Numerous authors have focused on how companies manage crises (Rapaccini *et* *al.*, 2020; Bailey and Breslin, 2021). Nevertheless, academic literature does not offer a clear understanding of how strategic agility (SA) enables firms to cope with crises. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, investigations of crisis management in small- and medium-sized enterprises are scant (Kuckertz *et al.,* 2020; Krammer, 2021). A deep understanding of how firms of various sizes and structures operating in different sectors manage crisis uncertainty is a significant area of interest.

Firms must be agile, which enables them to manage extreme changes, survive unprecedented threats, and capitalize on emerging business opportunities (Gölgeci *et* *al.,* 2020). The body of knowledge on SA and organizational resilience (OR) is somewhat contradictory. Several authors have pointed out that SA is a predictor of OR. Others have stressed that SA is not a stand-alone capability but a combination of competencies that integrate adaptability, speed, innovation, and OR (Jafari-Sadeghi *et al.,* 2022; de Diego Ruiz *et* *al.,* 2023). Nevertheless, although different studies have focused on some key operational areas that enable firms to be agile, this field is still underresearched, especially regarding times of crisis.

Several studies have intended to conceptualize OR or examine SA in unpredictable environments (Gölgeci *et* *al.,* 2019; Shams *et* *al.,* 2021), but none of them aimed to cover the relationship between the two concepts and operationalize them by investigating how their capabilities can be embedded. Recently, Zahoor *et* *al.* (2022) pointed out that further research is essential to investigate how companies cope with crises and which capabilities should be implemented to deal with the impact of such disruptions. Along the same lines, Verma and Gustafsson (2020) highlighted how the Covid-19 pandemic crisis has affected all industries to varying degrees, especially those impacted by border restrictions and lockdowns in some countries.

Nevertheless, the contingency factors that organizations implement in their responses to sudden exogenous shocks remain unclear (Zia *et* *al.,* 2023). Thus, to compete successfully in today’s unpredictable environment, companies must develop organizational capabilities rooted in agility, flexibility, and resilience (Iftikhar *et* *al.,* 2021).

This current study aimed to address the following research question: How does SA enable organizational resilience during times of crisis? To address this gap, this paper contributes to both theory and practice by examining how companies effectively mobilize SA during crises, particularly concerning its dimensions, to achieve OR.

Grounded in a qualitative study conducted over 12 months (April 2020 to March 2021) on 11 French companies, the findings reveal how SA, through its capabilities, is a catalyst for achieving organizational resilience. First, we analyzed how SA and OR were implemented through specific actions in response to challenges raised by a crisis. Second, this exploration enabled us to understand how these practices enable companies to overcome adversity and ensure organizational continuity during crises. Finally, our study provides a three-phase process designed to highlight the key capabilities required by companies aspiring to achieve SA and OR. Through this multifaceted study, we aim to contribute actionable insights and guidance to organizations seeking to thrive in the face of uncertainty and unpredictable changes in times of crisis.

This article is structured as follows: In Section 1, the body of literature on OR and SA in the context of crises is reviewed. Section 2 presents the methodology. In Section 3, the results are provided. Section 4 discusses the theoretical and managerial implications and suggests avenues for future research. Section 5 concludes this paper.
# Literature review

## SA From the capabilities perspective

SA is a paramount capability for firms aiming to thrive in a high-paced, turbulent environment (Christofi *et al.,* 2024). According to De Diego and Almodovar (2021, p. 230), SA is “a meta-capability that enables organizations to anticipate, react, and seize rapid changes in the environment by redefining their corporate strategies and adapting their competitive and functional strategies to survive and create value.”

Within an uncertain environment, SA enables firms to cope with environmental challenges through collective unity, processes, and structure readjustment (Christofi *et* *al.,* 2021). It provides real-time solutions to react to changes in a business environment and adapt in a flexible, fast manner to create a new strategic direction (Mata *et* *al.,* 2023; Ahammad *et al.,* 2021). Given rapid and unexpected changes, agility offers the ability to detect and address opportunities and threats easily and quickly. Thus, agile firms can become responsive to market changes and react quickly to seize opportunities and keep pace with their customers’ evolving needs and expectations (Vaillant and Lafuente, 2019; Bouguerra *et al.,* 2019; Gölgeci *et* *al.,* 2020).

Previous studies evaluated the realization of SA through several firms’ outcomes, such as enhancing their sensing capabilities, reconfiguring their resources, and continuously renewing their business model (Kafetzopoulos *et* *al.,* 2023; Shams *et* *al.,* 2021). With such actions, firms reinforce their ability to deliver appropriate products to meet customers’ reformed demands, enhance their innovation capabilities, and further their long-term effectiveness and ability to gain a sustainable competitive advantage (Nkuda, 2017). Therefore, to be agile, firms must dedicate resources and capacity to preserving a high level of flexibility and speed, allowing them to proactively encounter unexpected environmental changes (Kafetzopoulos *et* *al.,* 2023).

Junni et *al.* (2015, p. 596) defined SA as the “ability of the organization to renew itself and stay flexible without sacrificing efficiency.” The concept of SA has attracted the interest of researchers who have examined it from several perspectives (De Diego and Almadovar, 2021; Nyamrunda and Freeman, 2021). Some studies associated SA with an agile strategy, agile processes, agile people, and an agile supply chain (Wu *et al.*, 2017; Shams *et* *al.*, 2021). Other studies associated SA with dynamic capabilities (Doz and Kosonen, 2010). In the same vein, Baskarada and Koronios (2018) considered SA to be a set of five dynamic capabilities: sensing, searching, seizing, switching, and formulating.

Accordingly, Teece *et* *al*. (2016) presented dynamic capabilities as a firm’s ability to build, integrate, and reconfigure internal resources and competencies to address external changes. Ivory and Brooks (2018) considered resource fluidity, collective unity, and strategic sensitivity to be the three main organizational metacapabilities of SA. The interaction between these three fosters a firm’s ability to proactively seize opportunities, manage threats, and adapt its reality.

Strategic sensitivity refers to the ability to review and rediscover new strategies among alternative strategies that are more adapted to unexpected changes (Kale *et* *al.,* 2019). For companies to effectively detect and seize market opportunities, they need to constantly examine their internal and external business environments while relying on rapidly gathered information and synthesized knowledge. Strategic sensitivity allows firms, through learning orientations, to better sense market needs (Gölgeci *et* *al.,* 2020). According to Junni *et* *al.* (2015, p. 602), collective unity is “common ground, common interest, empathy, and trust to increase the engagement of organizational members.” Hence, openness regarding present circumstances and employees’ responsibilities are essential attributes necessary for collective success (Khaddam, 2020).

Storme *et* *al.* (2020) emphasized the crucial importance of collective unity, pointing out that a workforce is the cornerstone for building SA. In a work environment, employees collaboratively address issues, challenge assumptions, explore underlying frameworks, and co-create innovative solutions to overcome difficulties (Doz, 2020).

Resource fluidity refers to the mobilization and quick reallocation of tangible and intangible resources and the reconfiguration of business systems (Pereira *et* *al.*, 2019) to respond to market changes and to sense new opportunities. By investing in market orientation, learning orientation, and quality management capabilities, organizations can achieve these three SA metacapabilities.

SA, which refers to an organization’s ability to adapt quickly to challenging circumstances, is essential to maintain operations, seize new opportunities, and mitigate risks in times of crisis. This ability to adapt directly supports OR (i.e., the ability to recover from a disruption and grow and thrive despite it) (Bai *et* *al.,*2023; Zahoor *et al.*, 2024).

Crises call for proactive strategies that transcend reactive responses, requiring foresight, innovation under pressure, and the pursuit of competitive advantage (Garrido-Moreno *et* *al.*, 2024). To fully understand the vital role of SA and its essential contribution to overcoming uncertainty and volatility during crises, it is essential to explore the concept of organizational resilience and its effectiveness in crisis management at the corporate level (Kim *et* *al*., 2024; Grego *et* *al.*, 2024).

## Organizational resilience as a process‑based approach

In recent years, research on OR has flourished, driven by the need to understand how organizations cope with and adapt to major disruptive events. Critical moments such as the 2008 global financial crisis (Williams *et* *al.*, 2017), the September 11 terrorist attacks (Gittell *et al.*, 2006), and the COVID-19 pandemic (Mokline and Ben Abdallah, 2022; Kim *et* *al.*, 2024) have inspired extensive research (Linnenluecke, 2017; Raetze *et* *al.*, 2022; Smith *et* *al.*, 2024).

Several authors have highlighted that OR reflects the ability of an individual, community, or organization to adapt to and move on in a positive way from stressful or adverse events (Crick and Bentley, 2020; Wu *et* *al.*, 2017). In this light OR is a dynamic process because it evolves over time and entails adaptive functioning that enables a company to face difficulties by maintaining an appropriate initial equilibrium or bouncing back as an opportunity to grow (Williams *et* *al.*, 2017; Mokline and Ben Abdallah, 2022).

Researchers have observed that crises create a clear demarcation between an organization’s historical trajectory and its future path of transformation (Williams *et* *al*., 2017; Till *et* *al.*, 2024). This finding has led to a division in the literature, with some studies focusing on preadversity periods and others on post-adversity phases (Su and Junge, 2023; Shepherd and Williams, 2023). This prior research collectively highlights the importance of understanding resilience not as a static attribute but as a dynamic process that unfolds before, during, and after a crisis. Therefore, a comprehensive exploration of organizational resilience involves examining how companies prepare for, react to, and recover from adverse events while highlighting the critical need for agility and adaptability in the face of uncertainty.

Like the previously mentioned studies, this current research addresses OR. Gao *et al.*’s (2016, p. 303) definition provides a good starting point: “A system is resilient if it can adapt to internal and external errors by changing its mode of operations, without losing its ability to function. Hence, resilience is a dynamical property that requires a shift in the system’s core activities.”

OR is a field that studies not only the essence of resilience but also how and why some firms are more resilient than others (Duchek, 2020). Therefore, firms must develop a resilience capability that enables them to respond appropriately to unexpected events and benefit from situations that can potentially threaten their survival (Karman, 2020). Furthermore, resilience includes a dimension of adaptation; thus, it can help companies overcome a crisis more effectively. (Chroust and Aumayr, 2017).

OR capabilities enable firms to reorganize, reconfigure, restructure, and even reinvent themselves (when necessary) in response to disruptions. In crisis management, resilience is the “ability of a system, community, or society to resist, absorb, accommodate, and quickly recover from hazards, including preservation and restoration of its essential structures and functions” (Ramezani and Camarinha-Matos, 2020, p. 4). Also, an organizational focus on building highly effective processes to detect, correct, and learn from mistakes is a critical factor in becoming a learning and antifragile organization in a volatile environment (Afraz*et al.,* 2021; Hollands *et al.,* 2023).

Although there is increasing interest in OR, this concept has been scantly explored, and its conceptualization is still complex (Linnenluecke, 2017; Saad *et* *al.*, 2021). According to Duchek (2020, p. 217), OR “can be seen as an umbrella construct” because there is no consensus about a unique definition of it. Thus, little is known about how OR can be effectively implemented in practice.

From a process-oriented perspective, OR can be conceptualized as a meta-capability encompassing three main phases: 1) anticipation, 2) adaptation, and 3) coping. This theoretical framework provides a solid foundation for academic studies aimed at operationalizing resilience, demonstrating its practical utility for empirical investigations. By identifying these phases, the framework facilitates a comprehensive understanding of how organizations prepare for, respond to, and evolve after experiencing disruption, offering insights for both academic research and practice. This current study drew on these capabilities to operationalize OR. We then analyzed them through the lenses of SA to explore how the latter can enable OR in times of crisis.
# Research method

## Research context and method

The crisis pandemic was a major disruptive event that has raised worldwide social, technological, structural, and business challenges (Ali *et al.,* 2022). To reduce the spread of contamination, temporary company closures and mandatory lockdowns were implemented. This dramatic context exposed companies to difficulties in maintaining daily operations (Markovic *et* *al.,* 2021; Hartmann and Lussier, 2020), requiring fundamental adjustments in their organizational methods and practices for new work arrangements, e.g., working from home, new digital tool exploitation, etc. (Forliano *et al.,* 2023; Santos *et al.,* 2023). This pandemic raised several issues that deserve to be addressed by practitioners and researchers.

A fundamental question is which factors enable or hinder the success or failure of companies’ ability to cope with an ongoing crisis over time (Shani, 2020). To overcome the challenges of an uncertain environment’s challenges, previous studies highlighted two key concepts: SA and organizational resilience. According to Elali (2021), firms that have implemented SA through innovative business models based on digitalization are likelier to overcome crises and seize new opportunities in uncertain environments. Other studies have emphasized the role of OR as a catalyst for enabling companies to cope with crises and identify new strategies (Darendeli *et al.,* 2020; Sharma *et al.,* 2020).

Prior research has been largely conceptual or case-study oriented (Duchek, 2020; Miceli *et* *al.,* 2021). Thus, there is a clear need for further empirical consideration of the relationship between SA and OR, particularly in the context of a crisis. Given the new phenomenon of the pandemic crisis and the lack of empirical evidence and theorization, qualitative research using multiple case studies offers insights into this phenomenon (Tremblay *et al.,* 2021).

## Data collection

We studied 11 French firms operating in different sectors (telecommunications, banking, tourism, insurance, electronics, and restoration). To maintain data privacy and respect the identities of the companies surveyed, we assigned a letter to each case: A, B, C, D, and E. The study was conducted over 12 months (April 2020–March 2021) to understand how companies reacted to the disruption generated by the unexpected pandemic crisis, and what organizational solutions were implemented to maintain service continuity.

We identified key operational and strategic choices made and the agility drivers implemented (strategic responsiveness, resource fluidity, and collective unity). By examining the capabilities of SA and analyzing the essence of OR from a processual perspective, this investigation was conducted to uncover participants’ views and better understand how companies achieve effective OR as a result of SA’s core capabilities.

To ensure consistency, an interview script was designed. We used a sample of 26 semi-structured interviews lasting an average of one hour with participants at different organizational levels, including business owners, digital managers, marketing managers, project managers, human resources managers, and customer and investment advisers, among others. Including respondents engaged in various working positions and who operate in cross-functional departments with specific characteristics provides a rich source of information and leads to a more reliable emergent theory (Eisenhardt, 1989).

We first studied the actions and solutions implemented as a first reaction to a new phenomenon and the severe closure instructions imposed by the French government. We based this on comprehensive descriptions of the actions and solutions implemented, the main resources exploited, key organizational changes (task allocation, team rotation, home-working scheduling, etc.), and the impact of these changes on a company’s operations. Second, amid transformations and reconfigurations, we examined what opportunities were identified and how they were seized, the acquisition and embedding of key resources, and the role, commitment, and empowerment of human resources. With an organization as our unit of analysis, we identified, for each case, the key actions, resources, capabilities, and strategic and operational decisions made to maintain and develop SA capabilities to achieve an effective OR. This comprehensive analysis aims to shed light on the coping strategies and mechanisms adopted by these companies, offering insights into crisis management and building OR in uncertain contexts.

## Data analysis

NVivo 10 software was used for the data analyses, which facilitated data processing and allowed for coding flexibility. We systematically used double coding (i.e., inter- and intra-coding) for all interviews that were fully transcribed. We achieved an 80% reliability rate. A corpus of qualitative data was created, and we supported the thematic analysis with verbatim quotes from the interviews.

We also used Gioia’s approach (Gioia *et al.,* 2013; Magnani and Gioia, 2023; Ben Slimane *et al.*, 2024) and developed an analytical framework based on first-order concepts, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions. We adopted this approach to identify and understand actions associated with SA and OR, which are crucial for the reinvention of companies in crisis contexts.

As a first step, we conducted in-depth reviews of interview transcripts and systematically recorded all actions and capabilities reported by participants regarding the effective implementation of SA and OR to address business challenges. This initial analysis, following the example of Gioia *et al.* (2013), aimed to capture a full range of terms used by informants without imposing predetermined categories. Then we examined highlighted text to discern recurring actions and themes, as outlined by Corbin and Strauss (2014). This process enabled us to identify six overarching second-order themes that captured the core capabilities associated with SA and the organizational resilience demonstrated during crises.

To further refine our analysis, in line with the approach proposed by Magnani and Gioia (2023), we merged the data-driven first-order themes with the theory-driven second-order categories. This integration enabled us to distill overarching concepts that capture the essence of SA and OR in crisis management. Finally, we synthesized these capability themes into a coherent data structure diagram, which provided a visual representation of our analytical progression from raw data to thematic insights. This methodological framework facilitated the organization of our results and enabled us to understand how SA and OR operate effectively in times of crisis. The data analysis process is presented in Figure 1.
# Results

The data analysis of this present study identified three critical phases through which companies can leverage SA to enhance their organizational resilience during times of crisis: 1) reorganize operational activities: This phase involves streamlining and adjusting day-to-day operations to improve efficiency and responsiveness to changing conditions, 2) redesign organizational structure: This phase focuses on redefining roles, responsibilities, and processes to ensure that an organization can adapt quickly and effectively to new challenges, and 3) strategy renewal: In this phase, a company reassesses and realigns its long-term strategic goals and directions to better navigate an evolving context and maintain a competitive advantage.

## Reorganizing operational activities

Faced with a crisis, companies have focused their efforts on digital resources to support internal operations and maintain operational efficiency and continuity of service to customers (thereby adapting business operations). Driven by the creation of new applications, platforms, and digital artifacts, companies have improved agility and fluidity in external and internal areas; this is essential for encouraging innovation, enhancing customer service quality, and improving financial performance.

By recognizing the unique nature of a crisis, companies have acknowledged the essential role of reorganizing operational activities in implementing necessary adaptations. Digital transformation has consolidated the prerequisites for 1) developing innovative tools and 2) strengthening collaboration with customers. Internally, digital development has catalyzed the shaping of new organizational practices and the fostering of employee autonomy and efficiency. For example, the use of a platform that decentralizes inbound and outbound calls has enabled staff to be more responsive and available to customers in distress. This close relationship with customers has resulted in two outcomes: 1) offering customized solutions to a current situation, and 2) co-creating innovative services for business recovery.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 — Data analysis structure with Gioia approach</figcaption></figure>

## Reconquiring customers

The crisis generated a widespread climate dominated by strong anxiety and fear. Consumers were faced with uncertainty, wondering about what attitudes to adopt, products to choose, and consumption modes to follow. A variety of resources were mobilized to assist customers, respond reactively to their concerns and complaints, offer personalized solutions, and enable them to develop their autonomy in day-to-day management via digital solutions. Reconquering customers has resulted in two major actions at the core of the process adopted by companies to achieve customer satisfaction. These actions are designed to seize market opportunities by reacquiring unsatisfied competitors’ customers, drawing on customer satisfaction and loyalty, and capitalizing on potential business opportunities. The following statements illustrate these actions:

```
*“We have dedicated a team to support customers,
              understand their difficulties, and propose customized solutions...The feedback of
              customer satisfaction surveys is very positive.”*
          
          Company D, I 10
```

```
*“We have prioritized the processing of high-urgency
              cases and mobilized our teams to be closer to our customers…an action reinforced by
              sophisticated digital tools.”*
          
          Company C, I 8
```

```
*“We have exploited new tools and processes both
              internally and externally to maintain customer relationship management via online
              platforms and chatbots. These tools have allowed us to keep in contact with customers
              and gain visibility.”*
          
          Company A, I 2
```

The verbatim transcriptions above highlight the crucial importance of reassuring and comforting customers in times of crisis. This responsiveness is not only essential for maintaining operational activities but is also fundamental to understanding a new context and identifying solutions tailored to customers’ needs. During a crisis, customers seek reassurance and clear answers from the companies with which they interact. Companies that succeed in offering prompt, relevant support can not only alleviate customer anxiety but also strengthen customer loyalty. This proactive approach fosters a better understanding of customers’ expectations and concerns, enabling companies to develop more targeted, effective strategies to meet new challenges. Moreover, this ability to communicate with customers openly and reassuringly plays a decisive role in companies’ ongoing adaptation to changing environments. By investing in consumer-friendly actions, companies can also gather valuable information to guide strategic decision-making and innovative solutions.

## Prioritizing the use of digital tools

During the COVID-19 crisis, companies maintained their SA by prioritizing the use of new digital tools to address challenges and gain organizational resilience. Such digital empowerment includes leveraging technologies, such as data analytics and other digital tools, to streamline processes, improve remote working capabilities, and ensure continued customer loyalty. For example, the adoption of digital collaboration platforms enabled teams to work effectively from disparate locations, mitigating the disruption caused by physical constraints and lockdowns.

These actions were critical because they strengthened a company’s ability to react quickly to changing market conditions and respond to new threats. By integrating digital tools, companies were able to manage their resources more efficiently and align their supply chains and drive agile solutions in real time, which enhanced their resilience. To cope with the volume of case processing and staff absences, companies modified their operational activities to make them more fluid by implementing new digital tools.

Thus, the implementation of such digital technologies not only met immediate operational needs during the pandemic crisis but also built organizations’ long-term agility and resilience in an uncertain business context:

```
*“For some assignments, we have streamlined
              processes and reduced the volume of tasks by using new digital tools [...]. The IT
              teams have developed in record time new digital solutions that enabled internal
              collaboration and maintained contact with customers.”*
          
          Company E, I 14
```

```
*“The company in this specific period of COVID-19
              added pressure on digital because the stores are closed. Therefore, all the budgets
              that used to be allocated to in-store communication have been**converted to digital communication. Today, digital is the first
              issue on which we are challenged.”*
          
          Company K, I 26
```

In times of pandemic crisis, companies that have adopted digital tools have demonstrated their ability to react quickly to unexpected challenges. Such responsiveness has enabled them to gain a competitive edge by focusing more effectively on customer needs and optimizing their operations to cope with unforeseen changes. This agility has ensured business continuity and fostered resilience, enabling them to thrive in an evolving crisis context.

## Redesigning organizational structure

In response to the multifaceted challenges caused by disruptions, lockdowns, and evolving customer support requirements, many companies have adopted new digital tools, reconfigured processes and methods, and strengthened team empowerment and cohesion. The adoption of new digital tools has facilitated team collaboration, provided opportunities to acquire new knowledge, and created learning opportunities. By investing in digital training, employees have been able to develop, integrate, and exploit new capabilities, which are essential for working more effectively.

## Reinforcing team cohesion

To ensure the continuity of their activities during the crisis, companies relied on team cohesion and real-time communication between employees to maintain constant productivity internally and to respond rapidly to customer requirements externally. This new work context requires the use of new digital tools that facilitate communication and collaboration between team members and ensure operational efficiency when dealing with emergencies and day-to-day operations. Access to these technologies was essential for team members, enabling them to stay flexible while ensuring effective communication and collaboration.

In times of disruption and uncertainty, all team members must work toward a common goal. This collective commitment not only strengthens the team’s ability to adapt but also significantly promotes the sharing of knowledge and expertise, fostering a collaborative and resilient organizational mindset. Moreover, companies have made significant efforts to leverage new digital resources and encourage cross-functional operation teamwork, knowledge, and skills to fulfill customers’ expectations and enhance operational performance.

The companies we investigated developed a conducive context for human resource dedication and involvement. Employees showed their commitment and willingness to overcome the barriers of uncertainty and capitalize on the opportunities that emerged from COVID-19’s complex situation. Therefore, it is crucial to cultivate the ability to quickly and efficiently absorb and exploit information collectively at the company level. This ability is essential for generating innovative ideas and implementing new products, services, and processes. This crisis response not only fosters a dynamic climate of sustained progress but also ensures that an organization remains agile and competitive in a challenging context:

```
*“The cohesion of the teams is outstanding. All
              profiles at different levels have contributed. Human and professional values have been
              stressed by this crisis, as our customers confirm.”*
          
          Company B, I 5
```

The interviewees’ statements highlight how companies have responded to overcome the pandemic crisis by capitalizing on internal knowledge and capabilities through team cohesion and commitment, improving problem-solving capabilities, operational coordination, and reallocation of internal skills. To enhance service flexibility and responsiveness, companies have reinforced their working environments by providing useful information, ensuring transparency, and sharing expertise. These actions have created a “bond” between team members and fostered a collective team orientation. Such an orientation has led to the co-creation of innovative solutions and enabled team members to act with autonomy when developing new processes and services, thus responding effectively to customers’ expectations.

## Reconfiguring processes and methods

During the COVID-19 pandemic, companies were forced to reconfigure processes and methods to rethink their organizational structures, enabling them to meet unprecedented challenges. This reconfiguration required a complete assessment and redesign of existing workflows, communication channels, and decision-making frameworks to adapt to remote work and ensure business continuity. By decentralizing decision-making and empowering cross-functional teams, companies have improved their responsiveness and adaptability. Also, the implementation of digital tools for virtual collaboration and project management has facilitated coordination and productivity within geographically dispersed teams.

These strategic adjustments have enabled companies to adapt quickly to changing market demands and disruptive environments. Consequently, this proactive restructuring reinforced SA, enabling companies to respond rapidly and effectively to new challenges, and fostered OR by creating robust support systems that could successfully navigate future crises. This is how the COVID-19 crisis catalyzed companies to continue developing and consolidating their organizational cores, thereby achieving stability and competitiveness. Among the changes implemented are the redefinition of tasks and responsibilities, the reallocation of teams to address most urgent assignments, and the adoption of a hybrid work organization that combines face-to-face and virtual work.

In other words, these major changes concerned the development of new processes, integration of advanced digital resources, and designing innovative organizational methods, as mentioned by certain interviewees:

```
“*We have designed flexible and responsive processes
              based mainly on information search, resource mobilization, harmonization of operations
              between the different units, and business development.*”
          
          Company A, I 1
```

```
*“We have integrated a new solution that allows us
              to centralize the modifications made on the client file and to make them visible to
              the employees in real time. By doing so, we were able to be more efficient and gain in
              productivity, essentially during this critical phase.”*
          
          Company C, I 8
```

The companies surveyed revealed a variety of strategies in response to the COVID-19 crisis, illustrating the diversity of approaches adopted to navigate this difficult period. SA was crucial, enabling companies to reconfigure their methods and processes to better cope with the adversities of the crisis. For instance, some companies quickly shifted their focus to online commerce, reallocating resources to strengthen their sales and customer service capabilities via digital platforms. Another example is about how a leading company operating in electronic equipment and faced with the closure of its physical stores invested heavily in the development of its e-commerce site and the introduction of express delivery services.

This reconfiguration maintained sales and expanded customer bases by reaching new market segments. However, simply reconfiguring processes is not enough. To be fully effective, this transformation must be coupled with a proactive mobilization of resources and a strong team commitment. For example, an insurance company established accelerated training programs for its employees, enabling them to quickly master the digital tools required for teleworking and virtual interactions with customers. At the same time, psychological support measures were introduced to maintain team morale and commitment in the face of teleworking challenges and uncertainty.

It is essential for companies to strengthen their organizational capabilities and human resources, which are fundamental to improving their resilience. For example, one telecommunications company reorganized its supply chains to diversify and reduce reliance on single supplier while investing in flexible production technologies to better adapt to fluctuations in demand. Also, skills development initiatives were carried out to prepare employees for more flexible, adaptive roles. These concrete examples illustrate how SA, combined with the effective management of human and organizational resources, can strengthen the resilience of companies in the face of crisis.
# Strategy renewal

To respond to unpredictable changes and new challenges, the companies examined revealed a remarkable ability to design innovative services, products, and strategies and to introduce new business models via a continuous process of organizational transformation. The data analysis highlighted that it is crucial for companies to align their organizational functioning, processes, and resources with external dynamics. This synchronization enables them to redefine their strategic directions and provide products and services adapted to changing customer expectations and market conditions. For example, some companies have developed co-creation initiatives with their customers to design new products, thus directly integrating customers’ feedback and needs into the development process. Others have adopted new technologies to optimize their operations and offer customized solutions. Also, many companies have set up dedicated innovation and business intelligence teams, enabling them to monitor emerging trends and react quickly to market changes.

## Rethinking strategic activities

Firms’ initiatives to implement new actions, resources, and structures in line with risks and opportunities arising from an uncertain environment strengthened firms to adapt, reinvent, and transform themselves through strategic attentiveness to craft values, fulfill customers’ new requirements, and ensure long-term survival. The accumulation, development, and exploitation of varied resources and knowledge enabled companies to create new methods and practices and to foster both operational and strategic transformations.

Our data analyses revealed that to be ahead of the competition and to exhibit fast responses to sudden changes and customers’ requirements, certain firms decided to explore new strategic areas and rethink organizational structures, functions, and management practices that promote the development of innovative ways to leverage existing areas of expertise:

```
“*The proximity we have developed with our customers
              in times of crisis has enabled our customers’ advisers to offer new forms of service
              tailored to new needs.”*
          
          Company D, I 10
```

Data analyses revealed that companies effectively managing resources and distinctive knowledge were able to redefine their organizational structures, thereby reinforcing the process of strategic transformation and renewal and demonstrating greater SA. This achievement is an essential prerequisite for strengthening an organization’s resilience, which was critical for effectively managing the pandemic crisis. Furthermore, it provides an organization with the capacity to remain proactive and responsive to anticipating and meeting future challenges.

This OR is central for ensuring sustainable adaptability and strategic responsiveness in an increasingly uncertain and challenging environment:

```
“We have focused mainly on three resources, human, digital, and financial; we
              cannot sustain the business without exploiting these resources in such
              circumstances.”
          
          Company A, I 2
```

```
“Our main assets to face this crisis are the mobilization of human resources, the
              development of digital assets, and the availability of financial resources.”
          
          Company E, I 15
```

Conversely, companies lacking these capabilities experienced more difficulties since they were poorly equipped to respond to the rapid, complex changes brought by the crisis. This resulted in operational inefficiencies and inappropriate strategic decisions, ultimately hampering their ability to cope with the pandemic. Some companies adopted a non resilient attitude, engaging mainly in inappropriate responses and failing to achieve the SA required for OR.

This observation is clearly highlighted in the following statement:

```
*“It is difficult to predict how the environment
              will evolve. Therefore, it is essential to focus on those aspects that can be
              controlled.”*
          
          Company F, I 16
```

Thus, the unexpected nature of the pandemic crisis had varied consequences for companies, revealing distinct levels of OR and adaptability. Our data analyses revealed that Company F suffered from structural rigidity that prevented it from reacting promptly to the disruptions caused by the pandemic. Unlike other companies, which were able to rapidly reallocate their resources and adjust their strategies in line with new market realities, Company F remained constrained by obsolete processes and inefficient management of human and material resources. This company’s fragility, coupled with its lack of adaptability, significantly hampered its strategic capability and, consequently, its OR.

## Renewing business models

The disruption caused by the pandemic required rapid and adaptive responses to internal and external constraints, leading to significant strategic new orientations. To overcome the crisis, the studied companies reshaped their strategic market focus and identified new market segments. This involved the development of new service lines and activities designed to diversify product portfolios and meet emerging consumer needs. For example, companies operating in the tourism and hospitality sector were severely affected by travel restrictions and shifted to offering local experiences and accommodation packages remotely.

The crisis has challenged companies to rapidly rethink their product or service offerings, their production methods, and even their entire business models to respond to fast-changing market demands. This SA is crucial for maintaining competitiveness and attractiveness in an uncertain business context.

Our interviewees reported that the pandemic crisis was not perceived as a threat but rather as an opportunity to revisit their strategic visions and anticipate new growth horizons over the medium and long term. Furthermore, they highlighted that resilient firms are those who can anticipate and cope with unexpected events and react by implementing change initiatives:

```
“*The crisis has brought out new needs identified by
              our teams, so we’ve expanded existing ranges and developed new service
              lines.”*
          
          Company E, I 1
```

```
*“We have adapted our services according to the
              needs of our clients to capitalize on our achievement. Because of the crisis, new
              insurance products have been developed.”*
          
          Company C, I 7
```

```
*“I’ve seen the emergence of artificial
              intelligence, augmented reality, and new social networks, so it’s evolving very
              quickly. Thus, we must always challenge ourselves and progress.”*
          
          Company I, I 22
```

From the above statements, it seems that this proactive approach has facilitated the introduction of innovative business models, such as online subscriptions for products traditionally sold in-store or a move to e-commerce platforms for sectors previously dominated by physical sales. As a result, OR is central to improving future risk management, enabling companies to survive and, ultimately, detecting new opportunities from unexpected events.
# Discussion

In this study, we examined how SA enhanced OR during crises in 11 French companies, intending to identify key phases essential to managing unexpected events. Prior theoretical frameworks suggest that achieving SA at the organizational level requires the implementation of three essential capabilities: resource fluidity, collective unity, and strategic sensitivity (Mata *et al.,* 2023; De Diego and Almadovar, 2021; Shams *et al.,* 2021). However, the body of literature on OR in crisis contexts identifies three key capabilities: anticipation, coping, and adaptation (Hollands *et al.,* 2023; Duchek, 2020; Darendeli *et al.,* 2020). Despite such insightful findings, the operationalization of resilient companies remains under-researched, highlighting a significant gap regarding how SA enables OR in times of crisis.

The present study aimed to fill this gap by exploring the interplay between SA and OR, thereby contributing to a better understanding of their potential synergistic influence in managing crises. The findings highlighted that, in times of crisis, this learning should be processed following three main steps. Our findings highlight the clear relationship between both concepts, particularly in the area of risk management. The first manifestation of this relationship was in operational responses that prioritized the adjustments needed to cope with the unprecedented nature of the crisis. Over time, SA evolved to encompass process restructuring and organizational design, reconfiguring working methods, and strengthening synergies between teams. Consequently, faced with challenges such as those posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, an adaptive approach to crisis management and business continuity became essential. During the pandemic’s trajectory, which spanned several months, initial responses were essentially operational and short term. Our study provides a detailed analysis of how organizations managed to cope with these challenges by implementing two phases of the SA process: resource fluidity and collective unity. Resource fluidity was evident in the prioritization and use of digital tools central to maintaining operations during disruptions. Simultaneously, collective unity had become increasingly essential. Thus, organizations actively focused on strengthening team cohesion and fostering a sense of solidarity and common purpose among employees, despite challenges posed by physical distance and heightened uncertainty. By balancing the effective reallocation of resources with efforts to strengthen interpersonal relationships and team cohesion, companies were able to meet immediate challenges while building the foundations for long-term recovery and growth.

The manifestation of strategic sensitivity as the third phase of the SA process can be identified through the rethinking of strategic activities and the reinvention of business models. This transformation has enabled the companies under study to renew their strategies and bounce forward in times of crisis. In strategic terms, this phase is reflected in organizations’ capacity to reassess their strategic activities and critically innovate their business models. Such an approach has allowed these companies to respond to crises with resilience and foresight, driving them toward sustainable growth rather than merely returning to their pre-crisis positions.

Another finding revealed that the companies had shown that although some were significantly affected by the crisis, others were more strategically agile to recover and grow through rapid responses, reallocation of resources, and innovative solutions. In unpredictable contexts, firms build a strong OR through a combination of agile tactics, enabling them to deal with uncertainty (Darendeli *et al.,* 2020; Sharma*et al.,* 2020). The results are consistent with previous works (Ivory and Brooks, 2018; Shams *et al.,*2021): Firms should have a meta-capability built on the three pillars of collective unity, market sensing, and resource fluidity to sustain an efficient SA that leads to OR. SA capabilities are essential to implement the OR process and to build OR capabilities for overcoming crises and enacting change.

It is important to note that the three-stage process of SA dimensions is not strictly sequential, and can operate simultaneously, depending on the company’s response to the crisis. The results show that while many companies rapidly adapted their operational methods to address immediate challenges, strategic renewal was more gradual, typically occurring months after the first lockdown, once the immediate crisis phase had passed. These companies demonstrated an ability to address both short-term needs and long-term strategic transformation, highlighting the dynamic and iterative nature of OR in times of crisis.

The results also align with studies that have shown that companies that implement SA through digital resources and platforms are significantly in a better position to cope with uncertainty and take advantage of market opportunities. Therefore, SA enables companies to react quickly to changing situations and develop more innovative solutions, enabling them to become increasingly resilient in challenging environments (Mokline and Ben Abdallah, 2022; Elali, 2021; Almeida *et al.,* 2020; Chroust and Aumayr, 2017). Our study reveals that while many companies focused on coping and adapting to the crisis, a few demonstrated superior OR through anticipatory actions. These companies, by addressing both operational and strategic dimensions simultaneously, were able to foresee the long-term effects of the crisis, particularly after the first lockdown. This proactive stance not only accelerated their recovery but also strengthened their market position in the post-crisis phase, emphasizing the importance of anticipation in achieving greater OR.

By adopting the three-phase process of 1) reorganizing operational activities, 2) redesigning organizational structure, and 3) renewing strategy, the companies we examined embraced a common goal of minimizing the impact of everyday stressful events. This approach illustrates how OR can be achieved (Gölgeci *et al.,* 2020). An essential characteristic of this strategy is the belief that OR can be learned and shaped through positive actions that have been empirically proven to be effective (Förster *et al*., 2023). Engaging in these three phases before, during, or after the COVID-19 crisis can significantly influence companies in terms of mitigating post-traumatic loss, ensuring survival, facilitating adaptation, and fostering growth.

This study contributes to existing research in several ways. First, to the best of our knowledge, no previous work has attempted to examine the relationship between SA and OR. While informative, previous studies presented fragmented results, focusing either on specific sectors and/or companies, and in some cases revealing disparate findings, this present work brings fresh insights and contributes to this literature by identifying a three-phase process characterizing the relationship between SA and OR, as outlined above.

Given these findings, our study provides a comprehensive three-phase process, each comprising two key actions designed to guide organizations in navigating and coping with disruptive events. In Phase 1, the focus is on reacquiring customers and prioritizing the use of digital tools so that companies can maintain customer loyalty and capitalize on technological advances to improve operational efficiency. Phase 2 involves reinforcing team cohesion and reconfiguring processes and methods to foster a collaborative organizational spirit, thereby improving business workflows. Phase 3 consists of rethinking strategic activities and reinventing business models, enabling organizations to adapt to new market circumstances and sustain long-term growth. By implementing these phases, organizations can benefit from an SA capable of strengthening their resilience and thriving in a crisis context.

Finally, this present study examined how the pandemic crisis forced many firms to stop their activities, which led to a significant disruption for most of them. We have provided a theoretical framework that outlines the role of SA in enhancing a company’s resilience during crises. Our research findings suggest that a company’s ability to navigate and continue operations in times of crisis is significantly dependent on its SA to develop OR, which is a critical survival factor (Karman, 2020; Saad *et al.*, 2021; Smith *et al.*, 2024). This conceptual framework suggests how to respond rapidly to a crisis by reorganizing operational activities, aligning resources, and redesigning methods while rethinking strategies to ensure an organization’s ability to respond to changing crisis challenges.

At the managerial level, challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic and lessons learned from this dramatic disaster were perceived as opportunities for firms that have implemented flexible strategies. Our contributions show how managers and policymakers can reduce the impacts of crises at the financial, human, and technological levels to anticipate recovery in a progressive way through the implementation of the above mentioned three-phase process. Managers who implement flexible practices and processes with their team members can rely on a high level of readiness and internal cooperation as key prerequisites for OR in times of crisis. Employees who feel supported, empowered, and deeply involved in organizational goals to overcome a crisis become more creative, share new ideas, and contribute to building innovative solutions for adapting successfully to unexpected events. Therefore, managers should continuously commit their workforces to designing, implementing, and detecting new opportunities for improving OR to cope with the ongoing threat of a crisis.
# Conclusion

This study investigated in depth the relationship between SA and OR in times of crisis. The findings bring new insights to existing studies in the field of strategic management. Based on a qualitative method, we conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with 11 French companies operating in various sectors (i.e., telecommunications, insurance, banking, tourism, hospitality, electronics, and restoration. The results indicate that crisis management caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has generated additional pressure on firms to become more agile and constantly rethink and identify new business opportunities.

The companies surveyed revealed that SA can be achieved in times of crisis, which can enable them to be more resilient. Moreover, the OR practices of these 11 companies were examined through the process-based approach suggested by several authors (Duchek, 2020; Raetze et *al.*, 2022). The findings reveal how SA ultimately nurtures OR. In this sense, the lessons learned from this study of OR and its operationalization via SA capabilities can make a significant contribution to cross-sector companies dealing with unforeseen and risky events. This paper provides a three-phase process resulting from combining the capabilities of the two concepts of SA and OR and enabling a better understanding of organizational behavior that addresses how companies survive and thrive in volatile and disruptive environments.

Despite the aforementioned contributions, this current study has limitations arising from resource and time constraints since the data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. We aimed to diversify the size and sector of the companies surveyed; nevertheless, the sample can be seen as a limitation that paves the way for future work that opens up new directions to be explored.

First, it would be interesting to examine how national resilience can help companies achieve a high level of organizational resilient agility by considering a country as a unit of analysis. Given the companies in our sample, our findings suggest that future work in this area could include companies from different countries. Second, extending the exploration of SA and OR through a qualitative approach, the theoretical framework based on their capabilities is a significant contribution that can be tested quantitatively to identify how companies achieve resilient agility in times of crisis.

Finally, disruptive, and volatile environments offer new opportunities for companies to adapt their behaviors to cope more effectively with disasters. Based on several studies that considered SA to be a connector between absorptive capacity and business performance (Kale *et al.,* 2019), future research could benefit from investigating the role of absorptive capacities, particularly in times of crisis, and the extent to which they are a source of dynamic capabilities to address disasters in agile, resilient ways.

## Références

M. F., Bhatti, S. H., Ferraris, A., & Couturier, J. (2021). The impact of supply chain innovation on competitive advantage in the construction industry: Evidence from a moderated multi-mediation model. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, *162*, 120370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120370

M. F., Basu, S., Munjal, S., Clegg, J., & Shoham, O. B. (2021). Strategic agility, environmental uncertainties and international performance: The perspective of Indian firms. *Journal of World Business*, *56*(4), 101218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2021.101218

I., Arslan, A., Chowdhury, M., Khan, Z., & Tarba, S. Y. (2022). Reimagining global food value chains through effective resilience to COVID-19 shocks and similar future events: A dynamic capability perspective. *Journal of Business Research*, *141*, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.006

F., Santos, J. D., & Monteiro, J. A. (2020). The challenges and opportunities in the digitalization of companies in a post-COVID-19 World. *IEEE Engineering Management Review*, *48*(3), 97-103.

B., Um, K. H., & Lee, H. (2023). The strategic role of firm agility in the relationship between IT capability and firm performance under the COVID-19 outbreak. *Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing*, *38*(5), 1041-1054. DOI: 10.1109/EMR.2020.3013206

K., & Breslin, D. (2021). The COVID‐19 pandemic: what can we learn from past research in organizations and management?. *International Journal of Management Reviews*, *23*(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12237

S., & Koronios, A. (2018). The 5S organizational agility framework: a dynamic capabilities perspective. *International Journal of Organizational Analysis*, *26*(2), 331-342.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2017-1163

K., Laifi, A., & Germain, O. (2024). A relational power perspective on the positional shift of peripheral players in an organisational field: The case of Mediapart in the French press field. *Journal of Business Research*, *173*, 114466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114466

A., Gölgeci, I., Gligor, D. M., & Tatoglu, E. (2021). How do agile organizations contribute to environmental collaboration? Evidence from MNEs in Turkey. *Journal of International Management*, *27*(1), 100711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2019.100711

M., Pereira, V., Vrontis, D., Tarba, S., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Agility and flexibility in international business research: A comprehensive review and future research directions. *Journal of World Business*, *56*(3), 101194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2021.101194

G., & Aumayr, G. (2017). Resilience 2.0: Computer-aided disaster management. *Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering*, *26*, 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-017-5335-7

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). *Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory*. Sage publications.

R., & Bentley, J. (2020). Becoming a resilient organisation: Integrating people and practice in infrastructure services. *International Journal of Sustainable Engineering*, *13*(6), 423-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2020.1750738

I., Hill, T. L., Rajwani, T., & Cheng, Y. (2021). Surviving the Arab Spring: socially beneficial product portfolios and resilience to political shock. *Multinational Business Review*, *29*(4), 522-544. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-11-2019-0156

Diego, E., & Almodóvar, P. (2022). Mapping research trends on strategic agility over the past 25 years: insights from a bibliometric approach. *European Journal of Management and Business Economics*, *31*(2), 219-238. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-05-2021-0160

Diego Ruiz, E., Almodóvar, P., & del Valle, I. D. (2023). What drives strategic agility? Evidence from a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA). *International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal*, *19*(2), 599-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-022-00820-7

Y. (2020). Fostering strategic agility: How individual executives and human resource practices contribute. *Human Resource Management Review*, *30*(1), 100693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100693

Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. *Long range planning*, *43*(2-3), 370-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006

S. (2020). Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. *Business research*, *13*(1), 215-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7

K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. *Academy of management review*, *14*(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

W. (2021). The importance of strategic agility to business survival during corona crisis and beyond. *International Journal of Business Ethics and Governance*, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.51325/ijbeg.v4i2.64

C., Orlandi, L. B., Zardini, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2023). Technological orientation and organizational resilience to Covid-19: The mediating role of strategy’s digital maturity. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, *188*, 122288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122288

C., Duchek, S., Geithner, S., & Krägler, M. (2023). Developing an integrated framework of healthcare leaders’ resilience. *Review of Managerial Science*, *17*(5), 1765-1788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00572-2

H., Chen, Y., Xu, Y., & Liu, C. C. (2016). Resilience-oriented critical load restoration using microgrids in distribution systems. *IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid*, *7*(6), 2837-2848. DOI: 10.1109/TSG.2016.2550625

A., Martín-Rojas, R., & García-Morales, V. J. (2024). The key role of innovation and organizational resilience in improving business performance: A mixed-methods approach. *International Journal of Information Management*, *77*, 102777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102777

D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. *Organizational research methods*, *16*(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience: Airline industry responses to September 11. *The Journal of applied behavioral science*, *42*(3), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306286466

Gölgeci, I., Assadinia, S., Kuivalainen, O., & Larimo, J. (2019). Emerging-market firms’ dynamic capabilities and international performance: The moderating role of institutional development and distance. *International Business Review*, *28*(6), 101593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101593Get rights and content

I., Arslan, A., Dikova, D., & Gligor, D. M. (2020). Resilient agility in volatile economies: institutional and organizational antecedents. *Journal of Organizational Change Management*, *33*(1), 100-113. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2019-0033

M., Magnani, G., & Denicolai, S. (2024). Transform to adapt or resilient by design? How organizations can foster resilience through business model transformation. *Journal of Business Research*, *171*, 114359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114359

N. N., & Lussier, B. (2020). Managing the sales force through the unexpected exogenous COVID-19 crisis. *Industrial Marketing Management*, *88*, 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.005

L., Haensse, L., & Lin-Hi, N. (2024). The how and why of organizational resilience: a mixed-methods study on facilitators and consequences of organizational resilience throughout a crisis. *The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science*, *60*(3), 449-493. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863231165785

A., Purvis, L., & Giannoccaro, I. (2021). A meta-analytical review of antecedents and outcomes of firm resilience. *Journal of Business Research*, *135*, 408-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.048

S. B., & Brooks, S. B. (2018). Managing corporate sustainability with a paradoxical lens: Lessons from strategic agility. *Journal of business ethics*, *148*, 347-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3583-6

V., Mahdiraji, H. A., Busso, D., & Yahiaoui, D. (2022). Towards agility in international high-tech SMEs: Exploring key drivers and main outcomes of dynamic capabilities. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, *174*, 121272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121272

P., Sarala, R. M., Tarba, S. Y., & Weber, Y. (2015). The role of strategic agility in acquisitions. *British Journal of Management*, *26*(4), 596-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12115

D., Samara, E. T., & Theodorakioglou, Y. (2023). Multiple organizational capabilities for effective business model innovation and increased performance. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2023-0065

E., Aknar, A., & Başar, Ö. (2019). Absorptive capacity and firm performance: The mediating role of strategic agility. *International Journal of Hospitality Management*, *78*, 276-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.09.010

M. M. (2020). The triple-edged sword of COVID-19: understanding the use of digital technologies and the impact of productive, disruptive, and destructive nature of the pandemic. *Information Systems Management*, *37*(4), 310-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1820634

A. (2020). Flexibility, coping capacity and resilience of organizations: between synergy and support. *Journal of Organizational Change Management*, *33*(5), 883-907. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2019-0305

A. (2020). Impact of personnel creativity on achieving strategic agility: The mediating role of knowledge sharing. *Management Science Letters*, *10*(10), 2293-2300. doi: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.3.006

J., Lee, H. W., & Chung, G. H. (2024). Organizational resilience: leadership, operational and individual responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. *Journal of Organizational Change Management*, *37*(1), 92-115. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2023-0160

S. M. (2022). Navigating the New Normal: Which firms have adapted better to the COVID-19 disruption?. *Technovation*, *110*, 102368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102368

A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C. A. M., Prochotta, A., ... & Berger, E. S. (2020). Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. *Journal of Business Venturing Insights*, *13*, e00169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00169

M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: A review of influential publications and a research agenda. *International Journal of Management Reviews*, *19*(1), 4-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12076

G., & Gioia, D. (2023). Using the Gioia Methodology in international business and entrepreneurship research. *International Business Review*, *32*(2), 102097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.102097

M. N., Martins, J. M., & Inácio, P. L. (2023). Impact of absorptive capacity on project success through mediating role of strategic agility: Project complexity as a moderator. *Journal of Innovation & Knowledge*, *8*(1), 100327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100327

S., Koporcic, N., Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M., Kadic-Maglajlic, S., Bagherzadeh, M., & Islam, N. (2021). Business-to-business open innovation: COVID-19 lessons for small and medium-sized enterprises from emerging markets. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, *170*, 120883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120883

A., Hagen, B., Riccardi, M. P., Sotti, F., & Settembre-Blundo, D. (2021). Thriving, not just surviving in changing times: How sustainability, agility and digitalization intertwine with organizational resilience. *Sustainability*, *13*(4), 2052. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042052

B., & Ben Abdallah, M. A. (2022). The mechanisms of collective resilience in a crisis context: The case of the ‘COVID-19’crisis. *Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management*, *23*(1), 151-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00293-7

M. O. (2017). Strategic agility and competitive advantage: Exploration of the ontological, epistemological and theoretical underpinnings. *British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade*, *16*(1), 1-13. DOI: 10.9734/BJEMT/2017/30979

F. C., & Freeman, S. (2021). Strategic agility, dynamic relational capability and trust among SMEs in transitional economies. *Journal of World Business*, *56*(3), 101175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101175

V., Mellahi, K., Temouri, Y., Patnaik, S., & Roohanifar, M. (2019). Investigating dynamic capabilities, agility and knowledge management within EMNEs-longitudinal evidence from Europe. *Journal of Knowledge Management*, *23*(9), 1708-1728.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2018-0391

S., Duchek, S., Maynard, M. T., & Wohlgemuth, M. (2022). Resilience in organization-related research: An integrative conceptual review across disciplines and levels of analysis. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, *107*(6), 867. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000952

J., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2020). Approaches for resilience and antifragility in collaborative business ecosystems. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, *151*, 119846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119846

M., Saccani, N., Kowalkowski, C., Paiola, M., & Adrodegari, F. (2020). Navigating disruptive crises through service-led growth: The impact of COVID-19 on Italian manufacturing firms. *Industrial Marketing Management*, *88*, 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.017

M. H., Hagelaar, G., Van Der Velde, G., & Omta, S. W. F. (2021). Conceptualization of SMEs’ business resilience: A systematic literature review. *Cogent Business & Management*, *8*(1), 1938347. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1938347

S. C., Liguori, E. W., & Garvey, E. (2023). How digitalization reinvented entrepreneurial resilience during COVID-19. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, *189*, 122398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122398

R., Vrontis, D., Belyaeva, Z., Ferraris, A., & Czinkota, M. R. (2021). Strategic agility in international business: A conceptual framework for “agile” multinationals. *Journal of International Management*, *27*(1), 100737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100737

O. (2020). Organizational resilience: antecedents, consequences, and practical implications–for managers and change leaders. In *Research in organizational change and development* (Vol. 28, pp. 127-158). Emerald Publishing Limited. eISBN: 978-1-83909-083-7

A., & Borah, S. B. (2020). Covid-19 and domestic violence: an indirect path to social and economic crisis. *Journal of Family Violence*, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00188-8

D. A., & Williams, T. A. (2023). Different response paths to organizational resilience. *Small Business Economics*, *61*(1), 23-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00689-4

C., Rondi, E., De Massis, A., & Nordqvist, M. (2024). Rising every time we fall: Organizational fortitude and response to adversities. *Journal of Management*, *50*(5), 1865-1910. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231164969

M., Suleyman, O., Gotlib, M., & Lubart, T. (2020). Who is agile? An investigation of the psychological antecedents of workforce agility. *Global Business and Organizational Excellence*, *39*(6), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22055

W., & Junge, S. (2023). Unlocking the recipe for organizational resilience: A review and future research directions. *European Management Journal*, *41*(6), 1086-1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.03.002

D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. *California Management Review*, *58*(4), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13

E. R., Serger, S. S., Axelsson, T., & Andersson, M. (2024). Transformation and resilience in times of change: A historical perspective. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, *206*, 123558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123558

S., Castiglione, S., Audet, L. A., Desmarais, M., Horace, M., & Peláez, S. (2021). Conducting qualitative research to respond to COVID-19 challenges: Reflections for the present and beyond. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods*, *20*, 16094069211009679. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211009679

Y., & Lafuente, E. (2019). The increased international propensity of serial entrepreneurs demonstrating ambidextrous strategic agility: A precursor to international marketing agility. *International Marketing Review*, *36*(2), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2018-0015

S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. *Journal of Business Research*, *118*, 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.057

T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. *Academy of Management Annals*, *11*(2), 733-769. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0134

K. J., Tseng, M. L., Chiu, A. S., & Lim, M. K. (2017). Achieving competitive advantage through supply chain agility under uncertainty: A novel multi-criteria decision-making structure. *International Journal of Production Economics*, *190*, 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.027

N., Golgeci, I., Haapanen, L., Ali, I., & Arslan, A. (2022). The role of dynamic capabilities and strategic agility of B2B high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises during COVID-19 pandemic: Exploratory case studies from Finland. *Industrial Marketing Management*, *105*, 502-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.07.006

N., Khan, H., Donbesuur, F., Khan, Z., & Rajwani, T. (2024). Grand challenges and emerging market small and medium enterprises: The role of strategic agility and gender diversity. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, *41*(2), 473-500. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12661

N. U., Shamim, S., Zeng, J., Awan, U., Chromjakova, F., Akhtar, P., & Orel, M. (2023). Avoiding crisis-driven business failure through digital dynamic capabilities. B2B distribution firms during the COVID-19 and beyond. *Industrial Marketing Management*, *113*, 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.05.015