Business Resilience Skills For SMEs

Kotsios Journal of Innovation and
Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:37

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00304-0 Entrepreneurship
RESEARCH Open Access
Business resilience skills for SMEs

Panagiotis Kotsios1*
*Correspondence:
[email protected] Abstract
1
Hellenic Open University, Patra, The goal of this research was to investigate the skills and values that can be related to
Greece building resilient Small and Medium Enterprises. Primary data on the topic were col-
lected through survey research in a sample of 266 Greek and Polish business owners
and managers during the summer of 2020. According to the replies, the Personal char-
acteristics and Values category had the highest importance levels, but their adequacy
levels were high as well. Especially Reliability, Integrity and Work ethics have been
pointed out as vital for the long-term viability of a business while facing crises situa-
tions. The largest mismatch between importance and adequacy, by order of impor-
tance, were Communication, Risk identification and assessment, Financial Manage-
ment, Planning and organisation and Customer-orientation, and these may constitute
priority areas for inclusion in business training programs.
Keywords: Resilience, Skills, Survey, Poland, Greece
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into the surface the need of businesses to adapt to
unexpected shocks from the external environment and fast changing market conditions
and regulations. This adaptation requires preparedness, flexibility, determination and a
large set of other skills and values that will assist business owners survive through cri-
ses periods. Meanwhile, governments are required to provide adequate support to busi-
nesses that are most affected, while educators and counsellors are called to provide the
necessary training and guidance. Apart from the “hard”, technical, sector-specific skills
and knowledge that business owners should possess to continue their daily operations
during the crisis period, “soft” skills can also play a crucial role in business continuity.
Soft skills were defined by Weber et al., (2011, p. 98). as “interpersonal, human, peo-
ple, or behavioral skills needed to apply technical skills and knowledge in the workplace”,
while Moss and Tilly (1996) defined them as “skills, abilities, and traits that pertain
to personality, attitude and behavior rather than to formal or technical knowledge” (p.
256). On the context of the European Union, increased emphasis has been placed on
the topic of skill development. Projects like ESCO (the European Skills, Competences,
Qualifications and Occupations) and EntreComp (the Entrepreneurship Competence
Framework), funding programs like Erasmus + and actions like the European Skills
Agenda and the new Pact for Skills are directly aimed at skill development within
the Union. These actions aim to involve a wide range of actors in the process, such as
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Kotsios Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:37 Page 2 of 22
private companies, sectoral organisations, chambers of commerce, national and regional

authorities, social partners, education and training providers, workers and employment
services. One of the aims of the skill development process is to assist entrepreneurs and
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)—which represent 99% of all businesses in the EU
(European Commission, 2022)—to develop the resilience skills that are needed for fac-
ing unexpected and impactful conditions. In relation to this goal, the current research
aimed to collect and analyse primary information about the soft skills and values that
can be directly related to crisis management and SME resilience.
Business resilience
Τhe concept of resilience originally emerged in ecological literature (Holling, 1973),
but is currently being used in several other scientific fields, like engineering (Hollnagel
et al, 2006), psychology (Bonanno, 2004), sociology (Adger, 2000), disaster manage-
ment (Manyena, 2006) and business administration (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Walker
et al. (2004) mention that from a general social–ecological perspective, resilience can be
defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise while under-
going change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and
feedbacks” (p. 4). Based on the same concept, the term resilience is increasingly met in
entrepreneurship and business literature.
Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) noted that the concept of resilience, whether used in the
context of individuals or organisations, is generally founded on the notion of perform-
ing well, combined with the idea of difficult circumstances threatening to jeopardize
such performance. They refer to the ability to “preserve functioning” despite the pres-
ence of internal or external adversities and recover from untoward events (p. 96). Ortiz
de Mandojana and Bansal (2016, p. 1615) refer to business resilience as having the abil-
ity to “anticipate, avoid, and adjust to shocks in their environment”. Much of resilience
literature reflects on the above-mentioned ideas. Burnard and Bhamra (2011), as well
as Sheffi (2007), place emphasis on the detection and activation of appropriate organi-
sational responses to significant external events. Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011) mention
that organizational resilience has two differing perspectives: one related to the ability to
survive from adversities and another one related to the development of new capabilities
and the exploration of new opportunities. Hiles (2014) links the terms business recovery,
continuity and resilience, by mentioning that “the concept of business recovery—having
a failure and recovering from it—has been succeeded by business continuity (BC)—being
able to continue operations without hiatus in the event of disruption to any part of the
operation. From there, it is a short step to inbuild resiliency” (p.14). Beech et al (2019), as
well as Wishart (2018), provide analytical reviews of the different approaches, perspec-
tives and interpretations of resilience that have been adopted by various authors. Lin-
nenluecke (2017) also offers an extensive review of influential publications on the topic.
Business resilience can be challenged by several, both internal and external, risk fac-
tors. Internal factors are related to core business aspects, such as the business model and
value proposition, location, management aspects and practices, relationships between
owners, employees’ safety, access to resources etc. External risk factors may be related
to natural risks (e.g., floods, wildfires and pandemics), geopolitical risks (e.g., wars and
acts of terrorism), economic risks (e.g., recessions and crises), technological risks (e.g.,
system breakdowns and cyberattacks), corporate risks (e.g., fraud and legal claims) and
miscellaneous risks (e.g., oil spillovers and plane crashes) (Hiles, 2014). Moreover, as we
live in an increasingly economically and technologically interdependent world, threats
now come not only from a local, but also from a global scale. Business resilience is
related to the ability of businesses to adapt and survive through such unexpected events.
Having examined definitions of business resilience and some types of risks that new
and existing business may face, it is important to mention the factors that can enhance
business resilience. These factors can be divided at micro and macro level: micro-level
factors are related to entrepreneurs and their businesses, while macro level factors are
related to governments and the general economic and social environment.
Micro level
Korber and McNaughton (2018) in their research point out the fact that a large part
of entrepreneurial resilience literature supports the view that inherent characteristics
like psychological traits and organizational characteristics of individuals or firms can
increase resilience, which in turn enhances the ability of businesses to overcome dis-
ruptions. Many publications conceptualize entrepreneurial resilience as an amalgam of
individual traits or qualities like flexibility, motivation, perseverance, optimism, self-effi-
cacy and hope (De Vries & Shields, 2006; Hmieleski et al., 2015). Another key personal
characteristic is that entrepreneurs tend to take responsibility for their own future and
usually attribute success as well as failure on themselves, and this may be an important
underlying factor for entrepreneurial resilience and drive (Hedner et al, 2011).
However, seeing resilience only as a result of personal attribute is risky, as it may limit
our understanding of the related processes and willingness to provide adequate train-
ing and support. Davidsson et al. (2001) argued that in today’s research on entrepre-
neurship, the focus is shifting more towards the behavioural and cognitive aspects of
the field, rather than the personality characteristics. Branicki et al. (2018) found a strong
relationship between individual, entrepreneurial and SME resilience, noting that these
concepts in many cases complement one another. Other papers stress the role of social
capital (e.g., trust-based networks and support from family or friends) in assisting entre-
preneurs to face crises situations (e.g.Bowey & Easton, 2007; Chrisman et al, 2011;
Danes, 2013; Torres et al, 2019). Hedner et al (2011) mention that the concept of resil-
ience is closely related to relationships that provide care and support, create trust and
offer encouragement, both within and outside the family. Lee and Wang (2017) mention
that a supportive family can be both a source of finances and psychological support.
For Teixeira and Werther (2013) resilience is evident in the way that organisations
respond to changes—firms that anticipate events and changes and act to mitigate them
in advance, and that do so repeatedly, are truly resilient. In this way, resilience is seen
as closely related to competitive advantage, and building a resilient organisation is pre-
sented as a strategic imperative. Beech et al. (2019) supported the view that a key element
of resilience is the coherent and rigorous nature of an organisations strategic thinking
and decision-making capability within its leadership team. Hamel and Valikangas (2003)
considered as important ingredients of resilience the capacity to retrieve and process
information faster than competitors, embrace change and take adequate strategic action.
Sheffi and Rice (2005) highlighted the relationship between resilience and organizational
flexibility, mentioning that: “as companies move to build flexibility in order to respond to
demand and supply volatility, they are also building in resilience and vice versa” (p.48).
Smallborne et al. (2012), in their research for UK and New Zealand SMEs confirmed the
importance of flexibility and adaptability in business resilience. Sabatino (2016) found
that the most resilient enterprises are those that simplify their business structure and
focus on their core competences. Granig and Hilgarter (2020) identified as key driv-
ers for resilience organisational values and characteristics such as commitment, trust,
empowerment, communication, leadership that provides a clear strategic direction and
effective proactive risk management techniques.
Buliga et al (2016) in their study highlighted the role of business model innovation,
considering it an as an integral part of organizational response and a constitutive ele-
ment of resilience. Juettner and Maklan (2011) examined supply chain resilience in the
global financial crisis, and concluded that four resilience capabilities—flexibility, reac-
tion speed, access to timely information, and collaborations among supply chain mem-
bers—can avoid or limit the impacts of adverse events. Sitkin (1992) highlighted the
value of organizational learning from failure as an integral part of resilience. Moreo-
ver, Sincorá et al. (2018) highlighted the contribution of business analytics leveraging
resilience in organizational processes. Hirt et al. (2019) also supported that digital and
analytics-driven productivity improvements may be an important alternative to conven-
tional cost cuts, and that accelerating digitization has widened the gap in capabilities and
performance between digital leaders and laggards—a gap that is likely to grow during
any downturn.
Macro level
The extent of entrepreneurial resilience may not only be dependent on personal char-
acteristics, or organizational strategies and social capital, but also on structural exter-
nal factors that affect entrepreneurship and business survival in total. Korber &
McNaughton (2018) in their research explored various macro-level factors that can
enhance entrepreneurial resilience at the organizational or individual level. Examples
include a competitive business environment (Biswas & Baptista, 2012), financial support
through microfinance institutions (Ngoasong & Kimbu, 2016), training and mentoring
programs for entrepreneurs (Ghosh & Rajaram, 2015; St-Jean & Audet, 2012) and better
institutional structures (Sobel, 2008). Hedner et al (2011) supported the view that the
social attitude towards business failure also plays a role. For example, the acceptance of
failure is higher in the United States and considered as an experience for future success,
while in Japan and Europe entrepreneurial failure may create a social stigma (European
Commission, 2003; Vaillant & Lafuente, 2007). Bishop and Shilcof (2017, p. 215) in their
research emphasized the role of entrepreneurial culture, flexibility, innovation, favour-
able industrial structures and diverse knowledge bases that assist some regions in fos-
tering more resilient enterprises than others. On the contrary, factors that may prohibit
resilient and productive entrepreneurship may be related to corruption (Aidis & Mick-
iewicz, 2006; Barkhatova, 2000) and burdensome business regulations (Djankov et al.,
2002).
A final aspect of the business resilience literature is highlighted by Wishart (2018), who
points out the limited focus that has been placed on the specific context of SMEs. Even
though the contribution of SMEs in national economies is very important (for example,
in the EU they account for 99% of total enterprises, two thirds of employment and 57%
of value added), most of the focus up to date has been on large enterprises. Ates and
Bitici (2011) point out the fact that are significant differences in the way that SMEs run
their businesses and a different approach for resiliency is required. For example, Petrakis
and Kostis (2015) researched the role of knowledge and interpersonal trust on SMEs,
and found that knowledge positively affects the number of SMEs, which in turn posi-
tively affects interpersonal trust.
In conclusion, business resilience refers to the ability of a business or organization to
absorb, adjust and continue its operations through time, and especially after the occur-
rence of impactful events. The events may be of a natural, economic, political, legal,
technological or interorganizational origin, and if not addressed accordingly, may seri-
ously undermine the sustainability of a business. On this context, business research is
placing increased emphasis on the factors that determine business resilience and abil-
ity to maintain operation. These factors may be related, to a certain extent, with entre-
preneurs’ personal characteristics that enable them to endure and face crises, and to
another extent they are related to skills that can be developed through education and
training. Other factors are related to the competitive strategies that businesses develop,
as well as with social capital and general support from friends and family. Moreover,
there also macro factors that affect business resilience, and they have to do to with the
general support from the business environment in terms of financing and mentoring, the
business culture of an area and the attitude towards failure.
On this context of micro and macro factors that can affect business resilience, the
focus of the current research was on the topic of the soft skills. The main goal of the
research was to investigate the soft skills that can be related to business resilience, by
asking business owners from two European countries, Greece and Poland, their opinions
on the matter.1 The methodology that was followed for the data collection is described
below.
Methodology
Primary data on the topic of soft skills that are related to SME resilience was collected
through a survey on active Polish and Greek entrepreneurs, and the survey was based on
a structured questionnaire.
Questionnaire design The first step in the research was to construct the survey’s ques-
tionnaire. The survey started by providing information about the researchers, the con-
text and the goals of the research and by asking for the participants’ consent for taking
part in the survey and for data processing. It is important to mention that participation
in the research was voluntary and anonymous. The body of the questionnaire had four
parts:
– The 1st part was asking for basic demographic information about the business
(Name, Legal Form, City, Country, Main sector of activity, Year of establishment,
1
The research was executed in the framework of the ERASMUS + project «Resilience and rescue skills for SMEs,
strengthening Early Warning Europe», and the target group selection was related with the deliverables of the project.
Number of employees) and the respondent (Role in the business, Age group, Sex, Mar-
ital Status, Number of children and Higher completed educational level).
– In the 2nd part the respondents were asked to answer on a scale from 0 to 10 in 5
generic questions on the following topics: 1. The importance of business training, 2.
The frequency that they receive business training, 3. The effects from COVID-19 cri-
sis to their business, 4. The effects from other crises in the past (plus and open-ended
question about the types of crises that affected them the most) and 5. Their overall
business resiliency.
– In the 3rd part the participants were asked to grade on a scale from 0 to 10 the
importance and personal adequacy of 36 skills that were chosen by the collaborating
partners2 as important for the survival of a business during turbulent periods of time.
For the construction of the skills’ list the researchers were based on the following
sources of information:
• The literature review on business resilience.

• The European Commission’s Entrepreneurship Competence Framework
EntreComp (Bacigalupo et al., 2016).
• IME GSEVEE’s Typology of “skills mix” for their analysis and monitoring in the
selected professions (Litzeris, 2019).
• The European Commission’s European Classification of Skills/Competences,
Qualifications and Occupations—ESCO (2020)
• CEDEFOP’s European Skills Index (2020)
• The collaborating partners experience in mentoring and advising entrepreneurs.
After three rounds of intellectual conversation between the partners, the final ver-
sion of the skills’ list was constructed, and it presented in Table 1. It is vital to mention
that the research focused only in soft skills and not sector-specific hard skills. The list
includes 5 general soft skills categories and 36 specific skills and characteristics. The 5
skill categories are: (a) General skills, (b) Vocational/Professional skills, (c) Health and
Safety (this category was included as an adaptation to the COVID19 outbreak) and
finally (d) Risk Management. The list also included some important Personal character-
istics, Attitudes and Values that are related to business continuity.
– The 4th and last part of the questionnaire included 2 open-ended questions that
aimed to cover possible gaps in the skills’ list. These were the following:
• Which other skills do you consider important for the survival of your business?
• What kind of business-related training, not presently available, would be useful for
you?
2
The collaborating partners included representatives from the Business Development Centre of Central Denmark, the
Cecot Innovation Foundation from Spain, the Family Business Foundation from Poland, the Athens Chamber of Trades-
men and the Hellenic Confederation of Professionals, Craftsmen and Merchants (IME GSEVEE) from Greece, the Ath-
ens Chamber of Tradesmen in Greece and the JAMK University of Applied Sciences from Finland.
Table 1 Skills’ list

Category Subcategory Soft skills
General skills (GS) Cognitive of higher level Goal Setting

Ability for continuous learning
Critical thinking
Creativity
Socio-emotional Communication
Empathy
Systemic Cooperation, Teamwork
Adaptability (incl. Flexibility)
Planning and organisation
Negotiation
Decision making
Leadership
Mobilising Resources
Vocational/professional skills (VPS) General professional skills Time management
Customer-orientation
Networking
Digital skills Digital Communication
Data Security
Data and information management Data and information management
and transformation
Accessing, extracting and processing
information
Evaluation, analysis and synthesis of
information and data
Other professional skills Financial and economic resources
management
Teaching, supporting and guiding
other people
Health and safety (HS) Health and safety Providing for health and safety at
work
Ensuring public health and consumer
protection
Characteristics, attitudes and values Personal characteristics/Attitudes— Reliability
(CAV) Behaviours Initiative and taking action
Self-confidence
Perseverance
Values Integrity
Work ethics
Resilience strategy (RS) Risk management Risk identification and assessment
Resilience planning
Impact analysis
Recovery Strategy, Communication
and Coordination
Seeking advice–Receptiveness–
Openness
Methods of delivery The questionnaire was available both in paper and digital form
(as a word and pdf file), and also as an online survey in the LimeSurvey platform. The
questionnaire was translated in 3 languages: English, Polish and Greek.
Table 2 Year of establishment

Year of establishment n %
1900–1950 2 0.79
1951–1980 12 4.76
1980–2000 92 36.51
2001–2010 75 29.76
2011–2020 71 28.17
Total 252 100.00
Target audience The questionnaire was addressed to active owners and managers of
SMEs in Poland and Greece.
Data collection methods Data were collected through the online questionnaire, tele-
phone interviews and live interviews in the premises of Family Business Foundation in
Warsaw, Poland and the branches of the Hellenic Confederation of Professionals, Crafts-
men and Merchants (IME GSEVEE) in Herakleion, Thessaloniki and Ioannina, Greece.
Data collection period The questionnaire design stage started on the 20th of May and
was concluded on the 5th of June 2020. From the 8th to the 12th of June there was a pilot
testing period, to get initial feedback and perform corrections. The research was offi-
cially launched in the 15th of June 2020. The first deadline for collecting the necessary
answers was the 8th of July, which was expanded to the 20th of July. The goal was to get
at least 100 replies from each country.
Results and discussion

Following is the analysis of the SME owners and managers’ replies. It is important to
mention that answering each question was optional. The replies gathered were 266 in
total, 165 from Greece and 101 from Poland.3
The first question was asking about the enterprises’ year of establishment and the fre-
quency of replies is presented in Table 2. Most of them were established between 1980
and 2000 (36%), meaning that they had between 20 and 40 years of active business expe-
rience. It is also worth noting that 28% of the enterprises were established during the last
decade. The oldest one was established in 1914 and the newest one in 2020.
Table 3 presents the enterprises’ number of employees. Most of them can be charac-
terized as micro enterprises, having from 0 to 9 employees (75%).4 The smallest value
was 0, meaning that that they did not have any employees at all, and the largest one was
350.
The respondents’ age groups are presented in Table 4. Most of them were in the age
group between 36 and 45 (39%), and the second group in frequency was that between 46
and 55 (28%).
3
The total business population in Poland in 2018 was 1,732,623 (EC, 2019 SBA Fact Sheet) and in Greece 1,195,299
(author’s calculations based on open data from the Hellenic Independent Authority on Public Revenues), so the total
business population in these two countries was 2,927,922. With a sample of 266 from these two countries, the margin of
error is 6%, meaning that there is a 95% chance that the real values are within ± 6% of the measured/surveyed values.
4
Enterprises’ sizes are defined by EU recommendation 2003/361.
Table 3 Number of employees

Number of employees n %
0–9 Micro 187 75.40

10–49 Small 38 15.32
50–249 Medium 20 8.06
250 + Large 3 1.21
Total 248 100.00
Table 4 Respondents’ age groups

Age group n %
18–25 3 1.16
26–35 29 11.20
36–45 102 39.38
46–55 73 28.19
56–65 43 16.60
65 + 9 3.47
Total 259 100.00
Table 5 Sex
Sex n %
Female 92 34.98
Male 171 65.02
Total 263 100,00
Table 6 Marital status

Marital status n %
Married 214 83.27

Single 27 10.51
Divorced 12 4.67
Separated 1 0.39
Widowed 3 1.17
Total 257 100.00
Regarding the respondents’ sex, these results are presented in Table 5. Most of the
respondents were male, at a percentage of 65%.
The marital status is presented in Table 6, with most of the respondents being mar-
ried to a percentage of 83%.
The number of children is presented in Table 7, with 83% of the respondents having
children.
Finally, Table 8 presents the participants’ highest completed educational level, with
37% of them having a Master’s degree, 26% having a Bachelor degree and 27% having
Table 7 Number of Children

No of children n %
0 41 16.33
1 65 25.90
2 100 39.84
3 35 13.94
4 9 3.59
5 1 0.40
Total 251 100.00
Table 8 Highest educational level completed

Educational level n %
Primary 6 2.30
Secondary 71 27.20
Tertiary 70 26.82
Master’s 99 37.93
Doctorate 7 2.68
Other 8 3.07
Total 261 100.00
Table 9 Training and resilience questions
Business training importance 8.45

[On a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much), to what degree do you think that business training and skill (SD 1.76)
development can help your business stay active in the market and grow?]
Business training frequency 5.36
[On a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (very frequently), how often do you receive business-related training?] (SD 2.69)
Effects from COVI19 crisis 6.85
[On a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much), at what degree do think that your business has been (or will be) (SD 2.79)
negatively affected by the COVID-19 crisis?]
Effects from other crises 5.49
[On a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much), at what degree has your business been influenced by other (SD 2.99)
crises in the past (apart from COVID-19)?]
Business resiliency 7.00
[On a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much), how resilient do you consider you enterprise as a whole?] (SD 2.69)
completed secondary education. The total percentage with completed higher educa-
tion was 68% (Tertiary, Master’s and Doctorate).
The second part of the questionnaire included some generic questions about busi-
ness training, crisis and resilience. The questions and average scores are presented
in Table 9. The respondents considered business training as very important and they
declared that they receive training, but not very often. In addition, according to the
replies, they have been affected by the COVID-19 crisis at a considerable level, and
they have been also affected by other crises in the past, but to a smaller degree. The
4th question also had an open-end part, which was asking about the type of crises
that had affected them most in the past. The answers received were 243, and most of
the respondents mentioned the economic crisis at a percentage of about 80%. Some
Table 10 Skills average importance, adequacy and mismatch by order of importance

No Cat Skill Importance Adequacy Mismatch
1 CAV Reliability 9.50 8.82 0.68

2 CAV Integrity 9.47 9.23 0.23
3 CAV Work ethics 9.39 9.25 0.14
4 GS Communication 9.22 7.70 1.52
5 CAV Perseverance 9.10 8.30 0.80
6 CAV Initiative and taking action 9.03 8.17 0.87
7 GS Decision making 9.03 7.86 1.16
8 RS Risk identification and assessment 8.98 7.53 1.45
9 VPS Financial and economic resources management 8.95 7.56 1.40
10 GS Planning and organisation 8.95 7.47 1.48
11 GS Adaptability (incl. Flexibility) 8.94 7.72 1.21
12 VPS Customer-orientation 8.91 7.43 1.48
13 GS Leadership 8.80 7.61 1.19
14 CAV Self-confidence 8.79 7.95 0.85
15 VPS Networking 8.78 7.09 1.69
16 GS Cooperation. Teamwork 8.73 7.66 1.07
17 RS Recovery Strategy. Communication and Coordination 8.72 7.15 1.57
18 GS Creativity 8.72 7.68 1.04
19 VPS Digital Communication 8.70 7.27 1.43
20 VPS Time management 8.70 7.04 1.66
21 GS Mobilising Resources 8.69 7.22 1.48
22 RS Seeking advice–Receptiveness–Openness 8.67 7.28 1.39
23 HS Providing for health and safety at work 8.62 8.23 0.39
24 GS Continuous learning 8.62 7.16 1.46
25 HS Ensuring public health and consumer protection 8.59 8.18 0.41
26 VPS Teaching. supporting and guiding other people 8.56 7.28 1.28
27 RS Resilience planning 8.50 7.05 1.45
28 GS Goal Setting 8.46 7.18 1.28
29 GS Negotiation 8.41 7.16 1.24
30 RS Impact analysis 8.40 7.00 1.40
31 VPS Data Security 8.39 7.42 0.97
32 GS Critical thinking 8.35 7.51 0.84
33 GS Empathy 8.30 7.62 0.69
34 VPS Evaluation. analysis and synthesis of information and data 8.29 7.00 1.28
35 VPS Data and information management and transformation 8.00 6.93 1.07
36 VPS Accessing. extracting and processing information 7.91 6.84 1.07
Min 7.91 6.84 0.14
Max 9.50 9.25 1.69
Range 1.58 2.41 1.55
The highest values are given in bold
other answers included technological, political and natural crises, as well as inner-
business relationships.
The third part of the questionnaire was asking participants to assess the importance
and personal adequacy of the skills in the list. Table 10 presents the skills’ average
importance, adequacy and mismatch, by order of importance.
From the analysis of the results, the following observations can be made:
• All the skills and characteristics in the list were evaluated as particularly important
from the respondents, since all the average scores are high, ranging from 7.91 (min)
to 9.50 (max).
• Surprisingly, the highest scores were in the Characteristics, Attitudes and Values cat-
egory, and in particular in Reliability (9.50), Integrity (9.47) and Work ethics (9.39).
Perseverance and Initiative and action taking had also very high scores (9.10 and
9.03, respectively). However, adequacy levels in these characteristics and values was
high as well.
• The soft skills with the highest scores were Communication (9.22); Decision making
(9.03); Risk identification and assessment (8.98); Financial management (8.95) and
Planning and Organization (8.95).
• The respondents auto-assessed their adequacy in possessing these skills as high, with
values ranging from 6.84 (min) to 9.25 (max). The lowest adequacies can be found in
Accessing, extracting and processing information (6.84); Data and information man-
agement and transformation (6.93); Evaluation, analysis and synthesis of information
and data (7.00); Impact analysis (7.00); and Time management (7.04).
• The largest mismatches, between importance and adequacy can be traced in Net-
working (1.69); Time management (1.66); Recovery strategy (1.57) and Communica-
tion (1.52). By order of importance, the skills with the largest mismatch were Com-
munication (1.52); Risk identification and assessment (1.45); Financial Management
(1.40); Planning and organisation (1.48); Customer-orientation (1.48); Networking
(1.69); Recovery Strategy (1.57); Time management (1.66); Mobilising Resources
(1.48) and Continuous learning (1.46).
The last part of the questionnaire included two open-end questions. The first on was
asking about the skills the participants considered as most important for the survival
of a business. The percentage of participants that replied was 52%. Some of the skills
mentioned more frequently were related to business management, financial manage-
ment, debt management, funding, risk and change management, new technologies,
digital marketing, sales promotion and project management. The second question was
asking about the type of business training they would like to receive. The percentage of
participants that replied was 66%. Most frequent answers mentioned Financial manage-
ment, Digital marketing, Sales promotion, Human resource selection and management,
Project management, Crisis management, New technologies, Cost analysis, Labelling,
Taxation, Health and safety and Legal requirements. Many answers also referred to sec-
tor-specific skills.
Comparison between countries

To check the validity of the results and identify possible differences between countries,
the replies from Poland (101) and Greece (165) were compared in Table 11. Significant
differences can be noticed in the Effects from the COVID-19 crisis, with business own-
ers and managers from Greece declaring a more negative effect that Polish ones by
2.40, and also a higher effect from other crises in the past (difference of 2.74). Polish
Table 11 Comparison between Poland and Greece

Category Question Poland Greece Var
n = 101 n = 165
Average Average
Generic Questions Business training importance 7.86 8.81 − 0.95

Business training frequency 4.77 5.72 − 0.95
Effects from COVID-19 crisis 5.36 7.76 − 2.40
Effects from other crises 3.78 6.52 − 2.74
Business resiliency 7.59 6.64 0.95
General Skills Goal Setting Importance 8.34 8.53 − 0.19
Goal Setting Adequacy 6.94 7.33 − 0.39
Continuous learning Importance 8.62 8.62 0.00
Continuous learning Adequacy 7.32 7.07 0.25
Critical thinking Importance 7.58 8.82 − 1.25
Critical thinking Adequacy 6.79 7.95 − 1.16
Creativity Importance 8.51 8.85 − 0.34
Creativity Adequacy 7.35 7.87 − 0.52
Communication Importance 9.08 9.30 − 0.22
Communication Adequacy 7.14 8.03 − 0.90
Empathy Importance 7.71 8.65 − 0.94
Empathy Adequacy 7.32 7.79 − 0.47
Cooperation, Teamwork Importance 8.54 8.84 − 0.30
Cooperation, Teamwork Adequacy 7.38 7.83 − 0.46
Adaptability (incl. Flexibility) Importance 8.65 9.11 − 0.46
Adaptability (incl. Flexibility) Adequacy 7.66 7.76 − 0.10
Planning and organisation Importance 8.62 9.15 − 0.52
Planning and organisation Adequacy 7.16 7.66 − 0.50
Negotiation Importance 7.96 8.68 − 0.72
Negotiation Adequacy 6.80 7.38 − 0.58
Decision making Importance 8.96 9.07 − 0.11
Decision making Adequacy 7.76 7.93 − 0.17
Leadership Importance 8.47 8.99 − 0.52
Leadership Adequacy 7.03 7.96 − 0.93
Mobilising Resources Importance 8.58 8.76 − 0.18
Mobilising Resources Adequacy 7.12 7.28 − 0.16
Professional Skills Time management Importance 8.22 8.99 − 0.77
Time management Adequacy 6.61 7.30 − 0.69
Customer-orientation Importance 8.56 9.12 − 0.56
Customer-orientation Adequacy 7.24 7.53 − 0.29
Networking Importance 8.26 9.09 − 0.83
Networking Adequacy 6.72 7.30 − 0.59
Digital Communication Importance 8.36 8.91 − 0.55
Digital Communication Adequacy 7.05 7.40 − 0.34
Data Security Importance 8.52 8.31 0.21
Data Security Adequacy 7.52 7.37 0.15
Table 11 (continued)
n = 101 n = 165
Average Average
Data and information management and transformation 7.91 8.06 − 0.16

Importance
Data and information management and transformation 6.77 7.03 − 0.26
Adequacy
Accessing, extracting and processing information Impor- 7.52 8.14 − 0.62
tance
Accessing, extracting and processing information Adequacy 6.51 7.03 − 0.52
Evaluation, analysis and synthesis of information and data 8.01 8.45 − 0.44
Importance
Evaluation, analysis and synthesis of information and data 6.62 7.23 − 0.60
Adequacy
Financial and economic resources management Importance 8.98 8.94 0.04
Financial and economic resources management Adequacy 7.69 7.48 0.21
Teaching, supporting and guiding other people Importance 8.49 8.60 − 0.11
Teaching, supporting and guiding other people Adequacy 7.12 7.38 − 0.26
Health and Safety Providing for health and safety at work Importance 7.99 9.00 − 1.01
Providing for health and safety at work Adequacy 8.32 8.17 0.15
Ensuring public health and consumer protection Importance 7.91 8.99 − 1.09
Ensuring public health and consumer protection Adequacy 7.77 8.42 − 0.65
Characteristics, Reliability Importance 9.43 9.53 − 0.10
Attitudes and
Values
Reliability Adequacy 8.57 8.96 − 0.39
Initiative and taking action Importance 8.95 9.09 − 0.14
Initiative and taking action Adequacy 7.86 8.35 − 0.48
Self-confidence Importance 8.27 9.10 − 0.84
Self-confidence Adequacy 7.26 8.35 − 1.08
Perseverance Importance 9.10 9.10 0.00
Perseverance Adequacy 8.04 8.45 − 0.41
Integrity Importance 9.63 9.37 0.25
Integrity Adequacy 9.51 9.07 0.43
Work ethics Importance 9.47 9.34 0.13
Work ethics Adequacy 9.20 9.29 − 0.09
Risk Management Risk identification and assessment Importance 8.95 8.99 − 0.05
Risk identification and assessment Adequacy 7.23 7.70 − 0.48
Resilience planning Importance 8.10 8.74 − 0.64
Resilience planning Adequacy 6.53 7.34 − 0.80
Impact analysis Importance 7.97 8.65 − 0.68
Impact analysis Adequacy 6.70 7.18 − 0.48
Recovery Strategy, Communication and Coordination 8.36 8.94 − 0.58
Importance
Recovery Strategy, Communication and Coordination 6.84 7.33 − 0.49
Adequacy
n = 101 n = 165
Average Average
Seeking advice–Receptiveness–Openness Importance 8.45 8.80 − 0.35

Seeking advice–Receptiveness–Openness Adequacy 7.04 7.42 − 0.38
n 72 72 –
Mean (μ) 7.91 8.32 –
Standard deviation 0.83 0.73 –
respondents considered on average their businesses more resilient that Greek ones, by a
difference of 0.95. Regarding the importance and adequacy of the skills, there are some
differences in average scores between countries. In terms of importance, the largest dif-
ferences are spotted in Critical thinking; Empathy and Ensuring public health and con-
sumer protection. In terms of adequacy, the largest differences are in Critical thinking;
Self Confidence; Leadership and Communication.
The differences between the replies from the two countries was tested using the fol-
lowing hypotheses: Null Hypothesis Ho: µ1=µ2, Alternative Hypothesis Ho: µ1≠µ2. The
method used to test the difference was a two-tailed t test at a significance level of 0.05
and 142 degrees of freedom. The critical value for this two-tailed test was t = 1.977. The
calculated t value was -3.147 and the p value was 0.002 (< 0.05), so the null hypothe-
sis was rejected. There was enough evidence to claim that population means between
Poland and Greece were different at the 0.05 significance level.
Clusters
Apart from the comparison in the responses from Poland and Greece, the sample was
divided into smaller groups and compared with the total sample to examine possible dif-
ferences in the replies. The three (3) groups used were the following (Table 12):
– Group 1—business that were established prior to 1980: This group represented
those businesses that have proven their resilience by staying active for more than
40 years. Their number was 12.
– Group 2—business owners and managers who have received higher education:
This group included those respondents that had completed a Bachelor, Masters or
Doctorate degree. The goal was to examine if higher education creates differences in
their replies from the total sample. Their number was 176.
– Group 3—high business resilience: This group included those respondents that
had auto assessed their business’s resilience with a score of 8, 9 and 10. Their num-
ber was 109.
Table 12 Cluster analysis

Soft skills Total Year of Higher High Bus.
Establ. < 1980 education resilience
n = 266 n = 12 n = 176 n = 109

Aver. Aver. Var. Aver. Var. Aver. Var.
Generic Questions Business training importance 8.45 7.92 0.53 8.57 − 0.12 8.34 0.11
Business training frequency 5.36 5.42 − 0.06 5.62 − 0.26 5.56 − 0.20
Effects from COVI19 crisis 6.85 7.17 − 0.32 6.66 0.19 5.86 0.99
Effects from other crises 5.49 6.75 − 1.26 5.34 0.16 5.01 0.48
Business resiliency 7.81 7.17 0.64 7.16 0.65 8.67 − 0.86
Generic Skills Goal Setting Importance 8.96 8.42 0.54 8.51 0.46 8.58 0.38
Goal Setting Adequacy 7.31 7.50 − 0.19 7.28 0.02 7.43 − 0.12
Continuous learning Impor- 8.73 9.00 − 0.27 8.60 0.13 8.83 − 0.10
tance
Continuous learning Adequacy 7.77 7.67 0.10 7.34 0.43 7.67 0.10
Critical thinking Importance 7.73 8.75 − 1.02 8.38 − 0.65 8.31 − 0.57
Critical thinking Adequacy 6.46 8.33 − 1.87 7.59 − 1.13 7.71 − 1.25
Creativity Importance 8.88 8.83 0.05 8.72 0.16 8.71 0.17
Creativity Adequacy 7.88 8.17 − 0.29 7.66 0.22 7.80 0.08
Communication Importance 9.21 9.33 − 0.13 9.24 − 0.03 9.22 − 0.02
Communication Adequacy 7.75 8.00 − 0.25 7.65 0.10 7.87 − 0.12
Empathy Importance 8.08 8.08 0.00 8.32 − 0.23 8.31 − 0.23
Empathy Adequacy 7.54 7.67 − 0.13 7.62 − 0.08 7.78 − 0.24
Cooperation, Teamwork 9.00 8.83 0.17 8.75 0.25 8.82 0.18
Importance
Cooperation, Teamwork 7.54 7.36 0.18 7.62 − 0.08 7.87 − 0.32
Adequacy
Adaptability (incl. Flexibility) 9.30 8.91 0.40 8.87 0.44 8.84 0.46
Importance
Adaptability (incl. Flexibility) 8.22 7.82 0.40 7.78 0.44 8.10 0.11
Adequacy
Planning and organisation 9.21 8.75 0.46 8.98 0.23 8.79 0.42
Importance
Planning and organisation 7.38 7.58 − 0.21 7.56 − 0.18 7.57 − 0.19
Adequacy
Negotiation Importance 7.92 8.55 − 0.63 8.47 − 0.55 8.31 − 0.39
Negotiation Adequacy 7.17 7.45 − 0.29 7.11 0.05 7.35 − 0.19
Decision making Importance 8.83 9.17 − 0.33 9.06 − 0.22 9.08 − 0.25
Decision making Adequacy 7.63 8.33 − 0.71 7.81 − 0.18 8.16 − 0.54
Leadership Importance 8.21 9.08 − 0.88 8.80 − 0.60 8.76 − 0.55
Leadership Adequacy 7.38 7.67 − 0.29 7.60 − 0.23 7.60 − 0.23
Mobilising Resources Impor- 9.00 9.17 − 0.17 8.77 0.23 8.74 0.26
tance
Mobilising Resources 7.00 7.42 − 0.42 7.26 − 0.26 7.52 − 0.52
Adequacy
n = 266 n = 12 n = 176 n = 109

Professional Skills Time management Importance 8.50 8.18 0.32 8.66 − 0.16 8.67 − 0.17
Time management Adequacy 6.79 6.55 0.25 7.00 − 0.21 7.43 − 0.64
Customer-orientation Impor- 8.74 9.10 − 0.36 8.78 − 0.04 8.83 − 0.09
tance
Customer-orientation 7.43 8.40 − 0.97 7.46 − 0.02 7.80 − 0.36
Adequacy
Networking Importance 8.29 9.00 − 0.71 8.53 − 0.24 8.53 − 0.24
Networking Adequacy 6.92 7.82 − 0.90 7.04 − 0.12 7.28 − 0.36
Digital Communication Impor- 8.46 9.09 − 0.63 8.65 − 0.19 8.58 − 0.12
tance
Digital Communication 7.29 7.09 0.20 7.37 − 0.08 7.66 − 0.37
Adequacy
Data Security Importance 8.50 8.55 − 0.05 8.47 0.03 8.54 − 0.04
Data Security Adequacy 7.67 7.27 0.39 7.51 0.16 7.67 − 0.01
Data and information manage- 7.75 7.50 0.25 8.13 − 0.38 8.08 − 0.33
ment Importance
Data and information manage- 6.92 6.50 0.42 7.06 − 0.15 7.12 − 0.20
ment Adequacy
Accessing, extracting and 7.39 7.08 0.31 7.96 − 0.57 7.83 − 0.44
processing information Impor-
tance
Accessing, extracting and pro- 6.52 6.08 0.44 6.88 − 0.35 6.87 − 0.35
cessing information Adequacy
Evaluation, analysis and syn- 7.91 7.64 0.28 8.35 − 0.44 8.21 − 0.29
thesis of information and data
Importance
Evaluation, analysis and syn- 6.52 6.55 − 0.02 7.14 − 0.62 7.11 − 0.59
thesis of information and data
Adequacy
Financial and economic 9.09 8.75 0.34 8.94 0.15 9.03 0.06
resources management
Importance
Financial and economic 7.30 7.83 − 0.53 7.61 − 0.30 7.92 − 0.62
resources management
Adequacy
Teaching, supporting and guid- 8.70 8.67 0.03 8.60 0.09 8.60 0.09
ing other peopleImportance
Teaching, supporting and guid- 7.35 7.25 0.10 7.42 − 0.07 7.46 − 0.11
ing other peopleAdequacy
n = 266 n = 12 n = 176 n = 109

Health and Safety Providing for health and safety 8.71 9.67 − 0.96 8.49 0.21 8.19 0.52
at work Importance
Providing for health and safety 8.88 8.67 0.21 8.27 0.61 8.42 0.46
at work Adequacy
Ensuring public health and 8.83 9.50 − 0.67 8.49 0.34 8.10 0.72
consumer protection Impor-
tance
Ensuring public health 8.13 8.75 − 0.62 8.10 0.03 8.06 0.07
and consumer protection
Adequacy
Characteristics, Reliability Importance 9.33 9.17 0.17 9.48 − 0.14 9.54 − 0.21
Attitudes and Reliability Adequacy 8.50 8.75 − 0.25 8.79 − 0.29 8.94 − 0.44
Values
Initiative and taking action 9.00 8.58 0.42 9.01 − 0.01 9.05 − 0.05
Importance
Initiative and taking action 8.04 7.83 0.21 8.17 − 0.13 8.34 − 0.30
Adequacy
Self-confidence Importance 8.00 8.67 − 0.67 8.76 − 0.76 8.58 − 0.58
Self-confidence Adequacy 7.29 8.17 − 0.87 7.92 − 0.63 8.02 − 0.73
Perseverance Importance 9.21 9.00 0.21 9.16 0.05 8.92 0.29
Perseverance Adequacy 8.04 8.08 − 0.04 8.28 − 0.24 8.47 − 0.43
Integrity Importance 9.50 8.92 0.58 9.49 0.01 9.51 − 0.01
Integrity Adequacy 9.54 9.17 0.38 9.24 0.30 9.51 0.03
Work ethics Importance 9.46 9.18 0.28 9.42 0.04 9.39 0.07
Work ethics Adequacy 9.21 9.33 − 0.13 9.28 − 0.08 9.43 − 0.22
Risk Management Risk identification and assess- 9.04 8.92 0.13 8.94 0.10 9.09 − 0.05
ment Importance
Risk identification and assess- 7.57 7.67 − 0.10 7.52 0.05 7.72 − 0.16
ment Adequacy
Resilience planning Impor- 8.32 8.83 − 0.52 8.37 − 0.05 8.45 − 0.13
tance
Resilience planning Adequacy 6.82 7.92 − 1.10 6.98 − 0.16 7.20 − 0.38
Impact analysis Importance 8.27 8.50 − 0.23 8.35 − 0.08 8.22 0.05
Impact analysis Adequacy 6.73 7.42 − 0.69 6.99 − 0.27 7.22 − 0.49
Recovery Strategy, Commu- 8.48 8.75 − 0.27 8.67 − 0.19 8.56 − 0.08
nication and Coordination
Importance
Recovery Strategy, Commu- 6.65 7.50 − 0.85 7.18 − 0.52 7.37 − 0.72
nication and Coordination
Adequacy
Seeking advice–Receptive- 9.23 8.83 0.39 8.72 0.51 8.45 0.78
ness–Openness Importance
Seeking advice–Receptive- 7.50 7.58 − 0.08 7.38 0.12 7.26 0.24
ness–Openness Adequacy
Based on the results of these groups of respondents, the following observations can be
made:
• In Group 1—owners or managers of businesses with at least 40 years of operation—

we can notice important variance in the Effect from other crises in the past—1.26
higher than the overall sample average. In terms of importance there are worth not-
ing variances in Critical thinking (+ 1.02), Providing for health and safety at work
(+ 0.96) and Leadership (+ 0.88). In terms of adequacy there are variances in Critical
thinking (+ 1.87), Customer-orientation (+ 0.97), Networking (+ 0.90) and Self-con-
fidence (+ 0.87).
• In Group 2, owners or managers with completed higher education, in terms of
importance there is variance in Self-confidence (+ 0.76) and in terms of adequacy in
Critical thinking (+ 1.13).
• In Group 3, owners or managers with auto assessed their business’s resilience with
8.9 or 10, there is an important variance in the Effect from the COVID19 crisis—0.99
lower than the overall sample. In terms of importance there is a variance in Seeking
advice–Receptiveness–Openness (− 0.78) and Ensuring public health and consumer
protection (− 0.72), and in terms of adequacy in Critical thinking (+ 1.25) and in Self
Confidence (+ 0.73).
Conclusions
Through the results of this survey research it is possible to draw a series of conclusions
that can be useful both for active and future entrepreneurs, as well as for educators and
policy makers. These conclusions are related to the soft skills that entrepreneurs should
have in mind to build resilient SMEs, as well as the soft skills that educators and policy
makers should include and cultivate in business training programs.
A first conclusion is that all the 36 soft skills and values included in the list were con-
sidered as important for business survival and continuity by active business owners and
managers. There was no skill or value pointed out as unimportant from the replies of
the sample. A second conclusion is that the Characteristics, Attitudes and Values cat-
egory had the highest scores in terms of importance, but overall their adequacy level was
high as well. Especially Reliability, Integrity and Work ethics have been pointed out as
vital for the long-term viability of a business while facing crises situations. These values
are frequently mentioned in business training programs, but their practical cultivation
is a challenging task, and one that requires extensive theoretical and practical business
experience. A third set of conclusions is related to specific soft skills: the most important
soft skills were Communication; Decision making; Risk identification and assessment;
Financial management; and Planning and Organization. The lowest adequacies were
spotted in skills related to data management: accessing, extracting and processing infor-
mation; Data and information management and transformation; Evaluation, analysis and
synthesis of information and data. Low adequacies were recorded also in Impact analy-
sis and Time management. By order of importance, the ten skills with the largest mis-
match between importance and adequacy were Communication; Risk identification and
assessment; Financial Management; Planning and organisation; Customer-orientation;
Networking; Recovery Strategy; Time management; Mobilising Resources and Continu-

ous learning, and these may constitute priority areas for inclusion in training programs.
Another conclusion is that there were significant differences in the effects the COVID-
19 and other crises of the past between Polish and Greek enterprises. In regard to the
value of the specific skills, there were some differences in the population means and
especially, in terms of importance in Critical thinking; Empathy; and Ensuring public
health and consumer protection, while in terms of adequacy in Critical thinking; Self
Confidence; Leadership; and Communication. A final set of conclusions is related to the
replies of specific clusters of respondents. The owners or managers of businesses with
at least 40 years of operation placed increased emphasis in Critical thinking; Provid-
ing for health and safety at work; and Leadership and in terms of adequacy there were
favourable variances in Critical thinking; Customer-orientation; Networking; and Self-
confidence. The owners or managers with completed higher education had worth not-
ing importance variance in Self-confidence and adequacy variance in Critical thinking.
Finally, the owners or managers who auto assessed their business’s resilience as very
high, had a lower Effect from the COVID-19 crisis. The current research and the gen-
eralizability of its results are limited by the sample size and the margin of error (± 6%);
however, a future research on a larger sample may shed further light on the topic of soft
skills and SME resilience.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks for the data collection and methodology development to Mr Morten Møller, Mr Ilias Georgopoulos, Ms
Elmira Alija Richard, Mr Syros Koskovolis, Ms Eleni Tzoka Stecka, Ms Kasia Gierczak, Mr Konrad Bugiera, Ms Amparo Martin,
Ms Hirvonen Armi and Mr Laitinen Janne.
Author contributions
PK is the author of the article. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This research was conducted on the framework of the ERASMUS + project «Resilience and rescue skills for SMEs,
strengthening Early Warning Europe» with the acronym «ResC-EWE», and in particular in the context of 3rd Work Pack-
age “Needs definition, skills mapping and concept design, which was led by IME GSEVEE, the Hellenic Confederation of
Professionals, Craftsmen and Merchants.
Availability of data and materials

Anonymized data are available upon request.
Declarations
Competing interests
There are no competing interest.
Received: 10 June 2021 Accepted: 16 May 2023
References
Adger, W. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.
Aidis, R., & Mickiewicz, T. (2006). Entrepreneurs, Expectations and Business Expansion: Lessons from Lithuania. Europe Asia
Studies, 58(6), 855–880.
Ates, A., & Bititci, U. (2011). Change process: A key enabler for building resilient SMEs. International Journal of Production
Research, 49(18), 5601–5618.
Barkhatova, N. (2000). Russian Small Business, Authorities and the State. Europe-Asia Studies, 52(4), 657–676.
Beech, N., Devins, D., Gold, J., & Beech, S. (2019). In the Family way: An exploration of family business resilience. Interna-
tional Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(1), 160–182.
Bishop, P., & Shilcof, D. (2017). The spatial dynamics of new firm births during an economic crisis: The case of Great Britain,
2004–2012. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 29(3/4), 215–237.
Biswas, P., & Baptista, A. (2012). Institutions and micro-enterprises demography: A study of selected EU countries,
1997–2006. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 25(3), 283–306.
Bonanno, G. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after
extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.
Bowey, J., & Easton, G. (2007). Entrepreneurial social capital unplugged: An activity based analysis. International Small
Business Journal, 25(3), 273–306.
Branicki, L. J., Sullivan-Taylor, B., & Livschitz, S. R. (2018). How entrepreneurial resilience generates resilient SMEs. Interna-
tional Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 24(7), 1244–1263.
Buliga, O., Scheiner, C. W., & Voigt, K. (2016). Business model innovation and organizational resilience: Towards an inte-
grated conceptual framework. Journal of Business Economics, 86(6), 647–670.
Burnard, K., & Bhamra, R. (2011). Organisational resilience: Development of a conceptual framework for organisational
responses. International Journal of Production Research, 49(8), 5581–5599.
CEDEFOP. (2020). European Skills Index. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/tools/european-skills-index Accessed 20 May
2020.
Chrisman, J., Chua, J., & Steier, L. (2011). Resilience of family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
35(6), 1107–1119.
Danes, S. (2013). Entrepreneurship success: ‘the lone ranger’ versus ‘it takes a village’ approach? Entrepreneurship Research
Journal, 3(3), 277–285.
Davidsson, P., Low, M., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s Introduction: Low and MacMillan Ten Years On: Achievements and
Future Directions for Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5.
De Vries, H., & Shields, M. (2006). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial resilience: An analysis of New Zealand SME Owner-
Operators. The New Zealand Journal of Applied Business, 5(1), 33–44.
Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. The Quarterly Journal of Econom-
ics, 117(1), 1–37.
European Commission. (2003). Green paper: Entrepreneurship in Europe, Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions, COM (03).
European Commission. (2020). European Classification of Skills/Competences, Qualifications and Occupations—ESCO.
https://esco.ec.europa.eu/el Accessed 18May 2020.
European Commission. (2022). Entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). https://single-market-
economy.ec.europa.eu/smes_en Accessed 20 May 2020.
European Commission, JRC Science Hub (Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y.& Van den Brande, G.) (2016). EntreComp:
The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101581
Accessed 15 May 2020.
Ghosh, N., & Rajaram, G. (2015). Developing emotional intelligence for entrepreneurs: The role of entrepreneurship devel-
opment programs. South Asian Journal of Management, 22(4), 85–100.
Granig, P., & Hilgarter, K. (2020). Organisational resilience: A qualitative study about how organisations handle trends and
their effects on business models from experts’ views. International Journal of Innovation Science, 12(5), 525–544.
Hamel, G., & Välikangas, L. (2003). The quest for resilience. Harvard Business Review, 81, 52–63.
Hedner, T., Abouzeedan, A., & Klofsten, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial resilience. Annals of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
2(1), 1–4.
Hellenic Confederation of Professionals, Craftsmen and Merchants (IME GSEVEE) (Litzeris, P.) (2019). Typology of “skills mix”
for analysis and monitoring in selected professions, Athens.
Hiles, A. (2014). Business Continuity Management (4th ed.). Rothstein Publishing.
Hirt, M., Laczkowski, K. & Mysore, M. (2019). Bubbles pop, downturns stop, McKinsey Quarterly, May 2019. https://www.
mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/bubbles-pop-downturns-stop
Accessed 20 May 2020.
Hmieleski, K., Carr, J., & Baron, R. (2015). Integrating discovery and creation perspectives of entrepreneurial action: The
relative roles of founding CEO human capital, social capital, and psychological capital in contexts of risk versus
uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 289–312.
Holling, C. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D., & Leveson, N. (2006). Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate.
Juettner, U., & Maklan, S. (2011). Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: An empirical study. Supply Chain
Management, 16(4), 246–259.
Korber, S., & McNaughton, R. (2018). Resilience and entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 24(7), 1129–1154.
Lee, J., & Wang, J. (2017). Developing entrepreneurial resilience: Implications for human resource development. European
Journal of Training and Development, 41(6), 519–539.
Lengnick-Hall, C., Beck, T., & Lengnick-Hall, M. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic
human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.
Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: A review of influential publications and a
research agenda: Resilience in business and management research. International Journal of Management Reviews,
19(1), 1–27.
Manyena, S. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434–450.
Moss, P., & Tilly, C. (1996). ‘“Soft”’ skills and race: An investigation of black men’s employment problems. Work and Occupa-
tions, 23(3), 252–276.
Ngoasong, M., & Kimbu, A. (2016). Informal microfinance institutions and development-led tourism entrepreneurship.
Tourism Management, 52, 430–439.
Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N., & Bansal, P. (2016). The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable busi-
ness practices. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1615–1631.
Petrakis, P. E., & Kostis, P. C. (2015). Τhe role of knowledge and trust in SMEs. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(1),
105–124.
Sabatino, M. (2016). Economic crisis and resilience: Resilient capacity and competitiveness of the enterprises. Journal of
Business Research, 69(5), 1924–1927.
Sheffi, Y. (2007). The resilient enterprise: Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. The MIT Press.
Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B. (2005). A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41(1), 41–48.
Sincorá, L. A., Valadares de Oliveira, M. P., & Zanquetto-Filho, H. (2018). Business analytics leveraging resilience in organiza-
tional processes. RAUSP Management Journal, 53(3), 385–403.
Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266.
Smallbone, D., Deakins, D., & Battisti, M. (2012). Small business responses to a major economic downturn: empirical
perspectives from New Zealand and the UK. International Small Business Journal, 3(5), 754–777.
Sobel, R. S. (2008). Testing Baumol: Institutional Quality and the Productivity of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 23(6), 641–655.
St-Jean, E., & Audet, J. (2012). The role of mentoring in the learning development of the novice entrepreneur. Interna-
tional Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(1), 119–140.
Sutcliffe, K., & Vogus, T. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (1st ed., pp. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler.
Teixeira, E. O., & Werther, W. B. (2013). Resilience: Continuous renewal of competitive advantages. Business Horizons, 56(3),
333–342.
Torres, A., Marshall, M., & Sydnor, S. (2019). Does social capital pay off? The case of small business resilience after Hurricane
Katrina. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27(2), 168–181.
Vaillant, Y., & Lafuente, E. (2007). Do different institutional frameworks condition the influence of local fear of failure and
entrepreneurial examples over entrepreneurial activity? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9(4), 313–337.
Walker, B., Holling, C., Carpenter, S. & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological
systems, Ecology and Society, 9(2).
Weber, M. R., Crawford, A., Rivera, D., Jr., & Finley, D. A. (2011). Using Delphi panels to assess soft skill competencies in
entry level managers. Journal of Tourism Insights, 1(1), 98–106.
Wishart, M. (2018). Business resilience in an SME context: A literature review. Enterprise Research Centre.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Business Resilience Skills For SMEs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Resilience Skills For SMEs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Resilience Skills For SMEs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kotsios ﻿ Journal of Innovation and

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:37

RESEARCH Open Access

Business resilience skills for SMEs

private companies, sectoral organisations, chambers of commerce, national and regional

• The literature review on business resilience.

Table 1 Skills’ list

General skills (GS) Cognitive of higher level Goal Setting

Table 2 Year of establishment

Results and discussion

Table 3 Number of employees

0–9 Micro 187 75.40

Table 4 Respondents’ age groups

Table 6 Marital status

Married 214 83.27

Table 7 Number of Children

Table 8 Highest educational level completed

Table 9 Training and resilience questions

Business training importance 8.45

Table 10 Skills average importance, adequacy and mismatch by order of importance

1 CAV Reliability 9.50 8.82 0.68

Comparison between countries

Table 11 Comparison between Poland and Greece

Generic Questions Business training importance 7.86 8.81 − 0.95

Data and information management and transformation 7.91 8.06 − 0.16

Seeking advice–Receptiveness–Openness Importance 8.45 8.80 − 0.35

Table 12 Cluster analysis

n = 266 n = 12 n = 176 n = 109

n = 266 n = 12 n = 176 n = 109

n = 266 n = 12 n = 176 n = 109

• In Group 1—owners or managers of businesses with at least 40 years of operation—

Networking; Recovery Strategy; Time management; Mobilising Resources and Continu-

Availability of data and materials

Received: 10 June 2021 Accepted: 16 May 2023

You might also like

Kotsios Journal of Innovation and