HYPERMODERN AGILITY: RETHINKING ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTATION IN UNSTABLE ECOSYSTEMS

Authors: Dr. Victor Mignenan & Élie Ndjeder

ABSTRACT

In a hypermodern context characterized by technological acceleration, societal recompositing, and climate urgency, classical agility frameworks struggle to account for ecosystemic interdependencies and the plurality of temporal horizons. This article addresses the following research question: how can organizational agility be conceptualized to meet the singular challenges of the hypermodern era, marked by accelerated innovation cycles, market unpredictability, and a diversity of stakeholders?

We advance the theory of “hypermodern agility,” grounded in three key latent variables: (i) the cognitive reconfiguration of decision-making routines, (ii) the plasticity of coordination structures, and (iii) the reflexivity of innovation ecosystems. The mixed-method design combines a systematic literature review (2000–2025), multi-sector case studies (36 interviews), and quantitative validation through PLS-SEM on a sample of 311 respondents.

Qualitative findings reveal short-cycle sensemaking loops, modular organizational architectures, and inter-actor learning mechanisms. Quantitative results confirm a second-order construct of hypermodern agility explained by cognitive reconfiguration (β = 0.34; p < 0.001), coordination plasticity (β = 0.28; p < 0.001), and ecosystem reflexivity (β = 0.31; p < 0.001; R² = 0.62). Hypermodern agility enhances strategic performance (β = 0.42; R² = 0.49) and organizational sustainability (β = 0.35; R² = 0.45). Model robustness is supported (loadings ≥ 0.70; α = 0.82–0.91; AVE = 0.54–0.71; HTMT < 0.85; SRMR = 0.058; Q² > 0; bootstrapping 5,000). Environmental uncertainty strengthens the impact of agility on performance (β_mod = 0.12; p = 0.02).

The theoretical contribution introduces the concept of “fractal temporality,” through which organizations articulate short-, medium-, and long-term horizons. Managerial implications concern algorithmic governance, adaptive steering, and ecosystem orchestration. Limitations relate primarily to sectoral scope and the absence of longitudinal tracking; comparative and experimental studies are proposed for future research.

Keywords: hypermodern agility; innovation ecosystems; adaptive governance; collective intelligence; fractal temporality.

RÉFÉRENCES

  • Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451
  • Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127013520265
  • Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/01/what-vuca-really-means-for-you
  • Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92(1–2), 27–42.
  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393807
  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. (pas de DOI ; édition livre)
  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The future of open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 60(1), 35–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2017.1255054
  • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486 .
  • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486
  • Denning, S. (2018). The age of agile. HarperBusiness.
  • Dignum, V. (2020). Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06152-8
  • Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006 .
  • Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-0
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576. https://doi.org/10.5465/256434
  • Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
  • George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007
  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage. (pas de DOI recensé pour l’édition SAGE)
  • Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390219
  • Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Addison-Wesley.
  • Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
  • Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004
  • Lipovetsky, G. (2017). L’ère hypermoderne. Paris, France: Grasset.
  • Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2018). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, 96(3), 40–50.
  • Lipovetsky, G. (2017). Le sacre de l’authenticité. Gallimard. https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782072958748
  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? O’Reilly Media. https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
  • OECD. (2021). An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/an-updated-oecd-framework-on-drivers-of-trust-in-public-institutions-to-meet-current-and-future-challenges_b6c5478c-en.html
  • OECD. (2023). Government at a glance 2023. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1f84e2b9-en
  • OECD. (2024). OECD survey on drivers of trust in public institutions – 2024 results: Building trust in a complex policy environment. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en
  • Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000600
  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393988
  • Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (2003). Is future given? World Scientific. (pas de DOI recensé pour l’édition citée)
  • Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 618–648. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.2004
  • Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772469
  • Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Noble, A. (2018). Agile at scale. Harvard Business Review, 96(3), 88–96. https://hbr.org/2018/05/agile-at-scale
  • Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2012/36.1.02
  • Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/rosa14834
  • Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036530
  • Suddaby, R., Coraiola, D., Harvey, C., & Foster, W. (2020). History and the micro‐foundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 530–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3094 .
  • Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler. (chapitre d’ouvrage, pas de DOI)
  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  • Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
  • Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
  • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
  • Wajcman, J. (2015). Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226196527
  • Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
  • Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371