Management Accounting Professionals in the SMART Economy

Filos (2006) defined the smart organisation “as the threshold for distinguishing winners from losers in the digital economy”. The European Commission juxtaposed the smart organisation with one that is knowledge-driven, learning, connected to the global Internet, dynamically adapting to new organisational practices and forms, and agile in creating and exploiting opportunities offered in the digital environment (Filos, 2006). A smart organization is a dynamic entity adept at generating, obtaining, organizing, and disseminating both codified and non-codified knowledge. It harnesses this knowledge to enhance operational efficiency, promote sustainability, and bolster competitiveness within the global marketplace. It has a clear strategic vision, culture, and a supportive incentive system for attaining achievements of a social and environmental nature (Matheson et al., 1998; Stępień et al., 2023). Smart organisations are equated with success, the fulfilment of successfully intended goals, and this is due to the creation and selection of information from their own and external. The professional vision thus obtained is used to modify organisational behaviour and build internal structures to transfer and apply the accumulated knowledge effectively. Adamik (2020) defined a smart organisation as “a continuous process of organisational improvement in structure and method of operation, implemented through methodical acquisition and application of knowledge to survive and grow sustainably”.

A smart organisation, however, cannot just be an “island unto itself”. It is a network of other organisations forming alliances with suppliers, customers, employees, and competitors. As a rule, an organisation in a network or cluster is characterised by flat hierarchies, dynamic structures, empowerment of individuals, and high respect for individual capabilities, intellect, and knowledge (Filos, 2006). Carley (2001) stressed that one of the essential skills of this type of organisation in the era of Industry 4.0. is precisely the creation and development of business networking. It is fostered by a knowledge environment formed by ICT hardware, software, human resources, data, and information (Adamik & Sikora-Fernandez, 2021). As a result, smart organisations include three components: the ICT, the organisational, and the knowledge dimensions. Networking at the ICT level enables organisations to move to extended or virtual organisational forms and, within them, build cross-functional teams. The knowledge dimension refers to sharing information of people working in different teams, which is related to the integration and complementarity of competencies. The organisational dimension is associated with the flexibility and agility of teams, which, through cooperation, shape partnerships to effectively achieve strategic goals and create added value (Filos, 2006). Goldman et al. (1995) identified four strategic dimensions of agile behaviour that are key to smart organisations. These are customer focus, commitment to intra- and inter-organisational collaboration, organising to master change and uncertainty, and leveraging the influence of people (entrepreneurial culture) and knowledge (intellectual capital).

In addition to the network structure promoted for smart organisations, a hierarchical structure is still visible in the market. Therefore, viewing this entity as a hyper-connected organisation is the best solution. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), it can maximise (hierarchical) efficiency at the corporate level and network teams as scale and complexity increase while maintaining the ability to create value.

Smart organisations require smart management along with smart methods for them to fulfil the role they are called to play. Smart management has a link to active management theory grounded in finance. According to it, smart management requires the manager to manage the organisation and its areas flexibly and efficiently to ensure competitive advantage and profitability despite risks and constraints. Although such an explanation can be considered common to management, smart management requires a change in mechanisms that will allow more efficient use of resources, including modern methods and technologies for analysing and processing information, and ensure cooperation between advanced technology and human capital.

In the literature, references can be found to specific areas of smart management, i.e., in transportation or supply chain (Stefansson & Lumsden, 2008; Wu et al., 2016). These cases emphasise smart management's importance in adding value and identifying key elements that fulfil this direction. Big data, Internet of Thing infrastructure, advanced analytics, data mining and business intelligence, automation, digitization, standardization, streamlining, openness to data exchange, integration, process, and product innovation (Wu et al., 2016). Stefansson and Sternberg (2007), on the other hand, pointed out that close cooperation with partners, mutual exchange of data and information through shared and decentralized databases, and, thanks to the technologies supporting this process, practical application of information for planning, control, and real-time decision-making are the keys to the success of smart management. Associated with smart management is the achievement of goals, which should be by the SMART concept, i.e., specifiable, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (MacLeod, 2012). By formulating goals using the SMART concept, one can be sure of achieving organizational success, which will be reflected in high performance. This includes nonfinancial perspective, i.e., performances in the sphere of environment and society. However, it is impossible to shape smart organizations and implement smart management to achieve SMART goals without smart human resources and smart work. Smart prospects are the result of the development of technology, including the application of advanced smart solutions flowing from the concept of Industry 4.0. (Cascio & Montealegre, 2016).

The competitive advantage of companies will depend not only on the adaptation of innovative technologies but also on changes in labour, work environment, and human resource strategies. The placement of human beings in the environment of Industry 4.0 has given rise to the smart human resource, where smart human manifests itself in the critical treatment of the human, the intangible. In contrast, resources point to human knowledge, know-how, and their application to achieve greater productivity and self-esteem (Abellán-Sevilla & Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, 2023). The idea of smart human resources in business, in turn, has defined the smart worker or smart worker 4.0 (Abellán-Sevilla & Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, 2023; Pillai & Srivastava, 2022; Errichiello & Pianese, 2018). The main intention of operating an employee in a technology environment is to support and maximize his or her potential, thus making him or her do his or her job more smartly. This may also involve eliminating operational, repetitive activities with low added value. According to Meindl et al. (2021), smart working refers to employees' use of advanced technological solutions (artificial intelligence (AI), cloud, big data, automation, standardization) to support decision-making processes, manage knowledge, stimulate creativity, and design and enhance employee safety and satisfaction. All these skills are the foundation for the development of Industry 5.0, which assumes high use of robotics and AI, focusing more on human-machine collaboration, sustainability, and social responsibility. A smart employee is an employee who performs work differently, using digital tools, but also possesses specific skills and abilities (Dornelles et al., 2022). According to Errichiello & Pianese, (2018), smart work manifests itself in flexibility, that is, doing work regardless of time and place, translating into remote work. Smart work means flexible schedules, locations, and forms of employment (Hassan, 2016). Flexibility at work is fostered by the following elements: the redesign of physical workspaces along with information and communication technologies for employees and significant changes in employees' work procedures and traditional management (Clapperton & Vanhoutte, 2014). These are called the three levers: bricks of Bytes and Behavior, which refer to the physical, technological, and behavioural dimensions (Clapperton & Vanhoutte, 2014; De Kok, 2016). Orlikowski (1992) also pointed out that smart work is based on a combination of at least two elements: institution, location, and technology. According to the researcher, smart work is carried away from offices and factories, where employees communicate with others through new technology.

Smart working, in effect, can mean an atypical style of work that does not fit into the standard form of employment, i.e., telecommuting, telework, e-work, mobile work, but is expected to generate benefits for both parties (Robertson & Vink, 2012; Rudolph & Schröder, 2003). Hassan (2016) defined a conceptual framework for smart work. These include work policy change, application, managerial support, measurement, and feedback. Smart working responds to changing economic and social transformations, including adopting family-friendly solutions and work-life balance. Smart working is more effective for assessing and monitoring workload and achievements. In addition, employees have a better sense of well-being, resulting in more effective cooperation (Coffey et al., 2016). This is also supported by the research of Golden (2012), who emphasises that smart working improves employees' health and well-being and gives work or life satisfaction without raising ongoing labour costs and even improving work efficiency. Smart working is bound by autonomy, which is referred to as backbone. It is intended to proactively foster strategic goal achievement (Boute & Van Mieghem, 2019).

Smart working creates opportunities to work more efficiently and effectively, increasing organisational performance. It refers to “new ways of working made possible by technological advances and made necessary by economic, environmental, and social pressures” (Hassan, 2016). It appears to be, as Morsi (2002) (as cited in Hassan, 2016) states, “the best way to face rapidly changing business demands and remain competitive”. Smart working defines smart workers who have flexible skills. They are well-informed and well-connected through technology, and they do not work under strict director supervision but more as partners, which promotes self-actualisation, better self-perception, and satisfaction, thus leading to business growth (Hassan, 2016).

Smart working for competent workers means adapting advanced and innovative technologies by organisations and using them with soft skills, namely flexibility, openness, partnership, willingness to self-development and continuous learning, and emotional intelligence. This means that socio-emotional skills are essential for the formation of smart workers.

Organisations that want to achieve the smart title must ensure that working conditions are adapted to a smart environment through technology and that employees are retrained or upgraded. Employees operating in smart organisations and working conditions should have specific characteristics and approaches. In particular, they emphasise lifelong learning, open-mindedness, creativity, and elasticity in adapting to change and good decision-making (Kumar, 2017), and enhancing work productivity. Adamik and Fernandez-Sikora (2021) stressed that smart employees working under the conditions of concept Industry 4.0 should have the following competencies and skills: subject matter knowledge, ability to learn, ability to work in a team, ability to work in a multicultural environment, ability to work remotely, knowledge of foreign languages and IT, ability to share knowledge, and in attitudes they see such as attitude to continuous development, goal orientation, openness to new experiences, creativity, flexible thinking, agility, high tolerance for uncertainty and sociability. Writing about competencies and skills, it is worth recalling Barbar and Plucker (2002), according to whom such labels as intelligence, expertise, ability, and talent inhibit the evolution and contextual nature of the individual-environment relationship (social, cultural, ecological, relational). According to the researchers, these constructs can be described more as functional relationships acquired, updated during various transactions, through which individuals appear to possess knowledge and skills. In addition, some traits are established within the individual, in a sense “innate”. If correctly grasped and guided during transactions, they can shape an individual with the given labels of intelligence or expertise, which were previously perceived differently. In this regard, the characteristics of smart workers, who rely mainly on networking and interaction in their work, should be described through traits, attitudes, or nature/disposition.

In addition to the traits that define smart workers, personality and its components are expressed in behaviour and interactions with others and a given situation. Tupes and Christal (1961) grouped five traits of smart human beings, which also translates to workers. These are flexibility, extroversion and openness, emotional stability, awareness (dependability), and culture and intellect. The same characteristics were indicated by McCrae & Costa (1991), i.e., extraversion of neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. Based on the indicated personality types, (Kumar, 2017) set a specific framework for the characteristics and roles of smart people in smart cities. This model can be transferred to smart workers in smart organisations.

As a result, the extrovert dimension of personality implies better interpersonal skills, readiness for change, and proactive decision-making, which translates into better leadership, teamwork, and willingness to take on new projects. Under agreeableness is understood as the development of cooperation, organisation, confidence, contentment, and harmony. Conscientiousness stands for focus, responsibility, dependability, interest in novelty, skating better organisation, and success. Emotional stability is expressed through satisfaction with life and work, low stress levels, calmness, confidence, and optimism. These traits influence better control of emotions, while an optimistic attitude and composure alleviate conflictual and unclear circumstances. The last dimension is openness to experience, creativity, curiosity, sensitivity, or innovation. Each dimension is conducive to fulfilling roles in a smart environment. For example, the first dimension of personality translates into better performance and smarter use of ICT infrastructure and services, respectively; the second dimension allows the formation of a friendly and satisfying work environment; the third dimension boils down to improving work organisation and following a plan, the fourth dimension enables one to go through difficulties in a “painless” way.

In contrast, the fifth dimension contributes to developing innovation and creating a sustainable work environment (Kumar, 2017). As a result, it can be concluded that a smart personality is a personality with a positive attitude, empathy, and support. It can be possessed by both an extrovert and an introvert (Montag & Elhai, 2019). In the latter's case, it is worth adding that technology that enables long-distance communication can influence increased openness so that smart organisations can favour introverts in presentations and discussions in the broader group. On the other hand, considering the four types of temperaments and their characteristics, i.e., choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic, and melancholic, it can be concluded that sanguine is the most appropriate for a smart environment. It is a confident, extroverted (outward-facing), relatively stable person whose main characteristics include being sociable, open, talkative, sensitive, relaxed, full of life, and a leader. It is a strong, balanced type but simultaneously empathetic and self-distant (Strelau, 1985).

Smart workers are not only associated with intellect and possession of textbook knowledge. Smart workers are a certain kind of personality predisposition, character, and abilities, which together translate into the ability to, among other things, perform different tasks, enter different roles and different cooperations, and work both independently and in a group. A smart worker should have non-spiritual abilities and social-emotional skills, such as conscientiousness or emotional stability (Bergner, 2020; He et al., 2019). Salgado et al. (Salgado-Gálvez et al., 2013) position that higher cognitive abilities lead to tremendous success at work and are more critical when significant intellectual challenges characterise the job. In contrast, Seibert et al., (1999) emphasise that under conditions of greater individual freedom of action, such conditions are created by smart working, social-emotional, or character-related skills that are crucial. The researchers point out that they perform well in unpredictable and challenging situations. So, they can be instrumental in today's dynamic, changing, unexpected business and economic conditions. Berger (2020) confirmed this thesis in her research, pointing out that social-emotional skills, particularly openness, go beyond cognitive ability in the context of predictive entrepreneurship. In her view, more than intelligence in terms of intellectual wisdom is needed to become an entrepreneur, for example. However, an individual must also be open-minded, curious, and like unconventional ideas and viewpoints (i.e., openness).

A smart worker is an agile worker embedded in a smart environment identified with elements of Industry 4.0, i.e., can quickly adopt and understand new technology and work with it effectively. A smart worker is also a business partner who can talk to co-workers and contractors, i.e., has his arguments and listens. A smart worker is also a “lifelong employee” who, although he knows that the company's high achievements are essential, such a perspective does not blind his eyes to observing the world and society and using his own experiences to improve the business and professional environment. A smart worker is different from the best or ideal employee, including not making mistakes but being a practical, sustainable, and social human being. Smart workers are best reflected by the statement (Kumar, 2017), “A person may have a brilliant mind and an outstanding intelligence, but with certain personality traits, a person cannot be one of the smart people”.

Considering the ideas of smart organisation, smart management, and smart workers, a suitable example is the silhouette of a management accountant. A management accountant plays an important role in the organisation, as he is most generally predisposed to support business activities. This factor distinguished him from the general profession of the accountant, who books and deals with taxes and financial reporting (Riahi-Belkaoui, 2018). The role lof the management accountant has also been and continues to be subject to change due to the evolution of economies and socio-business trends. Initially, they were responsible for planning and controlling economic processes; in the long run, their function was seen as holistic management support (Byrne & Pierce, 2007). At the same time, it was mainly reduced to preparing internal reports and analyses without active involvement in management and decision-making. Management accountants were perceived as aloof professionals confined to their department and, in many cases, as a certain “enemy” to other employees due to the constant pressure to reduce costs to ensure business profitability - an operational orientation (Burns & Vaivio, 2001; Parker, 2000). In recent years, the image of management accountants has been “warmed up” due to the emphasis on its business approach, that is, actively supporting the management and decision-making process (Granlund & Lukka, 1998; Taylor & Scapens, 2016). The management accountant has thus changed his image from the so-called “bean counter” to “business partner” or even “change agent” (Byrne & Pierce, 2007; Granlund & Lukka, 1998). The new perception of the specialist in question signifies a growing emphasis on a more strategic, forward-looking perspective of the organisation, whose goals can be realised through internal and external collaborative efforts (Wadan et al., 2019). Mistry et al. (2014), as well as Albelda (2011), have paid particular attention to the role of management accounting practice toward the development and support of sustainability, which involves expanding reporting and analysis, new tools and metrics for measuring achievements, i.e., not only targeting financial, but also non-financial aspects, and orienting management and decision-making toward environmental and social aspects, not just economic, and therefore value rather than exclusive profitability. Opinions and studies, for example, by CIMA or Adams and Frost (2008), show that management accounting practices have been and continue to be guided by the core values of economic prosperity.

As a result, several rationales are being presented (regulations, greater expectations for managers to orient management toward sustainability, voices of accounting professionals), emphasising the need for management accountants to engage in sustainability actively (Mistry et al., 2014; Wijethilake et al., 2017). Perhaps such a perspective will emerge in a new role for the management accounting professional, such as a “social partner”. Thus, the practice of management accounting is further evaluated in the direction of value and strategic management, and this trend may be fostered by the smart environment, which is based on the concept of I4.0., i.e., advanced and smart technologies. Its framework assumes the availability of necessary information in real-time thanks to integrating various network links that circulate value or value chains (Wadan et al., 2019). Structural changes require management changes, and thus, changes in the role and perception of the management accountant being an active link in management. Jedrzejka (2019) stresses that accounting shows significant potential for automatisation and robotisation, which will translate into a change like tasks from specialists in this field towards business consulting and automation management or management consultant. The transformation in the sphere of tasks, where even tighter integration of management accounting with financial accounting and management, more intensive coordination of internal and external processes and data thanks to technology, and the need to share knowledge will affect the emergence of new roles and a new walkthrough of qualities and competencies that the “new” management accountant should possess in the so-called digital environment (Schäffer & Weber, 2015). Yazdifar and Tsamaney (2005) now emphasise the importance of coordination competencies, strategic thinking, systems knowledge and IT scope, business knowledge, and interpretive skills. However, the Industry 4.0 environment will deepen their essence and form new characteristics of management accountants. For example, Gänßlen et al. (2013) highlight the importance of knowledge in statistics (regression, time series, or clustering) and computer science, social and communication skills, and a holistic understanding of business. Sauter et al. (Sauter et al., 2015), on the other hand, assume the importance of skills in forecasting and predictive analytics of management accountants, resulting from the development of Big Data and automation of temporal management accounting tasks. Practice representatives have a similar outlook, claiming that the idea of Industry 4.0, of which automation is a part, promotes transparency and optimisation of management accounting processes. According to them, management accountants will not have to focus on reporting but on analysis, interpretation, and the essence of communication and partnership, i.e., soft skills will increase. The analysis results of job advertisements for the management accountant position provide similar trends. There is a decrease in the importance of data collection and reporting tasks and an increase in the importance of budgeting, decision-making, and communication. In addition, MS Excel, VBA, and SQL skills dominate over SAP ERP/R3 (Wadan et al., 2019). According to Wadan et al. (2019), management accountants are not fully prepared to work in the Industry 4.0 environment, so they pointed out some predispositions that the specialist should have to be effective in the new environment. These include IT handling, Data warehousing, programming, coding, MS Excel with VBA, SQL, Data Mining, predictive and static analysis and forecasting, budgeting, decision-making partnership, communication, sure appearance, and project management. Industry 5.0 requires supporting societal goals beyond jobs and growth (Garrido et al., 2024), which means that requirements for smart management accountants will also change in this respect. The involvement of management accountants in implementing and assessing sustainability and corporate social initiatives will increase. The need to combine skills that require working closely with high-level IT tools, including AI, while maintaining the high standards of human centrism and resilience, shape the future portrait of the smart management accountant Industry 5.0.

Taking into account the current consideration of the new role of management accountants, which is indicated in the literature mainly by its two designations, i.e., “business partner” or “change agent”, one can ask whether this is sufficient to be a practical management accountant in the new conditions defined by digitalisation, automation, robotisation, and artificial intelligence. It may be closer to describing the specialist in question as management accountant 4.0. The answer is complex, as one can view these roles differently. In a sense, the management accountant has always been a partner, only in the hitherto targeted narrow audience, and today, adopting a more open attitude. In addition, only some management accountants are necessarily predisposed to be a business partner, as certain character traits of an individual may limit this role for it to be performed effectively. The management accountant was also an agent of change, as he identified bottlenecks in the business and the need to reduce them, but this was more of a passive role rather than an active one. On the other hand, management accounting 4.0 and 5.0 may have too technical an overtone. What term most reflects the future management accountant and his role in the organisation? Considering the dynamically developing idea of a smart environment in conjunction with the era of Industry 4.0 and sustainability, it would be most adventurous to see the management accountant as a SMART specialist.