Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 50 Ademola Samuel Sajuyigbe Landmark University (Nigeria) Anthony Abiodun, ENIOLA Landmark University (Nigeria) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6120-6908 Adebanji Ayeni Landmark University (Nigeria) Nwoye James Obi Caleb University (Nigeria) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2409-0835 Employee Relationship Management and Organizational Agility: Mediating Role of Employee Empowerment in Consumer Goods Sector Abstract The study examines the mediating role of employee empowerment in the relationship between employee relationship management and organizational agility. The survey method was used in the study using a closed-end copy of the questionnaire to collect data from three hundred and fifty-eight (358) respondents via the Google Document platform. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data using the PROCESS macro program as a regression-based software package. The results show that employee relationships have a significant impact on organizational agility. It was also found that mana ging relationships with employees improves employee empowerment because it helps them achieve their organizational goals directly by allowing them to make decisions. Finally, there is a good link between employee empowerment and organizational agility. The results also indicate that employee empowerment has a posit ive and important relationship with employee relationships and organizational agility. This study establishes a strong role for employee empowerment as an intermediary between employee relationship management and organizational management. This means that all employers have the greatest competitive advantage of always empowering their staff with recognized world-class talent. The study has contributed to the body of knowledge by demonstrating the RBT's adaptability in a pandemic period to optimize employee motivation at the expense of acknowledging the instinct of organizational agility in a challenging era where change occurs without warning. Keywords: Employee Relationship Management, Organizational Agility, Employee Empowerment Gestión de las relaciones con los empleados y agilidad organizativa: papel mediador del empoderamiento de los empleados en el sector de bienes de consumo Resumen El estudio examina el papel mediador del empoderamiento de los empleados en la relación entre la gestión de las relaciones con los empleados y la agilidad organizacional. En este trabajo se ha utilizado el método de encuesta mediante una copia cerrada del cuestionario para recopilar datos de trescientos cincuenta y ocho (358) encuestados a través de la plataforma de documentos de Google. Se utilizó el modelo de ecuaciones estructurales para analizar los datos utilizando el programa macro PROCESS como un paquete de software basado en regresión. Los resultados muestran que las relaciones con los empleados tienen un impacto significativo en la agilidad organizacional. También se detecta que la gestión de las relaciones con los empleados mejora el empoderamiento de los empleados porque les ayuda a alcanzar sus objetivos organizacionales directamente al permitirles tomar decisiones. Finalmente, existe un estrecho vínculo entre el empoderamiento de los empleados y la agilidad organizacional. Los resultados también indican que el empoderamiento de los empleados tiene una relación positiva e importante con las relaciones con los empleados y la agilidad organizacional. Este estudio establece un papel importante para el empoderamiento de los empleados como intermediario entre la gestión de las relaciones con los empleados y la gestión de la organización. Esto significa que todos los empleadores tienen la mayor ventaja competitiva de empoderar siempre a su personal con talento reconocido de clase mundial. El estudio ha contribuido a la acumulación de conocimiento al demostrar la adaptabilidad del RBT en un período de pandemia para optimizar la motivación de los empleados a expensas de reconocer el instinto de agilidad organizacional en una era desafiante donde el cambio ocurre sin previo aviso. Palabras clave: Gestión de las relaciones con los empleados, Agilidad organizacional, Potenciación de los empleados Gestió de les relacions amb els empleats i agilitat organitzativa: paper mediador de l'apoderament dels empleats en el sector dels béns de consum Resum L'estudi examina el paper mediador de l'apoderament dels empleats en la relació entre la gestió de les relacions amb els empleats i l'agilitat organitzacional. En aquest treball s'ha fet servir el mètode d'enquesta mitjançant una còpia tancada del qüestionari per recopilar dades de tres -cents cinquanta-vuit (358) enquestats a través de la plataforma de documents de Google. S’ha usat el model d'equacions estructurals per analitzar les dades utilitzant el programa macro PROCESS com a paquet de programari basat en regressió. Els resultats mostren que les relacions amb els empleats tenen un impacte significatiu a l'agilitat organitzacional. També es detecta que la gestió de les relacions amb els empleats millora l'apoderament dels empleats perquè els ajuda a assolir els seus objectius organitzacionals directament en permetre'ls prendre decisions. Finalment, hi ha un estret lligam entre l'apoderament dels empleats i l'agilitat organitzacional. Els resultats també indiquen que l'apoderament dels empleats té una relació positiva i important amb les relacions amb els empleats i l'agilitat organitzacional. Aquest estudi estableix un paper important per a l'apoderament dels empleats com a intermediari entre la gestió de les relacions amb els empleats i la gestió de l'organització. Això significa que tots els ocupadors tenen l'avantatge competitiu més gran d'apoderar sempre el seu personal amb talent reconegut de classe mundial. L'estudi ha contribuït a l'acumulació de coneixement en demostrar l'adaptabilitat de l'RBT en un període de pandèmia per optimitzar la motivació dels empleats a costa de reconèixer l'instint d'agilitat organitzacional en una era desafiant on el canvi passa sense avís previ. Paraules clau: Gestió de les relacions laborals, Agilitat organitzativa, Empoderament dels empleats Corresponding author: e-mail: sajuyigbeademola@yahoo.com Received 20 October 2021 - Accepted 17 November 2022 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial- No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-comercial re-use and distribution, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered or transformed in any way. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6120-6908 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2409-0835 mailto:sajuyigbeademola@yahoo.com http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 51 1. Introduction The destructive nature of the rise of COVID19, coupled with the rapidly changing and highly competitive business environment, huge changes in customer preferences, and rapid technological changes, pose a threat to the survival of the global consumer goods sector (OECD, 2020). According to Anca-Ioana Munteanu, Nicolae Bibu, Marian Nastase, Nicoleta Cristache and Cosmin Matis (2020), no organization in the world is immune to today's highly competitive and rapidly changing business environment and rapid technological change. Therefore, consumer goods companies find it very difficult to design high-quality, low-cost products with the shortest delivery time (Baškarada and Koronios 2018). This proves that consumer goods sector has been unable to keep up with market demands, especially in emerging economies (Ibidunni et al. 2018). This unpleasant situation has weakened consumer confidence in manufacturers and they are more likely to look to other sources for future demand (Samwel 2018). This means that if companies want to survive and roar in this cruel business environment, they must adapt to possible changes in the future (Nafei 2016). Organizational agility is documented in key concepts in the business literature, enabling companies to respond quickly to changes and uncertainties in the environment to overcome obstacles and seize opportunities. According to Doz and Kosonen (2008), agility means learning how to make the right decisions and change while updating the company without losing sync. Baškarada and Koronios (2018) define organizational agility as the ability to respond to changing environments through the design of high-quality products and the rapid delivery of services to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Similarly, Lu and Ramamurthy (2011) turn organizational agility into the ability to take action in response to market needs using continuous monitoring. Manufacturing agility requires employee approval and employee relationship management agility (Kitur 2020) http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 52 Employee relationship management is essential for organizational agility and achieving sustainable competitive advantage (Rahman and Taniya 2017). Singh and Kumar (2011) assume that employee relationship management is a necessary condition for all companies operating in a highly competitive business environment. Employee relationship management aims to build a first-class successful company by building relationships with employees. It is found in the literature that employee empowerment is a structure that links organizational agility and employee relationships (Nouri and Mousavi 2020). According to El Mouallem and Analoui (2014), employee empowerment equips employees with a variety of strategic skills to achieve organizational goals in today's cruel and dynamic business environment. The existing literature emphasizes that without friendly labour relations and skilled labour, organizational agility cannot be achieved. The agility of employee relations and authorization is believed to provide benefits such as improved high-quality products, better customer service, and better delivery (Salajeghe and Nasrollahpoor 2016; Nafei 2016). Employee relationship management, organizational agility, and employee empowerment have been independently investigated and conceptualized in different ways. However, empirical results show that few studies have investigated the role of mediating employee empowerment in the relationship between employee relationship management variables and organizational agility. Since there is little literature that focuses on the connection between employee relationship management, organizational agility, and employee empowerment, this research will help to better understand this relationship and the goal of evaluating employee relationships, thereby filling the gaps in the literature. Based on this gap, the research questions put forward are: What extent does employee relationship management has a significant effect on organizational agility and employee empowerment? What extent does employee empowerment has a significant effect on organizational agility? And does employee http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 53 empowerment mediates the relationship between employee relationship management and organizational agility? This current research is expected to provide stakeholders and policymakers with the importance of organizational agility through employee relations and empowerment to accelerate the manufacturing and industrial development and regeneration of the African economy through the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and the African Union agenda of 2063. 2. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework of this study is based on the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) derived from previous empirical studies. Resource-Based Teory (RBT) is a management framework used to determine the strategic resources that an organization can use to maintain a competitive business environment and achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Barney 1991; Salder et al. 2020). This theory argues that companies need to use their internal resources effectively and efficiently to cope with the ever-changing business environment. According to Ali and Anwar (2021), RBT requires firms to adapt to changes in the business environment and gain a competitive advantage by using the internal resources available (assets, functions, organizational characteristics, etc.). Despite the general acceptance of the theory in strategic management for persuading organizations to gain competitive advantage through internal resources, capabilities, and competencies for more than a decade, Resource-Based Theory (RBT) has been criticized for not being able to give clear guidance to companies on how to apply these internal resources and transform them into a sustainable competitive advantage (Rashidirad, Soltani and Salimian 2015). Despite these criticisms, from a theoretical and empirical point of view, we argue that RBT has the potential to transform internal resources into a sustainable competitive advantage. The http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 54 theory believes that human resources are difficult to replace due to the diversity of capabilities to operate in a dynamic environment. To support this argument, El Mouallem and Analoui (2014) believe that the most valuable internal resource of any company is its human resources because the development of human resources capacities allows employees to possess a range of modern skills to achieve organizational objectives. Tennant (2001) also believes that an agile company is characterized by a highly trained and loyal workforce that believes in the mission of the organization. Similarly, Nikbakht et al. (2014) confirm that the empowerment of human resources, such as training and employee relations, provides the necessary foundation for employees to perform their functions in a modern way, which will increase organizational agility. Horabadi Farahani and Salimi (2015) also reiterate that relationships and employee empowerment enable companies to respond faster and easier in a competitive business environment. Recently, consumer goods industries all over the world, especially those on the African continent, are struggling to cope with today’s fiercely competitive and ever-changing business environment and rapid technological changes, bringing many consumer goods industries to the brink of extinction (Sajuyigbe, Ayeni and Inegbedion 2021). The theory suggests that if the consumer goods industry is to remain agile and competitive in a dynamic business environment, it must develop its human resources (Chigara 2021). 3. Organizational Agility The concept of agility dates back to the manufacturing business strategy report presented by Roger N. Nagel in 1992. Its purpose is to rejuvenate America's competitiveness by adopting agile manufacturing strategies. This concept began to gain momentum in management theory after the Agile Manifesto in 2001. This means that the concept of organizational agility is still http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 55 in its infancy in the management literature. Recently, organizational theorists have considered the important role of agile performance in helping organizations to survive and thrive in a hypercompetitive environment via accelerated response to changing business environment (Kitur 2020; Marjerison, Andrews and Kuan 2022; Nouri and Mousavi 2020). Academics and researchers do not have a consistent definition of agility. Agility is defined from a different perspective. For example, Dove (2005) regards agility as the ability to improve survival in unpredictable environments. Sharifi and Zhang (2001) also define agility as the use of change as a unique opportunity in an unpredictable environment. Erande and Verma (2008) also view agility as the ability to respond quickly and constantly to change in profitability. In another study, Hanssen (2010), views agility as an organization's ability to respond quickly and effectively to a rapidly changing business environment. According to Doz and Kosonen (2008), agility means learning to change and update companies to make the right decisions without losing motivation. Baškarada and Koronios (2018) define organizational agility as the ability to respond to changes in the environment and realize sustainable competitive advantage through the rapid delivery of high-quality product designs and services. Similarly, Lu and Ramamurthy (2011) regard organizational agility as the ability to respond to and respond to market demands through continuous monitoring. Thus, according to the definition above, organizational agility can be defined as an organization's ability to apply competitive technologies, including flexibility to respond to changes in the business environment and the speed of delivery of products and services for customers. In today's cut-throat competitive business environments, the agility of the organization is germane for the African consumer goods sector to understand market changes (Kotter, 2012). If the prediction of Africa’s manufacturing sector to be doubled in size, with an annual output http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 56 of 1 trillion dollars in 2025 and be regarded as the world’s next great manufacturing center in 2030 to come to pass, human resources have to be well equipped with modern skills such as acquiring and analyzing latest information, appropriate using latest electronic devices and professional software and be trusted in making agile decisions. Empirical studies show that organizational agility requires organizational flexibility, adaptability, and internal capabilities to identify opportunities and threats, capitalize on opportunities and minimize threats, and include rapid response to changes in the environment (Sharifi and Zhang 2001; Nafei 2016). This study shows two ways to create organizational agility, consisting of building relationships with and empowering employees. 4. Employee Relationship Management The concept of employee relationship management is based on the customer relationship management platform. According to Swarnalatha and Prasanna (2013), the concept of customer relationship management focuses on the external reaction of the "why" of a company's business, while the concept of employee relationship management focuses on the internal reaction of "how". Employee relationships have demonstrated one of the key pillars and functions of human resource management that can lead to effective employee outcomes and organizational agility (Albro and McElfresh 2021; Xia, Yan and Zhong 2020). Managing Relationships with Employees Strengthens relationships between employees and employers, allowing everyone to enjoy healthy relationships within the organization (Alhashedi et al. 2021; Onyango, 2014). Samwel (2018) believes that employee relationships are an organizational effort to build and maintain happy relationships with employees. By maintaining a positive and constructive relationship with our employees, it is believed that organizations can maintain employee loyalty and increase their participation in the work (Salajeghe and Nasrollahpoor 2016). Singh and Kumar (2011) assume that employee relationships are a necessary condition for any company http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 57 that works in a radical environment. Employee relationship aims to build a successful world- class organization by building relationships with employers and employees. Both empirical and theoretical studies agree that employee relationship management is considered an essential management tool for companies operating in a dynamic environment (Magdalene 2016; Kanana 2016; Al-Khozondar 2015; Kuzua and Ozilhan 2014; Wargborn 2008). Armstrong (2010) believes that the employment relationship is to manage the relationship between employers and employees with the ultimate goal of achieving organizational agility. The work of Donohoe (2015) reiterates that if organizations want to respond quickly to dynamic markets, design high-quality products in the shortest time, and quickly provide services to achieve sustainable competitive advantages, they must implement relationship management with customers. Get the support of employees, provide opportunities to suggest improvements to working methods, make decisions with mutual trust and allow freedom of association. In addition, Pearce and Robinson (2009) believe that agile companies should strive to satisfy their employees through good guidance, full participation in decision- making, motivating good work, and providing employees with advantageous important information. Research conducted by Ivancevich (2001) confirms that the relationship with employees increases the power of employees because it directly contributes to the achievement of organizational goals by empowering employees to make decisions. Carlsen (2022) confirms that organizational agility is strongly influenced by employee relationships. From the same point of view, Menon and Suresh (2020) reaffirm that there is a significant linear relationship between employee relationships and organizational agility. A study conducted by Choong and Islam (2020) shows that employee relationships are the driving force behind an organization's agility. Similarly, Salciuviene, Buenaventura, and Lee (2019) reflect previous findings that http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 58 employee relationships are an alternative paradigm for organizational agility. Based on the above empirical findings, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: Employee relationship management has a significant effect on organizational agility. H2: Employee relationship management has a significant effect on employee empowerment. 5. Employee Empowerment The best way to achieve organizational objectives in today’s dynamic and unpredictable business environment is human resource empowerment (Ibidunni et al. 2017; Nouri and Mousavi, 2020). Ghafuri, Farhadi, and Mansouri (2014) also affirm that workforce is the most valuable asset organizations have to achieve a competitive advantage in the dynamic and unpredictable environment. Employee empowerment refers to how firms equip their employees with an array of modern tools, training, and authority they have to operate in a dynamic environment. According to Akbari, Gilaninia and Mousavian (2012), employee empowerment means the acquisition of a spectrum of skills that will enable employees to add value to the organization. Previous studies demonstrate that there is a direct relationship between employee empowerment and organizational agility. For example, Nouri and Mousavi (2020) identify in their work that employee empowerment is directly related to organizational agility and collaborative management. In a similar study, Fanodi, Okati, and Keikha (2014) confirm that empowerment and its aspects have a positive and significant relationship with organizational agility. In addition, research done by Heydari (2013) shows that there is a positive relationship between employee empowerment and organizational agility. In a similar study, Muduli (2016) also stated that employee empowerment is directly related to organizational agility. In another study, Ivancevich (2001) reaffirmed that employee empowerment improves employee relationships and organizational agility. Similarly, Kitur (2020) shows that organizational agility is a platform for employees to develop their skills for organizational sustainability. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 59 Another study conducted by Marjerison, Andrews, and Kuan, (2022) evident that organizational agility makes work groups and teams perform vital tasks for organizations to survive and prosper in a cut-throat business environment. A study by Harsch and Festing (2020) also concurs with the previous studies that organizational agility is a strong predictor of employee empowerment. Based on the empirical and theoretical findings, the following hypothesis emerged: H3: Employee empowerment has a significant effect on organizational agility. H4: Employee empowerment mediates the relationship between employee relationship management and organizational agility. 6. Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for this current study is presented (see Figure 1) FIGURE 1. Conceptual Framework Source: own elaboration with Heydari (2013). In the above model, employee relationship management is taken as independent while employee empowerment is the mediator and organizational agility as a dependent variable. 7. Research Method This study used a survey study because it is very convenient to manage via mobile devices, e- mail, or online phone (DeFranzo, 2012). PZ Cussons was selected using an intentional sampling http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 60 procedure while using simple random sampling techniques to select three hundred and fiftyç- eight (358) respondents from a total population of 3,500 staff. The sample size is determined by the formula suggested by Yamane (1967). The choice of PZ Cussons was based on the fact that the company operates in both developed and emerging markets. Therefore, it assumes that the company has the strategic agility to react quickly to dynamic markets. Due to the second phase of the increase in COVID-19 in the country, close-ended copies of the questionnaire were utilized to collect data from the respondents through the Google Document platform from 8th November 2021 to January 16th, 2022. 8. Measurement of Scale SPSS version 25 was used to test hypotheses and evaluate parameters in this study. Structural equation modeling (SEM) using the PROCESS macro program was used for mediation analysis.; it is one of the latest mediation tools, used as a regression-based software package, capable of analyzing more than 70 different mediation and adjustment models (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). The questionnaire included a demographic section (age, marriage, educational background, position, and years of professional experience) as well as scales measuring variables of the study. The employee relationship management scale was adopted from the works of Al-Khozondar, (2015), Horabadi and Salimi (2015), Kuzua, and Ozilhan (2014), and Magdalene (2016). The scale was designed in a 10-item Likert scale from 1 = disagree, to 4 = strongly agree. The employee empowerment scale was derived from the works of Nikbakht, Nawabakhsh, Jadidi, and Fakhimi (2014), Heydari, (2013), and Fanodi, Okati, and Keikha (2014). The scale was designed in an 8-item Likert scale from 1 = disagree, to 4 = strongly agree. While the organizational agility scale was adopted from the studies of Erande and Verma (2008), Hanssen (2010), and Nafei (2016). The scale was designed in a 10-item Likert scale from 1 = disagree, to 4 = strongly agree. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 61 The regression formulae for the analysis are as stated below. Conditional effect of X on Y = b1 + bk+1M1 +… + b3k-1M3k-1 Conditional effect of ERM on OA = b1 + bk+1EMP1 +… + b3k-1EMP3k-1 Conditional effect of X on Y = bi + b3M Conditional effect of ERM on OA=bi+b3EMP Indirect effect of X on Y through Mi = ai bi Indirect effect of ERM on OA through EMP= ai bi Direct effect of X on Y = c' Direct effect of ERM on OA = c' Conditional effect of X on Y = bi + b4M Conditional effect of ER on OA= bi+b4EMP TABLE 1. Summary of Results of the Measurement Instruments Validation Code Details ER EE OA Employee Relationship – Cronbach Alpha – (EMR = 0.841) ER1 Employees meet voluntarily to identify operational issues relevant to the organization. .760 ER2 Employees trust the promises made by their supervisors. .699 ER3 The Employees trust the promises provided by managers .760 ER4 The organization treats employees fairly and without discrimination .764 ER5 The manager holds regular meetings to discuss employee performance .752 ER6 The manager uses various communication methods to clarify his ideas. .705 ER7 The compensation offered by the organization corresponds to the expectations of the employees. .612 ER8 The manager advises employees on strategic decisions. .712 ER9 The manager encourages and supports employees in a way that creates a high level of confidence in their abilities. .642 ER10 The manager assigns or nominates employees for challenging tasks that facilitate their professional development. .689 Employee Empowerment– Cronbach Alpha – (EE = 0.798) EE1 Training courses increase my work performance and enable me to achieve my goals. .729 EE2 Management encourages teamwork .694 EE3 My boss gives me authority .678 EE4 Management encourages employees to come up with creative and innovative ideas. .582 EE5 I am in control of the aspects of my work for which I am responsible. .620 EE6 I am free to change my job whenever I want. .813 EE7 I have the authority to fix problems as they occur. .554 http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 62 Code Details ER EE OA EE8 I do not need management approval before dealing with issues. .711 Organizational Agility – Cronbach Alpha (CS = 0.886) OG1 My organization has a well-developed change capability and ability. .706 OG2 My organization has a mindset of developing flexibility strategies. .756 OG3 My organization has a value culture that accommodates change as normal. .657 OG4 Management spends a lot of time and resources on the future of the organization. .737 OG5 In my organization, employees are aware of the external environment especially our customers and competitors. .741 OG6 In my organization, there is a free flow of information from the outside to units and groups. .726 OG7 My organization embraces innovation. .662 OG8 My organization always shifts its structure quickly to accommodate new opportunities. OG9 My organization has a flexible budget that accommodates new product development. .689 OG10 My organization has a common purpose apart from profitability and market share. .608 Eigenvalue 2.978 2.520 3.512 Percentage of Variance 56.612 58.789 59.812 KMO .811 .778 .807 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 395.65 245.08 651.12 Reliability Test (Cronbach Alpha) .801 .798 .836 Significance .000 .000 .000 Source: Own elaboration. From Table 1 above, the factor weight of all indicators is greater than 0.5 which indicates that the questions explain the variability of their variables. This means that the measurement model is suitable for analysis. 9. Results of Data Analysis Basic Demographics of the Respondents In order to get an idea of the basic demographics of the respondents, questions about age, marriage, educational background, position, and years of professional experience were included in the study. The results showed that 30% of those surveyed were between 20 and 35 years old, 43% between 36 and 45 years old, 18% between 46 and 55 years old and only 9% are over 56 http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 63 years old. The average age of the majority of respondents was deemed to be 45, meaning the majority of employees were in the productive age category. The implication of this finding is that PZ Cussons can still play a central role in the Nigerian economy. It was also found that the majority of respondents were married with 65% while singles were made up of 35%. It was found that there were no divorcees among those surveyed. This implies that the married couple will have a great sense of responsibility, since marriage seems to be correlated with a sense of responsibility. The results also show that 54.3% of the respondents had BSc/HND certificates; 28.3% had ND/NCE certificates, 11.7% had a master's degree. Furthermore, 7.5% had undergone vocational training with professional certificates such as CIPM, NIM and ICSA, ACA, etc. The study showed that 5.2% had other certificates but were in-service training. Therefore, it could be implied that respondents had formal training with human resource background and should therefore be able to answer questions asked. Furthermore, it was also observed that 68.4% of the respondents are men and 38.7% are women. This trend suggests that the male workforce at PZ Cussons was larger. This distribution may be due to the fact that in most third world countries men have culturally more access to education than women. However, the distribution shows that PZ Cussons is gender sensitive. Implicitly, both men and women have relatively equal opportunities to work for the company. The results also show that about 44.9% of the respondents have more than nine years of experience, while 30.3% of the respondents stated that they had been with the company for six to eight years. 16.7% of those surveyed had three to five years of experience and only 8.1% had been with the company for less than three years. Therefore, a higher percentage of respondents had more than nine years of experience and therefore should be aware of the mediating role of employee http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 64 empowerment between employee relationship management and organizational agility. Additionally, years of organizational experience show that most of them understand the organizational structures and managerial backgrounds that inevitably dictate the coping strategies they choose. The conclusion of this result is that the years of experience of these employees is a key factor for the agility of the company. It also showed that 48% of the respondents were junior employees; while the senior were 52%. This means that most of the employees are senior executives. The implication of this finding is that PZ Cussons management needs to drive at organizational agility knowledge. TABLE 2. Employee relationship management effect on organizational agility Source: Data computation. The results of the effect of employee relationship management on organizational agility are shown in Table 2. A significant regression equation was found (F = 138.9327, p <0.000), and the R-square of the employee relationship management was 0.3324. The results show that the general model is significant and can explain more than 33% of the differences in organizational agility measures. The coefficient obtained by in the EMR path is .7898, the statistical coefficient test = 11.7870 and p = 0.0000 (p <0.05). The lower limit confidence interval (LLCI) is 0.6579, the upper limit confidence interval (ULCI) is 0.9217, based on the output of the p-value (p <0.05), and the LLCI and ULCI values ≠ 0 indicate that the Employee relationship management has a significant effect on organizational agility. This study is consistent with the studies carried out by Kanana (2016); Kuzua and Ozilhan, (2014) and Wargborn, (2008) that employee Outcome: Organizational Agility R R2 MSE F df1 df2 P .5766 .3324 .4196 138.9327 1.000 279.000 0.000 Main model coeff SE t P LLCI ULCI Constant 0.5674 0.2767 2.0505 .0412 .0227 1.1121 EMR .7898 .0670 11.7870 0.000 0.6579 0.9217 http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 65 relationship management has a significant linear relationship with organizational agility. In a similar study, Carlsen (2022) confirms that organizational agility is strongly influenced by employee relationships. From the same point of view, Menon and Suresh (2020) reaffirm that there is a significant linear relationship between employee relationships and organizational agility. A study conducted by Choong and Islam (2020) also attests that employee relationships are the driving force behind an organization's agility. Additionally, Salciuviene, Buenaventura, and Lee (2019 ) reflect previous findings that employee relationships are an alternative paradigm for organizational agility. This finding implies that employee relationship is being considered as a necessary managerial tool for firms operating in a dynamic environment. Likewise, for the organizations to respond quickly to the dynamic markets, to design high- quality products at the shortest lead time, and fast delivering services to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, they need to implement employee relationship management by putting more emphasis on gaining support from employees, providing an opportunity to suggest improvements in the way things are done, having mutual trust and confidence to make decisions, and allowing freedom of association. Therefore, H1 is supported. TABLE 3. Employee relationship management effect on employee empowerment Source: Data computation. The results of the effect of employee relationship management on employee empowerment are shown in Table 3. A significant regression equation was found (F = 100.277, p <0.001), and the R-square for the employee relationship management was 0.264. The results show that the Outcome: Employee Empowerment R R2 MSE F df1 df2 P 0.5142 .2644 .3685 100.2774 1.0000 279.0000 0.0000 Main model coeff SE t P LLCI ULCI Constant 1.585 0.2593 6.112 0.000 1.075 2..095 EMR 0.629 0.063 10.014 0.000 0.5052 0.7524 http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 66 general model is significant and can explain more than 26% of the differences in employee empowerment measures. The coefficient obtained in the EMR path is 0.629, the statistical coefficient t-test = 10.014 and p = 0.0000 (p <0.05). The lower limit confidence interval (LLCI) is 0.5052, and the upper limit confidence interval (ULCI) is 0.7524, based on the output of the p-value (p <0.05), and the LLCI and ULCI values ≠ 0 indicate that the employee relationship management has a significant effect on employee empowerment. The result is consistent with the research of Ivancevich (2001), who pointed out that the employee relationship improves employee empowerment because it directly helps to achieve organizational goals by empowering employees to make decisions. In the same direction, a study conducted by Magdalene (2016) established that employee relationship is linearly associated with employee empowerment. A study by AlKhozondar (2015) reiterates that maintaining pleasant relationships with employees has a significant influence on employee empowerment. This connotes that employee relations should be part of the organization`s efforts to establish and maintain pleasant relationships with employees through good guidance, full participation in decision-making, good motivational work, and important information that gives advantages. Thus, this will go a long way to maintain the loyalty of employees and participate more in their work. Hence, H2 is confirmed. TABLE 4. Employee empowerment effect on organizational agility Source: Data computation. Outcome: Organizational Agility R R2 MSE F df1 df2 P 0.621 0.423 0.314 110.570 2.000 288.000 0.000 Main model coeff SE t P LLCI ULCI Constant -0. 1843 0.2644 0.7770 0.4864 0.5049 0.3252 EMP 0.4916 0.0701 8.2721 0.0000 0.3356 0.5296 http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 67 The results of the effect of employee empowerment on organizational agility are shown in Table 4. A significant regression equation was found (F = 110.570, p <0.000), and the R-square of employee empowerment was 0.423. The results show that the general model is significant and can explain more than 42% of the differences in organizational agility measures. The coefficient obtained in the EMP pat is 0.4916, the test of the statistical coefficient is = 8.2721, and p = 0.0000 (p <0.05). The lower limit confidence interval (LLCI) is 0.3356, and the upper limit confidence interval (ULCI) is 0.5296. The output is based on the p-value (p<0.05). The LLCI and ULCI values ≠ 0 indicate significant effects between employee empowerment management and Organizational Agility. The result is consistent with the result of Heydari (2013), which shows that there is a positive correlation between employee empowerment and organizational agility. Similarly, Ivancevich (2001) reiterates that employee empowerment can improve employee relationships and organizational agility. Similarly, Kitur (2020) shows that organizational agility is a platform for employees to develop their skills for organizational sustainability. Another study conducted by Marjerison, Andrews, and Kuan, (2022) evident that organizational agility makes work groups and teams perform vital tasks for organizations to survive and prosper in a cut-throat business environment. A study by Harsch and Festing (2020) also concurs with the previous studies that organizational agility is a strong predictor of employee empowerment. This implies that employee empowerment equips employees with an array of strategic skills to achieve organizational objectives in today’s cut-throat and dynamic business environment. Without a cordial employee-employer relationship and skillful workforce, organizational agility cannot be achieved. It is shown that agility in employee relations and empowerment may provide such benefits as improvement in high-quality products, better customer service, and better delivery. Thus, H3 is supported. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 68 TABLE 5. Direct and indirect effects of the study model of Employee relationship management and employee empowerment on organizational agility Source: Data computation. The results of the measurement of direct and indirect effects on organizational agility are presented in Table 5. A significant regression equation was found (F = 120.470, P = 0.000) with an R-square of 0.464 for the direct and indirect effects of the measurement. The results indicate that the overall model is significant and can explain over 46% of the variance in the organizational agility measures. The mediation coefficient along the EMR is 0.4916, p = 0.0000 (p 0.05), t = 7.0115, and the lower and upper confidence intervals (LLCI and ULCI) obtained along the EMR are 0.3536 and 0.6296, respectively. The result shows that there are considerable effects and that the second criteria of mediation have been met (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Furthermore, the second result in table 5 shows that the EMP coefficient is 0.4743, p = 0.0000 (p > 0.05), and the LLCI and ULCI are 0.3614 and 0.5871, respectively. Along with EMP, P- value of 0.05 has substantial effects. As a consequence, the first and fourth conditions of mediation were met by getting substantial effects between EMP and OGA after including EMR in the model, as shown in Table 5 (Hayes, 2013; Baron and Kenny, 1986). This result conforms to the study of Fanodi, Okati, and Keikha (2014) that confirm that empowerment and its dimensions have a positive and significant relationship with organizational agility. Thus H4 is accepted. Outcome: Organizational Agility R R2 MSE F df1 df2 P 0.681 0.464 0.334 120.470 2.000 278.000 0.000 Main model coeff SE t P LLCI ULCI Constant -0. 1843 0.2644 -0.6970 0.4864 -0.7049 0.3362 EMR 0.4916 0.0701 7.0115 0.0000 0.3536 0.6296 EMP 0.4743 0.0573 8.2722 0.0000 0.3614 0.5871 http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 69 10. Conclusion The foundation of Resource-Based Theory (RBT) was able to be supported by existing evidence. This was further demonstrated by the graphing of the various estimated degrees of correlation between each of the study's variables. As a result, empirical evidence is being used to test the plausibility of a relationship between employee relationship management and employee empowerment on organizational agility's indirect and direct consequences. The degree of its applicability by firms on having quick responses by investing in their staff instead of the perception of material accumulations is hugely influenced by the entangled niches based on multiple levels of impacts cum interaction. Evidence shows that empowering employees has a positive and significant relationship with organizational agility, stemming from established relationship management between employers and employees before the need for ingenuity to propel the organization. Furthermore, the finding of the study reveals that employee empowerment mediates employee relationships and organizational agility. This implies that employee empowerment equips employees with an array of strategic skills through full participation in decision-making, and important information to achieve organizational objectives in today’s cut-throat and dynamic business environment. 11. Theoretical Implication Employee relationship management and organizational agility were linked in this study, which also mediated the perceived importance of employee empowerment in the manufacturing industry. This was done with the COVID-19 timeframe in mind. As a result, a limit on the management applicability in a pandemic era has been established. Using the SEM tool for employee relationship management and organizational management, the study was also able to establish the powerful role of employee empowerment as a mediator. As a result, the Resource- Based Theory's adaptability is suitable for the study's synchronization with the stated variables. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 70 The radiality of the theory in actuality is due to the many linkages with the factors in the trio. The concept is based on utilizing what is already available in the home to achieve the desired result. It's worth noting that characteristics like the organization's flexibility, as well as internal competence, are among the study's potent ingredients for the applicability of turning the adopted theory into reality. We may affirm that the provided theory is entirely applicable to the entire study to comprehend the full scope of this effort in achieving organizational agility with positive employee relationship management. As a result, seeking external assistance in difficult times should be the last alternative, as the lifeblood of any firm (its people) must be the primary point of contact, even if fine tuning is required to get the desired result when problems develop. 12. Practical Implication The study has contributed to the body of knowledge by demonstrating the RBT's adaptability in a pandemic period to optimize employee motivation at the expense of acknowledging the instinct of organizational agility in a challenging era where change occurs without warning. As a result, companies must have a dexterity attitude to succeed in a dynamic environment with a high level of unpredictability engulfed by globalization, which necessitates consistently empowering her staff with identified world-class talents. This means that it is to every employer's best advantage to keep a good attitude toward their staff. Though not at the expense of the organization's established standards (Alhashedi et al. 2021). Furthermore, the study was able to connect to the organization's positive achievement of empowering people as opposed to a developing view of the 21st century of training employees for other organizations based on employee turnover in some firms. Furthermore, as previously demonstrated by research conducted by a developed country, it was able to impose the adoption of RBT across the whole economic sector. This was important because the Resource-based Theory (RBT) reacts to a http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 71 system's substantiality with its available resources and capacities development and development for constantly changing settings. 13. Limitation and recommendation for further studies The study constraint was the evaluation of specific characteristics such as adaptability and organizational-related parameters with an emphasis on differentiating the identification of opportunities and threats. The lack of a qualitative measurement underlined this even more. As a result, subsequent research can use the above-mentioned factors to adopt a mixed technique across manufacturing enterprises to ensure a generalized perspective. Other sectors, such as the food and beverages, cement, automobile, oil and gas, mining and service industry, can be explored in future studies, as this study focused on consumer goods. The Resource-Based Theory (RBT) was the only theory used in the study. Other studies, such as the Linking Instrumental Theory (LIT) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), will be taken into account as an extra frontier to knowledge, with empirical validations. This will allow for the theory's transferability and redevelopment in related disciplines by other investigations. Furthermore, because this study was focused on the quantitative establishment of the target variables, considering relevant studies along the stage of comparison can be taken up by other studies. References Akbari, Bahman, Shina Zinali, Sharam Gilaninia and Seyyed Javad Mousavian. 2012. “Determine the Effectiveness of Assertiveness Training on Student Achievement and Happiness.” Journal of Basic and Applied, Scientific Research 2(1), 415-417. Albro, Maggie, and Jenessa M. Mc Elfresh. 2021. “Job engagement and employee organization relationship among academic librarians in a modified work environment.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 47(5):102413. doi:10.1016/J.ACALIB.2021. 102413. Alhashedi, Aref Abdulkarem Ali, Barjoyai Bardai, Maged M. Mahyoub Al-Dubai, and Mohammed Abdulrazzaq Alaghbari. 2021. “Organizational citizenship behavior role in mediating the effect of transformational leadership on organizational performance in gold industry of saudi arabia.” Business: Theory and Practice 22(1):39–54. doi:10.3846/btp.2021.12774. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102413 https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2021.12774 Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 72 Al-Khozondar, Nisren O. 2015. “Employee Relationship Management and its Effect on Employees Performance at Telecommunication and Banking Sectors.” MBA Thesis of the Islamic University- Gaza. Ali, Bayad Jamal, and Govand Anwar. 2021. “Measuring competitive intelligence network and its role on business performance.” International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences 6(2):329-345. Armstrong, Michael. 2010. A Handbook of Human Resources Management Practice. London: Kogan Page Publishing (10th ed.). Barney, Jay B. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Manajement 17 (3):99-120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.” Journal of personality and social psychology 51(6):1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173. Baškarada, Saša, and Andy Koronios. 2018. “The 5S organizational agility framework: a dynamic capabilities perspective.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis 26(2):331-342. doi:10.1108/IJOA-05-2017-1163. Carlsen, Mathilde Hjerrild. 2022. “Familiar Strangers–Managing Engagements in Public-Private Partnerships in Education.” Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 8(2):119–132. doi:10.1080/20020317.2021.1950329. Chigara, Hadjira. 2021. Resource Based View and competitiveness:An empirical study of the Algerian SME. International Journal of Economic Performance 4(1):432-443. Choong, Keww Keong, and Sardar M. Islam. 2020. “A new approach to performance measurement using standards: a case of translating strategy to operations.” Operations Management Research 13(3):137-170. doi:10.1007/s12063-020-00159-8. DeFranzo, Susan E. 2012. Advantages and Disadvantages of Surveys. Retrieved form https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-surveys/. Donohoe, Stephen. 2015. “An examination of strategy development and strategic management processes within growth-seeking small businesses.” PhD diss., Middlesex University. Dove, Rick. 2005. Agile enterprise cornerstones: knowledge, values, and response ability in business agility and information technology diffusion. Boston: Springer. Doz, Yves, and Mikko Kosonen. 2008. “The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia's rollercoaster experience.” California Management Review 50(3):95-118. doi:10.2307/41166447. El Mouallem, Lara, and Farhad Analoui. (2014). Developing Effective Communication for project managers in Developing countries. San Francisco: Sage Publications Inc. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2017-1163 https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2021.1950329 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-020-00159-8 https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-surveys/ http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166447 Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 73 Erande, Ameya S., and Alok K. Verma. 2008. “Measuring Agility of Organizations – A Comprehensive Agility Measurement Tool (CAMT).” International Journal of Applied Management and Technology 6(3):31-44. Fanodi, Mehdi, Hamid Okati, and Alameh Keikha. 2014. “The Role of Psychological Empowerment on Organizational Agility at Zabol University of Medical Sciences.” World Journal of Environmental Biosciences 6(Supplemenary):60-65. Ghafuri, Priya, Akram Farhadi, and Ahmad Mansouri. 2014. “Relationship between intellectual capital and organizational agility with mediatory role of employee empowering in service sector (Case Study: Karafarin Insurance Company). International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences 3(12):11-15. Hanssen, M.H.J. 2010. Organizational agility in an institutional context. Master diss., Tilburg University. Harsch, Kathrina, and Marion Festing. 2020). “Dynamic Talent Management Capabilities and Organizational Agility—A Qualitative Exploration.” Human Resource Management 59:43– 61.doi:10.1002/hrm.21972. Hayes, Andrew F. 2013. Model Templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS in White paper. New York: The Guilford Press Heydari, Marzieh. 2013. “Investigating the multiple relationships between organizational learning, organizational agility features, organizational excellent empowerment based on the views of faculty members of Isfahan public universities.” PhD diss., Isfahan University (in Persian). Horabadi Farahani, Alireza, and Freidoon Salimi. 2015. “The Study of the Relationship between Employees’ Empowerment and Organizational Agility: A Case Study in Azarab Industrial Company.” European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 4(1s):1067-1075. Ibidunni, Ayodotun Stephen, Oyebisi Mary Ibidunni, Adunola Oluremi Oke, Adebanji William Ayeni, and Maxwell Ayodele Olokundun. 2018. “Examining the Relationship between Tacit Knowledge of Individuals and Customer Satisfaction.” Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 24(1):1-20. Ibidunni, Ayodotun Stephen, Odunayo Paul Salau, Hezekiah Olubusayo Falola, Adebanji William Ayeni, and Frank Ifeanyi Obunabor. 2017. “Total Quality Management and Performance of Telecommunication Firms.” International Business Management. 11(2):293-298. doi:10.3923/ibm.2017.293.298. Ivancevich, John M. 2001. International Human Resource Management. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, Irwin. Kanana, Terry J. 2016. “The Perceived Relationship between Employee Relations Management Practices and Job Satisfaction at SWISSPORT Kenya Limited.” MBA Thesis, University of Nairobi. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21972 https://doi.org/10.3923/ibm.2017.293.298 Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 74 Kitur, Thimoty. 2020. “Relationship between organizational agility and firm performance amongst tours and travel companies in Nairobi, Kenya.” PhD diss., Kenyatta University. Kotter, John P. 2012. “How the most innovative companies capitalize on today's rapid-fire strategic challenges-and still make their numbers.” Harvard Business Review 90(11):43-58. Kuzua , Ömür Hakan, and Derya Özilhan. 2014. “The Effect of Employee Relationships and Knowledge Sharing on Employees’ Performance: An Empirical Research on Service Industry: An Empirical Research on Service Industry.” Social and Behavioral Sciences 109(8):1370-1374. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.639. Lu, Ying, and K. Ram Ramamurthy. 2011. “Understanding the link between information technology capability and organisational agility: an empirical examination.” MIS Quarterly 35(4):931-954. doi:10.2307/41409967. Magdalene, Koki Muthoka. 2016. “Influence Of Employee Relations Practices On Organisational Performance of Public Healthcare Sector in Kenya.” PhD diss., Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. Marjerison, Rob Kim, Matthew Andrews, and George Kuan. 2022. “Creating Sustainable Organizations through Knowledge Sharing and Organizational Agility: Empirical Evidence from China.” Sustainability 14(8):4531. doi:10.3390/su14084531. Menon, Shalini, and M. Suresh. 2020. “Factors Influencing Organizational Agility in Higher Education. Benchmarking: An International Journal 28(1):307–332. doi:10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0151. Muduli, Ashutosh. 2016. “Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: An empirical study.” Management Research Review 39(12):1567–1586. doi:10.1108/MRR-10-2015-0236. Muntenau, Anca-Ioana, Nicolae Bibu, Marian Nastase, Nicoleta Critache, and Cosmin Matis. 2020. “Analysis of Practices to Increase the Workforce Agility and to Develop a Sustainable and Competitive Business.” Sustainability. 12(9):3445. doi:10.3390/su12093545. Nafei, A. Wageeh. 2016. “The role of organizational agility in enhancing organizational excellence: A study on telecommunications sector in Egypt.” International Journal of Business and Management 11(4):121–135. Nikbakht, M., Nawabakhsh, M., Jadidi, L and Fakhimi, A, 2014. “Empowering human resources to improve organizational agility.” Paper presented at 2nd National Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems, Islamic azad university, Najafabad branch, 25-26 (in Persian). Nouri, Bagher Asgarnezhad, and Masume Mir Mousavi. 2020. “Effect of cooperative management on organizational agility with the mediating role of employee empowerment in public transportation sector.” Cuadernos de Gestión 20(2): 15-46. OECD. 2020. Small, Medium, Vulnerable. Available at: https://oecdstatistics.blog/2020/04/15/statistical-insights-small-medium-and-vulnerable/. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.639 https://doi.org/10.2307/41409967 https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084531 https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0151 https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2015-0236 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093545 https://oecdstatistics.blog/2020/04/15/statistical-insights-small-medium-and-vulnerable/ Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 75 Onyango, Olivia Apondi. 2014. “Perception of the effectiveness of employee relationship management practices in large civil society organizations in Nairobi.” Research project, University of Nairobi. Pearce, John A., and Richard Braden Robinson. 2007. Formulation, implementation, and control of competitive strategy. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2004. “Behavior Research Methods.” Instruments, & Computers 36: 717–731. Rashidirad, Mona, Ebrahim Soltani, and Hamid Salimian. 2015. “‘Reductionistic’ and ‘Holistic’ views to Resource-Based Theory (RBT):a review of the literature and suggestions for future studies.” Strategic Change 24(6):509-525. Rahman, Md. Sahedur, and Rabeya Khatun Taniya. 2017. “Effect of employee relationship management (ERM) on employee performance: A study on private commercial banks in Bangladesh.” Human Resource Management Research 7(2):90-96. doi:10.5923/j.hrmr.20170702.03. Rashidirad, Mona, Ebrahim Soltani, and Hamid Salimian. 2015. “Behavioral strategy and resource- based theory (RBT): application and the resulting implications.” In The practice of behavioral strategy. Research in Behavioral Strategy, edited by T.K. Das, 193-211. Charlotte, New York: Information Age Publishing. Sajuyigbe, Ademola Samuel, Adebanji Ayeni, and Henry Inegbedion. 2021. “Strategic Agility and Organizational Competitiveness of Multinational Companies.” International Journal of Information Management Sciences 5(1):38-52. doi:10.1234/ijims.v5i1.95. Salajeghe, Sanjar, and Mojtaba Nasrollahpoor. 2016. “Studying the relation of knowledge management strategy with organization agility in General Administration of Customs of Kerman province.” International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies 2016(M Par 0):237-248. Salder, Jacob, Mark Gilman, Simon Raby, and Aineias Gkikas. 2020. “Beyond linearity and resource- based perspectives of SME growth.” Journal of Small Business Strategy 30(1):1-17. Salciuviene, Laura, Veronica Erika C. Buenaventura, and Kelvin Lee. 2019. “Employee proactiveness in engaging in sustainable consumption leads to societal benefits.” Engineering Economics 30(1):112-120. doi:10.5755/j01.ee.30.1.17385. Samwel, Janes O. 2018. “Effect of Employee Relations on Employee Performance and Organizational Performance-Study of Small Organizations in Tanzania.” Global Journal of Management and Business Research: Administration and Management 18(8):31-40. Sharifi, H., and Z. Zhang. 2001. “Agile manufacturing in practice: Application of methodology.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 21(5/6):772-794. doi:10.1108/01443570110390462. Singh, P.N., and Neeraj Kumar. 2011. Employee Relations Management. Delhi: Pearson Education. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.hrmr.20170702.03.html https://doi.org/10.1234/ijims.v5i1.95 https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.30.1.17385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570110390462 Volume 8, Number 2, 50-76, July-December 2023 https://doi.org/ 10.1344/jesb2023.8.2.36938 Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0 76 Swarnalatha, C., and T.S. Prasanna. 2013. “Employee Turnover in Health Care Industry: A Concern For The Organization.” The International Journal of Management 2(1):1-11. Tennant, R. 2001. “Building agile organizations.” Library Journal 126(7):30. Wargborn, C. 2008. Managing Motivation in Organizations -Why Employee Relationship Management Matters. Saarbruecken: VDM. Xia, Yuan, Hao Yan, and Yuan-ji Zhong. 2020. “A Study on the Impact of Employee-Organization Relationship on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: a Moderated Dual Mediation Model.” Forecasting 3:27-34. doi: 10.11847/fj.39.3.27. (In Chinese) Yamane, Taro. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis New York: Harper and Row (2nd Edition). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial- No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-comercial re-use and distribution, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered or transformed in any way. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/