Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555

H O S T E D BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Asia Pacific Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apmrv

Information technology capabilities and organizational ambidexterity facilitating

organizational resilience and firm performance of SMEs
Hoa D.X. Trieu a, b, Phuong Van Nguyen a, b, *, Thuong T.M. Nguyen a, HaiT.M. Vu a, KhoaT. Tran a, b
a
Center for Public Administration, International University-Vietnam National University-HCMC, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc City, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
b
Vietnam National University-HCMC, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc City, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face significant challenges in today's rapidly changing
Received 24 October 2022 business landscape. Due to limited resources and managerial capabilities, some of these businesses
Received in revised form struggle to survive in the face of technological advances and economic recession. To address this issue,
23 February 2023
this research seeks to explore how SMEs can leverage information technology (IT) to overcome crises,
Accepted 24 March 2023
Available online 3 April 2023
capitalize on innovative opportunities, adapt to shifting market conditions, and drive new competitive
initiatives. This study uses partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze the
data collected from 247 SMEs in Vietnam. The results show that IT capabilities play a crucial role in
Keywords:
IT capabilities
stimulating organizational ambidexterity, resilience, and SME performance. In addition, the study em-
Organizational ambidexterity phasizes the potential impact of government support in enhancing organizational resilience. These
Organizational resilience findings provide empirical evidence supporting the Resource base theory with dynamic capabilities view
Firm performance and offer guidance to SMEs on allocating resources effectively and taking advantage of government
Government support. support. The study also provides theoretical contributions and managerial implications to enhance
business performance and achieve sustainable development.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of College of Management, National Cheng Kung
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction quickly from a sudden, discontinuous incident that causes vulner-

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was both a health crisis and an
economic disaster, with an impact even more significant than the
2008 financial crisis. This was swiftly followed by the Ukraine-
Russia war, which threatens global economic resilience and is
causing input prices to soar. Many policy responses support both
institutions and individuals to get through the crisis period
(Demertzis, Sapir, Tagliapietra, & Wolff, 2020; Sharma et al., 2020;
Tallon, Queiroz, Coltman, & Sharma, 2019). Many SMEs will strug-
gle to survive the combined technological revolution and economic
downturn because of their scarce internal resources and under-
developed managerial skills.
Organizational resilience, the ability of a company to recover
* Corresponding author. Center for Public Administration, International
University-Vietnam National University-HCMC, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu
Duc City, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.
E-mail address: nvphuong@hcmiu.edu.vn (P.V. Nguyen).
Peer review under responsibility of College of Management, National Cheng
Kung University.
ability and necessitates a unique response to the crisis, is becoming
increasingly important in a competitive business environment
(Somers, 2009). It enables a business to adapt to challenges, market
threats, legislative or environmental changes, changes in customer
preferences, and the actions of its competitors (Overby, Bharadwaj,
& Sambamurthy, 2006). It has also been recognized that IT provides
a critical foundation from which modern businesses can overcome
the threats of a turbulent market by leveraging their digitized
processes, know-how, and physical capital (Bustinza, Vendrell-
Herrero, Perez-Arostegui, & Parry, 2019; Gu, Yang, & Huo, 2021;
Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover, 2003). IT capabilities are
defined as the ability to mobilize and deploy IT-based resources in
combination with other resources and capabilities (Bharadwaj,
2000) which facilitates organizational resilience by creating digi-
tized procedures and knowledge repositories (Chakravarty, Grewal,
& Sambamurthy, 2013).
The idea that IT and government support influence SME per-
formance has gained significant traction in recent years. Scholars
and practitioners acknowledge that IT can revolutionize business
operations and make them more efficient and effective (Bouwman,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.03.004
1029-3132/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al.
Nikou, & de Reuver, 2019; Chakravarty et al., 2013; Hilali, Manouar,
Idrissi, Idrissi, & Idrissi, 2020), while government support can
provide access to resources and opportunities that might otherwise
be unavailable.
Although these constructs are crucial, there is a lack of research
into how they are interconnected. Specifically, there is a need to
understand how IT capabilities, organizational resilience, organi-
zational ambidexterity, and government support interact with each
other to affect SME performance. This study aims to fill this gap by
analyzing the connections between these essential constructs and
is motivated by the fact that, in today's business environment,
businesses face unprecedented uncertainty and disruption. Un-
derstanding the constructs that enable SMEs to adapt and respond
effectively to changing conditions is critical. This study is based on
two fundamental theories, namely the resource-based view (RBV)
and the dynamic capabilities view (DCV), and develops a research
model to examine whether IT capabilities determine the success of
SMEs in utilizing their resilient capabilities to survive crises, capi-
talize on opportunities for innovation, adapt to changing business
conditions, and launch new competitive initiatives. Furthermore,
this study demonstrates the importance of investing in IT and
partnering with government agencies to boost organizational
resilience and performance.
This study consists of six sections. The theoretical background is
presented in the following section. Section 3 establishes a research
model with hypotheses development. The research methodology is
described in Section 4. Section 5 reports and discusses the findings.
Finally, Section 6 concludes the study results, provides theoretical
and managerial contributions, and lays out the limitations of this
research.
2. Theoretical background
The RBV and DCV are paradigmatic theoretical perspectives that
relate capabilities, competitive advantage, and improved perfor-
mance (Gavronski, Klassen, Vachon, & Nascimento, 2011; Nwankpa
& Roumani, 2016; Wernerfelt, 1984). The RBV, the most funda-
mental branch of resource theory, was first proposed by Wernerfelt
(1984) and posits that a company can be considered a combination
of resources (tangible and intangible assets, including employees,
equipment, buildings, and intellectual property) and capabilities
that have the potential to create a competitive advantage and
enhance performance. Businesses will succeed if they have the
most appropriate resources and know how to deploy them more
effectively than their competitors. The more valuable, rare, imper-
fectly imitable, and non-substitutable, the more likely these re-
sources are to support a durable competitive advantage.
Nonetheless, the RBV has been criticized for its lack of precision
regarding the competencies required to flourish, as well as for
failing to address how essential resources might be refreshed as
necessary.
The DCV is a concept in strategic management that highlights
the interplay between resources, capabilities, and strategies, sug-
gesting that competitiveness is determined by how well a company
can align and re-align its resources and capabilities in response to
changing external circumstances, and how effectively it can
develop and execute strategies that exploit these capabilities
(Steininger, Mikalef, Pateli, & Ortiz-De-guinea, 2022; Teece, 2007,
2016; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Vial, 2019). Most studies define
dynamic capabilities as corporate abilities and processes
(Steininger et al., 2022) that reflect the ability to gain a competitive
advantage in a new and more innovative form via its experience
and knowledge gain from business environment (Berry &
Parasuraman, 1992; Sa nchez-Gutie rrez et al., 2019; Teece, 2016).
Moreover, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) define dynamic
545
Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555
capabilities as business processes that utilize resources, particularly
those that integrate, restructure, build, and allocate resources to
keep up with market fluctuations, and the corporate and strategic
practices that enable businesses to acquire new resources and
restructure as new markets emerge, compete, divide, grow, and
eventually disappear.
The DCV emphasizes the importance of an integrated approach
to managing the various subsystems of an enterprise. Managers
should consider the organization and its extended commercial,
technical, and regulatory environment as a single entity with
numerous subsystems to oversee. Modifications to any business
portion must be compatible with, or accommodated by, the whole
components. A systems approach is also beneficial in a changing
external environment, such as managing an ecosystem of com-
plementary or mutually influencing business and governmental
choices. Companies with dynamic capabilities must propagate a
coherent vision and strategy and enable cooperation among in-
ternal resources (Min & Kim, 2022; Sulistyo & Siyamtinah, 2016).
This includes leveraging IT capabilities to build and maintain dy-
namic capabilities, balancing exploration and exploitation through
organizational ambidexterity, enhancing organizational resilience
through IT capabilities, and leveraging government support to
create a favorable external environment. By taking this systems
approach, companies can function like healthy living organisms,
adapting and responding to environmental changes to maintain
their competitive edge (Teece, 2018; Teece et al., 1997). According to
the DCV, organizations should be capable of renewing and
rebuilding their strategic capabilities to meet the demands of
changing contexts (Shamim, Zeng, Shariq, & Khan, 2019; Teece,
2007; Teece et al., 1997). Organizational ambidexterity is a critical
aspect of dynamic capabilities, as it allows businesses to adapt and
respond to changing environments while still maintaining their
core strengths.
However, empirical work on the enabling effect of IT capabilities
and their overall impact on corporate performance is still scarce,
particularly under different external conditions. Research is needed
that extends the two main theories of RBV and DCV to explore how
companies can effectively integrate their IT investments into their
broader organizational strategy to support sustained competitive
advantage in the digital era. Additionally, it is crucial to investigate
the role of external factors, such as government support, in shaping
the relationship between IT capabilities and performance.
3. Hypothesis development
3.1. IT capabilities
IT capabilities have been conceptualized as organizing and uti-
lizing IT resources, in combination with additional resources and
capabilities, to achieve organizational goals (Cassia, Costa, da Silva,
& de Oliveira Neto, 2020; Nwankpa & Roumani, 2016) and typically
consist of technical IT skills, management skills, and IT practices
(Chakravarty et al., 2013). Specifically, technical skills are needed to
develop and operate IT applications and leverage existing tech-
nology to create products or deliver services (Cepeda & Arias-Pe rez,
2019; Lee, Sambamurthy, Lim, & Wei, 2015). Building and using IT
applications requires more than just technical expertise; manage-
rial skills are the second group of abilities to leverage IT resources
(Vial, 2019). In addition, IT capabilities also involve developing
practices within the workforce that aid in identifying future busi-
ness demands, which is vital for managing change in business
settings (Chakravarty et al., 2013).
IT capabilities refer to the ability to leverage IT resources and
competencies, in combination with other organizational resources
and capabilities, to respond to rapidly changing business
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al.
environments (A. S. Bharadwaj, 2000; Chakravarty et al., 2013). This
perspective emphasizes the need for firms to integrate their IT in-
vestments into their broader organizational strategy to generate
business value (Benitez, Castillo, Llorens, & Braojos, 2018; Benitez,
Chen, Teo, & Ajamieh, 2018). The ability to develop IT capabilities
is essential for achieving sustained competitive advantage in a
rapidly changing digital landscape.
3.2. Organizational ambidexterity
Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability
to balance and integrate the exploration of new opportunities with
the exploitation of existing ones. (Lee et al., 2015). There are two
distinct operational routes to competitive success and superior
performance, specifically operational innovation for invention, and
operational improvement for excellence (Hammer, 2004). Consis-
tent with these concepts, ambidexterity is the ability to invent new
ways of doing daily tasks, making changes, and applying novel
techniques in day-to-day business operations. This may involve
creating new operational methods or processes and improving
existing operations to increase efficiency. Moreover, it enables a
company to fundamentally change or invent new business prac-
tices, such as product/service development and manufacturing,
supply chain management, or delivery (Weerawardena, 2003). On
the other hand, exploitation is the ability to improve current
business processes by increasing productivity and efficiency to save
time and money (Buliga, Scheiner, & Voigt, 2016; Bustinza et al.,
2019).
A dual strategy, therefore, involves a company simultaneously
pursuing the realization of groundbreaking ideas for products and
services, production processes, and the associated management/
administrative activities, as well as improving the operating speed
and reliability, and reducing costs. Consistent with the RBV and
DCV, an organization's ability to adapt to changing environments is
contingent on its ability to simultaneously develop and deploy IT
capabilities and pursue organizational ambidexterity. Indeed, IT
capabilities can facilitate the acquisition and processing of new
information and knowledge to improve existing operations and
explore new opportunities (Al-Atwi, Amankwah-Amoah, & Khan,
2021; Klonek, Volery, & Parker, 2021; Lee et al., 2015; Pinkow &
Iversen, 2020). Specifically, IT capabilities may enhance the effec-
tiveness and efficiency of operations, such as customer manage-
ment and supplier relationship control. It enables businesses to
obtain information about their consumers and markets, providing
efficient communication with key stakeholders. It makes the
development, manufacturing, and distribution of new products and
services easier (Bouwman, Nikou, Molina-Castillo, & de Reuver,
2018; Qalati, Yuan, Khan, & Anwar, 2021). Better information
storing and processing, enabled by establishing appropriate IT re-
sources and techniques, improves internal administrative opera-
tions such as finance, human resource management, and efficiency
management (Mithas & Sambamurthy, 2011). Our first hypothesis
is as follows:
H1. IT capabilities positively influence organizational
ambidexterity.
3.3. Organizational resilience
At the organizational level, resilience is frequently defined in
passive terms, which implies the ability of a business to recover
quickly from a sudden, discontinuous incident that causes vulner-
ability and necessitates an uncommon reaction to the crisis
(Somers, 2009). Resilient organizations can maintain full or partial
operational activities (Fani & Fard, 2015) and can recover from
546
Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555
unfavorable events. In this sense, resilience is a strategic advantage.
It is also conceptualized in more active terms as a conscious
attempt to improve the ability to deal with unexpected shocks, find
ways to survive adversity, identify possible threats, and adopt
proactive measures to mitigate them to ensure the business sur-
vives and succeeds. Building resilience means maximizing the ca-
pacity to adapt to and cope with challenging circumstances, which
is very similar to the definition of organizational agility, which is
the ability to adapt to and operate successfully in a fast-changing
environment (Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Zhou, 2020).
Organizational ambidexterity a dynamic capability of busi-
nesses to develop innovative customer support, sales, or produc-
tion models which have been identified as the driving forces behind
an ability to respond quickly to market changes and opportunities
(Charitou & Markides, 2003; Seo & Lee, 2019; Vial, 2019). Similarly,
forward-looking businesses enhance productivity and facilitate
reconfiguration efforts to improve responsiveness to emerging
hazards such as natural catastrophes or supply chain disruption
(Mathivathanan, Govindan, & Haq, 2017; Sheffi & Rice, 2005).
Organizational ambidexterity also enhances the ability to capitalize
on emerging market possibilities by constantly adapting and
improving efficiency (Buliga et al., 2016). Therefore, organizational
ambidexterity enables rapid responses to market complexity and
diversity (Al-Atwi et al., 2021; Buliga et al., 2016; Bustinza et al.,
2019; Lee et al., 2015). The second hypothesis is proposed:
H2. There is a direct relationship between organizational ambi-
dexterity and organizational resilience.
Under the DCV, IT capabilities are an essential resource enabling
businesses to achieve dynamic capabilities (Mikalef et al., 2021;
Steininger et al., 2022). However, recent research suggests that
rather than treating IT capabilities as a distinct and separate
resource, it is more beneficial to view IT as an embedded part of a
company's overall organizational capabilities. This shift in
perspective emphasizes the importance of examining how IT en-
ables or strengthens existing organizational capabilities
(Bharadwaj, El Sawy, Pavlou, & Venkatraman, 2013).
IT application is a driving factor for firms to detect and appro-
priately react to market opportunities and challenges. To compre-
hend the complexity of market changes, companies must process a
large volume of data using IT for proper organization and analysis
(Chakravarty et al., 2013; Gu et al., 2021). Statistical tools are
especially useful for analyzing, interpreting, and predicting how
various opportunities and challenges will impact the business and
its rivals. Furthermore, an IT-based application that facilitates
corporate communication channels enables external data ex-
changes to develop coordinated activities in the context of an ever-
changing marketplace. Social media platforms enable real-time
customer feedback and aggregate customer opinions, allowing for
improved forecasting of market demands. The IT system and a data
warehouse enable real-time data monitoring, pattern recognition,
and the simulation of strategic scenarios (Panda & Rath, 2018; Setia,
Venkatesh, & Joglekar, 2013). In general, IT capabilities allow
businesses to detect and analyze market opportunities and threats,
thereby representing an active form of organizational resilience
conceptualized in this study.
Furthermore, IT capabilities are essential for enhanced perfor-
mance in dealing with market adversity, a form of passive organi-
zational resilience (Bustinza et al., 2019; Chakravarty et al., 2013;
Kurtz & Varvakis, 2016). Unexpected events often derail or block
anticipated changes (Chakravarty et al., 2013). During times of
enhanced market volatility, IT capabilities designed to organize and
analyze data for detecting and understanding environmental
changes may rely too heavily on historical precedents and path
dependencies to support successful scanning and interpretation of
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al.
the environment (Pavlou & Sawy, 2010; Rindova & Kotha, 2001).
Most research on technology adoption and innovation diffusion
focuses on the implementation phase, with little attention devoted
to other processes (Zehir & Zehir, 2020). IT capabilities, such as
cutting-edge infrastructure or technical skills, enable businesses to
protect themselves against various disruptive market situations
and remain resilient (Bustinza et al., 2019; Chakravarty et al., 2013).
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. IT capabilities have a positive influence on organizational
resilience.
3.4. Firm performance
Performance is the outcome of management and operation
system generated, providing information how well internal and
external resources being used. Performance measurement often
emphasizes a process-oriented approach that focuses on assessing
the effectiveness and efficiency of the business using a set of
metrics (Henri, 2004) and can be used to improve business oper-
ation (Gu et al., 2021; Karimi & Walter, 2015; Martínez-Caro et al.,
2020). Measuring performance contributes to the planning and
control cycle by providing data and feedback, and tracking strategy
implementation (Mendonça & Andrade, 2018; Ravichandran,
2018). Following Auh and Menguc (2005), performance is
measured in terms of effectiveness, based on profit, sales, growth,
and market share, and efficiency, which is assessed by return on
investment (Atan, Alam, Said, & Zamri, 2018; Auh & Menguc, 2005).
According to the RBV, successful performance arises from car-
rying out actions utilizing its internal and external resources (Auh &
Menguc, 2005; Cho & Pucik, 2005; Liu, Li, & Li, 2019; Ravichandran,
2018). These actions might include launching new products or
services, implementing adaptive responses to the actions of com-
petitors, and resilience to defend against emerging legislative
changes. According to the logic of opportunity, successful perfor-
mance is established via constant innovation and competitive ac-
tivities (Sambamurthy et al., 2003) to mitigate the impact of
competitors or market newcomers developing better market
knowledge or insights to invent innovative resources with which to
undermine the advantages of the current status quo.
Changes in technology, socioeconomics, or culture may reveal
new prospects that challenge existing market advantages, so
making a profit relies on ongoing competitive actions (Pigni, Piccoli,
& Watson, 2016; Ravichandran, 2018). The ability to foresee and
react to market changes in a proactive way (active organizational
resilience) allows an organization to transform its assets and
enhance performance (Chakravarty et al., 2013). Furthermore,
passive organizational resilience, which implies an ability to iden-
tify and monitor market threats defensively, leads to improved
performance by making the business resilient and capable of
absorbing external shocks, as well as through gradual improve-
ments (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). We therefore propose the
following hypothesis:
H4. Organizational resilience has a positive influence on firm
performance.
According to O'Reilly and Tushman (2008, 2013), an ambidex-
trous business that can simultaneously pursue both exploitation
and exploration strategies is more likely to outperform those who
focus on one strategy at the expense of the other. An SME that only
engages in exploration faces the risks associated with unpredict-
able returns following a long lead time (Volberda & Lewin, 2003).
On the other hand, one that prioritizes exploitation will typically
obtain short-term, predictable results that are not always sustain-
able because of the likelihood of becoming obsolete (Raisch &
547
Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555
Birkinshaw, 2008). Exploitation may improve short-term perfor-
mance, but it may also lead to a competence trap caused by the
absence of appropriate adjustments to environmental changes
(Ahuja & Lampert, 2001). Thus, long-term performance may be
derived from the capability to exploit and explore simultaneously.
Scholars have long claimed that organizational ambidexterity is a
critical factor in sustaining long-term success (Ahmadi, Mohd
Osman, & Aghdam, 2020; Dranev, Izosimova, & Meissner, 2020;
Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006;
Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Teece, 2014). We, therefore, proposed
the following hypothesis:
H5. Organizational ambidexterity has a positive influence on firm
performance.
IT capabilities influence firm performance by interacting with
other organizational capabilities (Banker, Bardhan, Hsihui, & Shu,
2006; Rai & Seth, 2006). If IT capabilities are enhanced, the busi-
ness value produced from most business functions increases
(Pavlou & El Sawy, 2006). For instance, branding activities and
product development operations improve with the help of digital
customer relationship management (CRM) systems and the sound
analysis of customer information and demographics (Chakravarty
et al., 2013).
Companies with strong IT capabilities can (1) ensure effective
coordination between IT and business planning processes, (2) uti-
lize efficient and cost-effective IT applications that give them a
competitive edge, and (3) predict future customer needs and
develop important new product features ahead of the competition.
Successful IT deployment is a significant determining element in
improving corporate performance (Zhou, Li, Sheng, & Shao, 2014).
In a recent study, Liu, Chen, and Gao (2020) illustrated that IT skills
significantly positively impacted performance, leading us to the
sixth hypothesis:
H6. IT capabilities have a positive influence on firm performance.
3.5. Government support
In the context of DCV, government support can play a crucial
role in enhancing SME performance by providing resources, fund-
ing, and policies that encourage innovation and growth. Specif-
ically, government support can help companies build and develop
their organizational ambidexterity and resilience. Emerging econ-
omies are renowned for the institutional restraints imposed by
local governments (Liao & Yu, 2012), while Peng (2003) reported
that managers consider government support as one of the most
powerful shields against complicated and unpredictable environ-
mental influences. Governments can provide funding and grants for
research and development (R&D) that can help SMEs create new
products and services, develop new business models, and improve
their existing capabilities. Government policies can also encourage
collaboration between businesses, universities, and research in-
stitutions, leading to the development of new technologies and
innovations (Motohashi, 2013; Rezazadeh, Karami, & Karami,
2016).
Recent research has shown that regulatory support from gov-
ernments may substantially affect business optimization and
innovation via the application and diffusion of IT capabilities
(Wang, Singgih, Wang, & Rit, 2019; Zhang, Qi, Wang, Zhao, & Pawar,
2019), which leads to organizational ambidexterity (Liu & Guo,
2019; Yu, Chen, Nguyen, & Zhang, 2014). Consequently, we hy-
pothesize that:
H7. Government support has a positive influence on organiza-
tional ambidexterity.
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al. Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555

Government policies are important element that support SMEs After screening and sending the questionnaire to 400 SMEs, 247
accessing new technology, conducting a preliminary study, and valid samples were received; this was a large enough sample size
deciding whether to adopt or reject them (Wang et al., 2019). for partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
Companies tend to be hesitant to accept new technologies and data analysis and to provide meaningful results.
practices owing to a lack of knowledge of the inherent complex- We asked the enterprise representatives to provide the business
ities. Therefore, government-led programs mandating the use of field, job title, number of employees, and years of operations in the
new applications might be one strategy for overcoming resistance first part of the questionnaire. In the second part, participants
(Otache & Usang, 2022). The interplay of organizational resilience provide their evaluation of the research constructs. It is worth
and company success is expected to increase with management noting that respondents who are board members account for 71.7%
and government support (Appelbaum, Calla, Desautels, & Hasan, of the population, while 23.5% are managers and 4.9% are chair-
2017), whereas a lack of help from the authorities may inhibit the persons. This study concentrates on essential participants at the
willingness of enterprises to dedicate resources to create and management level who are very knowledgeable and understand
deploy resilience capabilities. We therefore propose the following their business operations. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the
hypothesis: sample SMEs..
H8. Government support has a positive influence on organiza-
tional resilience. 4.2. Measurement
Government-aided businesses may receive favorable regulatory
The authors employed a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
support, which may result in greater performance (Liao & Yu, 2012;
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for all multi-item construct
Park & Luo, 2001). Since technology adoption frequently necessi-
assessments. All seven constructs were operationalized using
tates a substantial financial investment and a change in existing
reflective measurements. The measuring items were adapted from
operations or even business models, it can be crucial to have the
previous studies with slight adjustments in recognition of the
assistance of authorities and institutions in place in order to facil-
Vietnamese context. The initial version of the questionnaire was
itate the making of sound decisions. In practice, local governments
may either impede the reallocation of capital and essential raw
resources (Luo, Huang, & Wang, 2012) or help businesses to reduce Table 1
local income taxes (Peng & Luo, 2000). Digital transformations are SME characteristics (N ¼ 247).
enabled by financial investments and laws, which also serve to Sample Percentage (%)
safeguard companies undergoing IT upgrades. In contrast, inade-
Business Field
quate levels of support, insufficient expenditure, and the absence of
efforts to adopt new IT breakthroughs and boost operational effi- Services 51 20.6
ciency may be seen as impediments, lowering business perfor- Manufacturing 70 28.3
Logistics and distribution 68 27.5
mance. We propose the following hypothesis: Construction 27 10.9
estate 19 7.7
H9. Government support has a positive influence on firm
Others 12 4.9
performance.
Job Title
This study develops a conceptual framework for the intercon-
Board of directors 177 71.7
nection of IT capabilities, organizational ambidexterity, organiza- Managers 58 23.5
tional resilience, and government support by extending the two Chairpersons 12 4.9
critical theories of RBV and DCV. Fig. 1 presents the research model.
Number Of Employees

Less than 20 131 53.0

4. Methodology 20e50 67 27.1
51e99 27 10.9
100e200 12 4.9
4.1. Sample and data collection More than 200 10 4.0

Years Of Operations
The convenient sampling method is employed to collect primary
data. The population of this study are SMEs in Vietnam, taken from Less than 5 92 37.2
the available list of 600 SMEs across different industries. It took five 5e10 55 22.3
11e20 82 33.2
months to conduct the survey, from November 2021 to March 2022. More than 20 18 7.3

Fig. 1. Research model with hypothesis development.

548
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al. Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555

written in English. After we translated it into Vietnamese, we ran a
focus group discussion with three academic researchers and three
business managers to assess the meanings of each statement in the
Vietnamese questionnaire. The participants proposed a few
changes to ensure the respondents understood the questionnaire.
Finally, 30 managers participated in a pilot test to ensure the ar-
guments were sound and there were no errors. Below we present
comprehensive information about the measured constructs.
We adapted five items from Chakravarty et al. (2013) to measure
IT capabilities and four items were based on the scales of Liao and
Yu (2012) to measure government support. We adapted prior
studies (Chakravarty et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2020; Nguyen, Huynh,
Lam, Le, & Nguyen, 2021) for three items to measure firm perfor-
mance in terms of return on investment (ROI), profit, and market
share, relative to corporate goals.
The organizational resilience scale was based on Somers (2009),
adjusted for the Vietnamese context, and converted to a five-point
Likert scale covering flexibility to change, overall understanding of
the emergent situation, and employee ability to accomplish various
roles.
The organizational ambidexterity scales were adapted from Lee
et al. (2015); however, the scale has been shortened from the
original second-order construct to its two first-order constructs,
namely operational exploitation and exploration. We adjusted the
scale to suit the research objectives regarding SMEs in Vietnam,
which tend to operate at a small scale with limited financial ca-
pacity, no specialized R&D activities, but with manageable cost
bases to ensure ongoing operations. Table 2 presents measurement
items.
4.3. Assessment method
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical approach
with significant traction in business and social sciences as it can
serve to answer a wide range of research questions by assessing the
correlations between sets of variables in a statistical model and
testing hypotheses. There are two broad types of SEM: covariance
and variance-based (Henseler, Hubona, & Ray, 2016). The
covariance-based SEM technique describes indicator variability and
relationships. When estimating model parameters, the scores of the
common variables are unknown and redundant. PLS-SEM is the
most comprehensive and all-encompassing of the variance-based
SEM techniques in which proxies are created and then used to
depict constructs and estimate the model parameters (Henseler
et al., 2016). Significantly, PLS-SEM is an excellent method to
examine correlations between conceptual factors if the research
model contains composites.
According to Hair and Sarstedt (2019), PLS-SEM offers re-
searchers two advantages. First, it can be used to estimate
complicated models with numerous observable and unobservable
variables, and second, it enables scholars to acquire solutions from
a limited sample size without worrying about identification or
convergence. The latter is useful in light of current research that
suggests scholars should incorporate more observed variables
when measuring proxies for conceptual variables, no matter what
common factor or composite proxies they use (Rigdon, Becker, &
Sarstedt, 2019; Sarstedt, Hair, Ringle, Thiele, & Gudergan, 2016).
However, additional observed variables may result in high collin-
earity for a composite-based model, leading to exaggerated stan-
dard errors and unsteady parameter estimations; these can be
mitigated by measuring correlation weights instead of regression
weights.
The parameters of the PLS path model are estimated through a
model assessment and a structural model assessment. Cronbach
alpha (Alpha) metrics are used to assess internal consistency, and
composite reliability (CR) metrics are applied to evaluate the reli-
ability of individual indicators. The average variance extracted
(AVE) is utilized to confirm the convergent validity. The discrimi-
nant validity metrics comprise the FornelleLarcker criteria, cross-
loadings, and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation.
By assessing the structural model, causal and interacting re-
lationships between the latent constructs were identified. The R2
represents the percentage of variability of the precursor constructs
accounted for in the model. The adjusted R2 values assist in
comparing various models, or the explanatory power of the model,
across different datasets, based on model complexity and sample

Table 2
Measurements and sources.

Construct Items Sources

Government Support GS1. Digital transformation receives financial support from the government or relevant Adapted from (Liao & Yu, 2012)
(GS) agencies.
GS2. The government issues relevant policies to promote digital transformation in
enterprises.
GS3. Firms recognize that there is legal support for the application of digital
transformation.
GS4. Existing laws and regulations are sufficient to protect enterprises in applying the
digital transformation.
Firm Performance (FP) FP1. Profits relative to the firm goal. Adapted from (Chakravarty et al., 2013; Y. Liu et al.,
FP2. Growth sales relative to the firm goal. 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021)
FP3. Market share relative to the firm goal.
IT Capabilities (IT) IT1. We have invested extensively in building our IT infrastructure. Adapted with minor adjustments from (Chakravarty
IT2. We have up-to-date IT infrastructure. et al., 2013; Y. Liu et al., 2020)
IT3. We regularly upgrade our IT equipment and applications.
IT4. We have strong IT skills.
IT5. Our IT skills are comparable to those of the best firms in our industry.
Organizational OAM1. Our company implements operational innovations that are difficult for other Adapted with major modifications from (Lee et al.,
Ambidexterity companies to imitate. 2015)
(OAM) OAM2. Our company reduces current business operating costs.
OAM3. Our company improves the efficiency of existing business operations.
Organizational ORE1. When an unexpected event occurs, our company can improvise solutions to adjust Adapted with major modifications from (Somers,
Resilience (OR) the workflow. 2009)
ORE2. When an unexpected event occurs, our company collects key information and
reviews the consequences of a variety of remedies.
ORE3. Our company does cross-training and job rotation to prepare for the changes.

549
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al. Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555

size. It was essential to quantify the magnitude of significant im- the research model was supported since it meets the requirements.
pacts by calculating their effect size f2. Two criteria are used to evaluate discriminant validity. First,
each latent variable's AVE square root should be greater than the
correlation between it and all other latent variables. Second, the
5. Results
items loading with the respective latent variables should measure
and compare with other latent variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;
5.1. Common method bias
Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013). Table 4 shows that these
criteria are satisfied.
Most scholars concur that common method bias (CMB) is a real
The HTMT values (shown in Table 5) did not exceed 0.85, indi-
hazard in behavioral research, particularly with single-informant
cating that the measurement model's discriminant validity is ful-
surveys. Before collecting data, several measures were taken to
filled (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015).
counteract CMB, such as informing the participants that there were
no right or wrong answers and that their replies would remain
anonymous (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). This 5.3. Structural model
research was also designed to limit the effect of CMB while col-
lecting data by following the assessment method developed by After the measurement model was appropriately tested, the
Kock (2015), calculating all the values of full collinearity variance structural model was used to investigate the structural relation-
inflation factor (FCVIF) among all the variables in our research ships between latent constructs: IT capabilities, organizational
model. Table 3 presents the testing results of CMB. The highest resilience, organizational ambidexterity, and government support
FCVIF is below 3.3, indicating that the measurement model was not to SME performance. We used 5000-sample bootstrapping to
subject to CMB. derive p-values for significant values in the structural model. In
terms of path coefficients, as shown in Table 6 (and later in Fig. 2),
the estimation results suggest that most hypotheses have a p-value
5.2. Measurement model lower than 0.05, which implies a confidence level greater than 95%.
The results of the structural model indicate that IT capabilities
Four features of the measuring model were evaluated: item have a significant impact on both organizational ambidexterity and
reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and discrimi- organizational resilience, as well as firm performance, thereby
nant validity. Item reliability is examined in PLS-SEM by analyzing supporting H1, H3, and H6. Moreover, we find that organizational
the item loadings with their associated latent variable (or ambidexterity has a positive effect on organizational resilience
construct). The standardized indicator loadings should be higher (thus supporting H2), which, in turn, significantly influences firm
than 0.6, and the reliability of the measurement model was performance (therefore supporting H4). These findings suggest that
confirmed with all Cronbach’ alpha scores larger than 0.6 (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981; Kline, 2005). As shown in Table 3, all factor loadings
of the research model satisfy this criterion, thereby validating the Table 4
Fornellelarcker criterion.
item reliability of the model.
Convergent validity examines the extent to which each item is FP GS IT OAM ORE
related to the construct it represents. Two criteria are used to FP 0.766
evaluate convergent validity: each latent variable should have a CR GS 0.273 0.724
greater than 0.70 and an AVE greater than 0.5 (Hair, Sarstedt, IT 0.546 0.329 0.744
Ringle, & Mena, 2012). Table 3 shows that convergent validity for OAM 0.394 0.234 0.448 0.753
ORE 0.497 0.378 0.400 0.465 0.743

Table 3
Reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity.

Mean SD Loading VIF Alpha CR AVE FCVIF

Government Support (GS) 0.712 0.814 0.524 1.214

GS1 3.474 0.951 0.711 1.503
GS2 3.437 0.932 0.614 1.327
GS3 3.534 0.903 0.773 1.490
GS4 3.547 0.938 0.785 1.327
Firm Performance (FP) 0.648 0.810 0.587 1.670
FP1 3.49 0.935 0.801 1.286
FP2 3.437 0.792 0.759 1.286
FP3 3.486 0.904 0.737 1.233
IT Capabilities (IT) 0.798 0.860 0.553 1.621
IT1 3.672 0.84 0.759 1.754
IT2 3.725 0.833 0.625 1.337
IT3 3.68 0.839 0.765 1.699
IT4 3.457 1.001 0.767 1.542
IT5 3.518 0.904 0.790 1.690
Organizational Ambidexterity (OAM) 0.620 0.797 0.567 1.440
OAM1 3.498 0.799 0.713 1.141
OAM2 3.445 1.012 0.811 1.317
OAM3 3.664 0.902 0.731 1.306
Organizational Resilience (ORE) 0.610 0.786 0.553 1.615
ORE1 3.466 1.037 0.845 1.213
ORE2 3.583 0.895 0.703 1.250
ORE3 3.636 0.88 0.670 1.185

SD: Standard deviation; VIF: Variance inflation factor; Alpha: Cronbach's Alpha; CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted; FCVIF; Full collinearity variance
inflation factor.

550
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al. Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555

Table 5 assess the relevance of mediating effects (Hair, Black, Babin, &
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). Anderson, 2010). With a specific mediator, the Sobel test con-
FP GS IT OAM ORE trasts the direct influence of the independent variable on the
FP
dependent variable with its indirect influence on the dependent
GS 0.356 variable. According to the results of mediating effects testing, as
IT 0.749 0.424 shown in Table 7, IT capabilities and government support facilitate
OAM 0.602 0.357 0.614 firm performance via organizational resilience.
ORE 0.735 0.592 0.543 0.716
The structural model will be examined when the measurement

Table 6
Path coefficients.

Hypothesis Direct Relationship Coefficient P-Values Result

H1 IT Capabilities / Organizational Ambidexterity 0.413 0.000 Supported

H2 Organizational Ambidexterity / Organizational Resilience 0.323 0.000 Supported
H3 IT Capabilities / Organizational Resilience 0.172 0.021 Supported
H4 Organizational Resilience / Firm Performance 0.298 0.000 Supported
H5 Organizational Ambidexterity / Firm Performance 0.082 0.206 Not supported
H6 IT Capabilities / Firm Performance 0.393 0.000 Supported
H7 Government Support / Organizational Ambidexterity 0.109 0.178 Not supported
H8 Government Support / Organizational Resilience 0.248 0.003 Supported
H9 Government Support / Firm Performance 0.007 0.918 Not supported

Fig. 2. Path analysis results.

organizations with strong IT capabilities may be better able to
cultivate organizational ambidexterity and resilience, leading to
improved performance.
We also find a positive relationship between government sup-
port and organizational resilience, supporting H8. However, the
coefficient value noted for government support to organizational
ambidexterity and firm performance was insignificant. This sug-
gests that, while government support may help to foster organi-
zational resilience, there was not enough evidence to show that it
can directly impact organizational ambidexterity and firm
performance.
The coefficient value for government support to organizational
ambidexterity and firm performance was insignificant, meaning
there is insufficient evidence to show that government support
fosters either organizational ambidexterity or firm performance.
It is recommended that the Sobel test should be utilized to
model has been determined to be of sufficient quality. The R2 values
of endogenous constructs were utilized as a starting point because
PLS was employed for the structural model. They show how the
preceding structures accounted for a large portion of the model
variability. Adjusted R2 values help compare several models, or the
model explanatory power, across different datasets since they ac-
count for model complexity and sample size. All R2 values are listed
in Table 8.
Q-squared, also known as predictive relevance, determines
whether a model has predictive relevance (>0 is excellent) and
confirms the predictive value of endogenous constructs. Values of
Q-squared greater than zero suggest that the values have been
accurately reconstructed and that the model has predictive rele-
vance (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019). Table 10 confirms the
predictive relevance of our model.

551
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al. Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555

Table 7
Indirect effects.

Indirect effects Coef. P-Values Result

Government Support / Organizational Resilience / Firm Performance 0.074 0.010 Supported

IT Capabilities / Organizational Resilience / Firm Performance 0.051 0.039 Supported
IT Capabilities / Organizational Ambidexterity / Organizational Resilience - > Firm Performance 0.040 0.005 Supported
IT Capabilities / Organizational Ambidexterity / Organizational Resilience 0.133 0.000 Supported

Table 8 of organizational slack that enables companies to rebound after

R2 and R2 adjusted. unfavorable events. With the mediating role of organizational
R2 R2Adjusted resilience in the relationship between IT capabilities and firm per-
Firm Performance 0.391 0.381
formance, this study confirms some critical aspects of RBV, DCV,
Organizational Ambidexterity 0.211 0.205 and organizational theory literature (Barrales-Molina, Bustinza, &
Organizational Resilience 0.312 0.304 Gutie rrez-Gutie
rrez, 2013; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008).
R2 represents the number of predictors that may be used to explain the variability of Even though the research failed to provide sufficient evidence
the dependent variables. The effect size f2 may be used to calculate how much an for the direct influence of organizational ambidexterity on firm
explanatory or mediating variable contributes to the R2 of the dependent variables performance, this research demonstrates the indirect relationship
in this way. Any f2 value is > 0.35 is strong, 0.15e0.35 is moderate, and weak is
between organizational ambidexterity and performance via the
0.02e0.15 (Cohen, 1988). Table 9 shows the f2 values for the structural model.
mediating role of organizational resilience, which aligns with
(Hammer, 2004; Lee et al., 2015).
Table 9 In general, organizational resilience is the organizational capa-
Effect size f.2. bilities that foster firm performance. With the empirical evidence
Relationship Effect size
of the mediating role of organizational ambidexterity, the results
could imply that resilience can be built and strengthened by IT and
Government Support / Firm Performance 0.000 No effect
operating capabilities in exploring and exploiting internal re-
IT Capabilities / Firm Performance 0.184 Moderate
IT Capabilities / Organizational Ambidexterity 0.193 Moderate sources (Yu et al., 2014). Companies must maintain a strategic
IT Capabilities / Organizational Resilience 0.032 Weak alignment between organizational assets and capabilities to retain
Organizational Ambidexterity / Organizational Resilience 0.120 Moderate their competitive advantage whenever circumstances change.
Organizational Ambidexterity / Firm Performance 0.008 No effect Government support has a significantly positive influence on
Organizational Resilience / Firm Performance 0.101 Weak
organizational resilience.

6. Conclusion
Table 10
Predictive relevance Q-squared.
The research shows the role of IT capabilities and how to allocate
Q-squared resources in enterprises to build resilience and improve business
Firm Performance 0.21 performance. Through conceptualization and empirical study, we
Government Support add to our understanding of the relationships between IT capabil-
IT Capabilities
ities, organizational ambidexterity, organizational resilience, gov-
Organizational Ambidexterity 0.11
Organizational Resilience 0.15 ernment support, and firm performance. First, we show that IT
capabilities allow SMEs to establish their organizational ambidex-
terity and organizational resilience, thereby positively influencing
firm performance. Second, we provide empirical evidence to sup-
5.4. Discussion
port the mediating roles of organizational resilience in the re-
lationships between IT capabilities, organizational ambidexterity,
Recently, resilience has become an increasingly critical compo-
government support, and firm performance.
nent of organizational success. However, we lack a clear under-
This study offers valuable insights for both scholars and prac-
standing of how businesses create and use resilience to achieve
titioners. From a theoretical perspective, the findings contribute to
extraordinary results. The above findings can be used to draw
understanding how IT capabilities, organizational resilience, orga-
several valuable lessons.
nizational ambidexterity, and government support are interrelated
The important role of IT capabilities in SME operations is
and how they jointly influence firm performance. From a practical
confirmed. The influence of IT capabilities on organizational resil-
perspective, the study highlights the importance of investing in IT
ience has attracted a great deal of theoretical and experimental
capabilities and building strong partnerships with government
attention (Bustinza et al., 2019; Chakravarty et al., 2013; Lu & (Ram)
agencies to enhance organizational resilience and improve firm
Ramamurthy, 2011), and we find that results related to organiza-
performance.
tional resilience highlight a greater significance for IT capabilities
than was previously postulated. This study confirms that IT capa-
6.1. Theoretical contributions
bilities directly influence firm performance and is in line with
previous studies (Bustinza et al., 2019; Chakravarty et al., 2013).
The DCV offers a powerful theoretical lens for understanding
The study also finds a positive relationship between organiza-
how businesses can adapt to changing market conditions and gain a
tional resilience and performance, consistent with previous studies
sustainable competitive advantage. In recent years, research has
(Lee et al., 2015; Mithas & Sambamurthy, 2011) and that organi-
focused on the role of IT capabilities in enhancing the dynamic
zational resilience mediates the relationship between IT capabil-
capabilities of an organization and its overall performance. The
ities and performance. Technological capabilities not only play an
present study makes a significant contribution to the literature by
important role in the current innovative era but also provide a kind
examining the relationships among IT capabilities, organizational
552
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al.
resilience, organizational ambidexterity, government support, and
firm performance.
The modified measurement of latent constructs in the study of
IT capabilities, organizational resilience, organizational ambidex-
terity, government support, and firm performance in emerging
markets is critical to ensure that the investigation is relevant and
valid in the specific context of interest. This can lead to a more
accurate and nuanced understanding of the relationships among
these constructs and provide valuable insights for practitioners,
policymakers, and academics.
6.2. Managerial implications
Managers should develop their IT capabilities since the ability to
employ IT effectively is their most powerful tool for managing the
stresses and expectations of the marketplace. The study finds that
IT capabilities play a critical role in shaping organizational ambi-
dexterity and resilience, which in turn positively impacts firm
performance. Specifically, the study suggests that companies with
strong IT capabilities are better able to manage the trade-off be-
tween exploration and exploitation, which is the essence of orga-
nizational ambidexterity. Furthermore, IT capabilities also
contribute to organizational resilience by enabling businesses to
adapt and respond quickly to changes in the business environment.
The study implies that IT managers or senior executives should
understand the relevance of IT capabilities in the corporate envi-
ronment and aggressively encourage firms to build organizational
resilience. Businesses are typically prejudiced in embracing just
one of the two distinct behavioral approaches because of their
conventions and inertia. Even operational exploration and exploi-
tation are thought by some to be difficult to achieve simultaneously
(March, 2009); our findings also show that businesses today should
invest in information technology alongside their operational ac-
tivities. Senior leaders, in particular, should be aware that striking
the right balance between IT capabilities can improve the success of
active efforts, making firms more resilient, especially in an
extremely dynamic business climate.
Government support plays an essential role in helping busi-
nesses improve their resilience. This finding highlights the impor-
tance of external factors in shaping dynamic capabilities,
particularly during disruptive events such as natural disasters or
economic crises. The study suggests that government support in
the form of financial assistance, regulatory flexibility, and public-
private partnerships can help businesses build and maintain their
resilience in the face of such events. Managers should strive to take
advantage of this support in accessing new management tech-
niques and practices to improve business performance.
6.3. Limitations and future research
Despite providing significant insights, this study suffers from
several limitations. Due to probable changes in these parameters
between organizational sizes and throughout time, causal conclu-
sions regarding these correlations cannot be drawn. The correla-
tions between variables were determined using the current study's
cross-sectional data collected from Vietnam-based organizations.
Future studies should incorporate longitudinal research designs
with specific additional categories of respondents to reach broader
conclusions and address the problem from a causal approach.
Multi-methodological approaches and several theoretical lenses, in
addition to resource-based theory, should be utilized to better
understand the consequences of IT capabilities and contribute to
our understanding of the dissemination of digital technology
within corporate structures. Future research might examine the
moderating influence of extra contextual stimulation on the
553
Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555
relationships between IT skills, agility, ambidexterity, and
performance.
The role of government support assessed in the cross-sectional
model may be underestimated. Government policies are often
designed to support businesses when economic fluctuations occur,
so their impact often only emerges after some time has passed.
Studies using panel data can more accurately assess the role of
government support.
Acknowledgement
This research is funded by Vietnam National University HoChi-
Minh City (VNU-HCMC) under grant number B2023-28-05.
References
Ahmadi, M., Mohd Osman, M. H., & Aghdam, M. M. (2020). Integrated exploratory
factor analysis and Data Envelopment Analysis to evaluate balanced ambidex-
terity fostering innovation in manufacturing SMEs. Asia Pacific Management
Review, 25(3), 142e155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2020.06.003
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A
longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions.
Strategic Management Journal, 22(6e7), 521e543. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.176
Al-Atwi, A. A., Amankwah-Amoah, J., & Khan, Z. (2021). Micro-foundations of
organizational design and sustainability: The mediating role of learning
ambidexterity. International Business Review, 30(1), Article 101656. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101656
Appelbaum, S. H., Calla, R., Desautels, D., & Hasan, L. (2017). The challenges of
organizational agility (part 1). Industrial & Commercial Training, 49(1), 6e14.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-05-2016-0027/FULL/XML
Atan, R., Alam, M. M., Said, J., & Zamri, M. (2018). The impacts of environmental,
social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian
companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal,
29(2), 182e194. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2017-0033
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moder-
ating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12),
1652e1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007
Banker, R. D., Bardhan, I. R., Hsihui, C., & Shu, L. (2006). Plant information systems,
manufacturing capabilities, and plant performance. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, 30(2), 315e337. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148733
Barrales-Molina, V., Bustinza, O.  F., & Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. J. (2013). Explaining the
causes and effects of dynamic capabilities generation: A multiple-indicator
multiple-cause modelling approach. British Journal of Management, 24(4),
571e591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00829.x
Benitez, J., Castillo, A., Llorens, J., & Braojos, J. (2018). IT-enabled knowledge ambi-
dexterity and innovation performance in small US firms: The moderator role of
social media capability. Information & Management, 55(1), 131e143.
Benitez, J., Chen, Y., Teo, T. S. H., & Ajamieh, A. (2018). Evolution of the impact of e-
business technology on operational competence and firm profitability: A panel
data investigation. Information & Management, 55(1), 120e130.
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1992). Services marketing starts from within. Mar-
keting Management, 1(1), 24e34.
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology
capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly:
Management Information Systems, 24(1), 169e193. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3250983
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital
business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly: Man-
agement Information Systems, 37(2), 471e482. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/
2013/37:2.3
Bouwman, H., Nikou, S., & de Reuver, M. (2019). Digitalization, business models, and
SMEs: How do business model innovation practices improve performance of
digitalizing SMEs? Telecommunications Policy, 43(9), Article 101828. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101828
Bouwman, H., Nikou, S., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & de Reuver, M. (2018). The impact of
digitalization on business models. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance,
20(2), 105e124. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-07-2017-0039
Buliga, O., Scheiner, C. W., & Voigt, K. I. (2016). Business model innovation and
organizational resilience: Towards an integrated conceptual framework. Journal
of Business Economics, 86(6), 647e670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-015-
0796-y
Bustinza, O. F., Vendrell-Herrero, F., Perez-Arostegui, M., & Parry, G. (2019). Tech-
nological capabilities, resilience capabilities and organizational effectiveness.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(8), 1370e1392. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1216878
Cassia, A. R., Costa, I., da Silva, V. H. C., & de Oliveira Neto, G. C. (2020). Systematic
literature review for the development of a conceptual model on the relation-
ship between knowledge sharing, information technology infrastructure and
innovative capability. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 32(7),
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al.
801e821. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1714026
Cepeda, J., & Arias-Pe rez, J. (2019). Information technology capabilities and orga-
nizational agility: The mediating effects of open innovation capabilities.
Multinational Business Review, 27(2), 198e216. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-11-
2017-0088
Chakravarty, A., Grewal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). Information technology
competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: Enabling and
facilitating roles. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 976e997. https://doi.org/
10.1287/isre.2013.0500
Charitou, C. D., & Markides, C. C. (2003). Responses to disruptive strategic innova-
tion. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(2), 55e63A.
Cho, H. J., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth,
profitability, and market value. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555e575.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.461
Demertzis, M., Sapir, A., Tagliapietra, S., & Wolff, G. B. (2020). An effective economic
response to the coronavirus in Europe. Bruegel Policy Contribution.
Dranev, Y., Izosimova, A., & Meissner, D. (2020). Organizational ambidexterity and
performance: Assessment approaches and empirical evidence. Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, 11(2), 676e691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0560-
y team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646e672. https://
Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105e1121.
Fani, A. A., & Fard, H. D. (2015). Organizational learning and organizational resil-
ience knowledge management as a mediator in public organizations of Iran.
International Institute for Science, Technology and Education, 5(13), 37e48, 43/
438B814D-5F38-4544-AD3B-CA0699B96C0D.pdf.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Gavronski, I., Klassen, R. D., Vachon, S., & Nascimento, L. F. M. do (2011). A resource-
based view of green supply management. Transportation Research Part E: Lo-
gistics and Transportation Review, 47(6), 872e885. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tre.2011.05.018
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and medi-
ating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,
47(2), 209e226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
Gu, M., Yang, L., & Huo, B. (2021). The impact of information technology usage on
supply chain resilience and performance: An ambidexterous view. International
Journal of Production Economics, 232. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2020.107956
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis: International version. New Jersey: Pearson.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to
report the results of PLS-SEM. In European business review (Vol. 31, pp. 2e24).
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203. Issue 1.
Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Factors versus composites: Guidelines for choosing
the right structural equation modeling method. Project Management Journal,
50(6), 619e624. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819882132
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414e433.
Hammer, M. (2004). Deep change-how operational innovation can transform your
company. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 84e93. https://doi.org/10.1109/
EMR.2004.25106
Henri, J. (2004). Performance measurement and organizational effectiveness:
Bridging the gap. Managerial Finance, 30(6), 93e123. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03074350410769137
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new
technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Sys-
tems, 116(1), 2e20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115e135. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11747-014-0403-8
Hilali, W. El, Manouar, A. El, Idrissi, M. A. J., Idrissi, M. A. J., & Idrissi, M. A. J. (2020).
Reaching sustainability during a digital transformation: A PLS approach. Inter-
national Journal of Innovation Science, 12(1), 52e79. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijis-
08-2019-0083
Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to
digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 32(1), 39e81. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07421222.2015.1029380
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Method-
ology in the social sciences (2nd Edition). New York: Guilford Press.
Klonek, F. E., Volery, T., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Managing the paradox: Individual
ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across
firm life cycle stages. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entre-
preneurship, 39(1), 40e63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620943371
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment
approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1e10. https://doi.org/
10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Kurtz, D. J., & Varvakis, G. (2016). Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Resil-
ience in Turbulent Environments. In Competitive strategies for small and medium
enterprises (pp. 19e37). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/
554
Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555
10.1007/978-3-319-27303-7_2.
Lee, O. K., Sambamurthy, V., Lim, K. H., & Wei, K. K. (2015). How does IT ambi-
dexterity impact organizational agility? Information Systems Research, 26(2),
398e417. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0577
Liao, T. J., & Yu, C. M. J. (2012). Knowledge transfer, regulatory support, legitimacy,
and financial performance: The case of foreign firms investing in China. Journal
of World Business, 47(1), 114e122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.10.026
Liu, Y., Chen, D. Q., & Gao, W. (2020). How does customer orientation (in)congru-
ence affect B2B electronic commerce platform firms' performance? Industrial
Marketing Management, 87, 18e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.indmarman.2020.02.027
Liu, C., & Guo, Q. (2019). Technology spillover effect in China: The spatiotemporal
evolution and its drivers. Sustainability, 11(6), 1694.
Liu, Y., Li, W., & Li, Y. (2019). Ambidexterity between low cost strategy and CSR
strategy: Contingencies of competition and regulation. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 37(3), 633e660. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10490-019-09647-3,
2019 37:3.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and per-
formance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management
doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2012). Guanxi and organizational performance: A
meta-analysis. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 139e172. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00273.x
Lu, & (Ram) Ramamurthy, K. (2011). Understanding the link between information
technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS
Quarterly, 35(4), 931. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409967
March, J. G. (2009). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Studi
Organizzativi, 2, 71e87. https://doi.org/10.3280/SO2008-002006
Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Alfonso-Ruiz, F. J. (2020). Digital tech-
nologies and firm performance: The role of digital organisational culture.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, Article 119962.
Mathivathanan, D., Govindan, K., & Haq, A. N. (2017). Exploring the impact of dy-
namic capabilities on sustainable supply chain firm's performance using Grey-
Analytical Hierarchy Process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 637e653.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.018
Mendonça, C. M. C. de, & Andrade, A. M. V. de (2018). Elements of digital trans-
formation in dynamic capabilities in a Brazilian capital. Journal of Information
Systems Engineering & Management, 3(3), 1e8. https://doi.org/10.20897/jisem/
2654
Mikalef, P., Pateli, A., & van de Wetering, R. (2021). IT architecture flexibility and IT
governance decentralisation as drivers of IT-enabled dynamic capabilities and
competitive performance: The moderating effect of the external environment.
European Journal of Information Systems, 30(5), 512e540. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0960085X.2020.1808541
Min, S., & Kim, J. (2022). Effect of opportunity seizing capability on new market
development and small and medium-sized enterprise performance: Role of
environmental uncertainty in the IT industry. Asia Pacific Management Review,
27(2), 69e79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2021.05.004
Mithas, R., & Sambamurthy. (2011). How information management capability in-
fluences firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 237. https://doi.org/10.2307/
23043496
Motohashi, K. (2013). The role of the science park in innovation performance of
start-up firms: An empirical analysis of tsinghua science Park in beijing. Asia
Pacific Business Review, 19(4), 578e599. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13602381.2012.673841
Nguyen, P. V., Huynh, H. T. N., Lam, L. N. H., Le, T. B., & Nguyen, N. H. X. (2021). The
impact of entrepreneurial leadership on SMEs’ performance: the mediating
effects of organizational factors. Heliyon, 7(6), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.heliyon.2021.e07326.
Nwankpa, J. K., & Roumani, Y. (2016). IT capability and digital transformation: A firm
performance perspective. In 2016 international conference on information sys-
tems (pp. 1e16). ICIS, 2016.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability:
Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28,
185e206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present,
and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324e338. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Enterprise agility and the
enabling role of information technology. European Journal of Information Sys-
tems, 15(2), 120e131.
Panda, S., & Rath, S. K. (2018). Modelling the relationship between information
technology infrastructure and organizational agility: A study in the context of
India. Global Business Review, 19(2), 424e438. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0972150917713545
Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. (2001). Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational
networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 455e477.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.167
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2006). From IT leveraging competence to competitive
advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development.
Information Systems Research, 17(3), 198e227. https://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.1060.0094
Pavlou, P. A., & Sawy, O. A. E. (2010). The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive
advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information
H.D.X. Trieu, P.V. Nguyen, T.T.M. Nguyen et al.
Systems Research, 21(3), 443e471. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0280
Peng, M. W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of
Management Review, 28(2), 275e296. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2003.9416341
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition
economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal,
43(3), 486e501. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556406
Pigni, F., Piccoli, G., & Watson, R. (2016). Digital data streams: Creating value from
the real-time flow of Big Data. California Management Review, 58(3), 5e25.
https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.5
Pinkow, F., & Iversen, J. (2020). Strategic objectives of corporate venture capital as a
tool for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and
Complexity, 6(4), 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040157
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5). https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Qalati, S. A., Yuan, L. W., Khan, M. A. S., & Anwar, F. (2021). A mediated model on the
adoption of social media and SMEs' performance in developing countries.
Technology in Society, 64, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101513
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents,
outcomes, and moderators. In Journal of management (Vol. 34, pp. 375e409).
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE PublicationsSage CA. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206308316058, 3.
Rai, P., & Seth. (2006). Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain
integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 225. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25148729
Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence,
innovation capacity and organizational agility. The Journal of Strategic Infor-
mation Systems, 27(1), 22e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSIS.2017.07.002
Rezazadeh, B., Karami, H., & Karami, A. (2016). Technology orientation, dynamic
capabilities and SMEs performance. Strategic Management Quaterly, 4(1), 41e60.
https://doi.org/10.15640/smq.v4n1a3
Rigdon, E. E., Becker, J. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Factor indeterminacy as metro-
logical uncertainty: Implications for advancing psychological measurement.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(3), 429e443. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00273171.2018.1535420
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through
dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal,
44(6), 1263e1280. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069400
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital
options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary
firms. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(2), 237e264. https://
doi.org/10.2307/30036530
nchez-Gutie
Sa rrez, J., Cabanelas, P., Lampo n, J. F., & Gonz
alez-Alvarado, T. E. (2019).
The impact on competitiveness of customer value creation through relationship
capabilities and marketing innovation. Journal of Business & Industrial Market-
ing, 34(3), 618e627. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03-2017-0081
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation
issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies. Journal of Business Research,
69(10), 3998e4010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007
Seo, Y. W., & Lee, Y. H. (2019). Effects of internal and external factors on business
performance of start-ups in South Korea: The engine of new market dynamics.
International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 11, 1e12. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1847979018824231
Setia, P., Venkatesh, V., & Joglekar, S. (2013). Leveraging digital technologies: How
information quality leads to localized capabilities and customer service per-
formance. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 37(2), 565e590.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.11
Shamim, S., Zeng, J., Shariq, S. M., & Khan, Z. (2019). Role of big data management in
enhancing big data decision-making capability and quality among Chinese
firms: A dynamic capabilities view. Information & Management, 56(6), Article
103135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.12.003
Sharma, H. B., Vanapalli, K. R., Cheela, V. R. S., Ranjan, V. P., Jaglan, A. K., Dubey, B.,
et al. (2020). Challenges, opportunities, and innovations for effective solid waste
555
Asia Pacific Management Review 28 (2023) 544e555
management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 162, Article 105052.
Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B., Jr. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 41.
Somers, S. (2009). Measuring resilience potential: An adaptive strategy for orga-
nizational crisis planning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(1),
12e23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2009.00558.x
Steininger, D. M., Mikalef, P., Pateli, A., & Ortiz-De-guinea, A. (2022). Dynamic ca-
pabilities in information systems research: A critical review, synthesis of cur-
rent knowledge, and recommendations for future research. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 23(2), 447e490. https://doi.org/10.17705/
1jais.00736
Sulistyo, H., & Siyamtinah. (2016). Innovation capability of SMEs through entre-
preneurship, marketing capability, relational capital and empowerment. Asia
Pacific Management Review, 21(4), 196e203. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apmrv.2016.02.002
Tallon, P. P., Queiroz, M., Coltman, T., & Sharma, R. (2019). Information technology
and the search for organizational agility: A systematic review with future
research possibilities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2),
218e237. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSIS.2018.12.002
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-
foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 28(13), 1319e1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
Teece, D. J. (2014). Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of
firms. The Academy OfManagement Perspectives, 28(4), 328e352.
Teece, D. J. (2016). Dynamic capabilities. In The palgrave encyclopedia of strategic
management (Vol. 18, pp. 1e9). https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_
689-1. March.
Teece, D. J. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory.
Journal of Management and Organization, 24(3), 359e368.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509e533. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research
agenda. In Journal of strategic information systems (Vol. 28, pp. 118e144).
Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003. Issue 2.
Volberda, H., & Lewin, A. (2003). Co-Evolutionary dynamics within and between.
Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2111.
Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J., & Rit, M. (2019). Making sense of blockchain tech-
nology: How will it transform supply chains? International Journal of Production
Economics, 211, 221e236. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2019.02.002
Weerawardena, J. (2003). Exploring the role of market learning capability in
competitive strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4), 407e429. https://
doi.org/10.1108/03090560310459023
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5(2), 171e180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Yu, X., Chen, Y., Nguyen, B., & Zhang, W. (2014). Ties with government, strategic
capability, and organizational ambidexterity: Evidence from China's informa-
tion communication technology industry. Information Technology and Manage-
ment, 15(2), 81e98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0175-3
Zehir, S., & Zehir, M. (2020). Internet of things in blockchain ecosystem from
organizational and business management perspectives. Contributions to Man-
agement Science, 47e62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29739-8_3
Zhang, M., Qi, Y., Wang, Z., Zhao, X., & Pawar, K. S. (2019). Effects of business and
political ties on product innovation performance: Evidence from China and
India. Technovation, 80e81(February-March), 30e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.technovation.2018.12.002
Zhou, X. (2020). Organizational response to COVID-19 crisis: Reflections on the
Chinese bureaucracy and its resilience. Management and Organization Review,
16(3), 473e484. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2020.29
Zhou, K. Z., Li, J. J., Sheng, S., & Shao, A. T. (2014). The evolving role of managerial ties
and firm capabilities in an emerging economy: Evidence from China. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(6), 581e595. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11747-014-0371-z