Resilience Coefficient: Measuring the Strategic Adaptability of Long-Term Investors Triggered by Artificial Intelligence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/vwekw566Keywords:
Strategic adaptability, long-term investors, artificial intelligence, dynamic capabilities.Abstract
A core dilemma for long-term investors (LTIs) is that the very stability and patience which once defined them can breed strategic inertia. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely touted as the solution, yet conventional thinking often uncritically frames it as just a tool for efficiency. This study contends that this narrow perspective overlooks AI’s truly transformative role. This paper reconceptualizes AI as a catalytic force that operates on an organization's foundational elements. Its impact reaches deeper than accelerating processes to actively reshape how institutions function by rewriting routines, shifting mental models, and redirecting resources. This study identifies three types of AI triggers that target routines, cognitive frameworks, and resource allocation. Each category presents distinct avenues for value creation alongside significant risks. Crucially, the ultimate effect of AI is not determined by its technical specifications but by the organization's absorptive capacity and its ability to learn, integrate knowledge, and adapt. Integrating dynamic capabilities theory with a micro foundations perspective, this study proposes a conditional model that reframes the essential challenge from one of technology adoption to organizational adaptation. Ultimately, this framework provides leaders with a diagnostic tool for guiding transformation. It highlights that in the AI era, sustainable competitive advantage is rooted not in technology itself, but in an organization's fundamental capacity to learn.
Downloads
References
[1] Clark, G. L., Monk, A. H. B. The institutional investor’s dilemma: The strategic paradox of long-term investment. Oxford University Press, 2017.
[2] Zahra, S. A., George, G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 2002, 27: 185 – 203.
[3] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 1997, 18: 509 – 533.
[4] Teece, D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28: 1319 – 1350.
[5] Benitez, J., Arenas, A., Castillo, A., Esteves, J. Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Information & Management, 2020, 59: 103590.
[6] Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2003, 48: 94 – 118.
[7] Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., Sayegh, K. Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 2018, 28: 62 – 70.
[8] Roberts, N., Galluch, P. S., Dinger, M., Grover, V. Absorptive capacity and information systems research: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 2012, 36: 625 – 648.
[9] Fritz-Morgenthal, S., Hein, B., Papenbrock, J. Financial risk management and explainable, trustworthy, responsible AI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2022, 5: 779799.
[10] Raisch, S., Krakowski, S. Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 2021, 46: 192 – 210.
[11] Deutsche Bundesbank. The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the financial sector: Opportunities, risks and perspectives. Monthly Report, 2020.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

