This study interprets the concept of strategic mobilization based on the resource-based view, which emphasizes “strategic” resources or resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN), enabling organizations to achieve competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Crook et al., 2008). Resources, as a general term, are “all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, and so on controlled by a firm that enable it to conceive of and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and effectiveness” (Inceoglu et al., 2024: 584).

Researchers’ views differ regarding the definition of strategic mobilization due to varying interests and the fields in which it has been applied. Batti (2014) defines strategic mobilization as a process through which financial and non-financial resources are mobilized either externally or internally to support organizational activities (p. 57). Seltzer (2014) defines strategic mobilization as the process of obtaining the resources needed to maintain organizational sustainability from various providers through different mechanisms. Strategic mobilization also denotes “the ability to deal with difficult situations or unusual problems by using available resources effectively or innovatively” (Armstrong, 2015: 268).

The two definitions reflect complementary perspectives: Seltzer (2014) focuses on resource acquisition, emphasizing the organization’s ability to secure and attract required resources from multiple sources to support sustainability, thus highlighting an external orientation. Armstrong (2015) emphasizes the internal dimension, focusing on how resources are used effectively or innovatively to address difficult situations or non-traditional problems, reflecting dynamism, creativity, and adaptability. Ndetaulwa (2019) defines strategic mobilization as “all activities undertaken by the organization to ensure adequate financial, human, and technological resources to sustain operations aimed at achieving the organization’s mission” (p. 8).

Based on the above, the authors define strategic mobilization as all activities dedicated to identifying, collecting, and using resources—including human capital, financial assets, strategic knowledge, and technological capabilities—to achieve the organization’s strategic objectives, vision, and mission in a way that enhances the path toward strategic excellence.

According to Osterman (2022), the importance of strategic mobilization is manifested in the following points:

Based on the above, the authors argue that strategic mobilization plays a crucial role in enhancing the effectiveness of civil society organizations by aligning resources and efforts with specific objectives. By securing and committing resources strategically, these organizations can effectively engage stakeholders and ensure the reach and impact of their initiatives within target communities. This proactive engagement creates a collaborative environment that allows organizations to leverage external resources and build strong partnerships, which is essential for sustainable impact. Moreover, strategic mobilization strengthens dynamic capabilities that enable organizations to adapt and innovate in response to changing societal needs. Ultimately, the success of strategic mobilization not only drives organizations toward achieving their goals but also positions them strategically to lead initiatives that promote meaningful change and social cohesion.

Reviewing this field reveals no complete consensus among scholars regarding the dimensions of strategic mobilization, though some shared dimensions exist. Zehra (2018) identified three main dimensions: identifying resources, collecting resources, and using resources. Ssesanga (2021) suggested four dimensions for community organizations: financial self-reliance, networking, donations, and grants. In the context of civil society organizations, Nzilani (2021) identified four main dimensions: external donor funding, partnerships, cost-recovery strategy, and income-generating projects.

Njagi and Ngiri (2022) identified three main dimensions: resource allocation, resource utilization, and resource acquisition. Maina (2023) emphasized four main dimensions: fundraising strategy, self-financing strategy, institutional partnership strategy, and community collaboration.

Accordingly, this study adopts the dimensions proposed by Maina (2023) for several reasons: the model reflects recent developments in strategic management and aligns with practical challenges facing civil society organizations; it is comprehensive with four key dimensions (fundraising, self-financing, institutional partnership, and community collaboration); it suits the study context in Duhok; it supports achieving strategic excellence through effective resource utilization; and it is practical and adaptable for field studies.

In today’s rapidly evolving business world, the ability to adapt and transform is no longer optional but a necessity. Gayo (2020) emphasizes that strategic flexibility is closely associated with the unpredictability of the business environment. As turbulence and uncertainty increase, organizations must develop a degree of flexibility that enables them to adapt to changing conditions.

Strategic flexibility has been defined in multiple ways. Sushil (2014) defines it as “proactive and reactive strategic moves aimed at creating change, internally or externally, by leveraging vital elements of organizational continuity such as core values, culture, core competencies, brand, and strategic position” (p. 276). Strategic flexibility represents a deliberately designed organizational capability that enables timely response and adaptation to environmental changes with significant effects on organizational performance (Srour et al., 2016: 373).

Strategic flexibility is also defined as an organization’s readiness and ability to reformulate its strategies in response to opportunities, threats, and market changes (Gayo, 2020: 4). Across the literature, the common theme is the emphasis on organizational readiness and capacity for change as a means of adapting to dynamic environments.

Organizations can demonstrate strategic flexibility by adopting a reactive approach (responding to change) and/or a proactive approach (creating new opportunities), either by diversifying available strategic options or by increasing responsiveness to pursue a specific strategic option. Organizations may adapt internally through reallocating resources or externally through competitive actions (Herhausen et al., 2021: 437).

Based on the above, the authors view strategic flexibility as essential in a fast-paced business environment. It reflects an organization’s readiness and ability to adapt to unforeseen environments through a mix of proactive and reactive actions managing internal and external changes, leveraging core values, culture, and strategic assets, and enabling the organization to thrive amid turbulence. This capability manifests in adapting and reshaping strategies in response to opportunities and threats, ensuring long-term resilience and growth. Ultimately, strategic flexibility enables organizations to maintain competitiveness, enhance innovation, and engage stakeholders while navigating market dynamics and uncertainty.

Despite its importance, strategic flexibility can also pose risks if not managed carefully. Excessive focus on flexibility can lead to scattered efforts and strategic drift if organizations continuously shift direction without maintaining a coherent vision. Thus, while strategic flexibility offers many benefits, it requires careful calibration to prevent negative consequences from excessive or misaligned adaptation.

Strategic rigidity refers to the phenomenon in which organizations continue to adhere to established strategies and behaviors at the expense of their ability to adapt to rapid and dynamic environmental changes (Matthyssens et al., 2005). Luttel and Holtmann (2008) explain that rigidity is driven by early strategic choices that reinforce themselves over time, creating path dependency that constrains change. When organizations invest in specific strategies, they inadvertently reinforce commitment to those approaches, making strategic shifts more difficult. Often, this cycle results in organizations persisting with ineffective strategies despite negative outcomes.

As Shah et al. (2013) observed, strategic rigidity emerges when organizations rely on entrenched skills and capabilities linked to traditional technologies, making them less inclined to adopt necessary technological innovations to sustain competitive advantage. Strategic rigidity represents overreliance on routines and core capabilities that may initially yield competitive advantage but eventually inhibit adaptation to environmental change or technological progress. This can increase resistance to innovation and raise the risk of obsolescence as market dynamics evolve, thereby weakening competitiveness. Similarly, Syed (2023) describes strategic rigidity as steadfast adherence to existing plans and reluctance to adapt to changing conditions, often due to overreliance on previously successful methods.

Although strategic rigidity is often viewed negatively, some researchers recognize its benefits in certain contexts. Hall (2024) proposes that rigidity can play a valuable role in supporting complex organizational objectives, enhancing motivation, providing clarity, and strengthening accountability—critical factors when pursuing difficult goals. Unlike strategic flexibility, which may require frequent adjustments and increased decision-making demands, strategic rigidity offers a clear roadmap toward desired outcomes, reduces ambiguity, keeps the organization on track, and mitigates distractions, potentially improving the likelihood of success.

Based on the above, the authors argue that strategic rigidity refers to an organization’s sustained commitment to established strategies and practices, which often limits adaptability. Yet, in certain contexts, it can provide clarity, focus, and stability, supporting strategic orientation and vision achievement by ensuring organizational consistency. In complex or uncertain situations, rigidity may offer strategic benefits by reducing ambiguity and reinforcing accountability.

In today’s rapidly changing business environment, organizations must balance strategic flexibility and rigidity to overcome uncertainty while maintaining stable performance. This balance ensures the organization remains responsive to change while preserving core elements that drive success. As discussed, each of flexibility and rigidity has advantages and disadvantages, so organizations can maximize effectiveness by leveraging strengths from both.

Netz and Lindskog (2021) emphasize the need to balance stability and change in environments requiring consistency and rapid adaptation. They argue that agile practices help organizations blend structure with adaptability by creating a stable strategic core that supports consistent operations while fostering openness to new opportunities and adjustments in response to external changes. Success in diverse organizational contexts often lies in skillfully managing competing priorities.

Sharp (2024) notes that achieving this balance enables adaptability, flexibility, and innovation, which are necessary for organizations to thrive in fast-changing environments. Case studies of Toyota and Netflix show how balancing stable operations with flexible elements can deliver long-term success, as both companies adapt to market changes while maintaining efficiency and consistency in operations.

Based on the above, the authors argue that the core idea of balancing strategic flexibility and rigidity is that strategic foundations (vision, mission, objectives, values, and strategies) should be flexible enough to adapt to environmental trends and changes, yet rigid enough to preserve fundamental design principles and organizational identity. Organizations must know when to be rigid (e.g., stability and organizational innovation) and when to be flexible (e.g., rapid change or emergencies requiring strategic adjustment). Excessive emphasis on flexibility can lead to fragmentation and resource loss, creating systemic inconsistency. Conversely, prioritizing rigidity can lead to stagnation, outdated designs, and lack of innovation. Accordingly, the authors present a model for balancing strategic flexibility and rigidity as shown in Figure 1.

We have identified the model and its main dimensions. Before elaborating, it is important to emphasize that the selection and explanation of these dimensions depend on the researchers’ perspectives. The following discussion reflects the authors’ analysis and interpretation of the model’s core dimensions.

The concept of excellence emerged when Tom Peters and Robert Waterman presented the excellence framework in their bestselling 1982 book, based on a two-year study of nearly 43 leading U.S. organizations and identifying common characteristics that distinguished them as superior and unique (Amery-Al & Hussein, 2024). In their book Strategic Excellence in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction, Plenert and Plenert (2018) present strategic excellence as both a goal and a process, describing it as a dynamic goal requiring regular reassessment, preferably annually. They also emphasize that it is a continuous process requiring ongoing improvement to enhance organizational outcomes.

Al-Sumaidaie (2021) defines strategic excellence as “a state of uniqueness in which the organization’s actions (outputs/strategies/results) have deeper impact in the market, broader geographic reach, are less affected by competitors’ reactions, and are psychologically closer to customers’ desires” (p. 50).

Haji (2002) associates strategic excellence with innovation and the highest quality levels achieved by an organization, where it attains excellence in both processes and the goods and services provided (p. 73). Strategic excellence also includes effective integration of advanced technologies such as big data analytics and artificial intelligence to improve decision-making, enhance marketing performance, and maintain competitive advantage. This integration involves aligning technological applications with organizational goals, customizing customer experiences, and adapting strategies to dynamic market trends while addressing challenges like data privacy and maintaining strategic coherence (Thongam et al., 2024).

Based on the above, the authors argue that strategic excellence is a state of uniqueness achieved by securing resources and aligning them with strategic objectives, and by balancing strategic flexibility and rigidity in strategy development and implementation, thereby achieving superior performance and sustaining competitive advantage.

This study focuses on the dimensions of strategic excellence proposed by Bashir and Hassan (2024), which are comprehensive and suitable to the study context:

Zehra (2018) aimed to understand resource mobilization among informal entrepreneurs in the event planning industry in Pakistan, focusing on social and human capital and exploring how they manage resource constraints in a developing economy. The study used a qualitative case study approach with a sample of 15 informal event planning ventures. Results showed that informal entrepreneurs rely on a mix of social and human capital to mobilize resources effectively. Collaborative networks and shared knowledge played a pivotal role in enhancing market readiness despite limited resources, and resource mobilization was collaborative rather than competitive, highlighting the importance of partnerships, knowledge exchange, and trust. The study recommended policies and practices that strengthen social networks and collaboration opportunities to support informal entrepreneurs, and called for further research in other developing economies.

Ssesanga (2021) diagnosed the relationship between resource mobilization strategies, management and control, and the success of community-based organizations (CBOs) in Mbarara, motivated by reports indicating failure to achieve objectives. The study used a cross-sectional design, closed-ended questionnaire, and correlation and regression analyses. Results showed a significant positive relationship between resource mobilization strategies and CBO success, and between mobilization strategies, management/control, and success. Resource mobilization was the strongest predictor of success, emphasizing the importance of focusing on mobilization strategies. Recommendations included expanding strategies to include modern opportunities such as websites, social media, and income-generating activities to ensure continuity even when funding is delayed.

Njagi and Ngiri (2022) evaluated the impact of strategic resource mobilization on the performance of construction organizations in Nairobi, Kenya. The population included 126 registered firms, with a sample of 96 executives selected via random, stratified, and purposive techniques. Data were collected via an online SurveyMonkey questionnaire focusing on resource mobilization dimensions and their impact on performance. Results showed that strategic resource mobilization positively and significantly affects performance and organizational sustainability, with human, financial, and technological resources being critical. The study concluded that clear mobilization strategies are essential for sustainability and performance improvement, recommending formal resource allocation structures and regular updates to mobilization strategies.

Osterman (2022) explored the role of resource mobilization in strategic initiatives led by senior and middle managers, focusing on the interaction between internal and external resources. The study examined how social position and industry logic influence resource priorities, using qualitative analyses, interviews, and organizational case studies. Results showed that resource needs vary with the type of change initiative (architectural versus incremental), significantly affecting change management practices and outcomes. The study recommended maintaining dynamic capabilities for resource mobilization by implementing strategies such as team replaceability and rapid capability reconfiguration to preserve valuable resources across initiatives.

Matthyssens et al. (2005) examined why organizations suffer rigidity in market strategies and how to overcome barriers to achieve strategic flexibility and absorptive capacity, focusing on balancing strategic stability and adaptability in rapidly changing markets. The study relied primarily on theoretical analysis, with illustrative cases from Dutch organizations (e.g., electrical installations). It found that organizational routines, power struggles, and entrenched customer relationships lead to strategic rigidity that impedes adaptability. It emphasized that developing absorptive capacity—the ability to recognize, assimilate, and apply new knowledge—is essential for strategic flexibility, and recommended investing in dynamic capabilities, flexible structures, continuous learning, and adaptability.

Shah et al. (2013) examined the impact of strategic rigidity on technology adoption among electric utilities, focusing on renewable energy technologies. Using the case of Iberdrola S.A., the study investigated how core competencies in mature technologies can create strategic inertia, hindering adoption of innovative technologies such as concentrated solar power. Using literature review and analysis of organizational characteristics and strategic foresight frameworks, results showed that Iberdrola’s wind capabilities provided competitive advantages but also contributed to strategic inertia. The study recommended enhancing strategic foresight and peripheral vision to overcome inertia and integrate emerging technologies.

Netz and Lindskog (2021) examined the balance agile teams must achieve between stability and change, using grounded theory based on 20 semi-structured interviews with practitioners across 14 organizations. The study identified five factors supporting balance: understanding agile practices, evolving roles and responsibilities, fostering care among team members, knowledge sharing, and building trust. It found that balance is dynamic and requires ongoing adjustments to internal needs for stability and external pressures for change. Three guidelines were proposed: adopt a holistic vision and allow time for change, encourage role flexibility, and prioritize trust-building practices.

Herhausen et al. (2021) addressed unresolved theoretical and empirical tensions in strategic flexibility, analyzing 106 independent samples from 98 studies (26,940 firms) using meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). Results showed that strategic orientations (entrepreneurial and market) and design elements (decentralization and formal routines) significantly enable strategic flexibility, while past success inhibits it. Environmental dynamism and demand uncertainty had negative effects on flexibility, contrary to theoretical expectations. The study recommended enhancing enablers and addressing inhibitors to improve performance outcomes.

Thongam et al. (2024) investigated the impact of big data and artificial intelligence on marketing strategy enhancement and managerial effectiveness, targeting marketing specialists. The study used a mixed-methods approach with 250 survey respondents and 15 expert interviews. Results showed that 82% of organizations had adopted big data analytics and 70% implemented AI, significantly improving marketing effectiveness. Challenges included data privacy and strategic alignment of technologies with organizational goals. The study recommended continuous exploration of emerging technologies such as blockchain and augmented reality.

Bashir and Hassan (2024) examined the dimensions of organizational integrity and strategic excellence and analyzed their relationship within faculty councils in private universities in Erbil. A conceptual model with two main hypotheses was tested using survey data. The study employed a descriptive-analytical approach and included 117 council members as the population, with a sample of 58. Results showed strong positive relationships between organizational integrity and strategic excellence, recommending leveraging this relationship to enhance performance and service quality.

Mohammad and Sultan (2023) examined the impact of strategic architecture dimensions (future vision, sustainable innovation, strategic alliances, digital advancement, knowledge management, and customer focus) on strategic excellence dimensions (leadership, people, culture, service, environmental, and sustainable excellence). The study used an exploratory survey of 177 administrative leaders in ministries of the Kurdistan Regional Government; 151 valid questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS V.26. Results showed significant correlations and positive effects of strategic architecture on strategic excellence, recommending that administrative leaders strengthen identified strengths and address weaknesses to improve institutional performance.

Prior scholarly efforts significantly enriched the theoretical side of the current study, aided in developing measurement scales, and informed the methodologies used. The sequential presentation of ideas enabled the researchers to build the current study’s methodology by reviewing intellectual and field problems, defining objectives and importance, and formulating hypotheses and models derived from previous studies. Additionally, the current study’s sample was informed by samples used in earlier research, enhancing accuracy and reliability.

In light of the review, what distinguishes this study is the researchers’ inability to find a prior study that examined the role of strategic mobilization in achieving strategic excellence through the moderating role of the balance between strategic flexibility and rigidity. Thus, this study is among the first to integrate these variables, especially in the civil society context. The spatial dimension is also a key difference, as prior studies were conducted in different environments, limiting generalizability to Duhok civil society organizations, a context unique to this study.

Moreover, this study offers a unique model for balancing strategic rigidity and flexibility that has not been explored previously. The model developed by the authors is the first of its kind and contributes to understanding how the interaction between rigidity and flexibility affects strategic excellence, particularly within civil society organizations in Duhok.

It is المتوقع وجود a statistically significant correlation between strategic mobilization and strategic excellence in the organizations under study. Sub-hypotheses include:

There is expected to be a significant effect of strategic mobilization on strategic excellence in the organizations under study. Sub-hypotheses include:

There may be a moderating role for the balance between strategic flexibility and strategic rigidity in the relationship between strategic mobilization and strategic excellence in the organizations under study.

The population comprises all administrative leaders in local civil society organizations in Duhok, including organization heads and assistants, heads of main units, and program managers. These leaders participate actively in strategic formulation and are responsible for following up on strategies at the organizational level. Local civil society organizations were selected because of their vital and growing role in providing social and developmental services, especially in environments facing multiple economic and social challenges. These organizations face significant difficulties in securing and sustaining the financial resources needed to support their activities due to intense competition for funding sources and uncertainty about donor support. They thus provide an ideal context for studying mechanisms to enhance stability through strategic mobilization.

A total of 80 questionnaires were distributed to administrative leaders in the organizations under study using random sampling. Sixty-three valid questionnaires were retrieved for analysis, representing a response rate of 78.75%. Table 1 presents the distribution of respondents by organization.

Table 3 shows a significant positive correlation between strategic mobilization and strategic excellence, with r = 0.452 at the 0.01 significance level. This indicates that greater reliance on strategic mobilization is positively associated with higher levels of strategic excellence. At the partial level, correlations between each strategic mobilization dimension and strategic excellence were as follows: fundraising (r = 0.300, P < 0.05), self-financing (r = 0.264, P < 0.05), partnerships (r = 0.445, P < 0.01), and community collaboration (r = 0.311, P < 0.05). Thus, the first main hypothesis and all its sub-hypotheses are supported.

Simple linear regression and the F test and R2 were used to test the effect of strategic mobilization on strategic excellence. Table 4 shows a significant effect at P = 0.008 (less than 0.05), supported by F = 15.652, which exceeds the tabulated value of 3.15 at df (1, 61). The coefficient B1 = 0.452 indicates that a one-unit change in strategic mobilization is associated with a 0.452 change in strategic excellence. R2 = 0.204 indicates that 20.4% of the variation in strategic excellence is explained by strategic mobilization, with the remaining 79.6% due to other factors not included in the model.

Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine the effect of each strategic mobilization dimension on strategic excellence. Table 5 shows the results:

Model 1 includes only partnerships, excluding fundraising, self-financing, and community collaboration. Partnerships had the highest effect on strategic excellence compared with other dimensions, with t = 3.880 (greater than the tabulated value 2.65, df = 62), and R2 = 0.198, indicating that partnerships alone explain 19.8% of the variation in strategic excellence. This suggests that organizations seeking to achieve strategic excellence should focus on partnerships as the most influential dimension.

Fundraising, self-financing, and community collaboration were excluded from the stepwise regression models, indicating that strategic mobilization derives its effect on strategic excellence primarily from partnerships in the organizations under study. This suggests limited attention to the relationship between these dimensions and strategic excellence.

From the regression results at both overall and partial levels (Tables 3 and 4), it can be concluded that strategic mobilization has an effect on strategic excellence at the overall level, and partnerships affect strategic excellence at the partial level. Thus, the second main hypothesis is supported.

To test the moderating effect hypothesis, multiple regression with a moderating variable (Moderated Multiple Regression) and the Johnson-Neyman approach were used to examine the influence of the third variable on the causal relationship between the two main variables. The results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 compares direct effects between strategic mobilization and strategic excellence with effects when the moderating variable (balance between strategic flexibility and rigidity) is included. R2 increased from 0.204 without the moderator to 0.276 with the moderator, indicating that the balance between strategic flexibility and rigidity contributes to improving the causal relationship. This effect is considered acceptable, supported by F = 11.430 and significance of 0.000 (less than 0.05). Thus, the third main hypothesis is partially accepted.