MEDIATING EFFECTS OF MARKET ORIENTATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARKET ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the effects of market orientation and environmental market uncertainty on the adaptive capacity of technology-based firms located in innovation habitats. It employed a survey of 137 companies, with data analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results revealed that market orientation, characterized by an intensive customer focus, emphasis on information, and inter-functional coordination, significantly increases organizational adaptive capacity. Environmental market uncertainty, defined by unpredictable consumer demands, positively correlated with both market orientation and adaptive capacity. These findings demonstrate that market orientation mediates the relationship between environmental market uncertainty and adaptive capacity, suggesting that firms can leverage market orientation as both defensive and offensive strategies.

Keywords:
market orientation; environmental market uncertainty; adaptive capacity; technology-based companies; structural equation modeling.

RESUMO

Este estudo investiga os efeitos da orientação para o mercado e da incerteza ambiental de mercado na capacidade adaptativa de empresas de base tecnológica instaladas em habitats de inovação. Metodologicamente, a pesquisa incluiu um levantamento com 137 empresas, analisando os dados por meio de modelagem de equações estruturais. Os resultados revelam que a orientação para o mercado, caracterizada por um foco intensivo no cliente, valorização da informação e coordenação interfuncional, eleva significativamente a capacidade adaptativa das organizações. A incerteza ambiental de mercado, definida pela imprevisibilidade das demandas do consumidor, demonstrou uma correlação positiva tanto com a orientação para o mercado quanto com a capacidade adaptativa das empresas. Este estudo enriquece a literatura ao ilustrar que a orientação para o mercado pode atuar como mediadora na interação entre a incerteza ambiental de mercado e a capacidade adaptativa, sugerindo que as organizações podem utilizar sua orientação para o mercado como uma estratégia defensiva e ofensiva.

Palavras-chave
orientação para o mercado; incerteza ambiental de mercado; capacidade adaptativa; empresas de base tecnológica; modelagem de equações estruturais.

RESUMEN

Este estudio investiga los efectos de la orientación al mercado y la incertidumbre ambiental del mercado sobre la capacidad de adaptación de las empresas de base tecnológica ubicadas en hábitats de innovación. Metodológicamente, la investigación incluyó una encuesta a 137 empresas, analizando los datos mediante modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Los resultados revelan que la orientación al mercado, caracterizada por una intensa atención al cliente, la valoración de la información y la coordinación interfuncional, aumenta significativamente la capacidad de adaptación de las organizaciones. La incertidumbre ambiental del mercado, definida por la imprevisibilidad de las demandas de los consumidores, demostró una correlación positiva tanto con la orientación al mercado como con la capacidad de adaptación de las empresas. Este estudio enriquece la literatura al ilustrar que la orientación al mercado puede actuar como mediadora en la interacción entre la incertidumbre ambiental y la capacidad de adaptación, sugiriendo que las organizaciones pueden utilizar su orientación al mercado como una estrategia defensiva y ofensiva.

Palabras clave
orientación al mercado; incertidumbre ambiental del mercado; capacidad adaptativa; empresas de base tecnológica; modelación de ecuaciones estructurales.

INTRODUCTION

Organizational responses to environmental uncertainties and strategic adjustments may be the key to determining long-term competitiveness and survival. Although the relevance of strategic orientations and market uncertainties is widely recognized, little is known about their interaction with adaptive dynamic capability (Andersen, 2017; Atanassova & Bednar, 2022; Rawung, 2019). This study investigated the influence of market orientation (MO) and market environmental uncertainties (MU) on firms’ capacity to adapt quickly and effectively, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of how firms navigate increasingly unstable business environments.

Market-oriented organizations, which prioritize understanding customer needs and responding to external environmental changes, tend to develop robust dynamic capabilities that evolve according to the degree of market dynamism (Day, 1999; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). The MO encompasses three core dimensions: customer focus, information access, and interfunctional coordination. These dimensions promote flexibility and responsiveness to market fluctuations (Deshpandé & Farley, 1998). Thus, adaptive capability (ACAP), the central construct in this research, is fundamental for reconfiguring organizational competencies and resources and enabling effective responses to dynamic and unpredictable market conditions (Rawung, 2019; Rodrigues & Martins, 2020; Wang & Ahmed, 2007).

Previous studies have indicated that firms operating in uncertain environments tend to depend on dynamic capabilities to adapt to rapid market transformations (Guinea & Raymond, 2020; Mikalef & Pateli, 2017; Mitrega & Pfajfar, 2015; Roy & Khokle, 2016). Market uncertainty (MU), a principal driver of this dynamism, refers to the unpredictability of consumer needs and market conditions (Lin et al., 2014; Moriarty & Kosnik, 1989). The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, exacerbated this volatility, compelling firms to respond with greater agility to turbulence (Iuga et al., 2024; Perry & Irene, 2024). This study advanced theoretical knowledge by analyzing the interaction between MO, MU, and organizational ACAP. The findings demonstrated how MO translates MU into adaptive responses and broadens understanding of dynamic capabilities in volatile contexts, such as those observed during the pandemic.

Although prior research has examined these variables individually, few have addressed their interaction. Therefore, this study investigated how MO and MU affect firms’ ACAP. The results provided practical insights for managers aiming to enhance organizational agility and adaptability, illustrating how MO can strengthen ACAP and support the formulation of practical strategies that promote competitiveness and sustainability.

The study employed a survey involving 137 technology-based firms located in innovation habitats across Brazil. The results confirmed that both MO and MU play fundamental roles in promoting organizational ACAP. Furthermore, MO served as a mediating mechanism, amplifying the effect of environmental uncertainty on ACAP. These findings may contribute to organizational strategy theory by clarifying the mechanisms underlying organizational adaptation in high-uncertainty environments. The practical implications suggest that, in volatile markets, adopting a market-oriented strategic posture is essential to strengthen firms’ ACAP.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Market orientation and adaptive capability

Over the past few years, growing interest in the relationship between strategic orientations and organizational capabilities has spurred numerous studies (Akbariyeh & Seddigh, 2017; Karami & Tang, 2019; Zhou & Li, 2010). Although most research has focused on the relationship between these orientations and organizational performance (Acosta et al., 2018; Deligianni et al., 2016; Deshpandé et al., 2012; Ferraresi et al., 2012; Peng et al., 2019; Thanos et al., 2016), recent studies have increasingly investigated how such orientations influence organizational capabilities.

Zhou and Li (2007) situated the emergence of studies on strategic orientations within the literature on MO, as initially developed by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990); MO centers on understanding customer needs and supporting firms in adjusting to environmental changes (Day, 1994; Wang & Ahmed, 2007). As defined in this study, ACAP refers to a firm’s ability to identify and exploit market opportunities by aligning internal factors with external conditions to respond rapidly to change (Wang & Ahmed, 2007).

Day (1999) noted that a market-oriented firm integrates a distinctive capability to detect and anticipate changes with the ability to respond swiftly to market demands. Firms proficient in this process possess greater potential for sustained competitive advantage, since MO strengthens the firm-customer relationship (Day, 1994). Adaptive capability involves market analysis, opportunity identification, and support for change (Guerra, 2017; Rotta, 2011), all of which are crucial for long-term success in the contemporary business environment.

Rodrigues and Martins (2020) posited that organizational capabilities, defined as skills developed by the firm, can be fostered by MO. The MO leads to improvements in existing processes and services, elevating the firm’s ACAP (Rawung, 2019). The literature suggests a positive relationship between MO and ACAP, highlighting MO’s role in strengthening adaptive capabilities.

Hence, MO has been widely recognized as a set of practices that align organizational strategies with external environmental demands, fostering flexibility and agility. Market-oriented firms demonstrate superior ability to anticipate and meet customer needs by maintaining a continuous flow of market intelligence and coordinated internal actions (Day, 1994; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). This approach facilitates quickly adaptation to external changes and efficiently reconfigures resources and competencies.

Research highlights that market-oriented firms exhibit greater ACAP due to their capacity to capture environmental information and coordinate internal efforts effectively (Guerra, 2017; Rodrigues & Martins, 2020; Rotta, 2011). Consequently, MO not only improves performance but also strengthens ACAP through a continuous flow of market intelligence and informed decision-making (Rawung, 2019). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

• H1: Market orientation is positively related to the adaptive capability of organizations.

Market environmental uncertainty

Market environmental uncertainty refers to the unpredictability of customer needs and preferences (Moriarty & Kosnik, 1989). Lin et al. (2014) identified uncertainty as a key dimension in emerging economies, drawing on Miller (1987) and Chen et al. (2005) for its measurement criteria. Although extensively studied, the COVID-19 pandemic intensified market volatility (Iuga et al., 2024; Perry & Irene, 2024), underscoring the necessity to analyze this construct in relation to organizational responsiveness to market turbulence (Liu et al., 2020).

Effects on market orientation

There has been an increased interest in the impacts of MO in a global context characterized by heightened volatility. Analyzing how MU influences business strategies is essential. Environmental dynamism models, as outlined by Davis et al. (2009) and Schilke (2013), consistently incorporate uncertainty as a central element.

ElNaggar and ElSayed (2023) investigated the relationship between MU and MO in micro and small enterprises, demonstrating that high uncertainty stimulates both reactive and proactive market strategies. Their findings confirm that MU improves firms’ adaptability in navigating turbulent environments effectively. Similarly, Jaworski and Kohli (1993) emphasized that MO involves the collection, dissemination, and response to market information, suggesting that, in dynamic and uncertain environments where customer preferences and market conditions change rapidly, increased organizational vigilance and adaptability are necessary. Thus, MU motivates firms to intensify their MO to manage unpredictability and sustain competitiveness. Lestari (2017) showed that MU positively affects MO and firm performance, directly and via innovation, as MO fosters innovative processes that enhance business outcomes. Guinea and Raymond (2020) further corroborate that perceived uncertainty drives firms to strengthen MO as an adaptive response to environmental challenges.

Hence, MU defines high volatility and unpredictability as conditions in which rapid changes in consumer preferences or market conditions require firms to adjust their strategies swiftly. These conditions compel firms to intensify MO, increasing vigilance and agility to navigate dynamic markets effectively (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Lestari, 2017).

Firms operating in MU face greater demands to respond strategically to mitigate risks and leverage emerging opportunities. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, market-oriented firms rapidly adjusted their offerings and distribution channels in response to evolving consumer behavior (Iuga et al., 2024; Perry & Irene, 2024). Therefore, MU not only directly influences MO but also renders it a necessary condition for maintaining competitiveness in volatile markets. Accordingly, the second hypothesis in this study proposes that MU may foster stronger customerand market-oriented behaviors:

• H2: Market environmental uncertainty is positively related to market orientation.

Effects on adaptive capability

Prior research has examined the association between environmental uncertainty and variables such as international growth (Westhead et al., 2004), strategic ambidexterity (Judge & Blocker, 2008), technological resources (Dutot et al., 2014), and entrepreneurship (Liu et al., 2020). Studies also addressed the influence of environmental uncertainty on dynamic capabilities (Chatterjee et al., 2023; Guinea & Raymond, 2020; Mitrega & Pfajfar, 2015; Roy & Khokle, 2016). However, the specific relationship between MU and ACAP remains an important research gap.

The literature suggests that turbulent market environments intensify the need for organizational adaptation. Andersen (2017) emphasized the importance of developing adaptive corporate strategies in an unstable global business context. Atanassova and Bednar (2022) indicated that firms facing heightened uncertainty, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, develop ACAP to support growth and ensure survival.

Environments characterized by uncertainty require firms to possess ACAP to rapidly reconfigure resources and strategies in response to changing market conditions (Staber & Sydow, 2002; Oktemgil & Gordon, 1997). Similarly, Wang and Ahmed (2007) argued that ACAP is vital for overcoming structural inertia and operating in uncertain markets.

In highly uncertain environments, organizational survival depends on the capacity to adjust swiftly to change. The MU increases the need for rapid responses, promoting the development of ACAP. The MU-ACAP relationship is justified by the continuous necessity to reconfigure resources and strategies, an imperative for managing instability (Staber & Sydow, 2002; Wang & Ahmed, 2007).

Dynamic markets require firms to adapt supply chains, business models, and product portfolios. The literature suggests that MU creates opportunities for firms that invest in dynamic capabilities, as these competencies enable effective responses to abrupt threats and changes (Andersen, 2017; Atanassova & Bednar, 2022). Based on these findings, the third hypothesis is proposed:

• H3: Market environmental uncertainty is positively related to adaptive capability.

Mediating effects of market orientation

The volatility and uncertainty inherent in the contemporary business environment impose significant challenges, requiring firms to adapt continuously. In this context, MO emerges as an important mediating mechanism, strengthening firms’ ACAP in response to MU. This orientation fosters the strategic implementation of actions that align with external environmental demands. The literature demonstrates that market environmental uncertainty compels firms to develop dynamic capabilities, such as ACAP, to navigate volatile contexts effectively (Alvarez & Merino, 2003; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Teece, 2007; Wang & Ahmed, 2007).

The MO is integral to organizational success, particularly in economic uncertainty, as firms with a strong MO exhibit greater responsiveness and flexibility, effectively adapting to market and technological turbulence. Didonet et al. (2012) asserted that MO improves organizational adaptation and responsiveness to adversity by mediating the relationship between environmental uncertainty and adaptability.

Kurniawan et al. (2021) and Akhtar et al. (2021) examined the mediating role of MO in different organizational contexts. Kurniawan et al. (2021) found that MO mediated the relationship between networking capability and business process agility, which in turn positively influenced firm performance. Business process agility also serves as a mediator between MO and performance. Conversely, Akhtar et al. (2021) demonstrated that MO enhances employees’ green self-efficacy, which mediates the relationship between MO and product innovation. This mediation mechanism illustrates how MO can reinforce ACAP under environmental MU by fostering sustainable innovation.

In summary, the literature consistently supports the view that MO acts as an effective mediator between MU and ACAP. This mediating role is reinforced by enhancing dynamic capabilities that allow firms to respond promptly and flexibly to market fluctuations and external demands. The MO represents a central element of organizational strategy and operates as an integrative link between external factors (i.e., MU) and internal capabilities (i.e., ACAP). This mediating role lies in MO’s ability to convert environmental uncertainty into strategic insights that inform organizational reconfiguration. By disseminating market intelligence and coordinating cross-functional activities, firms align internal resources with external demands (Didonet et al., 2012; Teece, 2007). Thus, MO transforms environmental uncertainty into practices such as generating market intelligence, promoting cross-functional coordination, and reallocating resources, thereby enhancing firms’ ACAP.

Moreover, MO facilitates firms to operate proactively by anticipating changes rather than only reacting to them. This proactive stance increases organizational resilience during periods of uncertainty and creates a competitive advantage by enabling agile, innovative responses. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis of this study posits that MO mediates the impact of MU on ACAP:

• H4: Market orientation mediates the relationship between market environmental uncertainty and adaptive capability.

Table 1 summarizes the study’s hypotheses and their principal theoretical foundations.

Table 1
The hypotheses and main theoretical foundations.

Hypothesis	Description	Theoretical framework
H1: MO → ACAP	MO is positively related to adaptive capability.	Market-oriented firms exhibit greater flexibility and innovation, adjusting rapidly to change (Akhtar et al., 2021; Didonet et al., 2012).
H2: MU → MO	MU is positively related to MO.	Under conditions of uncertainty, firms are motivated to seek external information to improve strategic responsiveness (Day, 1994; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). The MO emerges as a key adaptive mechanism in unstable contexts (Didonet et al., 2012; Huhtala et al., 2014).
H3: MU → ACAP	MU is positively related to adaptive capability.	Uncertain environments require rapid and effective responses, driving firms to develop ACAP through the reconfiguration of resources and strategies (Staber & Sydow, 2002; Wang & Ahmed, 2007).
H4: MU → MO → ACAP	MO mediates the relationship between MU and ACAP.	The MO converts uncertainty into strategic insights, enabling better firms to better adapt to market fluctuations (Kurniawan et al., 2021; Teece, 2007).

Based on the literature review, an overview of the investigated relationships is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1
The proposed theoretical model.

METHOD AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES

The survey was conducted with 137 technology-based firms located in innovation ecosystems, specifically business incubators and technology parks in Brazil. Data collection occurred over six months, from August 2021 to February 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study employed an online questionnaire distributed primarily through social media (e.g., Instagram, WhatsApp, and LinkedIn) to company managers. Regarding the respondents, 81.8% were male, with 48.2% aged between 31 and 40 years. A significant proportion of respondents (35%) held graduate degrees, specializations, or an MBA. About 53.3% occupied both management and ownership positions within their firms.

The data collection instrument comprised three constructs designed to measure: i) MO, including customer focus, information importance, and inter-functional coordination, following Viola (2006) and Vala (2013), ii) MU, based on Lin et al. (2014), and iii) ACAP, as proposed by Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004), Rotta (2011), and Guerra (2017). The instrument also included sections for demographic and organizational characteristics.

The assessment scales for MO, MU, and ACAP consisted of ten, four, and five items, respectively, each employing a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The MU scale underwent translation, adaptation, and validation for application in the Brazilian context. All scales were developed according to the cited literature, using objective, multiple-choice questions to measure the respondents’ agreement with each statement. Example items for each construct are listed below:

MO - We are more customer-focused than our competitors. We have routine measures or other regular mechanisms for evaluating customer service. In this company, customer satisfaction data are routinely disseminated across all organizational levels.

MU - Consumer preferences and demands change rapidly. New products are introduced to address consumer requirements. A significant difference exists in preferences between older and newer customers.

ACAP - Management systems in this company encourage the challenge of outdated practices. Management processes are sufficiently flexible to permit responsiveness to market changes. The company leverages existing competencies to support change.

Data analysis involved univariate statistics with descriptive measures and multivariate analysis using structural equation modeling to estimate the hypothesized relationships (SmartPLS software, v. 4.1.0.2; Ringle et al., 2024), which was conducted according to the guidelines of Hair et al. (2017). The results obtained from the data analysis are presented in the next section.

RESULTS

The present study analyzed 137 companies, predominantly young microenterprises established within the past one to five years, mainly situated in southern and southeastern Brazil. Most of these firms (40.9%) reported average annual revenues below BRL 250,000. They operate in various sectors, including applied technologies such as Software as a Service for web applications, agribusiness, and education, which illustrates technological innovation integrated into traditional sectors. Approximately 70.8% of companies do not operate in international markets, indicating a strong domestic operational focus.

The respondents’ profiles demonstrated a persistent gender disparity in startup leadership, reflecting global trends and influencing these companies’ internal dynamics. These data align with broader patterns observed in the Brazilian startup ecosystem, where leadership roles are predominantly held by highly educated men serving as CEOs. However, this is not exclusive to Brazil; for example, research published in the Academy of Management Journal found that startups with few women in their initial hires tend to perpetuate gender disparities (Engel et al., 2023). Subsequent sections detail the stages and results of structural equation modeling using partial least squares structural equation modeling.

Structural model specification

The path analysis conducted in this study revealed that MO, operationalized through inter-functional coordination, the value attributed to market information, and customer focus, significantly and positively influenced firms’ ACAP. Further investigation suggested that MU not only improves MO but also directly strengthens adaptive capacity. Essentially, MO is an indispensable mediator between environmental uncertainty and organizational adaptability. These findings indicate that strategies designed to reinforce MO emerge as a key element in improving firms’ responsiveness to highly volatile market conditions.

Measurement model assessment

After ten iterations, the structural model reached stability. Model fit in the partial least squares structural equation modeling was evaluated using the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the square Euclidean distance (d_ULS), the geodesic distance (d_G), and the normed fit index (NFI). The results demonstrated an acceptable model fit: SRMR = 0.063, d_ULS = 7.218, d_G = 1.706, and NFI = 0.864 (Henseler, Hubona et al., 2016). The SRMR value was below the 0.08 threshold (Henseler, Ringle et al., 2016), and the NFI exceeded the recommended cutoff of 0.8 (Hu & Bentler, 1998), indicating a satisfactory model fit.

The statistical analysis confirmed the reliability and convergent validity of the constructs (Table 2). Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the threshold of 0.7 in all dimensions, and composite reliability values also were above 0.7, both consistent with the guidelines of Hair et al. (2017). Most constructs demonstrated average variance extracted (AVE) values > 0.5, aligning with Ringle et al. (2014), although the ACAP construct requires further improvement to meet convergent validity standards fully.

Table 2
Construct reliability and validity indicators.

Constructs	CA	CR	AVE
Adaptive capability	0.744	0.838	0.567
Inter-functional coordination	0.690	0.865	0.762
Customer focus	0.770	0.852	0.592
Importance of information	0.868	0.911	0.719
Market environmental uncertainty	0.759	0.781	0.578

Data analysis indicated a satisfactory discriminant validity for the theoretical model. According to the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), the square root of the AVE for each construct (ACAP, inter-functional coordination, customer focus; the importance of information, and MU) significantly exceeded the inter-construct correlations, indicating that each construct captured unique variance not substantially shared with others. Additionally, the HTMT index showed values below the 0.90 threshold ((Henseler, Hubona et al., 2016), supporting the distinction between constructs (Table 3).

Table 3
Discriminant validity assessment.

Constructs	ACAP	IC	CF	II	MU
	0.753	0.873	0.769	0.848	0.760
Pearson correlation matrix
ACAP	1.000
IC	0.380	1.000
CF	0.243	0.256	1.000
II	0.473	0.712	0.360	1.000
MU	0.361	0.225	0.285	0.140	1.000
Upper limit (HTMT)97.5%
IC	0.766
CF	0.562	0.565
II	0.755	0.830	0.616
MU	0.938	0.929	0.892	0.777

The convergence of these criteria demonstrated the model’s robustness, suggesting that the measures accurately captured the intended constructs. Both AVE and HTMT metrics validated actual correlations among the model’s dimensions, verifying that all established criteria were satisfied (Hair et al., 2017).

Structural model evaluation

Hair et al. (2017) and Lopes et al. (2020) outlined a systematic method for evaluating structural models based on the theoretical path modeling. This method both assesses the model’s predictive capability and explores the relationships among its constructs. Key steps include collinearity analysis using the variance inflation factor, verifying the coefficient of determination, evaluating the predictive relevance, and determining the significance and relevance of model relationships by validating the β coefficients. These steps are essential for establishing the robustness and effectiveness of the structural model in representing the proposed theoretical relationships. The final path model is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2
The final path model.

The findings clarify the impact of MU and MO on ACAP. The variance inflation factor and coefficient of determination values indicated that the exogenous variables do not exhibit multicollinearity and that they explain a moderate proportion of variance in ACAP. Furthermore, the predictive relevance values of 0.099 for ACAP and 0.033 for MO demonstrated the statistical significance of the proposed relationships (Table 4). It highlighted the moderate influence of exogenous variables on dependent variables within an uncertain market and MO strategy (Table 4).

Table 4
Collinearity, explanatory power, and predictive relevance assessment.

Exogenous constructs	Endogenous constructs (VIF)
	ACAP	MO
MU	1.075	1.000
MO	1.075
R2 (p)	0.287 (0.000)	0.170 (0.000)
Q2	0.099	0.033

Additionally, MU was positively related to both MO (β = 0.264; p = 0.003) and ACAP (β = 0.253; p = 0.013), suggesting that MU may adopt a market-oriented posture and develop greater ACAP. The analysis of the indirect effect supports H4, demonstrating that MO mediates the relationship between MU and ACAP (β = 0.108; p = 0.022) (Table 5). This mediating role indicates that MO functions as a channel through which environmental uncertainty influences absorptive capability.

Table 5
β values for the proposed model.

Hypothesis	Direct relationships	β	SD	T-Stat	p
H1	MO → ACAP	0.411	0.100	4.098	0.000
H2	MU → MO	0.264	0.089	2.980	0.003
H3	MU → ACAP	0.253	0.101	2.492	0.013
	Indirect relationships
H4	MU → MO → ACAP	0.108	0.047	2.295	0.022

The proposed model provides relevant insights into the dynamics among MO, MU, and ACAP. These findings reinforce the need to adopt a strategy that accounts for both internal organizational dimensions and external market challenges, positioning MO as a critical strategy for improving ACAP in contexts of uncertainty. The hypotheses supported by the data analysis are presented in Table 6.

Table 6
A summary of the hypotheses.

Hypothesis		Result
H1	Market orientation is positively related to adaptive capability.	Accepted
H2	Market environmental uncertainty is positively related to market orientation.	Accepted
H3	Market environmental uncertainty is positively related to adaptive capability.	Accepted
H4	Market orientation mediates the relationship between market environmental uncertainty and adaptive capability.	Accepted

The results confirm the study’s hypotheses. The MO positively associated with organizational ACAP (H1), indicating that practices centered on internal alignment and customer focus are necessary for adjusting to market changes. The MU positively influenced both MO (H2) and ACAP (H3), suggesting that environmental volatility encourages firms to become more market-oriented and adaptable. In addition, MO also mediates the relationship between MU and ACAP (H4), underscoring the strategic importance of an MO strategy in contexts of uncertainty.

DISCUSSION

The results confirm the strategic significance of MO but also challenge the prevailing linear perspective in existing literature. Although MO increased ACAP in contexts of high uncertainty, the effect was moderate (β = 0.411), reflecting potential variability arising from organizational characteristics. In contrast to studies that report stronger impacts (Didonet et al., 2012), these results indicate that factors such as recent firm establishment and resource constraints may limit the transformation of market-oriented practices into adaptive gains. While Narver and Slater (1990) and Day (1994) regarded MO as crucial for responding to external demands, and Wang and Ahmed (2007) emphasized its role in increasing adaptability, the present findings suggest that MO operates as a contingent capability, influenced by institutional context and organizational maturity.

The evidence reinforces that customer-oriented practices, dissemination of market intelligence, and inter-functional coordination are essential for enhancing organizational flexibility. The MO acts as a catalyst, integrating external and internal factors, providing firms with greater agility and resilience. Although prior studies focused on the direct effects of MO on organizational performance (Didonet et al., 2012; Teece, 2007), this study broadens this perspective by revealing the mediating role of MO between MU and ACAP. Therefore, MO is not only a response to market conditions but also a proactive strategy to reconfigure its resources effectively.

Market orientation fosters a culture of continuous learning and innovation, both of which are necessary in uncertain environments. Andersen (2017) suggested that environmental uncertainty drives firms to develop ACAP to survive and succeed. The present results corroborate this view while emphasizing that the magnitude of this impact may vary by contextual factors, such as industry sector and organizational maturity. For example, firms in highly regulated sectors may face additional barriers to rapid adaptation, even with strong MO, indicating that MO should be complemented by other organizational capabilities, including operational agility and technological innovation (Mitrega & Pfajfar, 2015).

The analysis demonstrated that MO is a catalyst for ACAP by enabling more rapid resource reconfiguration. Guinea and Raymond (2020) and Kurniawan et al. (2021) highlighted inter-functional practices and strategic information as key determinants of this process. The MO supports communication and collaboration across departments in firms, allowing cohesive responses to market changes. Thus, MO not only promotes flexibility but also reduces the negative impacts of market volatility by aligning internal capabilities with external demands.

From a practical standpoint, the results suggest that MO practices should be implemented judiciously, considering their limitations. While continuous feedback, product customization, and market intelligence dissemination foster resilience, these practices alone may offer limited adaptive gains in young firms or those with resource constraints. Consistent with Akhtar et al. (2021), the findings reinforce the need to integrate MO with innovation policies, strategic leadership, and complementary capability development. Therefore, managers should position MO within a broader, adaptive organizational framework rather than as a standalone solution.

From a theoretical standpoint, the study expanded the dynamic capabilities perspective by demonstrating that MO serves both as a response to external demands and as a proactive instrument for resource reconfiguration. The moderate mediation between MU and ACAP (β = 0.108; p = 0.022), under the influence of contextual factors, suggests limitations to interpreting MO as a central element. This evidence supports integrating complementary theories, such as the institutional view (Peng et al., 2019) and the strategic leadership frameworks, to develop a comprehensive understanding of how MO interacts with organizational and environmental factors. Future research should examine the specific conditions under which MO enhances ACAP, reinforcing its role as context-dependent rather than universal.

CONCLUSION

This study underscored MO as a fundamental strategic mechanism for ACAP in firms operating in highly uncertain environments. The findings contribute to the literature by showing that MO not only addresses market demands but also amplifies MU’s effects on ACAP. In contrast to prior research, which predominantly positions MO as a reactive response to the external environment, it is suggested that MO can also function as a proactive force, capable of reshaping organizational dynamics amid market volatility.

Our findings confirmed that customer-oriented practices, effective dissemination of market intelligence, and inter-functional coordination are essential for improving organizational flexibility. Nonetheless, these mechanisms are not universally applicable. In highly regulated sectors, firms may encounter constraints that limit rapid adaptation, even with a strong MO. Thus, the intensity of MO’s impact on ACAP varies across contextual factors, such as organizational maturity and industry characteristics (Mitrega & Pfajfar, 2015).

Furthermore, this study suggested that MO mediates the relationship between MU and ACAP, expanding the dynamic capabilities framework. By integrating inter-functional practices and leveraging strategic information, MO facilitates the organizational resources reconfiguration and promotes swift adaptation to market changes. However, underlying mechanisms, such as organizational culture, strategic leadership, and governance structures, were not fully explored, and these may influence the interactions among MO, internal resources, and external demands. This limitation identifies potential directions for subsequent research.

Future studies should incorporate analyses, such as multigroup comparisons based on sociodemographic characteristics, to examine relevant variations in the proposed relationships. The practical implications highlight that managers should implement MO as a central element of long-term strategies to foster organizational resilience, rather than merely as a means to mitigate immediate risks. Continuous feedback, product customization, market intelligence, and inter-functional coordination strengthen competitive positioning during crises, yet their application must be tailored to sectoral and organizational maturity, requiring a flexible and adaptive approach.

The study had limitations due to data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted access to participants and required the use of unvalidated alternative procedures. Despite efforts to obtain 137 respondents, the sample size represented a constraint. Future research should increase sample diversity, investigate additional dimensions of environmental uncertainty, and employ qualitative methodologies to capture the complexities of organizational strategies in turbulent contexts, promoting a more comprehensive understanding of adaptive responses.

• The Peer Review Report is available at this link
• Reviewers: Isabel Cristina Scafuto , Universidade Nove de Julho, Programa de Gestão de Projetos, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Fellipe Silva Martins , Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
• Evaluated through a double-anonymized peer review. Associate Editor: Fernando Antonio Ribeiro Serra
• FUNDING
  The Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).

DATA AVAILABILITY

The dataset supporting the findings of this study is not publicly available.

References

• Acosta, A. S., Crespo, A. H., & Agudo, J. C. (2018). Effect of market orientation, network capability and entrepreneurial orientation on international performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). International Business Review, 27(6), 1128-1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.04.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.04.004
• Akbariyeh, H., & Seddigh, A. (2017). The influence of strategic orientation on new product development: Mediating role innovation, knowledge management and organisational capabilities: An empirical investigation. International Journal Business Innovation and Research, 13(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2017.085104
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2017.085104
• Akhtar, S., Martins, J. M., Mata, P. N., Tian, H., Naz, S., Dâmaso, M., & Santos, R. S. (2021). Assessing the relationship between market orientation and green product innovation: The intervening role of green self-efficacy and moderating role of resource bricolage. Sustainability, 13, 11494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011494
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011494
• Alvarez, V. S., & Merino, T. G. (2003). The history of organizational renewal: Evolutionary models of Spanish savings and loans institutions. Organization Studies, 24(9), 1437-1461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603249005
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603249005
• Andersen, T. J. (2017). Introduction: Adaptive corporate strategies in a turbulent world. In T. J. Andersen (Ed.), The responsive global organization: Emerald studies in global strategic responsiveness (pp. 1-12). Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Atanassova, I. V., & Bednar, P. (2022). Managing uncertainty: Company's adaptive capabilities during Covid-19. Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly, 33, 14-39, https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2022-33.02
  » https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2022-33.02
• Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2023). Impact of organizational dynamic capability on international expansion and the moderating role of environmental dynamism, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(5), 1935-1956. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-10-2021-3003
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-10-2021-3003
• Chen, J.Y., Reilly, R.R. and Lynn, G.S. (2005). The impacts of speed-to-market on new product success: the moderating effects of uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52, 199-212.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
• Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413-452. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27749341
  » http://www.jstor.org/stable/27749341
• Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 37-52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251915
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/1251915
• Day, G. S. (1999). Misconceptions about market orientation. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009882027377
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009882027377
• Deligianni, I., Dimitratos, P., Petrou, A., & Aharoni, Y. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and international performance: The moderating effect of decision-making rationality. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 462-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12152
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12152
• Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J. U. (1998). Measuring market orientation: Generalization and synthesis. Journal of Market Focused Management, 2, 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1009719615327
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1009719615327
• Deshpandé, R., Grinstein, A., & Ofek, E. (2012). Strategic orientations in a competitive context: The role of strategic orientation differentiation. Marketing Letters, 23, 629-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9167-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9167-4
• Didonet, S., Simmons, G., Díaz-Villavicencio, G., & Palmer, M. (2012). The relationship between small business market orientation and environmental uncertainty. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(7), 757-779. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501211273841
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501211273841
• Dutot, V., Bergeron, F., & Raymond, L. (2014). Information management for the internationalization of SMEs: An exploratory study based on a strategic alignment perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 672-681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.006
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.006
• Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
• ElNaggar, R. A. A., & ElSayed, M. F. (2023). Drivers of business model innovation in micro and small enterprises: Evidence from Egypt as an emerging economy. Journal of Future Business, 9(1):4, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-022-00180-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-022-00180-2
• Engel, Y., Lewis, T., Cardon, M. S., & Hentschel, T. (2023). Signaling diversity debt: Startup gender composition and the gender gap in joiners’ interest. Academy of Management Journal, 66(5), 1969-1500. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.1197
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.1197
• Ferraresi, A. A., Quandt, C. O., Santos, S. A. dos, & Frega, J. R. (2012). Knowledge management and strategic orientation: Leveraging innovativeness and performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 688-701. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262754
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262754
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573
• Guerra, R. M. A. (2017). Capacidades dinâmicas e ambidestria organizacional como variáveis mediadoras da relação entre orientação empreendedora e performance organizacional (Tese de doutorado, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração da Associação UCS/PUCRS, Caxias do Sul).
• Guinea, A. O. de, & Raymond, L. (2020). Enabling innovation in the face of uncertainty through IT ambidexterity: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of industrial service SMEs. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 244-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.007
• Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
• Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116, 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2014-0304
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2014-0304
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
• Huhtala, J. P., Sihvonen, A., Frösén, J., Jaakkola, M., & Tikkanen, H. (2014). Market orientation, innovation capability and business performance: Insights from the global financial crisis. Baltic Journal of Management, 9(2), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-03-2013-0044
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-03-2013-0044
• Iuga, I. C., Mudakkar, S. R., & Dragolea, L. L. (2024). Agricultural commodities market reaction to COVID-19. Research in International Business and Finance, 69, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102287
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102287
• Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251854
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/1251854
• Judge, W. Q., & Blocker, C. P. (2008). Organizational capacity for change and strategic ambidexterity. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 915-926. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810891073
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810891073
• Karami, M., & Tang, J. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME international performance: The mediating role of networking capability and experiential learning. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 37(2), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242618807275
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242618807275
• Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251866
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/1251866
• Kurniawan, R., Budiastuti, D., Hamsal, M., & Kosasih, W. (2021). Networking capability and firm performance: The mediating role of market orientation and business process agility. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(9), 1646-1664. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2020-0023
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2020-0023
• Lestari, S. D. (2017). Environmental uncertainty and market orientation on business performance with innovation as an intervening variable: A survey of banking industry in Indonesia. Journal of Management and Marketing Review, 2(2), 64-72. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3005269
  » https://ssrn.com/abstract=3005269
• Lin, Y., Zhao, S., & Li, N. (2014). A study of network-building HR practices for TMT, strategic flexibility and firm performance. Nankai Business Review International, 5(1), 95-114. https://doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-01-2014-0001
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-01-2014-0001
• Liu, H., Kim, S. J., Wang, H., & Kim, K. H. (2020). Corporate sustainability management under market uncertainty. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(5), 1023-1037. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0131
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0131
• Lopes, L. F. D., Chaves, B. M., Fabricio, A., Almeida, D. M., Obregon, S. L., Lima, M. P., Silva, W. V., Camargo, M. E., Veiga, C. P., Moura, G. L., Silva, L. S. C. V., & Costa, V. M. F. (2020). Analysis of well-being and anxiety among university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3874), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fijerph17113874
  » https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fijerph17113874
• Mikalef, P., & Pateli, A. (2017). Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA, Journal of Business Research, 70, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.09.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.09.004
• Miller, D. 1987. The Structural and Environmental Correlates of Business Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8(1), 55-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250080106
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250080106
• Mitrega, M., & Pfajfar, G. (2015). Business relationship process management as company dynamic capability improving relationship portfolio. Industrial Marketing Management, 46, 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.029
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.029
• Moriarty, R., & Kosnik, T. (1989). High-tech marketing: Concepts, continuity, and change. Sloan Management Review, 30, 7-17.
• Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251757
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/1251757
• Oktemgil, M., & Gordon, G. (1997). Consequences of high and low adaptive capability in UK Companies. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569710176619
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569710176619
• Peng, L., Li, Y., Essen, M. V., & Peng, M. W. (2019). Institutions, resources, and strategic orientations: A meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37, 499-529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-09642-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-09642-0
• Perry, S., & Irene, H. (2024). Time and frequency dynamics between NFT coins and economic uncertainty. Financial Innovation, 10(35), 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00565-4
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00565-4
• Rawung, S. S. (2019). Market orientation: company performance and global consumer culture change. Journal of International Conference Proceedings, 2(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.32535/jicp.v2i1.509
  » https://doi.org/10.32535/jicp.v2i1.509
• Ringle, C. M., Silva, D., & Bido, D. S. (2014). Modelagem de equações estruturais com utilização do SmartPLS. REMark - Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 13(2), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2717
  » https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2717
• Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS.
• Rodrigues, G. P., & Martins, T. S. (2020). Capacidade de vendas e desempenho: Papel da orientação para o mercado, capacidades pessoais e gerenciais. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR200199
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR200199
• Rotta, C. (2011). Capacidades dinâmicas e desempenho inovador: Uma análise dos setores químico e eletroeletrônico brasileiros (Tese de doutorado, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração da Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo).
• Roy, K., & Khokle, P. (2016). Staged development of dynamic capabilities: A study of international joint ventures in India. Thunderbird International Business Review, 58(6), 537-554. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21796
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21796
• Schilke, O. (2013). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 179-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2099
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2099
• Staber, U., & Sydow, J. (2002). Organizational adaptive capacity: A structuration perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 408-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492602238848
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492602238848
• Teece, D. J. (2007), Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
• Thanos, I. C., Dimitratos, P., & Sapouna, P. (2016). The implications of international entrepreneurial orientation, politicization, and hostility upon SME international performance. International Small Business Journal, 35(4), 495-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616641749
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616641749
• Vala, C. M. S. (2013). A orientação para o mercado como forma de obter vantagens competitivas nas organizações (Dissertação, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Portugal).
• Viola, C. H. (2006). O impacto da orientação para o mercado em empresas incubadas de Uberlândia pertencentes à área de tecnologia da informação (Dissertação, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia).
• Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. The International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x
• Westehead, P., Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2004). Internationalization of private firms: Environmental turbulence and organizational strategies and resources. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16, 501-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/0898562042000231929
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/0898562042000231929
• Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2007). How does strategic orientation matter in Chinese firms? Asia Pacific Journal Management, 24, 447-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9048-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9048-1
• Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2010). How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 63, 224-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.003

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  28 Nov 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  17 June 2024
• Accepted
  18 Sept 2025