Abstract
This study presents new insights into the capabilities that a leader needs to thrive in the digital scenario. These insights come from a systematic literature review of 21-years of publications on leadership in the digital environment that supports a four-round Delphi study with a panel of 24 experts from diverse geographical backgrounds (six countries across 3 continents). The e-leadership concept has evolved to digital leadership by transitioning from an electronic way of communication to a broader context of how to lead effectively in a digital environment. Digital leadership is a way of thinking and behaving in a complex time. The findings show that digital leadership has two main aspects within four dimensions: the first aspect is related to business, and it is strategy focused and delivery related; the second one involves personal attributes, and it is interpersonal oriented. Moreover, we identify the associated leadership capabilities for each of these aspects.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Digital transformation influences how people work, interact and think (Hai et al. 2021). The traditional leadership mindsets approaches are insufficient in the era of highly uncertain and rapid changing business settings (Kane et al. 2019). Leadership must adapt how to work in the digital environment to obtain an effective long-lasting performance (Contreras et al. 2020). Besides, organizations must be aware of the main leadership capabilities that managers need to thrive in that environment (Cortellazzo et al. 2019). Capability is a condition or potential condition (physical or mental) can be turned to use (Bolton et al. 1999), and some authors use capability and competence interchangeably (Fowler et al. 2000). The digital environment provides challenges for leadership capabilities, and motivates their study (İnel 2019; Roman et al. 2019). As leadership is context-related, identifying the leadership capabilities needed nowadays and preparing the leaders to better perform their roles is crucial (Bolden and Regan 2016).
Literature is profuse in leadership and digital transformation studies focusing on communication (Braun et al. 2019; Darics 2020; Narbona 2016), technology (Larson and DeChurch 2020; Leduc et al. 2015), public administration (Banerjee and Chau 2004; Rubino-Hallman and Hanna 2007), SMEs (small-to-medium enterprises) (Belitski and Liversage 2019), and remote team (Cascio and Shurygailo 2003). Such topics have also produced several literature reviews (Avolio et al. 2014; Cortellazzo et al. 2019). Although there are studies regarding capabilities needed for working with virtual teams (Maduka et al. 2018; Roman et al. 2019), to date most studies have modestly analyzed how the digital transformation affects leadership capabilities from a broader perspective (Van Wart et al. 2017a; Schneider 2018). Despite there is a need for change in the traditional leadership mindsets to better perform in the digital environment (Kane et al. 2019), there is not a strong unifying theory of the relationship between leadership capabilities and digital transformation, calling for more attention to theoretical contributions (Cortellazzo et al. 2019). Moreover, it is an important topic in the effort to modernize organizations and it is worth considering in detail (Peng 2021). Thus, there is a gap in the literature to clarify the leadership capabilities needed in the digital scenario. This study aims to close the gap by identifying the leadership capabilities that managers need to thrive in the digital environment, and to add new insights to the leadership literature and for practitioners, responding to the following research question: What are the main leadership capabilities needed to thrive in the digital environment?
To address the research question, we have used a multi-method design that combines a systematic literature review with a Delphi study. Integrating a systematic literature review with a Delphi method is a used approach in the academy (e.g., Bhuyan et al. 2022; de Jesus et al. 2019), and specifically being used to identify capabilities in previous studies (e.g., Schulze and Bals 2020). A Delphi study with a systematic literature review is a recommended dual approach to improve the validity of the results (Dewar et al. 2017). The literature review is an important first stage, as it provides comprehensive information about the current knowledge of the topic (Novakowski and Wellar 2008). Afterward, the Delphi method supplements and validate the data collected by the literature review (Bhuyan et al. 2022). This sequence reduces the potential weakness in a solely Delphi study, as not having to rely exclusively on the initial questions asked to the experts to gather information about the subject (Miller 2001). Nonetheless, the Delphi method collects the experts’ opinions regarding new concepts to deal with emerging trends (de Jesus et al. 2019). Finally, it is appropriate for studies seeking a collective perspective from experts aiming to obtain consensus (Miller 2001).
We conducted a review of 21 years of publications about the leader´s capabilities in the digital environment. We then conducted a Delphi study that engaged experts from six different countries on three continents (Chowdhury and Quaddus 2017). The study follows the structure in Corley and Gioia (2004) who organize data according to hierarchical categories to develop a theoretical understanding (Gioia et al. 2012). The Delphi study is one of the most common approaches to identify capabilities (Foth et al. 2016), so the social science research has increasingly used it (Hasson et al. 2000; Brady 2015). It is appropriate and useful in identifying, selecting, and validating the capabilities (e.g. Ahmad and Wong 2019; Egan and Akdere 2005; Hart 2010; Miller 2001; Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). Additionally, it is adequate in reaching consensus when there is uncertain information or a lack of empirical evidence and is an efficient way to integrate the knowledge and abilities of a panel of experts (Ahmad and Wong 2019). This qualitative approach has an inductive theoretical drive and is better suited for developing theory (Harrison and Rouse 2014). Further, it facilitates the discovery of multiple sources of data on a social phenomena (Bryman and Bell 2011) that increases the validity of an exploratory study (Papaoikonomou et al. 2011). Additionally, qualitative research has been used to study the leadership topic (e.g., Parry et al. 2014; Sumner-Armstrong et al. 2008; Zaar et al. 2020; Kessel and Graf-Vlachy 2021).
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: The next section provides the background on e-leadership, digital leadership, and digital transformation. The systematic literature review is described in Sect. 3. Section 4 presents the Delphi study; Sects. 5 discuss the research findings, and conclusions are provided in Sect. 6.
2 Background
The emergence of information technology (e.g., internet, e-mail, and video conferencing) in the late 1990, undoubtedly changed the way people worked and it created the need for a new form of leadership, called e-leadership (Avolio et al. 2014). Therefore, many authors started to investigate the implications of information technology on leadership (Kissler 2001; Pulley and Sessa 2001; Avolio and Kahai 2003). Initially, they used the term e-leadership to refer to leaders who used electronic channels to facilitate global reach (Zaccaro and Bader 2003). E-leadership is usually defined as a social influence process that uses information technology to alter attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and/or performance with individuals, groups, and/or organizations (Avolio et al. 2000; Fernandez and Jawadi 2015; Jiang et al. 2017; Leduc et al. 2015). However, recently the term digital leadership has appeared in the literature. Digital leadership is conceptualized as leaders operating with digital technologies (Narbona 2016). It is also a mixture of leadership capabilities and digital tools to assist the decision-making process (Sasmoko et al. 2019).
It was only after 2014 that the number of studies on digital transformation increased significantly (Reis et al. 2016). Further, in the last few years, digital transformation has become widespread among practitioners that has led to the need to change their business models in the digital world (Gurbaxani and Dunkle 2019). Digital transformation is the process of changing an entity through information, computing, communication and connectivity technologies (Vial 2019). Examples of digital technologies are cloud computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing, big data, and social media that has led to totally new products, services, and business models across industries (Matzler et al. 2018). It is not possible to discuss digital transformation without mentioning the term Industry 4.0, the increasing intelligence of products and systems and their intra-company and cross-company integration (Schneider 2018). In the twenty-first century, Industry 4.0 has heralded the end-to-end digitization and integration of digital industrial ecosystems by seeking completely integrated solutions (Xu et al. 2018).
With the increasing complexity of global business, organizations often experience numerous disruptions (Stone and Deadrick 2015; Matzler et al. 2018), which can have detrimental effects if their leaders do not address it in a proper and timely fashion (Colbert et al. 2016; Schwarzmüller et al. 2018; Roman et al. 2019). A skilled leadership is crucial in the digital scenario (Hanna 2018), thus mastering related capabilities to nowadays environment provide an enormous opportunity for increasing organizational effectiveness (Stone and Dulebohn 2013; Colbert et al. 2016). Therefore, it is mandatory to identify and understand the leadership capabilities that are needed to thrive in the digital era to achieve long-term success (Colbert et al. 2016; Sousa and Rocha 2019; Vial 2019).
The future of knowledge work is digital, and the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digital transformation endeavor (Wang et al. 2020). Therefore, organizations have been forced to adapt to new ways of work (Hai et al. 2021). As technology is a situational context that creates conditions that affect social practices, the shape of leadership structures has changed (Larson and DeChurch 2020). DL manifestation occurs through different behaviors, which is vital in driving organizations through digital change (Elidjen et al. 2019). A digital leader is a leader with a digital transformation mindset who recognizes and takes advantage of opportunities to make informed and timely leadership decisions for the organization's success (Hai et al. 2021). DL provides a clear vision for the digital process and executes strategies to actualize it (Zeike et al. 2019). DL capabilities enable firms to drive the digital revolution, improving organization performance (Benitez et al. 2022). Finally, in the digital scenario, the overall phenomenon of leadership is changing, as well as the setting in which these behaviors of social influence emerge (Banks et al. 2022).
3 Systematic literature review
3.1 Research method
Systematic literature reviews are “an increasingly used review methodology to synthesize the existing body of literature in a field” (Kraus et al. 2020, p.1023). Typically, this review focuses on a particular topic, while being transparent and reducing bias (Williams et al. 2021). This approach is used to flexibly analyze data to systematically and rigorously integrate, interpret, and synthesize qualitative findings from multiple studies (Finfgeld-Connett 2014).
Our review follows Corley and Gioia (2004) regarding the coding process who structure data according to hierarchical categories such as first-order concepts, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions. The categories were developed inductively through constant revision of their labels as necessary. The first-order concepts highlight key aspects about the discerned coding process but not the patterns or relationships in the data (Clark et al. 2010). Second-order themes help to assemble a more structured view of the relationships among the first-order concepts by viewing the data at a higher level of theoretical abstraction (Gioia et al. 2010). In the third stage of analysis, major themes are assembled into aggregate dimensions indicate the interrelationships among the major concepts, themes, and dimensions (Gioia et al. 2013). This systematic method leads to a credible interpretation of the data and provides a qualitative rigor to the analysis (Curado et al. 2019; Gioia et al. 2010; Nag and Gioia 2012).
3.2 Data collection
Data were collected from the Web of Science and Scopus (Cobo et al. 2011; Schäfer 2022). First, we performed a search on the terms “e-leadership” or “virtual leadership” or “digital leadership” or “leading online communities” in the Scopus database by focusing on three main subject areas (i.e., social sciences; business, management, and accounting; and psychology) and by using article title, abstract, and keywords for the search. We decided to limit our search to articles published between 2000 and 2020, because Avolio et al. (2000) coined the term e-leadership to connect leadership and technology in 2000. We restricted our search only to journals published in English and eliminated documents such as letters, editorials, conference papers, and book chapters, since these works are a body of certified knowledge providing reliable results (Bhatt et al. 2020; Haleem et al. 2020). The Scopus database had 173 articles and, subsequently, we performed the same search in the Web of Science database to find missing articles. This search turned up 86 articles, most of them overlapped with those from Scopus.
The data retrieved form the bibliographic databases normally contain errors, such as misspelled elements. Consequently, an analysis of the retrieved data was necessary (Cobo et al. 2011). Our exclusion criteria follows Soriano et al. (2018), as articles unrelated to the scope of our research (e.g., articles not related to organizational studies), were excluded. In this way, we excluded thirty-nine articles from non-organizational domain (e.g., educational studies, healthcare topics), three articles that were non-English manuscripts, and sixty-eight in which the search term was missing (e.g., results in the databases provided articles with the word “leadership” instead of “e-leadership”). This process generated 79 articles to be more deeply examined. Appendix A shows the articles belonging to the research dataset and whether they appear in Scopus and/or the Web of Science databases. The decrease in the number of articles from the initial dataset is not unusual, as in Galvagno and Giaccone (2019), Palmaccio et al. (2021), and Keathley-Herring et al. (2016).
3.3 Analysis and results
The aim of data coding is to identify relevant codes or themes in the data without worrying about broader categories (Williams and Shepherd 2017). This study was started by reading all the articles from our selected database with an open mind. We started the first-order codes categorization process by classifying the elements and regrouping them due to their common characteristics (Bardin 2011; Gioia et al. 2012). Sentences were named and assigned to nodes that emerged during the coding process after using an inductive approach with no coding framework in mind (Finfgeld-Connett 2014). A single classification was used for each code that meant the categories were mutually exclusive, as recommended by Weber (1990), to restrict the categories to those codes that unmistakably reflect them and to maximize validity.
As the research progressed, we started seeking similarities and differences among the first-order codes; a process that eventually reduced the number of categories to a more manageable number, namely second-order themes. The first-order concepts and second-order themes were reviewed and renamed, when appropriate. All the articles from the dataset were coded. Finally, we were able to name the aggregate dimensions, building a data structure. The DL capabilities were identified through the second-order themes aggregated into different dimensions. As the search process was based only on leadership keywords concerning digital aspects (i.e., digital leadership, e-leadership, virtual leadership, leading online communities), all the identified capabilities came from articles related to the digital realm.
A qualitative content analysis should be evaluated based on reliability and validity (Duriau et al. 2007). According to Krippendorff (2004), a research procedure is reliable when it replies to the same phenomena in the same way regardless of the circumstances of its implementation. First, stability was achieved when the same content was coded the same way by the same coder (Williams and Shepherd 2017). This process was interactive, with one author constantly going back and forth from the text to the emerging concepts and themes while coding and recoding the data as many times as needed to adequately capture the desired domain. Second, intercoder reliability was achieved when different coders coded the same data the same way (Campbell et al. 2013). Further, the other two authors randomly recoded 10% of the dataset (Potter and Ware 1987; Ader 1995; Potter and Levine-Donnerstein 1999). Agreement among coders was reached through discussion over the coding discrepancies, and intercoder reliability ranged from 92 to 98%. The validity of the findings was evaluated based on data saturation and fit (Finfgeld-Connett 2014). When we finished coding the forty-seventh article, we reached theoretical saturation (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Additional data did not increase understanding or meaning and thus, no new codes arose. Consequently, clear and unambiguous items were developed based on the second-order themes. The use of simple language and short sentences was a concern relating to the creation of items that aimed to be neither double barreled nor leading (Fisher et al. 2001).
The aggregate dimensions and their definitions are detailed in Table 1. Four different dimensions were identified, namely strategic focus, delivery related, personal attribute and interpersonal oriented. Table 2 shows the second-order themes identified for each dimension with their definitions. There are 32 constructs in total, being 9 related to strategic focus, 8 for delivery related, 8 for interpersonal oriented, and 7 for personal attribute.
4 Delphi study
4.1 Research method
A Delphi study is a scientific process designed to elicit and organize the opinions of experts to reach consensus (Miller 2001), and to validate the information from the literature (Ahmad and Wong 2019). Therefore, this method requires a panel of experts on the subject under study (Schmidt et al. 2001). One benefit of the panel is that the experts asynchronously participate in group communication and they can be geographically dispersed as they do not meet each other nor interact directly (Linstone and Turoff 2011). The Delphi study can combine academic expertise with practitioners’ perspectives that enables each participant to express their views independently while providing information generated by an entire group (Foth et al. 2016). It can obtain a reliable consensus of the panel of experts through systematic interactives approaches, or “rounds”, using a questionnaires with controlled feedback (Clayton 1997; Linstone and Turoff 2011). Some authors call it “e-Delphi” when referring to the use of an online platform to administer the questionnaire (Massaroli et al. 2017; Bec et al. 2019). The number of experts (n = 24) recruited in this study was within the scope of the most frequent size in the literature (n = 15–30) (de Jesus et al. 2019). Each expert was required to have leadership experience and to possess specialized knowledge and interest in the studied topic. We drew experts who worked in different countries, such as Portugal, China, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Brazil to obtain a greater diversity in the outcome.
Standard Delphi studies usually have three rounds of data collection (Brady 2015), but some authors argue that the classic technique has four rounds (Hasson et al. 2000). Erffmeyer et al. (1986) argue that before limiting Delphi to less than four rounds, the researcher should confirm if they have reached stability in the previous rounds with an acceptable level of accuracy. Usually, Delphi studies starts with open or semi-open questions to collect data from experts and the next rounds are made up of items generated by experts in the first round combined with items identified from the literature that are aimed at reaching stability and consensus in the next rounds (Dewar et al. 2017).
4.2 Data collection and measurement
Our study consists of four rounds and starts with online interviews using semi-open questions. The next rounds were conducted through an online questionnaire system (www.qualtrics.com) and were based on the responses of the interviewees combined with the data gathered in the literature (Ahmad and Wong 2019). Regarding the available time that experts dedicated to the Delphi study, the experts in Round-02 were separated into two groups receiving different questionnaires due to the large number of items to be evaluated. For Round-02 onwards, the experts had a week to respond, and two reminders were sent per round: the first, 1 day before the deadline; and the second, on the deadline day itself. The expected time for completion for each questionnaire varied from 5 to 15 min. There was an option to give comments in the questionnaire for all rounds. Different measures were used to assess the items across the questionnaire rounds, including picking-type (Round-02) and Likert-type (Round-03 and Round-04). These measures were designed to measure the items from different perspectives and for different purposes to identify the most important ones (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004; Bec et al. 2019). It is essential to differentiate between the concept “consensus” and “stability” in Delphi studies. Stability refers to the consistency of experts’ answers between successive rounds of a Delphi study and it is considered a necessary criterion to evaluate consensus (Dajani et al. 1979; Von der Gracht 2012). Although there are different approaches to defining and reporting consensus (von der Gracht 2012), systematic reviews have shown that consensus is mainly defined based on the percentage of experts who rate items at the upper extremes of the Likert scales used (e.g., items scored as 4 and 5 on a 5-point Likert scale) (Diamond et al. 2014; Foth et al. 2016). There is no agreement about the percentage of answers by experts that is considered consensus. Some authors state that items with 50% or more have reached consensus (Trevelyan and Robinson 2015), while others argue that 60% or higher is preferable (Foth et al. 2016). This differentiation is important since stopping a Delphi study based only on a specific number of rounds may lead to invalid and meaningless results (Barrios et al. 2021). Measures of group stability also varies in the literature, varying from a coefficient of variation (CV) of 15% change in two Delphi rounds (Von der Gracht 2012) up to 20% (Massaroli et al. 2017; Shi et al. 2020).
4.3 Delphi rounds
In the first Delphi round, we asked open-ended questions of 24 experts during in-depth on-line interviews that aimed to obtain practical insights about which leadership capabilities they considered to be the most relevant to thrive in a digital environment. The interviews were composed of open-ended questions (de Jesus et al. 2019), which are acknowledge to increase the richness of the information collected (Powell 2003). All the experts consented to having the interviews recorded as per our protocol (Massaroli et al. 2017). The interview responses were analyzed to compare with the capabilities identified in the systematic literature review, adding the practical insights of the experts concerning DL capabilities.
The qualitative analysis of the first round improved the spectrum of capabilities and provided more themes to be processed in the following rounds, as performed in Ahmad and Wong (2019) and Dewar et al. (2017).
Round-02 involved narrowing down the list of items based on the new capabilities identified by the experts in Round-01, added to the items found in the systematic literature review (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). Each expert received a unique code that identified them in the questionnaire throughout the rounds. We sought to restrict the number of items in Round-02 to facilitate future consensus (Hsu and Sandford 2007; Schmidt et al. 2001). A list of items was sent to the experts with instructions to indicate those which were most important for the leadership capabilities in the digital environment. The list was randomly ordered to reduce any bias (Paré et al. 2013; Schmidt 1997). We requested that the experts select at least 40% of the items for each dimension they considered the most important for a leader in digital era, as the literature has stated that the experts should independently select at least 10% of the items as the most important (Schmidt 1997). Regarding consensus, we eliminated all items that were not selected by at least 60% of the respondents, following Foth et al. (2016). In addition, if a capability had less than three remaining items, it was eliminated as some authors recommend against retaining constructs with less than three items (Worthington and Whittaker 2006). This process reduced the lists to a manageable size.
In Round-03 and Round-04, the questionnaires were used for the purpose of attaining consensus on items by the panel of experts. Items were measured by using a Likert scale that ranged from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). The Round-03 questionnaire was developed based on the items retained in Round-02. The items were again randomly presented within each dimension to avoid bias. The consensus on the inclusion of items for the next round was based on their means. The items that scored 4 or 5 on the Likert scale were kept separate as they had already achieved consensus, as suggested by Barrios et al. (2021). Therefore, only the items that received a mean rate of less than 4 were considered for Round-04 to be re-evaluated by the panel of experts. Furthermore, at least three remaining items for each capability should remain to retain the construct, as in the previous round.
For Round-04, to ascertain the level of collective opinion, we attributed the mean scores of the expert’s rate for each item that had not obtained consensus to each expert, to remind them of their previous responses (Hasson et al. 2000). Questionnaires were prepared individually for each expert and they were asked to re-consider their rates maintaining or modifying their previous rate (Trevelyan and Robinson 2015). Finally, the items were analyzed to identify consensus. Applying the same criteria used in Round-03, the items with scores of less than 4 had not reached consensus and were eliminated. The experts´ group stability from Round-03 to Round-04 was 15%, which is in line with Diamond et al. (2014) for the Delphi process to reach stability.
4.4 Analysis and results
While we had 24 experts who participated in the first round, only 16 completed all four rounds. This reduction was is in line with other Delphi studies in which the abstention rates varied from 20 to 50% in each round (Massaroli et al. 2017). Concerning demographic information, the characteristics of the experts in the first round had an average leadership experience (± standard deviation) of 17.0 years ± 5.84 years and all of them had at least a bachelor degree, while 46% had a master´s degree, and 8% had a doctorate. Of the experts, 50% were male and 50% were female. The average age was 45.96 years ± 6.64 years. Moreover, 21% of the experts were between 30 and 40 years, 54% were between 41 and 50 years and 25% were more than 50 years old.
In Round-01, no new dimension was identified through the interview process. The experts identified 11 capabilities: 6 for personal attribute, 3 for interpersonal oriented, 2 for delivery related, and none for the strategic focus dimension. New items were elaborated and added to the initial pool creating the baseline for Round-02. The number of constructs identified, either in the literature review process or by the experts, together with the consensus information for each round are shown in Appendix B regarding all four dimensions.
In Round-02, there were a total of 292 items concerning all four dimensions to be evaluated among the experts. Among these items, 68 belonged to the strategic focus dimension, 68 to delivery related, 80 to personal attribute, and 76 to interpersonal oriented. Each expert judged two dimensions that they received in the questionnaire and could choose a certain number of items. There was between 144 and 148 items for them to select as the most important concerning two dimensions. Some second-order themes were eliminated in this round, as the experts did not choose the correspondent items and, so, the theme did not reach the minimum of three items to be maintained for the next rounds. For the interpersonal dimension, the second-order themes that were eliminated were “able to resolve conflicts” and “willingness to listen”; for strategic focus, the theme was “sustainability acumen”; for personal attribute, they were “humility”, “self-awareness”, and “self-regulation”; and, for delivery related, they were “creative problem solving”, “provide resources to the team”, and “able to manage work-life balance”.
In Round-03, the quantity of items rated by the experts were 40 strategic focus, 34 delivery related, 52 personal attribute and 32 interpersonal oriented. For each dimension, the number of items that reached consensus in this round were 36 strategic focus, 31 delivery related, 41 personal attribute and 27 interpersonal oriented. In this round, there were some second-order themes for which that all the items reached consensus; consequently, these were designated as final, and the other items were excluded from Round-04.
In Round-04, the number of items that have reached consensus were 2 for strategic focus (out of 4), 2 for delivery related (out of 3), 2 for personal attribute (out of 11) and 2 for interpersonal oriented (out of 5). The second-order themes that were eliminated in the final round were “inspire and engage people” (interpersonal oriented dimension), “curiosity” and “enthusiastic and passionate” (personal attribute dimension) and none for strategic focus and delivery related. In all four dimensions, the change in distribution of the responses was less than 15%. This procedure is a crucial part of the Delphi process in determining consensus and stability in the answers (Shi et al. 2020) and, therefore, the stopping criteria rule was reached. After this fourth round, the remaining capabilities and their definitions can be seen in Table 3.
A conceptual model of the final digital leadership capabilities is presented in Fig. 1. Concerning the four dimensions and the relationship within each theme, an interpersonal oriented leader interacts successfully with others (Giromini et al. 2016). Therefore, this dimension relates to social interaction between leaders and followers, such as establishing relationships, communicating, being trustworthy, coaching, inspiring, empowering, and engaging people (Buchan et al. 2008; Schiuma et al. 2022; Walvoord et al. 2008). The personal attribute dimension informs how leaders manage themselves and their emotional reactions to situations (Scott et al. 2008). This dimension and its constructs concern the leaders’ inner self: curiosity, initiative, autonomy, and self-awareness (Owens et al. 2013; Shamim et al. 2016). The strategic focus dimension establishes how leaders form and deploy strategic decisions toward the organization’s future goals (Orndoff 2002). Therefore, this dimension refers to leadership capabilities that affect a long-term organizational objective and the response to changes (Vecchiato 2015). Some leadership constructs identified within this dimension are vision and direction, innovation, sustainability, knowledge sharing, and leading change (Kane et al. 2019; Lawrence 2015; Swanson et al. 2020). Lastly, the delivery related dimension refers to the leadership capability of managing the team toward a desired outcome (Cordery et al. 2009), and the leadership capabilities for this dimension include results orientation, creative problem solving, and establishing and managing team performance (Agarwal et al. 2017; Taggar 2001).
Following Cronin and George (2023), it is indicated in the conceptual model three different categories (literature, experts, literature/experts). It is informed if a construct was, proportionally (i.e., difference in percentage of the number of times the construct appeared in the literature compared to the number of times the experts mentioned it), more heavily based on articles from the research dataset (literature) or deriving more from the experts’ assessment, or if the construct was balanced reported between the literature information and experts opinion (i.e., difference less than 10% between the literature and the experts).
5 Discussion
Our findings are in line with Kane et al. (2019), as while many core leadership capabilities remain the same, the unique demands of the digital environment require new capabilities as well. A big danger is to disregard the essentials of good leadership due to digital change. It seems the difference between e-leadership and digital leadership is that the latter is not only mediated by technology, but it is a way of thinking and behaving in a complex time (Tigre et al. 2023).
Concerning integrating the literature review and the Delphi survey, some constructs seemed to receive greater emphasis from experts than others compared to the literature. It seems particularly relevant for leaders in the digital world to provide a psychological safety environment, obtain different cognitive perspectives, and coach the team. The reason may be that in a fast-changing and complex world, the leader must create an environment where the team has a shared belief that it is safe for interpersonal risk taking (e.g., expressing opinions without fearing punishment) (Edmondson 1999). From a practical standpoint, psychological safety is a timely topic given the growth of the knowledge economy and teamwork, in which employees are expected to integrate perspectives, share information and ideas, and work together to achieve common goals (Edmondson and Lei 2014). In addition, the leader needs to incorporate diversity in the team to solve a complex problem, as it is crucial to consider the different cognitive aspects simultaneously (Wang et al. 2016). Such leaders also engage in coaching, creating new learning opportunities, and value diversity in their followers (Oke et al. 2009).
Furthermore, cognitive perspectives, psychological safety, positive attitude, and empathy are more heavily based on the experts´ opinion. Diversity management is a process intended to create and maintain a positive work environment where the similarities and differences of individuals are valued to maximize their contributions to the organization goals (Hayes et al. 2020). The digital scenario also provides more flexibility regarding working time and place, therefore more autonomy for workers (Ruiner and Klumpp 2022), which was also highlighted in the experts’ choice compared to the literature.
Other topics such as providing vision and direction, time management, and business skills are long-standing traditional components of leadership that were distinguished from the experts compared to the literature. Nonetheless, the experts are in line with the survey regarding more than 20,000 leaders performed by Kane et al. (2019) that state that in a digital scenario, with an emphasis on future change, the most critical leadership capability to possess in a digital organization is a transformative vision to provide direction. This vision includes the ability to anticipate markets and trends, make savvy business decisions, and solve challenging problems in turbulent times. The results of Kane’s survey also stated that leaders need business skills to manage the business trends that change due to technology and to guide the organization in response to them (Kane et al. 2019). Finally, the importance of time management in digital times highlighted by the experts is in line with a review that informed the implementation of time management in practice is justified by having favorable effects on people’s perceptions and feelings (Claessens et al. 2007).
The digital era has led to some leadership paradoxes as technology may affect the way leadership is done. Leaders need to give their teams autonomy but without them feeling isolated; to preserve focus and purpose in an fast-changing environment requiring profound flexibility and adaptability; and, to harmonize efficient well-known responses with fresh insights and innovation (Pulley et al. 2002). Due to a more connected world where people can be reached almost anywhere, leaders need to build and sustain relationships and networks inside and outside of their organizations (Kissler 2001; Cordery et al. 2009). The quality of relationships and networks that leaders and team members form in their organizational environment is also known as “social capital” (Zaccaro and Bader 2003). Moreover, there has been a change in relationships between leaders and their followers. Leadership is moving from authority driven to network relationships that result in reciprocal benefits for the parts involved. The effect of network collaboration can reach more favorable results if each individual can have a network outside the organization they work (Pulley and Sessa 2001).
A paramount aspect for leaders in any team is to build trustworthiness, as it can affect the overall productivity of the group (Tigre et al. 2022). Trust is established by repeatedly setting expectations and then delivering results that meet or exceed those expectations (Cascio and Shurygailo 2003). Nonetheless, in a virtual environment, special attention should be given to the groups of team members that work separated from each other. In this environment, people usually do not have the opportunity to establish trust to the same level as if they work at the same physical location (Anoye and Kouamé 2018). One major challenge within any teamwork is effective communication. Leaders should encourage people to talk and listen to them, while motivating nonparticipative members to express their point of view (Cordery et al. 2009) and by having frequent communication to avoid misinterpretation (Avolio and Kahai 2003). Zaccaro and Bader (2003) find that the leader´s role is to motivate and empower team members with the aim of devoting more effort to team tasks. More than ever before, digital technology enables people from any organizational level—and even beyond the organization—to participate and to be heard. Finally, leaders must coach team members for professional improvement (Cordery et al. 2009).
Providing team members with a clear vision and direction in times of uncertainty, is a capability that is desirable for digital leaders. The leader ensures the team actions are aligned with the organizational purpose (Avolio et al. 2000). Besides having a strong vision, leaders need to foresee changes and promote innovation, aside from facilitating and leading change. The ability to assist change in facing digital and business opportunities helps employees feel a part of the bigger picture and to become engaged. Leaders should be value creators and protectors for their organizations (Li et al. 2016). Quick responses to opportunities and to threats—being agile -, a buzz word often used in the digital realm—are valuable to all leaders who want to succeed in uncertain times (Pulley and Sessa 2001). Agile organizations continually evolve and are flexible enough to adapt themselves to a constant changing environment (Pulley and Sessa 2001). Incorporating diversity in all forms (e.g. cognitive, ethnic, gender, and age) helps drive innovation in the organizations that improves their overall effectiveness (Pulley et al. 2002; Li et al. 2016) and stimulates their knowledge sharing that breaks down reticence from culturally diverse members and improves collaboration (Cordery et al. 2009). Calculated risk-taking (Kissler 2001) and informed decision-making (Van Wart et al. 2017b) in fast-paced times are essential to digital leaders. Many leaders do not have the answers to the problems they face. Because of the increasing complexity, volatility, and ambiguity of digital problems, encouraging cognitive diversity is a valuable resource. No single point-of-view holds the only truth (Pulley and Sessa 2001) and a psychological safe environment is needed for people to be confident that their inputs are welcome and appreciated (Cordery et al. 2009). Further, in order to have a competitive team, leaders must be able to identify and retain talent, by quickly screening and selecting candidates expected to rapidly create value for the organization (Kissler 2001; Belitski and Liversage 2019).
The fast-changing ways in which digital technologies are being implemented means that leadership ethics become even more important than ever before. It is mandatory to care about ethical leadership behavior to discern moral dilemmas, prioritize values, evaluate risks, protect privacy, and make ethical decisions (Lee 2009). Leaders in the digital age should think outside the box and to envisage new scenarios for digital business across firms and industries; therefore, an open mind is particularly necessary (Li et al. 2016). The leader’s positive attitude has an impact on the team that can increase their productivity. Initiative is also an important factor that can enable a quick response to the main threats to competitiveness in the digital age (Cascio and Shurygailo 2003). Organizations around the globe are experimenting and innovating every day. Thus, to meet the needs of this evolving market, leaders need to be an insatiable lifelong independent learner (Kissler 2001). This constant changing environment requires initiative and empathy to cope with stressful situations or crises as well as being enthusiastic and passionate about things (Li et al. 2016).
Organizations need leaders who understand and are better prepared for the impact that digital technology can have on their business. Digitally savvy leaders are better prepared to face constant business challenges, anticipating and responding to new forms of competition, coping with complexity and leveraging data and analytics to make decisions that rely on a hands-on approach (Belitski and Liversage 2019; Van Wart et al. 2017a). Leaders need to have analytical thinking to meaningfully interpret the vast amount of data that has never been greater (Pulley and Sessa 2001; Pulley et al. 2002). Besides being digitally savvy, leaders also need to have business skills, such as administrative and industry knowledge but also be aware of time management to work in a fast-changing environment (Zaccaro and Bader 2003). Finally, being result orientated towards an issue is also a desirable capability for a digital leader. Leaders are expected to maintain the high performance of their team by establishing performance goals, helping develop workable plans, and by providing results (Zaccaro and Bader 2003).
The literature review in this study considers articles published until year 2020. Nonetheless, we analyzed new data collection from Scopus and Web of Science databases between years 2021 and 2022 to update the literature review to verify if any relevant DL capabilities appeared more recently. Again, the exact keyword search and exclusion criteria were applied. The new search result in a dataset containing 138 articles, in which 42 articles were excluded from the analysis due to non-organizational issues, resulting in 96 articles. Appendix C shows the articles concerning the years 2021 and 2022.
The findings show an increase in articles concerning the DL aspect. This result is in line with the bibliometric analysis of Tigre et al. (2023), which concludes that the DL field has not entered its maturity stage yet, stating the relevance and actuality of the theme. Moreover, the body of literature that recognizes the key aspect of DL is growing (Wang et al. 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and technological advancement seem to channel the DL theme (Aggarwal and Kumar 2022). Therefore, the COVID-19 crisis emphasized leadership in the face of uncertainty and stress (Sandberg et al. 2022). The relevance of understanding which behaviors improve social interactions and organizational performances in digital scenarios remains critical, especially after the COVID-19 advent (Bellis et al. 2022).
The literature review of this new dataset seems to reinforce the capabilities of DL captured by the content analysis conducted from the year 2000 to 2020, reinforced by the Delphi panel. In addition, it seems to be an emphasis in the digital transformation economy on understanding how to create renewed leadership capabilities to lead a workforce transformation while creating market value (Jackson and Dunn-Jensen 2021).
Some studies focus on some critical DL capabilities to drive digital transformation: digital literacy, positive attitude, knowledge sharing, engagement, trust, and ethics (Abbu et al. 2022). Different leadership capabilities are also examined (e.g., results of information dissemination, goals and assessments, mistakes and conflicts, change, and innovation) (Harbani et al. 2021). Bibliometric and content analysis is the focus of a different study that identifies three clusters of e-leadership in a virtual environment: virtual leadership and virtual team performance, adoption of technology, and e-communication strategies (Aggarwal and Kumar 2022). Moreover, a different study focuses on six leadership capabilities for digital transformation entrepreneurship (e.g., knowledge creation, communication, engaging people, mentoring, envisioning digital changes, promoting digital transformation) (Schiuma et al. 2022). Finally, some authors categorize the effectiveness of complementary leadership behaviors in the digital age, namely task-oriented (i.e., providing direction, control of work) and people-oriented behaviors (i.e., establishing trustful relationships, providing support to employees) (Weber et al. 2022). It seems that different DL capabilities are necessary to thrive in the digital scenario. However, how the capabilities are studied separately or integrated into different categories or dimensions may vary significantly.
Leadership is also studied concerning the gig economy workers (i.e., individuals acting as freelancers for organizations) through virtual environments that impact how leadership unfolds (Nieken 2022; Schmidt and Van Dellen 2022). Other study uses a systematic literature review of how human relationships change in a digital scenario and what to expect for the post-pandemic (Bellis et al. 2022).
Nonetheless, some articles focus on some specific DL capabilities. Innovation is a topic that appears in many studies (e.g., Erhan et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2022), informing that DL influences innovation performance to explore and exploit the benefits of digital transformation (Benitez et al. 2022). Creativity is another topic that continues to appear in academic studies. DL positively affects employee creativity, demonstrating the relationship between these constructs (Zhu et al. 2022). Furthermore, DL should focus on trust for organizations to thrive in the rapidly changing innovation environment (Abbu et al. 2022). Leading virtual teams is a leadership concern around trust, communication, engagement, and support (Wittmer and Hopkins 2022). Finally, different aspects of collaboration (Komp et al. 2022), sustainability (Niu et al. 2022), and autonomy (Ruiner and Klumpp 2022) also appear.
Therefore, our proposed framework that integrates essential DL capabilities in four dimensions seems to be updated concerning the academic literature post-COVID pandemic.
5.1 Limitations
While our review is timely and includes both an academic literature analysis and a practitioner perspective, it is not without its limitations. The background of each panel member may directly influence their decision-making about the topics; this bias is generally not within the control of a Delphi study. Additionally, panel members are often limited in the amount of time they could dedicate to the Delphi study, therefore reducing their ability to consider all dimensions under study. Although the results from a panel of experts can produce practical and thoughtful insights, they may not be an exhaustive nor an all-inclusive set of ideas. Regarding the systematic literature review, despite analyzing 21-years of peer-reviewed articles, the choice to limit the study to those that explicitly mentioned the search terms and may have missed some important articles concerning the theme.
5.2 Future research
The avenues for future research are plentiful. Upcoming literature reviews and Delphi studies should consider expanding the keywords for different searches on the digital phenomena. Focusing on digital technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence, machine learning) could provide some new insights for the field, and new leadership characteristics can emerge as the topic becomes more mature in organizations and the literature. Furthermore, it will be necessary to empirically validate the proposed capabilities through new and different studies. Nonetheless, this study can be regarded as an insight into the main leadership capabilities for digital times. Other future studies could strengthen the studies on the competencies that were highlighted most strongly by the experts compared to the literature. Perhaps these topics have nuances to better explore due to the digital transformation.
DL operationalization could be established by elaborating a scale to measure the DL capabilities expected of the digital leader. Table 4 suggests items that could be tested using an exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory factor analysis to verify which items will remain in the final DL scale. Moreover, a causal relationship between different DL constructs could be explored. As leadership is context-related, what are the most significant changes in DL behaviors pre- and post-COVID-19? How important is each dimension concerning the industry of DL studied? Is there any difference?
Leadership is context-related (Osborn et al. 2002). Therefore, the DL needs to perform in a time of disruptive technological change, in which strategic importance of ethics in the context of DL is important (Vial 2019). With the increased use of generative AI systems (e.g., ChatGPT) to provide content or outputs (e.g., text, images, audio, etc.) based on the data they are trained on (Eke 2023), DL is needed to operate and guide the organization towards an acceptable and ethical behavior using these systems (Dwivedi et al. 2023). AI has been used to accomplish different HR activities (e.g., recruitment, selection, training) in organizations (Banks et al. 2022). AI relies on data, training models, and human input, being possible to inject bias into the system (Dwivedi et al. 2023). Therefore, another study could concentrate on the DL role to avoid bias amplification and to ensure diverse representation (e.g., see Bolukbasi et al. 2016 as an example of gender bias in machine learning datasets). As more machine-based human interactions are being used as recruiters (e.g., AI chatbots), the findings may have implications for identifying the impact on HR recruiting and engagement practices (Nawaz and Gomes 2019). Therefore, calling leaders to concentrate their attention on it. Another future study can combine case studies and in-depth interviews to understand of employees’ AI usage contribute to employee performance and engagement (Wijayati et al. 2022) and how DL influences employees’ behavior. In addition, the qualitative examination could provide different elements of the DL’s capabilities. Finally, leaders must increasingly interact between employees and AI, adding another component to the leadership process (Peifer et al. 2022).
While Industry 4.0 is about automation (i.e., AI, machine learning, big data), Industry 5.0 focuses on the synergy between humans and autonomous machines (Nahavandi 2019). The introduction of robots in the workplace may affect social interactions and can be more challenging with robots in management or superior positions (Demir et al. 2019). Therefore, another potential study could examine the leader–follower interaction when one part is a robot. How different will the employee’s social behavior be in interaction with human leaders and robot leaders, if any? What are the challenges for managers to build a team based on collaboration, having humans and robots working together?
Furthermore, another future study could analyze the interaction between leaders and followers in the metaverse ecosystem using avatars. The metaverse with different design elements is recognized as a valuable means to deliver emotional content and can elicit distinct emotions in people (Dozio et al. 2022). So, how does a leader build trustworthiness with their followers in a different scenario? As leadership is context-related, are there any differences between building trustworthiness in the metaverse and in person?
6 Conclusions
The establishment of an international panel together with a 21-year systematic literature review of leadership in the digital environment allowed us to identify the main capabilities that leaders need to thrive nowadays. The results of our study show that the leadership capabilities have some fundamentals of good leadership mixed with digital tendencies due to the fast-changing business environment, aligned with Kane et al. (2019). Leaders must manage the dynamic capabilities of the organization while seeking market trends to thrive in an unpredictable business era. Although some leadership capabilities are highlighted due to digital transformation, such as to be digital and technological savvy, some of them remain the same, such as to have vision and direction, and to empower the team (Kane et al. 2019).
DL differs from other similar constructs, such as e-leadership and virtual leadership. E-leadership was stated in 2000 due to the growth in information technology (e.g., internet, email, and videoconference) that transformed work and leadership (Avolio et al. 2014). The difference between e-leadership and DL are that the latter is not only mediated by technology (Avolio et al. 2000) but has evolved into a way of thinking and behaving in digital environment (Kane et al. 2019). It seems that leadership effectiveness through virtuality was a significant concern until digital technologies became more present in organizations (Ziek and Smulowitz 2014).
Our findings concerning DL capabilities are in line with other studies (e.g., Kane et al. 2019), as while many leadership capabilities remain the same, the characteristics of digital transformation also require new capabilities. For example, leading networks instead of via hierarchy seems more critical due to improving fast and collaborative work, removing barriers, and increasing agility (Kane et al. 2019). Innovation and adaptability are topics that have strongly appeared more recently, as organizations need to change continuously and rapidly to thrive in a digital world (Tigre et al. 2023). DL drives innovation throughout the organization as a competitive advantage (El Sawy et al. 2016). Digital leaders must have a change-oriented mindset, allowing their followers to try new things, make mistakes, adjust, and scale (Kane et al. 2019). Nonetheless, the fundamental capabilities usually related to leadership (e.g., communication, direction-setting) continue to apply, although they are changing (Pulley et al. 2002). However, traditional leadership capabilities do not simply have to be replaced, but the understanding of leadership acting in the digital age has to be developed (Jäckli and Meier 2020). The DL needs to anticipate trends and deal with complex problems arising due to digital technology while leading the followers in response to those changes (Kane et al. 2019).
DL is an important construct, as work has been enhanced due to rapid technological advances (Larson and DeChurch 2020). Companies need leadership capabilities to envision and drive digital transformation (Zeike et al. 2019). Since digital technologies are deeply changing how organizations operate, leaders need to develop their skills to be prepared to face the nowadays business scenario (Hai et al. 2021). Therefore, DL holds the possibility to address the business transformation addressed by digital technology (Banks et al. 2022). Against this backdrop, leadership capabilities are the ways in which managers are driving change (Zeike et al. 2019). Finally, DL will be a regular standard element of a digital society (Peng 2021). So, leadership scholars must examine the digital implications for the organizational settings (Larson and DeChurch 2020).
A content analysis is a flexible method that can be used to conduct qualitative systematic reviews (Finfgeld-Connett 2014) and has the ability to capture the richer sense of concepts due to its qualitative basis (Insch et al. 1997). Our study explored the academic literature and developed an inductive approach to address the main capabilities that are needed to excel in a digital world. The four-round Delphi study showed high homogeneity in terms of experts’ opinions of the second-order themes. The experts worked in six different countries (Portugal, China, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Brazil) that gave a broader perspective on the topic studied. The result of this work offers insights into the practical capabilities of leadership. This study proposes four dimensions of digital leadership: interpersonal oriented, personal attributes, strategic focus, and delivery related. Additionally, it offered a total of 29 leadership capabilities, with a balanced number for each dimension: 7 interpersonal oriented capabilities, 7 personal attributes capabilities, 8 strategic focus capabilities, and 7 delivery related capabilities. Consequently, we suggest a new scale using a single item to represent each capability (Table 4).
This paper contributes to the literature by presenting a comprehensive analysis of the rising field of leadership in the digital environment by highlighting the differences in the concepts of e-leadership and digital leadership. Moreover, this study provides a broad and holistic perspective on the digital leadership capabilities that has not been previously offered in the literature, while helping practitioners to focus on developing these capabilities.
Data availability
No data will be made available for this article.
References
Abbu H, Mugge P, Gudergan G (2022) Successful digital leadership requires building trust: for companies to excel in the new, rapidly changing innovation environment, their leaders must focus on trust. Res Technol Manag 65:29–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2095168
Ader CR (1995) A longitudinal study of agenda setting for the issue of environmental pollution. J Mass Commun Q 72:300–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909507200204
Agarwal P, Resource H, Area M et al (2017) High-performance work systems and creativity implementation: the role of psychological capital and psychological safety. Hum Resour Manag J 23:440–458
Aggarwal S, Kumar A (2022) Dealing with a new normal ‘E-leadership’: a study using bibliometric analysis and content analysis. Vision 0:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629221130592
Ahmad S, Wong KY (2019) Development of weighted triple-bottom line sustainability indicators for the Malaysian food manufacturing industry using the Delphi method. J Clean Prod 229:1167–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.399
Anoye AB, Kouamé JS (2018) Leadership challenges in virtual team environment. Int J Sci Technol Res 7:160–167
Avolio BJ, Kahai SS (2003) Adding the “e” to e-leadership: How it may impact your leadership. Organ Dyn 31:325–338
Avolio BJ, Kahai S, Dodge GE (2000) E-leadership: implications for theory, research, and practice. Leadersh Q 11:615–668
Avolio BJ, Sosik JJ, Kahai SS, Baker B (2014) E-leadership: re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. Leadersh Q 25:105–131
Banerjee P, Chau PYK (2004) An evaluative framework for analysing e-government convergence capability in developing countries. Electron Gov 1:29–48. https://doi.org/10.1504/EG.2004.004135
Banks GC, Dionne SD, Mast MS, Sayama H (2022) Leadership in the digital era: a review of who, what, when, where, and why. Leadersh Q 33:101634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101634
Bardin L (2011) Análise de Conteúdo. Edições 70, São Paulo
Barrios M, Guilera G, Nuño L, Gómez-Benito J (2021) Consensus in the delphi method: What makes a decision change? Technol Forecast Soc Change 163:1–10
Bec A, Moyle CJ, Moyle BD (2019) Community resilience to change: development of an index. Soc Indic Res 142:1103–1128
Belitski M, Liversage B (2019) E-Leadership in small and medium-sized enterprises in the developing world. Technol Innov Manag Rev 9:64–74. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1212
Bellis P, Trabucchi D, Buganza T, Verganti R (2022) How do human relationships change in the digital environment after COVID-19 pandemic? The road towards agility. Eur J Innov Manag 25:821–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2022-0093
Benitez J, Arenas A, Castillo A, Esteves J (2022) Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: the role of platform digitization capability. Inf Manag 59:103590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103590
Bhatt Y, Ghuman K, Dhir A (2020) Sustainable manufacturing. Bibliometrics and content analysis. J Clean Prod 260:120988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120988
Bhuyan A, Tripathy A, Padhy RK, Gautam A (2022) Evaluating the lithium-ion battery recycling industry in an emerging economy: a multi-stakeholder and multi-criteria decision-making approach. J Clean Prod 331:130007
Bolden R, Regan NO (2016) Digital disruption and the future of leadership: an interview with Rick Haythornthwaite, chairman of Centrica and MasterCard. J Manag Inq 25:438–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616638173
Bolton A, Brown RB, McCartney S (1999) The capacity spiral: four weddings and a funeral. J Vocat Educ Train 51:585–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636829900200094
Bolukbasi T, Chang KW, Zou J et al (2016) Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 29:4356–4364
Brady SR (2015) Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research. Int J Q Methods 14:160940691562138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621381
Braun S, Bark AH, Kirchner A et al (2019) Emails from the boss—curse or blessing? Relations between communication channels, leader evaluation, and employees’ attitudes. Int J Bus Commun 56:50–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415597516
Bryman A, Bell E (2011) Business research methods, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Buchan NR, Croson RTA, Solnick S (2008) Trust and gender: an examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game. J Econ Behav Organ 68:466–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.10.006
Campbell JL, Quincy C, Osserman J, Pedersen OK (2013) Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociol Methods Res 42:294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
Cascio WF, Shurygailo S (2003) E-Leadership and virtual teams. Organ Dyn 31:362–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00130-4
Chowdhury MH, Quaddus M (2017) Supply chain resilience: conceptualization and scale development using dynamic capability theory. Int J Prod Econ 188:185–204
Claessens BJC, Van EW, Rutte CG, Roe RA (2007) A review of the time management literature. Pers Rev 36:255–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710726136
Clark SM, Gioia DA, Ketchen DJ, Thomas JB (2010) Transitional identity as a facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger. Adm Sci Q 55:397–438. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.397
Clayton MJ (1997) Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educ Psychol 17:373–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170401
Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2011) Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 62:1382–1042
Colbert AE, Yee N, George G (2016) The digital workforce and the workplace of the future. Acad Manag J 59:731–739. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4003
Contreras F, Baykal E, Abid G (2020) E-leadership and teleworking in times of COVID-19 and beyond: What we know and where do we go. Front Psychol 11:590271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590271
Cordery J, Soo C, Kirman B et al (2009) Leading parallel global virtual teams: lessons from Alcoa. Organ Dyn 38:204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.002
Corley KG, Gioia DA (2004) Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Adm Sci Q 49:173–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131471
Cortellazzo L, Bruni E, Zampieri R (2019) The role of leadership in a digitalized world: a review. Front Psychol 10:1938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938
Cronin MA, George E (2023) The why and how of the integrative review. Organ Res Methods 26:168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507
Curado C, Oliveira M, Antunes M (2019) Organizational ambidexterity and customer relationship management: a cycle of virtue. Knowl Process Manag 26:229–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1605
Dajani JS, Sincoff MZ, Talley WK (1979) Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 13:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(79)90007-6
Darics E (2020) E-leadership or “ How to be boss in instant messaging ?” The role of nonverbal communication. Int J Bus Commun 57:3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416685068
de Jesus A, Antunes P, Santos R, Mendonça S (2019) Eco-innovation pathways to a circular economy: envisioning priorities through a Delphi approach. J Clean Prod 228:1494–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.049
Demir KA, Döven G, Sezen B (2019) Industry 5.0 and human-robot co-working. Proced Comput Sci 158:688–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.104
Dewar R, Hons B, Claus AP, Tucker K (2017) Perspectives on postural control dysfunction to inform future research: a Delphi study for children with cerebral palsy. Arch Psysical Med Rehabil 98:463–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.07.021
Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM et al (2014) Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 67:401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
Dozio N, Marcolin F, Scurati GW et al (2022) A design methodology for affective Virtual Reality. Int J Hum Comput Stud 162:102791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102791
Duriau VJ, Reger RK, Pfarrer MD (2007) A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organ Res Methods 10:5–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289252
Dwivedi YK, Kshetri N, Hughes L et al (2023) “So what if ChatGPT wrote it ?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manage 71:102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 44:350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson AC, Lei Z (2014) Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav 1:23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
Egan TM, Akdere M (2005) Clarifying distance education roles and competencies: exploring similarities and differences between professional and student-practitioner perspectives. Int J Phytoremed 21:87–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1902_3
Eke DO (2023) ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI : Threat to academic integrity ? J Responsible Technol 13:100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060
El Sawy OA, Amsinck H, Kraemmergaard P, Vinther AL (2016) How LEGO built the foundations and enterprise capabilities for digital leadership. MIS Q Exec 15:141–166
Elidjen MLWW, Rukmana RAN (2019) Intervening role of innovation management on relationship between digital leadership and dynamic capability accelerated by collaboration. Int J Innov Creat Chang 6:249–264. https://doi.org/10.21533/pen.v10i1.2237
Erffmeyer RC, Erffmeyer ES, Lane IM (1986) The Delphi Technique: an empirical evaluation of the optimal number of rounds. Gr Organ Manag 11:120–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118601100110
Erhan T, Uzunbacak HH, Aydin E (2022) From conventional to digital leadership: exploring digitalization of leadership and innovative work behavior. Manag Res Rev 45:1524–1543. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0338
Fernandez DB, Jawadi N (2015) Virtual R&D project teams: from e-leadership to performance. J Appl Bus Res 31:1693–1709
Finfgeld-Connett D (2014) Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Q Res 14:341–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113481790
Fisher M, King J, Tague G (2001) Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Educ Today 21:516–525
Foth T, Efstathiou N, Vanderspank-Wright B et al (2016) The use of Delphi and nominal group technique in nursing education: a review. Int J Nurs Stud 60:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.04.015
Fowler SW, King AW, Marsh SJ, Victor B (2000) Beyond products: new strategic imperatives for developing competencies in dynamic environments. J Eng Technol Manag JET-M 17:357–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(00)00029-1
Galvagno M, Giaccone SC (2019) Mapping creative tourism research: reviewing the field and outlining future directions. J Hosp Tour Res 43:1256–1280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019862030
Gioia DA, Price KN, Hamilton AL, Thomas JB (2010) Forging an identity: an insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Adm Sci Q 55:1–46. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.1
Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2012) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods 16:15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods 16:15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Giromini L, De Campora G, Brusadelli E et al (2016) Validity and reliability of the interpersonal competence questionnaire: empirical evidence from an Italian study. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 38:113–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9499-5
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago, IL
Gurbaxani V, Dunkle D (2019) Gearing up for successful digital transformation. MIS Q Exec 18:209–220. https://doi.org/10.17705/2msqe.00017
Hai TN, Van QN, Tuyet MNT (2021) Digital transformation: opportunities and challenges for leaders in the emerging countries in response to covid-19 pandemic. Emerg Sci J 5:21–36. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2021-SPER-03
Haleem A, Khan MI, Khan S, Jami AR (2020) Research status in Halal: a review and bibliometric analysis. Mod Supply Chain Res Appl 2:23–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/mscra-06-2019-0014
Hanna N (2018) A role for the state in the digital age. J Innov Entrep 7:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-018-0086-3
Harbani MN, Judiarni JA (2021) Digital leadership in facing challenges in the era industrial revolution 4.0. Webology 18:975–990
Harrison SH, Rouse ED (2014) Let’s dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: a qualitative study of modern dancers. Acad Manag J 57:1256–1283
Hart MD (2010) A Delphi study to determine baseline informatics competencies for nurse managers. CIN - Comput Informatics Nurs 28:364–367. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181f69d89
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H (2000) Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 32:1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x
Hayes TL, Oltman KA, Kaylor LE, Belgudri A (2020) How leaders can become more committed to diversity management. Consult Psychol J 72:247–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000171
Hsu CC, Sandford BA (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assessment, Res Eval 12:1–8
İnel MN (2019) An empirical study on measurement of efficiency of digital transformation by using data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci Lett 9:549–556. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.1.008
Insch GS, Moore JE, Murphy LD (1997) Content analysis in leadership research: examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. Leadersh Q 8:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90028-X
Jäckli U, Meier C (2020) Leadership in the digital age: its dimensions and actual state in Swiss companies. Int J Manag Enterp Dev 19:293–312
Jackson NC, Dunn-Jensen LM (2021) Leadership succession planning for today’s digital transformation economy: key factors to build for competency and innovation. Bus Horiz 64:273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.11.008
Jiang H, Luo Y, Kulemeka O (2017) Strategic social media use in public relations: professionals’ perceived social media impact, leadership behaviors, and work-life conflict. Int J Strateg Commun 11:18–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1226842
Kane GC, Phillips AN, Copulsky J, Andrus G (2019) How digital leadership is(n’t) different. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 60:34–39
Keathley-Herring H, Van Aken E, Gonzalez-Aleu F et al (2016) Assessing the maturity of a research area: bibliometric review and proposed framework. Scientometrics 109:927–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2096-x
Kessel L, Graf-Vlachy L (2021) Chief digital officers: the state of the art and the road ahead. Manag Rev Q 72:1249–1286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00227-8
Kissler GD (2001) E-Leader Organ Dyn 30:121–133
Komp R, Kauffeld S, Ianiro-Dahm P (2022) The concept of health-promoting collaboration—a starting point to reduce presenteeism? Front Psychol 12:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.782597
Kraus S, Breier M, Dasí-Rodríguez S (2020) The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int Entrep Manag J 16:1023–1042
Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks
Larson L, DeChurch LA (2020) Leading teams in the digital age: four perspectives on technology and what they mean for leading teams. Leadersh Q 31:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101377
Lawrence P (2015) Leading change – insights into how leaders actually approach the challenge of complexity. J Chang Manag 15:231–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1021271
Leduc S, Guilbert L, Vallery G (2015) Impact of ICTs on leadership practices: representations and actions. Leadersh Organ Dev J 36:380–395
Lee MR (2009) E-ethical leadership for virtual project teams. Int J Proj Manag 27:456–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.012
Li W, Liu K, Belitski M et al (2016) E-leadership through strategic alignment: an empirical study of small -an medium- sized enterprises in the digital age. J Inf Technol 31:185–206. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.10
Linstone HA, Turoff M (2011) Delphi: a brief look backward and forward. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78:1712–1719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.09.011
Maduka NS, Edwards H, David G et al (2018) Analysis of competencies for effective virtual team leadership in building successful organisations. Benchmarking an Int J 25:696–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2016-0124
Massaroli A, Martini JG, Lino MM et al (2017) The Delphi method as a methodological framework for research in nursing. Texto e Context Enferm 26:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072017001110017
Matzler K, von den Eichen SF, Anschober M, Kohler T (2018) The crusade of digital disruption. J Bus Strategy 39:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-12-2017-0187
Miller G (2001) The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tour Manag 22:351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00067-4
Nag R, Gioia DA (2012) From common to uncommon knowledge: foundations of firm-specific use of knowledge as a resource. Acad Manag J 55:421–457. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0352
Nahavandi S (2019) Industry 5.0 - a human-centric solution. Sustainability 11:43–71
Narbona J (2016) Digital leadership, Twitter and Pope Francis. Church, Commun Cult 1:90–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/23753234.2016.1181307
Nawaz N, Gomes AM (2019) Artificial intelligence chatbots are new recruiters. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 10:1–5
Nieken P (2022) Charisma in the gig economy: the impact of digital leadership and communication channels on performance. Leadersh Q 36:101631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101631
Niu SJ, Park B Il, Jung JS (2022) The effects of digital leadership and ESG management on organizational innovation and sustainability. Sustainability 14:15639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315639
Novakowski N, Wellar B (2008) Using the Delphi technique in normative planning research: methodological design considerations. Environ Plan A 40:1485–1500. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39267
Oke A, Munshi N, Walumbwa FO (2009) The influence of leadership on innovation processes and activities. Organ Dyn 38:64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.10.005
Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42:15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002
Orndoff K (2002) Developing strategic competencies: a starting point. Inf Manag J 36:57–62
Osborn RN, Hunt JG, Jauch LR (2002) Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadersh Q 13:797–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00154-6
Owens BP, Johnson MD, Mitchell TR (2013) Expressed humility in organizations: implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organ Sci 24:1517–1538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795
Palmaccio M, Dicuonzo G, Belyaeva ZS (2021) The internet of things and corporate business models: a systematic literature review. J Bus Res 131:610–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.069
Papaoikonomou E, Ryan G, Ginieis M (2011) Towards a holistic approach of the attitude behaviour gap in ethical consumerbBehaviours: empirical evidence from Spain. Int Adv Econ Res 17:77–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-010-9288-6
Paré G, Cameron AF, Poba-Nzaou P, Templier M (2013) A systematic assessment of rigor in information systems ranking-type Delphi studies. Inf Manag 50:207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.03.003
Parry K, Mumford MD, Bower I, Watts LL (2014) Qualitative and historiometric methods in leadership research: a review of the first 25 years of The Leadership Quarterly. Leadersh Q 25:132–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.006
Peifer Y, Jeske T, Hille S (2022) Artificial intelligence and its impact on leaders and leadership. Proced Comput Sci 200:1024–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.301
Peng B (2021) Digital leadership: state governance in the era of digital technology. Cult Sci Adv. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096608321989835
Potter WJ, Levine-Donnerstein D (1999) Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. J Appl Commun Res 27:258–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539
Potter WJ, Ware W (1987) An analysis of the contexts of antisocial acts on prime-time television. Commun Res 14:664–686
Powell C (2003) The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 41:376–382. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x
Pulley ML, Sessa VI (2001) E-leadership: tackling complex challenges. Ind Commer Train 33:225–230
Pulley ML, Sessa V, Malloy M (2002) E-leadership: a two-pronged idea. T + D 56:34–47
Reis J, Amorim M, Melao N, Matos P (2016) Digital Transformation: a literature review and guidelines for future digital transformation. In: 10th European conference on information systems management. Academic Conferences and publishing limited. pp 20–28
Roman AV, Van Wart M, Wang X et al (2019) Defining e-leadership as competence in ICT-mediated communications: an exploratory assessment. Public Adm Rev 79:853–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12980
Rubino-Hallman S, Hanna NK (2007) New technologies for public sector transformation: a critical analysis of e-government initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean. J E-Govern 3:3–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J399v03n03_02
Ruiner C, Klumpp M (2022) Autonomy and new modes of control in digital work contexts – a mixed-methods study of driving professions in food logistics. Empl Relations 44:890–912. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2021-0139
Sandberg DS, Pennington CM, Lindquist MA (2022) Virtual leadership: CEOs and C-level executives of healthcare organizations in the United States reimagined new roles as virtual leaders. J Leadersh Stud 16:61–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21827
Sasmoko S, Mihardjo LWW, Alamsjah F, Elidjen E (2019) Dynamic capability: the effect of digital leadership on fostering innovation capability based on market orientation. Manag Sci Lett 9:1633–1644. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.5.024
Schäfer N (2022) Making transparency transparent: a systematic literature review to define and frame supply chain transparency in the context of sustainability. Manag Rev Q. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00252-7
Schiuma G, Schettini E, Santarsiero F, Carlucci D (2022) The transformative leadership compass: six competencies for digital transformation entrepreneurship. Int J Entrep Behav Res 28:1273–1291. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2021-0087
Schmidt RC (1997) Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decis Sci 28:763–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01330.x
Schmidt GB, Van Dellen SA (2022) Leadership of place in virtual environments. Leadership 18:186–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211045153
Schmidt R, Lyytinen K, Keil M, Cule P (2001) Identifying software project risks: an international Delphi study. J Manag Inf Syst 17:5–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045662
Schneider P (2018) Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: an empirically backed research agenda for a nascent field. Rev Manag Sci 12:803–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0283-2
Schulze H, Bals L (2020) Implementing sustainable purchasing and supply management (SPSM ): a Delphi study on competencies needed by purchasing and supply management (PSM) professionals. J Purch Supply Manag 26:100625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2020.100625
Schwarzmüller T, Brosi P, Duman D, Welpe IM (2018) How does the digital transformation affect organizations? Key themes of change in work design and leadership. Manag Rev 29:114–138. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2018-2-114
Scott G, Coates H, Anderson M (2008) Learning leaders in times of change: academic leadership capabilities for Australian higher education. https://research.acer.edu.au/higher_education/3
Shamim S, Cang S, Yu H, Li Y (2016) Management approaches for Industry 4.0. In: 2016 IEEE congress on evoluionary computation (CEC). pp 5309–5316
Shi C, Zhang Y, Li C et al (2020) Using the delphi method to identify risk factors contributing to adverse events in residential aged care facilities. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 13:523–537. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S243929
Soriano AS, Álvares CL, Valdés RMT (2018) Bibliometric analysis to identify an emerging area: public Relations Intelligence—a challenge to strengthen technological observatories in the network society. Scientometrics 115:1591–1614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2651-8
Sousa MJ, Rocha Á (2019) Skills for disruptive digital business. J Bus Res 94:257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.051
Stone DL, Deadrick DL (2015) Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human resource management. Hum Resour Manag Rev 25:139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.003
Stone DL, Dulebohn JH (2013) Emerging issues in theory and research on electronic human resource management (eHRM ). Hum Resour Manag Rev 23:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.001
Sumner-Armstrong C, Newcombe P, Martin R (2008) A qualitative investigation into leader behavioural flexibility. J Manag Dev 27:843–857. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810895668
Swanson E, Kim S, Lee S-M et al (2020) The effect of leader competencies on knowledge sharing and job performance: social capital theory. J Hosp Tour Manag 42:88–96
Taggar S (2001) Group composition, creative synergy, and group performance. J Creat Behav 35:261–286
Tigre FB, Henriques PL, Curado C (2022) Building trustworthiness: leadership self-portraits. Q Quant 56:3971–3991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01291-8
Tigre FB, Curado C, Henriques PL (2023) Digital leadership: a bibliometric analysis. J Leadersh Organ Stud 30:40–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221123132
Trevelyan EG, Robinson N (2015) Delphi methodology in health research: How to do it? Eur J Integr Med 7:423–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2015.07.002
Van Wart M, Roman A, Wang X, Liu C (2017a) Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: identifying the elements of e-leadership. Int Rev Adm Sci 85:80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316681446
Van Wart M, Roman A, Wang X, Liu C (2017b) Integrating ICT adoption issues into (e-)leadership theory. Telemat Inform 34:527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.003
Vecchiato R (2015) Creating value through foresight: first mover advantages and strategic agility. Technol Forecast Soc Change 101:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.016
Vial G (2019) Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst 28:118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Von der Gracht HA (2012) Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol Forecast Soc Change 79:1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013
Walvoord AAG, Redden ER, Elliott LR, Coovert MD (2008) Empowering followers in virtual teams: guiding principles from theory and practice. Comput Human Behav 24:1884–1906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.006
Wang XH, Kim TY, Lee DR (2016) Cognitive diversity and team creativity: effects of team intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership. J Bus Res 69:3231–3239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.026
Wang B, Schlagwein D, Cecez-Kecmanovic D, Cahalane MC (2020) Beyond the factory paradigm: digital nomadism and the digital future(s) of knowledge work post-COVID-19. J Assoc Inf Syst 21:1379–1401. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00641
Wang T, Lin X, Sheng F (2022) Digital leadership and exploratory innovation: from the dual perspectives of strategic orientation and organizational culture. Front Psychol 13:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.902693
Weber RP (1990) Quantitative applications in the social sciences: basic content analysis, 2nd edn. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks
Weber E, Büttgen M, Bartsch S (2022) How to take employees on the digital transformation journey: an experimental study on complementary leadership behaviors in managing organizational change. J Bus Res 143:225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.036
Wijayati DT, Rahman Z, Fahrullah A et al (2022) A study of artificial intelligence on employee performance and work engagement: the moderating role of change leadership. Int J Manpow 43:486–512. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2021-0423
Williams TA, Shepherd DA (2017) Mixed method social network analysis: combining inductive concept development, content analysis, and secondary data for quantitative analysis. Organ Res Methods 20:268–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115610807
Williams RI, Clark LA, Clark WR, Raffo DM (2021) Re-examining systematic literature review in management research: additional benefits and execution protocols. Eur Manag J 39:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.007
Wittmer JLS, Hopkins MM (2022) Leading remotely in a time of crisis: relationships with emotional intelligence. J Leadersh Organ Stud 29:176–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211053531
Worthington RL, Whittaker TA (2006) Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol 34:806–838
Xu LD, Xu EL, Li L (2018) Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends. Int J Prod Res 56:2941–2962. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806
Zaar S, Van den Bossche P, Gijselaers W (2020) How business students think about leadership: a qualitative study on leader identity and meaning-making. Acad Manag Learn Educ 19:168–191
Zaccaro SJ, Bader P (2003) E-leadership and the challenges of leading e-teams: minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organ Dyn 31:377–387. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137280640.0005
Zeike S, Bradbury K, Lindert L, Pfa H (2019) Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142628
Zhu J, Zhang B, Xie M, Cao Q (2022) Digital leadership and employee creativity: the role of employee job crafting and person-organization fit. Front Psychol 13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827057
Ziek P, Smulowitz S (2014) The impact of emergent virtual leadership competencies on team effectiveness. Leadersh Organ Dev J 35:106–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2012-0043
Funding
Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). This work was supported by FCT, I.P., the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology, under the Project UIDB/04521/2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tigre, F.B., Henriques, P.L. & Curado, C. The digital leadership emerging construct: a multi-method approach. Manag Rev Q (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00395-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00395-9