## 1 Introduction  
Contemporary business environments are becoming more volatile, which can be explained by the turbulent and unpredictable environments in which organizations operate [1]. The discussion of whether organizations must focus on implementing paradigms and enhancing their capabilities to better adapt to unexpected circumstances started in the early 1990s [2]. The concept of agility emerged in this discussion as a proposed solution for responding rapidly to unexpected changes. As a global construct definition, agility is defined as an entity's ability to respond and react to environmental changes in a rapid and effective manner [3]. However, the discussion on agility constructs has its foundations in the manufacturing industry. The first agility construct in the management field came from the IACOCCA Institute of Lehigh University, where agile manufacturing was defined as the new emerging manufacturing paradigm that would replace mass production and depicted the common infrastructure needed for agile manufacturing enterprises [4]. This work was later expanded by [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [5], where the definition of agile competitors expanded to general organizations and enterprises of any field. Organizational agility was originally defined as a manufacturing system paradigm with capabilities to meet the rapidly changing needs of the market-place [6]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [7] expanded on this definition and elaborated a theoretical model for organizational agility, focusing on four dimensions: responsiveness, competency, flexibility, and speed. Researchers have studied this model with structured questionnaires to evaluate organizational agility in service sectors outside of manufacturing [8,9]. Despite the focus on organizational agility, the paradigm slowly shifted to other organizational aspects, such as workforce agility. [PERSON] et al. [10] applied the dimensions of organizational agility to an empirical study of the agile characteristics of the workforce. Their empirical investigation focused on five dimensions of this construct: intelligence, competency, collaboration, culture, and information systems. The workforce agility construct was then defined, and [PERSON] et al. [2] developed a widely accepted theoretical model that included three dimensions: proactivity, adaptability, and resilience. A later systematic literature from [PERSON] and [PERSON] [11] found 31 relevant instruments used to study workforce agility, with 13 scales based on [PERSON] et al. [2]. This workforce agility model has also seen applications in service industries such as education [12]. A recent model from [PERSON] and [PERSON] [13] includes ten aggregated dimensions from an extensive literature revision on workforce agility: accepting changes, decision-making, creating transparency, collaboration, reflection, user-centricity, iteration, testing, self-organization, and learning. This model resulted in a more robust fit versus the three-dimensional model from [PERSON] et al. [2] and the five-dimensional model of [PERSON] et al. [14]. Despite its successful results, the aggregated model for workforce agility needs further validation in new empirical studies in other sectors outside manufacturing [15]. Other agility constructs stemming from dynamic capabilities have also been discussed. For example, agility has been defined as an organizational capability for efficiently and effectively redistributing resources to value-creating and value-protecting higher-yield activities despite internal or external challenges [16]. Following this paradigm shift to capability, other agility constructs have emerged. Agility has also been examined in the context of supply chains, where supply chain agility was argued to be a firm's supply chain ability to competently counter market changes and satisfy customer demands [17]. However, there is a lack of consensus on the above definitions and the respective construct dimensions and enablers [18; 19].