Leadership and Digital Transformation in SMEs: Evidence from a PRISMA Systematic Review

The understanding of the transformation process through digitization that SMEs are experiencing has rapidly become a form of research. Leadership is a key factor in determining technology adoption as well as performance outcomes. While these numbers indicative of uptake are promising, many of the reviews fail to apply PRISMA in a consistent manner and lack clear methodology. This has broader implications for transparency, replicability, and the incremental advancement of knowledge in research on the digital transformation of SMEs. To combat this tendency, the present research carries out a PRISMA-guided systematic review centred around digital transformation and SME leadership. A systematic literature review was done in major academic search database. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were detailed in advance, and records were screened accordingly. This review relied on PRISMA 2020 guidelines of identification, screening, eligibility, inclusion. Leadership behaviours, adoption factors, and reported outcomes were analyzed using a thematic synthesis. The review also finds a significant focus on studies that connect transformational, and entrepreneurial, and digital leadership and SME successful process of digital transformation. Leadership has direct and indirect effects on technology adoption via organizational agility, digital capability, and culture. In most studies these enablers are positively associated to innovation, operational efficiency and financial performance. Methodologically, studies have been largely cross-sectional with little evidence from longitudinal and mixed-method studies. Lack of clarity in PRISMA flow reports and justification for exclusions are also identified. This PRISMA checklist facilitates developing a transparent structured review for the purpose of digitally transforming and SMEs leadership research. It explains optimal methods of search design, screening, and synthesis. This will help to inform better systematic reviews and increased methodological rigor in this area. Future reviews should attempt to be more longitudinal and have better methods’ reporting for purposes of theory and practice.