The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2053-4604.htm

Effect of social
Effect of social media agility on media agility
performance of small and medium
enterprises: moderating roles of
firm size and environmental
dynamism Received 1 November 2022
Revised 17 January 2023
15 June 2023
Worachet Onngam and Peerayuth Charoensukmongkol Accepted 24 July 2023
International College, National Institute of Development Administration,
Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract
Purpose – Despite the increasing numbers of research studies about social media business, the concept of
social media agility is still an emerging topic that has been understudied. Therefore, the purpose of this study
was to investigate the effect of social media agility on business performance by using a sample of small- and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand. Moreover, this study explored whether the effect of social
media agility on business performance could be moderated by the characteristic of firm in terms of size, as
well as the characteristic of market environment in terms of environmental dynamism.
Design/methodology/approach – The sample of 337 firms was obtained from the business directory
using the simple random sampling method, and the model assessment was performed by using partial least
squares structural equation modeling.
Findings – The data analysis indicated that social media agility positively affected the business
performance of SMEs. Moreover, the moderating effect analysis showed that smaller firms tended to gain
higher business performance from social media agility than larger firms. In addition, social media agility
positively affected business performance to a greater extent when firms operated under low environmental
dynamism than when they operated under high environmental dynamism.
Practical implications – Because SMEs are the key driving of economic development and economic growth,
the recommendations from this study could be helpful for the government sector responsible for the competency
development of SMEs to offer a development program that might enable entrepreneurial firms to develop social
media marketing competencies and enhance their potential to be successful in the digital transformation.
Originality/value – The authors found new evidence showing that the degree to which social media
agility affected business performance depended significantly on the firm characteristics in terms of firm size,
as well as the environmental factor in terms of environmental dynamism. These findings provide valuable
contributions to the existing literature that still lacks evidence about the moderating conditions that could
increase or reduce the benefits that firms obtain from social media agility.
Keywords Social media marketing, Firm performance, Environmental dynamism,
Small and medium enterprises, Entrepreneurship, Economic development, Economic growth,
Business performance, Developing countries, Small- and medium-sized enterprises
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) belong to the major business sector
accelerating economic development and economic growth in emerging economies. However, Journal of Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Economies
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4604
This research received funding from the National Institute of Development Administration. DOI 10.1108/JEEE-11-2022-0331
JEEE the rapid change in the business environment has dramatically increased market volatility,
which affects the business vitality of SMEs. In this uncertain business environment, SMEs
generally face more challenges than larger firms due to their limited financial resources
(Ratanavanich and Charoensukmongkol, 2023). Therefore, SMEs must develop capabilities
that enable them to respond effectively to unexpected challenges and to meet the fast-
changing needs of customers in a timely manner (Deng et al., 2021). Specifically, SMEs must
be agile in their business operations to respond quickly both to new opportunities and
various uncertainties (Saputra et al., 2022). Agility is seen as a primary business necessity in
contemporary business environments, as it reflects the capacities enabling firms to quickly
detect and react to market opportunities and challenges (Ghasemaghaei et al., 2017). Agility
not only helps firms rapidly adapt their operations in response to unpredictable market
circumstances, but it also enables them to identify and exploit new market opportunities
more effectively than their competitors (Clauss et al., 2021; Xing et al., 2020).
One aspect of business agility that has become significantly vital in the current
environment is agility in terms of how firms use social media in their business practices.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the utilization of social media has become
imperative for firms in almost every sector, as more and more consumers have shifted their
purchasing habits away from traditional storefronts to online channels, including social
media platforms (Salam et al., 2021; Charoensukmongkol and Pandey, 2023). The pandemic
pushed both customers and enterprises to increase their involvement in social media,
resulting in an exceptionally rapid development in the usage of social media for a variety of
purposes (Amoah et al., 2021). Due to this new trend, many SMEs have become more reliant
on social media platforms as marketing tools to help them attract consumers whose social
media habits have been rapidly revolutionized (Liao et al., 2022). SMEs not only use social
media platforms as marketing tools to tap new target customers, but they also help SMEs
with customer relationship management with existing customers at a low cost (Zhou and
Charoensukmongkol, 2022). However, the sharp growth in social media usage has made
competition more intense among firms that rely on social media for their business (Hoekstra
and Leeflang, 2020). This intense competition has driven SMEs to revamp their social media
marketing strategies to ensure their survival in the face of rapid transformations brought on
by environmental dynamism (Vrontis et al., 2022; Al-Okaily, 2021; Lin et al., 2020).
To maintain satisfactory performance in social media business in an environment of
intense competition, SMEs must develop agility in how they use social media to help them
outperform their rivals (AlSharji et al., 2018; Singhal and Kapur, 2022). By definition, social
media agility refers to the ability of companies to use social media to swiftly recognize and
respond to changing market circumstances and consumer expectations, as well as to adapt
to new social networking sites (Chuang, 2020; Gligor and Bozkurt, 2021). As a result, social
media agility could be the critical capability serving as a source of competitive advantage
for firms to achieve better performance than competitors that lack this agility.
Despite the increasing number of research studies about social media business, the
concept of social media agility is still an emerging topic that has been understudied in the
existing literature. Currently, there are a very limited number of studies that provide
empirical evidence to support the effect of social media agility on business performance. To
date, only the studies of Chuang (2020), Onamusi (2021) and Gligor and Bozkurt (2021) have
provided empirical evidence for the benefits of social media agility. This deficiency of
research is a major gap that needs more empirical studies to confirm the effect of social
media agility by using samples of firms in different contexts. More importantly, existing
studies on the benefits of social media agility have not considered moderating factors that
might influence the degree to which firms benefit from social media agility. Despite the
benefits, there should be some boundary conditions that allow some firms to obtain greater Effect of social
or fewer benefits of social media agility. This is another important research gap that should media agility
be addressed.
The main objective of this study is to provide evidence to fill the two research gaps
mentioned previously. First, this study investigates the effects of social media agility on
business performance by using a sample of SMEs in Thailand, which is a context that has
not been studied previously. The sample of Thai SMEs is ideal for research on social media
agility due to the high rate of social media penetration among Thai citizens and the
pervasiveness of social media business in the country. Moreover, SMEs are major players in
Thailand that extensively use social media in marketing strategies (Tarsakoo and
Charoensukmongkol, 2019). In particular, the intense competition in social media marketing
among SMEs in Thailand makes this sample a suitable context to verify whether increased
social media agility could enable firms to perform better than their rivals. Apart from the
direct effect of social media agility, our second objective to explore is whether its effect on
business performance could be moderated by the characteristic of firm in terms of size, as
well as the characteristic of market environment in terms of environmental dynamism. In
general, the size of the firms reflects the degree of flexibility and adaptability that they
exhibit, which determines how quickly they can adjust and execute strategies (Sen et al.,
2022; Reed, 2021). Although small firms have key disadvantages in terms of resource
constraint when compared to large firms, research has shown that they tend to possess
competitive advantages derived from higher speed and flexibility, which could help them to
be more agile than larger firms (Sen et al., 2022). For this reason, it can be assumed that
smaller firms may be more adaptable in exploiting social media agility to improve
performance compared to large firms. On the other hand, environmental dynamism reflects
the uncertainty and unpredictability of the market environment, which significantly
constrains the ability of firms to get a clear picture of fast-changing market trends and
emergent challenges (Rodríguez-Peña, 2021). For this reason, the benefit that firms obtain
from social media agility could be greater for firms operating under high environmental
dynamism than those operating under low environmental dynamism. To date, the existing
research still lacks sufficient evidence on the moderating effects of these two factors in the
context of social media agility. Therefore, our study will offer a knowledge contribution by
theoretically clarifying how firm size and environmental dynamism should be taken into
consideration when examining the benefits of social media agility on business performance.
The contents of this paper are organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the key concepts
and proposes the hypotheses, and then the research methods (including sample selection, the
data collection procedure and data analysis) are described. After the results from the data
analysis are reported, we discuss the findings and provide research implications in the final
chapter.

2. Literature review
2.1 Social media agility
Social media agility is defined as the capability of businesses to use social media to adapt to
changing market conditions and customer expectations (Chuang, 2020). Gligor and Bozkurt
(2021) described social media agility as a capability that enables firms to rapidly identify and
react to changes in consumer demands, as well as to use and apply new features in social
networking platforms for marketing practices. With the growing importance of social media in
business, social media agility is becoming more essential in the areas of customer interactions
and company sustainability (Onamusi, 2021; Chuang, 2020; Zhou and Charoensukmongko,
2021). In particular, social media agility enables firms to quickly obtain customer input,
JEEE allowing them to respond effectively in the face of constantly changing environments
(Onamusi, 2021). Considering the consumer needs and expectations that change rapidly in the
current business environment, firms that are agile in their use of social media to detect and
react to these changes are more effective in using social media to enhance their business
outcomes (Muninger et al., 2019). Social media agility allows firms to rapidly gather consumer
feedback, enabling them to better deal with shifting market conditions (Onamusi, 2021). Firms
that have achieved social media agility are equipped with the capability to adapt swiftly and
dynamically to establish closer ties with both current and prospective consumers (Zhou et al.,
2019). They are also better at anticipating and responding to market possibilities, which
increases their ability to effectively create and adjust their marketing practices in order to
match the unforeseen consumer needs and expectations (Chuang, 2020).

2.2 Effect of social media agility on business performance

Social media agility can enhance the business performance of firms. Theoretically, the logic
supporting this benefit of social media agility can be explained by the resource-based view
(RBV) of the firm (Barney, 1991). The RBV takes into consideration the role of critical
resources and capabilities that enable firms to outperform their competitors and enjoy
superior performance (Helfat and Peteraf, 2003). The theory also considers the ability of
firms to address rapidly changing environments as a crucial capability that enables them to
maintain competitive performance under changing business conditions (Teece et al., 1997).
In fact, the RBV literature indicates that agility in terms of how firms use information
technology can enhance their flexibility when responding to change (Xing et al., 2020).
Through the lens of the RBV, the agility of firms can be regarded as the critical capability
that enables them to adapt and redeploy their resources to deal effectively with change
(Baškarada and Koronios, 2018). Moreover, many studies on RBV emphasize the crucial
nature of agility as a key component required for achieving superior firm performance
(Panda and Rath, 2016). In this regard, agility enables firms to quickly adapt their business
operations and strategies to react appropriately to changing market trends, which is crucial
for firms looking to identify new market opportunities and gain better performance than
their competitors that lack agility (Clauss et al., 2021).
The concept of social media agility also fits within the realm of dynamic capability that
enables firms to rapidly identify and react to changing market conditions (Onamusi, 2021).
Firms that are agile in their social media utilization can effectively adapt to the changing
market, as well as react more dynamically to unforeseen market opportunities. Social media
agility not only enables firms to be responsive to current market trends, but also helps them
to be proactive towards new ones that may arise in the future (Gligor and Bozkurt, 2021).
Generally, firms with social media agility can constantly identify changes in client
behaviors through customer feedback that they obtain from social media channels and then
use such information to guide their strategic actions (Chuang, 2020). In particular, these
firms can quickly and effectively use information from social media to determine which
marketing trends to follow and which marketing approaches to deploy to generate sales and
profit in various situations (Shen et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2022). For this reason, firms that can
leverage social media agility are able to identify market trends and make prompt
adaptations to changing market conditions (Sanger et al., 2021; Bocconcelli et al., 2017). All
of these benefits of social media agility enable firms to generate more customer satisfaction
and stay ahead in competition, which enables them to achieve better business performance
than their competitors that do not possess social media agility (Li et al., 2021; Dwivedi et al.,
2021). Apart from these rational arguments, empirical research also provides evidence that
supports the effect of social media agility on business outcomes. For example, Onamusi
(2021) collected data from firms in Nigeria, Canada, Australia, the USA and the UK and Effect of social
found that social media agility had a positive impact on firm survival. The study of Chuang media agility
(2020) also found that social media agility positively affected firm performance in terms of
customer–firm relationships. Finally, Gligor and Bozkurt (2021) conducted customer
attitudes survey among US consumers and found that the perception that consumers had
towards social media agility of the brands had positive influence on customer engagement
and customer-based brand equity.
In light of the logical reasoning and empirical evidence provided previously, the
following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. Social media agility is positively associated with business performance.

2.3 The moderating effect of firm size

Apart from the direct effect of social media agility and business performance proposed
earlier, this study argues that the benefits that firms achieve from social media agility
depend on firm size. We propose that smaller firms are more likely to gain greater benefits
from social media agility than larger firms. Although firm size can be justified in terms of
employees, assets and revenue, research that uses questionnaire data collection usually
determines the size of a firm by the total number of full-time employees (Foli et al., 2022;
Bahri et al., 2021). Firm size can have a potential impact on how well firms perform, but
evidence from prior studies has shown that the effect of firm size on business performance
tended to be inconclusive. Traditionally, larger firms have more resources, which enables
them to undertake higher risks and invest more in fixed assets than smaller firms.
Nevertheless, although smaller firms do not have as many available resources, they still
possess substantial competitive advantages from higher speed and flexibility, as well as the
ability to fulfill niches and establish close connections to the market (Sen et al., 2022).
Moreover, given that smaller firms are generally less bureaucratic than larger firms (Huang
et al., 2012), their structural flexibility and adaptability enables them to make decisions
faster and react more quickly to change than larger firms (Reed, 2021). From the RBV
perspecive, although small firms may not have many financial resources, their flexibility
could easily help them develop the capability that facilitates adjusting more quickly to
change (Hernandez-Linares et al., 2021). Due to these stated advantages of smaller firms,
they are likely to perform better than larger firms, especially during fast-changing market
coditions that require businesses to be flexible and make adapt quickly to their environment.
Thus, we initially propose the follow hypothesis:

H2. Firm size is negatively associated with business performance.

Due to the advantages that smaller firms have in terms of flexibility and adaptability, they
tend to be better than larger firms at exploiting social media agility to increase business
performance. Basically, the simpler and less bureaucratic structure of small firms gives
them much more freedom to quickly make decisions and execute their strategies (Sen et al.,
2022). For this reason, they tend to have greater potential to reap more benefits from
possessing social media agility. With their agility in utilizing social media to gain insightful
information that can guide their decision-making, along with their structural flexibility to
make quick adaptations, smaller firms are able to use the combination of their capabilities to
adjust their operations and customize their products to meet the fluctuating market demand
more quickly than larger firms (Reed, 2021). For this reason, the integration of social media
agility and the capability of smaller firms to make quick adaptations could significantly
JEEE increase their potential to improve their business performance at a higher rate than larger
firms. On the other hand, the more bureaucratic and formalized structure of larger firms
may impose some obstacles that make them unable to make quick decisions and
adaptations in response to the market (Huang et al., 2012; Puyod and Charoensukmongkol,
2021). Although larger firms also possess social media agility, they may not be able to make
quick adjustments to gain benefits from social media agility at the same level as smaller
firms. For this reason, the effect of social media agility on business performance could be
stronger for smaller firms than for larger firms. Therefore, the below hypothesis is proposed:

H3. The effect of social media agility on business performance is stronger for smaller
firms than for larger firms.

2.4 The moderating effect of environmental dynamism

This study proposes that the degree to which social media agility can help firms gain higher
performance will depend on the level of environmental dynamism that firms encounter in
their particular industry. Fundamentally, environmental dynamism is described as the
degree to which changes in an industry’s or firm’s environment are uncertain and
unpredictable (Wamba et al., 2020). Specifically, environmental dynamism reflects the
uncertainty and unpredictability of external factors such as variations in client expectations,
developments in technology, changes in product trends and the availability of resources
(Reed, 2021; Charoensukmongkol and Pandey, 2022). Environmental dynamism reflects an
unforeseen change in consumers’ preferences and needs, which determine how fast the
products become obsolete and how quickly the technologies exploited by a business should
be modernized (Rodríguez-Peña, 2021). Moreover, the strategic moves of competitors cannot
be easily foreseen in a highly dynamic environment (Charoensukmongkol, 2022).
Basically, environmental dynamism seems to be the unfavorable factor that negatively
affects firm performance. In prior research, empirical evidence has been reported about the
negative impacts of environmental dynamism on business operations and the performance
of firms in various sectors. For example, Dogru et al. (2019) analyzed the role of
environmental dynamism on the performance of firms in the hotel industry in ten major US
cities, and their findings revealed that a surge of dynamism negatively affected the business
performance of these firms. Similarly, Wang (2018) explored the effect of environmental
dynamism on the operational performance of firms in the logistics industry, and his findings
confirmed the negative effect of dynamism on the operational performance of these firms.
Moreover, Feng et al. (2021) found that environmental dynamism during an economic
downturn was among the key factors that led to corporate bankruptcy. Considering these
detrimental impacts of high environmental dynamism, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4. Environmental dynamism is negatively associated with business performance.

Environmental dynamism not only affects firm performance directly, but the uncertainty
and unpredictability it causes also limits the ability of firms to effectively implement
strategies to gain better performance. Theoretically, this moderating effect of environmental
dynamism can be explained through the market-based view (MBV) perspective. The MBV,
which is based on the industrial organization framework (Bain, 1954), considers the roles of
industry factors and external market conditions as the key determinants of firm
performance (Peteraf and Bergen, 2003). While the RBV theory primarily considers the role
of resources and capabilities possessed by firms as sources of competitive advantage, the
MBV perspective takes into consideration the influence of external factors and market
environment that can limit the effectiveness of resources and capabilities that firms deploy Effect of social
to gain superior performance (Purbasari et al., 2021). In particular, unfavorable media agility
environments such as intense competition and market turbulence could create difficulty for
firms to reap the full benefits from resources and capabilities that they possess (Reed, 2021;
Wamba et al., 2020; Charoensukmongkol, 2019). For this reason, scholars have suggested
that the MBV perspective should be integrated with the RBV perspective to gain full
understanding of how firm resources and capabilities could be more or less relevant to
determine firm performance under different market conditions (Makhija, 2003; Peteraf and
Bergen, 2003; Vaitoonkiat and Charoensukmongkol, 2020b). Moreover, this key tenet of the
MBV perspective has been confirmed by empirical studies showing that an unfavorable
market environment could significantly weaken the positive impacts of firm resources and
capabilities on firm performance (Charoensukmongkol and Lamsam, 2022; Taghizadeh
et al., 2021; Reed, 2021).
Considering the key tenet of the MBV perspective, even though social media agility can
be beneficial for the performance of firms, this study further argues that the benefits that
firms obtain from social media agility could be lower for firms operating under high
environmental dynamism than firms operating under low environmental dynamism. In a
highly dynamic environment, change is highly unpredictable and occurs at a rapid pace of
progress, corresponding to the rate of transformation in market demands and the pace of
technological innovation (Miller and Friesen, 1983; Charoensukmongkol and Suthatorn,
2022). In addition, in a highly dynamic market, the behavior of customers can fluctuate
enormously as well (Slagmulder and Devoldere, 2018). Even though firms are equipped with
social media agility, they may not be able to get a clear and complete picture of fast-
changing market trends and emergent challenges that their industries are about to face. The
highly unpredictable nature of environmental dynamism makes planning and executing
strategies tremendously difficult and highly ambiguous, even for firms with social media
agility. But despite possessing social media agility, firms may still be unable to make
accurate adjustments to gain superior performance when faced with market situations that
are tremendously more unpredictable than usual.
On the other hand, under the benign level of environmental dynamism in which changes
in market conditions and the level of competition can somehow be foreseeable, firms with
social media agility are able to respond more quickly to the market than those without social
media agility. Furthermore, the need to exploit social media agility to swiftly identify
changes in customer behavior is easier to achieve when customer behaviors and market
demands do not fluctuate much. When firms exploit social media agility under low
environmental dynamism, it is more clear for them how to assess business situations and
develop social media plans that can respond to market opportunities more accurately than
they do when environmental dynamism is high (Goyal and Mishra, 2019). As a result, low
environment dynamism could be more beneficial for firms to achieve high performance from
exploiting social media agility than in conditions of high environment dynamism.
Prior studies have provided empirical evidence about the moderating role of an
unpredictable environment that diminishes the effect of firm competencies on business
performance. For example, Omri (2015) collected data from Tunisian SMEs in various
sectors and found that environmental dynamism weakened the positive effect of innovative
action on the business performance of these firms. Moreover, the study of Taghizadeh et al.
(2021), which investigated the effect of technological capability on the business performance
of SMEs in Malaysia, found that environmental dynamism significantly reduced the effect
of open innovation on operational performance. Particularly in the area of organizational
agility, this rationale is also supported by the study by Reed (2021) demonstrating that a
JEEE high level of environmental turbulence could significantly reduce the positive effect of
strategic agility on firm performance:

H5. The effect of social media agility on business performance is weaker under high
environmental dynamism than low environmental dynamism.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model that summarizes all hypotheses proposed in this
research study.

3. Methods
3.1 Research context, sample selection and data collection
The research context of this study is SMEs in Thailand. This study used the business
directory created by the Department of Business Development of Thailand as the sampling
frame for sample selection. This directory contained the list of firms countrywide that were
registered with the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand. To minimize the random sampling
error, we used the probability sampling method to select 1,000 firms from the directory. This
number of randomly chosen firms was arbitrarily set by the researchers. And to make the
sample classified as SMEs, only firms that had less than 200 full-time employees were
selected. Moreover, because the benefits of social media marketing tend to be more relevant
for firms in the business-to-consumer sector than those in the business-to-business sector
(Iankova et al., 2019), we ensured that only business-to-consumer firms were selected for the
data collection. The data collection was done using self-administered questionnaire survey.
The invitation to participate in the data collection was sent to the contact emails of firms
provided in the directory. We requested a business owner or a top executive of each firm to
answer the survey because they are the key stakeholders with extensive knowledge about
the strategic practices and performance of their firm. The cover letter that was shown at the
beginning of the survey contained information about the background and purposes of the
study, as well as the clarification of the ethical policy in survey research that was approved
by the Institutional Review Board of our institution (COA No. 2022/0084). The period of data
collection was August 2022 until September 2022, which took two months to complete.

Environmental
dynamism

H4 (−)

H5 (−)

Social media H1 (+) Business

agility performance

H3 (−)

H2 (−)
Firm
size

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
Source: Authors’ own work
A total of 392 questionnaires were returned (39.2% response rate). After data cleaning, we Effect of social
had received 374 questionnaires that were usable for data analysis. Table 1 summarizes media agility
the characteristics of the sample. According to the data from the Office of Small and
Medium Enterprises Promotion (2021), 16.98% of SMEs in Thailand were in the
manufacturing sector, 41.10% were in the trading sector, 40.10% were in the service sector
and 1.85% were in the agricultural sector. For our sample, the percentages of firms that
belonged to these four industries (as reported at the end of Table 1) were proportionate to
those of the SME population.

3.2 Measures
The measurement of social media agility was derived from Chuang (2020). The scale
measures social media agility on two dimensions: internal social media agility (four items)
and external social media agility (four items). The five-point Likert scale was used, with 1
representing “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree.” Because this scale
operationalized social media agility based on two dimensions, we first created the first-order
latent variables of internal social media agility and external social media agility. As shown
in Table 2, the first-order latent variables of internal social media agility and external social
media agility had satisfactory validity and reliability. The factor scores of these two
dimensions were then used to create the second-order latent variable of social media agility.
The first moderator, firm size, was measured by the number of full-time employees that
the firms employed. This was measured by the number of full-time employees.
The second moderator, environmental dynamism, was measured by the scale obtained
from Chen et al. (2015) that evaluates the rate of change in environmental factors based on
four items that represent environmental dynamism. The items were evaluated on a five-
point Likert scale, with 1 representing “very stable” and 5 representing “very volatile.”
Business performance is an indicator of commercial effectiveness, which justifies how well
a company can achieve its anticipated outcomes (Morgan, 2012). Business performance is
broadly classified into financial performance and nonfinancial performance (Venkatraman
and Ramanujam, 1986). Financial performance is normally represented by short-term
success indicators such as profit, revenue, and return on investment (Morgan, 2012).
On the other hand, nonfinancial performance determines the long-term strategic success
of an organization, which is usually represented by indicators such as market share and
customer satisfaction (Morgan, 2012). In this research, we obtained the measure of business
performance from the scale developed by Yau et al. (2007). This scale is a subjective measure

Firm characteristics Descriptive statistics

Firm age Mean: 38.68

(Number of years that firms have been established) SD: 6.22
Firm size Mean: 30.83
(Number of full-time employees) SD: 14.87
Business experience Mean: 1.13
(Number of years that owners/top management have worked in the business) SD: 6.88
Industry Manufacturing: 51 (14.2%)
Trading: 175 (48.6%)
Service: 127 (35.3%)
Agriculture: 7 (1.9%) Table 1.
Descriptive statistics
Source: Authors’ own work of the sample
 JEEE

Table 2.

variables)
order latent
Factor loadings

and external social

media agility (first-
social media agility
reliability indicators

extracted of internal
and average variance
Composite Average
Internal social External social Cronbach’s alpha reliability variance
Items media agility media agility coefficients coefficients extracted

Since our company started using social media, the reliability of our
company’s offer of products and services has increased 0.896
0.125
Since our company started using social media, its day-to-day
operations have been flexible for customized demand 0.827 0.215
Since our company started using social media, its offerings (i.e.
products and services) have been more cost efficient than those of our
competitors 0.825
0.198
Since our company started using social media, our company has
delivered our offerings (i.e. products and services) more quickly 0.847 0.116 0.871 0.916 0.731
Since our company started using social media, it has responded very
reliably to market changes
0.223 0.814
Since our company started using social media, it has had greater
flexibility in our offerings to adapt to market changes 0.030 0.821
Since our company started using social media, it has efficiently
redesigned our offerings to adapt to market changes
0.019 0.860
Since our company started using social media, it has been very quick
to adapt to market opportunities 0.208 0.846 0.855 0.923 0.699
Source: Authors’ own work
containing five items which capture business performance from financial and marketing Effect of social
aspects. The respondents were asked to assess their performance in comparison to the media agility
competitors of their firms within the same industry. The assessment was made on a five-
point Likert scale with 1 representing “significantly worse than other competitors” and 5
representing “significantly better than other competitors.” According to prior studies that
collected data from SMEs, the use of subjective performance is justified for SME research for
several reasons. First, the performance data of SMEs are not publicly available, unlike those
of the publicly traded companies. Moreover, financial data are considered to be sensitive
information that business owners are generally unwilling to share with outsiders. In addition,
the Data Protection Act also prohibits researchers from requesting such data from business
owners. Due to these difficulties obtaining objective performance data, particularly in
emerging countries, the subjective measure of business performance has been widely
accepted in SME research (Vaitoonkiat and Charoensukmongkol, 2020a; Snoj et al., 2010).

3.3 Control variables

We controlled for some fundamental characteristics of firms that could affect business
performance. Generally, prior research used firm age, firm size and the business experience
of an entrepreneur as the main control variables for business performance (Bahri et al., 2021;
Foli et al., 2022). Therefore, we also control for these factors to be consistent with prior
studies. Apart from the role of firm size that was already proposed in the hypothesis, we
additionally control for firm age and business experience. Firm age was measured by asking
business owners/executives how many years their firm had been established, and business
experience was measured by asking how many years they had worked in the business.

3.4 Data analysis

The model assessment was performed by partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM), which is the variance-based SEM. PLS-SEM is recommended as the suitable
method to be used under some conditions, such as when the sample size is small, when the
data are not normally distributed and when the model contains several moderators (Hair
et al., 2019). In particular, the characteristics of our data fit well with these conditions. First,
the sample size of 334 firms that our study obtained was relatively small. Moreover, we
already conducted the Jarque–Bera test of normality to assess the normal distribution of our
variables, but the test indicated that most of them were not normally distributed. Finally,
our model contained two moderators that were analyzed simultaneously. Overall, these
conditions made PLS-SEM a practical choice for our model assessment. The model analysis
was performed by the software WarpPLS version 7.

4. Results
4.1 Measurement model assessment
The tests of construct validity and reliability were conducted as follows. First, we
considered the values of factor loadings of the construct to assess their convergent validity.
The analysis shown in Table 3 indicates that all factor loadings were higher than 0.7, which
were the ideal numbers to confirm that the constructs had satisfactory convergent validity
(Hair et al., 2009). Next, the assessment of discriminant validity was justified by the average
variance extracted (AVE). In particular, Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommended that the
quality of discriminant validity of latent constructs can be supported when the square root
of AVE of each latent variable is higher than the correlations that it has with other variables
in the correlation matrix. In the correlation matrix presented in Table 4, this justification for
discriminant validity assessment was satisfactory for all latent variables. In addition, we
 JEEE

Table 3.

dynamism
media agility

environmental
Factor loadings,

performance and
extracted of social

variable), business
(second-order latent
reliability indicators
and average variance
Composite Average
Social media Business Cronbach’s alpha reliability variance
Items agility performance Environmental j dynamism coefficients coefficients extracted

Internal social media agility 0.973 0.043 0.007 0.943 0.972 0.946
External social media agility 0.970
0.043
0.007
Overall profit level achieved 0.026 0.924 0.007 0.943 0.956 0.815
Profit margin achieved 0.088 0.909
0.040
Return on investment
0.038 0.825
0.006
Sales volume achieved 0.103 0.937
0.031
Market share achieved
0.184 0.914 0.069
The rate at which your customer’s product/service needs change
0.166 0.231 0.815 0.798 0.869 0.624
The rate at which your supplier’s skills/capabilities change 0.043
0.106 0.760
The rate at which your competitors’ products/services change 0.062
0.061 0.759
The rate at which your firm’s products/services change 0.068
0.074 0.823

Source: Authors’ own work

also used the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) in order to assess Effect of social
discriminant validity. Based on criterion set by Henseler et al. (2015), the HTMT values media agility
below 0.9 are used to confirm that the level of discriminant validity is satisfactory. As
reported in Table 5, the HTMT criterion results that we received were below 0.9 satisfactory.
Thus, we confirmed that the quality of discriminant validity of all latent constructs met the
criterion.
Apart from construct validity, we also evaluate construct reliability through the use of
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Based on Nunnally (1978), the value of Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.7 or higher is expected for good reliability. In Table 3, the results show that
all latent variables had values of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients appropriately above the
requirement.

4.2 Multicollinearity and common method variance assessment

We also assured that multicollinearity did not affect our data analysis. This assessment was
justified by variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics. The maximum value of full VIF must
not be higher than 3.3 (Petter et al., 2007). The results presented in Table 3 indicate that all
full VIFs did not violate this requirement, confirming that multicollinearity should not be a
major concern. Finally, because this study used cross-sectional data collection and the
questionnaire survey was obtained from a single source, the assessment of common method
variance (CMV) was indispensable. The Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and
the marker variable method (Simmering et al., 2015) were used to detect CMV in our study.
First, the Harman’s one-factor test was assessed using an exploratory factor analysis. When
all latent variables’ items were loaded into one-factor, we obtained the total variance

Variables Mean SD SMA BPM EDY SIZE AGE EXP

SMA 3.23 0.93 (0.973) 0.752** 0.615** 0.113*
0.112* 0.056

BPM 3.22 0.91 (0.903)
0.62**
0.355** 0.125* 0.22**
EDY 3.23 0.79 (0.79) 0.104*
0.014 0.045
SIZE 38.68 6.62 (1) 0.571** 0.515**
AGE 30.83 14.87 (1) 0.453**
EXP 1.13 6.99 (1)
Jarque–Bera normality test No No Yes No No No
Full variance inflation factor 2.775 3.182 1.864 2.008 1.678 1.445

Notes: SMA ¼ social media agility; BPM ¼ business performance; EDY ¼ environmental dynamism; Table 4.
SIZE ¼ firm size; AGE ¼ firm age; EXP ¼ business experience. For the Jarque–Bera test of normality,
NO indicates that the data normality is not supported. Values in parentheses are square roots of the AVE. Correlation matrix
**p < 0.01; p < 0.05 and discriminant
Source: Authors’ own work validity

Latent variables Social media agility Business performance Environmental dynamism

Social media agility

Business performance 0.797
Table 5.
Environmental dynamism 0.71 0.714 Heterotrait–
monotrait ratio of
Source: Authors’ own work correlations
JEEE explained by a single factor that was equal to 43.25%. Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggested that
a value below 50% could be used as the indicator to rule out the severity of CMV in the
analysis. In addition, we used the marker variable method to test CMV. This method
required researchers to have any variable (called a marker variable) that has no theoretical
association with the variables in the model. And because the marker variable has no
theoretical association with other key variables, it must not have strong correlation with
them as well (Simmering et al., 2015). In our study, we used “pro-environmental attitude”
as the marker variable. This was measured by responses to the statement “I would be
willing to accept cuts in my standards of living, if it helped to protect the environment,” with
the responses rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The
correlation analysis showed that it was not significantly associated with social media agility
(r ¼
0.01; p ¼ 0.79), environmental dynamism (r ¼ 0.05; p ¼ 0.38) or business performance
(r ¼ 0.01; p ¼ 0.83). Considering the evidence from these tests, we may conclude that the
CMV problem was not a concern in our data.

4.3 Structural model assessment

The results from model estimation were summarized in a conceptual model, as shown in
Figure 2.
For H1, in which we expected a positive association between social media agility and
business performance, the beta coefficient that represented their association showed a
positive sign with a sufficient level of significance (b ¼ 0.576; p < 0.001). This result
supported H1.
For H2, in which we expected a negative association between firm size and
business performance, the beta coefficient that represented their association showed a
positive sign with a sufficient level of significance ( b ¼
0.211; p < 0.001). This result
supported H2.
In H3, we expected the positive association between social media agility and business
performance to be stronger for smaller firms than for larger firms. We tested this hypothesis

Environmental
dynamism

−0.23***

−0.054* 2 Firm age

R = 0.686 0.059

Social media 0.576*** Business

agility performance

−0.064*
0.46 Business
experience
−0.211***
Firm
size

Figure 2. Notes: *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001. Standardized coefficients are reported. Dashed line
Results from represents the beta coefficient that is not significant
hypotheses testing
Source: Authors’ own work
by considering the beta coefficient of the interaction between social media agility and firm Effect of social
size. The beta coefficient showed a negative sign with a sufficient level of significance (b ¼ media agility

0.064; p ¼ 0.038). This result implied that the positive association between social media
agility and business performance was stronger for smaller firms than for larger firms. This
result supported H3.
For H4, in which we expected a negative association between environmental dynamism
and business performance, the beta coefficient that represented their association showed a
negative sign with a sufficient level of significance (b ¼
0.230; p < 0.001). This result
supported H4.
In H5, we expected the positive association between social media agility and business
performance to be weaker under high environmental dynamism than under low
environmental dynamism. We tested this hypothesis by considering the beta coefficient of
the interaction between social media agility and environmental dynamism. The beta
coefficient showed a negative sign with a sufficient level of significance (b ¼
0.054; p ¼
0.044), and this result implied that environmental dynamism could reduce the positive
association between social media agility and business performance. This result supported
H5.
The simple slope analysis was performed to provide a clearer picture of how firm size
and environmental dynamism moderated the association between social media agility
and business performance. The WarpPLS software provided a tool with which to create
simple slope graphs based on the standardized values of all variables. The medians of
these moderating variables were used by the software to separate and classify the groups
as high (above median) and low (below median). The simple slope graphs are presented in
Figure 3.
The graph located at the top of Figure 3 shows the moderating effect of firm size. The
slopes clearly show that the degree to which business performance increased with the level
of social media agility was higher in smaller firms than in larger firms. Under a low level of
social media agility, larger firms showed much higher business performance than smaller
firms. However, with a high level of social media agility, smaller firms could achieve
business performance to a level that was close to that of the larger firms. This may imply
that social media agility could allow smaller firms to increase business to a higher extent
than it did for the larger firms. This graph provides additional evidence to support H3. On
the other hand, the graph located at the bottom of Figure 3 shows the moderating effect of
environmental dynamism. Obviously, the slopes that represent the degree to which social
media agility affected business performance were higher under low environmental
dynamism than under high environmental dynamism. This may imply that social media
agility could allow firms to increase business to a higher extent under low environmental
dynamism than under high environmental dynamism. This graph provides additional
evidence to support H5.

4.4 Results and discussion

Overall, the results we obtained from the PLS-SEM analysis supported all hypotheses that
we proposed at the beginning. First, the data analysis provided statistical confirmation of
the positive association between social media agility and the level of business performance
that firms reported. This finding implies that firms with social media agility were able to
achieve better business performance than those without social media agility. This result
indicating this positive impact of social media agility seems to be in line with extant
literature that emphasizes the essential roles of social media agility in helping firms use
social media in ways that enable them to adjust effectively to changing consumer demands
JEEE

Figure 3.
Moderating effects of
firm size and
environmental
dynamism

and market conditions (Zhou et al., 2019; Mason et al., 2021; Baškarada and Koronios, 2018).
In particular, this result is consistent with findings reported in the studies of Gligor and
Bozkurt (2021), Chuang (2020) and Onamusi (2021), the pioneer works that offered empirical
evidence about the effect of social media agility on business performance.
In addition, our moderating effect analysis found insightful evidence showing that firm
size could play a crucial role in determining the level of benefit that firms obtain from social
media agility. In particular, we found that smaller firms tended to show higher improvement Effect of social
in business performance from social media agility than larger firms. This finding media agility
corresponds to the arguments from prior literature regarding the advantage of small firms
in terms of flexibility, which facilitates making quick adjustments in response to
environmental changes more effectively than larger firms (Hernandez-Linares et al., 2021;
Sen et al., 2022; Reed, 2021). This could explain why smaller firms tend to be more effective
than larger firms when exploiting social media agility to improve their business
performance.
Moreover, our moderating effect analysis found that the degree to which social media
agility affects business performance depends on the degree of environmental dynamism
that firms encounter. In particular, we found that social media agility positively correlated
with business performance to a higher extent when firms operated under low environmental
dynamism than when they operated under high environmental dynamism. This result
supports prior literature that regards environmental dynamism as an unfavorable business
environment that creates obstacles for successful strategic planning and execution (Dogru
et al., 2019; Wang, 2018; Slagmulder and Devoldere, 2018). The finding is in accordance
particularly with the results from the study by Reed (2021) demonstrating that a high level
of environmental turbulence significantly reduced the positive effect of strategic agility on
firm performance. In this regard, the high level of environmental dynamism that firms
encounter could create uncertainty and ambiguity that eventually limits their ability to fully
benefit from social media agility.

5. Conclusion
5.1 Theoretical implications
As for the theoretical contribution, our findings about the benefits of social media agility on
firm performance provide additional support to the RBV perspective regarding the key
competency of firms that could allow them to gain a competitive advantage in a market. In
particular, we showed that social media agility could be a crucial capability of firms that
enable them to make effective adaptations and improve business performance (Barney,
1991; Teece et al., 1997). Moreover, our result regarding the positive effect of social media
agility that was highly significant for smaller firms also aligns with the RBV perspective
that emphasizes the role of resource composition that might enhance the ability of firms to
gain superior performance (Jancenelle, 2021). We showed that the advantage of smaller
firms in terms of flexibility could be the key characteristic that facilitates them to exploit
social media agility more effectively than larger firms. The combination of capabilities in
terms of social media agility and the high flexibility that smaller firms possess could enable
them to gain more benefits than larger firms when they exploit social media agility. On the
other hand, the evidence regarding the moderating role of environmental dynamism that
weakened the positive effect of social media agility on firm performance also aligns with the
MBV perspective that considers the role of the market environment as the constraining force
that could limit the potential of firms to fully benefit from the resources and capabilities that
they possess (Peteraf and Bergen, 2003; Purbasari et al., 2021; Makhija, 2003). In accordance
with the MBV perspective, we showed that an unfavorable market environment in terms of
environmental dynamism could prevent firms from fully benefitting from social media
agility. This finding also corresponds to existing studies which found that an unfavorable
market environment tended to weaken the positive impacts of firm resources and
capabilities on the level of performance that firms achieved (Charoensukmongkol and
Lamsam, 2022; Taghizadeh et al., 2021; Reed, 2021).
JEEE Our research also provides knowledge contributions to the existing literature.
Considering the limited amount of empirical research on the roles of social media agility on
the performance of firms, the findings from our study that was derived from the context that
was not previously investigated could fill this gap in the research. In particular, our evidence
that supported the positive association between social media agility and the business
performance of SMEs in Thailand provided additional evidence confirming the benefits that
firms could achieve from possessing social media agility. Aside from this contribution, our
research also provides more important evidence that broadens the knowledge from previous
research on social media agility. Specifically, we found new evidence showing that the
degree to which social media agility affected business performance depended significantly
on the firm characteristics in terms of firm size, as well as the environmental factor in terms
of environmental dynamism. These findings provide valuable contributions to the existing
literature that still lacks evidence about the moderating conditions that could increase or
reduce the benefits that firms obtain from social media agility. Based on these findings, our
research suggests that it is essential for scholars to take into condiseration the charactersitcs
of firms and the contexts under which firms operate when justifying the benefits that firms
obtain from social media agility.

5.2 Practical implications for entrepreneurship in emerging economies

The findings of this research study suggest some implications for entrepreneurship in
emerging economies, especially for SMEs in Thailand. To achieve a sustainable strategic
position in a competitive market, firms not only need to know how to respond to market
demands and customer expectations in an appropriate manner, but they must also develop
agility in their operations in order to make quick adaptations. In light of our findings, we
suggest that social media agility is a crucial capability that firms must develop to help them
gain satisfactory performance in a fast-changing business environment. In particular, firms
should adopt a more agile approach when they use social media in their business to boost
their performance. Social media agility provides businesses with the ability to leverage
social platforms in a prompt manner, allowing them to notice and adapt to shifting market
conditions and the evolving expectations of customers. We demonstrate that social media
agility is an essential capability that is particularly important for smaller firms to develop.
Although smaller firms may not perform well as larger firms due to their size, their
flexibility tends to be the key advantage that enables them to exploit social media agility
more effectively than larger firms do. The social media agility of smaller firms could
compensate for their size disadvantage, which allows them to compete more effectively with
larger firms that lack the flexibility with which to fully benefit from social media agility.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the benefits that firms achieve from social media
agility could depend on the nature of the market environment. Social media agility can offer
the highest benefits for firms when the market environment under which they operate is not
highly dynamic. Under high market dynamism, although firms may still use social media to
discover and exploit opportunities, this may not be a sufficient way to respond effectively to
extremely volatile market conditions.
Specifically, the recommendations from our study could also be helpful for the
government sector in Thailand responsible for the competency development of Thai SMEs.
As part of the national policy to promote the sustainable economic growth and ecocomic
development of the country by enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs, a government
sector can design a development program in social media marketing strategy for Thai
entrepreneurs to attend. This training should be designed to help the entrepreneurs gain an
in-depth understanding of how to use the key features of social media platforms to identify
new market trends and to respond effectively and promptly to the fast-changing needs of Effect of social
consumers. In essence, the benefits obtained from such a training program could enable media agility
entrepreneurial firms in Thailand to develop social media markeing competencies and
enhance their potential to be successful in the digital transformation. Overall, these expected
outcomes are essential to strenghtening the competitiveness of Thai SMEs and promoting
the economic development of the nation as a result.

5.3 Limitations and recommendations for future research

Despite the contributions that our study provides, it is important to note that we still had
some limitations that need to be reported. The main limitation is with regard to the
methodology that was used for data collection, including the use of cross-sectional data
collection, the use of a self-report questionnaire survey and the use of the subjective measure
of business performance. Particularly when the cross-sectional data collection was
conducted, we cannot infer causality from our results. In addition, the self-port measure of
business performance may not be as accurate as the objective performance data. Moreover,
although we used probability sampling to draw a sample of firms from the business
directory to minimize the sampling bias, the small sample size that we actually obtained
may not be adequate enough with which to generalize the findings to every firm in the
population. Finally, the selection of firms on the basis of the number of employees alone may
be problematic as it may exclude some vital businesses.
Given that current research on the benefits of social media agility is an emerging topic
with limited existing research having been conducted, there are some areas for future
studies to consider to help advance the knowledge on this topic. Due to the small number of
empirical studies on the role of social media agility, more empirical studies that test its
effects in different countries and contexts are required to provide additional confirmation.
Moreover, future studies can explore some other moderating factors that could affect the
benefits that firms gain from social media agility.

References
Al-Okaily, M. (2021), “Assessing the effectiveness of accounting information systems in the era of
COVID-19 pandemic”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems.
AlSharji, A., Ahmad, S.Z. and Abu Bakar, A.R. (2018), “Understanding social media adoption in SMEs”,
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 302-328.
Amoah, J., Belas, J., Khan, K.A. and Metzker, Z. (2021), “Antecedents of sustainable SMEs in the social
media space: a partial least square-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach”,
Management and Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 26-46.
Bahri, M., Sakka, O. and Kallal, R. (2021), “The impact of corruption on the export intensity of SMEs in
Tunisia: moderating effects of political instability and regulatory obstacles”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1134-1151.
Bain, J. (1954), “Economies of scale, concentration, and the condition of entry in twenty manufacturing
industries”, American Economic Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 15-39.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Baškarada, S. and Koronios, A. (2018), “The 5S organizational agility framework: a dynamic
capabilities perspective”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 331-342.
Bocconcelli, R., Cioppi, M. and Pagano, A. (2017), “Social media as a resource in SMEs’ sales process”,
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 693-709.
JEEE Charoensukmongkol, P. (2019), “Contributions of mindfulness to improvisational behavior and
consequences on business performance and stress of entrepreneurs during economic downturn”,
Organization Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 209-219.
Charoensukmongkol, P. (2022), “Does entrepreneurs’ improvisational behavior improve firm
performance in time of crisis?”, Management Research Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 26-46.
Charoensukmongkol, P. and Lamsam, N. (2022), “Effect of CEO transformational leadership on
organizational ethical culture and firm performance: the moderating effect of competitive
intensity”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 539-558.
Charoensukmongkol, P. and Pandey, A. (2022), “The effectiveness of improvisational behavior on sales
performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: the moderating effect of functional customer
orientation”, Journal of Asia Business Studies.
Charoensukmongkol, P. and Pandey, A. (2023), “The flexibility of salespeople and management teams:
how they interact and influence performance during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Asia Pacific
Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Charoensukmongkol, P. and Suthatorn, P. (2022), “How managerial communication reduces perceived
job insecurity of flight attendants during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 368-387.
Chen, D.Q., Preston, D.S. and Swink, M. (2015), “How the use of big data analytics affects value creation
in supply chain management”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 4-39.
Chuang, S.-H. (2020), “Co-creating social media agility to build strong customer-firm relationships”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 84, pp. 202-211.
Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F.L., Bican, P.M., Brem, A. and Kailer, N. (2021), “Organizational
ambidexterity and competitive advantage: the role of strategic agility in the exploration-
exploitation paradox”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 203-213.
Deng, C.-P., Wang, T., Teo, T.S.H. and Song, Q. (2021), “Organizational agility through outsourcing:
roles of IT alignment, cloud computing and knowledge transfer”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 60, p. 102385.
Dogru, T., Mody, M. and Suess, C. (2019), “Adding evidence to the debate: quantifying Airbnb’s
disruptive impact on ten key hotel markets”, Tourism Management, Vol. 72, pp. 27-38.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Ismagilova, E., Rana, N.P. and Raman, R. (2021), “Social media adoption, usage and
impact in business-to-business (B2B) context: a state-of-the-art literature review”, Information
Systems Frontiers, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 1-23.
Feng, H., Grifoll, M., Yang, Z. and Zheng, P. (2021), “Latest challenges to ports in public-private
partnership: case of Dandong port (China)’s bankruptcy”, Transport Policy, Vol. 110, pp. 293-305.
Foli, S., Durst, S. and Temel, S. (2022), “The link between supply chain risk management and
innovation performance in SMEs in turbulent times”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Ghasemaghaei, M., Hassanein, K. and Turel, O. (2017), “Increasing firm agility through the use of data
analytics: the role of fit”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 101, pp. 95-105.
Gligor, D. and Bozkurt, S. (2021), “The role of perceived social media agility in customer engagement”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 125-146.
Goyal, V. and Mishra, P. (2019), “Evaluating channel partner’s performance: impact of task
environments on the relevance of measurement metrics”, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 488-504.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of Effect of social
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
media agility
Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2003), “The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 997-1010.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hernandez-Linares, R., Kellermanns, F.W. and Lopez-Fernandez, M.C. (2021), “Dynamic capabilities
and SME performance: the moderating effect of market orientation”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 162-195.
Hoekstra, J.C. and Leeflang, P.S.H. (2020), “Marketing in the era of COVID-19”, Italian Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 2020 No. 4, pp. 249-260.
Huang, K.F., Yu, C.M.J. and Seetoo, D.H. (2012), “Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and
spontaneous clusters: the smaller firm the better?”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 37
No. 5, pp. 715-731.
Iankova, S., Davies, I., Archer-Brown, C., Marder, B. and Yau, A. (2019), “A comparison of social media
marketing between B2B, B2C and mixed business models”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 81, pp. 169-179.
Jancenelle, V.E. (2021), “Tangible–intangible resource composition and firm success”, Technovation,
Vol. 108, p. 102337.
Li, F., Larimo, J. and Leonidou, L.C. (2021), “Social media marketing strategy: definition,
conceptualization, taxonomy, validation, and future agenda”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 51-70.
Liao, S.-H., Widowati, R. and Puttong, P. (2022), “Data mining analytics investigate Facebook live
stream users’ behaviors and business models: the evidence from Thailand”, Entertainment
Computing, Vol. 41, p. 100478.
Lin, J., Li, L., Luo, X. and Benitez, J. (2020), “How do agribusinesses thrive through complexity? The
pivotal role of e-commerce capability and business agility”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 135,
p. 113342.
Liu, Z., Han, S., Li, C., Gupta, S. and Sivarajah, U. (2022), “Leveraging customer engagement to improve
the operational efficiency of social commerce start-ups”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 140,
pp. 572-582.
Makhija, M. (2003), “Comparing the resource-based and market-based views of the firm: empirical
evidence from Czech privatization”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 433-451.
Mason, A.N., Narcum, J. and Mason, K. (2021), “Social media marketing gains importance after covid-
19”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 1870797.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1983), “Strategy-making and environment: the third link”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 221-235.
Morgan, N.A. (2012), “Marketing and business performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 102-119.
Muninger, M.-I., Hammedi, W. and Mahr, D. (2019), “The value of social media for innovation: a
capability perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 95, pp. 116-127.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion (2021), “MSME 2021: recovery, resilience and
resolution”, available at: www.sme.go.th/upload/mod_download/download-20210928132527.pdf
(accessed 9 January 2023).
Omri, W. (2015), “Innovative behavior and venture performance of SMEs: the moderating effect of
environmental dynamism”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 195-217.
JEEE Onamusi, A. (2021), “Adaptive capability, social media agility, ambidextrous marketing capability, and
business survival: a mediation analysis”, Marketing and Branding Research, Vol. 8, pp. 31-47.
Panda, S. and Rath, S.K. (2016), “Investigating the structural linkage between IT capability and
organizational agility”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 751-773.
Peteraf, M.A. and Bergen, M.E. (2003), “Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: a market-based and
resource-based framework”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1027-1041.
Petter, S., Straub, D. and Rai, A. (2007), “Specifying formative constructs in information systems
research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 623-656.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Purbasari, R., Sari, D.S. and Muttaqin, Z. (2021), “Mapping of digital industry competitive advantages:
market-based view approach”, Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 380-398.
Puyod, J.V. and Charoensukmongkol, P. (2021), “Effects of workplace rumors and organizational
formalization during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of universities in the Philippines”,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 793-812.
Ratanavanich, M. and Charoensukmongkol, P. (2023), “Effects of improvisational behavior on
entrepreneurial activities and firm performance: the moderating roles of firm size and business
experience”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies.
Reed, J.H. (2021), “Strategic agility and the effects of firm age and environmental turbulence”, Journal of
Strategy and Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Rodríguez-Peña, A. (2021), “Assessing the impact of corporate entrepreneurship in the financial
performance of subsidiaries of Colombian business groups: under environmental dynamism
moderation”, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 16.
Salam, M.T., Imtiaz, H. and Burhan, M. (2021), “The perceptions of SME retailers towards the usage of
social media marketing amid COVID-19 crisis”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 588-605.
Sanger, V.B., Jalaludin, F.W., Cheng, T.L. and Rahim, F.A. (2021), “More important than ever:
embracing digital marketing to survive COVID-19”, CoMBInES – Conference on management,
business, innovation, Education and Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 74-89.
Saputra, N., Sasanti, N., Alamsjah, F. and Sadeli, F. (2022), “Strategic role of digital capability on
business agility during COVID-19 era”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 197, pp. 326-335.
Sen, S., Savitskie, K., Mahto, R.V., Kumar, S. and Khanin, D. (2022), “Strategic flexibility in small firms”,
Journal of Strategic Marketing.
Shen, C-.W., Min, C. and Wang, C-.C. (2019), “Analyzing the trend of O2O commerce by bilingual text
mining on social media”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 101, pp. 474-483.
Simmering, M.J., Fuller, C.M., Richardson, H.A., Ocal, Y. and Atinc, G.M. (2015), “Marker variable
choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: a review and
demonstration”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 473-511.
Singhal, N. and Kapur, D. (2022), “Does social media activity lead to more funds? A study on Indian
start-ups”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies.
Slagmulder, R. and Devoldere, B. (2018), “Transforming under deep uncertainty: a strategic perspective
on risk management”, Business Horizons, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 733-743.
Snoj, B., Gabrijan, V. and Milfelner, B. (2010), “Internal and external market orientation as
organizational resources-consequences for market and financial performance”, Market-Tržište,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 223-241.
Taghizadeh, S.K., Nikbin, D., Alam, M.M.D., Rahman, S.A. and Nadarajah, G. (2021), “Technological Effect of social
capabilities, open innovation and perceived operational performance in SMEs: the moderating role
of environmental dynamism”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1486-1507. media agility
Tarsakoo, P. and Charoensukmongkol, P. (2019), “Dimensions of social media marketing capabilities
and their contribution to business performance of firms in Thailand”, Journal of Asia Business
Studies, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 441-461.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Vaitoonkiat, E. and Charoensukmongkol, P. (2020a), “Interaction effect of entrepreneurial orientation
and stakeholder orientation on the business performance of firms in the steel fabrication industry
in Thailand”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 453-473.
Vaitoonkiat, E. and Charoensukmongkol, P. (2020b), “Stakeholder orientation’s contribution to firm
performance: the moderating effect of perceived market uncertainty”, Management Research
Review, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 863-883.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986), “Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: a comparison of approaches”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 801-814.
Vrontis, D., El Chaarani, H., El Abiad, Z., El Nemar, S. and Yassine Haddad, A. (2022), “Managerial
innovative capabilities, competitive advantage and performance of healthcare sector during
covid-19 pandemic period”, foresight, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 504-526.
Wamba, S.F., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Akter, S. (2020), “The performance effects of big data
analytics and supply chain ambidexterity: the moderating effect of environmental dynamism”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 222, p. 107498.
Wang, M. (2018), “Impacts of supply chain uncertainty and risk on the logistics performance”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 689-704.
Xing, Y., Liu, Y., Boojihawon, D.K. and Tarba, S. (2020), “Entrepreneurial team and strategic agility: a
conceptual framework and research agenda”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 30
No. 1, p. 100696.
Yau, O.H., Chow, R.P., Sin, L.Y., Alan, C., Luk, C.L. and Lee, J.S. (2007), “Developing a scale for
stakeholder orientation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1306-1327.
Zhou, J. and Charoensukmongkol, P. (2021), “The effect of social media use on customer qualification
skills and adaptive selling behaviors of export salespeople in China”, Journal of Asia Business
Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 278-300.
Zhou, J. and Charoensukmongkol, P. (2022), “Cultural intelligence and adaptive selling behaviors in
cross-cultural selling: the cognitive resource theory and social role theory perspective”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 146, pp. 477-488.
Zhou, J., Mavondo, F.T. and Saunders, S.G. (2019), “The relationship between marketing agility and
financial performance under different levels of market turbulence”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 83, pp. 31-41.

Corresponding author
Peerayuth Charoensukmongkol can be contacted at: peerayuth.c@nida.ac.th

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com