SMEs in a digital era: The role of management

Mladenova, Irena Article SMEs in a digital era: The role of management Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Mladenova, Irena (2024) : SMEs in a digital era: The role of management, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 11, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14110296 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321102 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Mladenova, Irena. 2024. SMEs in a Digital Era: The Role of Management. Administrative Sciences 14: 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14110296 Received: 20 September 2024 Revised: 28 October 2024 Accepted: 5 November 2024 Published: 9 November 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Article SMEs in a Digital Era: The Role of Management Irena Mladenova Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria; [email protected] Abstract: This article aims to explore the role of management in translating the external factors’ and internal barriers’ impacts on the level of adoption of digital technologies as a lever for change in business operations and processes in smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs face a distinct set of challenges when adopting digital technologies, often lacking resources and knowledge. On the other hand, they have certain characteristics, such as simpler organisational structures and processes, that make them more flexible than larger firms in leveraging technologies into new business models. Data for this study are obtained from 989 SMEs in Bulgaria in the manufacturing and services sectors. A PLS–SEM analysis confirms eight hypotheses raised on the relationships between environmental factors and government support and internal factors (management support, organisational flexibility, and risk-tolerant culture) that impact digital business intensity. Environmental factors’ impact is stronger than government support, while internal barriers are found to have no statistically significant relationship. The research findings highlight the important role of management support in guiding digital transformation through supporting organisational flexibility and promoting a risk-tolerant culture. Keywords: digital transformation; organisational change; SME; management support; risk-tolerant culture; organisational flexibility 1. Introduction Digital technologies have transformed societies and industries. Their rapid development and application to a growing scope of activities will continue to lead to further disruptions and shifts in how firms do business. Justifiably, researchers’ interest in how firms adopt, use, and benefit from digital technologies is growing. The widespread diffusion of digital technologies and their extensive effects is captured by the term digital era (Schaefer et al. 2018). It is characterised by the increase in speed and breadth of knowledge turnover within societies and economies (Doukidis et al. 2004), reshapes the business landscape, and presents new opportunities to firms (Liu et al. 2024). Digital technologies and technological advancements have major social and economic implications. Shepherd (2004) argues that the digital era will have the same effect on all members of societies and all economies. Importantly, faster technological development speeds up changes in the competitive landscape, requiring organisations to react quicker. Yet, organisations are in different stages of adapting to the digital age, adopting digital technologies, and benefitting from them. Digital are those technologies that rely on the use of devices, algorithms, and applications that are dependent on computers to store, process, and interpret digitised data (Govers and Van Amelsvoort 2023). Their adoption and impact on business have gone a long way from digitisation, referring to the transfer of analogue into digital data; through digitalisation related to how digital technologies are applied to processes, products, and services; and then to digital transformation (DT) (Dörr et al. 2023). DT emerges as the dominant paradigm (Rêgo et al. 2022) and can be defined from three lenses—technological, organisational, and social (Reis et al. 2018). According to Vial’s definition of DT, it is a Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14110296 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 2 of 17 process where digital technologies create disruptions which trigger strategic responses and thus ultimately alter value creation paths while managing structural changes (Vial 2019). Wessel et al. (2021) distinguish DT from IT-enabled organisational transformation along two dimensions—value proposition and organisational identity. DT is related to (re-)defining the value proposition and involves a new organisational identity, while IT-enabled transformation leverages digital technologies to support the value proposition and enhance the existing organisational identity (Wessel et al. 2021). The information-systems perspective, related to IT-enabled transformation, is significantly better researched as compared to DT from the organisational and management studies’ perspective (Vial 2019). While digital transformation in large enterprises is often a well-structured process and relies on sufficient financial and human resources, the above is rarely true for smalland medium-sized enterprises. SMEs typically face a distinct set of challenges when turning to digital technologies such as limited resources and capabilities (Zhang et al. 2022) that may hamper or delay their digitalisation. OECD (2023) highlights that SMEs lag in digitalisation, which is likely to negatively impact their way to digital transformation. On the other hand, SMEs’ smaller size and simpler organisational structures and processes make them more flexible (Barann et al. 2019) and able to integrate new technologies much faster (Becker and Schmid 2020). CEOs and founders are typically highly influential in the strategic decision-making in SMEs (Eller et al. 2020;Hortovanyi et al. 2023), which may either speed up DT or block it if they do not perceive it beneficial. From the organisational studies perspective, DT can be defined as a continuous organisational change (Hanelt et al. 2021) describing how firms redefine their structures, processes, and culture triggered by digital technologies and how they manage the transition towards the desired state (Rêgo et al. 2022). Nguyen et al. (2023) define DT as “the use of digital technologies to trigger significant changes to the firm’s internal and external processes with an aim to improve the organisation”. Similarly, Tangi et al. (2021, p. 2) define DT in the context of the public sector as “second-order organisational changes enabled by digital technologies transforming the way organisations are structured and organised and resulting in a new state, from the point of view of processes, culture, roles, relationships, and possibly all aspects of the organisation”. Creating new value propositions and new business models and ultimately gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage are the aims of this organisational change. However, Hanelt et al. (2021) observe that the organisational change approach used in DT research is rather limited. This study derives an operational definition of DT from the organisational change perspective and draws on the above authors. It interprets DT as a continuous organisational change that is supported by the adoption of digital technologies and manifested through the alteration of organisational elements such as structure, processes, and culture. DT leverages digital technologies and organisational elements with the aim of gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage through new value propositions and business models. The number of studies on SME digitalisation has grown significantly over the years with the aim of understanding the digitalisation antecedents, outcomes, and processes. However, SME-related research refers to either a mere techno-centric (investigating classes of technology) or a strategic topic (Meier 2021). Extant literature is short of empirical studies which take the organisational perspective to explain DT in SMEs (Palade and Møller 2023). Moreover, the distinct challenges of SMEs question the applicability of organisational theories and practices that fit large enterprises (Hu et al. 2024). González-Varona et al. (2021) highlight the insufficient research focus on organisational competence to drive DT in SMEs. Insufficient empirical studies of the organisational changes in SMEs supported by the adoption of digital technologies and the specific role of owners and managers is identified as a research gap addressed in this article. National contexts are characterised by differences in the external factors’ intensity and impact on SME DT; thus, adding empirical research on Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 3 of 17 countries with SMEs that are less advanced on their DT path can provide further proof of the applicability of DT approached as a continuous organisational change. This study aims to contribute to the above research gaps and to expand research evidence on external factors and capabilities that impact SMEs’ digital transformation. The open-systems theory and the resource-based theory guide this research. The rest of this paper is structured as follows: The Section 2develops the study hypotheses based on the literature review. The Section 3describes the study context, sample, variables and measures used and the analytical procedure employed. The Section 4 presents the results obtained. The Section 5offers discussion, including the underlying implications and limitations of this study. The Section 6concludes. 2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development System theories are theories of organisational change that see organisations as dynamic systems of adaptation and evolution that contain multiple parts interacting with one another and the environment (Amagoh 2008). General systems theory helps explain the behaviour and structure of organised entities, such as organisations (Von Bertalanffy 1972). Within this broad framework, the open-systems approach came as a response to the realisation that the behaviour of organisational systems is hard to explain without considering the environmental relationships and effects, and how organisations interact with their environment (Cummings 2015). The open-systems approach views organisations as using inputs from and producing outputs back to the environment (Hammond 2003). They maintain a degree of non-equilibrium and can be best understood through the dynamic interactions and relationships among their units (Von Bertalanffy 1972). Importantly, the environment is not simply influencing the organisation, but “a high-variety environment is a necessity to an open system” (Pondy and Mitroff 1979). Open-systems concepts have significantly influenced organisational theory and research, particularly in exploring how organisations interact and adapt to dynamic and unpredictable environments. These concepts help explain the behaviour of organisations in coping with continuous change (Amagoh 2008) and can benefit DT studies that conceptualise it as a continuous change triggered by digital technologies (Dörr et al. 2023; Hanelt et al. 2021;Rêgo et al. 2022). DT does not only change input–output or processes but also strategies and plans to create new value or market opportunities (Dörr et al. 2023); it impacts organisational structure and work systems. The resource-based theory turns the attention to the internal factors (resources and capabilities) and decisions controlled by the firm, which complement the strategic positioning and thus provide a more complete view of the competitive advantage determinants (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000). It distinguishes between doing (capabilities) and having (resources). The firm resources, its competitors’ resources, and environmental limitations (such as industry and governmental policy) are among the key factors that impact the firm performance (Conner 1991). Yet, the organisation itself is the main source of its competitive advantage (Arend and Lévesque 2010). The firm resources, however, may also act as barriers to certain strategic choices (Wernerfelt 1984). The theoretical framework illustrated in Figure 1attempts to integrate the opensystems concept and the resource-based theory. This study conceptualises the organisation as an open system that is influenced by (and influences) its environment and copes with constant change. Digital technologies are one of the significant triggers of change. Performance is largely influenced by environmental factors (competitors’ resources, customer requirements, supplier resources) and limitations (government policy, among others). Internal resources and capabilities are the main sources of competitive advantage, given the environmental impact, but may also act as limitations, as both are not static and evolve over time. Capabilities include routines to perform individual tasks and routines to coordinate the individual tasks (Helfat and Peteraf 2003). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 4 of 17 Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19 Figure 1. Theoretical framework of this study. Note: The list of resources and capabilities is nonexhaustive and is based on Newbert (2007). Performance is largely influenced by environmental factors (competitors’ resources, customer requirements, supplier resources) and limitations (government policy, among others). Internal resources and capabilities are the main sources of competitive advantage, given the environmental impact, but may also act as limitations, as both are not static and evolve over time. Capabilities include routines to perform individual tasks and routines to coordinate the individual tasks (Helfat and Peteraf 2003). 2.1. External Factors Studies on DT have explored the role of different external factors that promote or hamper digital technology adoption, such as competition, customers, and other stakeholders. In a bibliometric review, Hu et al. (2024) identify four external factors that determine DT–government policies and regulations, market competition, digital technique, and digital platform. These interact with internal factors (strategy, management, culture, and IT capabilities) to impact the DT process. Other studies also highlight the role of environmental factors, such as customers, competition, and digital technology development (Omrani et al. 2022), in driving DT. Vial (2019) points at consumer behaviour and expectations and the competitive landscape as two disruptions resulting from the fast development and adoption of digital technologies. SMEs are an important ingredient of national economies, measured by their share in gross domestic product, innovation activities, and employment. Understandably, many national and international policies focus on digital uptake by SMEs (such as (European Commission n.d.b.; OECD n.d.)) and support mechanisms aimed to boost DT in SMEs. Governmental policies and support are devised to address the deficiencies of SMEs in their DT path, such as the often-cited lack of financial resources, training digital skills, etc. Yet, Hu et al. (2024) identify the role of governments and other stakeholders in facilitating SMEs’ DT as an under-researched area. The role of owner/manager is cited by many authors as one of the important characteristics of SMEs (Palade and Møller 2023). The owner/manager has a key role in translating external signals into strategies and operations. Government incentives and support mechanisms that are perceived as addressing the internal deficiencies are hypothesised to increase the management support for digitalisation, given digitalisation itself is perceived as beneficial. The following hypotheses are raised: Figure 1. Theoretical framework of this study. Note: The list of resources and capabilities is nonexhaustive and is based on Newbert (2007). 2.1. External Factors Studies on DT have explored the role of different external factors that promote or hamper digital technology adoption, such as competition, customers, and other stakeholders. In a bibliometric review, Hu et al. (2024) identify four external factors that determine DT–government policies and regulations, market competition, digital technique, and digital platform. These interact with internal factors (strategy, management, culture, and IT capabilities) to impact the DT process. Other studies also highlight the role of environmental factors, such as customers, competition, and digital technology development (Omrani et al. 2022), in driving DT. Vial (2019) points at consumer behaviour and expectations and the competitive landscape as two disruptions resulting from the fast development and adoption of digital technologies. SMEs are an important ingredient of national economies, measured by their share in gross domestic product, innovation activities, and employment. Understandably, many national and international policies focus on digital uptake by SMEs (such as (European Commission n.d.;OECD n.d.)) and support mechanisms aimed to boost DT in SMEs. Governmental policies and support are devised to address the deficiencies of SMEs in their DT path, such as the often-cited lack of financial resources, training digital skills, etc. Yet, Hu et al. (2024) identify the role of governments and other stakeholders in facilitating SMEs’ DT as an under-researched area. The role of owner/manager is cited by many authors as one of the important characteristics of SMEs (Palade and Møller 2023). The owner/manager has a key role in translating external signals into strategies and operations. Government incentives and support mechanisms that are perceived as addressing the internal deficiencies are hypothesised to increase the management support for digitalisation, given digitalisation itself is perceived as beneficial. The following hypotheses are raised: H1. Environmental factors (customers, suppliers, competitors, digital technologies development) directly and positively influence management support for digitalisation in SMEs. H2. Government support (financial support, tax benefits) directly and positively influences management support for digitalisation in SMEs. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 5 of 17 2.2. Internal Barriers When they are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable, the resources and capabilities of an organisation may be the source of its competitive advantage and thus sustained performance (Barney 1991). According to Arend and Lévesque (2010), when a firm chooses to alter its resource bundle in line with a better-performing benchmark, it does not know the production function; thus, the choice to restructure is perceived by management as costly and risky, and that might lead to hesitation to initiate such a change in the resource and capabilities base. Vial (2019) identified several barriers to DT from the internal organisational environment, most significant of which are related to inertia and resistance. These can stem from a lack of flexibility, a mismatch between the available capabilities and resources and the requirements of DT, or tangible and intangible organisational components that result in inertia. Legacy IT systems result in resistance and limit the opportunities to adopt new digital technologies quickly (Al-Emadi and Anouze 2018). A related study found support for the interaction of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability (Newbert 2007). The organisational change studies identify several other barriers that need attention. Valence, or whether employees assess the change as personally beneficial, is crucial for their support or resistance (Holt et al. 2007;Oreg et al. 2011). Change is related to adopting new behaviours, and inadequate employee incentivisation and involvement can provoke negative reactions and resistance. Organisational culture rigidities, such as values and beliefs, may also pose barriers and lead to resistance (Al-Emadi and Anouze 2018). Several authors highlight the lack of managerial understanding of DT as a factor that reduces support (Tangi et al. 2021). H3. Internal barriers (legacy IT systems, lack of understanding and incentives, resistance) directly and negatively influence management support for digitalisation in SMEs. 2.3. The Role of Management The role of management is broadly agreed to be one of the key success factors in implementing organisational change (Burke 2011;Kotter 2007;Mladenova and Davidkov 2023;Yukl 2012). Similarly, DT studies underline the management’s qualities (Hu et al. 2024), DT awareness, acceleration skills and harmonising skills (Hanelt et al. 2021), support, and role in developing the digital mindset within the organisation (Vial 2019). SMEs are characterised by flatter and more flexible organisational structures (Inan and Bititci 2015) that enable them to adapt and react to changes faster. The flatter hierarchies allow more informal contacts and collaboration between departments. Organisational flexibility, on the other hand, is pointed out as an important DT factor (Berghaus and Back 2016;Kane 2019;Vial 2019). Becker and Schmid (2020) argue that SMEs that do not have organisational flexibility will achieve it as a result of DT. SME management is involved in both operational and strategic topics; decision-making processes are less standardised and formalised (Inan and Bititci 2015) and are thus expected to have a direct influence on organisational flexibility. H4. Management support directly and positively influences organisational flexibility. Management support is an antecedent for the implementation of digital strategies and technologies (Al-Emadi and Anouze 2018) in organisations. Management in SMEs has a crucial role in initiating and driving DT (Annosi et al. 2023;Li et al. 2018). The pace of adoption of digital technologies and leveraging them to digitally transform the business is largely influenced by the understanding and support of SME owners/managers. Meier (2021) also argues that management’s openness and commitment are among the key factors supporting SME digitalisation. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 6 of 17 H5. Management support directly and positively influences digital business intensity. Leadership is instrumental in shaping climate and culture in organisations (Schneider et al. 2017 ). An even stronger relationship can be expected in SMEs where leaders are involved more in operational than strategic issues (Inan and Bititci 2015) and thus largely influence the culture through decisions and demonstrations on what behaviours are acceptable and encouraged or not, etc. Culture in organisations reflects the shared beliefs, values, norms, and aspirations of the members of the organisation, which define the behaviours and guide the conversations. The management impacts culture in the desired direction (Schneider et al. 2017), and the cultural context influences the process, contents, and goals of organisational changes (Hempel and Martinsons 2009). DT is related to innovation and taking risks and thus requires a culture that accepts innovation-related risks and encourages open discussion and learning from mistakes. The management support is hypothesised to directly influence such a risk-tolerant culture in SMEs. H6. Management support directly and positively influences risk-tolerant culture. The challenges of the digital era are associated with complex dynamics between technology, structure, and culture in organisations (Hu et al. 2024). Organisational culture is found to influence flexibility and change and relate to innovation (Shahzad et al. 2017). A culture that accepts risks and leverages collaboration internally and externally is hypothesised to influence organisational flexibility. H7. Risk-tolerant culture directly and positively influences organisational flexibility. 2.4. Leveraging Digital Technologies for Changing Processes and Operations The level of digital intensity reflects the degree to which a firm uses different digital technologies across its processes (De Mattos et al. 2023), such as big data, analytics, c loud, et c. SMEs tend to adopt less complex, simpler digital solutions (De Mattos et al. 2023;OECD 2021). Digital business intensity measures the investment in innovative digital technologies (Nwankpa and Datta 2017). The adoption of digital technologies drives new business processes and thus enables innovation and the creation of new business models. Govers and Van Amelsvoort (2023) highlight that DT refers to a cultural change within organisations to continually challenge their status quo, experiment, and become comfortable with failure. Vial (2019) outlines the key features of digital culture to be a willingness to take risks, to experiment, and to promote learning (from mistakes). A culture that is open to taking risks, openly discussing failure, and striving to develop innovation is hypothesised to positively impact the integration and leveraging digital technologies to renew its business processes. H8. Risk-tolerant culture directly and positively influences digital business intensity. Adopting digital technologies requires an organisational structure that is flexible enough to adapt to changes (Verhoef et al. 2021). DT encourages firms to develop more adaptive structures (Hanelt et al. 2021). Kane (2019) highlights the role of agility and collaboration. The digital technologies’ impact requires alignment of structures and processes within the organisation (Fichman and Nambisan 2010). An organisational structure that enables quick adaptation to change and leverages collaboration would influence the digital business intensity. H9. Organisational flexibility directly and positively influences digital business intensity. The above nine hypotheses are illustrated in the research model (Figure 2). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 7 of 17 Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19 that enables quick adaptation to change and leverages collaboration would influence the digital business intensity. H9. Organisational flexibility directly and positively influences digital business intensity. The above nine hypotheses are illustrated in the research model (Figure 2). Figure 2. Research model. Environmental factors (EF), government support (GS), internal barriers (BD), management support (MS), organisational flexibility (OF), risk-tolerant culture (RC), digital business intensity (DI). 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Context This study is conducted in Bulgaria for several reasons. The country has strong traditions in the IT and electronics sectors and is often referred to as the Silicon Valley of Southeastern Europe (European Commission n.d.a.). The official statistics reports 412,124 SMEs, which represent 99.81% of all firms in Bulgaria in 2021 (BSMEPA n.d.). SMEs contributed 74% of the total employment and 66.5% of the gross value added. Bulgarian SMEs face similar challenges as those in other countries, with effective introduction of ICT solutions and digitalisation being an important one (BSMEPA n.d.). The National SME Strategy 2021–2027 highlights the need to support specialisation in high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services and digitalisation in all economic sectors. Yet, Bulgarian SMEs lag behind large firms in using digital technologies, such as social media, cloud computing, data analytics, etc. (NSI 2023), but also as compared to their European counterparts. According to Eurostat (2024), nearly 60% of EU SMEs reach basic digital intensity, while in Bulgaria, this percentage is less than 30%. 3.2. Sample The target population for this study included SMEs in Bulgaria in the manufacturing and services sectors. The sample was constructed to represent these sectors, i.e., matching their share and the number of SMEs in the national economy and in each of the two sectors. The sampling frame was constructed based on the National Business Statistics (Business Registry). SMEs were randomly selected to guarantee the sample was representative. A local market research firm collected data, visiting the respondents’ premises during the period October-December 2023. Data were collected via a standardised questionnaire, with a single respondent for each firm. The data collection method was a face-to-face interview on the respondent’s premises. All questions were mandatory. The questionnaire was scripted in a specialised platform for tablet-assisted fielding. In total, 989 filled-in questionnaires (59% response rate) were valid and used for the subsequent analysis. The questionnaire included items used to collect demographic Figure 2. Research model. Environmental factors (EF), government support (GS), internal barriers (BD), management support (MS), organisational flexibility (OF), risk-tolerant culture (RC), digital business intensity (DI). 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Context This study is conducted in Bulgaria for several reasons. The country has strong traditions in the IT and electronics sectors and is often referred to as the Silicon Valley of Southeastern Europe (European Commission n.d.). The official statistics reports 41 2,124 S MEs, which represent 99.81% of all firms in Bulgaria in 2021 (BSMEPA n.d.). SMEs contributed 74% of the total employment and 66.5% of the gross value added. Bulgarian SMEs face similar challenges as those in other countries, with effective introduction of ICT solutions and digitalisation being an important one (BSMEPA n.d.). The National SME Strategy 2021–2027 highlights the need to support specialisation in high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services and digitalisation in all economic sectors. Yet, Bulgarian SMEs lag behind large firms in using digital technologies, such as social media, cloud computing, data analytics, etc. (NSI 2023), but also as compared to their European counterparts. According to Eurostat (2024), nearly 60% of EU SMEs reach basic digital intensity, while in Bulgaria, this percentage is less than 30%. 3.2. Sample The target population for this study included SMEs in Bulgaria in the manufacturing and services sectors. The sample was constructed to represent these sectors, i.e., displaying their share and the number of SMEs in the national economy and in each of the two sectors. The sampling frame was constructed based on the National Business Statistics (Business Registry). SMEs were randomly selected to guarantee the sample was representative. A local market research firm collected data, visiting the respondents’ premises during the period October-December 2023. Data were collected via a standardised questionnaire, with a single respondent for each firm. The data collection method was a face-to-face interview on the respondent’s premises. All questions were mandatory. The questionnaire was scripted in a specialised platform for tablet-assisted fielding. In total, 989 filled-in questionnaires (59% response rate) were valid and used for the subsequent analysis. The questionnaire included items used to collect demographic information about the firm (economic sector, number of employees, year of establishment, ownership) as well as about the respondent (job position, education, age). The demographic profile of the firms in the sample is presented in Table 1, and the job positions of the respondents are presented in Table 2. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 8 of 17 Table 1. Firms profile (N = 989). Firms Profile Number Percentage Size (M = 31.21, SD = 44.905) 0–9 employees (micro) 419 42.37 10–49 employees (small) 334 33.77 50–249 employees (medium-sized) 236 23.86 Sector Manufacturing 474 47.93 Services 515 52.07 Firm age (M = 17.78, SD = 9.107) 0–6 years 132 13.35 7–15 years 254 25.68 16–20 years 214 21.64 21–30 years 299 30.23 >30 years 90 9.10 Total 989 100 Table 2. Job position of the respondents (N = 989). Job Position Number Percentage (Co-)Owner 338 34.2 Executive director 308 31.1 Member of the board of directors 36 3.6 Finance director 24 2.4 Sales director 59 6.0 Chief accountant 178 18.0 IT director 46 4.7 Total 989 100 3.3. Variables and Measures This study defines seven reflective variables. The items for their measurement were identified based on the literature review. Items were translated into Bulgarian language and adapted where necessary to reflect the local language specifics. All items are measured using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = not at all important/completely disagree/not relevant and 5 = most important/completely agree/most relevant. The operational definitions of the variables, indicators, and sources are presented in Appendix A. 3.4. Analytical Procedure Data were analysed using RStudio, v.1.3.1073. PLS–SEM was selected as the applicable analytical procedure due to the characteristics of the dataset (non-normal distribution) and the complexity of the research model, which includes many variables, indicators, and relationships (Hair et al. 2019). The analysis follows the guidelines outlined by Hair et al. (2021). The selected analytical procedure is applied to assess the research model’s significance and explanatory power. 4. Results 4.1. Evaluation of the Measurement Model The evaluation of the measurement model started with an examination of item loadings. The indicators are sufficiently reliable with all loadings > 0.7 (see Appendix A). To assess the internal consistency reliability, the composite reliability (rhoC) and average variance extracted (AVE) are examined. RhoC values are between 0.876 and 0.932, below the rule-of-thumb threshold of 0.95, suggesting that the composite reliability is good. AVE values range from 0.639 to 0.801 and thus meet the requirement of AVE > 0.5. This indicates that the measures of all variables have high levels of convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha values are also satisfactory, ranging from 0.812 to 0.903. Table 3 summarises the results of the reliability and validity examination. The heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) and Fornell–Larcker criteria are applied to test the discriminant validity. All HTMT values are below 0.90, and the examination of the Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 15 of 17 Amagoh, Francis. 2008. Perspectives on Organizational Change: Systems and Complexity Theories. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 13: 1–14. Annosi, Maria Carmela, Francesca Capo, Francesco Paolo Appio, and Ivan Bedetti. 2023. Unveiling Micro-Foundations of Digital Transformation: Cognitive Models, Routines, and Organizational Structures in Agri-Food SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 197: 122922. [CrossRef] Aral, Sinan, and Peter Weill. 2007. IT Assets, Organizational Capabilities, and Firm Performance: How Resource Allocations and Organizational Differences Explain Performance Variation. Organization Science 18: 763–80. [CrossRef] Arend, Richard J., and Moren Lévesque. 2010. Is the Resource-Based View a Practical Organizational Theory? Organization Science 21: 913–30. [CrossRef] Barann, Benjamin, Andreas Hermann, Ann-Kristin Cordes, Friedrich Chasin, and Jörg Becker. 2019. Supporting Digital Transformation in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: A Procedure Model Involving Publicly Funded Support Units. Paper presented at the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Grand Wailea, Maui, HI, USA, January 8–11; pp. 4977–86. Barney, Jay. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120. [CrossRef] Becker, Wolfgang, and Oliver Schmid. 2020. The Right Digital Strategy for Your Business: An Empirical Analysis of the Design and Implementation of Digital Strategies in SMEs and LSEs. Business Research 13: 985–1005. [CrossRef] Berghaus, Sabine, and Andrea Back. 2016. Stages in Digital Business Transformation: Results of an Empirical Maturity Study. Paper presented at MCIS 2016 Proceedings, Paphos, Cyprus, September 4–6. BSMEPA. n.d. C ъст o яние н a М C Πв Бълг a рия през 2022 г .: Р a звитие и тенденции във времен a н a предизвик a телств a| Изпълнителн a a генция з a н a сърч a в a не н a м a лките и средните предприятия . Available online: https://www.sme.government.bg/?p=61058 (accessed on 27 October 2024). Burke, Warner. 2011. Organization Change. Theory and Practice, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Cardoso, António, Manuel Sousa Pereira, JoséCarlos Sá, Daryl John Powell, Silvia Faria, and Miguel Magalhães. 2023. Digital Culture, Knowledge, and Commitment to Digital Transformation and Its Impact on the Competitiveness of Portuguese Organizations. Administrative Sciences 14: 8. [CrossRef] Conner, Kathleen R. 1991. A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought Within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm? Journal of Management 17: 121–54. [CrossRef] Cummings, Thomas G. 2015. Closed and Open Systems: Organizational. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 893–96. [CrossRef] De Mattos, Camila Silva, Giustina Pellegrini, Geoffrey Hagelaar, and Wilfred Dolfsma. 2023. Systematic literature review on technological transformation in SMEs: A transformation encompassing technology assimilation and business model innovation. Management Review Quarterly 74: 1057–95. [CrossRef] Dörr, Luca, Kerstin Fliege, Claudia Lehmann, Dominik K. Kanbach, and Sascha Kraus. 2023. A Taxonomy on Influencing Factors Towards Digital Transformation in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Strategy 33: 53–69. [CrossRef] Doukidis, Georgios, Nikolaos Mylonopoulos, and Nancy Pouloudi, eds. 2004. Social and Economic Transformation in the Digital Era. New York: IGI Global. [CrossRef] Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Jeffrey A. Martin. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal 21: 1105–21. [CrossRef] Eller, Robert, Philip Alford, Andreas Kallmünzer, and Mike Peters. 2020. Antecedents, Consequences, and Challenges of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Digitalization. Journal of Business Research 112: 119–27. [CrossRef] European Commission. n.d.a. Bulgaria 2024 Digital Decade Country Report|Shaping Europe’s Digital Future [WWW Document]. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/bulgaria-2024-digital-decade-country-report (accessed on 27 October 2024). European Commission. n.d.b. Europe’s Digital Decade: Digital Targets for 2030 [WWW Document]. Available online: https: //commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-digital-ta rgets-2030_en (accessed on 27 October 2024). Eurostat. 2024. Digitalisation in Europe–2024 Edition [WWW Document]. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/inte ractive-publications/digitalisation-2024 (accessed on 27 October 2024). Fichman, Robert G., and Satish Nambisan. 2010. Deriving Business Value from IT Applications in Product Development: A Complementarities-Based Model. In Information Technology and Product Development, Annals of Information Systems. Edited by Satish Nambisan. Boston: Springer, pp. 19–47. [CrossRef] González-Varona, Jm, Adolfo López-Paredes, David Poza, and Fernando Acebes. 2021. Building and Development of an Organizational Competence for Digital Transformation in SMEs. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 14: 15. [CrossRef] Govers, Mark, and Pierre Van Amelsvoort. 2023. A Theoretical Essay on Socio-Technical Systems Design Thinking in the Era of Digital Transformation. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) 54: 27–40. [CrossRef] Hair, Joseph F., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, Marko Sarstedt, Nicholas P. Danks, and Soumya Ray. 2021. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook, Classroom Companion: Business. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [CrossRef] Hair, Joseph F., Jeffrey J. Risher, Marko Sarstedt, and Christian M. Ringle. 2019. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review 31: 2–24. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 16 of 17 Hammond, Debora. 2003. The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of General Systems Theory. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Hanelt, André, RenéBohnsack, David Marz, and Cláudia Antunes Marante. 2021. A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. Journal of Management Studies 58: 1159–97. [CrossRef] Helfat, Constance E., and М argaret A. Peteraf. 2003. The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability Lifecycles. Strategie Management Journal 24: 997–1010. Hempel, Paul S., and Maris G. Martinsons. 2009. Developing International Organizational Change Theory Using Cases from China. Human Relations 62: 459–99. [CrossRef] Holt, Daniel T., Achilles A. Armenakis, Hubert S. Feild, and Stanley G Harris. 2007. Readiness for Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a Scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 43: 232–55. [CrossRef] Hortovanyi, Lilla, Robert E. Morgan, Iva Vuksanovic Herceg, Dragan Djuricin, Robert Hanak, Dora Horvath, Marian L. Mocan, Anita Romanova, and Roland Z. Szabo. 2023. Assessment of Digital Maturity: The Role of Resources and Capabilities in Digital Transformation in B2B Firms. International Journal of Production Research 61: 8043–61. [CrossRef] Hu, Yuchong, Yifan Pan, Miao Yu, and Peishen Chen. 2024. Navigating Digital Transformation and Knowledge Structures: Insights for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–34. Available online: https://link.springer.com/articl e/10.1007/s13132-024-01754-x#citeas (accessed on 27 October 2024). [CrossRef] Inan, G. Gurkan, and Umit S. Bititci. 2015. Understanding Organizational Capabilities and Dynamic Capabilities in the Context of Micro Enterprises: A Research Agenda. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 210: 310–19. [CrossRef] Kane, Gerald. 2019. The Technology Fallacy: People Are the Real Key to Digital Transformation. Research-Technology Management 62: 44–49. [CrossRef] Kotter, John P. 2007. Leading Change. Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review 37: 92–107. Leso, Bernardo Henrique, Marcelo Nogueira Cortimiglia, and Antonio Ghezzi. 2023. The Contribution of Organizational Culture, Structure, and Leadership Factors in the Digital Transformation of SMEs: A Mixed-Methods Approach. Cognition, Technology & Work 25: 151–79. [CrossRef] Li, Liang, Fang Su, Wei Zhang, and Ji-Ye Mao. 2018. Digital Transformation by SME Entrepreneurs: A Capability Perspective. Information Systems Journal 28: 1129–57. [CrossRef] Liu, Haiying, Pengcheng Han, and Shumin Wang. 2024. Enhancing Corporate Social Responsibility in the Digital Economy Era: Evidence from China. Heliyon 10: e23459. [CrossRef] Makadok, Richard. 2000. A General Theory of Rent Creation. Academy of Management Proceedings 2000: A1–A6. [CrossRef] Meier, Andrea. 2021. Systematic Review of the Literature on SME Digitalization: Multisided Pressure on Existing SMEs. In Digitalization, Management for Professionals. Edited by Daniel R. A. Schallmo and Joseph Tidd. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 257–76. [CrossRef] Mladenova, Irena, and Tsvetan Davidkov. 2023. Leadership, Adaptability and Performance of Bulgarian Organizations—Cultural Reflections on Empirical Data. Ikonomicheski Izsledvania 32: 93–113. Newbert, Scott L. 2007. Empirical Research on the Resource-Based View of the Firm: An Assessment and Suggestions for Future Research. Strategic Management Journal 28: 121–46. [CrossRef] Nguyen, Dinh Khoi, Thijs Broekhuizen, John Qi Dong, and Peter C. Verhoef. 2023. Leveraging Synergy to Drive Digital Transformation: A Systems-Theoretic Perspective. Information & Management 60: 103836. [CrossRef] NSI. 2023. ICT Usage in Enterprises|National Statistical Institute [WWW Document]. Available online: https://www.nsi.bg/en/cont ent/2841/ict-usage-enterprises (accessed on 27 October 2024). Nwankpa, Joseph K., and Pratim Datta. 2017. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation of IT Resources: The Influence of Digital Business Intensity on Perceived Organizational Performance. European Journal of Information Systems 26: 469–88. [CrossRef] Nwankpa, Joseph K., and Yaman Roumani. 2016. IT Capability and Digital Transformation: A Firm Performance Perspective. Paper presented at ICIS 2016 Proceedings, Dublin, Ireland, December 11–14. Nwankpa, Joseph K., Yaman Roumani, and Pratim Datta. 2022. Process Innovation in the Digital Age of Business: The Role of Digital Business Intensity and Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management 26: 1319–41. [CrossRef] OECD. 2021. The Digital Transformation of SMEs, OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD. [CrossRef] OECD. 2023. OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2023, OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook. Paris: OECD. [CrossRef] OECD. n.d. OECD Digital for SMEs Global Initiative [WWW Document]. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/networks/oec d-digital-for-smes-global-initiative.html (accessed on 10 October 2024). Omrani, Nessrine, Nada Rejeb, Adnane Maalaoui, Marina Dabic, and Sascha Kraus. 2022. Drivers of Digital Transformation in SMEs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 71: 5030–43. [CrossRef] Oreg, Shaul, Maria Vakola, and Achilles Armenakis. 2011. Change Recipients Reactions to Organizational Change: A 60-Year Review of Quantitative Studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47: 461–524. [CrossRef] Palade, Dan, and Charles Møller. 2023. Guiding Digital Transformation in SMEs. Management and Production Engineering Review 14: 105–17. [CrossRef] Pondy, Louis R., and Ian I. Mitroff. 1979. Beyond Open System Models of Organization. Research in Organizational Behavior 1: 3–39. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 296 17 of 17 Rêgo, Bruno Siano, Shital Jayantilal, João J. Ferreira, and Elias G. Carayannis. 2022. Digital Transformation and Strategic Management: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 13: 3195–222. [CrossRef] Reis, João, Marlene Amorim, Nuno Melão, and Patrícia Matos. 2018. Digital Transformation: A Literature Review and Guidelines for Future Research. In Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Edited by Álvaro Rocha, Hojjat Adeli, Luís Paulo Reis and Sandra Costanzo. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 411–2 1. [CrossRef] Schaefer, Stephen, Magnus Andersson, Elizabeth Bjarnason, and Kristofer Hansson, eds. 2018. Working and Organizing in the Digital Age. The Pufendorfinstitut for Advanced Studies. Lund: Lund University. Schneider, Benjamin, Vicente González-Romá, Cheri Ostroff, and Michael A. West. 2017. Organizational Climate and Culture: Reflections on the History of the Constructs in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 468–82. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Shahzad, Fakhar, GuoYi Xiu, and Muhammad Shahbaz. 2017. Organizational Culture and Innovation Performance in Pakistan’s Software Industry. Technology in Society 51: 66–73. [CrossRef] Shepherd, Jill. 2004. What is the Digital Era? In Social and Economic Transformation in the Digital Era. New York: IGI Global, pp. 1–18. [CrossRef] Siemens and AHK Bulgarie. 2021. Πр o учв a не з a нив o т o н a дигит a лиз a ция в Бълг a рия [WWW Document]. Available online: https://bulgarien.ahk.de/filehub/deliverFile/ce206f6c-a462-407c-ae77-cebc640665fb/1269473/Digitalization _ Survey _ 2021 _ 1 269473.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2024). Tangi, Luca, Marijn Janssen, Michele Benedetti, and Giuliano Noci. 2021. Digital Government Transformation: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis of Driving and Impeding Factors. International Journal of Information Management 60: 102356. [CrossRef] Verhoef, Peter C., Thijs Broekhuizen, Yakov Bart, Abhi Bhattacharya, John Qi Dong, Nicolai Fabian, and Michael Haenlein. 2021. Digital Transformation: A Multidisciplinary Reflection and Research Agenda. Journal of Business Research 122: 889–901. [CrossRef] Vial, Gregory. 2019. Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and a Research Agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 28: 118–44. [CrossRef] Von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1972. The History and Status of General Systems Theory. The Academy of Management Journal 15: 407–26. [CrossRef] Wernerfelt, Birger. 1984. A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal 5: 171–80. [CrossRef] Wessel, Lauri, Abayomi Baiyere, Roxana Ologeanu-Taddei, Jonghyuk Cha, and Tina Blegind Jensen. 2021. Unpacking the Difference Between Digital Transformation and IT-Enabled Organizational Transformation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 22: 102–29. [CrossRef] Yukl, Gary. 2012. Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention. Academy of Management Perspectives 26: 66–85. [CrossRef] Zhang, Xin, Yaoyu Xu, and Liang Ma. 2022. Research on Successful Factors and Influencing Mechanism of the Digital Transformation in SMEs. Sustainability 14: 2549. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.