THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.

com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT

Strategic Flexibility and Employee Productivity of Quoted

Pharmaceutical Companies in Nigeria
Adeleke, Adedeji Abraham
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Business Admin. & Marketing,
Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria
Ajike, Emmanuel Ogbonna
Associate Professor, Department of Business Admin. & Marketing,
Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria
Nwankwere, Idowu Aderonke
Lecturer, Department of Business Admin. & Marketing,
Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria
Bamidele, Ayodeji Gbenga
Lecturer, Department of Business Admin. & Marketing,
Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria

Abstract:
The global pharmaceutical industry is becoming increasingly prone to disruptions and economic fluctuations. In
Nigeria, available records showed that pharmaceutical companies are plagued with poor employee productivity in
the face of increasing competition and changes in the business environment. This study investigated the effect of
strategic flexibility on employee productivity of quoted pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria.
The survey research design was adopted for the study. The research population consisted of 642 management and
senior staff employees of the six quoted pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria. The study adopted total enumeration
in soliciting responses from the sample population using an adapted and well-structured questionnaire. The data
collected from respondents were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential (PLS-SEM) statistics.
Findings showed that strategic flexibility (coordination flexibility, futurity, reactive flexibility, resource flexibility)
has a positive significant effect on employee productivity of quoted pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria. The study
concluded that strategic flexibility does have a positive impact on employee productivity of quoted pharmaceutical
firms in Nigeria and recommended that management of the pharmaceutical companies should pay more attention to
resource flexibility, coordination flexibility, reactive flexibility and futurity in their bid to enhance employee
productivity.

Keywords: Strategic flexibility, employee productivity, resource flexibility, coordination flexibility

1. Introduction
Like other sectors of the global economy, the pharmaceutical industry is facing increasing dynamism and
competitiveness in the contemporary business environment. Most business organizations now operate in a volatile,
uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment, creating continuous growth, sustainability, and survival
challenges. The reasons for these uncertainties and unpredictability in the domain of businesses are not far from the
changing customer and competitive demands, emerging market threats and opportunities coming from increased market
globalization, rapid technological innovations, changing demographics, unstable regulatory policies and interventions,
increasing competition, as well as unexpected pandemics.
The pharmaceutical industry is becoming increasingly susceptible and vulnerable to global fluctuations and
disruptions, despite the prevailing performance challenges they face (Foster et al., 2021; Laermann-Nguyen & Backfisch,
2021; Van Arnum, 2019; Van Arnum, 2023). In addition, the inability of the African countries to cater to their
pharmaceutical needs is a major source of worry, with the continent still importing more than 80% of its drug need
(Conway et al., 2019; Kurian, 2019), despite its huge market potential.
In Nigeria, available records showed poor and inconsistent profit-per-employee (PPE), low spending on training
and development, and brain drain in the pharmaceutical industry, which has been on the increase, with trained
pharmacists and other healthcare professionals leaving the country in droves in search of greener pastures in Europe,
America and even in some Asian countries (Folorunsho-Francis, 2020; Lawal et al., 2022). The aforementioned situations
are pointers to poor employee productivity within the industry. For example, Oamen (2021) reported the negative impact
of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic on the pharmaceutical workforce's productivity, with the productivity of field sales
employees going down due to lockdowns and restrictive measures taken to combat the spread of the virus.

118 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

The increasing instability and unpredictability of the Nigerian business environment, owing to economic
recessions, unstable macroeconomic indices and the occurrence of pandemics (Oamen, 2021; Okorocha et al., 2020; Utomi,
2021), has been a challenge to the pharmaceutical sector. However, studies have established that flexible organizations
perform better in the face of increasing dynamism and fluctuations in the marketplace (Ni et al., 2021; Yousuf et al., 2021).
Strategic flexibility has been identified as a dynamic capability needed by firms to survive turbulent business
environments (Bashir, 2023; Hensellek et al., 2023; Kong & Suntrayuth, 2021). Holt et al. (2017) posited that
pharmaceutical firms in Nigeria should develop capabilities to survive in complex business environments. However,
studies investigating the effect of strategic flexibility on employee productivity in the Nigerian pharmaceutical industry are
limited, thereby creating a gap in knowledge.
In addition, studies have examined the effect of strategic flexibility dimensions on various employee outcomes,
with findings remaining inconclusive (Altindag & Siller, 2014; Austin-Egole et al., 2020; Pradhan et al., 2017; Ubeda-Garcia
et al., 2017; Way et al., 2018; Xiu et al., 2017). Therefore, the question of whether strategic flexibility can enhance
employee productivity in the Nigerian pharmaceutical industry remains unanswered. Consequently, the objective of the
study was to examine the effect of strategic flexibility on employee productivity of quoted pharmaceutical companies in
Nigeria.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Dynamic Capability View (DCV)

The underpinning theory for this study is the dynamic capability theory. The dynamic capability theory posits that
the success of businesses is largely dependent on the possession of dynamic capabilities required to adapt to changing
environments and secure value-creating potential, thereby achieving a competitive edge in the marketplace (Wojcik,
2015). Its focus is on the capability of the firm to sense, shape and seize emerging threats and opportunities in the
environment while still maintaining competitiveness based on intangible and tangible resource acquisition (Georgewill,
2021). According to Teece et al. (1997), organizations take advantage of dynamic capabilities to continue delivering
products or services that will confer their competitive advantage even in the face of crisis and turbulence in the business
environment.
The DCV aptly captured the relationship between strategic flexibility and employee productivity. Strategic
flexibility is a dynamic capability (Bashir, 2023; Hensellek et al., 2023) that businesses can develop to create a competitive
edge in the market, leading to improved employee productivity.

2.2. Strategic Flexibility

Strategic flexibility is a dynamic organizational capability (Hensellek et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2020; Nayal et al.,
2022) that confers improved performance and the ability to survive in turbulent and dynamic business environments on
business organizations. It is a multi-dimensional construct and has been given several definitions by different scholars.
This is due to a lack of consensus on its definition and dimensions (El-Morsy et al., 2018). Yousuf et al. (2020) define
strategic flexibility as a firm's ability to recognize major fluctuations in its business environment and apply its assets and
resources efficiently and swiftly to take alternative courses of action to respond to the fluctuations. Meng et al. (2020)
define strategic flexibility as the capability of the firm to respond to a dynamic environment through continuous changes
in resource allocation and strategic actions. According to Tijani (2020), strategic flexibility is an organizational ability to
analyze the forces of the external environment and take strategic action that makes the organization more proactive
against changes in the business environment. Hensellek et al. (2023) define the construct as a company's strategic
capability to reallocate and reconfigure its organizational resources, processes and strategies to promptly respond to
opportunities, threats and changes in the business environment, which in turn meaningfully impact the company's
performance.
Characteristically, strategic flexibility takes many dimensions based on the view of a researcher (Al haraisa, 2018),
and according to Chen et al. (2017), it is embedded in processes or routines for reconfiguring resources generated
internally within the boundaries of a firm. In addition, it is intangible and firm-specific, with different impacts for different
types of organizations (Li et al., 2018). According to Yousuf et al. (2020), while strategic flexibility has been widely
discussed from three managerial perspectives, which include the strategic, the tactical and the operational, there is no
agreement as to the standard definition and dimensions. Similarly, according to Hoeft (2021), there cannot be a one-cap-
fits-all configuration of the strategic flexibility conceptualization because of the uncertainty and complexity involved,
which in turn is dependent on firm and industry characteristics. Therefore, this study measured strategic flexibility with
resource flexibility, coordination flexibility, proactive flexibility, reactive flexibility and futurity (Asikhia, 2011; Chan et al.,
2017; Eryesil et al., 2015; Liao et al., 2019; Ni et al., 2021; Venkatraman, 1989).
Resource flexibility is the ability of an organization to reallocate resources for different uses and the easiness of
switching resource allocation among various uses (Ahmadi & Osman, 2018). According to Yousuf et al. (2022),
coordination flexibility indicates the multiple ways an organization can quickly and effectively make use of its existing
resources to achieve its objectives, as dictated by market and environmental realities. Furthermore, proactive flexibility is
defined as the organizational ability to anticipate emerging changes in the external business environment and, in turn,
prepare for such changes and ensure the firm benefits from the changes by taking strategic actions (Sen et al., 2022), while
reactive flexibility is the ability of an organization to respond to changes in the business environment (Brozovic, 2018; Fan
et al., 2013; Sen et al., 2022). In addition, futurity can be defined as the degree to which future events strongly influence
organizational decisions (Espino-Rodriguez & Ramirez-Fierro, 2018) by taking strategic actions that are based on the
119 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

firm's ability and capability to sense and track crucial market and customer trends forecast key indicators of its activities,
and the firm's adoption of long-term criteria in the allocation and usage of its resources (Mankgele & Fatoki, 2020).

2.3. Employee Productivity

Many organizations are now prioritizing on improving employee productivity because of the numerous
advantages it brings to both the organization and the employees (Hanaysha, 2016). It is key to the success of any
organization and knowing those factors that can influence it is crucial to any organization thinking of long-term
organizational performance. Sajjad et al. (2020) believe that the level of productivity remains a key indicator of
organizational performance. According to Hanaysha (2016), employee productivity is the assessment of how efficient an
employee or a group of workers is. This may be assessed based on the output of an employee within a specific period when
compared with others performing similar tasks. Similarly, Barcenas (2020) defines employee productivity as the amount
of work (output) produced by a worker within a specific period. It involves the employees getting things done consistently.
According to the present study, employee productivity is the extent to which an employee is able to create value from a
given set of organizational inputs within a specific period.
There is an extensive discussion on the advantages of employee productivity in extant literature. According to
Sharma and Sharma (2014), when employees are more productive, it leads to favorable economic growth, higher
profitability and better social progress for the entire society, while employees who are more productive earn better wages,
better working conditions and have better employment opportunities. Furthermore, a higher level of employee
productivity facilitates cost reduction and higher quality output, thereby enhancing the competitive position of an
organization (Hanaysha, 2016). Austin-Egole et al. (2020) posit that the continuous growth and success of an organization
are dependent on the performance of their employees, which in turn underscores the need for high-performing individuals
to meet the objectives of the organization, deliver needed products and services that will enable the business to achieve a
competitive edge over business rivals.
The flexibility of human resources is crucial for sustaining organizational performance (Okeyo & Juma, 2021).
There is an increasing need for more effective use of the human resource. While those who design jobs now factor in cost
reduction measures, business organizations are now looking for and employing people who are flexible and can easily
adapt to different works and tasks. Therefore, flexible human resource management practices can improve employee
productivity by increasing their abilities and skills, promoting positive attitudes to work, increasing the level of motivation
of the employees and providing opportunities to maximize their skills and potential. One of the ways identified as means of
improving employee productivity is the adoption of flexible schedules (Barcenas, 2020). In the view of Kocyigit and
Akkaya (2020), organizations that are flexible and have organic structures will possibly have employees who are more
creative and will put their different abilities and skills to use in helping their organizations pull through turbulent times.
According to Austin-Egole et al. (2020), Okeyo and Juma (2021), and Shah et al. (2020), the level of performance
of employees working in flexible working environment shows in their level of productivity, the level of customer
satisfaction with the company's products and services, job satisfaction of employees, employee commitment to their jobs
and extent of employee retention within that organization.

2.4. Strategic Flexibility and Employee Productivity

Volatility and unpredictability in the business environment are quickly becoming a serious challenge to business
leaders and managers, requiring organizational leaders to adopt strategic flexibility to ensure sustainability and
competitiveness. Adapting to the changes in the business environment requires that organizations must have employees
that are able to quickly learn new skills that can handle diverse tasks and as well modify their behaviors to suit the
prevailing business environment (Xiu et al., 2017). This is to ensure that they remain productive and contribute to better
organizational performance.
Xiu et al. (2017) in China established that there is a positive relationship between strategic flexibility and
employee productivity. Similarly, Okeyo and Juma (2021) studied the Kenya banking industry and found that helping
employees to develop depth in multiple skills has a significant effect on their performance. They posited that multi-skilling
is a human resource approach to engendering organizational flexibility, which helps to enhance the survival of businesses
when faced with increasing uncertainties. In the study conducted by Pradhan et al. (2017), it was found that human
resource flexibility has a positive significant effect on organizational effectiveness measured with the performance of
employees of manufacturing firms in India. In Nigeria, Austin-Egole et al. (2020) found that flexible working arrangement
enhances organizational performance.
Shah et al. (2020) established that initiating flexibility in working hours enhances the work engagement of
employees, which in turn leads to better team performance. In other related studies, Alamro et al. (2018) examined the
effect of strategic flexibility on the operational performance of firms in the Jordanian manufacturing sector and found that
strategic flexibility dimensions have a significant positive effect on productivity, while Takaishi et al. (2016) found that
perception of strategic flexibility has a significant positive effect on innovative behaviors among employees of Japanese
firms. The belief is that an increase in innovative behaviors will invariably lead to enhanced employee productivity. In the
same vein, the study by Kumar and Rai (2017) revealed that human resource flexibility dimensions of skill flexibility,
behavioral flexibility and HR practice flexibility enhance HR performance. Therefore, the study hypothesized that:
• H1: Strategic flexibility (resource flexibility, coordination flexibility, proactive flexibility, reactive flexibility,
futurity) has a significant effect on employee productivity of quoted pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria

120 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

Figure 1: Theoretical Model

3. Methods
The study adopted the survey research design. An adapted and well-structured questionnaire was
distributed to 642 management and senior staff employee of the six quoted pharmaceutical companies (Fidson
Healthcare Nigeria Plc., May & Baker Nigeria Plc., Morison Industries Plc., Neimeth International Pharmaceuticals Plc.,
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Nigeria Plc., and Pharma-Deko Plc), who formed the population for the study. The quoted
pharmaceutical firms were selected for the study because the issues around the independent variable (strategic
flexibility) are found within the public pharma sector. Total enumeration was used, with 642 printed
questionnaires administered to the survey participants through their Human Resource departments. 513
questionnaires were duly filled and returned, indicating a response rate of 79.9%. Table 1 presents the
demographic details of the survey respondents.

Demographic Variables N (513) % (100)

Gender
Male 266 51.9
Female 247 48.1
Age (Years)
Below 30 43 8.4
31-40 224 43.7
41-50 201 39.2
Above 50 45 8.7
Years with Firm (Years)
0-5 153 29.8
6-10 207 40.4
11-15 109 21.2
16-35 44 8.6
Educational Qualification
Secondary 1 0.2
Post- Secondary 16 3.1
Bachelor 272 53
Master 219 42.7
Doctorate 5 1
Grade Level
Management 34 6.6
Senior Staff 479 93.4
Table 1: Demographic Information of the Respondents
Source: Researcher’s Result (2023)
121 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

Strategic flexibility was measured with five dimensions: resource flexibility, coordination flexibility, proactive
flexibility, reactive flexibility and futurity. Each of the sub-variables of strategic flexibility had 5 question items, giving a
total of 25 question items for measuring the construct. Resource flexibility has five items adapted from the works of
Bhattacharya et al. (2005), Chauhan and Singh (2014) and Han and Zhang (2021). Coordination flexibility is measured
with five items adapted from the works of Han and Zhang (2021) and Mai et al. (2021). Proactive flexibility has five items
adapted from Eryesil et al. (2015) and Fan et al. (2013), while reactive flexibility has five items adapted from Asikhia
(2010) and Fan et al. (2013). Futurity is measured with five items adapted from Espino-Rodriguez and Ramirez-Fierro
(2018) and Karabulut (2015). Employee productivity was measured with 5 question items adapted from Al Haraisa (2018)
and Okeyo & Juma (2021).
In order to deal with common method bias, ex-ante procedural techniques suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003)
were used, including placing the independent variable and the dependent variable into different sections on the
questionnaire, as well as ensuring the survey participants of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses (Chan et
al., 2017; Gorondutse et al., 2020; Jordan & Troth, 2020). The study conducted pre-analysis tests, including linearity,
homoscedasticity, normality and multicollinearity tests, to ensure the quality of the data and prevent the violation of the
assumptions of the chosen statistical technique (Mertler & Reinhert, 2017; Norusis, 1998).
The study subjected the collected data to confirmatory factor analysis to establish the reliability and validity of the
research instrument. 3 question items and one question item were dropped from resource flexibility and reactive
flexibility, respectively, due to poor factor loadings. The reliability of the research instrument was established using
Cronbach’s alpha values and composite reliability (CR), with values for each of the study constructs exceeding the
minimum threshold of 0.7, which signifies that the research instrument was reliable (Hair et al., 2006). Convergent validity
was measured using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) (Barclay et al., 1995; Hair et al.,
2019). All the values were within the recommended thresholds, as presented in table 2, thereby indicating that the
indicators actually measured the constructs well. Discriminant validity was measured using the Fornell and Larcker
(1981) criterion. According to the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion, discriminant validity is established when the
diagonal elements (square root of AVE) exceed the off-diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns. The
discriminant validity values, presented in table 3, indicate a higher level of confidence that the constructs are not related.

Variables Mean Std. Dev. Cronbach's Alpha Cr Average Variance

Extracted (Ave)
RSF 4.33 1.22 0.828 0.846 0.593
COF 4.67 0.99 0.816 0.855 0.581
PRF 4.61 1.14 0.803 0.837 0.563
REF 4.37 1.12 0.762 0.767 0.585
FUT 4.70 1.03 0.763 0.858 0.802
EP 4.43 1.12 0.797 0.814 0.553
Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Note: RSF = Resource Flexibility, COF = Coordination Flexibility, PRF = Proactive Flexibility,
REF = Reactive Flexibility, FUT = Futurity, EP = Employee Productivity

COF EP FUT PRF REF RSF

COF 0.770
EP 0.459 0.783
FUT 0.525 0.485 0.816
PRF 0.457 0.386 0.585 0.801
REF 0.605 0.526 0.635 0.564 0.765
RSF 0.327 0.249 0.248 0.160 0.256 0.896
Table 3: Discriminant Validity
Note: RSF = Resource Flexibility, COF = Coordination Flexibility,
PRF = Proactive Flexibility, REF = Reactive Flexibility, FUT = Futurity, EP = Employee Productivity

To test the study hypothesis, PLS-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was adopted using the SmartPLS
version 4.0.9 statistical software. The study used the PLS-algorithm command for predicting effect-relationship,
bootstrapping to determine the level of significance of the prediction, and blindfolding to determine the predictive
relevance of the structural model given. The independent variable is strategic flexibility, with sub-variables of resource
flexibility, coordination flexibility, reactive flexibility, proactive flexibility, and futurity, and the dependent variable is
employee productivity. The PLS-SEM results are shown in table 4.

122 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

4. Results
From the results in table 4, the adjusted coefficient of determination (Adj. R2) of 0.355 showed that strategic
flexibility dimensions explained about 35.5% of the variation in employee productivity, while the remaining 64.5%
variation in employee productivity is explained by other exogenous variables different from strategic flexibility
dimensions considered in this study and the effect is statistically significant at 95% confidence interval and p-value less
than 0.05. This result suggests that strategic flexibility influences 35.5% of employee productivity of quoted
pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria.

Original Sample Sample Standard T statistics P f2 Q2 Adj.

(O) Mean Deviation (|O/STD.DEV|) values R2
Unstandardized (M) (STD.DEV)
Beta
Coordination 0.137 0.138 0.054 2.537 0.011 0.017 0.339 0.355
Flexibility ->
Employee
Productivity
Futurity -> 0.233 0.234 0.057 4.059 0.000 0.041
Employee
Productivity
Proactive 0.051 0.051 0.058 0.880 0.379 0.002
Flexibility ->
Employee
Productivity
Reactive Flexibility 0.240 0.241 0.058 4.142 0.000 0.041
-> Employee
Productivity
Resource 0.104 0.104 0.043 2.427 0.015 0.015
Flexibility ->
Employee
Productivity
Table 4: Summary of the PLS-SEM for the Effect of Strategic Flexibility Dimensions on
Employee Productivity of the Quoted Pharmaceutical Companies in Nigeria
Source: Researcher’s Result via SmartPLS Version 4.0.9 (2023)

The path coefficient of the strategic flexibility dimensions (resource flexibility, coordination flexibility, reactive
flexibility, proactive flexibility, and futurity) revealed that all strategic flexibility dimensions have positive and significant
effects on employee productivity, except for proactive flexibility, with insignificant relative effects. Specifically, the results
revealed that at a 95% confidence level, coordination flexibility (β = 0.137, t = 2.537), futurity (β = 0.233, t = 4.059),
reactive flexibility (β = 0.240, t = 4.142), and resource flexibility (β = 0.104, t= 2.427) were statistically significant in
predicting employee productivity as their p-values were less than 0.05 and they have t-values ≥1.96. However, the relative
effect of proactive flexibility (β = 0.051, t = 0.880) has a t-value below the acceptable threshold of 1.96 to suggest that the
relative effect is statistically insignificant. Therefore, proactive flexibility was removed from the prescriptive model. The
predictive and prescriptive multiple regression models are thus expressed:
EP = 0.137COF + 0.233FUT + 0.015PRF + 0.240REF + 0.104RSF …… Eqn. 1 (Predictive model)
EP = 0.137COF + 0.233FUT + 0.240REF + 0.104RSF …………………. Eqn. 1 (Prescriptive model)
Where:
EP = Employee Productivity
COF = Coordination Flexibility
FUT = Futurity
PRF = Proactive Flexibility
REF = Reactive Flexibility
RSF = Resource Flexibility
The results of the partial least square-structural equation modeling indicated that from the prescriptive model,
only coordination flexibility, futurity, reactive flexibility and resource flexibility are statistically significant and are
therefore prescribed for adequate attention by the quoted pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria. From the prescriptive
model, it is observed that a unit change in coordination flexibility causes a potential increase of 0.137 in employee
productivity, given that all other factors are held constant. Similarly, the result shows that a unit change in futurity will
lead to a 0.233 increase in employee performance, given that all other factors are held constant. Likewise, a unit change in
reactive flexibility will lead to a 0.240 increase in employee productivity in the quoted pharmaceutical companies in
Nigeria, given that all other factors are held constant. Lastly, a unit change in resource flexibility will lead to a 0.104
increase in employee productivity, given that all other factors are held constant. Overall, from the results, reactive
flexibility had the highest relative effect on employee productivity in the investigated quoted pharmaceutical companies in
Nigeria, with a coefficient of 0.240 and a t-value of t = 4.142. Futurity had the second highest effect with a coefficient of

123 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

0.233 and t-value of t = 4.059, followed by coordination flexibility with a coefficient of 0.137 and t-value of t = 2.537, and
lastly, resource flexibility with a coefficient of 0.104, and a t-value of 2.427.
Using the F-Square (f2) statistic, the effect size of the predictor variables (strategic flexibility dimensions) on the
outcome variable (employee productivity) can be determined in PLS-SEM. Scholars proposed f2 thresholds of 0.02, 0.15,
and 0.35, which reflect small, medium, and large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1988). Coordination flexibility, futurity,
proactive flexibility, reactive flexibility, and resource flexibility had effect sizes of 0.017, 0.041, 0.002, 0.041, and 0.015,
respectively. According to Cohen's f2 criterion, futurity and reactive flexibility have a small effect size on employee
productivity, while coordination flexibility, proactive flexibility, and resource flexibility have tiny effect sizes on employee
productivity.
In addition, to establish the predictive relevance of the model, the Stone-Gleisser Q2 value was determined and
weighed against the acceptable threshold of Q2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 representing small, medium, and large
predictive importance, respectively. While Q2 greater than zero confirms that the given structural model is appropriate
(Hair et al., 2013; Hair et al., 2017), from the results in table 4, the Q2 value of employee productivity of the quoted
pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria was 0.339. As a result, strategic flexibility has a large degree of predictive
significance in terms of employee productivity in the quoted pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria. As a result, the
structural model specified for the hypothesis is relevant and has adequate predictive quality. Going by the PLS-SEM
strength test (Adj. R2 = 0.355, p = 0.000, Q2 = 0.339), this study can conclude that strategic flexibility significantly affects
employee productivity in the quoted pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria. Hence, the study accepted the hypothesis (H1),
which states that strategic flexibility has a significant effect on employee productivity.

5. Discussion
The test of the hypothesis showed that strategic flexibility sub-variables have a positive and significant effect on
employee productivity of quoted pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria. In specific terms, all the sub-variables of strategic
flexibility except proactive flexibility have a significant positive effect on employee productivity. This finding has
conceptual, empirical and theoretical implications for the stream of research on strategic flexibility. From the conceptual
perspective, the finding provides further confirmation of the definition of strategic flexibility as a dynamic capability that
can be deployed in a dynamic and competitive business environment to enhance organizational outcomes, such as
employee productivity (Hensellek et al., 2023; Xiu et al., 2017). Hensellek et al. (2023) define strategic flexibility as a
company's strategic capability to reallocate and reconfigure its organizational resources, processes and strategies in order
to promptly respond to opportunities, threats and changes in the business environment, which in turn meaningfully
impact the company's performance.
Empirically, the finding concurs with that of Xiu et al. (2017), who found a positive relationship between strategic
flexibility and employee productivity. It was stated that strategic flexibility leads to organizations adopting innovative
human resources practices, which further enhance the productivity of their employees. In addition, this finding aligns with
a study conducted in Nigeria by Austin-Egole et al. (2020), who found that flexible working arrangement enhances
organizational performance. Furthermore, Austin-Egole et al. (2020) and Shah et al. (2020) have asserted that flexible
Human Resource practices are veritable tools for enhancing the productivity of employees. Effectively adapting to changes
in the business environment requires firms to have employees who can quickly learn and apply new competencies, handle
multiple tasks and modify their behavior to suit prevailing market demands. This finding also aligns with the findings of
Pradhan et al. (2017). Pradhan et al. (2017) found a positive significant effect of human resource flexibility on
organizational effectiveness measured with the performance of employees in manufacturing companies in India.
Theoretically, the finding provided support for the assumptions of the dynamic capability view (DCV), affirming
strategic flexibility as a dynamic capability that can enhance employee productivity in a dynamic and unstable business
environment. Strategic flexibility can help pharmaceutical organizations engender innovative ways of managing their
human resource, boosting employees' morale and satisfaction, thereby leading to an increase in their productivity.
Companies can increase the productivity of their employees by focusing on resource flexibility, coordination flexibility,
reactive flexibility and futurity.

6. Conclusions
The study concluded that strategic flexibility is a reliable strategic focus that can enable quoted pharmaceutical
firms in Nigeria to enhance and sustain employee productivity in the competitive and dynamic Nigerian business
environment. The combination of resource flexibility, coordination flexibility, reactive flexibility and futurity can help
increase employee productivity. Therefore, the study recommends that the management of quoted pharmaceutical firms
should pay more attention to creating various strategic options in terms of how they coordinate their activities, react to
environmental changes, manage their resources, and pay serious attention to anticipated future trends in a bid to increase
employee productivity. In addition, the dynamic capability view (DCV) is seen as a suitable theoretical basis for
investigating how organizations can create competitive positions for realizing improved performance in dynamic and
complex market conditions.
This study made a valuable contribution to the practice of management by identifying how strategic managers can
build flexibility into their organizational systems and structures to foster better employee productivity, even in the face of
disruptions in the business environment. Management of pharmaceutical firms in the country must begin a review of their
strategies and eliminate any form of rigidity.
The study is not without limitations. Firstly, the study focused on quoted pharmaceutical firms in Nigeria, which
means insights from privately owned pharmaceutical companies may have been missed. Similarly, the study only sought
124 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

responses from the employees of the quoted pharmaceutical firms, thereby excluding the views of other key stakeholders
and partners in the pharmaceutical chain. Another limitation is found in the analysis technique adopted for the study, the
partial Least Square (PLS) method, which assumes linearity between latent variables that might not be true every time.
The study used subjective measures of organizational performance, which might not be a true reflection of the level of
performance in the organizations under study because data analysis was done on the basis of the perceptions and opinions
of the sampled employees. In addition, the study is based on cross-sectional data, which in turn, limits the extent to which
causal implications can be drawn.
The aforementioned limitations, however, provided opportunities for further studies. Future studies should adopt
objective measures of employee productivity and adopt a longitudinal approach to establish a causal relationship between
strategic flexibility and employee productivity. Additionally, future studies should replicate the model developed in this
study and investigate whether the findings are also applicable across different types of industries while also investigating
the effect of potential moderators and mediators on the flexibility-employee productivity link.

7. References
i. Ahmadi, M., & Osman, M. H. M. (2018). How can small and medium-sized enterprises maximize the benefit derived
from strategic flexibility? The moderating effect of contextual ambidextrous learning. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology, 11(11), 1–10. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i11/118692
ii. Al haraisa, Y. E. (2018). Strategic flexibility and its impact on enhancing organizational effectiveness: An applied
study on Jordanian hotels. International Business Research, 11(10), 165–173. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v11n10p165
iii. Alamro, A. S., Awwad, A. S., & Anouze, A. L. M. (2018). The integrated impact of new products and market
flexibilities on operational performance is the case of the Jordanian manufacturing sector. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(7), 1163–1187. doi: 10.1108/jmtm-01-2017-0001
iv. Altindag, E., & Siller, F. (2014). Effects of flexible working method on employee performance: An empirical study
in Turkey. Business and Economics Journal, 5(3), 1–7. doi: 10.4172/2151-6219.1000104
v. Asikhia, O. (2010). Market-focused strategic flexibility among Nigerian banks. African Journal of Marketing
Management, 2(2), 18–28.
vi. Asikhia, O. (2011). Strategic flexibility and market performance of SMEs in Nigeria. International Journal of
Management and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 72–91. doi: 10.1504/IJMED.2011.039659
vii. Austin-Egole, I. S., Iheriohanma, E. B. J., & Nwokorie, C. (2020). Flexible working arrangements and organizational
performance: An overview. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 25(5), 50–59. doi:
10.9790/0837-2505065059
viii. Barcenas, M. (2020). Employee productivity: The ultimate guide for managers. Fellow.
ix. Barclay, D. W., Thompson, R., & Higgins, C. (1995). The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: Personal
computer adoption and use an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.
x. Bashir, M. (2023). The influence of strategic flexibility on SME performance: Is business model innovation the
missing link? International Journal of Innovation Science. doi: 10.1108/IJIS-06-2021-0110
xi. Bhattacharya, M., Gibson, D. E., & Doty, D. H. (2005). The effects of flexibility in employee skills, employee
behaviors, and human resource practices on firm performance. Journal of Management, 31(4), 622–664. doi:
10.1177/0149206304272347
xii. Brozovic, D. (2018). Strategic flexibility: A review of literature. International Journal of Management Reviews,
20(3), 3–31. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12111
xiii. Chan, A. T. L., Ngai, E. W. T., & Moon, K. K. L. (2017). The effects of strategic and manufacturing flexibilities and
supply chain agility on firm performance in the fashion industry. European Journal of Operational Research, 259,
486–499. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.006
xiv. Chauhan, G., & Singh, T. P. (2014). Development and validation of resource flexibility measures for manufacturing
industry. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 7(1), 21–41. doi: 10.3926/jiem.655
xv. Chen, Y-Y., Wu, I-J., & Tsai, I-C. (2018). The effect of fit between manufacturing strategy, strategic orientation and
marketing strategy on business performance. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences,
7(4), 301–320. doi: 10.32327/IJMESS/7.4.2018.19
xvi. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
xvii. Conway, M., Holt, T., Sabow, A., & Sun, I. Y. (2019, January 10). Should sub-Saharan Africa make its own drug?
McKinsey & Company.
xviii. El-Morsy, G. E. M., Ebeid, A. Y., Elemawi, A. H., Elshafei, M. I., & Elbardan, M. F. (2018). The role of strategic
flexibility in supporting marketing performance: An applied study on construction companies in Egypt. Science
Journal for Commercial Research, 3(5), 9–41. doi: 10.21608/sjsc.2018.111273
xix. Eryesil, K., Esmen, O., & Beduk, A. (2015). The role of strategic flexibility for achieving sustainable competitive
advantage and its effect on business performance. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
9(10), 3469–3475. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1109381
xx. Espino-Rodriguez, T. F., & Ramirez-Fierro, J. C. (2018). The relationship between strategic orientation dimensions
and hotel outsourcing and its impact on organizational performance. An application in a tourism destination.
Sustainability, 10, 1760. doi: 10.3390/su10061769
xxi. Fan, Z., Wu, D., & Wu, X. (2013). Proactive and reactive strategic flexibility in coping with environmental change in
innovation. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(2), 187–201. doi: 10.1080/19761597.2013.866316

125 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

xxii. Folorunsho-Franscis, A. (2020). Lack of govt support, poor pay reasons young pharmacists migrate abroad, PCN,
others say - The Punch.
xxiii. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
xxiv. Foster, T., Patel, P., & Skiba, K. (2021). Four ways pharma companies can make their supply chain more resilient.
McKinsey & Company. Retrieved January 01, 2023, from: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-
sciences/our-insights/four-ways-pharma-companies-can-make-their-supply-chains-more-resilient
xxv. Georgewill, I. A. (2021). Structural flexibility and corporate responsiveness in the business environment: A
theoretical review. European Journal of Economic and Financial Research, 4(4), 169–188. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejefr.v4i4.1033
xxvi. Gorondutse, A. H., Arshad, D., & Alshuaibi, A. S. (2020). Driving sustainability in SMEs' performance: The effect of
strategic flexibility. Journal of Strategy and Management, 14(1), 64–81. doi: 10.1108/JSMA-03-2020-0064
xxvii. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.).
Pearson Prentice Hall.
xxviii. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM). London: Sage Publications.
xxix. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 31, 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
xxx. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM.
European Business Review, 31, 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
xxxi. Han, C., & Zhang, S. (2021). Multiple strategic orientations and strategic flexibility in product innovation. European
Research on Management and Business Economics, 27, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.100136
xxxii. Hanaysha, J. (2016). Improving employee productivity through work engagement: Empirical evidence from the
higher education sector. Management Science Letters, 6, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2015.11.006
xxxiii. Hensellek, S., Kleine-Stegeman, L., & Kollmann, T. (2023). Entrepreneurial leadership, strategic flexibility, and
venture performance: Does founders' span of control matter? Journal of Business Research, 157, 113544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113544
xxxiv. Hoeft, F. (2021). The three dimensions of strategic flexibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
30(6), 1728–1740. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2021-2576
xxxv. Holt, H., Millroy, L., & Mmopi, M. (2017). Winning in Nigeria: Pharma's next frontier. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/our-insights/winning-in-nigeria-
pharmas-next-frontier
xxxvi. Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2020). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in
organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289621987197
xxxvii. Karabulut, A. T. (2015). Effects of innovation strategy on firm performance: A study conducted on manufacturing
firms in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 195, 1338–1347. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.314
xxxviii. Kocyigit, Y., & Akkaya, B. (2020). The role of organizational flexibility in organizational agility: A research on SMEs.
Business Management and Strategy, 11(1), 110–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.5296/bms.v11i1.16867
xxxix. Kong, Y., & Suntrayuth, S. (2021). The causal model of absorptive capacity, strategic flexibility and innovation
performance on sustainable competitive advantage: An internationalization perspective. Thammasat Review,
24(1), 214–246. doi: 10.14456/tureview.2021.10
xl. Kumar, V. V. A., & Rai, S. (2017). Role of human resource flexibility in organizational performance: A study of
Indian IT firms. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 14(3), 306–325.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJICBM.2017.083236
xli. Kurian, O. C. (2019). Expanding local pharmaceutical production in Africa: An idea whose time has come? Observer
Research Foundation. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/expanding-pharmaceutical-local-production-in-
africa-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-49805/
xlii. Laermann-Nguyen, U., & Backfisch, M. (2021). Innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry? A survey. SN
Business & Economics, 1(164), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-021-00163-5
xliii. Lawal, L., Lawal, A.O., Amosu, O.P. et al. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and health workforce brain drain in
Nigeria. International Journal for Equity Health, 21(174), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01789-z
xliv. Li, J., Zhou, L., Zhang, X., Chen, Z., & Tian, F. (2018). Technological configuration capability, strategic flexibility, and
organizational performance in Chinese high-tech organizations. Sustainability, 10(5), 1665.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051665
xlv. Liao, S., Liu, Z., Fu, L., & Ye, P. (2019). Investigate the role of distributed leadership and strategic flexibility in
fostering business model innovation. Chinese Management Studies, 13(1), 93–112. doi:10.1108/CMS-02-2018-
0420
xlvi. Mai, Y., Yang, H., & Zhang, G. (2021). Does business model innovation enhance the sustainable development of new
ventures? Understanding an inverted-u relationship. Sustainability, 13(1), 262.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010262
xlvii. Mankgele, K. P., & Fatoki, O. (2020). Strategic orientation and performance of small businesses in South Africa.
Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 9, 459–467. doi: 10.6000/1929-7092.2020.09.43
xlviii. Meng, M., Lei, J., Jiao, J., & Tao, Q. (2020). How does strategic flexibility affect bricolage: The moderating role of
environmental turbulence? PLoS ONE, 15(8), e0238030. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238030
126 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

xlix. Mertler, C. A., & Reinhert, R. V. (2017). Advances and multivariate statistical methods. Routledge.
l. Nayal, P., Pandey, N., & Paul, J. (2022). Covid-19 pandemic and consumer-employee-organization well-being: A
dynamic capability approach. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 56(1), 359–390.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12399
li. Ni, G., Xu, H., Cui, Q., Qiao, Y., Zhang, Z., Li, H., & Hickey, P. J. (2021). Influence mechanism of organizational
flexibility on enterprise competitiveness: The mediating role of organizational innovation. Sustainability, 13(1),
176. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010176
lii. Norusis, M. J. (1998). SPSS 8.0: Guide to data analysis. Prentice Hall.
liii. Oamen, T. E. (2021). The effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the psyche and productivity of pharmaceutical sales
workforce in an African country; A descriptive case study: The effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on a Sales
Workforce. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(5), 586–604. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.85.10161
liv. Okeyo, B. A., & Juma, D. (2021). Effect of depth multi-skilling strategies on employee performance in commercial
banks in Kenya: A case of Kisumu County. The Strategic Journal of Business Change & Management, 8(1), 435–446.
lv. Okorocha, C., Odunmbaku, T., Joledo, O., & Olumide, O. (2020). The Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic: Key
considerations in the health & pharmaceutical sector. Jackson, Etti & Edu. Available at:
https://www.jacksonettiandedu.com/the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-key-considerations-in-the-health-
pharmaceuticals-sector/
lvi. Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
lvii. Pradhan, R. K., Kumari, I.G., Kumar, U. (2017). Human resource flexibility and organizational effectiveness:
Mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, 17(3/4), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2017.087125
lviii. Sajjad, W., Sajjad, A., & Asif, M. (2020). Impact of entrepreneurial orientation, access to finance and strategic
flexibility on SMEs performance. Journal of Management and Research (JMR), 7(1), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.29145//jmr/71/070101
lix. Sen, S., Savitskie, K., Mahto, R. V., Kumar, S., & Khanin, D. (2022): Strategic flexibility in small firms. Journal of
Strategic Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2036223
lx. Shah, M. W., Khattak, P., & Shah, M. H. (2020). The impact of flexible working hours and psychological
empowerment on team performance with the mediating role of work engagement. British Journal of Research,
7(1:49), 1–15. doi: 10.36648/2394-3718.7.1.49
lxi. Sharma, M. S., & Sharma, M. V. (2014). Employee engagement to enhance productivity in current scenario.
International Journal of Commerce, Business and Management, 3(4), 595–604.
lxii. Takaishi, K., Hasegawa, R., & Hasegawa, S. (2016). Strategic flexibility, organizational commitment and innovative
behavior among foreign subsidiaries and domestic Japanese firms. Journal of Business and Economics, 7(4), 549–
561. doi: 10.15341/jbe(2155-7950)/04.07.2016/001
lxiii. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
lxiv. Tijani, O. O. (2020). Can strategic entrepreneurship sustain the market share of Nigerian textile manufacturing
firms? European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 8(2), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.37745/ejbir/vol8.no2.pp1-19.2020
lxv. Úbeda-García, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Zaragoza-Sáez, P. (2017). Human resource flexibility and
performance in the hotel industry: The role of organizational ambidexterity. Personnel Review, 46(4), 824–846.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2015-0315
lxvi. Utomi, J-M. (2021). History, recession and a sector in steady decay. Vanguard.
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/08/history-recession-and-a-sector-in-steady-decay/
lxvii. Van Arnum, P. (2019). Pharma industry faces slower growth, changing business models. DCAT Value Chain
Insights. Available at: https://www.dcatvci.org/features/pharma-industry-faces-slower-growth-changing-
business-models/
lxviii. Van Arnum, P. (2023). ROI in pharma R&D falls in post-pandemic market. DCAT Value Chain Insights. Available at:
https://www.dcatvci.org/features/roi-in-pharma-rd-falls-in-post-pandemic-market/
lxix. Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality and
measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 946–962.
lxx. Way, S. A., Wright, P. M., Tracey, J. B., & Isnard, J. F. (2018). HR flexibility: Precursors and the contingent impact on
firm financial performance. Human Resource Management, 57(2), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21867
lxxi. Wojcik, P. (2015). Exploring links between dynamic capabilities perspective and resource-based view: A literature
overview. International Journal of Management and Economics, 45(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijme-
2015-0017
lxxii. Xiu, L., Liang, X., Chen, Z., & Xu, W. (2017). Strategic flexibility, innovative HR practices, and firm performance: A
moderated mediation model. Personnel Review, 46(7), 1335–1357. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2016-0252
lxxiii. Yousuf, A., Haddad, H., & Felfoldi, J. (2020). How do strategic flexibility and market orientation affect companies'
performance? Evidence from Jordanian pharmaceutical companies. International Conference on Business
Management, Innovation & Sustainability (ICBMIS) 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3708868

127 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com

lxxiv. Yousuf, A., Lorestani, V. Z., Olah, J., & Felfoldi, J. (2021). Does uncertainty moderate the relationship between
strategic flexibility and companies' performance? Evidence from small and medium pharmaceutical companies in
Iran. Sustainability, 13(16), 9157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169157

128 Vol 11 Issue 5 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2023/v11/i5/BM2305-015 May, 2023