Abstract
Superior business performance is a central objective of any firm in an unpredictable environment. Organizational agility (OA) constitutes one option for prospering in this environment. Although research confirms a positive effect of OA on business performance, studies show conceptual imprecision. I systematically review and compile previous findings and provide a coherent view of OA. A search in three databases yielded a final sample of 75 articles. From a qualitative analysis, I identify four agility categories: agility drivers, agility enablers, agility capabilities, and agility dimensions. Based on findings from each category, I develop a conceptual map of OA that (i) connects the agility categories and clarifies how they work, and (ii) proposes a framework for the tasks and responsibilities of management within an agile organization. As part of the conceptualization, I also consider the business environment and the impact of an increased OA level. Viewed from a dynamic capability perspective, changing internal and external agility drivers necessitate the development of agility capabilities. These are realized by a specific set of interdependent enablers. Within this concept of an agile organization, management assumes various responsibilities, in particular, engaging in monitoring and decision-making functions. Conceptual clarity of OA at the organizational level facilitates a systematic development of agility research and provides guidance for practitioners. This article contributes to agility research by integrating insights from various research streams on OA. By highlighting the close ties to strategic management and the derivation of a model to agile management, this research also contributes to strategic management research.
Highlights
Attaining strong competitiveness and superior business performance constitutes a major challenge for firms, especially in a volatile business environment
Other researchers have referred to Organizational agility (OA) as a ‘manufacturing paradigm’ (e.g., Meade and Sarkis 1999; Narasimhan et al 2006; Vázquez‐ Bustelo et al 2007), a ‘performance capability’ (e.g., Cho et al 1996; Sambamurthy et al 2003), a ‘strategic capability’ (e.g., Chakravarty et al 2013), a ‘dynamic capability’ (e.g., Bessant et al 2001; Chakravarty et al 2013), a ‘management strategy’ (e.g., Paixão and Marlow 2003), and even a ‘certain system propert[y]’ (e.g., Giachetti et al 2003)
As OA originated in the manufacturing industry, a significant number of relevant journals can be assigned to operations research and production management
Summary
Attaining strong competitiveness and superior business performance constitutes a major challenge for firms, especially in a volatile business environment. Understanding OA as a paradigm is a representation of a high level of abstraction, with particular characteristics disappearing (Narasimhan et al 2006) This extensive approach bears the risk of confusing definitions and mixing up ’what’ with ’how’ (Narasimhan et al 2006). Is this a difficult foundation for further research into OA, but, differences between two similar concepts are not very clear. The paradigm approach is considered too superficial (Narasimhan et al 2006) and not suited to conceptualization
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
