(2006) 1:5 item-to-response ratio, the current research originally aimed at targeting 120
rms. However as structural equation modeling (SEM) was to be used, the researchers opted
for a larger sample size as it would yield better rigorous data analysis and reliable results
(Kline, 2015). Therefore, 250 rms were targeted and 202 responses were nally gathered.
Regarding the sample frame, the researchers were aiming to reach managers and executives
IJOA
rather than employees. It has been widely known in management research that top
managers and executives serve as prominent sources of rm-level information required to
understand the organization. Moreover, they can function as key informants with respect to
the decision-making process as well as strategy implementation (Cycyota and Harrison,
2006;Boyd and Fulk, 1996). As the current research aims to look more into the utilization of
the rm resources and capabilities at an organization-wide level, the organizations upper
echelons have been targeted. A large sample was reached through the MBA program at the
German University in Cairo because this program enrolls a great deal of managers and
executives working in multinational and local companies in Egypt. Moreover, to fulll the
required sample size, the researchers sent out the survey to professionals working in
organizations through direct messaging on LinkedIn. Firms were categorized by size
according to Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics, as explained by Amer
and Selwaness (2021).Table 1 provides more information regarding the sample prole.
4.2 Measurement [1]
4.2.1 Organizational ambidexterity capability (exploitation capability and exploration
capability). The current study refers to the measures of exploration capabilities (EXPR) and
exploitation capabilities (EXPT) as conceptualized by Lubatkin et al. (2006) where both
capabilities are viewed as dynamic capabilities. Exploration capability and exploitation
capability were both measured as rst-order constructs, each using six items.
Organizational ambidexterity capability (OA) construct was measured as a second-order
construct by using exploration capability and exploitation capability as its rst-order
indicators. Respondents were asked to assess their rmsexploration and exploitation
capabilities during the past three years on a seven-point scale. The Cronbachs alpha
Figure 1.
Research model
Firm resilience
coefcient value was 0.852 for the exploitation capability scale, 0.872 for the exploration
capability scale and 0.915 for the organizational ambidexterity capability scale as a whole.
All Cronbachs alpha coefcient values exceeded the cutoff point of 0.7, hence indicating
internal consistency and reliability of the scales (Pallant, 2011).
4.2.2 Resource availability. Resource availability (RA) was measured using four items
extracted from Miller and Friesen (1982) where rms were asked to rate their abundance/
availability of resources. The items were measured on a seven-point scale, where 1 indicates
that the resource is very scarce and/or prohibitively expensive and 7 indicates that the
resource is quite plentiful.
Social science literature recommends a small sample size (1030 participants) when
conducting pilot studies. The choice of 30 participants is a reasonable minimum
recommendation to allow for easy calculations and hypothesis testing (Johanson and
Brooks, 2010;Isaac and Michael, 1995). Hence, a sample of 30 rms was chosen for the pilot
study before fully launching the survey. Results indicated that only Resource Availability
had a relatively low reliability, 0.662. Therefore the questions tackling this variable were
amended to be clearer. Originally, the question was: Kindly rate the abundance of the
following resources for your rm (1: This resource is very scarce and/or prohibitively
expensive. 7: This resource is quite plentiful). The underlying items originally were
Capital,”“Skilled labor,”“Material Suppliesand Managerial Talent.After amendments,
Capitalwas claried as Financial Resources,and Material Supplieswas claried as
Table 1.
Sample prole
Variable Sample (N= 202) (%)
Firm size
Large enterprise (>100 employees) 143 70.8
Medium enterprise 24 11.9
Small enterprise 35 17.3
Industry
Manufacturing 32 15.8
Pharmaceuticals 26 12.9
IT and software 25 12.4
Education 15 7.4
Energy management 13 6.4
Food items 11 5.4
Construction 9 4.5
Health services 9 4.5
Oil and gas 9 4.5
Telecommunications 8 4
Banking 6 3
Consultancy services 5 2.5
Agriculture 5 2.5
Real estate 5 2.5
Automotive 4 2
E-commerce 4 2
Other (hospitality, fashion, export support and distribution) 4 2
Transportation 4 2
Financial services 2 1
Insurance 2 1
Publishing 2 1
Tourism 2 1
IJOA
Raw Materials.After the amendments, results of the pilot study were favorable, showing
internal consistency for the resource availability scale at 0.737.
4.2.3 Firm resilience. The conceptualization of rm resilience (FR) in this research has
been borrowed from Ambulkar et al. (2015) who viewed resilience as a rst-order construct.
The scale was tailored to the context of the study, where supply chain disruptionwas
replaced by environmental uncertainty.Firm resilience was measured using four items on
a seven-point Likert scale. The Cronbachs alpha coefcient value was 0.891 for the rm
resilience scale; indicating internal consistency of the scale.
4.2.4 Perceived environmental uncertainty. Perceived environmental uncertainty (PEU)
was measured using four items derived from Waldman et al. (2001). The items were
measured on a ve-point Likert scale. The Cronbachs alpha coefcient value was 0.645 for
the perceived environmental uncertainty scale. However, further analysis was done and the
results indicated that Cronbachs alpha would be enhanced to 0.699 for this scale if the
fourth item was deleted. Therefore, this item was removed to ensure better internal
consistency of the scale. Moreover, it is worthyto mention that scalesthat have less than ten
items are prone to have lower Cronbach alpha coefcient values starting from 0.5 (Pallant,
2011). Therefore, a Cronbachs alpha of 0.699 for this scale is acceptable.
5. Data analysis and results
Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM were performed to validate the model and
test the seven hypotheses. Once the measurement scales showed satisfactory levels
regarding the parameters of goodness-of-t indices, the seven hypotheses were tested
through SEM. The measurement validation and assessment of the structural model are
explained and presented below. Moreover, it is worthy to mention that SEM applies
standardized regression weights (Zainudin, 2012), causing differences in scale
measurements to be diminished.
5.1 Measurement validation
CFA was performed for both the rst- and second-order constructs. FornellLarcker
criterion was applied to test for convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Following
the CFA done for the rst-order constructs, it appeared that three items (RA3, RA1 and
EXPT1) had factor loadings less than 0.5. Therefore, those items had to be deleted
(Zainudin, 2012). However, the outer loadings of all other items were within the acceptable
range; stretching from 0.529 to 0.888. Regarding the CFA results of the second-order
construct, factor loadings ranged from 0.599 to 0.863, which is also accepted. The composite
reliability score for the constructs were between 0.71 and 0.92, which in accordance to
Zainudin (2012) exceeds the cutoff point of 0.6. Moreover, the constructs had average
variance extracted (AVE) ranging from 0.46 to 0.67. Referring to Fornell and Larcker (1981),
AVE should be greater than 0.5, but 0.4 is also acceptable. It has been stated that if AVE is
less than 0.5 but composite reliability is greater than 0.6, then convergent validity of the
construct is still adequate (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore, following these results,
convergent validity was supported. After removing three items post CFA, internal
consistency was reassessed again using Cronbachs alpha, and it appeared that the affected
variables showed better internal consistency. Table 2 provides information about the
adjusted Cronbachs alpha, composite reliability, factor loadings and AVEs. In accordance
with Zainudin (2012), the results showed a satisfactory t of the rst- and second-order
construct CFA. Therefore, construct validity has been supported as well. Table 3 provides
more information about the model t indices in terms of absolute t, incremental t and
Firm resilience
parsimonious t. Following Zainudin (2012), the rst- and second-order construct models
show good model t.
5.2 Common method bias
Following the recommendations of Chang et al. (2010), the current research has taken
preemptive measures to avoid CMB. Respondents were informed that their results will be
anonymous and condential. Moreover, the researchers were careful and concise while
designing the questionnaire to make sure that all items are clear and understandable. Such
Table 2.
Adjusted Cronbachs
a
, composite
reliability, factor
loadings and AVEs
Variables with Cronbachs
a
, composite reliability and average variance extracted Outer loadings
Organizational ambidexterity capability (
a
= 0.91, CR = 0.92, AVE = 0.52)
Exploration capability (
a
= 0.87, CR = 0.87, AVE = 0.53)
EXPR 1 0.863
EXPR 2 0.835
EXPR 3 0.752
EXPR 4 0.583
EXPR 5 0.529
EXPR 6 0.764
Exploitation capability (
a
= 0.85, CR = 0.83, AVE = 0.50)
EXPT 1 (deleted)
EXPT 2 0.730
EXPT 3 0.733
EXPT 4 0.694
EXPT 5 0.725
EXPT 6 0.693
Resource availability (
a
= 0.79, CR = 0.80, AVE = 0.67)
RA 1 (deleted)
RA 2 0.796
RA 3 (deleted)
RA 4 0.820
Perceived environmental uncertainty (
a
= 0.69, CR = 0.71, AVE = 0.46)
PEU 1 0.545
PEU 2 0.724
PEU 3 0.748
Firm resilience (
a
= 0.89, CR = 0.88, AVE = 0.65)
FR 1 0.777
FR 2 0.759
FR 3 0.888
FR 4 0.799
Table 3.
Model t indices
Model
Absolute fit Incremental fit Parsimonious fit
RMSEA GFI NFI CFI IFI CMIN/DF
First-order constructs CFA 0.054 0.903 0.906 0.962 0.963 1.595
Second-order construct CFA 0.063 0.947 0.954 0.979 0.979 1.786
Note: p<0.01
IJOA
measures would avoid the problems faced regarding the comprehension stage of the data
collection process. Additionally, two statistical measures were taken to detect CMB. First,
using Harmans single-factor test, all items were loaded on one factor without applying any
rotation. The results showed that the maximum variance explained by one factor as 36.9%,
thus indicating that there is no big amount of common method variance existing in the
current study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, CMB was tested statistically using the
common factor method on AMOS-SPSS. Following Chang et al. (2010), questionnaire items
were loaded on their theoretical constructs and on a latent common factor. The test results
showed that the differences in the regression weights of the items were minor (less than 0.2)
in the presence and absence of the common factor, hence indicating no substantial amount of
common method variance in the current study (Dhoopar et al.,2021).
5.3 Assessment of the structural model
SEM allowed the researchers to identify, estimate, assess and illustrate the model in a causal
path diagram to test the proposed hypotheses (Kline, 2015;Zainudin, 2012). To achieve this,
two structural equation models were run. The rst structural model aims to test the impact
of organizational ambidexterity capability (OA) and resource availability (RA) on rm
resilience as well as the moderating role of perceived environmental uncertainty (OA*PEU
and RA*PEU). Therefore, the rst structural model aims to tackle H1,H2,H6, and H7. The
second structural model delves deeper into the relationship between exploration capability
(EXPR), exploitation capability (EXPT) and resource availability (RA) and hence answers
H3,H4 and H5.
5.3.1 Findings from structural equation model 1. Starting rst with the model t, the
indices conrm the reference value of
x
2
/df, which should lie between 1 and 3. Moreover, the
goodness of t index (GFI), normed-t index (NFI), comparative-t index (CFI) and
incremental t index (IFI) are >0.90, and the root mean square of error approximation
(RMSEA) value is #0.08, indicating a good t(
Zainudin, 2012). Additionally, the results
show that the standardized effect of organizational ambidexterity capability on rm
resilience is signicantly positive (
b
= 0.496, p<0.05). Hence, H1 as derived from the
literature review and proposed above is supported and accepted. Similarly, the standardized
effect of resource availability on rm resilience is signicantly positive (
b
= 0.256, p<
0.05). Therefore, H2 is supported and accepted as well. Moreover, while testing the
moderation effect hypothesized in H6 and H7, the results show that the interaction of
perceived environmental uncertainty with resilience was not signicant regarding
organizational ambidexterity capability (
b
=0.033, p>0.05) and resource availability
(
b
= 0.002, p>0.05). Hence, H6 and H7 were not supported.
5.3.2 Findings from structural equation model 2. Following Zainudin (2012), the indices
similarly show good model t with reference to
x
2
/df, GFI, NFI, CFI, IFI and RMSEA.
Additionally, the results show that the standardized effect of resource availability on
exploitation capability is signicantly positive (
b
= 0.195, p<0.05). Hence, H3 is supported
and accepted. Similarly, the standardized effect of exploitation capability on exploration
capability is signicantly positive (
b
= 1.017, p<0.05). Therefore, H4 is supported as well.
Finally, the results show a signicant positive standardized effect of exploration capability
on resource availability (
b
= 0.513, p>0.05), thus accepting H5.Table 4 provides more
information on the goodness-of-t results for both structural equation models. Figures 2 and
3present both structural models.
OA: Organizational ambidexterity capability; RA: resource availability; PUE: perceived
environmental uncertainty; FR: rm resilience; OA*PEU: interaction variable of
organizational ambidexterity capability and perceived environmental uncertainty;
Firm resilience
RA*PEU: interaction variable of resource availability and perceived environmental
uncertainty; EXPR: exploration capability; EXPT: exploitation capability; RA: resource
availability.
6. Findings and discussion
Starting rst with H1, the ndings of this hypothesis complies with the current literature
and theories supporting the positive impact of OA on FR from the view of the theory of
ambidexterity (Aslam et al., 2020) and dynamic capability perspective (Iborra et al.,2020;
Lee and Rha, 2016) explained previously. This also falls in line with previous literature,
which indicated that regardless of rm size, using both exploration capabilities and
Figure 2.
Structural model 1
Table 4.
Goodness-of-t
results for structural
models 1 and 2
Model
Absolute fit Incremental fit Parsimonious fit
RMSEA GFI NFI CFI IFI CMIN/DF
Structural equation model 1 0.067 0.951 0.942 0.971 0.972 1.892
Structural equation model 2 0.08 0.907 0.915 0.950 0.950 2.279
Note: p<0.01
IJOA
exploitation capabilities results in favorable returns during crises, where each of these
capabilities complement each other rather than compete against each other (Iborra et al.,
2020).
The ndings of H2 comply with the resource-based view and with previous literature
regarding the positive impact of RA on FR (Duchek, 2020; Kantur and Iseri-Say, 2012).
However, it is worthy to mention rst that after conducting CFA, two items (skilled labor
and managerial talent) remained. Therefore, it is important to take into consideration that
the resources referred to in the ndings of this research pertain to human capital. Over the
past two decades, human resource management started having a more strategic role that
viewed employees as assets contributing to the business survival and resilience, especially
during times of uncertainty. Therefore, human capital is considered to be among the most
prominent antecedents for building FR (Ngoc Su et al., 2021;Douglas, 2021;Duchek, 2020;
Daou et al.,2019;Kantur and Iseri-Say, 2012;Pal et al., 2014;Lengnick-Hall et al.,2011).
Moreover, it is worthy to mention that this nding complies with the human capital theory
in the sense that business performance (tackled in terms of resilience in this study) is
impacted by the individualsintellectual capital (Adom and Asare-Yeboa, 2016).
Moving to the relationship between OA and RA, the ndings of H3 supports the positive
impact of RA on exploitation capability. This nding falls in line with the organizational
inertia theory explained earlier (Shi et al., 2020) in the sense that when rms enjoy current
resources, they would be more reluctant to explore, to avoid putting their current resources
in jeopardy. Therefore, rms are more likely to enhance their exploitation capability rather
than exploration capability in the presence of resources (Shi et al.,2020). However, human
resources are only tackled in the ndings, hence indicating that the skilled labor and the
managerial talent in the organization would be more invested into exploiting existing
markets, products, technologies, customers and processes rather than exploring new
markets, products, technologies, customers and processes. According to HofstedesCountry
Figure 3.
Structural model 2
Firm resilience
Comparison (2021) website, Egypt is characterized by high uncertainty avoidance (80),
which has been apparent in organizations as well. Accordingly, labor tend to avoid the
uncertainty of exploring new business opportunities resisting innovation and creativity.
Instead, companies are more inclined toward unorthodox behaviors and ideas to guarantee
security (exploitation), especially because during COVID-19, the external environment was
perceived as being very highly uncertain.
Moving to the ndings of H4, the rms exploitation capability has a positive impact on
its exploration capability. Reecting back on the literature, the relationship between
exploitation capability and exploration capability is orthogonal. In other words and from the
perspective of absorptive capacity and the absorptive ability theory, exploitation and
exploration capabilities complement each other rather than compete against each other.
Therefore, the rms explorative capabilities would be impacted positively when the rm
acquires strong exploitative capabilities (Shi et al., 2020).
To complete the dynamic cycle, the ndings of H5 indicate that exploration capability
has a positive impact on RA. This nding falls in line with Shi et al. (2020) and Yalcinkaya
et al. (2007) where the exploration activities of a rm would enhance effectiveness,
upgrading the assets, resource, and capabilities. With reference to the specic type of
resource tackled in the ndings, it is considered that the rms exploration capability would
enhance its level of managerial talent and skilled labor (human capital). According to Wei
et al. (2013), innovation (being a proxy for exploration in this research) plays a great role in
empowering employees, allowing them to acquire further skills and reach their full potential.
Additionally, Mom et al. (2007) have mentioned that a major consequence of exploration
activities includes the acquisition of knowledge. This knowledge is embedded in the
organizational routines as well as the capabilities and skills of employees and managers.
Reecting on human capital, the rms exploration capability would cause employees and
managers to acquire new knowledge, hence enhancing the overall level of labors skills and
managerial talent.
Finally, the moderating role of perceived environmental uncertainty was found to be
insignicant, hence not supporting both H6 and H7. This nding goes with the view that
the external environment does not always play a moderating role. In fact, the planet that we
have already landed on is not the same where we have been living up to now, and
uncertainty exists most of the time. Therefore, it could be argued that regardless of the
source of change, organizations have always been striving to adapt to the external
environment through altering their resources, competencies and business models to remain
resilient (Pessina, 2021). Accordingly, COVID-19 was viewed like any other existing external
factor showing uncertainty. So its emergence did not affect the impact of OA and RA on FR
because these two antecedents have been already preserved, secured and utilized pre-
COVID-19 to deal with the environmental uncertainty, falling in line with the perspectives of
Rai et al. (2021) and Ferreira et al. (2020).
7. Conclusion and implications
To conclude, this research aims to identify two antecedents that would foster rms
resilience during times of uncertainty, namely, OA and RA. Not only that, this research also
looks at the underlying relationships between these two antecedents along with the
moderating role of perceived environmental uncertainty. According to the results, ve
hypotheses were supported. The results indicated that both OA and RA, measured in terms
of human capital as per theCFA results, foster FR (complying with the resource-based view,
dynamic capabilities perspective and the human capital theory). Moreover, the ndings of
this research contribute to identifying the relationship between the antecedents of FR, where
IJOA
RA has a positive impact on the rms exploitation capability (complying with the
organizational inertia theory). Also, the rms exploitation capability has a positive impact
on its exploration capability (complying with the absorptive capacity theory). Finally, the
cycle completes with the rms exploration capability having an impact on RA. However,
the last two hypotheses have not been supported. It appears that perceived environmental
uncertainty does not always moderate especially given the uncertain and complex
environment that is being continuously facedby rms in Egypt.
This research contributes to the eld of strategic management through tackling FR from
a strategic level of analysis, where empirical research on FR has not been enough (Williams
et al.,2017;Van Der Vegt et al.,2015).This research also contributes to the eld of strategic
management and crisis management through validating and empirically using a scale that
has been previously used to test for resilience in the supply chain context (Ambulkar et al.,
2015). In addition to that, the current research contributes to the eld of strategic
management and crisis management in terms of identifying possible antecedents of FR,
highlighting the importance of certain strategic features including OA and RA
(Linnenluecke, 2017;Williams et al.,2017;Rodríguez-S
anchez et al., 2019). After conducting
CFA, it appeared that the resources tackled in this research are mainly human capital.
Therefore, this research contributes to the eld of human resource management in the sense
of viewing employees/managers as acquiring a strategic role in attaining business survival
and resilience (Douglas, 2021;Duchek, 2020;Kantur and Iseri-Say, 2012;Pal et al., 2014;
Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011).
Moreover, this study contributes to the current literature in terms of identifying the
interplay between the two prominent antecedents of FR: OA and RA. To further explain,
this study contributesto the literature on OA through proposing and investigating a type of
relationship between exploitation capabilities, exploration capabilitiesand RA. Finally, even
though the results regarding the moderating role of perceived environmental uncertainty
were surprising, such results in themselves are considered to be a good contribution to the
literature claiming that perceived environmental uncertainty does not always play a
moderating role.
Organizational resilience is becoming an important goal for rms nowadays because of
the fact that the speed of unanticipated events turning into disasters is more common. In the
past, the outbreak of Ebola, Zika and SARS caught the worlds attention, yet organizations
have missed the opportunity to learn from the crises. However, as a consequence of COVID-
19, rms started shifting their attention to crisis management and organizational learning
(Dhoopar et al.,2021). Moreover, it has been observed that organizations took actions to
recongure their business models in the face of unforeseen events. For instance, the digital
technology adoption strategy has been applied by several organizations to achieve business
sustainability as well as guarantee consumer safety and convenience. On top of that, several
management practices are being applied nowadays to ensure workforce agility and
resilience, including organizational learning, cross-training, reward systems, employee
involvement and psychological empowerment. Additionally, rms are capitalizing on
resilience, agility and ambidextrous capabilities as strategic capabilities required nowadays
to survive in the contemporary marketplace (Ajgaonkar et al.,2021;Gölgeci et al.,2019;
Abed, 2021). For instance, Tata Motors focused on using their ambidexterity capability
through maximizing the exploitation aspect of their current offerings while exploring new
customer segments though their exploration capabilities (Dutta and Snehvrat, 2021).
Zongteng (one of the leading Chinese companies inthe cross-border e-commerce industry) is
another practical example of a company that was able to use its ambidexterity capability to
achieve resilience amid COVID-19. On one hand, through its exploitation capability,
Firm resilience
Zongteng was able to meet its customersneeds quickly through optimizing its current
business. On the other hand, through its exploration capability, Zongteng was successful in
achieving exibility by offering new products and services (Wang et al.,2021).
Therefore, the ndings of this research have several useful managerial implications as
well. This study proposes that the two antecedents OA and RA prove to be two ways of
fostering levels of resilience. Moreover, the current study highlighted the importance of
making sure that both exploration capabilities and exploitation capabilities are being
effectively used to avoid falling into the success trapsor failure traps.Therefore, this
research clearly explains the importance of OA for managers. In addition to that, as the
ndings of this research are concerned with human capital as a prominent resource for
resilience development, it is important for managers to make sure that employees are getting
the required training and competency development plans to make sure that human capital is
strong. Having said all of the abovementioned managerial implications, managers can
integrate the outcomes of this research into their strategies and management philosophy.
8. Limitations and suggestions for future research
To start with, a nonprobability convenience sampling technique has been used in this
research; therefore, the ndings cannot be generalized. Hence, it is recommended that future
researchers wishing to duplicate this study opt for probability sampling techniques.
Moreover, the problem of generalizing the results is also attributed to the research design,
which is cross-sectional. Results were collected at a single point in time (amid COVID-19);
therefore, to be able to better generalize the results, a longitudinal research design should be
considered. Concerning the sample size, for convenience, the researchers were able to reach
202 rms. However, it is claimed that the higher the sample size the better; therefore, future
researchers could target a larger sample.
Just as the ndings showed, culture played a reasonable role behind the rationale of the
results. Having said this, the results cannot be generalized because of its restriction to the
Egyptian context. Therefore, it is recommended for future researchers to apply this study to
another country scoring high on uncertainty avoidance. Moreover, CFA suggested that
human capital (skilled labor and managerial talent) should only be considered when
analyzing the model. Even though the results were reasonable, it is claimed that other
resources could as well serve as enablers for FR. Therefore, future researchers wishing to
duplicate this study should consider this scale along with other scales tackling more
resources to be able to effectively measure RA. Additionally, future researchers could
consider adding OA as a mediator in the relationship between RA and FR. Finally, it has
been shown that human capital has a positive impact on FR. However, it would be
interesting to look more into the specic HR practices or human capital management
strategies that could enhance the rms human capital and hence develop organizational
resilience.
Note
1. Refer to the Appendix for the complete research instrument.
References
Abed, S.S. (2021), A literature review exploring the role of technology in business survival during the
Covid-19 lockdowns,International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 1.
IJOA
Abu-Rahma, A. and Jaleel, B. (2019), Perceived uncertainty and use of environmental information in
decision making: the case of the United Arab Emirates,International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 27 No. 3.
Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D.I. (1999), Flexibility versus efciency? A case study of model
changeovers in the Toyota production system,Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-68.
Adom, K. and Asare-Yeboa, I.T. (2016), An evaluation of human capital theory and female
entrepreneurship in sub-Sahara Africa: some evidence from Ghana,International Journal of
Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8 No. 4.
Ajgaonkar, S., Neelam, N.G. and Wiemann, J. (2021), Drivers of workforce agility: a dynamic capability
perspective,International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 1.
Alexander, D.E. (2013), Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey,Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 11, pp. 2707-2716.
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J. and Grawe, S. (2015), Firms resilience to supply chain disruptions: scale
development and empirical examination,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33,
pp. 111-122.
Amer, M. and Selwaness, I. (2021), Unleashing the employment potential in the manufacturing sector:
developing SME nance and the way forward, ResearchGate, available at: www.researchgate.
net/publication/349552602_Unleashing_the_employment_potential_in_the_manufacturing_
sector_Developing_SME_nance_and_the_way_forward/link/603613694585158939c5bbe2/
download
Anzenbacher, A. and Wagner, M. (2020), The role of exploration and exploitation for innovation
success: effects of business models on organizational ambidexterity in the semiconductor
industry,International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 571-594.
Arag
on-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2003), A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate
environmental strategy,The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Aslam, H., Khan, A.Q., Rashid, K. and Rehman, S.U. (2020), Achieving supply chain resilience: the role
of supply chain ambidexterity and supply chain agility,Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 31 No. 6.
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage,Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Beech, N., Devins, D., Gold, J. and Beech, S. (2020), In the family way: an exploration of family business
resilience,International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 28 No.1.
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 238-256.
Bhamra, R., Dani, S. and Burnard, K. (2011), Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future
directions,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5375-5393.
Boyd, B.K. and Fulk, J. (1996), Executive scanning and perceived uncertainty: a multidimensional
model,Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Chang, S.J., Van Witteloostuijn, A. and Eden, L. (2010), From the editors: common method variance in
international business research,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 178-184.
Claudia, O. and Mihaela, H. (2019), Ambidexterity a new paradigm for organizations facing
complexity,Studies in Business and Economics, Vol. 14 No. 3.
Clement, V. and Rivera, J. (2017), From adaptation to transformation: an extended research agenda for
organizational resilience to adversity in the natural environment,Organization and
Environment, Vol.30 No. 4, pp. 346-365.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 128-152.
Firm resilience
Conz, E. and Magnani, G. (2020), A dynamic perspective on the resilience of rms: a systematic
literature review and a framework for future research,European Management Journal, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 400-412.
Country Comparison (2021), available at: www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/egypt/
Cycyota, C.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2006), What (not) to expect when surveying executives: a meta-
analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time,Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 133-160.
Daou, A., Joseph, J., Yousif, D.S., Fathallah,R. and Reyes, G. (2019), Intellectual capital and resilience in
torn societies,Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 20 No. 4.
de Oliveira Teixeira, E. and Werther, W.B. (2013), Resilience: continuous renewal of competitive
advantages,Business Horizons, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 333-342.
DesJardine, M., Bansal, P. and Yang, Y. (2019), Bouncing back: building resilience through social and
environmental practices in the context of the 2008 global nancial crisis,Journal of
Management, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 1434-1460.
Dhir, S. and Dhir, S. (2018), Role of ambidexterity and learning capability in rm performance: a study
of E-commerce industry in India,VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems, Vol. 48 No. 4.
Dhoopar, A., Sihag, P., Kumar, A. and Suhag, A.K. (2021), Organizational resilience and employee
performance in COVID-19 pandemic: the mediating effect of emotional intelligence,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 30 No. 1.
Donthu, N. and Gustafsson, A. (2020), Effects of COVID-19 on business and research,Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 117 No. 284.
Douglas, S. (2021), Building organizational resilience through human capital management strategy,
Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 35 No. 5.
Duchek, S. (2020), Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization,Business Research,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 215-246.
Duncan, R.B. (1972), Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental
uncertainty,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 313-327.
Dutta, S.K. and Snehvrat, S. (2021), From paradoxes to trade-offs: metaroutine enabled multi level
ambidexterity at Tata Motors, India,International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 1.
Ferreira, J., Cardim, S. and Coelho, A. (2020), Dynamic capabilities and mediating effects of innovation
on the competitive advantage and rms performance: the moderating role of organizational
learning capability,Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 1, pp. 1-25.
Fiedler, F.E. (1978), The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process,Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. 11, pp. 59-112.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Freel, M.S. (2005), Perceived environmental uncertainty and innovation in small rms,Small Business
Economics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Gaye, Y.E., Agbajogu, C. and El Oakley, R. (2021), COVID-19 on the nile: review on the
management and outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Arab Republic of Egypt
from February to August 2020,International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 4.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Gölgeci, I., Arslan, A., Dikova, D. and Gligor, D.M. (2019), Resilient agility in volatile economies:
institutional and organizational antecedents,Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 33 No. 1.
IJOA
Gordon, L.A. and Narayanan, V.K. (1984), Management accounting systems, perceived environmental
uncertainty and organization structure: an empirical investigation,Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-47.
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G. and Shalley, C.E. (2006), The interplay between exploration and exploitation,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 693-706.
Haidar, J.I. (2021), How did Egypt soften the impact of Covid-19?,Shaping Africas Post-Covid
Recovery, Vol. 1.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th Ed., Pearson Education. NJ.
Han, M. (2005), Towards strategic ambidexterity: the nexus of pro-prot and pro-growth strategies for
the sustainable international corporation,Papier Présenté à la Conférence de Journal of
International Business Studies Frontier.
He, Z.L. and Wong, P.K. (2004), Exploration vs exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis,Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 481-494.
Hern
andez-Linares, R., Kellermanns, F.W. and L
opez-Fern
andez, M.C. (2020), Dynamic capabilities
and SME performance: the moderating effect of market orientation,Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-34.
Hillmann, J. and Guenther, E. (2021), Organizational resilience: a valuable construct for management
research?,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 7-44.
Iborra, M., Saf
on, V. and Dolz, C. (2020), What explains the resilience of SMEs? Ambidexterity
capability and strategic consistency,Long Range Planning, Vol. 53 No. 6.
Im, G. and Rai, A. (2008), Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational
relationships,Management Science, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 1281-1296.
Isaac, S. and Michael, W.B. (1995), Handbook in Research and Evaluation: A Collection of Principles,
Methods, and Strategies Useful in the Planning, Design, and Evaluation of Studies in Education
and the Behavioral Sciences, Edits publishers, London.
Johanson, G.A. and Brooks, G.P. (2010), Initial scale development: sample size for pilot studies,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 394-400.
Kafetzopoulos, D. (2020), Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, performance and environmental
uncertainty,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3.
Kang, S.C. and Snell, S.A. (2009), Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a
framework for human resource management,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 65-92.
Kantur, D. and Iseri-Say, A. (2012), Organizational resilience: a conceptual integrative framework,
Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 18 No. 6, p. 762.
Katila, R. and Ahuja, G. (2002), Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior
and new product introduction,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1183-1194.
Katila, R. and Shane, S. (2005), When does lack ofresources make newrms innovative?,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 814-829.
Kline, R.B. (2015), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford publications,
New York, NY.
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N. and Mole, K. (2018), Disentangling the antecedents of
ambidexterity: exploration and exploitation,Research Policy, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 413-427.
Lampel, J., Bhalla, A. and Jha, P.P. (2014), Does governance confer organisational resilience?
Evidence from UK employee owned businesses,European Management Journal,Vol.32
No. 1, pp. 66-72.
Lee, S.M. and Rha, J.S.(2016), Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: building a resilient
supply chain,Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 2-23.
Firm resilience
Lengnick-Hall,C.A.andBeck,T.E.(2005),Adaptive t versus robust transformation: how organizations
respond to environmental change,Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 738-757.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E. and Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (2011), Developing a capacity for
organizational resilience through strategic human resource management,Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 243-255.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), The myopia of learning,Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 14, pp. 95-112.
Lin, L.H. (2014), Exploration and exploitation in mergers and acquisitions: an empirical study of the
electronics industry in Taiwan,International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 22 No. 1.
Linnenluecke, M.K. (2017), Resilience in business and management research: a review of inuential
publications and a research agenda,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 4-30.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Grifths, A. and Winn, M. (2012), Extreme weather events and the critical
importance of anticipatory adaptation and organizational resilience in responding to impacts,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Liu, Y., Wang, W. and Chen, D. (2019), Linking ambidextrous organizational culture to innovative
behavior: a moderated mediation model of psychological empowerment and transformational
leadership,Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2192, pp. 1-12.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006), Ambidexterity and performance in small-to
medium-sized rms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration,Journal of
Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 646-672.
Mafabi, S., Munene, J.C. and Ahiauzu, A. (2015), Creative climate and organisational resilience: the
mediating role of innovation,International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 4.
March, J.G. (1991), Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1982), Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial rms: two models of
strategic momentum,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Mom, T.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2007), Investigating managersexploration and
exploitation activities: the inuence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inows,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 910-931.
Ngoc Su, D., Luc Tra, D., Thi Huynh, H.M., Nguyen, H.H.T. and OMahony, B. (2021), Enhancing
resilience in the Covid-19 crisis: lessons from human resource management practices in
vietnam,Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 1, pp. 1-17.
Nohria, N. and Gulati, R. (1996), Is slack good or bad for innovation?,Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1245-1264.
OReilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008), Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the
innovators dilemma,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185-206.
OReilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2013), Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future,
Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 324-338.
Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. and Bansal, P. (2016), The long-term benets of organizational resilience
through sustainable business practices,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8,
pp. 1615-1631.
Pal, R., Torstensson, H. and Mattila, H. (2014), Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic
crises an empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs,International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 410-428.
Pallant, J. (2011), Survival manual,A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS, Vol. 4.
Panagopoulos, G. (2016), Aspects of organizational ambidexterity,Journal of Global Strategic
Management, Vol. 1 No. 10, p. 5.
IJOA
Papadopoulos, T., Baltas, K.N. and Balta, M.E. (2020), The use of digital technologies by small and
medium enterprises during COVID-19: implications for theory and practice,International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 55.
Pessina, I. (2021), Risk and resilience management as a response to COVID-19 pandemic outbreak.
Towards a new and refreshing approach,Economia Aziendale, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 27-37.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rai, S.S., Rai, S. and Singh, N.K. (2021), Organizational resilience and social-economic sustainability:
COVID-19 perspective,Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 1, pp. 1-18.
Rezk, M.R.A., Piccinetti, L., Radwan, A., Salem, N.M., Sakr, M.M. and Khasawneh, A. (2020), Egypt
beyond COVID 19, the best and the worst-case scenarios,Entrepreneurship and Sustainability
Issues, Vol. 8 No. 2, p. 147.
Rivkin, J.W. and Siggelkow, N. (2003), Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among
elements of organizational design,Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 290-311.
Rodríguez-S
anchez, A., Guinot, J., Chiva, R. and L
opez-Cabrales, Á. (2019), How to emerge stronger:
antecedents and consequences of organizational resilience,Journal of Management and
Organization, Vol. 1, pp. 1-18.
Salwan, P. and Gada, V.P. (2018), Antecedents of resilience: an investigation into bharat forge,Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3.
Scott, W.R. (2007), Institutional theory: contributing to a theoretical research programme, in Smith
K.G. and Hitt, M.A. (Eds), Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development,
Oxford, New York, NY, pp. 373-393.
Shi, X., Su, L. and Cui, A.P. (2020), A meta-analytic study on exploration and exploitation,Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1.
Simsek, Z. (2009), Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding,Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 597-624.
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F. and Souder, D. (2009), A typology for aligning organizational
ambidexteritys conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes,Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 864-894.
Singh, J.V. and Lumsden, C.J. (1990), Theory and research in organizational ecology,Annual Review
of Sociology, Vol. 16 No. 1,pp. 161-195.
Snehvrat, S., Kumar, A., Kumar, R. and Dutta, S. (2018), The state of ambidexterity research: a data
mining approach,International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 2.
Stewart, J. and ODonnell, M. (2007), Implementing change in a public agency: leadership, learning and
organisational resilience,International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 239-251.
Sund, K.J. (2015), Revisiting organizational interpretation and three types of uncertainty,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 4.
Taleb, N.N. (2007), The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Penguin Books Ltd., London.
Teece, D.J. (2007), Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D.J. (2014), The foundations of enterprise performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an
(economic) theory of rms,Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 328-352.
Tian, H., Dogbe, C.S.K., Pomegbe, W.W.K., Sarsah, S.A. and Otoo, C.O.A. (2020), Organizational
learning ambidexterity and openness, as determinants of SMEsinnovation performance,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 2.
Firm resilience
Tushman, M.L. and OReilly, C.A. (1996), Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and
revolutionary change,California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 8-29.
Van Der Vegt, G.S., Essens, P., Wahlström, M. and George, G. (2015), Managing risk and resilience,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 971-980.
Voss, G.B., Sirdeshmukh, D. and Voss, Z.G. (2008), The effects of slack resources and environmental
threat on Waldman product exploration and exploitation,Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 147-164.
Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J. and Puranam, P. (2001), Does leadership matter? CEO
leadership attributes and protability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 134-143.
Wang, Y., Yan, F., Jia, F. and Chen, L. (2021), Building supply chain resilience through ambidexterity:
an information processing perspective,International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications, Vol. 1, pp. 1-18.
Wei, Y., ONeill, H., Lee, R.P. and Zhou, N. (2013), The impact of innovative culture on individual
employees: the moderating role of market information sharing,Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 1027-1041.
Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M., Shepherd, D.A. and Zhao, E.Y. (2017), Organizational
response to adversity: fusing crisis management and resilience research streams,Academy of
Management Annals, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 733-769.
Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R.J. and Grifth, D.A. (2007), An examination of exploration and
exploitation capabilities: implications for product innovation and market performance,Journal
of International Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 63-93.
Zainudin, A. (2012), A Handbook on SEM: Structural Equation Model Ling Using Amos Graphics,4th
ed., University Technology MARA Press. Kelantan.
Zhang, J.A., Edgar, F., Geare, A. and OKane, C. (2016), The interactive effects of entrepreneurial
orientation and capability-based HRM on rm performance: the mediating role of innovation
ambidexterity,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 59, pp. 131-143.
Further reading
Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S. and Sun, J. (2006), Business Research Methods, Mcgraw-hill, New York,
NY, Vol. 9, pp. 1-744.
Liu, Y. and Liang, L. (2015), Evaluating and developing resource-based operations strategy for
competitive advantage: an exploratory study of nnish high-tech manufacturing industries,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 1019-1037.
Corresponding author
Salma Gayed can be contacted at: salma.abdelgayed@guc.edu.eg
IJOA
Appendix. Organizational ambidexterity capability
Exploration
EXPR1: Our rm looks for novel technological ideas by thinking outside the box.
EXPR2: Our rm bases its success on its ability to explore new technologies.
EXPR3: Our rm creates products or services that are innovative to the rm.
EXPR4: Our rm aggressively ventures into new market segments.
EXPR5: Our rm actively targets new customer groups.
EXPR6: Our rm looks for creative ways to satisfy its customersneeds.
Exploitation
EXPT1: Our rm commits to improve quality and lower cost. (deleted)
EXPT2: Our rm continuously improves the reliability of its products and services.
EXPT3: Our rm increases the levels of automation in its operations.
EXPT4: Our rm constantly surveys existing customerssatisfaction.
EXPT5: Our rm ne-tunes what it offers to keep its current customers satised
EXPT6: Our rm penetrates more deeply into its existing customer base.
Resource Availability
RA1: Capital (Financial Resources) (deleted)
RA2: Skilled Labor
RA3: Material Supplies (Raw Materials) (deleted)
RA4: Managerial Talent
Perceived Environmental Uncertainty
PEU1: During COVID-19 the external environment seems to be very dynamic and
changing rapidly.
PEU2: During COVID-19 the external environment seems to be very risky; one false step
can mean the rms undoing.
PEU3: During COVID-19 the external environment seems to be very stressful, exacting,
hostile and hard to keep aoat.
PEU4: During COVID-19 the external environment seems to be very rapidly expanding
through the expansion of old markets and the emergence of new ones. (deleted)
Firm Resilience
FR1: We are able to cope with changes brought by the external environmental
disruption.
FR2: We are able to adapt to the external environmental disruption easily.
FR3: We are able to provide a quick response to the external environmental disruption.
FR4: We are able to maintain high situational awareness at all times.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Firm resilience
... Moving further high performance work system is referred to organizational strategy that improves employee ability through strategic human resource factors such as staffing and training and eventually increase employee creativity (Al-Ajlouni, 2021). Similarly, work environment and resource availability are found influential factor in determining employee task satisfaction and employee creative willingness (Gayed & El Ebrashi, 2023;Isaksen, 2023). Following above statements this study has stated following objectives: ...
... Although work environment boost employee task satisfaction however the importance of resource availability cannot be ignored to achieve employee creative willingness. Literature has revealed that organizations with sufficient resources are more capable to produce creativity at workplace (Gayed & El Ebrashi, 2023;Isaksen, 2023).On the other hand slack resource would cause employee dissatisfaction towards creative task. Having said this, organization with sufficient resources would have more task satisfaction (Isaksen, 2023;Shafagatova et al., 2023). ...
... Scale for the factor work environment is adapted from Lindeberg et al. (2023). Resource availability factor is measured with scale items adapted from Gayed and El Ebrashi (2023). Scale for task satisfaction is adapted from Burr and Cordery (2001) and Ogbeibu, Pereira, Burgess, et al. (2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to investigate that how AI enabled HR practices impact employee task satisfaction and creative willingness. Therefore, an amalgamated research framework is established to determine employee task satisfaction and employee creative willingness with smart HR technology, disruptive technology, task technology interdependence, high performance work system, work environment, resource availability, and leader trustworthiness. Data are collected from employee working in manufacturing firms. In this research survey overall 305 employees have voluntarily participated. Findings indicate that exogenous factors have revealed substantial variance R 2 82.1% in employee task satisfaction. Similarly, task satisfaction and leader trustworthiness have explained R 2 73.4% sizable variance in employee creative willingness. Practically, this study has suggested that smart human resource technology, work environment, leader trustworthiness, and task technology interdependence have shown sizable impact in measuring employee task satisfaction and employee creative willingness and therefore these factors must be considered for managerial implications. This study is first to examine the impact of AI enabled human resource practices towards employee task satisfaction and creative willingness. Another uniqueness of this research is that it has conceptualized moderating effect of leader trustworthiness between employee task satisfaction and creative willingness.
... In other words, the degree of exploration capabilities is linked to the exploratory activities along the supply chain that involve creative and unique solutions based on new approaches and seeking to meet customers' various needs (Roh et al., 2022). As such, the greater the degree of exploration capabilities, the higher the supply chain management's engagement with novel technological ideas, create innovative products or services and aggressive ventures into new market segments to actively target new customer groups (Gayed & El Ebrashi, 2022;Yalcinkaya et al., 2007). ...
... As such, supply chains in these quadrant are threatened by what Gayed and El Ebrashi (2022) call 'success traps' (p. 6682). ...
Article
Full-text available
What happens to newly built resilience capabilities when the pandemic is over? Using the concept of exaptation, we investigate how supply chain organizations have repurposed supply chain resilience capabilities post-pandemic. In particular, we examine the degree of ambidexterity capabilities to identify the exaptation potential from the newly acquired supply chain resilience capabilities during a disruptive event. In this paper, we (1) adopt a framework that depicts four types of different exaptation potential for supply resilience based on the management constructs of exploitation and exploration capabilities and (2) use the results from a related survey among 447 supply chain managers in Australia to subsequently analyse the exaptation potentials post COVID-19. The integration of the exaptation potential into supply chain literature opens a new chapter on how resilience capabilities are utilized, and we found that the majority of supply chains are able to simultaneously pursue and develop exploitative and exploratory capabilities.
... Digital technology factor H5: The performance of women artisans as entrepreneurs is also affected by digital technology in the current scenario. Even though there is less study in previous research in the handicraft sector, Slimane et al. (2022), Kaur et al. (2023a), Tehnulu (2019), Labidi (2022), Wube (2010), Gayed and Ebrashi (2022), and Granello and Wheaton (2004) have investigated that in the small manufacturing industry, digital technology plays an essential role so in this way for this study when explore and analysed then it validates that there is a significant role of digital technology in current scenario either it is manufacturing, small industry, or craft industry. Women are especially attracted to following and promoting handmade products through digital social media and marketing promotion. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to investigate the socioeconomic, financial, and digital technology factors that influence the performance of women artisans as entrepreneurs in the handicraft sector in India. This study also analyses the developmental strategies for the One District, One Product Scheme. This study provides the answer of the question: How do financial, socioeconomic, and digital technology factors affect the performance of women artisans as entrepreneurs through the ODOP scheme, and what are the strategies for developing the craft industry? Descriptive and explanatory research design, along with quantitative research approaches and survey techniques, has been used in this study. For this study, a survey design with a cross-sectional method has been applied for data collection. This study has applied “Yamen’s sample size determination formula” to identify the sample size for 268 women-owned registered firms. Stratified random sampling has been used with closed-ended questions on a five-point Likert scale. Factor and regression analyses were used to check the relationship between dependent and independent variables and look for data patterns. Results show a significant relationship between socioeconomic, digital, and financial factors in the performance of women artisans as entrepreneurs through the ODOP scheme, and it has been found that the performance of women entrepreneurs is higher when certain social, economic, financial, legal, administrative, and digitalization factors are in place. However, it turns out that demographic factors are poor predictors for the performance of women artisans as entrepreneurs through the ODOP scheme in India. This research offers valuable theoretical, practical, and managerial implications and insight into issues faced by women artisans as entrepreneurs and provides recommendations and developmental strategies for the craft sector. This study contributes to a more equitable entrepreneurial landscape for the Indian handicraft sector. The upper echelon theory, general system theory, resource-based view, rechnology acceptance model, and Giessen and Amsterdam entrepreneurial success model support this study. This study helps policymakers and managers implement strategies for the craft industry and other sectors.
... Second, our finding that organizational mindfulness facilitates organizational performance through organizational resilience extends the literature by identifying organizational resilience as a mediator in the path from mindfulness to enhanced performance. This is an essential contribution because previous studies have assumed organizational ambidexterity (e.g., Gayed & El Ebrashi, 2023), human capital (e.g., Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011;Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005), and social capital have direct impacts on organizational resilience (e.g., Fandin˜o et al., 2019;Jia et al., 2020). In addition, it has been assumed that supply chain resilience has a direct impact on supply chain performance (e.g., Abeysekara et al., 2019;Go¨lgeci & Kuivalainen, 2020;Iftikhar et al., 2021;Li et al., 2017;Yu et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study addresses the compelling need for emerging-market business organizations to excel in turbulent environments. Drawing upon a dynamic capability framework, we delve into organizational mindfulness, resilience, and performance dynamics within emerging-market contexts. Through a moderated mediation model, we investigate the impact of organizational mindfulness on organizational performance, which is mediated by organizational resilience. Additionally, we explore the moderating role of digitalized management accounting systems (MASs) use in enhancing the relationship between organizational mindfulness and organizational resilience. Utilizing partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), we analyze data from a two-phase survey involving 441 managers in Vietnamese organizations. Results confirm organizational resilience as a vital mediator between organizational mindfulness and organizational performance, and digitalized MAS use positively moderates the effect of organizational mindfulness on organizational resilience. This research adds to the literature on the interface between mindfulness and resilience and informs practical strategies for navigating uncertainty. By studying the interplay among mindfulness, resilience, and digitalization, we provide guidance for emerging-market organizations aiming to respond to environmental turbulence successfully.
... Des entreprises du monde entier ont connu une pandémie mondiale de COVID-19 qui a affecté leurs activités normales, depuis la fourniture de matériaux jusqu'à la production et la desserte de leurs marchés. Par conséquent, la plupart d'entre eux ont tenté de lutter contre cette crise dévastatrice en adoptant des stratégies et des pratiques adéquates pour favoriser leur résilience (Aloulou, 2022;Gayed & El Ebrashi, 2022). Pour renforcer leur résilience face aux perturbations potentielles, les entreprises doivent adopter des orientations stratégiques et développer leurs capacités d'innovation qui en découlent (Abdelwahed & Basly, 2023;Ooi et al., 2023). ...
Article
Full-text available
L'article propose une analyse de la relation entre l'orientation entrepreneuriale et la résilience entrepreneuriale en se basant sur une revue de la littérature spécialisée. L'analyse met en évidence les multiples facettes de l'orientation entrepreneuriale, notamment la prise de décision proactive, l'innovation constante et la volonté de prendre des risques calculés. Ces éléments sont présentés comme des piliers essentiels permettant aux entrepreneurs de faire face aux perturbations et aux défis inhérentsà l'environnement des affaires. Parallèlement, l'article explore comment une orientation entrepreneuriale solide peut nourrir la résilience entrepreneuriale. En développant une mentalité proactive et en intégrant des pratiques innovantes, les entrepreneurs peuvent mieux s'adapter aux changements, apprendre de l'adversité et émerger plus forts après des périodes difficiles.Le travail offre des implications importantes pour les entrepreneurs et les chercheurs en mettant en lumière les liens complexes entre l'orientation entrepreneuriale et la résilience, offrant ainsi une base solide pour la compréhension et le développement de ces compétences cruciales dans le domaine du management des organisations.
... As managers and executives are a key source of firm-level information in similar studies (Gayed and Ebrashi, 2023), the relevance of addressing the survey to adequate respondents is acknowledged. Therefore, a convenience sampling strategy was developed (Bajpai, 2018), which was restricted to one country only (Spain) to avoid heterogeneity due to cultural differences and legal frameworks. ...