DQ - Strategic Planning

Strategic Agility: A State of the Art INTRODUCTION TO THE S PECIAL S ECTION ON S TRATEGIC A GILITY Yaakov Weber Shlomo Y. Tarba I n a chaotic environment in which markets emerge, collide, split, evolve, and die, one of the primary determinants of a firm’s success is strategic agility, the ability to remain flexible in facing new developments, to continuously adjust the company’s strategic direction, and to develop innovative ways to create value. The competitive landscape has been shifting in recent years more than ever.

Globalization, rapid technological change, codification of knowledge, the internet, talent and employee mobility, increased rates of knowledge transfer, imitation, changes in customer tastes, and the obsolescence of products and business models have all caused a turbulent environment and accelerated changes and disruptions. These trends are expected to continue, producing ever more rapid and unpredictable changes.

Current concepts such as sustained competitive advantage, resource-based view, and strategic planning have been deemed vague, tautological, and inadequate for companies to cope with the rate and complexity of environmental and market changes.

1There are tensions between formal processes of strategic planning and opportunistic strategic agility. Strategic planning has been criticized for preparing plans for tomorrow based on yesterday’s actions, concepts, and tools. Although stra- tegic planning can help in specific situations, it usually creates an inertia that prevents fast adaptation when circumstances change or market discontinuities occur.

There is an agreement on the importance of strategic agility in light of com- plex managerial challenges such as dynamic environment, globalization, accelerating rate of innovation, and mergers and acquisitions (as mentioned by Jack Welch). 2 Strategic agility requires inventing new business models and new categories rather than rearranging old products and categories. To cope with growing strategic discontinuities and disruptions, scholars have suggested the creation of strategically agile companies, including new ways for managing business transformation and CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 56, NO. 3 SPRING 2014 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 5 renewal, developing dynamic capabilities, creating imitation abilities, maintaining a high level of orga- nizational flexibility and ambidexterity, developing learning and knowledge transfer skills, using adap- tive corporate culture, devising post-acquisition integration approaches, and more. 3While the con- cept of strategic agility was introduced about two decades ago, the concept remains ill defined, and relatively little has been done in terms of specifica- tion and operationalization of the measures.

Strategic agility is not about one particular change that an organization deals with—for instance, as a response to a major threat or crisis. Instead, strategic agility implies that a firm possesses a constant ability to effectively change its course of action in order to sustain its competitive advantages. 4Agile organiza- tions have the ability to initiate continuous renewal that includes adapting exist- ing competencies to an ever-changing environment and simultaneously reconfiguring themselves in order to survive and thrive for the long term. 5 Characteristics (and Considerations) of Strategic Agility While the concept of strategic agility has received increasing attention, it has neither received consistent treatment nor clear articulation of its effects on a firm’s performance. Instead, strategic agility has remained an elusive term with many definitions across various situations. However, some common themes have emerged in the last two decades. First, strategic agility involves a set of actions taken by an organization that operates in an environment characterized by rapid and unpredict- able change. Agile organizations are those firms that successfully adapt to this disrup- tive environment. 6Second, strategic agility requires changes that are different from other regular and routine types of changes. The changes that result from strategic agility are specified as continuous, systematic variations in an organization’sprod- ucts, processes, services, and structures. 7The intensity and variety of these changes are high, thus agile organizations are those that demonstrate high flexibility. 8Third, speed is needed to sense the environmental changes and to adequately respond. 9 Therefore, strategic agility requires a significant investment of resources to maintain the high levels of flexibility and speed necessary to be able to respond to sudden envi- ronmental threats and opportunities.

High flexibility is an increasingly valuable core competence of the firm in gen- eral, and of interorganizational partnerships in particular. 10 The importance of high flexibility lies not only in the existing products and services, but also in the overall organizational design. It can reduce cost and difficulty in adaptive coordination, thereby increasing the strategic agility of the firm. 11 Finally, adopting modular archi- tectures, which are at the heart of strategic agility, leads to changes not only in the nature of the technological work performed in an organization, but also in the kinds of knowledge assets the organization creates, the way learning occurs at both individ- ual and organizational levels, and the human resource characteristics of the organisa- tion. 12 Thus in order to attain strategic agility, it is important for the organizations to Yaakov Weber is a professor of management at the School of Business Administration, College of Management, Rishon Lezion, Israel, and president of the strategic management consulting firm Strategy, Implementation, Results.

ShlomoY.TarbaisaLecturerinStrategic Management at Management School, The University of Sheffield, UK.

Strategic Agility: A State of the Art 6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 56, NO. 3 SPRING 2014 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU develop the key capabilities needed to accelerate the renewal and transformation of the existing business models. 13 Exploration and Exploitation Strategic agility consists of dual major capabilities. The first capability is emphasized by leadership: sensing the direction for a needed change and putting together the right resources for strategy execution. The second capability pertains to organizational design that includes the necessary structural adaptation and mechanisms to implement the course of action. However, neither is sufficient on its own, and it is crucial that both of them complement each in order to enable enduring strategic agility.

Strategic agility includes both the ability to identify and sense major opportu- nities and threats as well as to respond as needed to such environmental surprises.

Therefore, we define strategic agility as the ability of management to constantly and rapidly sense and respond to a changing environment by intentionally making strategic moves and consequently adapting the necessary organizational configura- tion for successful implementation.

One of the important examples of strategic agility refers to devising and applying a post-acquisition integration approach in M&A deals. A report on M&As produced by the Boston Consulting Group 14 showed that the widely held assumptions about M&A are actually based on unrepresentative averages derived invariably from studies originating from particular industries and relatively narrow time frames. Moreover, this approach has fueled a dangerous“one-size-fits-all” approach to M&As, contributing to their persistently high failure rate. In addition, as highlighted by a Deloitte report on M&As, 15 sometimes the need to move rapidly is essential throughout the implementation of the M&A process, but the speed of post-merger integration must be balanced against other considerations. On some issues, it is advisable to move deliberately; on others, however, more trenchant action may be necessary, depending on a variety of factors such as strategic fit, synergy potential, and cultural differences between amalgamating entities.

Oftentimes, a high level of post-acquisition integration may be required to realize the much-anticipated benefits of the acquisitions. 16 However, a high level of integration may eventually result in cultural clashes, destruction of the knowledge- based resources of the acquired firm due to senior management and key employee turnover, and disruption of organizational routines. 17 There is a clear trade-off between levels of applied integration and exploited synergy. High levels of integration may be needed to exploit high levels of synergy, but a high level of integration may cause intense culture clash and human resource problems that can destroy the value of the acquired firm and increase costs to an extent that offsets the benefits expected from the merger. The reason for the poor performance of acquiring companies can be the failure to adopt the right post- acquisition integration approach required in each individual case of an M&A. 18 Another interesting example of strategic agility involves the application of HR practices by the acquiring firms while coping with cross-cultural situations Strategic Agility: A State of the Art CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 56, NO. 3 SPRING 2014 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 7 and their impact on development of post-acquisition integration capabilities.

While HR practices are significantly associated with M&A performance, these rela- tionships are complex and vary across different countries. While there are some similarities between M&As in general, there are still substantial differences in the approaches taken by the acquiring entities. The effect of HR practices on M&A performance accentuates the need to match the acquiring firm’s nationality to the post-acquisition training methods, cross-cultural communication, and the autonomy granted to acquirer HR managers. For instance, acquirer managers and employees coming from a culture of high power distance (acceptance of sta- tus differences between instructor/manager and trainees) and strong uncertainty avoidance (unwillingness to take risks and try new approaches) are likely to per- form better in training programs that rely more heavily on structured and passive learning techniques, such as reading assignments and lectures. Yet, employees coming in with a cultural background that emphasizes a culture of weak uncertainty avoidance and low power distance are likely to perform better with experiential training techniques, such as on-the-job training. This may explain the positive relationships found between on-the-job training and the performance of Danish acquirers characterized by low uncertainty avoidance and low power distance.

Similarly, it may explain the negative relationship between on-the-job training and the performance of Belgian acquirers characterized by high uncertainty avoidance and high power distance. 19 Ambidexterity Design The strategic agility process entails contradicting efforts and tradeoffs between the use of resources for both routine processes and new business models. This trade- off becomes even more complex when considering that strategic agility has various levels and amounts of change and speed that required high balance and alignment of systems and resources—namely, organizational ambidexterity, which can be sum- marized as an organization’s capacity to address two incompatible (or sometimes mutually exclusive) aims and/or processes equally well. 20 Furthermore, in order to be successful at ambidexterity, leaders must be able to orchestrate the allocation of resources between the old and the new business domains. How they actually do this is seldom addressed in the research on ambidexterity but is at the core of the leader- ship challenge. 21 There has been substantial, though often inconsistent, research on approaches to managing the conflicts between exploration and exploitation. For example, Im and Rai 22 arrived at the conclusion that both explorative and exploit- ative knowledge sharing lead to attaining long-term relationship performance gains. In the same vein, Kauppila 23 underscores the importance of balancing explorative and exploitative partnerships in order to create a sustainable innova- tion pipeline within an organization. Specifically, firms that balance exploration and exploitation—through research and development alliances, collaboration with their prior partners, or by forming marketing and production alliances—achieve better profitability and higher market value. 24 Strategic Agility: A State of the Art 8 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 56, NO. 3 SPRING 2014 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU Research Goals The goal of this special section inCMRon strategic agility is to stimulate other researchers and authors to redefine the spectrum of means and processes available to create and use strategic agility. This section challenges researchers to provide the frameworks that managers can use to integrate, develop, and recon- figure the competences and resources required to deal with hypercompetitive markets. Given markets discontinuities and the rapidly increasing pace of change, companies need new and agile paradigms.

In the first article, Fourné, Jansen, and Mom 25 identify three dynamic capabilities—sensing local opportunities, enacting global complementarities, and appropriating local value—by which MNEs are able to operate successfully across emerging and established markets. They show that for MNEs in these markets, strategic agility is a meta-capability that involves not only allocating sufficient resources to the development and deployment of all three dynamic capabilities, but also staying agile by balancing those capabilities dynamically over time. This balancing act is crucialbecause such firms face unprecedented heterogeneity and unpredictable changes as they operate across established and emerging markets. By reassessing the relative emphasis to be put on each dynamic capability, large global firms regenerate their competitive advantages over time.

In the second article, Brueller, Carmeli, and Drori 26 emphasize that strategic agility is an invaluable capability that enables a firm to turn on a dime without losing momentum, which increases its viability in uncertain, volatile, and rapidly changing environments. In order to create an agile organizational system, firms need to develop three enabling capacities: making sense quickly, making decisions nimbly, and redeploying resources rapidly. This study highlights the differences between platform acquisitions and bolt-on acquisitions, and then describes the scenarios in which the M&As are applicable: diversifying into a new domain, promoting growth in an adjacent product category, or acquiring missing technological knowledge. Their findings show how these different acquisition types can enhance strategic agility in distinct ways along different time horizons. They elucidate how acquisitions, when properly managed, facilitate the gradual accumulation of the capabilities underlying strategic agility.

In the third article, Lewis, Andriopoulos, and Smith 27 explore the paradoxi- cal leadership that enables strategic agility. They encourage leaders to view strategic agility as a continual balancing act as they work through competing demands simultaneously. This study suggests that leaders must encourage“paradoxical thinking,”in which a tension is identified, its contradictory elements and their links are explored, and new insights into existing problems are reached. Once managers understand and accept contradictions, they are more likely to embrace tensions and benefit from them. Furthermore, this article stresses the importance of remaining wary of mismanaging paradox, avoidingthe potential for anxiety to foster defensiveness and counterproductive responses that inhibit fast-paced and adaptive decision making. Strategic Agility: A State of the Art CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 56, NO. 3 SPRING 2014 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 9 Notes 1. E.L. Chen, R. Katila, R. Mcdonald, and K.M. Eisenhardt,“Life in the Fast Lane: Origins of Competitive Interaction in New vs. Established Markets,”Strategic Management Journal, 31/3 (December 2010): 1527-1547; J. Kraaijenbrink, J.-C. Spender, and A.J. Groen,“The Resource-Based View: A Review and Assessment of its Critiques,”Journal of Management, 36/1 (January 2010): 349-372; A.A. Lado, N.G. Boyd, P. Wright, and M. Kroll,“Paradox and Theorizing within the Resource-Based View,”Academy of Management Review, 31/1 (January 2006): 115-131.

2. N. Tichy and R. Charan,“Speed, Simplicity, Self-Confidence: An Interview with Jack Welch,” Harvard Business Review, 67/5 (September/October 1989): 112-118.

3. Y.L Doz and M. Kosonen,“The Dynamics of Strategic Agility: Nokia’s Rollercoaster Experi- ence,”California Management Review, 50/3 (Spring 2008): 95-118; Y.L Doz and M. Kosonen, “Embedding Strategic Agility,”Long Range Planning, 43/2-3 (April 2010): 370-382; K.M. Eisenhardt and J.A. Martin,“Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They?”Strategic Management Journal, 21/10- 11 (October/November 2000): 1105-1121; P. Junni, R.M. Sarala, V. Taras, and S.Y. Tarba, “Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis,”Academy of Management Perspectives, 27/4 (November 2013): 299-312; O. Shenkar,Copycats: How Smart Companies Use Imi- tation to Gain a Strategic Edge(Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2010); Y. Weber, C. Öberg, and S.Y. Tarba,A Comprehensive Guide to Mergers & Acquisitions: Managing the Critical Success Factors Across Every Stage of the M&A Process(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Press, 2014); Y. Weber and S.Y. Tarba,“Exploring Integration Approach in Related Mergers: Post-Merger Integration in the High-Tech Industry,”International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 19/3 (2011): 202-221; Y. Weber, S.Y. Tarba, and Z. Rozen Bachar,“Mergers and Acquisitions Perfor- mance Paradox: The Mediating Role of Integration Approach,”European Journal of International Management,”5/4 (2011) 373-393; Y. Weber, S.Y. Tarba, and Z. Rozen-Bachar,“The Effects of Culture Clash on International Mergers in the High Tech Industry,”World Review of Entre- preneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 8/1 (2012): 103-118.

4. S.L. Goldman, R.N. Nagel, and K. Preiss,Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer(New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995); K. Preiss, S.L. Goldman, and R.N. Nagel,Cooperate to Compete: Building Agile Business Relationships(New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996).

5. R. Agarwal and C.C. Helfat,“Strategic Renewal of Organizations,”Organization Science, 20/2 (March/April 2009) 281-293; L. Dyer and J. Ericksen,“ In Pursuit of Marketplace Agility:

Applying Precepts of Self-Organizing Systems to Optimize Human Resource Scalability,” Human Resource Management, 44/2 (Summer 2005): 183-188; R.A. Shafer, L. Dyer, J. Kilty, J. Amos, and J. Ericksen,“Crafting a Human Resource Strategy to Foster Organizational Agility:

A Case Study,”Human Resource Management, 40/3 (Fall 2001): 197-211.

6. P.S. Adler, B. Goldoftas, and D.I. Levine,“Flexibility versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System,”Organization Science, 10/1 (January/February 1999): 43-68; A. Franken and H. Thomsett,“When It Takes a Network: Creating Strategy and Agility through Wargaming,”California Management Review, 55/3 (Spring 2013): 107-133; R. Grewal and P. Thansuhaj,“Building Organizational Capabilities for Managing Economic Crisis: The Role of Market Orientation and Strategic Flexibility,”Journal of Marketing,65/2(April 2001): 67-80; W.Q. Judge and A. Miller,“Antecedents and Outcomes of Decision Speed in Different Environmental Contexts,”Academy of Management Journal, 34/2 (June 1991): 449-463; A.D. Smith and C. Zeithaml,“Garbage Cans and Advancing Hypercompetition: The Creation and Exploitation of New Capabilities and Strategic Flexibility in Two Regional Bell Operating Companies,”Organization Science, 7/4 (July/August 1996): 388-399; K. Wilson and Y.L. Doz,“Agile Innovation,”California Management Review, 53/2 (Winter 2011): 6-26.

7. P.P. Tallon and A. Pinsonneault,“Competing Perspectives on the Link between Strategic Informa- tion Technology Alignment and Organizational Agility: Insights from a Mediation Model,”MIS Quarterly, 35/2 (June 2011): 463-486; P. Weill, M. Subramani, and M. Broadbent,“Building IT Infrastructure for Strategic Agility,”MIT Sloan Management Review, 44/1 (Fall 2002): 57-65.

8. S.A. Mohrman and C. Worley,“Dealing with Rough Times: A Capabilities Development Approach to Surviving and Thriving,”Human Resource Management, 48/3 (May 2009): 433-445; S. Sarker and S. Sarker,“Exploring Agility in Distributed Information Systems Development Teams: An Interpretive Study in an Offshoring Context,”Information Systems Research,20/3 (September 2009): 440-461; S. Thomke and D. Reinertsen,“Agile Product Development:

Managing Development Flexibility in Uncertain Environments,”California Management Review, 41/1 (Fall 1998): 8-30. Strategic Agility: A State of the Art 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 56, NO. 3 SPRING 2014 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 9. R. Sanchez,“Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition,”Strategic Management Journal,16 (Summer 1995): 135-159; K. Shimizu and M.A. Hitt,“Strategic Flexibility: Organizational Pre- paredness to Reverse Ineffective Strategic Decisions,”Academy of Management Executive,18/4 (November 2004): 44-59; H.W. Volberda,“Building Flexible Organizations for Fast-Moving Markets,”Long Range Planning, 30/2 (April 1997): 169-183; H.W. Volberda,Building the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Competitive(New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999).

10. H.W. Volberda,“Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Envi- ronments,”Organization Science, 7/4 (July/August 1996): 359-374; C. Young-Ybarra and M. Wiersema,“Strategic Flexibility in Information Technology Alliances: The Influence of Trans- action Cost Economics and Social Exchange Theory,”Organization Science, 10/4 (July/August 1999): 439-459.

11. R. Sanchez and J.T. Mahoney,“Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Prod- uct and Organization Design,”Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue 1996):

63-76.

12. R. Sanchez,“Modular Architectures, Knowledge Assets and Organizational Learning: New Management Processes for Product Creation,”International Journal of Technology Management, 19/6 (2000): 610-629; N. Worren, K. Moore, and P. Cardona,“Modularity, Strategic Flexibility, and Firm Performance: A Study of the Home Appliance Industry,”Strategic Management Journal, 23/12 (December 2002): 1123-1140.

13. A J. Bock, T. Opsahl, G. George, and D.M. Gann,“The Effects of Culture and Structure on Strategic Flexibility during Business Model Innovation,”Journal of Management Studies, 49/2 (March 2012): 279-305.

14. Boston Consulting Group,“The Brave New World of M&A: How to Create Value from Mergers and Acquisitions,”report, 2007.

15. Deloitte Research and Economist Intelligence Unit,“Strategic Acquisitions amid Business Uncertainty: Charting a Course for Your Company’s M&A,”report, 2007.

16. P. Puranam, H. Singh, and M. Zollo,“A Bird in the Hand or Two in the Bush? Integration Trade- Offs in Technology-Grafting Acquisitions,”European Management Journal, 21/2 (April 2003):

179-184; P. Puranam, H. Singh, and M. Zollo,“Organizing for Innovation: Managing the Coordina- tion-Autonomy Dilemma in Technology Acquisitions,”Academy of Management Journal, 49/2 (April 2006): 263-280; P. Puranam and K. Srikanth,“ What They Know vs. What They Do: How Acquirers Leverage Technology Acquisitions,”Strategic Management Journal, 28/8 (August 2007): 805-825.

17. M. Lubatkin, D. Schweiger, and Y. Weber,“Top Management Turnover in Related M&A’s:

An Additional Test of the Theory of Relative Standing,”Journal of Management, 25/1 (1999):

55-74; J. Krug, P. Wright, and M. Kroll,“Top Management Turnover Following Mergers and Acquisitions: Solid Research to Date but Much Still to be Learned,”Academy of Management Perspectives, published ahead of print February 4, 2013 (doi:10.5465/amp.2011.0091); P. Puranam, H. Singh, and S. Chaudhuri,“Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration is (Un)Necessary,”Organization Science, 20/2 (March/April 2009): 313-328; A.L. Ranft and M.D. Lord,“Acquiring New Knowledge: The Role of Retaining Human Capital in Acquisitions of High-Tech Firms,”Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11/2 (Autumn 2000): 295-319.

18. Y. Weber, S.Y. Tarba, and A. Reichel,“International Mergers and Acquisitions Performance Revisited—The Role of Cultural Distance and Post-Acquisition Integration Approach,”in C. Cooper and S. Finkelstein, eds.,Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, Volume 8 (New York, NY: JAI Press, 2009), pp. 1-17; Y. Weber, S.Y. Tarba, and A. Reichel,“International Mergers and Acquisitions Performance: Acquirer Nationality and Integration Approaches,”International Studies of Management & Organization, 41/3 (2011): 9-24.

19. R.M. Sarala, P. Junni, C.L. Cooper, and S.Y. Tarba,“A Sociocultural Perspective on Knowledge Transfer in Mergers and Acquisitions,”Journal of Management(forthcoming, doi: 10.1177/ 0149206314530167); Y. Weber, D. Rachman-Moore, and S.Y. Tarba,“Human Resource Practices during Post-Merger Conflict and Merger Performance,”International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 12/1 (April 2012): 73-99; Y. Weber and S.Y. Tarba,“Human Resource Practices and Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions in Israel,”Human Resource Management Review,20 (2010): 203-211.

20. J.M. Birkinshaw and K. Gupta,“Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies,”Academy of Management Perspectives, 27/4 (November 2013): 287-298.

21. C.A. O’Reilly and M.L. Tushman,“Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future,” Academy of Management Perspectives, 27/4 (November 2013): 324-338. Strategic Agility: A State of the Art CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 56, NO. 3 SPRING 2014 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU 11 22. G. Im and A. Rai,“Knowledge Sharing Ambidexterity in Long-Term Interorganizational Rela- tionships,”Management Science, 54/7 (July 2008): 1281-1296.

23. O.-P. Kauppila,“Creating Ambidexterity by Integrating and Balancing Structurally Separate Interorganizational Partnerships,”Strategic Organization, 8/4 (November 2010): 283-312.

24. D. Lavie, J. Kang, and L. Rosenkopf,“Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances,”Organization Science, 22/6 (November/ December 2011): 1517-1538.

25. S. Fourné, J. Jansen, and T. Mom,“Strategic Agility in MNEs: Strategic Agility in MNEs: Man- aging Tensions to Capture Opportunities across Emerging and Established Markets,”California Management Review, 56/3 (Spring 2014).

26. N. Brueller, A. Carmeli, and I. Drori,“How Do Different Types of Mergers and Acquisitions Facilitate Strategic Agility,”California Management Review,56/3 (Spring 2014).

27. M. Lewis, C. Andriopoulos, and W. Smith,“Paradoxical Leadership to Enable Strategic Agil- ity,”California Management Review, 56/3 (Spring 2014).

California Management Review, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 5–12. ISSN 0008-1256, eISSN 2162-8564. © 2014 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Request permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.5. Strategic Agility: A State of the Art 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY VOL. 56, NO. 3 SPRING 2014 CMR.BERKELEY.EDU Copyright ofCalifornia Management Reviewisthe property ofCalifornia Management Review anditscontent maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.