Managing change in the era of digital transformation. The case of Greek public sector

The dynamic interplay of evolving socio-economic conditions and the profound influence of globalization necessitates a paradigm shift towards more effective and efficient public administration (Kochanova et al., 2020; Ktistaki, 2014). Under the influence of contemporary administrative paradigms such as New Public Management, New Public Governance, New Public Service, and Public Value (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011), public administration is increasingly characterized by an operational focus, prioritizing the attainment of high administrative performance (Andrews and Van de Walle, 2013; Rossidis, 2014). Electronic Governance (E-Governance) and subsequently Digital Governance have emerged as key tools in this evolutionary process, as they present the potential to significantly improve the provision of public services (Clarke, 2020; Yeo, 2009). This enhancement is manifested through reductions in administrative processing times and improvements in the overall quality of service provision (Volodina and Grossi, 2024).

Within this broader context, public organizations, both domestically and internationally, have prioritized the advancement of digital transformation (Haug et al., 2024; Hanelt et al., 2021). This strategic focus involves the integration of information technologies within the public sector, aiming to achieve substantial performance gains compared to historical precedents (United Nations, 2018; Qian, 2018). The effort to digitize administrative processes is a particularly important goal of many governments, leading to increased use of new digital technologies and consequently to the integration of more technological changes in the public sector (Enang et al., 2020; Rooks et al., 2017; Clarke, 2020).

Westerman et al. (2014) contend that digital transformation is not a straightforward linear progression. Effective leadership necessitates the cultivation of diverse skillsets and the dynamic reallocation of resources. To navigate this complex landscape, Westerman et al. (2014) propose a “digital transformation compass” – a framework designed to guide organizations on a path of successful digital evolution. Two pivotal components of this compass are: (1) “Framing the Digital Challenge” and (2) “Sustaining the Transition.” The initial stage involves cultivating organizational awareness of digital opportunities and formulating a shared digital vision that all stakeholders must adhere to. The subsequent stage focuses on establishing foundational skills, implementing appropriate reward systems, and ultimately overcoming traditional organizational obstacles through ongoing monitoring, performance measurement, and iterative adaptation of strategies (Stone et al., 2020).

Despite a substantial body of scholarly work investigating technology acceptance and readiness for change within the past decade, a significant gap in knowledge persists regarding effective strategies for enhancing employees' intentional digital readiness within the contemporary digital labor landscape (Hoyng and Lau, 2023; Vakola, 2013). Digital readiness is defined as the level of readiness of an organization's workforce to transition into digitized workflows enabled by software and technology, consisting of three components: culture, process and technology (Ogbevoen, 2024). Furthermore, recent scholarly discourse emphasizes the imperative to investigate third-variable mediation effects to elucidate the precise mechanisms through which antecedents influence readiness for change (Kirrane et al., 2017; Oreg et al., 2011). Moreover, a robust theoretical framework for comprehensively examining the factors that enhance employees' intentional digital readiness remains conspicuously absent.

This study contributes to the literature on organizational change in three connected ways. To begin with, previous studies have mainly treated organizational framing, sustainment, readiness, and digital integration as separate entities. However, this research is among the first to test all four constructs simultaneously within a single structural model. Moreover, it would not be just a methodological preference, but also a theoretical one: change management frameworks that focus on framing without sustainment or readiness, or on integration outcomes without sustainment or readiness, might end up prescribing only incomplete solutions for practice. By showing the full sequential path from organizational conditions to employee readiness and integration success, the paper reveals the conditional and sequential relationships that partial models fail to capture. Moreover, it takes a step in a different direction from previous findings that employee readiness would be a full mediator of the relationship among framing, sustainment, and digital integration. The findings revealed that public-sector characteristics, namely institutional and bureaucratic structures, have a direct influence on digital integration outcomes, bypassing individual-level psychological readiness. The authors explain how this finding leads to a re-interpretation and extension of Holt et al.'s (2007) readiness model and Vakola's (2013) multilevel framework in the public sector, situations that private-sector studies have overlooked. Besides, the Greek public sector is not only a convenient empirical site but also constitutes a valuable institutional setting from a theoretical point of view. Greece's membership of the EU brings digital transformation mandates, but at the same time, the country scores low on the DESI and faces entrenched administrative inertia and underdeveloped digital infrastructure, thereby creating structural conditions largely absent from studies of Northern and Western European public administrations. This difference enables the research to identify the framing and sustainment effects that are theoretically invisible in high-readiness contexts and to provide insights that could be useful to other low-digitization public administrations in Southern and Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

After extensive research, it was found that there are particularly limited studies in these fields, especially combining organizational framing (in the Westerman et al. sense), sustainment, readiness for change, and digital integration within a single structural model in the public sector. More specifically, a review of the existing empirical literature reveals that the four constructs examined in this study — organizational framing, sustainment, readiness, and digital integration — have been investigated in three largely separate research streams that have not yet converged into an integrated model. The first stream, rooted in organizational psychology and implementation science, has examined readiness for change as a predictor of implementation success, primarily at the individual or team level (Armenakis et al., 1993; Holt et al., 2007; Weiner, 2009), but has not systematically connected this readiness to the upstream organizational conditions — framing and sustainment — that generate it. The second stream, rooted in strategic management and digital transformation scholarship, has examined how leadership vision and organizational capability-building drive transformation outcomes (Westerman et al., 2014; Teece et al., 1997), but has done so predominantly in private-sector contexts and without incorporating employee readiness as the psychological mediating mechanism linking organizational conditions to behavioral outcomes. The third stream, rooted in public administration and e-government research, has identified critical success factors for digital transformation in government organizations (Almuhaideb et al., 2025; Jonathan, 2020), but has treated these factors as independent predictors rather than as components of an integrated sequential model in which framing generates readiness, sustainment enables it, and readiness mediates the path to integration. The separation of these three streams reflects two structural features of the literature: first, a disciplinary divide between management scholars who study organizational strategy and psychologists who study employee attitudes; and second, a sectoral divide between private-sector studies that operationalize digital transformation success in competitive market terms and public-sector studies that are constrained by institutional and governance logics that differ fundamentally from corporate settings (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Van der Voet et al., 2015). The present study bridges these three streams for the first time by testing all four constructs within a single structural model in a public-sector context, thereby addressing a gap that is not merely combinatorial but theoretically meaningful: understanding how organizational conditions are sequentially translated into psychological readiness and ultimately into successful digital integration requires precisely the kind of integrated model that the fragmentation of prior literature has made impossible to produce.

Hence, the research questions of this research are as follow:

By answering these research questions, our study comprehensively examines the relationship between digital organizational frame, digital sustainment, readiness to digital change, and their combined effect on successful implementation, thereby filling a crucial gap in knowledge. This holistic approach provides a more nuanced understanding of the factors driving successful digital change. By providing empirical evidence, our research offers concrete insights into the relationships between these variables. This evidence can support or challenge existing theories and provide a basis for developing best practices for digital transformation in public organizations. Finally, this article contributes to the broader field of organizational studies by advancing our understanding of digital transformation, a phenomenon that is reshaping organizations across sectors.

Indeed, the study specifically advances the practice of change management as an organizational method: first, it shows that framing, sustainment, and readiness are interdependent levers and not mere interventions; second, the paper contends that successful change management in digital reform involves integrated, sequenced strategies instead of piecemeal adoption of individual practices. In this respect, the study has immediate implications for public administrators who wish to use change management as a tool to navigate digital and organizational transformation, especially in settings where bureaucratic inertia and poor digital infrastructure are major factors.

In the first decades of internet use, Greece offered almost zero IT services (Spinellis, 2018). According to a study by the National Center for Social Research, this was due to a large extent to the very limited access of citizens to internet (in 1995, only 1% of residents in large urban centers had access to internet, while in the early 2000s the percentage had reached 21%) (Sarantis and Askounis, 2010). Today though, this picture has altered. According to new data, in Greece the percentage of users using internet has exceeded 70% (Tsekeris and Demertzis, 2020). However, the digital transformation process overall in Greece and especially in the public sector remains at particularly low levels (Katsikas and Gritzalis, 2017). Some of the most important reasons according to Rossidis et al. (2023) consist of problematic organizational culture, lack of infrastructure, high level of resistance to technological changes, weak levels of interoperability, absence of a long-term vision for Digital Governance and lack of know-how in relation to the implementation of digital reforms and technological changes (Spinellis, 2018).

The level of digital transformation is clearly reflected in the relative ranking of the country according to the DESI index (European Commission, 2022). The DESI index characterizes the progress of the EU Member States in the development of the digital economy and society (Stavytskyy et al., 2019). According to the DESI index from 2018 to 2022, Greece presents particularly low performance, being in the lowest positions of the European ranking) ^[1]. Figure 1 illustrates the DESI Index Scores of Greece vs the EU during the time period from 2018 to 2022.

The country's low ranking compared to the European average highlights the gravity of the problem and the need to find administrative solutions in order to achieve the goal of digital transition (Mihiotis and Rossidis, 2023). Greece, according to the most recent data (European Commission, 2024), is rapidly improving its digital transformation, taking advantage of the emerging conditions created during the period of Covid by improving its infrastructure and implementing targeted communication policies to convince citizens to use digital services (Rossidis and Belias, 2021). At a purely administrative level, a significant problem remains the difficulty of effectively integrating digital reforms by limiting resistance and improving the level of readiness of employees (Hanelt et al., 2021).

Digital transformation in public organizations demands integrated change management. Change management principles support employees through transformation, addressing resistance and facilitating adaptation (Rossidis et al., 2023). Empirical research highlights relationships between effective change management, employee commitment, and successful digital transformation outcomes (Hanelt et al., 2021).

However, although change management is widely recognized as vital, it is still rarely theorized as a formal organizational practice in the public sector, especially regarding digital transformation. In fact, public sector organizations are often constrained by institutional rigidities, bureaucratic path dependencies, and resource limitations, so their environments and conditions differ significantly from those in private-sector settings where most change management frameworks have been developed (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Van der Voet et al., 2015; Fattore et al., 2018)). This paper fills that void by investigating the main change management organizational tools, framing the challenge, sustaining the transition, and cultivating employee readiness, working together organically as a system in a public administration environment, and thus helping to develop a theory of change management as a means for organizational and digital reform that is more aware of the context.

Beyond the specific characteristics of the Greek context, a public-sector organization, considered as the organizational environment, theoretically gives a distinct context for studying the connections among organizational framing, sustainment, readiness, and digital integration – one that cannot be considered a straightforward application of private-sector findings. The four institutional differences are of particular relevance to the theory model proposed.

Firstly, public institutions are subject to statutory accountability measures that limit managers' or officials' ability to make independent decisions regarding resource allocation, restructuring incentives, and personnel management (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). Thus, sustainment mechanisms in public sector are comparable to their counterparts in private-industry frameworks will be hamstrung by structural limitations within the civil service setting. Hence, foundational capabilities will become a disproportionately more critical factor in influencing readiness and integration.

Secondly, the literature suggests that public-sector employees exhibit a motivational profile that differs systematically from that of private-sector employees (Crewson, 1997). Specifically, public employees tend to be motivated to a greater extent by Public Service Motivation (PSM), including commitment to the public interest, a sense of civic duty, and a desire to serve citizens, whereas private-sector employees place greater emphasis on extrinsic motivators, such as financial rewards, career advancement, and individual achievement (Vandenabeele et al., 2014). Accordingly, readiness for change, when viewed primarily as a function of anticipated personal benefits, may have less explanatory power in the public sector than in the private sector. Instead, public employees' attitudes toward organizational change are more likely to depend on whether they perceive a reform as enhancing public service quality, advancing the public interest, and supporting the organization's mission (Vandenabeele et al., 2014). Thirdly, digital transformation in the public sector is frequently experienced as an externally mandated reform rather than a strategically chosen organizational initiative, meaning that framing — the act of building internal awareness, shared vision, and perceived urgency — must overcome a legitimacy deficit that is largely absent in organizations where digital adoption is driven by competitive pressure (Mergel et al., 2019; Haug et al., 2024).

Finally, the public-sector organizations are part of an overarching institutional context such as legal regulations, the ways in which one governs through the sharing of power between two different agencies of government and a centralized administrative hierarchy, which directly affect the outcome of implementation without referring to employee psychological states (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). This has, of course, one main effect on mediation theory: in private-sector settings, a psychological element like individual readiness may almost entirely mediate the mechanism from organizational conditions through change success; but for public-sector environments that are heavily institutionalized, structural factors will still remain connected to integration outcomes in some way, even after taking account of people's attitudes and willingness to change (Vakola, 2013).

Together, these four points explain how the linkages among framing, sustainment, readiness, and integration function in a public-sector environment in a very specific and testable way. It goes far beyond what private-sector studies say, making this kind of research the model for one of the paper's main theoretical advances.

A significant barrier to successful digital transformation within public sector entities is the perceived lack of urgency for change (Haug et al., 2024). This perceived lack of urgency hinders organizational leaders from recognizing the critical need for adaptation and proactively shaping a desirable future state (Hanelt et al., 2021). To effectively navigate this challenge, leaders must cultivate an environment conducive to digital transformation (Stone et al., 2020). As emphasized by Westerman et al. (2014), organizational leaders must address three fundamental questions: understanding the potential threats and opportunities of digital technologies, assessing digital competencies and strategic assets, and creating a shared vision of the company's digital future.

The initial phase of framing the digital challenge, “Building Awareness,” necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the organizational impact of digital technologies by top management. This entails visualizing the profound transformative potential of these technologies and recognizing the immediate business opportunities they present. Furthermore, leaders must establish an appropriate tempo for digital transformation by developing programs that safeguard existing profitable operations while simultaneously facilitating the transition to a new digital organizational model (Westerman et al., 2014). Crucially, the awareness-building process must be experiential for all organizational members. Methodologies such as disruptive innovation analysis, scenario planning, digital discovery expeditions, and insights from external thought leaders can effectively facilitate organizational members' understanding of the potential threats and opportunities posed by digital technologies (Van der Voet et al., 2015).

Many organizations successfully navigate significant transitions not through radical overhauls but by strategically leveraging existing resources and competencies within the evolving digital landscape (Lember et al., 2019). Consequently, understanding the organization's current state is paramount for effective leadership. This necessitates an objective assessment of both digital and leadership capabilities. Leaders must critically evaluate not only their technological proficiency but also their ability to effectively guide organizational change (Westerman, 2022). By identifying and acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses in these critical areas, leaders can gain a more informed perspective on their organization's starting point, thereby enabling the strategic charting of the subsequent digital transformation journey (Westerman et al., 2014; Bonnet and Westerman, 2020).

The culmination of this process involves the formulation and dissemination of a shared digital vision across the entire organization. This vision must prioritize enhancing customer experience, streamlining operational processes, or a combination of both to facilitate organizational transformation. Moreover, the vision should acknowledge the organization's current state, including its existing competencies and cultural nuances. It must be strategically grounded in assets that will remain valuable in a digitalized future and possess a transformative character. Leaders should articulate a vision that clearly defines the necessary changes and outlines the anticipated positive outcomes for customers, employees, and overall organizational performance (Westerman et al., 2014; Buvat et al., 2018).

Large-scale transformation initiatives frequently falter due to a loss of momentum. Digital transformation is no exception. Successful implementation necessitates the integration of new digital practices across the entire organization, encompassing customer experience, operational processes, and work methodologies (Padovani et al., 2013). Westerman et al. (2014) propose that top leadership should consider critical questions to ensure the sustained success of digital transformation: developing digital skills, implementing reward structures, and removing organizational barriers (Gil-Garcia et al., 2018).

Prior to investing in the development of digital skills within the organization, leadership must first accurately assess the existing digital skills gap. This necessitates the implementation of a comprehensive skill inventory assessment to identify the organization's current skillset, the specific skill requirements for successful digital transformation, and the resulting gap between these two factors that must be addressed through targeted development initiatives (Bonnet and Westerman, 2020; Lundberg and Westerman, 2020). Creating a learning culture involves dedicating resources to continuous skill development, creating pathways for ongoing education, and implementing platforms that facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration (Clochard and Westerman, 2020).

Implementing effective reward structures requires recognizing and rewarding digital behaviors that align with transformation goals while addressing the fear of failure that can inhibit innovation. Organizations must redesign their reward systems to reinforce desired behaviors and outcomes (Crewson, 1997). Effective digital governance models assign clear leadership roles, establish strong cross-functional teams, and implement robust monitoring mechanisms (Berghaus and Back, 2017).

Digital transformation demands a fundamental cultural shift that requires strong leadership commitment. Leaders must not only articulate the vision but also model digital behaviors, communicate the importance of digital initiatives, and demonstrate genuine commitment through their actions and resource allocation decisions.

The scholarly literature on employee attitudes towards organizational change encompasses both negative and positive perspectives. Negative perspectives focus on resistance and coping with change (Eby et al., 2000; Oreg and Berson, 2019), requiring managerial leaders to build internal support and reduce resistance through widespread participation (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). Positive perspectives utilize terms such as readiness, openness, receptivity, and adaptability to change (Blau and Peled, 2012; Padovani et al., 2013).

Readiness for change has been defined variously in the literature (Vakola, 2014). Fixsen et al. (2009) posit it encompasses both ability and willingness to engage in specific activities. Holt (2000) defines it as the degree to which individuals possess mental and emotional capacity to accept and adopt proposed changes. Armenakis et al. (1999) conceptualize it as a cognitive precursor to supportive behaviors, reflecting willingness to embrace change. Common across these definitions is recognition of readiness as a positive employee attitude (Vakola, 2014).

Readiness for change is not an inherent trait but a dynamic construct that can be developed (Fixsen et al., 2009; Belias and Trihas, 2022). It is influenced by the nature of proposed change, implementation process, surrounding environment, and characteristics of change initiators (Holt, 2000). Employee readiness significantly influences change initiative effectiveness, either facilitating or hindering success (Armenakis et al., 1993), and generates positive energy necessary for successful change efforts (Bernerth, 2004).

Holt et al. (2007) developed a well-structured assessment tool administered to 900 individuals from public and private sectors. Factor analysis revealed four key dimensions: Appropriateness (perceived legitimacy of change reasons), Management Support (perceived leadership commitment), Change Efficacy (belief in ability to implement change), and Personal Benefit (expected individual benefits from successful implementation).

Change integration represents a crucial outcome measure of organizational change efforts. Research identifies key factors including organizational culture, communication, employee involvement, and leadership as critical determinants of integration success (Belias et al., 2019). Organizations frequently overemphasize technical aspects of change while neglecting the cultural and human dimensions (Van der Voet et al., 2015).

Organizational culture significantly shapes change integration by influencing employee behavior, values, and attitudes (Cameron and Quinn, 2011). Strong alignment between proposed changes and organizational culture facilitates smoother integration. Effective communication addresses employee concerns, builds commitment, and facilitates understanding of change rationale and processes (Elving, 2005). Active employee involvement through participation in planning and implementation enhances integration success (Kriemadis et al., 2023).

Leadership plays a vital role through vision articulation, support provision, and modeling desired behaviors (Westerman, 2022). Transformational leadership styles positively influence change integration outcomes (Herold and Fedor, 2008). Organizational resilience – the capacity to navigate uncertainty and adapt to changing circumstances - directly correlates with integration success (Belias and Trihas, 2022).

Successful integration signifies that change has been internalized by employees, becoming embedded within organizational culture and mind-set (Belias et al., 2019). This creates enduring systems and practices that can adapt over time, with sustained effectiveness serving as a strong indicator of successful integration.

Organizational transformation is a multifaceted and prolonged process that necessitates the development of robust digital competencies, capabilities, and organizational-wide changes (Schuh et al., 2017; Kane et al., 2018). The path to organizational readiness begins with a thorough assessment of the organization's current digital standing and capabilities, followed by a strategic alignment of these assessments with organizational goals. This process involves cultivating the necessary skills and fostering a supportive organizational culture, ultimately culminating in the development of new systems through the integration of value chains (Geissbauer et al., 2016).

Ghobakhloo (2018) outlines a roadmap for organizational digital readiness, emphasizing the importance of a well-defined digital strategy encompassing short-, medium-, and long-term objectives. This roadmap further necessitates committed leadership, the allocation of dedicated resources including the establishment of a transition team, the seamless integration of systems and infrastructure, and the development of comprehensive project plans. Building digital readiness requires a multi-faceted approach including a comprehensive assessment of existing skills, the implementation of strategic recruitment and training programs, and the fostering of an organizational environment that facilitates cross-functional integration of the digital transformation process (Pirola et al., 2019).

Lokuge et al. (2019) define digital organizational readiness as an organization's assessed capacity to effectively produce, adopt, assimilate, and exploit digital technologies for innovation. They developed a multi-dimensional model encompassing seven key sub-dimensions: Resource Readiness (flexibility to adapt and reconfigure resources), Cultural Readiness (embracing core values and risk tolerance), Strategic Readiness (clear communication and well-defined vision), IT Readiness (robust infrastructure and effective support), Innovation Valence (perceived value of digital innovation), Cognitive Readiness (strong knowledge base and skilled workforce), and Partnership Readiness (ability to leverage external partnerships).

Machado et al. (2019) conducted an analysis of thirteen models, identifying five core stages crucial for successful digital transformation integration: initial assessment of digital readiness including identification of opportunities and threats, establishment of clear vision and strategic objectives, implementation of pilot projects, development of comprehensive roadmaps for improvement, and ongoing evaluation and measurement of the effectiveness of implemented initiatives (Machado et al., 2021; Siamionava et al., 2024).

Several studies have underscored the critical importance of organizational readiness for successful digital transformation. Pell and Blondel (2018) identified four key enablers of readiness: Strategic Clarity and Leadership Support, Effective Partnerships and Collaboration, Internal Capabilities, and Digital Mind-set and Culture. Halpern et al. (2021) identified four key components of organizational readiness in their research: clarity, collaboration, capabilities, and culture. Organizations with high levels of readiness across these dimensions are generally considered to be more advanced in their digital transformation journeys.

Four theoretical frameworks from the organizational change literature converge in support of the sequential model proposed in this study. First, Weick's (1995) sensemaking theory explains the cognitive mechanism through which framing generates readiness: when leaders articulate a shared digital vision and build organizational awareness of digital opportunities, they perform a sensemaking function that allows employees to interpret proposed changes as legitimate and necessary — the cognitive precondition for readiness identified by Armenakis et al. (1993) and Holt et al. (2007). This is particularly relevant in bureaucratic public-sector contexts, where top-down digital mandates frequently create interpretive ambiguity that leadership framing must resolve before employees can develop positive change attitudes (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Second, dynamic capabilities theory (Teece et al., 1997; Teece, 2007) explains why sustainment is a necessary structural precondition for both readiness and integration: organizations lacking foundation capabilities, skills, and aligned incentive structures cannot effectively seize digital opportunities even when framing and readiness are present, because they lack the reconfiguration mechanisms through which organizational intentions are translated into new routines and practices. Third, Weiner's (2009) theory of organizational readiness for change specifies that readiness consists of two distinct components — change commitment (the degree to which employees value the change) and change efficacy (the shared belief in the organization's collective capability to implement it). This distinction is theoretically significant for the present model: framing primarily generates change commitment by communicating the value and necessity of digital transformation, while sustainment primarily generates change efficacy by demonstrating the organization's operational capacity to carry out that transformation. Examining framing and sustainment in isolation therefore produces an incomplete account of readiness, as each construct addresses only one of its two constitutive dimensions. Fourth, Kotter's (1996) sequential change model provides an overarching framework within which these relationships become coherent: framing corresponds to the urgency and vision stages of Kotter's model; sustainment corresponds to the capability-building and empowerment stages; readiness represents the cumulative psychological state these prior stages produce in organizational members; and integration corresponds to the consolidation and cultural anchoring stages that complete the transformation cycle. Together, these four theoretical frameworks justify the examination of organizational framing, sustainment, readiness, and digital integration as an integrated sequential model, rather than as a set of independently varying constructs.

Consequently, the following research hypotheses are formulated (Figure 2 illustrates the Theoretical & Practical Research Model as created by the authors):

This sample of this research consists of Greek civil servants attending undergraduate and postgraduate programs in Public Administration. In total 2714 public servants were invited through an email-invitation in which they were informed that their participation would be voluntary and anonymous and data would only be used for research purposes. Participants were selected as a convenience sample of civil servants who were simultaneously enrolled in undergraduate or postgraduate programs in Public Administration. This sampling strategy was deliberately chosen for a theoretically substantive reason: civil servants engaged in academic study constitute a particularly appropriate population for this line of inquiry, as their concurrent exposure to organizational theory, change management frameworks, and public administration scholarship equips them with the conceptual literacy necessary to engage meaningfully with the constructs under investigation. Unlike general workforce samples, in which respondents may interpret survey items on readiness, framing, and digital integration in lay rather than organizational terms, this population can be reasonably expected to understand and respond to validated academic scales with a level of precision that reduces measurement error and improves construct validity. Furthermore, their dual role as both practitioners embedded in public sector organizations and students actively reflecting on organizational phenomena renders them uniquely positioned to assess the conditions of digital transformation from an informed, experience-grounded perspective. This is consistent with methodological recommendations in organizational research that advocate for samples with sufficient domain familiarity when employing theoretically dense measurement instruments (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Saunders et al., 2009). Data was collected during the period November–December 2024. Eventually 233 public servants responded to the invitation and completed the questionnaire with no missing values. The overall response rate was approximately 9%, which falls within the range considered acceptable for email-based surveys in organizational research (Chung, n.d.; Baruch and Holtom, 2008). To assess the potential impact of non-response bias, a wave analysis was conducted by comparing the responses of early respondents (first tercile) with those of late respondents (final tercile) across all key study variables, following the logic that late respondents approximate non-respondents in their attitudes (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups, providing reasonable assurance that non-response bias does not substantially threaten the validity of the findings.

The first variable “Readiness for Organizational Change” (ROC) is measured through Holt et al.’s (2007) measurement scale. This tool consists of 25 questions (items) which are answered through a seven point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Totally Disagree” to “7 = Totally Agree”.

The second variable “Integration of change” (IOC) is measured through Miller's (1997) measurement scale. This tool consists of 7 questions (items) which are answered through a five point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Not at all” to “5 = Absolutely”.

The third variable “Organizational frame of digital challenge” (OFDC) is measured via Westerman et al.’s (2014) scale. This tool consists of nine questions (items) which are answered through a seven point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Totally Disagree” to “7 = Totally Agree”.

The final variable “Organizational sustainment of digital transformation” (OSDT) is measured though Westerman et al.’s (2014) scale. This measurement tool consists of nine questions (items) which are answered through a seven point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Totally Disagree” to “7 = Totally Agree”.

For the analysis of the research variables and the examination of the research hypothesis, the following statistical models were used: Factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, Pearson coefficient and multiple regression models. Data were analyzed via “Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)” Version 29 (SPSS, 2024).

Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the construct validity of the four measurement instruments. A detailed overview of the CFA methodology is presented in Table 1. The factorability of the “Organizational frame of digital challenge” (OFDC) (⁠$x2=65.3,df=24,p<0.001$⁠) and “Organizational sustainment of digital transformation” (OSDT) (⁠$x2=78.7,df=24,p<0.001$⁠) constructs was confirmed. Regarding “Readiness for Organizational Change” (ROC) (⁠$x2=748,df=246,p<0.001$⁠) construct, CFA revealed that this model does not have a good fit (all fit measures showed no good fit). However, the authors decided not to exclude this variable (due to Cronbach's alpha acceptance) and investigate its relationship with the other variables of the research. Finally, the model “Integration of Change” (IOC) has a good fit since CFI and SRMR measures scores are acceptable.

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and Cronbach's alpha (and Mc Donald's ω) reliability coefficients for the study variables. Regarding the OFDC, participants generally perceived their organization as effectively framing digital challenges (M = 4.186–4.423). Conversely, they indicated lower levels of satisfaction with the organization's sustained digital transformation efforts, as evidenced by low mean scores on corresponding sub-scales. The ROC construct yielded mixed findings. While participants demonstrated moderate to high levels of agreement on sub-scales measuring appropriateness, management support, and change efficacy (M = 4.799, 3.934, and 5.860, respectively), they exhibited low scores on the personally beneficial sub-scale (M = 2.216). This seemingly contradictory result is attributed to negatively worded items within this sub-scale, suggesting that participants perceive the change as personally advantageous. Finally, participants reported a moderate level of perceived organizational integration of digital transformation change (M = 3.150).

As presented in Columns 5 and 6 of Table 2, Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients were calculated for all variables and sub-scales. With values ranging from 0.728 to 0.952, all scales demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability.

Table 3 presents the correlation coefficients between the study variables, calculated using Person coefficient due to sample size (⁠$n=233$⁠). “According to the Central Limit Theorem, sampling distributions of means approach normality as sample size increases, typically providing good approximation with samples of $n≥30$” (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2020; Hogg et al., 2014). The strongest positive correlation (⁠$r=0.780,p<0.05$⁠) was observed between ARSTG and MDP, both within the OSDT construct. Conversely, PB exhibited insignificant correlations with most other variables and sub-scales, as indicated by p-values greater than 0.05. More details are shown on Table 3.

To examine the research hypotheses, the statistical tools of multiple regression were executed. Regarding the H1a Hypothesis, the results indicate that the two sub-dimensions of OFDC show significant mediocre influence on digital integration of change. The results were indicated via the multiple regression model (⁠$R2=0.251,F=25.548,p<0.05$⁠) as both knowledge of starting point and management's alignment to a common digital vision significantly influence the digital integration of change (⁠$β=0.104,p=0.004<0.05,andβ=0.128,p=0.000<0.05$⁠). On the contrary, this regression model showed that there is no significant connection between awareness of digital challenge and digital integration of change (Table 4). Hence, H1a hypothesis is accepted.

Similar results were shown regarding the hypotheses H1b and H1c as multiple regression models indicate that the dimensions of OFDC exhibit significant relationship with OSDT (⁠$R2=0.446,F=61.503,p<0.05,$ and KSP $β=0.262,p<05$⁠, and MACDV $β=0.295,p<05$⁠) and ROC (⁠$R2=0.414,F=53.985,p<0.05$⁠,and KSP $β=0.176,p<05$⁠,and MACDV $β=0.128,p<05$⁠). More details are described in Tables 5 and 6. Thus, H1b and H1c hypotheses are accepted.

Likewise, the hypotheses H2a and H2b were examined with multiple regression models. More specifically, most of the dimensions of OSDT show significant connection with IOC (⁠$R2=0.309,F=34.211,p<0.05$⁠, and FC $β=0.191,p<05$⁠) and ROC (⁠$R2=0.384,F=47.682,p<0.05$⁠, and FC $β=0.203,p<05$⁠, and MDP $β=0.113,p<05$⁠). More details are exhibit in Tables 7 and 8. Hence, both H2a and H2b hypotheses are supported.

On the same point of view, multiple regression model revealed that most of the dimensions of ROC are positively connected with IOC (⁠$R2=0.366,F=32.895,p<0.05$⁠, and MS $β=0.231,p<05$⁠, and CE $β=0.098,p<05$⁠) (Table 9). Consequently, H3 hypothesis is accepted.

The final hypotheses H4a and H4b investigating the mediating role of the variable readiness for organizational change on the linkage between a) organizational frame of digital challenge and digital integration of change, b) organizational sustainment of digital challenge and digital integration of change.

Hypotheses H4a and H4b were tested using Hayes' (2022) PROCESS macro (Model 4) in SPSS, with 5,000 bootstrap resamples and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (N = 233). For H4a, organizational framing significantly predicted readiness (⁠$b=0.333,SE=0.028,p<0.001$⁠), and readiness significantly predicted integration controlling for framing (⁠$b=0.296,SE=0.063,p<0.001$⁠). The bootstrapped indirect effect of framing on integration through readiness was 0.099 (⁠$95%CI[0.050,0.153]$⁠), which excluded zero, confirming significant mediation. The direct effect of framing on integration remained significant after inclusion of the mediator (⁠$b=0.135,p<0.001$⁠), indicating partial mediation. Readiness accounted for approximately 42% of framing's total effect on integration. For H4b, organizational sustainment significantly predicted readiness (⁠$b=0.239,SE=0.028,p<0.001$⁠), and readiness significantly predicted integration controlling for sustainment (⁠$b=0.384,SE=0.058,p<0.001$⁠). The bootstrapped indirect effect of sustainment on integration through readiness was 0.092 (⁠$95%CI[0.054,0.133$]), which excluded zero, confirming significant mediation. The direct effect of sustainment on integration remained significant after inclusion of the mediator (⁠$b=0.066,p=0.020$⁠), again indicating partial mediation. Readiness accounted for approximately 58% of sustainment's total effect on integration. Taken together, these results support both H4a and H4b and demonstrate that organizational readiness partially mediates the influence of both framing and sustainment on digital integration, with sustainment's effect operating more heavily through the psychological readiness pathway than framing's effect. The persistence of significant direct effects in both models indicates that organizational framing and sustainment conditions also influence integration outcomes through structural pathways that operate independently of individual employee readiness.

In our study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between four crucial variables (organizational frame of digital challenge, organizational sustainment of digital challenge, readiness for digital change and integration of digital change) regarding the digital transformation in public organizations. Our findings provide important insights into the complex dynamics of digital transformation in the Greek public sector context.

Our findings illustrate that there is a statistically significant positive connection between organizational frame of digital challenge and organizational sustainment of digital transformation. Hence, Hypothesis H1b is accepted. Especially, management's alignment to a common digital vision shows the most statistically significant and strong positive correlation with the foundation capabilities. In other words, management's alignment to the digital vision is crucial for building and leveraging the foundation capabilities (such as data management, IT infrastructure and digital skills). Leaders must champion the vision, advocate for necessary investments, and ensure that resources are allocated effectively. This connection is the cornerstone of successful digital transformation in public organizations as this vision provides the necessary focus and direction, while strong foundation capabilities ensure that the organization has the tools and resources to achieve its goals. Theoretically, this relationship is important because it shows that a vision is not simply a motivational tool but a necessary structural condition for the development of capabilities. In the absence of a common digital vision at the top, investments in maintenance and support for infrastructure, skills, and reward systems lack a guiding strategy to come together as a working transformation system. This resonates with institutional theory, stating that the alignment of ideas among top leaders should lead to resource mobilization in bureaucratic organizations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Additionally, organizational frame of digital challenge exhibits significant positive influence on the integration of digital change. Thus, Hypothesis H1a is accepted. More specifically, management's alignment to a common digital vision is significantly strongly and positively affecting the integration of digital change. This connection emphasizes the crucial role of leadership in successfully incorporating digital technologies and processes into the everyday operations of a public sector entity. In essence, when management is aligned around a common digital vision, it creates a fertile ground for the successful integration of digital change within public organizations. This leads to a more efficient, effective, and citizen-centric public sector. What explains this correlation is not the operational aspect but the cognitive one: a common digital vision lessens the uncertainty about why and in what way the company is changing, which then decreases resistance and makes the employees more open to adopting new behaviors (Armenakis et al., 1993; Oreg et al., 2011). More particularly, in the Greek public sector, where digital reform mandates are frequently seen as being forced from outside, the internally developed vision-building acts as a mitigating factor in producing the legitimacy that leads to integration.

The outcome of our research also revealed that there is a significant positive relationship between organizational frame of digital challenge and readiness for digital change. This leads to the acceptance of Hypothesis H1c. More precisely, management's alignment to a common digital vision is influencing all dimensions of readiness for digital change but especially it has the most positive effect on management support. This underscores the critical role of leadership in preparing an organization for the successful adoption of digital technologies. In a few words, when management shares with the employees a common digital vision, it creates a strong foundation for organizational readiness for digital change. This readiness enables the organization to effectively adopt and leverage digital technologies to improve service delivery, enhance efficiency, and better serve the public. The observed results corroborate prior investigations (Machado et al., 2019; Pell and Blondel, 2018) that underscore the critical role of a unified, shared vision in effectively equipping organizations to navigate the impending transformation of the digital landscape. The mechanism here operates through sense-making: if leadership communicates a clear digital vision, employees will be more likely to see proposed changes as fitting and helpful, which are indeed the cognitive evaluations that Holt et al. (2007) regard as the primary aspects of readiness. So, this indicates that framing is a psychological prerequisite for readiness rather than a simultaneous organizational state, a distinction that carries significant consequences for the order of change management interventions. In other words, the finding that organizational framing — and specifically management's alignment to a shared digital vision — significantly predicts both readiness and integration is broadly consistent with prior empirical work on vision communication in organizational change. Machado et al. (2019) and Pell and Blondel (2018) similarly identified strategic clarity and leadership alignment as key enablers of digital readiness, lending convergent validity to the present results. However, the present study extends these findings in an important direction: whereas prior studies tended to examine vision-sharing as a predictor of readiness in isolation, the current model demonstrates that framing simultaneously predicts sustainment, readiness, and integration, suggesting that vision alignment functions as a generative organizational condition rather than a single-pathway antecedent. This distinction carries theoretical weight, as it implies that framing should be understood not merely as a communicative act but as a structural precondition that enables the entire subsequent chain of organizational change processes.

Similarly, organizational sustainment of digital transformation is significantly and positively related to the integration of digital change. Hence, Hypothesis H2a is accepted. According to the research findings, the dimension of foundation capabilities (organizational sustainment dimension) shows the strongest positive correlation with the integration of the digital change. These capabilities (such as IT infrastructures, data management systems, digital skilled workforce and effective project management methodologies) act as the bedrock upon which successful digital transformation initiatives are built. A strong foundation not only facilitates the smooth adoption and utilization of new technologies but also ensures their effective integration into existing workflows and organizational processes. This positive and strong connection implies that the presence of robust foundational capabilities significantly increases the likelihood of successful digital change implementation, leading to improved service delivery, enhanced efficiency, and greater citizen engagement. On a theoretical level, this outcome is significant, as it reveals that sustainment is a resource-based mechanism under which these things happen; i.e. enterprises with efficient digital infrastructure and highly-qualified employees contribute less to implementation friction, which usually causes digital changes to fail halfway (Teece et al., 1997). In the case of poorly digitized public sectors, this implies that reforms, regardless of how well formulated, will come to a halt in the absence of fundamental capabilities, making sustainment not only a sufficient but also a necessary condition for integration success.

In addition, organizational sustainment of digital transformation is significantly and positively correlated with the readiness for digital change. As a result, Hypothesis H2b is accepted. In fact, the dimension of foundation capabilities exhibits the strongest positive connection with management support (dimension of the readiness for digital change). More respectively, foundation capabilities are essential for successful digital transformation. However, their development and effective utilization are heavily dependent on the active support and guidance of organizational leadership. When management understands the importance of these capabilities, allocates necessary resources, and fosters a supportive environment, the organization is more likely to successfully build and leverage them to achieve its digital transformation goals. One possible theoretical mechanism is self-efficacy: if employees see that their organization has provided the resources, equipment, and systems necessary to carry out digital transformation, they would probably feel more confident about implementing change (Bandura, 1997; Holt et al., 2007). This result suggests that sustainment should no longer be seen only from the point of view of operations, but also as a psychological message to employees about the organization's commitment, which will influence employees' willingness to engage.

These results are consistent with resource-based perspectives on organizational capability development (Teece et al., 1997), which predict that organizations possessing robust foundational digital capabilities will encounter lower implementation friction and therefore achieve smoother integration outcomes. The present findings extend this logic into the public-sector domain, where prior empirical studies — largely conducted in private-sector or mixed-sector samples — have not systematically examined how sustainment conditions interact with employee readiness in institutionally constrained environments. In particular, the observation that foundation capabilities are a stronger predictor of both readiness and integration than reward alignment or digital progress measurement represents a departure from the Westerman et al. (2014) framework, which treats these three sustainment dimensions as roughly equivalent levers. In the Greek public-sector context, reward structures are constrained by civil service regulations, which may explain why foundation capabilities — being more directly controllable by organizational management — emerge as the dominant sustainment predictor. This finding qualifies rather than contradicts the Westerman et al. framework, and points toward a context-sensitive application of the digital transformation compass.

Furthermore, this research argues that readiness for digital change is significantly and positively connected with the successful integration of digital change (acceptance of Hypothesis H3). More precisely, the dimensions of appropriateness and change efficiency are positively connected with the integration of digital change. On the same point of view, the dimension of management support exhibits strong and significant positive connection with the integration of digital change. On the contrary, the dimension of personally beneficial presents no significant relationship with the integration of digital change. That a personal-benefit side does not correlate with integration is actually a theoretical indicator: it means that Greek public-sector workers do not consider personal benefit a necessary condition for their involvement in digital change. Possibly, this is related to the public service spirit, the feeling of civic duty, and the sense of collective responsibility, which may temper the assumption of individualistic motivation derived from private-sector readiness models (Vandenabeele, 2007) and indicate a call for sector-specific adaptations of Holt et al.'s (2007) model.

In other words, the positive relationship between readiness and integration is consistent with a substantial body of prior research (Armenakis et al., 1999; Holt et al., 2007; Vakola, 2013) that positions employee readiness as a critical attitudinal precursor to change success. The present findings confirm this relationship in a public-sector digital transformation context, providing cross-sectoral validation for readiness-integration linkages that have been demonstrated predominantly in private-sector or mixed samples. Notably, however, the non-significant relationship between the personally beneficial dimension of readiness and integration diverges from findings in private-sector readiness studies, where personal benefit expectations have been identified as meaningful predictors of change engagement (Holt et al., 2007). This divergence is theoretically interpretable: Greek civil servants appear to engage with digital transformation on the basis of appropriateness, management support, and change efficacy rather than anticipated personal gain, a pattern consistent with public service motivation theory, which holds that public employees are relatively more responsive to collective and civic duty framings of organizational change than to individualistic benefit calculations (Vandenabeele, 2007). This finding has direct implications for the sector-specific applicability of readiness instruments developed in private-sector contexts.

Finally, the two last hypotheses (H4a and H4b) are both accepted. More thoroughly, the variable of readiness for digital change mediates the following relationships: (1) the influence of organizational frame of digital challenge on the integration of digital change, and (2) the influence of organizational sustainment of digital challenge on the integration of digital change. This means that an organization's ability to successfully integrate digital change is not solely dependent on its perception of the challenges or its level of support. Instead, the organization's readiness to embrace and adapt to digital change acts as a crucial intermediary, influencing how effectively these factors translate into successful digital integration. This partial mediation finding directly challenges the assumption implicit in Armenakis et al. (1993) and Holt et al. (2007) that individual readiness functions as the primary — and near-complete — transmission mechanism between organizational conditions and change success. In the Greek public-sector context, institutional structures operate as a parallel direct pathway to integration that bypasses individual psychology entirely, a finding that prior private-sector and high-readiness studies have not been positioned to detect. This is consistent with Vakola's (2013) multilevel readiness model, which theorizes that institutional context shapes the conditions under which individual-level readiness operates, but extends that model by providing empirical evidence that institutional factors — specifically the hierarchical governance structures, centralized administration, and legal frameworks characteristic of the Greek public sector — directly influence integration outcomes independently of employee readiness. In contrast to studies conducted in private-sector or high-readiness public-sector environments, where individual psychological readiness may function as a more complete mediator, the present findings suggest that in institutionally constrained settings, structural and organizational conditions exert direct effects on integration that bypass individual-level psychological processes. This represents an empirically grounded qualification of the Armenakis-Holt tradition and points toward the need for context-sensitive extensions of readiness theory in public administration research.

Overall, these discoveries elevate change management to the level of a deep explanatory framework for the question: why do some public sector organizations succeed in digital transformation while others simply go nowhere, in a way that makes change management more than just a support function. The ordered sequence from organizational framing to sustainment to readiness and finally to integration success reflects the fundamental idea of change management a lasting transformation of the organization needs, coordinated work in vision setting, capability building, and psychological preparation one after the other rather than separately (Kotter, 1996; Armenakis et al., 1993) whereas the study illustrates this point with data from the Greek public sector, it offers change management as a strategic tool for navigating organizational and digital reform, especially in those public sectors that are lagging in digitization, where structural barriers make sequenced intervention even more necessary.

The theoretical and practical model of our research offers several valuable theoretical contributions to academia, such as the following:

1. Revealing the bounded mediating role of employee readiness. The main contribution of the article is the conceptual transformation of the mediating role of readiness from a universal psychological mechanism to a contextually bounded one. According to our results, readiness in the Greek public sector only partially mediates the effects of framing and sustainment on digital integration, indicating that institutional structures, bureaucratic hierarchies, centralized governance, and legal constraints have a direct impact on integration outcomes, even without accounting for employee psychology. This is a significant criticism of the predominant assumption in the change management literature, which posits individual readiness as the primary vehicle for transmission between organizational conditions and change success (Armenakis et al., 1993; Holt et al., 2007). From a practitioner's perspective, this suggests that readiness-building programs should be supplemented with structural interventions; focusing solely on employee mindset is insufficient in highly institutionalized public-sector environments. Considering employee receptiveness to change as a factor that conveys the effects of the organizational frame and the conditions of staff sustainment on successful digital integration is one of the most important theoretical contributions of this paper. Change management literature has long been dominated by the notion that individual readiness is the key mechanism that explains how organizational conditions are translated into successful outcomes (Armenakis et al., 1993; Holt et al., 2007). Therefore, our finding that employees' readiness to change only partially mediates the effect of organizational framing and sustainment on digital integration is theoretically meaningful contribution because it challenges this notion. When it comes to the Greek public sector, partial mediation means that the structures and institutions, for example, the hierarchical bureaucratic administrative system, the centralized administration, and legal limitations, directly and independently affect digital integration results and are not dependent on employees' mentality. This is an addition to Vakola's (2013) multilevel readiness model, showing institutional setting as the limiting factor in the mediating power of individual readiness, something most studies of the private sector or high-digitization environments have overlooked.

2. Generating novel cross-contextual theoretical implications through the Greek institutional setting. Instead of the Greek public sector simply serving as a place where ideas are tested, it actually produces new, theoretically distinct results that would be difficult to detect in high-readiness institutional settings or in other organizational settings. Greece is in a relatively distinctive institutional configuration among European Union member states: it is formally a member of a digitally advancing supranational body, yet it has very low DESI scores, high levels of administrative inertia, and a history of underfunded digital infrastructure (Rossidis et al., 2023). This, in turn, creates a theoretically interesting tension that you don't find in other settings such as Denmark, Estonia, or the Netherlands, where the level of digital readiness is already so high that organizational framing effects are likely to be practically at their maximum. On the other hand, the Greek situation enables researchers to see the entire range of readiness scores and to identify framing and sustainment effects that are theoretically invisible in high-readiness situations. Besides that, the fact that management's alignment with a shared digital vision is the strongest predictor of both readiness and integration, even without a mature digital infrastructure, implies that ideational leadership factors might compensate for resource constraints in low-digitization public administrations. This, therefore, has theoretical implications for understanding digital transformation trajectories in Southern and Eastern European public sectors, as well as in developing-country governance contexts, where similar structural constraints exist. In that way, it offers a theoretically fruitful institutional comparison and not just a replication.

3. Advancing the cross-sector applicability of the digital transformation compass. The digital transformation compass developed by Westerman et al. (2014) was initially conceptualized and validated using the private-sector organizational contexts as a basis. This is where performance imperatives, market competition, and financial incentives are the main drivers of digital adoption. Our paper is among the first ones to empirically test this digital transformation compass framework in a public administration context, which has a completely different institutional logic: accountability to citizens rather than shareholders, statutory limitations on resource reallocation, and labor conditions in civil service that have a different impact on resistance to change as compared to corporate settings. We have shown that the repositioning and sustainment aspects are still strong indicators of digital-engagement and actualization stream in this different public organizational context (according to the definitions and measurements of Westerman et al.'s framework), which thereby extends the range of settings for which the compass framework is theoretically relevant, supports the view that the model can work across sectors at the same time pointing to the limitations of this generalizability. The weaker sustainment effects (lower mean scores on the OSDT scale) suggest that the instrumentality of reward alignment mechanisms in the private-sector model, which are central, is the main source of difficulties in operationalizing this model under civil service constraints. This theoretical adjustment adds value to the model rather than simply applying it in the new context.

4. Addressing a meaningful theoretical gap in the constellation of change management variables. The focus of digital transformation studies has been on framing, readiness, and integration as largely separate, until now. No one has empirically tested organizational frame, sustainment, readiness, and integration together in a single structural model. Doing so is a theoretical meaningful contribution because it highlights the sequential and interactive pathways through which organizational interventions are turned into integration success. Not having prior research on this specific variable constellation is more than just a convenient literature gap; it is a theoretically meaningful problem because change management frameworks that address framing without sustainment, or readiness without framing, will likely suggest incomplete managerial interventions. Our study shows the joint and differential impacts of these four variables, identifying conditions under which partial change-management investments fall short. This is a step forward in normative theory in the field.

Apart from the theoretical implication the research model of our theory offers several implications to practitioners. Firstly, building foundation capabilities is paramount (Rossidis et al., 2023). This involves a multi-faceted approach: (1) orchestrating skills build-up through hiring top talent with digital expertise, providing comprehensive training programs to upskill existing employees, and strategically partnering with external organizations to access specialized skills, (2) acquiring smaller companies/organizations with valuable digital capabilities or incubating internal innovations teams can accelerate skill development and introduce new perspectives, and (3) building a robust digital platform and fostering a close IT-business relationship are crucial for seamless integration of technology into core operations.

Secondly, aligning reward structures is critical to incentivize digital adoption. This includes:

1. Starting at the top – leadership must understand digital initiatives and demonstrate commitment through their own actions.

2. Smooth end-to-end operations and rewards beyond financial incentives, such as recognition and career development opportunities, are essential to motivate employees.

3. Extending reward structures beyond corporate boundaries, such as partnerships with universities or community organizations, can foster innovation and attract top talent.

Finally, measuring digital progress is essential for continuous improvement. This measurement can be accomplished with the following procedures:

1. Managing a strategic scorecard that tracks key performance indicators related to digital initiatives provides valuable insights.

2. Driving initiative – level business cases with clear key performance indicators helps align individual projects with overall strategic goals.

3. Connecting top – down and initiative – level measures ensures a holistic view of progress.

4. Developing an iterative review process allows for continuous feedback, adaptation, and refinement of digital strategies.

The empirical findings of the present study carry several concrete implications for public administrators and change management practitioners, each grounded directly in the specific results reported above. First, the regression analyses demonstrate that foundation capabilities — encompassing IT infrastructure, data management systems, and digital workforce skills — are the strongest single predictor of both readiness (β = 0.203, Table 8) and digital integration success (β = 0.191, Table 7) within the sustainment construct, substantially outperforming reward alignment (β = 0.050, p = 0.558 for readiness; β = 0.157, p = 0.080 for integration) and digital progress measurement in explanatory power. This finding carries a clear resource allocation implication: under conditions of budget constraint, which characterize most public administrations, priority should be given to infrastructure and skills investment over incentive redesign — particularly because civil service regulations frequently make reward restructuring impractical anyway. Second, the framing results demonstrate that management's alignment to a common digital vision is the strongest framing predictor of integration (β = 0.329, Table 4) and the dominant predictor of readiness (β = 0.285, Table 6), suggesting that vision development and top-management alignment should precede investments in training and infrastructure, as the present findings indicate that sustainment investments are unlikely to generate their full effect in the absence of a clearly articulated digital direction. Third, the partial mediation results (H4a: indirect effect = 0.099, 95% CI [0.050, 0.153]; H4b: indirect effect = 0.092, 95% CI [0.054, 0.133]) demonstrate that readiness-building programs alone are insufficient to ensure successful digital integration: because framing and sustainment retain significant direct effects on integration even after controlling for readiness, structural reforms — governance simplification, legal framework modernization, interoperability improvements — must be pursued in parallel with employee mindset interventions rather than treated as secondary concerns. Fourth, the non-significant relationship between the personally beneficial dimension of readiness and integration (β = 0.061, p = 0.267, Table 9) implies that change communication in Greek public-sector contexts should emphasize service quality improvement, citizen benefit, and collective organizational purpose rather than individual career or financial incentives, as the data indicate these are not meaningful motivational levers in this population. The following paragraphs elaborate each of these evidence-based recommendations.

As a conclusion, public organizations' managers should establish clear digital strategies and objectives that align with broader public service goals (Asgarkhani, 2005). By creating a culture of digital literacy, transparency, and openness to technological innovation, employees and stakeholders should be prepared for the shift into digital operations. Additionally, management structures should be implemented to integrate digital competencies into everyday processes; this would allow all level employees to engage with digital tools more confidently and effectively. By fostering readiness to digital change, practitioners on public organizations, should invest in both technical and human capital. Training programs focused on enhancing digital skills across the workforce are essential to ensuring that the personnel is not only aware of the need for change but also is equipped with the necessary tools to implement and adapt to new digital technologies (Clochard and Westerman, 2020). Regarding the managers, they should create a vision for digital transformation, emphasizing the tangible benefits of digital change, such as improved service delivery and greater citizen engagement. Managers should also develop mechanisms for continuous monitoring the adaptation of digital transformation to ensure that they remain relevant and effective. For instance, they should regularly assessing digital infrastructure, update technologies to keep pace with innovation, and address any emerging challenges that could hinder progress. Moreover, public administrators should approach digital change with a long-term perspective, acknowledging that digital transformation is an ongoing process rather than a one-time project. Collaborative decision-making and transparent communication about the benefits and challenges of digital transformation will help mitigate concerns and promote a smoother transition. Furthermore, public managers should focus on aligning the digital transformation projects with clear outcomes, and ensure that the digital transformation tools are implemented to achieve the objectives of the organization rather than adopt technology for technology's sake. Eventually, public organizations have to integrate digital transformation into their broader governance structures by working very closely with other government entities, private sector partners, and civil society organizations to leverage external expertise and resources, facilitating a more inclusive digital transformation process.

By embracing this model and implementing these practical strategies, organizations can enhance their readiness for digital change, effectively address the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital landscape, and ultimately achieve successful integration of digital initiatives, leading to increased efficiency, innovation, and competitive advantage (Belias et al., 2023; Kriemadis et al., 2023).

Despite its contributions, this study is subject to several limitations that should be acknowledged and that point toward productive directions for future research. The first point is that the sample included only public-sector workers who were simultaneously studying for their first or second university degree. Although this feature was methodologically helpful, as explained, it still adds another layer of sampling bias that should be carefully examined. People who decide to further their studies while working may have a stronger learning orientation, be more open to change within their organization, and have higher digital literacy levels even before exposure than the average public-sector employee. Hence, the most reasonable conclusion is that the readiness scores that have been shown in this research might be a bit higher than those of a random sample of Greek civil servants and that the degree of the relationship among framing, sustainment, and readiness may be quite different in the groups of people who are less inclined to change. Further research based on a probability sample of the wider public-sector workforce, without accounting for enrollment in an academic program, would be a logical way to assess whether the recognized mediation structure will be supported even at a lower readiness baseline.

Second, a 9% response rate, although justified and in line with the average response rates of email-distributed organizational surveys (Baruch and Holtom, 2008), is still on the lower side of the acceptable range, and therefore, the findings cannot be fully trusted to generalize the broader Greek public sector population. The non-response bias check by wave analysis, which measures whether early and late respondents differ significantly, did not find significant differences; however, it is only an estimate and certainly not a perfect test, so the existence of systematic differences between respondents and non-respondents cannot be entirely excluded. In the future, it would be good to combine online survey methods with follow-up interviews or mixed-mode data collection strategies to improve response rates and reduce the risk of self-selection effects.

Third, because this study used a cross-sectional design, it measured attitudes and perceptions only at one time point, making it difficult to establish causal links among framing, sustainment conditions, readiness, and final integration outcomes. Longitudinal studies that follow the same public officials throughout different stages of a digital transformation project would yield more strong evidence for the directionality of the relationships in the theoretical model.

Last but not least, this research is limited to the geographic setting of the Greek public sector, and although this context leads to theoretically unique findings, it is necessary to replicate the study in other public administrations of Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as in non-European low-digitization environments, to ensure the wider applicability of the model.

The publication of the article in Open Access mode was financially supported by HEAL-Link.