Purpose Once the operational benefits of Six Sigma are well-recognized in the literature, this research advances the strategic advantages of this initiative. Thus, this paper aims to analyze how dynamic capabilities (DCs) mediates the relationship between Six Sigma implementation and organizational flexibility, not discussed in the literature yet. Design/methodology/approach Data from 66 Six Sigma European firms are used for a structural equation modeling and additional tests –Baron and Kenny’s test and Preacher and Hayes’s test – to analyze the mediating role of DCs. Following the scholars’ recommendations, the authors have created a second-order factor explained by knowledge absorption, organizational learning and knowledge integration to measure DCs. Flexibility, understood as the capacity for organizational adaptation, is measured through its operational and strategic dimensions. Findings The results show a significant relationship between Six Sigma practices – team management and statistical metrics – and DCs. In addition, the authors find support for a significant relationship between DCs and the operational and strategic dimensions of flexibility. Finally, the results confirm that DCs act as a mediating variable in the relationship between Six Sigma practices and flexibility. Practical implications The study contributes to literature that supports the decision to implement Six Sigma. In particular, key Six Sigma practices are identified for those managers who wish to foster DCs generation and organizational flexibility inside their companies. Originality/value This research analyzes the relationship between Six Sigma and strategic variables, answering the call for research about Six Sigma influence on long-term organizational success.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to evaluate the roles of a transactive memory system and the supply network flexibility (SNF) of the firm as antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility (FSCA), also incorporating the moderating role of the transactive memory system; and, second, to evaluate the relationship between FSCA and operations performance (OP). Design/methodology/approach Four hypothesized relationships are tested with survey data from 190 high-tech firms using structural equation models. Findings FSCA can be enhanced through the transactive memory system and SNF, although a higher degree of transactive memory system weakens the positive relationship between SNF and FSCA. A positive relationship is identified between FSCA and OP, while FSCA mediates the relationship between SNF and OP. Practical implications Managers can increase FSCA and improve OP by developing both the transactive memory system and SNF. Given that firms have limited resources, investment in internal capabilities should be prioritized as this appears to be more effective at developing FSCA. Originality/value The findings expand the literature by exploring two antecedents of FSCA and by analyzing the impact of FSCA on different measures of OP. Few prior studies have highlighted the importance of the transactive memory system to the operations function.

Institutional theory suggests that organizations pursue legitimacy by institutional fit. However, there is a debate about the relationship between institutional fit and performance. Thus, the goal of the present study is to delve more deeply into this issue. Specifically, we evaluate how three dimensions of fit (technology, structure and culture) are related to organizational performance. The analysis is based on survey data and secondary archival data from a sample of 200 firms. Results show that the association of institutional fit and organizational performance varies along different dimensions of fit, which supports the stratified view of institutional fit. According to the results, there is a positive correlation between institutional fit and performance on the technological dimension, no correlation between institutional fit and performance on the structural dimension and a negative correlation between institutional fit and performance on the cultural dimension. One thing is clear: we should consider a stratified view of institutional fit when considering its implications for performance. A possible explanation for the disparity among different dimensions of fit is that it may arise from the levels of organizational resistance associated with the type of change of each dimension.