Digital Leadership and Business Performance in SMES: A Moderated Mediation Model Through Digital Capability ‎and Top Management Support

  • Authors

    • Andi Yusniar Mendo Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Gorontalo, Indonesia
    • Syamsul B Biki Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Gorontalo, Indonesia
    • Halek Mu'min INTI International University, Nilai, Malaysia
    • Melan Angriani Asnawi Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Gorontalo, Indonesia
    • Rizki Sawitri Pilomonu Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Gorontalo, Indonesia
    https://doi.org/10.14419/h7hhys36

    Received date: August 17, 2025

    Accepted date: September 18, 2025

    Published date: September 23, 2025

  • Digital Leadership; SME Performance; Digital Capability; Moderated Mediation; Top Management Support

  • Abstract

    Recent studies reveal inconsistent digital leadership-performance relationships in SMEs, challenging traditional direct-effect models that ‎inadequately explain transformation mechanisms in resource-constrained contexts. This study resolves theoretical inconsistencies by testing ‎a capability-mediated framework where digital capability fully mediates digital leadership-business performance relationships, with top ‎management support as a moderator. Grounded in dynamic capabilities theory, we propose that leadership operates exclusively through capability-building mechanisms contingent upon organizational support conditions. Data from 210 Indonesian food and beverage SMEs were ‎analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling with bootstrap procedures. The measurement model demonstrated excellent ‎psychometric properties, while the common method bias assessment confirmed the validity. Findings reveal complete mediation, with digital ‎leadership influencing performance exclusively through capability development, explaining substantial variance in organizational outcomes. ‎Large effect sizes confirm digital capability as the primary performance driver and leadership as the key capability antecedent. Top ‎management support significantly moderates the capability-performance relationship, where supportive contexts amplify returns from digital ‎investments. Results advance digital transformation theory by establishing capability-mediated pathways as primary mechanisms, moving ‎beyond traditional direct-effect models that showed inconsistent results across studies. For practitioners, SMEs should prioritize sequential ‎capability-building strategies over simultaneous technology adoption, with leadership development preceding technology acquisition to ‎maximize transformation effectiveness. This approach offers substantially higher performance returns compared to technology-first ‎strategies. Cross-sectional design limitations necessitate longitudinal replication across industries and cultural contexts to strengthen causal ‎inference‎.

  • References

    1. Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Mohmad Sidek, M. H. (2017). Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT Criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 890(1), 012163. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163.
    2. Abeysekara, N., Wang, H., & Kuruppuarachchi, D. (2019). Effect of supply-chain resilience on firm performance and competitive advantage: A study of the Sri Lankan apparel industry. Bus Process Manag J, 25(7), 1673–1695. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-09-2018-0241.
    3. Afthanorhan, A., Ghazali, P. L., & Rashid, N. (2021). Discriminant Validity: A Comparison of CBSEM and Consistent PLS using Fornell & Larcker and HTMT Approaches. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1874(1), 012085. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1874/1/012085.
    4. Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2020). Principles and Models for Organizing the IT Function. Strategic Information Management, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429286797-11.
    5. AlNuaimi, B. K., Kumar Singh, S., Ren, S., Budhwar, P., & Vorobyev, D. (2022). Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy. Journal of Business Research, 145, 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.038.
    6. Alsmairat, M. A. K., & AL-Shboul, M. A. (2023). Enabling supply chain efficacy through supply chain absorptive capacity and ambidexterity: em-pirical study from Middle East region-a moderated-mediation model. J Manu Techn Manag, 34(6), 917–936. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2022-0373.
    7. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Ap-proach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
    8. Appio, F. P., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Neirotti, P. (2021). Digital transformation and innovation management: A synthesis of existing re-search and an agenda for future studies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12562.
    9. Arias-Pérez, J., Velez-Ocampo, J., & Cepeda-Cardona, J. (2020). Strategic orientation toward digitalization to improve innovation capability: why knowledge acquisition and exploitation through external embeddedness matter. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(5), 1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2020-0231.
    10. Badi, S., & Naidoo, L. (2025). A process model of governance adaptation and performance outcomes in e-commerce permissioned blockchain net-works. International Journal of Production Economics, 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109709.
    11. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment. Journal of Mar-keting Research, 18(3), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800312.
    12. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x.
    13. Baiyere, A., Salmela, H., Nieminen, H., & Kankainen, T. (2025). Assessing digital capabilities for digital transformation—The MIND frame-work. Information Systems Journal, 35(1), 6–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12519.
    14. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
    15. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
    16. Benbya, H., Pachidi, S., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2021). Special issue editorial: Artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for information sys-tems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00662.
    17. Benitez, J., Arenas, A., Castillo, A., & Esteves, J. (2022). Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Information and Management, 59(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103590.
    18. Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 37(2), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3.
    19. Bindel Sibassaha, J. L., Pea-Assounga, J. B. B., & Bambi, P. D. R. (2025). Influence of digital transformation on employee innovative behavior: roles of challenging appraisal, organizational culture support, and transformational leadership style. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1532977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1532977.
    20. Carnes, C. M., Xu, K., Sirmon, D. G., & Karadag, R. (2019). How competitive action mediates the resource slack–performance relationship: A me-ta-analytic approach. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 57–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12391.
    21. Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D., & Giovando, G. (2023). Digital workplace and organization performance: Moderating role of digital leadership capability. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100334.
    22. Chege, S. M., & Wang, D. (2020). The influence of technology innovation on SME performance through environmental sustainability practices in Kenya. Technology in Society, 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101210.
    23. Chen, A., Li, L., & Shahid, W. (2024). Digital transformation as the driving force for sustainable business performance: A moderated mediation model of market-driven business model innovation and digital leadership capabilities. Heliyon, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29509.
    24. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., & Chow, W. S. (2014). IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors. Eur J Inf Syst, 23(3), 326–342. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.4.
    25. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.49.12.997.
    26. Dahms, S., Cabrilo, S., & Kingkaew, S. (2023). Configurations of innovation performance in foreign owned subsidiaries: focusing on organizational agility and digitalization. Manag Decis, 63(6), 1960–1984. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2022-0600.
    27. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press.
    28. De Castro, I. R. R., & Canella, D. S. (2022). Organizational Food Environments: Advancing Their Conceptual Model. Foods, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11070993.
    29. Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Papa, A., Tarba, S. Y., Bresciani, S., & Warkentin, M. (2021). A self-tuning model for smart manufacturing SMEs: effects on digital innovation. J Prod Innov Manag, 38(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12560.
    30. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576. https://doi.org/10.2307/256434.
    31. Evenseth, L. L., Sydnes, M., & Gausdal, A. H. (2022). Building Organizational Resilience Through Organizational Learning: A Systematic Re-view. Frontiers in Communication, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.837386.
    32. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1984). Misapplications of Simulations in Structural Equation Models: Reply to Acito and Anderson. Journal of Mar-keting Research, 21(1), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378402100112.
    33. Gagan Deep. (2023). Digital transformation's impact on organizational culture. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 10(2), 396–401. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2023.10.2.0977.
    34. Garavan, T., McCarthy, A., Lai, Y., Murphy, K., Sheehan, M., & Carbery, R. (2021). Training and organisational performance: A meta-analysis of temporal, institutional and organisational context moderators. Human Resource Management Journal, 31(1), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12284.
    35. Gligor, D. M., Esmark, C. L., & Holcomb, M. C. (2015). Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: When should you be agile? J Oper Manag, 33–34, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.008.
    36. Grego, M., Bartosiak, M., Palese, B., Piccoli, G., & Denicolai, S. (2025). Disentangling the 'digital': A critical review of information technology ca-pabilities, information technology–enabled capabilities and digital capabilities in business research. International Journal of Management Re-views, 27(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12389.
    37. Hair, J., & Alamer, A. (2022). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guide-lines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027.
    38. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
    39. Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069.
    40. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Re-view, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
    41. Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7.
    42. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332.
    43. Hendayani, R., & Febrianta, M. Y. (2020). Technology as a driver to achieve the performance of family businesses supply chain. Journal of Family Business Management, 10(4), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-10-2019-0070.
    44. Henseler, J. (2012). Why generalized structured component analysis is not universally preferable to structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0298-6.
    45. Henseler, J. (2018). Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Quality & Quantity, 52(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0689-6.
    46. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation model-ing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
    47. Homburg, C., & Wielgos, D. M. (2022). The value relevance of digital marketing capabilities to firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science, 50(4), 666–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00858-7.
    48. Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). What's Different about Social Media Networks? A Framework and Research Agen-da. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 274–304. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.1.13.
    49. Kaur, N., & Sharma, A. (2024). Adoption of solar home lighting system: a behavioral paradigm shift from consumers to prosumers in the urban household energy transition of Punjab, India. Environmental Research Communications, 6(11). https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad9084.
    50. Kull, T. J., Yan, T., Liu, Z., & Wacker, J. G. (2014). The moderation of lean manufacturing effectiveness by dimensions of national culture: Testing practice-culture congruence hypotheses. International Journal of Production Economics, 153, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.03.015.
    51. Leso, B. H., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Ghezzi, A. (2023). The contribution of organizational culture, structure, and leadership factors in the digital transformation of SMEs: a mixed-methods approach. Cognition, Technology and Work, 25(1), 151–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00714-2.
    52. Levinthal, D. A., & Pham, D. N. (2024). Bringing Politics Back In: The Role of Power and Coalitions in Organizational Adaptation. Organization Science, 35(5), 1704–1720. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16995.
    53. Li, L. (2022). Digital transformation and sustainable performance: The moderating role of market turbulence. Industrial Marketing Manage-ment, 104, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.04.007.
    54. Lin, Q. (2024). Digital leadership: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2023-0522.
    55. Lundqvist, D., Wallo, A., Coetzer, A., & Kock, H. (2023). Leadership and Learning at Work: A Systematic Literature Review of Learning-oriented Leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 30(2), 205–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221133970.
    56. Ly, B. (2023). The Interplay of Digital Transformational Leadership, Organizational Agility, and Digital Transformation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 4408–4427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01377-8.
    57. Mollah, M. A., Amin, M. Bin, Debnath, G. C., Hosain, M. S., Rahaman, M. A., & Abdullah, M. (2024). Nexus among Digital Leadership, Digital Transformation, and Digital Innovation for Sustainable Financial Performance: Revealing the Influence of Environmental Dyna-mism. Sustainability, 16(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188023.
    58. Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-tice, 41(6), 1029–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12254.
    59. Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018.
    60. Nasiri, M., Saunila, M., Ukko, J., Rantala, T., & Rantanen, H. (2023). Shaping Digital Innovation Via Digital-related Capabilities. Information Sys-tems Frontiers, 25(3), 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10089-2.
    61. Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., & Rantala, T. (2020). Managing the digital supply chain: The role of smart technologies. Technovation, 96–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102121.
    62. Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., Rantala, T., & Rantanen, H. (2020). Digital-related capabilities and financial performance: the mediating effect of performance measurement systems. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 32(12), 1393–1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1772966.
    63. Ndofor, H. A., Sirmon, D. G., & He, X. (2011). Firm resources, competitive actions and performance: Investigating a mediated model with evi-dence from the in-vitro diagnostics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.901.
    64. Neirotti, P. (2020). Work intensification and employee involvement in lean production: new light on a classic dilemma. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(15), 1958–1983. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1424016.
    65. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
    66. O'brien, R. M. (2007). A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6.
    67. Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. Eur J Inf Syst, 15(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000600.
    68. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
    69. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
    70. Purnawan, M. P., Rachbini, W., Mu'min, H., & Darmanto. (2025). Digital Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Performance: The Mediat-ing Role of Digital Innovation Competence and The Moderating Effect of Digital Technology Preparedness. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(5), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.14419/n6q13j78.
    71. Qiao, G., Li, Y., & Hong, A. (2024). The Strategic Role of Digital Transformation: Leveraging Digital Leadership to Enhance Employee Perfor-mance and Organizational Commitment in the Digital Era. Systems, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12110457.
    72. Ramadan, M., Bou Zakhem, N., Baydoun, H., Daouk, A., Youssef, S., El Fawal, A., Elia, J., & Ashaal, A. (2023). Toward digital transformation and business model innovation: the nexus between leadership, organizational agility, and knowledge transfer. Admin Sci, 13(8), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13080185.
    73. Renteria, C. (2025). Organizational adaptation to dynamic environments: Insights from literature on the organization-environment relation-ship. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 47(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2024.2436704.
    74. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Rec-ommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x.
    75. Saarikko, T., Westergren, U. H., & Blomquist, T. (2020). Digital transformation: Five recommendations for the digitally conscious firm. Business Horizons, 63(6), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.07.005.
    76. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technol-ogy in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(2), 237–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036530.
    77. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research (pp. 1–40). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1.
    78. Shao, Z., Li, X., Luo, Y., & Benitez, J. (2024). The differential impacts of top management support and transformational supervisory leadership on employees' digital performance. European Journal of Information Systems, 33(3), 334–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2147456.
    79. Shehadeh, M., Almohtaseb, A., Aldehayyat, J., & Abu-AlSondos, I. A. (2023). Digital Transformation and Competitive Advantage in the Service Sector: A Moderated-Mediation Model. Sustainability, 15(3), 2077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032077.
    80. Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Richardson, H. A., Ocal, Y., & Atinc, G. M. (2015). Marker Variable Choice, Reporting, and Interpretation in the Detection of Common Method Variance: A Review and Demonstration. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 473–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114560023.
    81. Singh, R. K. (2025). Transforming humanitarian supply chains with digital twin technology: a study on resilience and agility. International Journal of Logistics Management, 36(4), 1119–1135. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2024-0504.
    82. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695.
    83. Sneader, K., & Singhal, S. (2021). The next normal arrives: Trends that will define 2021--and beyond. McKinsey New York, NY.
    84. Son, B. G., Kim, H., Hur, D., & Subramanian, N. (2021). The dark side of supply chain digitalisation: supplier-perceived digital capability asym-metry, buyer opportunism and governance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 41(7), 1220–1247. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2020-0711.
    85. Syre, R., Berntzen, S., Haukeland, J., & Teymoori, A. (2025). Organisational Anomie: A Qualitative Study on Homecare Workers' Experiences of Work and Organisational Normative Structure. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.70027.
    86. Teece, D. J. (1996). Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31(2), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00895-5.
    87. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640.
    88. Teece, D. J. (2025). The multinational enterprise, capabilities, and digitalization: governance and growth with world disorder. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies, 56(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00767-7.
    89. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quar-terly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
    90. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of ac-ceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.
    91. Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisci-plinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022.
    92. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003.
    93. Wang, T., Lin, X., & Sheng, F. (2022). Digital leadership and exploratory innovation: From the dual perspectives of strategic orientation and organ-izational culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.902693.
    94. Wang, Y. (2022). Analyzing the mechanism of strategic orientation towards digitization and organizational performance settings enduring employ-ee resistance to innovation and performance capabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1006310.
    95. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207.
    96. Wielgos, D. M., Homburg, C., & Kuehnl, C. (2021). Digital business capability: its impact on firm and customer performance. Journal of the Acad-emy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 762–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00771-5.
    97. Yao, Q., Tang, H., Liu, Y., & Boadu, F. (2024). The penetration effect of digital leadership on digital transformation: the role of digital strategy consensus and diversity types. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 37(3), 903–927. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2022-0350.
    98. Zhang, M., Chen, X., Xie, H., Esposito, L., Parziale, A., Taneja, S., & Siraj, A. (2024). Top of tide: nexus between organization agility, digital ca-pability and top management support in SME digital transformation. Heliyon, 10(10), e31579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31579.
    99. Zhao, J., Wang, X., Yao, X., & Xi, X. (2024). Digital-intelligence transformation, for better or worse? The roles of pace, scope and rhythm. Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-12-2023-1125.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Mendo, A. Y. ., Biki, S. B. ., Mu'min, H. ., Asnawi, M. A., & Pilomonu, R. S. . (2025). Digital Leadership and Business Performance in SMES: A Moderated Mediation Model Through Digital Capability ‎and Top Management Support. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(5), 918-931. https://doi.org/10.14419/h7hhys36