The Mediating Role of Innovation Capability on the Relationship between Strategic Agility and Organizational Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper analyzes the mediating role of innovation capability on the relationship between strategic agility and firm performance. A sample of 200+ data points were collected via a survey to test the model. Data provided support for hypotheses.
- The paper need to dramatically improve the review of existing research on strategic agility and innovation capability. The paper offers a general discussion of strategic agility and a general discussion of innovation capability, but there is no discussion of strategic agility in the context of innovation. Without such literature review, it's hard to gauge how this paper fits in the literature and what contributions this paper is making.
- The paper's research motivation is not strong. It's already known that innovation capability is positively related to firm performance and that strategic agility is also positively related to firm performance. The paper stated in the supporting arguments for the mediating role that "Clauss et al. (2019b) argued that organizational performance is significantly related to the ability to manage resources to ensure the achievement of effectiveness and harmony with the change in customer requirements. Furthermore, Vaillant and Lafuente(2019) explained that the ability to adapt to the conditions of the work environment and the organizations' possession of resources that are flexible enough and can be reconfigured leads to improving the ability to innovate by relying on a business model that stimulates collective commitment to achieving strategic goals and supporting research and development activities that in turn lead to the provision of a variety sophisticated products and services."--based on these discussions, it's already been proposed that strategic agility leads to innovation capability, so what exactly is the theoretical contribution of the paper?
- The measurement items need to be attached for evaluation.
- The data collection method employed may induce common method bias.
- There are numerous grammatical errors. For example, one can hardly understand what the following is saying due to numerous grammatical error in a single sentence:
According to Sampath and Krishnamoorthy (2017), strategic agility considers as a meta-capability which including assignment appropriate resources to improve and deployment of distinctive competencies among whole organization’s functions, besides maintaining agile by make those competencies dynamically balance over time.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I think this paper treats an interesting subject and it is an important addition to the specific literature.
I would recommend to define and differentiating concepts such as agility, organizational agility, strategic agility in introduction; state why the given issue is topical and important; sum up the findings on the given topic to date; define the aim of the authors of the paper and state how this paper contributes towards resolution of the defined problems.
I would also recommend to add some references to “Discussion” section.
The references in the text do not comply with the requirements of the journal.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The writing of the paper is generally good but is not technically aligned with the instructions. However, after reading the whole paper, I feel that the authors overused the word “and”(Line 26/27, Line 49/51, Line 59) and that the paper has many long sentences which can give readers a hard time understanding. In general (for example line 21-27, 40-45, 47-52,56-60,85-91, 901-99,169-180, 360-365, 389-395, 407-413) should be revised for better understanding. Even if I am not a native English speaker I think that the English should be improved. Please technically correct the language and typos in the lines listed below:
Line 65 “considers” should be replaced with “is considered”
Line 66 “including assignment appropriate” do you mean “assignment of appropriate” ?
Line 75” with the province a competition momentum” I do not understand the phrase
Line 79 “which embodiment the foundation”
Line 82 “the changes that occurring”
Line 83 -85 should be checked technically
Line 199 “Innovation capability according to”
Line 167 “research’shypothesis”
Line 168 “influenceon”
Line 185 “Concluded”
Line 200 “esiscan”
Line 201“influenceon”
Line 205” .as well as”
Line 218 “hypothesiscan”
Line 238 “with a rate of”
Line 239-240 “where both of the food industries corporations and mining
and extraction corporations are the most important corporations operating in this sector.”
Line 246 were suitable?
Line 248 functional variables? Please explain
Line 251 “formed”
Line 263 “the rest sections”
Line 290 “comparative with”
Line 379 “consistent” →“is consistent”
Line 435-436 ” when the difference in the economic levels.”
The other parts of the article provide interesting data and analysis.
Have the authors pre-tested the questionnaire? Who were your target respondents (junior managers, senior managers, because this is important and should be emphasized in the conclusions). When did you collect your data, in which time period? I suggest explaining the whether the statements are based on any specific background. I would advise to specify all the items that refer to fist order constructs. What is the level the author(s) use for statistical significance? This should be added.
I would suggest repeating the hypotheses in the discussion and then discuss whether your results have confirmed or not confirmed your defined hypotheses. Based on the discussion above, innovation capability has a mediating influence on the relationship between strategic agility and organizational performance. More explanation should be provided on which agile strategies the companies could use to create products and services that meet the aspirations of customers. You could also discuss ways in which the corporation's customers can play a role in this situation on the basis of a market pull. Are the surveyed ASE listed companies mainly in private, mixed, or public ownership? If you compare your results to the studies conducted in the private for-profit sector, then you can also conclude that if there are similarities between these two sectors when dealing with strategic agility or abilit innovation capability – this point can also add to the originality of the paper.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My assessment of this paper hasn't changed with this revision. Strategic agility is a higher order capability. Strategic agility can lead to firm performance through many mediators and yes, innovation capability is one of the mediators. However, one of this is new; the authors have not clearly presented how this paper adds to this common understanding. Saying this has not been found among middle east businesses is not sufficient for theoretical or practical contribution. The paper still has numerous grammatical errors to the point of distracting.
Methodology wise, Harmon's single factor is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition to establish that results come from the common method bias and common method bias needs to be carefully controlled through research design. Please see Podsakoff et al for a deep discussion of common method bias.
However, the main issue is contribution. We all know innovation capability will be positively associated with firm performance. And innovation capability requires strategic agility. What exactly is the paper saying that is not already known?
Since the authors failed to address my comments from the prior round, my recommendation is Reject.
Podsakoff, Philip M.; MacKenzie, Scott B.; Jeong-Yeon Lee; Podsakoff, Nathan P. "Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies", Journal of Applied Psychology. Oct2003, Vol. 88 Issue 5, p879. 25p.
Author Response
Dear professor
Hope you are fine. first of all , i would like to thank you for the comments which have improved the research quality. I did my best regarding your comment, hope to be accepted.
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have accepted the majority of suggestions and have modified the paper. Minor channges are still recommended- pls redefine for clarity / correct for accurateness -the phrases marked in yellow in the attached version. The paper is still not technically aligned with the instructions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Professor
Hope to be fine. I would like to thank you for your comments which have improved the research quality. I did my best. hope to be accepted.
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
