WellB-Techno-Preneurship in Competitiveness Today

Abstract

Globally, the competitive climate in the business environment is highly sophisticated no matter the sector since organizations set out to outclass, outperform, and outpace one another to remain relevant, achieve enhanced patronage and profitability, and add value to customers, workers, and the organization. Therefore, while there are multiple approaches to achieving competitiveness in the new era, this literature approach has chosen to focus on two mechanisms for use in developing countries and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Conceptually, the review connected the link between well-being and technology in entrepreneurship for achieving and sustaining competitiveness as a panacea to drive SMEs in developing economies. In essence, to achieve the objective of competitiveness, it should be Point 1 (Workers’ Well-Being-WWB) + Point 2 (Technological Investment, Know-how, and Acceptability-TIKHA). Therefore, aside from continuously investing in technology to ensure progressive core competency for competitiveness, undermining the well-being of workers who use technology in entrepreneurial ventures should never be conceived at any point.

1. Introduction

The new era is a dynamically complex, exhilarating, and multifaceted generation. It is an era of high-tech sophistication intertwined with the upsurge of artificial intelligence (AI) in different measures. The new era revolves around novel systems and assumptions to replace long-standing approaches taken for granted as such unusual times require unusual mechanisms for competitiveness. Reports have shown that post-COVID, SMEs are yet to fully recover lost grounds in their businesses [1], and the reasons are not farfetched due to unpreparedness for eventualities.

Interestingly, while competitiveness is one core segment in the business world, it is fundamental not to jump ahead of the race to Point 2 without going through and managing Point 1 in introducing dimensions to achieving and sustaining competitiveness. Point 2 connotes technological innovations, while Point 1 refers to the workers or employees in the organization. Some questions to ponder as you continue reading include: who are those responsible for technological creativity/initiatives for competitiveness? Who will handle and manage the technological innovations for competitiveness? Who will use the technological infrastructures invested in by the organization for competitiveness? Your answer may be as good as mine—“the workers.”

A distressing report on the enormous burden of poor working conditions estimated that some 2.3 million people globally succumb to work-related accidents or diseases yearly; this corresponds to over 6000 deaths daily, indicating low workers’ well-being measures. Also, about 340 million occupational accidents and 160 million victims of work-related illnesses annually are recorded globally [2]. The situation is worse in developing countries in Africa, like Nigeria. Data has also shown that Nigeria scored 48.33 points out of 100 on the 2019 Global Competitiveness [3]. In 2022, Nigeria ranked 114th out of 140 countries globally and 14th among African countries in the Global Competitiveness Index Rankings [3].

Across Africa, the report established the average failure rate of startups to be 54.2%, with entrepreneurs struggling to survive [4]. Likewise, the number of micro, small, and medium enterprises across Nigeria dropped significantly by about 2 million between 2017 and 2021, from 41 million to 39 million [5], and this decline at an alarming rate has remained persistent. Regarding the technology/innovation report, in 2022, Nigeria ranked 114th among the 132 economies featured in the Global Innovation Index, 118th in 2021, and 117th in 2020 [6], thereby maintaining low technology infusion in entrepreneurship rankings.

In light of these discussions, could there be a conceptual link between well-being and technology in entrepreneur ventures for competitiveness, especially in a developing economic context such as Nigeria, since a study conducted [7] in the United Kingdom established a strong link and a symbiotic relationship between competitiveness and well-being and suggested that economic development, social cohesion, welfare, and environmental policies must become better integrated if they are to build sustainable businesses and economies?

2. Well-being, technology in entrepreneurship, and competitiveness

Several previous works have been conducted on these constructs (well-being, technology, and competitiveness) in varied geographical locations and sectors, and applying different methodologies [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. However, scarcity of studies exists that have combined these constructs both in literature conceptual review and empirical works; thus necessitating the relevance of this paper in literature.

Worldwide, the environment in which business operates is highly competitive. It occurs to outclass, outmaneuver, outperform, and outpace one another to achieve and sustain relevance, enhanced patronage, expansion, and profitability. Also, it happens to add value to customers, workers, and the business. Consequently, there are multiple approaches to competitiveness in the new era. The authors narrowed this paper to focus on two approaches for use in developing countries and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The selected propellers for competitiveness are categorized as Point 1 and Point 2.

• Point 1 = Workers’ Well-Being (WWB).

• Point 2 = Technological Investment, Know-how, and Acceptability (TIKHA).

The two mechanisms are coined as WellB-Techno-Preneurship. It refers to interweaving the concept of the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy with the procurement of technology resources to address goal/objective delivery and management support with familiarity and awareness relating to the design, development of production, installation, and operation of the technology product in addition to the willingness, attitude, and user journey perceptions toward using the technology continuously in the organization.

Competitiveness should not only be from the perception of the asymmetry among businesses along any comparable dimension that allows one organization to compete better than its competitors [13], or the higher market dominance, achievements gained, increased customer patronage, brand name, and retaining technological advancement for several years over other competitors [9, 14]; rather today’s business competitiveness strategy should focus more on the well-being of workers and technological investment, know-how, and acceptability.

Today’s world is smaller than a global village as the COVID-19 pandemic effect did not spare any country (developed and developing), business, or class of individuals.

The novel COVID-19 pandemic affected all sectors in one way or another. However, small and medium enterprises are among those hardest hit. Report established that almost all businesses were negatively affected by the spread of COVID-19 as firms report that from April 2020 to March 2021, sales were 21% lower and investment was 26% lower (on average) than would otherwise have been. Overall uncertainty rose sharply at the onset of the pandemic as, on average, 70% of firms reported that the uncertainty level facing businesses was high or very high. In essence, competitiveness was low since most SMEs were not technologically prepared for the rise of a new era resulting from the pandemic [1].

Consequently, competitiveness through technological investment, know-how, and acceptability is non-negotiable. More so, the well-being of workers ranging from mental and physical health to physiological health cannot be downplayed at any level as this aspect is closely associated with the high-tech investment, know-how, and acceptability (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

WellB-Techno-Preneurship & Competitiveness Model. Source: Umukoro, J (2023). Note: WWB = workers well-being; and TIKHA = technological investment, know-how, and acceptability.

The model shows that to achieve competitiveness in the new era, well-being should be intertwined with technology to enable SMEs to maintain competitiveness. Intrinsically, there is a back-and-forth movement between competitiveness and the predictors (WWB & TIKHA) indicating the need to continuously connect the Points and Levels at all times.

3. Workers well-being

The psychological constructs well-being and mental health are related and very often used interchangeably [15, 16, 17] since they relate to a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community [18]. More so, well-being focuses on positive mental health, such as positive affect or life satisfaction, and absence of negative mental health outcomes such as anxiety, loneliness, or negative affect [19].

The components of workers’ well-being vary depending on industry-specific, but there are basic well-being mechanisms that fit all sectors, which include: taking breaks, the extent to which the job allows for concentration, sleeping sufficiently, feeling fewer stress symptoms, enjoying the day to day activities, feeling reasonably happy, and experiencing life satisfaction. Also, it includes the extent of satisfaction with the following at work: financial resources, promotion status, benefits at work, work prospects, and health status. Similarly it comprises the extent of satisfaction with work conditions, resources, nature view, and furniture quality. In addition, it contains the extent to which worker feels vigor, motivation, depression, fatigue, anxiety, contentment, and frustration at work. These well-being mechanisms classified into mental, physical, and physiological health may appear inconsequential but are germane in enhancing workers’ ability to perform optimally for competitiveness.

Further, having healthy employees in the organization is vital for the healthy functioning of the company itself to achieve maximum outcomes for outpacing rivals, and this means more than the absence of workers’ illness or disease, it means the workers should be well and thriving at the workplace [20, 21]. Also, a significant feature of an individual’s life is work, as it consumes a lot of time, energy, and concern. As such, the link between an individual’s job, well-being, and quality of life has gained substantial attention [12, 22, 23]. Despite the merits of well-being, reports have shown that workplace stress is a growing problem with serious consequences for workers’ health and well-being [24].

By some estimates, 83% of US workers suffer from work-related stress, contributing to 120,000 deaths and $190 billion in healthcare costs annually, and up to $300 billion in lost productivity annually, and 1 million workers miss work every day [25]. Thus, work-related stress has significant consequences for employers and employees [26]. Consequently, the debate is that if US industries are still competitive despite these alarming figures caused by low well-being measures at work, it can only be fathomed on the faith of businesses in developing countries with worse figures than in the US concerning workers’ well-being. Suffice it to say that competitiveness may not last even if achieved by undermining workers’ well-being. Therefore, the efficacy of implementing, actualizing, maintaining, and strengthening workers’ well-being to achieve, sustain, and expand competitiveness in all sectors and geographical locations is germane.

Consequently, despite the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as a dynamic tool in the world of works comprising applications that perform complex tasks that once required human input through the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines [27, 28], it is pertinent to note that workers are human beings and possess emotional and psychological needs to function optimally. Therefore, workers’ mental, physical, and psychological health are relevant to achieving and sustaining competitiveness in the new era since these workers can only give back the health investment in them by their organization. If well-being is strategically and purposefully promoted and managed, creativity and innovativeness could thrive to outpace competitors. It implies that well-being enhances smart-head for competitiveness. Could this be why most developed countries are more competitive since an association exists between technology use and well-being/mental health [29]?

4. Technological investment

The value of technology in the new era for sustainable competitiveness is core, consequently, investment and continuous investment are required. However, investment in technology has remained a concern for SMEs and other businesses in developing climes. It is not worth saying that SMEs need to strategically and purposefully invest in technology to save time, be efficient in record keeping and management, reduce human interference and workforce, and increase profitability. Therefore, investing in technological equipment applicable in the new era to ward off rivals is crucial. In this light, upgrading IT facilities should be uttermost to avoid core competency needed to outclass rivals from becoming core rigidity due to stagnation of ideas and concepts. For instance, technological facilities pre-COVID may become obsolete post-COVID. Therefore, entrepreneurs should be open-minded and willing to learn, relearn, and unlearn to remain relevant and competitive in the new era.

Nevertheless, due to intense competition, the performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in developing economies has been undermined as they struggle to expand the scope of their operation and market [30]. More so, several factors have constrained the willingness of SME firms to keep pace with the development in the global technological business environment, which include an inadequate commitment to invest and acquire new technologies, lack of technical, and networking skills, insufficient human capital, and improper choice of technology [31, 32].

5. Technological know-how

Technological know-how, also referred to as technological capability [30, 33], describes the firm’s ability to design and develop new processes, product and upgrade knowledge and skills about the physical environment in a unique way, and transforming the knowledge into instructions and designs for efficient creation of desired performance [34] and competitiveness [35, 36, 37]. Also, it entails not only technical mastery capability but also the capacity to expand and deploy the firm’s core capabilities, effectively combine the different streams of technologies, and mobilize technological resources throughout the firm [38, 39]. Additionally, technological know-how/capability comprises the body of practical and theoretical knowledge, procedures, experience, methods, and physical equipment and devices [33, 40]. Summarily, it represents a firm’s superior and heterogeneous technical resources, which are meticulously related to the design technologies, product technologies, information, and process technologies, sourcing, and integration of external knowledge [30, 41, 42].

Therefore, scholars [30, 43] opined that technological capability/know-how is an essential dynamic capability that enables firms to achieve and maintain sustainable competitive advantage and superior performance in a competitive global business environment. However, inefficient capabilities have constrained the business activities and performance of SMEs [11, 44], especially in African economies where human capital, technological, collaborative, and innovative capabilities are not harnessed to achieve competitiveness and higher performance of the sector [12, 35, 45, 46].

Harnessing the values and concepts in these discussions established that technology is crucial for competitiveness today. However, technology alone means nothing until and unless technological know-how/capability is functional. Workers should understand with familiarity and awareness relating to the design, development of production, installation, and operation of products technologically. It is the reason a paper titled, Toward a Synergistic Relationship Between Psychology and Technology [10], stressed that the direction of how technology affects efficiency/competitiveness in any business is not in and of itself technology; but how to utilize and manage the impact and implementation of emerging global and economic developments. Thus, the concept of competitiveness in the new era is broader than previously conceived as though the technology is a core competency to outmaneuver rivals, investment in technology should corroborate with workers-know-how, or else it will be a waste of investment, enhancement of core rigidity, and loss in competitiveness.

6. Technology acceptability

According to scholars [47, 48, 49], technology acceptability is the perception an individual has of a system before use, while technology acceptance is an individual’s perception of the system after use. Therefore, whether before use or after use, it is core to understand that the user journey with technology is linked to outcomes in organizations. However, despite the importance of the user journey with technology, researchers stressed that technology acceptance is one of the major challenges faced by the designers of new technologies in various sectors [49, 50, 51].

Therefore, improving human performance in organizational tasks remains a primary goal for modern organizations to increase competitiveness [52]. Likewise, technology acceptance by both employers and employees is paramount in all sectors to achieve maximum functionality and high performance [53]. Thus, in the last decade, the amount of studies conducted by scholars, stakeholders, and business practitioners toward addressing the issue of acceptance of technology for outpacing rivals is increasing. However, this is not an easy task as the user journey toward technology acceptance is complex and often non-linear [49]. Thus, it is argued that different factors could affect the user journey with technology as an individual who decides to try an application may not use it in the long run; similarly, someone who has stopped using a system may not go back to it later for varied reasons [54]. Dissimilar stages punctuate the user journey with technology where they, consciously or not, repeatedly make the decision to keep using the system or to give up on it [55].

More so, can an individual be present in a business/firm but not accept the processes and operations to achieve and sustain competitiveness? The answer is an emphatic YES. It supports the saying that you can only take a horse to the river but cannot force the horse to drink water. Investment in technology is crucial, and so is technological know-how non-negotiable; nevertheless, without acceptance, it is a total waste. Technology acceptability does not infer 100% support [45], but the willingness, attitude, and perceptions toward using the technology continuously that is what counts. To achieve this, workers must feel that they are a part of the process, and here is where their well-being becomes a core component of technology acceptability for competitiveness.

7. Conclusion

This literature review conceptually has supported and strengthened the unique link between workers’ well-being and technology in entrepreneurship for competitiveness. While competitiveness is core to the survival, profitability, and expansion of businesses, it is crucial to understand that aside from infusing technology into entrepreneurship, the well-being of workers is non-negotiable since workers are a core aspect of entrepreneurial ventures.

Workers with higher/strong well-being perform better at work since it results in higher employee engagement, healthy work relationships, higher productivity and innovation, and higher customer/client service among others. Hence, businesses with a thriving workforce have higher success and a solid competitive advantage. While that sounds simple, the reality is that life and business are complex, even more so today. Nevertheless, it should not limit the importance of ensuring the well-being of workers is on the front burner of management strategy. More so, technology in entrepreneurship is a competitive weapon as it galvanizes added efficiency, faster decision-making, cost and time-saving, competitive edge, and increased innovation.

Summarily, SMEs’ contribution to the GDP of countries’ economies is unquantifiable in reality, particularly in developing climes. Hence, their competitiveness in the new era is as essential as the survival of countries’ growth. Therefore, the authors abridged the association between well-being, technological investment, know-how, and acceptability for competitiveness as Point 1 (WWB) + Point 2 (TIKHA) = Competitiveness for SMEs. Competitiveness is the sole of businesses in the new era, given the number of competitors in similar industries and products. Hence, aside from continuously investing in technology to ensure progressive core competency, undermining the well-being of workers must never be conceived at any point.