Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy

Bader K. AlNuaimi; Sanjay Kumar Singh; Shuang Ren; Pawan Budhwar; Dmitriy Vorobyev

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.038

Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy

AlNuaimi, Bader K.;Kumar Singh, Sanjay;Ren, Shuang;Budhwar, Pawan;Vorobyev, Dmitriy; 2022-06-01 00:00:00 M Ma as stte er riin ng g d diig giitta all ttr ra an ns sffo or rm ma attiio on n:: T Th he e n ne ex xu us s b be ettw we ee en n lle ea ad de er rs sh hiip p,, a ag giilliitty y,, a an nd d d diig giitta all s sttr ra atte eg gy y AUTHOR(S) B K AlNuaimi, S Kumar Singh, Shuang Ren, P Budhwar, D Vorobyev PUBLICATION DATE 01-06-2022 HANDLE 10536/DRO/DU:30166431 Downloaded from Deakin University’s Figshare repository Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy a b, * c d Bader K. AlNuaimi , Sanjay Kumar Singh , Shuang Ren , Pawan Budhwar , Dmitriy Vorobyev College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates School of Business, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland Deakin Business School, Melbourne, Australia Aston Business School, UK PRIGO University, Havirov, Czech Republic ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Drawing upon new institutional theory, we developed and tested a model on how digital transformational Digital transformation leadership and organizational agility influence digital transformation with digital strategy as a moderator. We Organizational agility found that digital transformational leadership and organizational agility positively influence digital trans- Leadership formation, and digital transformational leadership influences organizational agility. The finding of our study also Digital strategy indicates organizational agility to mediate the relationship between digital transformational leadership and Institutional theory digital transformation. Our findings offer an advanced understanding of the impact of transformational lead- COVID-19 ership and organizational agility on digital transformation and the role of digital strategy. Our study’s findings address critical questions about how leadership style and promoting organizational agility in the public sector can enhance digital transformation. 1. Introduction 2019). Despite these difficulties, implementing digital transformation technologies in the public sector organization holds many benefits, such Jack Welch once said, “When the rate of change inside an institution as improved transparency and accountability, better access to govern- becomes slower than the rate of change outside, the end is near” ment data, support for innovation, a responsive supply chain, improved (Viaene, 2018). The current business environment and operations are government services, support for environmental initiatives, operational undergoing rapid changes due to current digital transformation tech- benefits, and the encouragement of participation (Altayar, 2018; nologies. With the integration of the Internet, blockchain, big data, Seepma et al., 2020; AlNuaimi et al., 2021a). artificial intelligence (AI), and related technologies, the changing dy- McGrath and McManus (2020) reported that many business leaders namics of customer demand, and the disturbances stemming from nowadays are rushed into investing in large-scale, radical digital COVID-19, business operations changes have become problematic. transformation and hoping for the best. This leads to expensive digital Therefore, organizations, especially in the public sector, are seriously transformation failures that result in management departures, layoffs, exploring the opportunities emerging digital transformation technolo- and a back-to-basics strategy wherein digital efforts are sidelined, thus gies provide to enhance organizational agility and the flexibility needed remaining in the pilot-project stage (Siebel, 2019). The leading cause of to adapt to changing environments and meet government and customer this is the growing disconnect between rhetoric and reality, accompa- demands. However, public sector organizations are still facing many nied by the ongoing strategy–execution gap (Li, 2020). Throughout In- barriers to implementing digital transformation, such as the lack of dustry 4.0, many studies are available that could enable organizations to administrative skills, data availability, lack of resources, lack of tech- pursue digital transformation and innovate their processes to generate nological capabilities (Ferraris et al., 2020), and environmental uncer- many benefits. However, for organizations to remain successful and to tainty related to public management in the public sector (Oliva et al., survive in today’s disruptive market environment, they must tackle the * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.K. AlNuaimi), [email protected] (S. Kumar Singh), [email protected] (S. Ren), p.s.budhwar@aston. ac.uk (P. Budhwar), [email protected] (D. Vorobyev). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.038 Received 4 September 2021; Received in revised form 12 March 2022; Accepted 15 March 2022 Available online 21 March 2022 0148-2963/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 challenges that digital transformation, innovation, commitment, new expectations (David and Bitektine, 2009). NIT also explains how orga- skill sets, and other rapidly emerging new technologies pose (Scuotto, nizations interact with their environments to survive and succeed amidst Magni, Palladino, and Nicotra, 2022). competition and challenges. Institutions/organizations are viewed as Nevertheless, many organizations fail with digital transformation products of shared understandings and shared interpretations of because they begin with technological changes without building holistic acceptable norms of collective activity, such as policies, practices, and plans and coherent digital strategies (DSs) (Stefanova and Kabakchieva, job titles (Parsons, 1956; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). NIT highlights three 2019; Bresciani et al., 2021a). Leaders must ensure that their organi- fundamental forces that shape organizations. The first is coercive pres- zations develop digital mindsets and the agility required to respond to sures, which often stem from government-sponsored agencies, the de- disruptions related to digital technologies (Vial, 2019). Consequently, mands of the powerful, or resource-controlling organizations. The this study aims to combine several internal factors that could influence second is imitative pressures, which result from decision-maker’s digital transformation in the public sector to understand their in- dependence on other organizations’ behavior to guide their organiza- teractions and contributions to organizational agility. Thus, this study tions. The third is normative pressure, i.e., social expectations generated aims to: (1) examine the relationship between organizational agility and through professionals and other actors’ implicit or explicit efforts about digital transformational leadership, including this relationship’s influ - adopting particular policies and practices (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). ence on digital transformation; and (2) determine whether any positive NIT has commonly been used to understand the organizational moderation effect of digital strategy on organizational agility, digital change concerning implementing advanced technology by investigating transformational leadership, and digital transformation exists. We drew external pressures/factors on organizations’ practices and cultures upon institutional theory (INT: Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Green- (Adebanjo et al., 2018; Dubey et al., 2019). Change and innovation have wood et al., 2017) and new institutional theory (NIT: Greenwood, been explained within NIT by emphasizing the sociocultural aspects of Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2008) to examine and find the answer to organizing using two approaches: (1) considering the relationship be- these two research questions. tween stasis and change, seeing continuity and homogeneity as well as Thus, this study has several key contributions to advance theory and change and heterogeneity amongst organizations (Greenwood et al., practice in the field. First, INT is often used to explain the adoption and 2017); and (2) perceiving stasis and change as the outcomes of planning, spread of formal organizational structures and organizational culture structures, activities, and actions at multiple levels of analysis, including change, including written policies, standard practices, and new forms of the societal, field, organizational, and individual levels (Scott, 2013). organization (Suddaby et al., 2010). However, the utilization of INT in This study opted to use these two NIT approaches to explore digital investigating organizational agility in the literature is lacking. Dubey transformation as a complex and radical coercive change in the public et al. (2018a) recommended augmenting INT in future research to shed sector organization, emphasizing leadership, strategy, and, more light on the influence of organizational agility in the context of digital importantly, organizational agility. transformation technologies. This paper intends to bridge this gap by utilizing INT, emphasizing new institutional theory (NIT) to investigate 2.2. Digital transformation this phenomenon. Second, our study fills in the lack of understanding of how organizational agility, leadership, and strategy can contribute to Digital transformation (DT) is characterized by planned changes digital transformation, especially when many public and private sector built on a foundation of advanced technologies (Bresciani et al., 2021b). organizations are pushing the need to deploy digital transformation to Digital transformation can be described as an organizational shift to big survive during and post COVID-19 (Li, Hu, Zhao, and Li, 2021). Orga- data, analytics, the cloud, mobile communication technologies, and nizations are more likely to succeed with digital transformation by social media platforms to provide goods and services (Bresciani et al., focusing on internal abilities, leadership, relationships, and the align- 2021b; Nwankpa and Roumani, 2016). Nasiri et al. (2020) also ment of digital transformation with business strategy, which, in turn, described digital transformation as a tool for transforming business enhances their agility to respond to environmental turbulence (Li et al., processes, cultures, and organizational aspects to meet changing market 2021). Finally, our study advances extant literature on digital trans- requirements brought about by digital technologies. Digital trans- formation and organizational agility in the context of the public sector formation is characterized by three elements: (1) reexamining and organization. However, recent literature investigating the impact of redefining firm boundaries; (2) the opening up of products and services digital transformation technologies in the context of public sector or- to community input, as well as reducing property rights; and (3) ganization’s supply chain knowledge domain (Frossling and Ek, 2020; reshaping organizational and product identities (Parmentier and Man- Nekrasov and Sinitsyna, 2020; Seepma et al., 2020; AlNuaimi et al., gematin, 2014). NIT views digital transformation as a radical institu- 2021a), or have been qualitative and conceptual studies (Durao et al., tional change that diffuses through and disrupts both fields and 2019; Guarnieri and Gomes, 2019). Hence, this study aims to fill this gap organizations (Del Giudice et al., 2021; Hinings et al., 2018). Digital by investigating various internal factors influencing digital trans- transformation comprises the combined effects of several digital in- formation implementation in the public sector organization. novations and technologies, bringing about novel actors, structures, practices, values, arrangements, and beliefs that change, destroy, 2. Literature review and hypotheses development replace, or complement existing rules of the game within organizations, ecosystems, industries, or fields (Westerman, Bonnet, and McAfee, 2014; This study’s theoretical framework is based on one primary theory: Scuotto, Arrigo, Candelo, and Nicotra, 2020; Parmentier and Man- the NIT theory. NIT has been widely used in the digital transformation gematin, 2014; Krimpmann, 2015). Digital transformation entails literature to investigate various aspects of digital transformation (Dubey various consequences that reshape business models, impact employment et al., 2018b; Shashi et al., 2020; Verhoef et al., 2021). However, what is among leaders, employees, and knowledge workers, and impact orga- missing in the literature is the use of this theory to investigate internal nizational cultures (Scuotto, Nicotra, Del Giudice, Krueger, and Gregori, aspects related to digital transformation implementation, such as lead- 2021; Legner et al., 2017; Loebbecke and Picot, 2015). ership, OA, and DS, which are addressed in this section. 2.3. Leadership and digital transformation 2.1. Institutional theory (INT) and new institutional theory (NIT) From an NIT perspective, digital transformation represents an INT is a prominent perspective in contemporary organizational organizational change in digitally-enabled institutional arrangements research. It encompasses a large body of theoretical and empirical work that diffuse through fields and organizations. Digital transformation emphasizing the importance of cultural understandings and shared must gain legitimacy through the organization’s belief system to succeed 637 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 (Hinings et al., 2018). From an NIT perspective, leadership is considered organizational agility (OA) is defined as the organization’s ability to a fundamental element of organizational values and belief systems; identify unexpected changes in the environment and respond swiftly and when organizations change over time, leadership must also change and efficiently by utilizing and reconfiguring internal resources, thus gaining adapt (Biggart and Hamilton, 1987). Organizations shift to digital a competitive advantage in the process (Zitkiene ˙ and Deksnys, 2018). transformation by genuinely changing how they operate and deliver From an NIT perspective, agility can be explained by emphasizing the their products/services by promoting digital cultures that flourish concept of cognitive factors (DiMaggio, 1991). Specifically, agile in- (Bresciani, Ferraris, Romano and Santoro, 2021; Chierici, Tortora, Del stitutions should focus on the representation, use, and development of Giudice, and Quacquarelli, 2021). It would not be possible without the content and structure of knowledge structures both to address value leaders who create platforms for this and drive stakeholders toward commitments and facilitate the capacity for action in changing envi- action (Sainger, 2018). ronments (Walsh, 1995). The role of a leader in assuring and propelling the shift to Industry Menon and Suresh (2021) expanded the notion of organizational 4.0 has been highlighted in the literature (Li et al., 2016; Porfírio et al., agility in the context of ICT adoption. They identified eight factors that 2021). Leaders can help companies to succeed in the digital age through could influence organizational agility: (1) the ability to sense the envi- three habits: (1) following the trends of emergent technologies; (2) ronment; (2) the organizational structure; (3) the adoption of ICT; (4) determining the direction of the digital change and investment strategy; organizational learning; (5) human resource strategies; (6) leadership; and (3) leading the team to change swiftly and precisely (Swift and (7) willingness to change; and (8) collaboration with stakeholders. On Lange, 2018). Leaders with digital transformation mindsets, also known the one hand, digital transformation has improved organizational agil- as “digital leaders,” can build collaborative networked organizations ity, as digitization leads to new occupational profiles and specific stress and find digital competencies (Frankowska and Rzeczycki, 2020; Bres- on the organizational fabric and agility (Del Giudice et al., 2018; Jesse, ciani et al., 2021c). Transformational leadership (TFL) has been spe- 2018). Ghasemaghaei et al. (2017) argued that, by utilizing data ana- cifically highlighted in the digital transformation literature investigating lytics, firms could enhance their agility by achieving greater levels of fit leadership in a digital environment. Transformational leaders engender between analytical tools, data, employees’ capabilities, and firm tasks. trust, seek to develop leadership in others, exhibit self-sacrifice, and On the other hand, technology competencies and digital transformation serve as moral agents, focusing both themselves and their followers on (Rane et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020) and e-commerce capabilities (Li objectives that transcend the immediate needs of the workgroup (Avo- et al., 2020) are vital for improving organizational agility. Digital lio, 1999). Hence, digital leadership is considered a combination of the transformation is also considered a prerequisite for information pro- transformational leadership style and digital technology (De Waal et al., cessing capability to achieve agility (Li et al., 2021). Thus, we propose 2016). that organizational agility influences digital transformation: The extant literature indicates that transformational leadership fa- H2: Organizational agility positively influences digital cilitates organizations’ innovation capability, which is the foundation of transformation. digital transformation (Sasmoko et al., 2019; Lei et al., 2020; AlNuaimi et al., 2021b). Ardi et al. (2020) also investigated digital leadership from 2.5. The relationship between leadership and organizational agility in a transformational leadership perspective and determined that digital digital transformation transformational leadership positively influences organizational inno- vativeness and performance. Hence, following the above discussion, as From an NIT perspective, for an organization to move toward an well as INT views of organizational change and leadership, we propose institutionally novel change, a high degree of organizational capacity is the following hypothesis: needed that involves these skills and resources within the organization H1: Transformational digital leadership positively influences digital and its mobilization. Mobilization, in this sense, is an act of leadership transformation. (Greenwood and Hinings, 1996). NIT also posits that organizations should improve and guard their legitimacy when proposing any changes 2.4. Organizational agility and digital transformation by adopting organizational practices and seeking leaders with “desir- able” qualities/practices (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995). According to INT, institutional environments are vital in (re)forming Meanwhile, agile firms must foster five agile human attributes: (1) organizational structures and actions. From the NIT perspective, de- forging a common purpose; (2) embedding core values; (3) enriching cisions are not driven entirely by rational goals of efficiency but also by work; (4) promoting personal growth; and (5) providing commensurate social and cultural factors and concerns for legitimacy (Scott, 1995). returns (Shafer et al., 2001). With these human attributes and proper Digital transformation (DT) can be viewed through the lens of institu- leadership, firms can become flexible and quickly adaptive to change by tional pressure (Liu et al., 2010; Dubey et al., 2018b; Gupta et al., 2020). making the necessary changes to the organizational structure. Thus, it The decision to implement digital transformation may not be due to can easily be assumed that the leadership style used in an organization internal motives; institutions are likely to be stimulated to adopt and use may influence organizational agility. Leadership is vital for improving technology via external isomorphic pressures, such as competitors, firms ’ organizational agility through leaders’ ability to alter their busi- customers, or the government (Bresciani et al., 2021; DiMaggio and ness situations and organizations’ readiness to reverse unsuccessful Powell, 1983). Mimetic, coercive, and normative forces can play a role strategic decisions (Ahammad et al., 2020). However, the existing in influencing institutions to adopt digital transformation (Teo et al., literature markedly fails to establish how this relationship occurs or 2003). Regardless of the pressure, organizational change is considered a even the interdependence level between these variables (de Oliveira precondition and can become a bottleneck for digital transformation if et al., 2012). not adapted properly (Teichert, 2019). Organizations need to change In the present study, organizational agility is viewed as a manifes- their traditional processes, structure, and management towards more tation of continuous improvement, continuous delivery, communica- agile processes and management practices. tion, team and people maturity, and flexibility. An agile organization is Agility refers to a system’s ability to meet rapidly changing needs represented by teams working together, being motivated, gifted, self- and other external stimuli cost-effectively without compromising the disciplined, organized, and showing a remarkable ability to improvise quality of its products and services (Ganguly et al., 2009). It allows firms (Stettina and Heijstek, 2011). It requires proper leadership to provide to replace existing processes by applying new procedures and resources, power distribution, authority, and responsibilities among the members, and it is instrumental in redesigning organizational structures based on thus contributing to the team’s motivation and confidence (Gunase- new conditions (Troise, Corvello, Ghobadian, and O’Regan, 2022; Fer- karan, 1999). Hence, organizational leadership plays an essential role in raris et al., 2022; Darvishmotevali et al., 2020). Meanwhile, enforcing an organization’s commitment to improving organizational 638 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 agility (Raeisi and Amirnejad, 2017). NIT views leadership skills as a set program quickly introduced and implemented in a planned amount of of activities required to manage institutional change. These skills time. Instead, it must be understood as a dynamic, continuous process include being charismatic (envisioning, energizing, and enabling), (Lipsmeier et al., 2020). Data need to be continuously collected, cleaned, instrumental (structuring, controlling, and rewarding), and institutional securely stored, and execrated in the digital environment to support (ensuring that changes stick) (Nadler and Tushman, 1990). Such leaders analyses and generate meaningful output in a feedback loop. Subse- are linked to transformational leadership in the literature; for example, quently, the extracted data should be processed to expand all employees transformational leaders drive followers’ values, attitudes, and emotions and the organization (Correani et al., 2020). Hence, digital trans- (Bass and Avolio, 1993). These leaders can improve organizational formation requires a comprehensive revision of the firm’s operations, agility through their ability to develop appropriate relationships with strategy, leadership skills, innovation capability, and business models subordinates and encourage them to think beyond their personal needs (Schwertner, 2017; Correani et al., 2020). operate effectively in complex and risky situations. Transformational Although digital transformation offers many opportunities for to- leaders prepare themselves and their employees to take appropriate day’s firms, many academics and practitioners struggle to grasp it, action when facing challenges and potential opportunities (Burke and mainly because it differs from the well-established concept of IT-enabled Collins, 2001; Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014). In fact, in agile organizations, organizational transformation (Wessel et al., 2021). This is due to the the leadership constantly adjusts courses of action and development complexity of the digital transformation processes, as it involves tech- trajectories. Such leaders are not satisfied merely with periodic strategy nology, a clear vision, and a detailed digital strategy to complete the reviews, which is why companies such as Nokia have failed (Doz and necessary steps. In other words, digital transformation requires targeted Kosonen, 2008). organizational restructuring and entails consequences for the metrics In the context of the present study, transformational leadership has used to adjust performance (Verhoef et al., 2021). Developing a digital been found to influence e-business adoption (Alos-Simo et al., 2017) and strategy that embraces corporate and business strategies has been the to improve organizational agility (Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014; Akkaya predominant digital transformation success factor (Porfírio et al., 2021). and Tabak, 2020; Wanasida et al., 2020). In addition, transformational For this reason, we see the emergence of the role of the chief digital leadership affects organizational creativity (Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014), officer (CDO) as key to operationalizing digital strategy and making sure organizational innovation (Pirayesh and Pourrezay, 2019), and inno- that it is aligned with the company’s purpose and mission (Henriette vation projects’ performance (de Oliveira et al., 2012). Trans- et al., 2016). Senior managers and workers cannot benefit from digital formational leadership can also improve organizational learning transformation if they cannot effectively implement it. Organizations orientations to achieve higher levels of organizational ambidexterity, that focus on developing solid digital strategies can use them to drive which manifests organizational agility (Ojha et al., 2018). In addition, digital transformation and improve top executives’ decision-making Lin (2011) showed that transformational leadership has a positive and processes (Mikalef et al., 2019). Porfírio et al. (2021) consider a digi- significant effect on public sector organizations’ agility and supports tal strategy to be a synergetic sum of information technology (IT) and service recovery performance. Hence, we propose the following information systems (IS) strategic initiatives, driven by managers’ de- hypothesis: cisions about exploiting these available infrastructures. Consequently, H3a. Digital transformational leadership positively influences no matter how talented leaders are in coping with risk and uncertainty organizational agility. or how well they manage the flexibility/efficiency tradeoff, all is for Agile organizations should spread organizational agility, workforce naught if these activities are not aligned with good strategies (Teece agility, and system agility (Muduli, 2016). Organizational agility has et al., 2016). Hence, we propose the following hypothesis: four fundamental skills: responsiveness; flexibility; speed; and compe- H4a. Digital strategy moderates the relationship between digital tence (Akkaya and Tabak, 2020). It means that all employees need to transformation leadership and digital transformation. change their actions by implementing adequate information systems, Organizational agility is limited in terms of the managerial guidance precise and fast instructions, and support from top leadership (Larjo- it provides. The role of managers is limited without having a strategy vuori et al., 2016). As to dimensions of organizational agility, culture, and adjusting it when needed (Teece et al., 2016). Hence, agility and leadership, and organizational change have significant positive re- strategy work in tandem. In this context, organizations need to develop lationships with organizational performance (Dalvi et al., 2013). adequate organizational agility to implement an agile digital strategy Transformational leadership can influence organizational agility and (Shams et al., 2021). In some cases, agility will need to be sacrificed to digital transformation by creating a cultural context that embodies its aid strategy (Teece et al., 2016). Organizations need to understand that mission statement and guides employee behavior toward attaining the agility is a complex, adaptive strategy. It focuses on specific applications requisite skills (Babnik et al., 2014). Thus, we propose that organiza- and issues that accompany organizational change, including (1) stra- tional agility can also mediate the relationship between digital trans- tegic analysis, which is concerned with gaining insight into the organi- formational leadership and digital transformation: zation’s current and future competitiveness; (2) strategic choice, which H3b. Organizational agility mediates the relationship between dig- is concerned with deciding which option or configuration to adopt; and ital transformational leadership and digital transformation. (3) strategic implementation (McCarthy and Tsinopoulos, 2003). This is why Franken and Thomsett (2013) called for organizations to acquire 2.6. The moderating role of digital strategy strategic agility, which focuses on rapidly and flexibly adapting to un- foreseen changes in the external environment. Dacin et al. (2002) studied the concept of deinstitutionalization in However, strategy moves quickly in the digital transformation context; governments and customers increasingly demand higher qual- the broader context of institutional change. The traditional beliefs and ity products and services and greater adaptability and customization practices have weakened and disappeared due to new beliefs and capability to meet their changing needs (Henriette et al., 2016). Hence, practices. It highlights the importance of having an excellent strategy to to have agile digital strategies, organizations must have strategies that manage this shift (Dacin et al., 2002). Suddaby et al. (2013) conceptu- alized strategy in the context of NIT as comprising three interrelated define the role of information systems in the organization, the business goals to be achieved through digital transformation, the selection of the aspects: (1) practices, which refer to the routinized types of behavior upon which actors draw in their strategizing activities; (2) praxis, which digital transformation standards and architecture, and how digital transformation is deployed (Lee et al., 2006). A digital strategy must represents the activities that are informed and guided by concrete, unfolding strategies; and (3) practitioners, who are the actors perform- include a clear vision for the organization’s development and be sup- ported by the unlimited possibilities of digital technologies to compete ing and engaging with the strategy work based on their education and experience. However, digital transformation is not a typical project or in today’s market (Vial, 2019; Schwertner, 2017). Moreover, strategic 639 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 alignment and governance through establishing a digital strategy and scales and items developed and used for the study. We used the pro- ensuring agility, collaboration, and digital expertise are the primary cedure used in other studies (Butts et al., 2015; Ng et al., 2019) to collect enablers of digital transformation success (Fischer et al., 2020). There- data from the target sample. It took three weeks to receive the ques- fore, digital strategy formulation is vital for identifying all of the firm ’s tionnaires from the target sample, with 513 completed responses being business model elements that must be modified according to the scope of returned and validated. Thus, the total sample size of this current study its digital transformation (Correani et al., 2020; Morakanyane et al., was 513. The response rate was 85.5%, which is more than adequate for 2020). Because market needs and technology standards currently vary the public sector organizations. Table 1 provides the participants’ de- across locations and change over time, developing an agile digital mographic details. strategy to meet specific local business needs becomes a critical issue (Lee et al., 2006). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: 3.2. Data analysis H4b. Digital strategy moderates the relationship between organiza- tional agility and digital transformation. After completing the data collection, the data were analyzed and This paper’s conceptual model, including hypotheses, is presented in presented using a partial least squares structural equation modeling Fig. 1. (PLS-SEM) tool (SmartPLS 3.3.3), which can assess the measurement instrument, conceptual model, and multigroup analysis (MGA) simul- 3. Methodology taneously. Since this study conducted comprehensive reasoning to test hypotheses grounded in a robust theoretical framework, the choice of This study utilized a quantitative approach to examine the re- SEM as a data-analysis method is justified because PLS-SEM can handle lationships among digital transformational leadership, organizational model complexity with fewer restrictions than other methods (Ringle agility, digital strategy, and digital transformation in public sector or- et al., 2012). In addition, PLS-SEM can deliver valid results even for ganizations. Since the data used in this study are primary data collected small and medium sample sizes (Chin, 1998). to enrich the literature in the business management field, we conducted survey research via questionnaires. 4. Results 3.1. Data collection 4.1. The measurement model The present study’s population comprises public sector organizations We assessed the constructs’ reliability using the internal consistency located in the capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi. We chose Abu Dhabi measure analysis, obtaining acceptable values for Cronbach’s alpha and because it contains all federal public sector organizations and many composite reliability (CR). However, DS demonstrated an unacceptable local government organizations. The confidentiality of all participants average variance extracted (AVE) value. Therefore, we dropped item was ensured, and they were free to discontinue their participation at any DS2 to improve the model’s internal consistency and reliability and time. A total of 600 electronic questionnaires were sent to employees’ avoid having an issue with the model. Table 2 summarizes the results of emails in public sector organizations after receiving approval from their convergent validity and internal consistency reliability. All indicators leadership. These organizations were chosen because they have already and constructs meet the required measurement criteria. Specifically, the adopted digital technologies to operate and provide services to the outer loadings (λ) are all above 0.612, demonstrating that indicator public. reliability is achieved (Chin, 1998; Henseler et al., 2009). In addition, The items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from Cronbach’s alpha values are above the acceptable threshold of 0.5. The (1) “Strongly disagree” or “Never” to (5) “Strongly agree” or “Always.” AVE values are >0.50, denoting that convergent validity is also achieved Six indicators were adapted and modified to fit the DT context from (Hair et al., 2010). Furthermore, CR values are 0.864 or higher, well previous TFL scales (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Chen and Chang, 2013) to above the required minimum level of 0.70, thus demonstrating internal measure DTL. For the measurement of OA, six items were adapted from consistency (Hair et al., 2014). In other words, the results show that the Cegarra-Navarro et al. (2016). Four statements were adapted from Li model has good convergent validity and internal consistency. et al. (2021) to measure DS. A total of five indicators were adapted to Discriminant validity is how a construct is unique from its counter- measure the DT (Nasiri et al., 2020). In addition to the demographic parts. We checked the discriminant validity of the measures by deter- questions, a question was added to check whether the respondents were mining whether the square root of the AVE for each construct was more aware of a shared DS in their organizations, which could be helpful later significant than its correlation with the other factors. As shown in in the analysis and discussion part of the study. Appendix A provides all Table 3, the AVE’s square root for each construct was more significant Fig. 1. Conceptual model. 640 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Table 1 Participants’ profile (N = 513). Gender N % Age group N % Education N % 1) Male 249 48.5 1) 18–24 years 46 9.0 1) High school/ diploma 117 22.8 2) Female 264 51.5 2) 25–30 years 148 28.8 2) Four-year college/ university 262 51.1 3) 31–37 years 111 21.6 3) Higher education 134 26.1 4) 37–44 years 128 25.0 5) 45 + years 80 15.6 Experience N % Years implementing DT N % 1) Up to 2 years 25 4.9 1) 1–2 years 72 14.0 2) 3–5 years 61 11.9 2) 3–5 years 138 26.9 3) 6–10 years 86 16.8 3) 6–10 years 116 22.6 4) 11–15 years 76 14.8 4) >10 years 187 36.5 5) 16–19 years 57 11.1 6) >20 years 208 40.5 generated by the variables. The Q values for DT (0.409) and AO (0.243) Table 2 were above 0, which means that the model has predictive relevance Measurement model. (Chin, 2010). Items Loadings Cronbach’s α CR AVE Finally, the goodness of fit was determined using SmartPLS by Digital transformation leadership - 0.924 0.941 0.725 calculating the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; 0.076) (DTL) 0.811 and the normed fit index (NFI; 0.866). SRMR values below 0.08 mean DTL1 0.855 that the data fit the model (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Henseler et al., 2014), DTL2 0.837 whereas for NFI values (which are between 0 and 1), the closer the value DTL3 0.797 is to 1, the better the fit (Lohmoller, 1989). Therefore, we can conclude DTL4 0.818 DTL5 0.971 that the model predicts and tests the hypotheses. DTL6 Digital transformation (DT) - 0.840 0.887 0.612 4.3. The direct and indirect results of the structural model testing DT1 0.745 DT2 0.713 DT3 0.765 We tested the proposed hypotheses using SmartPLS, as shown in DT4 0.737 Fig. 2. The direct effect results determined that H1 was supported (β = DT5 0.612 0.282; p < 0.001), as was H2 (β = 0.638; p < 0.001), demonstrating that Organizational agility (OA) - 0.871 0.903 0.607 DTL has a positive impact on OA and DT. Further, H3a was supported (β OA1 0.720 = 0.233; p < 0.001), indicating the positive relationship between OA OA2 0.670 OA3 0.730 and DT. H3b was also supported (β = 0.149; p < 0.001), demonstrating OA4 0.655 the mediation impact of OA on the DTL–DT relationship. However, the OA5 0.794 results of the moderation test revealed that H4a (β = 0.005; p = 0.915) OA6 0.765 and H4b (β = 0.003; p = 0.961) were not supported. The results are Digital strategy (DS) - 0.791 0.864 0.614 summarized in Table 4. DS1 0.651 DS3 0.762 To further explore the moderating effect DS has on how DT relates DS4 0.755 DTL and OA in organizations that share their DSs compared to organi- zations that do not, we conducted an MGA. MGA aims to compare the explained variance among groups caused by heterogeneity (Klesel et al., Table 3 2019). To do this, we utilized the PLS-MGA test, the parametric test, and Fornell–Larcker criterion. the Welch–Satterthwaite test in SmartPLS. In PLS-MGA, a result is sig- DS DT DTL OA nificant at the 5% probability of error level if the p-value is<0.05 or>0.95 for a distinct difference of group-specific path coefficients DS 0.783 (Sarstedt et al., 2011). The parametric and Welch–Satterthwaite tests are DT 0.751 0.782 DTL 0.565 0.688 0.852 parametric significance tests for the difference in group-specific PLS- OA 0.624 0.688 0.638 0.779 SEM results that assume equal variances across groups (Henseler, 2012). These two tests are considered the most conservative PLS-SEM tech- niques for assessing the differences between the two groups’ path co- than the correlation between any pair of factors, thereby confirming the efficients (Md Noor et al., 2019). The MGA results (see Table 5) do not scale’s discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981). reveal any significant difference, confirming that DS does not have any moderating effect on the relationship between DTL, OA, and DT in both 4.2. The structural model groups (shared vs. not shared DS), indicating insignificant results both for H4a and H4b. Before testing the structural model, we first tested its collinearity. Collinearity is measured using the variance inflation factor (VIF), and, 5. Discussion ideally, the VIF values should be close to and lower than 3 (Hair et al., 2019). The results show that all VIF values are below this threshold, The current study has examined the conceptual model comprising suggesting no collinearity among the constructs. We also examined the several variables, namely digital transformational leadership and orga- adjusted R value, which indicates the model’s predictive power by nizational agility, and how they interact and influence digital trans- showing the endogenous variable’s variance that the exogenous vari- formation under the moderation influence of digital strategy. We ables can explain. The adjusted R value (0.684) indicates that all the formulated the relationships among the identified variables based on constructs combined explain 68.4% of the variance in DT. Further, we new institutional theory (NIT); the results for the hypotheses proposed checked the Q values to assess the predictive relevance values are discussed in detail below. 641 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Fig. 2. PLS path model from SmartPLS. Table 4 Hypothesis testing. H# Relationship В Std Dev T Statistics P-Value Results H1 DTL → DT 0.282 0.043 6.505 0.000 Supported** H2 OA → DT 0.233 0.052 4.44 0.000 Supported** H3a DTL → OA 0.638 0.034 18.524 0.000 Supported** H3b DTL → OA → DT 0.149 0.033 4.494 0.000 Supported** Moderation Relationship В Std Dev T Statistics P- Value 5% CILL 95% CIUL Results H4a DS*DTL → DT 0.005 0.051 0.102 0.915 -0.070 0.097 Not Supported H4b DS*OA → DT 0.003 0.055 0.048 0.961 -0.084 0.097 Note: ** p < 0.001. Table 5 Multigroup analysis (MGA) results. Construct Path coefficients-diff (shared DS p-value original 1-tailed (shared DS p-value new (shared DS vs. p-value (parametric p-value (Welch–Satterthwaite vs. not shared) vs. not shared) not shared) test) test) DS*DTL → –0.096 0.823 0.355 0.387 0.353 DT DS*OA → –0.123 0.789 0.422 0.309 0.366 DT 5.1. Discussion of findings 2018). Therefore, organizations need to seek leaders who have the transformational leadership abilities to digitally transform their opera- Based on the extant literature, we had proposed that digital trans- tions to stay relevant and compete in the Industry 4.0 era (Li et al., 2016; formational leadership significantly positively influences digital trans- Porfírio et al., 2021). formation (i.e., H1). The results show that digital transformational Similarly, H2, which proposed that organizational agility signifi - leadership positively affects digital transformation, supporting H1. This cantly influences digital transformation, was also supported. As ex- finding is consistent with our investigation of the literature and NIT, pected, organizations’ agility capability can help shape the change suggesting that transformational leaders are better equipped to handle organizations aim to implement, as the literature suggests (Li et al., organizational change, especially in a digital environment(De Waal 2021). Our findings suggest that, for organizations to be agile, they must et al., 2016). From a neo-institutional perspective, these findings affirm disrupt their traditional processes, structure, and management (Tei- that transformational leaders can promote digital values and shift the chert, 2019; Darvishmotevali et al., 2020), which is precisely what must organizational belief system towards achieving any organizational be done to attain any organizational change, such as digital trans- change, such as digital transformation (Hinings et al., 2018; Sainger, formation. Organizations must focus on improving their cognitive 642 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 abilities by improving organizational learning and supporting proper between digital transformational leadership, organizational agility, and knowledge management practices (Menon and Suresh, 2021) to be agile digital transformation in either group (shared vs. not shared digital and implement digital transformation initiatives as conceptualized by strategy) in the UAE public sector organizations. NIT (DiMaggio, 1991; Walsh, 1995). In addition, organizations need to One possible reason for these unexpected results related to the adopt agile ICT systems and HR strategies to be more agile in a digital moderation effect of digital strategy is that the UAE public sector or- environment, as suggested by Menon and Suresh (2021). ganization has rushed to implement digital strategy due to governmental H3a. proposed that digital transformational leadership has a positive pressure. Western-based IT consultants in the UAE public sector orga- relationship with organizational agility, while H3b proposed that nizations develop and implement digital strategies based on their organizational agility mediates the relationship between digital trans- private-sector experience, which could be problematic and may not formational leadership and digital transformation. The results of the work as expected in the public sector organization. A winning strategy data analysis confirmed the positive association between digital trans- should allow management to rethink their business model to evaluate formational leadership and organizational agility (H3a). These results their existing culture, tasks, and resources to efficiently formulate were in line with earlier studies that suggested that transformational effective business strategies to maintain a future approach flow (Roth- leaders can promote organizational agility through relationship building aermel, 2013; Correani et al., 2020). One possible reason is the lack of with subordinates and encourage employees to innovate and take involvement of the entire organization. When the survey asked the calculated risks when facing challenges and potential opportunities participants whether they were involved in the digital strategy devel- (Burke and Collins, 2001; Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014). Wanasida et al. opment, almost all the answers were “Never.” Recent literature has (2020) found that transformational leadership positively impacts suggested that digital strategy should focus not only on digitizing and increasing firms’ organizational agility, as transformational leadership digitalizing but also on how to implement these changes by engaging the tends to make the organization change quickly to meet digital trans- entire organization and its people (Ahmed Khamis et al., 2020; Correani formation demands. Hence, organizations seeking to succeed in digital et al., 2020; Lipsmeier et al., 2020). Another possible reason is that UAE transformation must look for leaders with transformational leadership public sector organization is still experimenting with digital trans- attributes to see the problems from many different perspectives that formation technologies, such as AI and big data. The leadership and the could affect organizational agility. employees are still in a learning stage and therefore not grasping the full Furthermore, H3b was empirically-supported, relevant to the previ- benefits of digital strategy; it could take some time to train everyone on ous hypothesis (H3a). This finding supports this study’s assumptions digital transformation to help them understand these new concepts and that transformational leaders can influence organizational agility and flourish. Regardless of the reasons, digital strategy is considered a key digital transformation in many ways, such as creating a link between the enabler for digital transformation by coordinating the digitalization organizational change mission statement and employee behavior, initiatives in line with a common strategic direction (Lipsmeier et al., leading to greater agility (Babnik et al., 2014). Such leaders also have 2020). the ability and willingness to teach and inspire their subordinates to be creative (Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014) and improve their innovation 5.2. Implications for theory capability (Pirayesh and Pourrezay, 2019). Such ability to encourage knowledge creation and innovation is essential for firms’ survival and The current study offers four contributions that can help advance agility in a dynamic and unpredictable digital environment (Ferraris research in behavioral and organizational culture in the context of et al., 2022; Akkaya and Tabak; 2020). digital transformation. First, the study responds to the call to utilize INT Finally, the last set of hypotheses examined the moderation effect of to investigate organizational agility in the digital transformation era and digital strategy. H4a hypothesized that digital strategy moderates the how this influences institutions (Dubey et al., 2018a). We empirically relationship between digital transformational leadership and digital investigated how organizational agility is positively associated with transformation, and H4b hypothesized that digital strategy moderates digital transformation and how organizational agility can act as a the relationship between organizational agility and digital trans- mediator between digital transformational leadership and digital formation. Neither hypothesis was supported. The digital strategy does transformation. Due to this, the present study adds to the scant literature not moderate the relationship between digital transformational leader- on INT on the adverse impact of organizational agility to support digital ship and digital transformation, which was not anticipated based on transformation, which has been far outweighed by utilizing theories much recent literature suggesting that digital strategy can drive digital such as RBV and dynamic capability framework (Elia et al., 2021). The transformation by improving decision-making processes (Mikalef et al., previous literature on digital transformation and organizational agility 2019). Further, the digital strategy does not moderate the relationship has predominantly been either exploratory in nature (Al Humdan et al., between organizational agility and digital transformation, which was 2020; Shashi et al., 2020) or focused only on resources and capabilities, also not expected because the digital strategy has been found to be able such as organizational behavior (Felipe et al., 2017; Li et al., 2021), IT to enforce strategic alignment and governance to ensure collaboration capabilities (Irfan et al., 2019; Pattij et al., 2020), flexibility (Ghase- and organizational agility (Fischer et al., 2020). Lee et al. (2006) maghaei et al., 2017), innovative behavior, and creativity (Ravichan- asserted that digital transformation is not simply a matter of standards dran, 2018; Mihardjo and Rukmana, 2019; Darvishmotevali et al., and architecture but that its successful strategy rests on how digital 2020). Our findings suggest the apparent value of the NIT perspective in transformation is deployed and shared. To further investigate this, we exploring organizational agility and digital transformation as a complex examined the scale used for digital strategy. The present study measured and interrelated organizational challenge in the public sector organi- digital transformation by adopting the digital-technology–business- zations, emphasizing the role of leadership and strategy. strategy alignment scale developed by Li et al. (2021). These authors Second, this paper contributes to the literature by investigating the developed this scale after an extensive literature review and surveying leadership role in the relationship between organizational agility and chief information officers (CIOs), subsequently conducting a pre-test digital transformation. The leadership role in organizational agility is a and validation among Ph.D. students in a US university, and finally pervasive theme in the existing literature (Dalvi et al., 2013; Raeisi and organizing a pilot study with professional IT consultants, which resulted Amirnejad, 2017; Akkaya and Tabak, 2020; Wanasida et al., 2020). in a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.897. Hence, the digital strategy scale However, the literature on the role of leadership in digital trans- may not be the issue. For this reason, this study also conducted MGA to formation is still nascent (Ardi et al., 2020; Porfírio et al., 2021); the compare the moderating effect of digital strategy in organizations that concept of how digital leadership may induce organizational agility and share their digital strategies compared to organizations that do not. We digital transformation has been little explored to date. The conceptual- observed that digital strategy does not moderate the relationship ization of digital transformational leadership and the findings of our 643 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 study can serve as the basis for future researchers to explore our model private sector to streamline processes and reduce bureaucracy to help and expand it further to yield further insights in other areas, such as create more agility required for digital transformation to succeed. knowledge management and technology-based workspace behavior. Third, many wealthy governments in the region have been employ- Third, the study enriches the limited research and insights on the role ing global consulting firms to bring knowledge from the private sector to of strategy in influencing digital transformation to conceptualize digital their governments without considering the cultural and organizational strategy as a moderator between digital transformational leadership and context. An effective national digital strategy must address the cultural, digital transformation and between organizational agility and digital educational, and ideological challenges of the government information transformation. Recent research on the role of strategy in digital trans- environment and decision-making (Korovkin, 2019). Governments formation comprises mainly conceptual and systematic reviews (Hanelt should be careful when contracting any consultancy firms and look et al., 2020; Saleh and Awny, 2020; Kitsios and Kamariotou, 2021). This beyond fancy presentations and promises by first recruiting local spe- has been reflected in a call for researchers to fill this gap with empirical cialists, of which there are many, to address these cultural issues before studies and different theoretical frameworks (Hanelt et al., 2020). We engaging a consultant. Finally, from a strategic perspective, for the responded to this call by providing novel insights utilizing NIT as a public sector organization to succeed in digital transformation, this theoretical framework, highlighting that strategy alone cannot induce study suggests the pursuit of change and strategy involvement (bottom- digital transformation in organizations regardless of how skilled the up) instead of expecting employees to follow whatever comes from the leaders are and how agile an organization is. Successful digital strategy top. Public sector organizations have been reported to have lower requires other contributing factors, such as business model alignment employee commitment to change, especially in the UAE (AlNuaimi and (Correani et al., 2020) and organizational evolvement in terms of Khan, 2019). strategy (Lipsmeier et al., 2020). The current study’s insights may help future researchers to develop our conceptual framework to include these 6. Limitations and suggestions for future research factors. Finally, there is a pressing need to investigate digital transformation Although this paper has produced several encouraging results, it has in the public sector firms to redesign and reengineer government ser- some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, this study was vices from the ground up to fulfill government requirements and cus- conducted on a small sample size in UAE public sector organizations. tomers’ needs to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government Future work can access a larger sample drawn exclusively from many services (Mergel et al., 2018), especially post-COVID-19 (Agostino et al., UAE government sectors. Second, this paper is limited by factors that 2021). Our study’s findings thus contribute to this recent research trend could influence digital strategy. It would be worthwhile investigating in the public sector organizations. other recently discussed variables not included in this paper, such as digital culture (Weritz et al., 2020; Abhari et al., 2021), knowledge 5.3. Practical implications management (Zoppelletto et al., 2020), and innovation (Abdalla and Nakagawa, 2021). The third limitation is that data for this study were Although this study was conducted in the context of the UAE, its collected only in one country. Future research could develop this study findings and implications can inform practice in many governments and by collecting data from countries with different digital transformation other organizations, including businesses. Our study provides four implementation maturity levels and considering other cultural factors. important insights for practice. First, the findings suggest that digital Finally, we used a cross-sectional research design when the UAE gov- transformation is a radical institutional change that disrupts organiza- ernment was rapidly enforcing digital transformation technologies tional culture by adopting new IT infrastructure and force-feeding new ahead of EXPO 2020 and in response to the COVID-19 crisis; most likely, digital skillsets, which overload the transition for employees and the the respondents had not benefited from the full capabilities of digital entire organization. All this affects the acceptance of the new technology transformation. Hence, it would be useful to employ a case study or a and delays the digital strategy’s progress. Therefore, government lead- longitudinal study to check the maturity of digital transformation ership should not emphasize technology adoption without considering implementation and capture its stability and lessons learned across time how to obtain managers with the appropriate leadership skills and at- or settings. tributes to make such change successful. Hence, our study suggests that, in addition to digital knowledge, transformational leadership attributes, CRediT authorship contribution statement such as engendering trust, seeking to develop teams, self-sacrifice, and leading by example, may best fit organizational changes towards digital Bader K. AlNuaimi: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal transformation. This finding can also guide human resource and training analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Sanjay Kumar Singh: departments during their career and recruitment planning decisions for Writing - review & editing, Resources, Visualization, Methodology, Su- any digital transformation endeavors. pervision. Shuang Ren: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Pawan Second, organizations should develop procedures to promote orga- Budhwar: Supervision, Visualization. Dmitriy Vorobyev: Visualiza- nizational agility, positively influencing digital transformation. Unfor- tion, Supervision. tunately, public sector organizations are currently among the largest and most complex, in which public-sector organizational leaders are pres- sured to do more with less (Rieckhoff and Maxwell, 2017). Many Declaration of Competing Interest organizational practices focus on following procedures and processes, thus allowing for minimal creativity and employee agility (Sanatigar The authors declare that they have no known competing financial et al., 2017; Banihashemi et al., 2019). However, our study suggests that interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence governments should embrace the concept of agility and learn from the the work reported in this paper. Appendix A. . Construct measurement instrument 644 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Construct Source Measures Digital Transformational Chen and Chang (2013), Podsakoff et al. DTL1:Our leaders inspire all members with the digital transformation plans for our organization. leadership (DTL) (1990), Podsakoff et al. (1996) DTL2:Our leaders provide a clear digital transformation vision for the organization’s members to Six items follow. DTL3:Our leaders motivate team members to work together for the same digital transformation goals. DTL4:Our leaders encourage all members to achieve digital transformation goals for our organization. DTL5:Leaders in my organizations act by considering the digital transformation beliefs of all members. DTL6:Our leaders stimulate all members to think about digital transformation ideas. Organizational Agility (OA). Cegarra-Navarro et al. (2016) OA1:We can rapidly respond to customers’ and government’s needs. Six items OA2:We can rapidly adapt production, process, and activities to meet demand fluctuations. OA3:We can cope with problems from suppliers and partners rapidly. OA4:We rapidly implement decisions to face market and government changes. OA5:We continuously search for forms to reinvent or redesign our organization. OA6:We see the market and government changes as opportunities for rapid capitalization and growth. Digital Strategy (DS) Li et al. (2021) DS1:In my organization, we integrate digital technology and business strategy to attain strategic Four items alignment with the government and other partners. DS2:In my organization, we create a shared vision of the role of digital technology in business strategy. DS3:We jointly plan how digital technology will enable the business strategy. DS4:In my organization, we confer before making strategic decisions. Digital Transformation Nasiri et al. (2020) DT1:In my organization, we aim to digitalize everything that can be digitalized. Five items DT2:In my organization, we collect large amounts of data from different sources. DT3:In my organization, we aim to create more robust networking with digital technologies between the different business processes. DT4:In my organization, we aim to enhance an efficient customer interface with digitality. DT5:In my organization, we aim at achieving information exchange with digitality. Babnik, K., Breznik, K., Dermol, V., & Sirca, N. T. (2014). The mission statement: References Organisational culture perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(4), 612–627. Abdalla, S., & Nakagawa, K. (2021). The interplay of digital transformation and Banihashemi, S. A., Heidarnia, Z., & Allahyari, V. (2019). Ranking effective factors on collaborative innovation on supply chain ambidexterity. Technology Innovation organizational agility in public sector using AT Kearney model and TOPSIS method Management Review, 11(3), 45–56. (Case study: Hospitals in Birjand). Journal of Healthcare Management, 9(4), 41–51. Abhari, K., Ostroff, C., Barcellos, B., & Williams, D. (2021). Co-governance in digital Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational transformation initiatives: The roles of digital culture and employee experience. culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112–121. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. (1987). An institutional theory of leadership. The Sciences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 429–441. Adebanjo, D., Teh, P.-L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2018). The impact of supply chain relationships Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., Romano, M., & Santoro, G. (2021a). Building a digital and integration on innovative capabilities and manufacturing performance: The transformation strategy. In S. Bresciani, A. Ferraris, M. Romano, & G. Santoro (Eds.), perspective of rapidly developing countries. International Journal of Production Digital transformation management for agile organizations: A compass to sail the digital Research, 56(4), 1708–1721. world (pp. 5–27). Emerald Publishing Limited. Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lema, M. D. (2021). New development: COVID-19 as an Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., Romano, M., & Santoro, G. (2021b). Digital leadership. In accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money & S. Bresciani, A. Ferraris, M. Romano, & G. Santoro (Eds.), Digital transformation Management, 41(1), 69–72. management for agile organizations: A compass to sail the digital world (pp. 97–115). Ahammad, M. F., Glaister, K. W., & Gomes, E. (2020). Strategic agility and human Emerald Publishing Limited. resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), Article e100700. Bresciani, S., Huarng, K. H., Malhotra, A., & Ferraris, A. (2021). Digital transformation as Ahmed Khamis, A. S. A., Joseph, A., Asif, M. K., Hock, O. Y., & Mohammad Imtiaz, H. a springboard for product, process and business model innovation. Journal of (2020). Influence on internal control through digitalization of assets: A study on Business Research, 128, 204–210. Ministry of Interior, UAE. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Burke, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Gender differences in leadership styles and Finance and Management Sciences, 10(1), 13–24. management skills. Women in Management Review, 16(5), 244–257. Akkaya, B., & Tabak, A. (2020). The link between organizational agility and leadership: Butts, M. M., Becker, W. J., & Boswell, W. R. (2015). Hot buttons and time sinks: The A research in science parks. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 1–17. effects of electronic communication during nonwork time on emotions and work- Al Humdan, E., Shi, Y., & Behnia, M. (2020). Supply chain agility: A systematic review of nonwork conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 763–788. definitions, enablers and performance implications. International Journal of Physical Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Soto-Acosta, P., & Wensley, A. K. (2016). Structured knowledge Distribution & Logistics Management, 50(2), 287–312. processes and firm performance: The role of organizational agility. Journal of AlNuaimi, B. K., & Khan, M. (2019). Public-sector green procurement in the United Arab Business Research, 69(5), 1544–1549. Emirates: Innovation capability and commitment to change. Journal of Cleaner Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, C.-H. (2013). The determinants of green product development Production, 233, 482–489. performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and AlNuaimi, B. K., Khan, M., & Ajmal, M. M. (2021). The role of big data analytics green creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119. capabilities in greening e-procurement: A higher order PLS-SEM analysis. Chierici, R., Tortora, D., Del Giudice, M., & Quacquarelli, B. (2021). Strengthening digital Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, Article e120808. collaboration to enhance social innovation capital: An analysis of Italian small AlNuaimi, B. K., Singh, S. K., & Harney, B. (2021). Unpacking the role of innovation innovative enterprises. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 610–632. capability: Exploring the impact of leadership style on green procurement via a Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. natural resource-based perspective. Journal of Business Research, 134, 78–88. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336. Alos-Simo, L., Verdu-Jover, A. J., & Gomez-Gras, J.-M. (2017). How transformational Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, leadership facilitates e-business adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117 W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. (2), 382–397. 655–690). Springer. Altayar, M. S. (2018). Motivations for open data adoption: An institutional theory Correani, A., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Natalicchio, A. (2020). perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 633–643. Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital Ardi, A., Djati, S., Bernarto, I., Sudibjo, N., Yulianeu, A., Nanda, H., & Nanda, K. (2020). transformation projects. California Management Review, 62(4), 37–56. The relationship between digital transformational leadership styles and knowledge- Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional based empowering interaction for increasing organisational innovativeness. change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(3), 259–277. 45(1), 45–56. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Dalvi, M. R., Shekarchizadeh, A. R., & Baghsorkhi, G. R. (2013). Investigating of Sage. organizational agility components (culture, leadership, organizational change and 645 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 customer services) on the organizational performance based on the satellite model Gupta, S., Modgil, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Bag, S. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and (Snowa Company as a case study). GJPAST Journal, 3(4), 15–29. institutional theories for Industry 4.0 and digital supply chain. Supply Chain Forum: Darvishmotevali, M., Altinay, L., & Koseoglu, ¨ M. A. (2020). The link between An. International Journal, 21(3), 139–157. environmental uncertainty, organizational agility, and organizational creativity in Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. (2010). L.(2010). the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, Article Multivariate data analysis. Pearson. e102499. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to David, R. J., & Bitektine, A. B. (2009). The deinstitutionalization of institutional theory? report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. Exploring divergent agendas in institutional research. In D. A. Buchanan, & Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business 160–175). Sage. research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Papa, A., Tarba, S. Y., Bresciani, S., & Warkentin, M. (2021). Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2020). A systematic review of A Self-Tuning Model for Smart Manufacturing SMEs: Effects on Digital Innovation. the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 68–89. organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197. Del Giudice, M., Soto-Acosta, P., Carayannis, E., & Scuotto, V. (2018). Emerging Henriette, E., Feki, M., & Boughzala, I. (2016). Digital transformation challenges. Paper perspectives on business process management (BPM): IT-based processes and presented at the MCIS. ambidextrous organizations, theory and practice. Business Process Management Henseler, J. (2012). PLS-MGA: A non-parametric approach to partial least squares-based Journal, 24(5), 1070–1076. multigroup analysis. In W. Gaul, A. Geyer-Schulz, L. Schmidt-Thieme, & J. Kunze de Oliveira, M. A., Dalla Valentina, L. V. O., & Possamai, O. (2012). Forecasting project (Eds.), Challenges at the interface of data analysis, computer science, and optimization performance considering the influence of leadership style on organizational agility. (pp. 495–501). Springer. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(6), 653–671. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., De Waal, B., van Outvorst, F., and Ravesteyn, P. (2016). Digital leadership: The Straub, D. W., … Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: objective-subjective dichotomy of technology revisited. Paper presented at the 12th Comments on Ronkk ¨ o ¨ and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance ECMLG 2016. 182–209. DiMaggio, P. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: The Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path case of US art museums. The New Institutionalism (supra). https://nyuscholars.nyu. modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics, & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New edu/en/publications/constructing-an-organizational-field-as-a-professional-project- challenges to international marketing (pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing th. Limited. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), Review, 147–160. 52–61. Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2008). The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia’s rollercoaster Hu, L., & t., and Bentler, P. M.. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance experience. California Management Review, 50(3), 95–118. structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Dubey, R., Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T., & Childe, S. J. Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. (2018). Supply chain agility, adaptability and alignment. International Journal of Irfan, M., Wang, M., & Akhtar, N. (2019). Impact of IT capabilities on supply chain Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 129–148. capabilities and organizational agility: A dynamic capability view. Operations Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data Management Research : Advancing Practice through Theory, 12(3–4), 113–128. and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: Integrating institutional Jesse, N. (2018). Organizational evolution - How digital disruption enforces theory, resource-based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management, 30 organizational agility. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(30), 486–491. (2), 341–361. Kitsios, F., & Kamariotou, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence and business strategy towards Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B. T., & Roubaud, D. digital transformation: A research agenda. Sustainability, 13(4), 2025. (2018). Examining top management commitment to TQM diffusion using Klesel, M., Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., & Niehaves, B. (2019). A test for multigroup institutional and upper echelon theories. International Journal of Production Research, comparison using partial least squares path modeling. Internet Research, 29(3), 56(8), 2988–3006. 464–477. Dur˜ ao, N., Ferreira, M. J., Pereira, C. S., & Moreira, F. (2019). Current and future state of Korovkin, V. (2019). National digital economy strategies: A survey of Africa. ORF Issue Portuguese organizations towards digital transformation. Procedia Computer Science, Brief. 164, 25–32. Krimpmann, D. (2015). IT/IS organisation design in the digital age–A literature review. Felipe, C. M., Roldan, ´ J. L., & Leal-Rodríguez, A. L. (2017). Impact of organizational International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 9(4), 1208–1218. culture values on organizational agility. Sustainability, 9(12), 2354. Larjovuori, R.-L., Bordi, L., Makiniemi, ¨ J.-P., and Heikkil¨ a-Tammi, K. (2016). The role of Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., & Pellicelli, A. C. (2020). “Openness” of public governments in leadership and employee well-being in organizational digitalization. In T. Russo- smart cities: Removing the barriers for innovation and entrepreneurship. Spena, and C. Mele (Eds.), What’s ahead in service research? New perspectives for International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(4), 1259–1280. business and society: Reser 2016 proceedings (pp. 1159-1172). RESER Proceedings. Ferraris, A., Degbey, W. Y., Singh, S. K., Bresciani, S., Castellano, S., Fiano, F., & http://www.sda-se.com/news/proceedings-of-reser-2016-published/. Couturier, J. (2022). Microfoundations of strategic agility in emerging markets: Lee, O.-K., Banerjee, P., Lim, K. H., Kumar, K., Hillegersberg, J. v., and Wei, K. K. (2006). Empirical evidence of Italian MNEs in India. Journal of World Business, 57(2), Article Aligning IT components to achieve agility in globally distributed system 101272. development. Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 48-54. Fischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2020). Strategy archetypes for Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Bohmann, T., Drews, P., … Ahlemann, F. digital transformation: Defining meta objectives using business process (2017). Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information management. Information & Management, 57(5), Article 103262. systems engineering community. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(4), Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with 301–308. unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), Lei, H., Leaungkhamma, L., & Le, P. B. (2020). How transformational leadership 39–50. facilitates innovation capability: The mediating role of employees’ psychological Franken, A., & Thomsett, H. (2013). When it takes a network: Creating strategy and capital. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 41(4), 481–499. agility through wargaming. California Management Review, 55(3), 107–133. Li, F. (2020). Leading digital transformation: Three emerging approaches for managing Frankowska, M., & Rzeczycki, A. (2020). In Reshaping supply chain collaboration - The role the transition. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(6), of digital leadership in a networked organization (pp. 353–364). Springer. 809–817. Frossling, C., and Ek, L. (2020). Relating integrative capabilities and institutional logics to Li, H., Hu, Q., Zhao, G., & Li, B. (2021). The co-evolution of knowledge management and digital transformation: A case-study of a public sector organization. [Master’s thesis, business model transformation in the post-COVID-19 era: Insights based on Chinese University of Gothenburg]. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/66333/1/ e-commerce companies. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ gupea_2077_66333_1.pdf. JKM-03-2021-0177 Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R., & Farr, J. V. (2009). Evaluating agility in corporate Li, H., Wu, Y., Cao, D., & Wang, Y. (2021). Organizational mindfulness towards digital enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 118(2), 410–423. transformation as a prerequisite of information processing capability to achieve Ghasemaghaei, M., Hassanein, K., & Turel, O. (2017). Increasing firm agility through the market agility. Journal of Business Research, 122, 700–712. use of data analytics: The role of fit. Decision Support Systems, 101, 95–105. Li, L., Lin, J., Turel, O., Liu, P., & Luo, X. (2020). The impact of e-commerce capabilities Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: on agricultural firms ’ performance gains: The mediating role of organizational Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management agility. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(7), 1265–1286. Review, 21(4), 1022–1054. Li, W., Liu, K., Belitski, M., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2016). E-leadership through Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). The SAGE Handbook of strategic alignment: An empirical study of small-and medium-sized enterprises in the Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE. digital age. Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 185–206. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Meyer, R. E. (2017). The Sage handbook of Lin, W.-B. (2011). Factors affecting the effects of service recovery from an integrated organizational institutionalism. Sage. point of view. Total Quality Management, 22(4), 443–459. Guarnieri, P., & Gomes, R. C. (2019). Can public procurement be strategic? A future Lipsmeier, A., Kühn, A., Joppen, R., & Dumitrescu, R. (2020). Process for the agenda proposition. Journal of Public Procurement, 19(4), 295–321. development of a digital strategy. Procedia CIRP, 88, 173–178. Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A framework for research and Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., Gu, J., & Chen, H. (2010). The role of institutional pressures development. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1–2), 87–105. and organizational culture in the firm ’s intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain management systems. Journal of Operations Management, 28(5), 372–384. 646 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model Sainger, G. (2018). Leadership in digital age: A study on the role of leader in this era of transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. digital transformation. International Journal on Leadership, 6(1), 1–6. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(3), 149–157. Saleh, A., and Awny, M. M. (2020). Digital transformation strategy framework. Paper Lohmoller, ¨ J.-B. (1989). Predictive vs. structural modeling: PLS vs. ML. In J.- presented at the 29th International Conference of the International Association for .-B. Lohmoller ¨ (Ed.), Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares (pp. Management of Technology: Towards the Digital World and Industry X.0, IAMOT 199–226). Springer. 2020. McCarthy, I., & Tsinopoulos, C. (2003). Strategies for agility: An evolutionary and Sanatigar, H., Hadi Peikani, M., & Gholamzadeh, D. (2017). Identifying organizational configurational approach. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(2), 103–113. agility and leadership dimensions using Delphi technique and factor analysis. McGrath, R., & McManus, R. (2020). Discovery-driven planning. Harvard Business Review. International Journal of Public Leadership, 13(4), 276–294. https://hbr.org/1995/07/discovery-driven-planning. Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least Md Noor, S., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., & Barghi, R. (2019). Inscription of a squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In destination as a world heritage site and residents’ perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of M. Sarstedt, M. Schwaiger, & C. R. Taylor (Eds.), Measurement and research methods in Tourism Research, 24(1), 14–30. international marketing (pp. 195–218). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Menon, S., & Suresh, M. (2021). Factors influencing organizational agility in higher Sasmoko, W. M., & L. W., Alamsjaha, F., and Elidjena.. (2019). Dynamic capability: The education. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(1), 307–332. effect of digital leadership on fostering innovation capability based on market Mergel, I., Kattel, R., Lember, V., & McBride, K. (2018). Citizen-oriented digital orientation. Management Science Letters, 9(10), 1633–1644. transformation in the public sector. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th Schwertner, K. (2017). Digital transformation of business. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 15 Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data (1), 388–393. Age. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage. myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. Scuotto, V., Arrigo, E., Candelo, E., & Nicotra, M. (2020). Ambidextrous innovation Mihardjo, L. W., & Rukmana, R. A. (2019). Customer experience and organizational orientation effected by the digital transformation: A quantitative research on fashion agility driven business model innovation to shape sustainable development. Polish SMEs. Business Process Management Journal, 26(5), 1121–1140. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 293–30420. Scuotto, V., Nicotra, M., Del Giudice, M., Krueger, N., & Gregori, G. L. (2021). Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., & Krogstie, J. (2019). Big data analytics capabilities A microfoundational perspective on SMEs’ growth in the digital transformation era. and innovation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities and moderating effect of Journal of Business Research, 129, 382–392. the environment. British Journal of Management, 30(2), 272–298. Seepma, A. P., de Blok, C., & Van Donk, D. P. (2020). Designing digital public service Morakanyane, R., O’Reilly, P., McAvoy, J., & Grace, A. (2020). Determining digital supply chains: Four country-based cases in criminal justice. Supply Chain transformation success factors. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii Management, 26(3), 418–446. International Conference on System Sciences. Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., & Ericksen, J. (2001). Crafting a human Muduli, A. (2016). Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: An resource strategy to foster organizational agility: A case study. Human Resource empirical study. Management Research Review, 39(12), 1567–1586. Management, 40(3), 197–211. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and Shams, R., Vrontis, D., Belyaeva, Z., Ferraris, A., & Czinkota, M. R. (2021). Strategic organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77–97. agility in international business: A conceptual framework for “agile” multinationals. Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., & Rantala, T. (2020). Managing the digital supply chain: Journal of International Management, 27(1), Article e100737. The role of smart technologies. Technovation, 96–97. Shashi, Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., and Ertz, M. (2020). Agile supply chain Nekrasov, A., & Sinitsyna, A. (2020). Complex digital model of transport logistic system management: Where did it come from and where will it go in the era of digital transformation. In J. Kacprzyk (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems (pp. transformation? Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 324-345. 244–251). Springer. Siebel, T. M. (2019). Digital transformation: survive and thrive in an era of mass extinction: Ng, T. W., Yam, K. C., & Aguinis, H. (2019). Employee perceptions of corporate social RosettaBooks. responsibility: Effects on pride, embeddedness, and turnover. Personnel Psychology, Elia, S., Giuffrida, M., Mariani, M. M., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Resources and digital 72(1), 107–137. export: An RBV perspective on the role of digital technologies and capabilities in Nguyen, D. K., Broekhuizen, T., Dong, J. Q., & Verhoef, P. C. (2020). When It takes three cross-border e-commerce. Journal of Business Research, 132, 158–169. to tango in the digital transformation age: Synergies between digital orientation, Stefanova, K., & Kabakchieva, D. (2019). Challenges and perspectives of digital change commitment and organizational agility. Paper presented at the ICIS 2020. transformation. In Conferences of the Department of Informatics (pp. 13–23). Science J.K. Nwankpa Y. Roumani IT capability and digital transformation: A firm performance and Economics Varna. perspective. Paper presented at the ICIS2016 2016 Dublin, Ireland. Stettina, C. J., & Heijstek, W. (2011). Five agile factors: Helping self-management to self- Ojha, D., Acharya, C., & Cooper, D. (2018). Transformational leadership and supply reflect. Paper presented at the European Conference on Software Process Improvement. chain ambidexterity: Mediating role of supply chain organizational learning and Suddaby, R., Elsbach, K. D., Greenwood, R., Meyer, J. W., and Zilber, T. B. (2010). moderating role of uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 197, Organizations and their institutional environments—Bringing meaning, values, and 215–231. culture back in: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Oliva, F. L., Couto, M. H. G., Santos, R. F., & Bresciani, S. (2019). The integration Journal, 53(6), 1234-1240. between knowledge management and dynamic capabilities in agile organizations. Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., & Lˆ e, J. K. (2013). Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional Management Decision, 57(8), 1960–1979. theory. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 329–344. Parmentier, G., & Mangematin, V. (2014). Orchestrating innovation with user Swift, M., & Lange, D. (2018). Digital leadership in Asia-Pacific . Korn Ferry. communities in the creative industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: 83, 40–53. Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of Review, 58(4), 13–35. organizations-I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(1), 63–85. Teichert, R. (2019). Digital transformation maturity: A systematic review of literature. Pattij, M., Van de Wetering, R., & Kusters, R. J. (2020). Improving agility through enterprise Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(6), architecture management: The mediating role of aligning business and IT. Atlanta: 1673–1687. Association for Information Systems (AIS). Teo, H.-H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt Pirayesh, R., & Pourrezay, Z. (2019). The effect of transformational leadership style and interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 19–49. organizational innovation on improving environmental performance of Troise, C., Corvello, V., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2022). How can SMEs successfully environmental polluters companies case study: Lead producer companies in Zanjan navigate VUCA environment: The role of agility in the digital transformation era. province. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 10(7), 1687–1695. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, Article 121227. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader Scuotto, V., Magni, D., Palladino, R., & Nicotra, M. (2022). Triggering disruptive behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, technology absorptive capacity by CIOs. Explorative research on a micro-foundation commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, lens. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, Article 121234. 22(2), 259–298. Veiseh, S., & Eghbali, N. (2014). A study on ranking the effects of transformational Porfírio, J. A., Carrilho, T., Felício, J. A., & Jardim, J. (2021). Leadership characteristics leadership style on organizational agility and mediating role of organizational and digital transformation. Journal of Business Research, 124, 610–619. creativity. Management Science Letters, 4(9), 2121–2128. Raeisi, N., & Amirnejad, Q. (2017). Investigating the effect of organizational leadership Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & on organizational agility: Mediating role of organizational commitment. International Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 1154–1168. research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. Rane, S. B., Narvel, Y. A. M., & Bhandarkar, B. M. (2019). Developing strategies to Viaene, S. (2018). Orchestrating organisational agility. Ivey Business Journal. https:// improve agility in the project procurement management (PPM) process. Business iveybusinessjournal.com/orchestrating-organizational-agility/. Process Management Journal, 26(1), 257–286. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. capacity and organizational agility. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27 Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down (1), 22–42. memory lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321. Rieckhoff, K., & Maxwell, J. (2017). Organizational agility in the public sector: How to be Wanasida, A. S., Bernarto, I., and Sudibjo, N. (2020). The effect of millennial agile beyond times of crisis. McKinsey & Company. transformational leadership on IT capability, organizational agility and Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor’s comments: A critical look at organizational performance in the pandemic era: An empirical evidence of fishery the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv. startups in Indonesia. International Conference on Global Innovation and Trends in Rothaermel, F. (2013). Strategic management: Concepts. McGraw-Hill Irwin. 647 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Economy 2020, 3(1). https://adi-journal.org/index.php/conferenceseries/article/ Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). The nine elements of digital view/408. transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(3), 1–6. Weritz, P., Braojos, J., & Matute, J. (2020). Exploring the antecedents of digital Zitkiene, ˙ R., & Deksnys, M. (2018). Organizational agility conceptual model. Montenegrin transformation: Dynamic capabilities and digital culture aspects to achieve digital Journal of Economics, 14(2), 115–129. maturity. USA: Salt Lake City. Zoppelletto, A., Orlandi, L. B., Zardini, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2020). Assessing the role of Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Blegind Jensen, T. (2021). knowledge management to enhance or prevent digital transformation in SMEs: Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled Critical knowledge factors required. Paper presented at the 2020 IEEE International organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22 Conference on Technology Management, Operations and Decisions (ICTMOD). (1). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Business Research Unpaywall http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/unpaywall/mastering-digital-transformation-the-nexus-between-leadership-agility-yP70aXcxak

Loading next page...

References (137)

Darvishmotevali (2020)
The link between environmental uncertainty, organizational agility, and organizational creativity in the hotel industry
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87
Rane (2019)
Developing strategies to improve agility in the project procurement management (PPM) process
Business Process Management Journal, 26
Ferraris (2020)
“Openness” of public governments in smart cities: Removing the barriers for innovation and entrepreneurship
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16
Rieckhoff (2017)
Organizational agility in the public sector: How to be agile beyond times of crisis
McKinsey & Company.
Sanatigar (2017)
Identifying organizational agility and leadership dimensions using Delphi technique and factor analysis
International Journal of Public Leadership, 13
Banihashemi (2019)
Ranking effective factors on organizational agility in public sector using AT Kearney model and TOPSIS method (Case study: Hospitals in Birjand)
Journal of Healthcare Management, 9
Troise (2022)
How can SMEs successfully navigate VUCA environment: The role of agility in the digital transformation era
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174
Dubey (2019)
Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: Integrating institutional theory, resource-based view and big data culture
British Journal of Management, 30
Schwertner (2017)
Digital transformation of business
Trakia Journal of Sciences, 15
AlNuaimi (2021)
Unpacking the role of innovation capability: Exploring the impact of leadership style on green procurement via a natural resource-based perspective
Journal of Business Research, 134
AlNuaimi (2019)
Public-sector green procurement in the United Arab Emirates: Innovation capability and commitment to change
Journal of Cleaner Production, 233
Liu (2010)
The role of institutional pressures and organizational culture in the firm’s intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain management systems
Journal of Operations Management, 28
Hanelt (2020)
A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change
Journal of Management Studies, 58
Ng (2019)
Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Effects on pride, embeddedness, and turnover
Personnel Psychology, 72
Li (2021)
The co-evolution of knowledge management and business model transformation in the post-COVID-19 era: Insights based on Chinese e-commerce companies
Journal of Knowledge Management
Nekrasov (2020)
Complex digital model of transport logistic system transformation
Shams (2021)
Strategic agility in international business: A conceptual framework for “agile” multinationals
Journal of International Management, 27
Jesse (2018)
Organizational evolution - How digital disruption enforces organizational agility
IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51
Porfírio (2021)
Leadership characteristics and digital transformation
Journal of Business Research, 124
10.5465/amj.2010.57317486
Hu (1999)
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6
Chin (1998)
The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling
Modern Methods for Business Research, 295
Guarnieri (2019)
Can public procurement be strategic? A future agenda proposition
Journal of Public Procurement, 19
Scuotto (2021)
A microfoundational perspective on SMEs’ growth in the digital transformation era
Journal of Business Research, 129
Parmentier (2014)
Orchestrating innovation with user communities in the creative industries
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 83
Seepma (2020)
Designing digital public service supply chains: Four country-based cases in criminal justice
Supply Chain Management, 26
David (2009)
The deinstitutionalization of institutional theory? Exploring divergent agendas in institutional research
Raeisi (2017)
Investigating the effect of organizational leadership on organizational agility: Mediating role of organizational commitment
International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11
Hair (2014)
Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research
European Business Review, 26
Chen (2013)
The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity
Journal of Business Ethics, 116
Durão (2019)
Current and future state of Portuguese organizations towards digital transformation
Procedia Computer Science, 164
Mihardjo (2019)
Customer experience and organizational agility driven business model innovation to shape sustainable development
Polish Journal of Management Studies, 20
Abhari (2021)
Co-governance in digital transformation initiatives: The roles of digital culture and employee experience
Henriette (2016)
Digital transformation challenges
Dubey (2018)
Examining top management commitment to TQM diffusion using institutional and upper echelon theories
International Journal of Production Research, 56
Md Noor (2019)
Inscription of a destination as a world heritage site and residents’ perceptions
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 24
Nasiri (2020)
Managing the digital supply chain: The role of smart technologies
Technovation
Teece (2016)
Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy
California Management Review, 58
Meyer (1977)
Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony
American Journal of Sociology, 83
Ghasemaghaei (2017)
Increasing firm agility through the use of data analytics: The role of fit
Decision Support Systems, 101
Lipsmeier (2020)
Process for the development of a digital strategy
Procedia CIRP, 88
Bresciani (2021)
Building a digital transformation strategy
Zoppelletto (2020)
Assessing the role of knowledge management to enhance or prevent digital transformation in SMEs: Critical knowledge factors required
Correani (2020)
Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital transformation projects
California Management Review, 62
Bresciani (2021)
Digital leadership
Li (2021)
Organizational mindfulness towards digital transformation as a prerequisite of information processing capability to achieve market agility
Journal of Business Research, 122
Abdalla (2021)
The interplay of digital transformation and collaborative innovation on supply chain ambidexterity
Technology Innovation Management Review, 11
Scuotto (2020)
Ambidextrous innovation orientation effected by the digital transformation: A quantitative research on fashion SMEs
Business Process Management Journal, 26
Mikalef (2019)
Big data analytics capabilities and innovation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities and moderating effect of the environment
British Journal of Management, 30
Al Humdan (2020)
Supply chain agility: A systematic review of definitions, enablers and performance implications
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 50
Ferraris (2022)
Microfoundations of strategic agility in emerging markets: Empirical evidence of Italian MNEs in India
Journal of World Business, 57
Bresciani (2021)
Digital transformation as a springboard for product, process and business model innovation
Journal of Business Research, 128
Mergel (2018)
Citizen-oriented digital transformation in the public sector
Henseler (2014)
Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)
Organizational Research Methods, 17
Ringle (2012)
Editor’s comments: A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly
MIS Quarterly, 36
Sarstedt (2011)
Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results
Veiseh (2014)
A study on ranking the effects of transformational leadership style on organizational agility and mediating role of organizational creativity
Management Science Letters, 4
Hinings (2018)
Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective
Information and Organization, 28
Del Giudice (2021)
A Self-Tuning Model for Smart Manufacturing SMEs: Effects on Digital Innovation
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38
Altayar (2018)
Motivations for open data adoption: An institutional theory perspective
Government Information Quarterly, 35
Sainger (2018)
Leadership in digital age: A study on the role of leader in this era of digital transformation
International Journal on Leadership, 6
Li (2020)
Leading digital transformation: Three emerging approaches for managing the transition
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40
Burke (2001)
Gender differences in leadership styles and management skills
Women in Management Review, 16
Agostino (2021)
New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery
Public Money & Management, 41
Biggart (1987)
An institutional theory of leadership
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23
Dalvi (2013)
Investigating of organizational agility components (culture, leadership, organizational change and customer services) on the organizational performance based on the satellite model (Snowa Company as a case study)
GJPAST Journal, 3
Kitsios (2021)
Artificial intelligence and business strategy towards digital transformation: A research agenda
Sustainability, 13
Alos-Simo (2017)
How transformational leadership facilitates e-business adoption
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117
Oliva (2019)
The integration between knowledge management and dynamic capabilities in agile organizations
Management Decision, 57
Adebanjo (2018)
The impact of supply chain relationships and integration on innovative capabilities and manufacturing performance: The perspective of rapidly developing countries
International Journal of Production Research, 56
Dacin (2002)
Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum
Academy of Management Journal, 45
Cegarra-Navarro (2016)
Structured knowledge processes and firm performance: The role of organizational agility
Journal of Business Research, 69
Chin (2010)
How to write up and report PLS analyses
Ojha (2018)
Transformational leadership and supply chain ambidexterity: Mediating role of supply chain organizational learning and moderating role of uncertainty
International Journal of Production Economics, 197
Ganguly (2009)
Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises
International Journal of Production Economics, 118
Irfan (2019)
Impact of IT capabilities on supply chain capabilities and organizational agility: A dynamic capability view
Operations Management Research : Advancing Practice through Theory, 12
Legner (2017)
Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59
Gunasekaran (1999)
Agile manufacturing: A framework for research and development
International Journal of Production Economics, 62
Shafer (2001)
Crafting a human resource strategy to foster organizational agility: A case study
Human Resource Management, 40
Li (2016)
E-leadership through strategic alignment: An empirical study of small-and medium-sized enterprises in the digital age
Journal of Information Technology, 31
10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.011
Henseler (2012)
PLS-MGA: A non-parametric approach to partial least squares-based multigroup analysis
Nadler (1990)
Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change
California Management Review, 32
Del Giudice (2018)
Emerging perspectives on business process management (BPM): IT-based processes and ambidextrous organizations, theory and practice
Business Process Management Journal, 24
Teichert (2019)
Digital transformation maturity: A systematic review of literature
Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67
Parsons (1956)
Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations-I
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1
Babnik (2014)
The mission statement: Organisational culture perspective
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114
Nguyen (2020)
When It takes three to tango in the digital transformation age: Synergies between digital orientation, change commitment and organizational agility
10.1145/1164394.1164419
Loebbecke (2015)
Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24
Wessel (2021)
Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22
Butts (2015)
Hot buttons and time sinks: The effects of electronic communication during nonwork time on emotions and work-nonwork conflict
Academy of Management Journal, 58
Elia (2021)
Resources and digital export: An RBV perspective on the role of digital technologies and capabilities in cross-border e-commerce
Journal of Business Research, 132
Stefanova (2019)
Challenges and perspectives of digital transformation
Stettina (2011)
Five agile factors: Helping self-management to self-reflect
Franken (2013)
When it takes a network: Creating strategy and agility through wargaming
California Management Review, 55
Vial (2019)
Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28
Krimpmann (2015)
IT/IS organisation design in the digital age–A literature review
International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 9
Verhoef (2021)
Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda
Journal of Business Research, 122
Felipe (2017)
Impact of organizational culture values on organizational agility
Sustainability, 9
Gupta (2020)
Dynamic capabilities and institutional theories for Industry 4.0 and digital supply chain. Supply Chain Forum: An
International Journal, 21
Dubey (2018)
Supply chain agility, adaptability and alignment
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38
Ahammad (2020)
Strategic agility and human resource management
Human Resource Management Review, 30
Klesel (2019)
A test for multigroup comparison using partial least squares path modeling
Internet Research, 29
Westerman (2014)
The nine elements of digital transformation
MIT Sloan Management Review, 55
DiMaggio (1983)
The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields
American Sociological Review
Greenwood (1996)
Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism
Academy of Management Review, 21
Pirayesh (2019)
The effect of transformational leadership style and organizational innovation on improving environmental performance of environmental polluters companies case study: Lead producer companies in Zanjan province
Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 10
Žitkienė (2018)
Organizational agility conceptual model
Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14
Li (2020)
The impact of e-commerce capabilities on agricultural firms’ performance gains: The mediating role of organizational agility
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120
Menon (2021)
Factors influencing organizational agility in higher education
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28
Akkaya (2020)
The link between organizational agility and leadership: A research in science parks
Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19
Fornell (1981)
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Journal of Marketing Research, 18
Suddaby (2013)
Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional theory
Strategic Organization, 11
Ravichandran (2018)
Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27
Teo (2003)
Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective
MIS Quarterly
McGrath (2020)
Discovery-driven planning
Harvard Business Review.
de Oliveira (2012)
Forecasting project performance considering the influence of leadership style on organizational agility
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61
Podsakoff (1996)
Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors
Journal of Management, 22
Morakanyane (2020)
Determining digital transformation success factors
Ardi (2020)
The relationship between digital transformational leadership styles and knowledge-based empowering interaction for increasing organisational innovativeness
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11
Bass (1993)
Transformational leadership and organizational culture
Public Administration Quarterly, 17
AlNuaimi (2021)
The role of big data analytics capabilities in greening e-procurement: A higher order PLS-SEM analysis
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169
Henseler (2009)
The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing
Scuotto (2022)
Triggering disruptive technology absorptive capacity by CIOs. Explorative research on a micro-foundation lens
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174
Sasmoko (2019)
Dynamic capability: The effect of digital leadership on fostering innovation capability based on market orientation
Management Science Letters, 9
McCarthy (2003)
Strategies for agility: An evolutionary and configurational approach
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14
Lei (2020)
How transformational leadership facilitates innovation capability: The mediating role of employees’ psychological capital
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 41
Muduli (2016)
Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: An empirical study
Management Research Review, 39
Ahmed Khamis (2020)
Influence on internal control through digitalization of assets: A study on Ministry of Interior, UAE
International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 10
Hair (2019)
When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM
European Business Review, 31
Lin (2011)
Factors affecting the effects of service recovery from an integrated point of view
Total Quality Management, 22
Chierici (2021)
Strengthening digital collaboration to enhance social innovation capital: An analysis of Italian small innovative enterprises
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22
Fischer (2020)
Strategy archetypes for digital transformation: Defining meta objectives using business process management
Information & Management, 57
Doz (2008)
The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia’s rollercoaster experience
California Management Review, 50
Walsh (1995)
Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane
Organization Science, 6
Lohmöller (1989)
Predictive vs. structural modeling: PLS vs. ML

Publisher: Unpaywall
ISSN: 0148-2963
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.038
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

M Ma as stte er riin ng g d diig giitta all ttr ra an ns sffo or rm ma attiio on n:: T Th he e n ne ex xu us s b be ettw we ee en n lle ea ad de er rs sh hiip p,, a ag giilliitty y,, a an nd d d diig giitta all s sttr ra atte eg gy y AUTHOR(S) B K AlNuaimi, S Kumar Singh, Shuang Ren, P Budhwar, D Vorobyev PUBLICATION DATE 01-06-2022 HANDLE 10536/DRO/DU:30166431 Downloaded from Deakin University’s Figshare repository Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy a b, * c d Bader K. AlNuaimi , Sanjay Kumar Singh , Shuang Ren , Pawan Budhwar , Dmitriy Vorobyev College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates School of Business, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland Deakin Business School, Melbourne, Australia Aston Business School, UK PRIGO University, Havirov, Czech Republic ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Drawing upon new institutional theory, we developed and tested a model on how digital transformational Digital transformation leadership and organizational agility influence digital transformation with digital strategy as a moderator. We Organizational agility found that digital transformational leadership and organizational agility positively influence digital trans- Leadership formation, and digital transformational leadership influences organizational agility. The finding of our study also Digital strategy indicates organizational agility to mediate the relationship between digital transformational leadership and Institutional theory digital transformation. Our findings offer an advanced understanding of the impact of transformational lead- COVID-19 ership and organizational agility on digital transformation and the role of digital strategy. Our study’s findings address critical questions about how leadership style and promoting organizational agility in the public sector can enhance digital transformation. 1. Introduction 2019). Despite these difficulties, implementing digital transformation technologies in the public sector organization holds many benefits, such Jack Welch once said, “When the rate of change inside an institution as improved transparency and accountability, better access to govern- becomes slower than the rate of change outside, the end is near” ment data, support for innovation, a responsive supply chain, improved (Viaene, 2018). The current business environment and operations are government services, support for environmental initiatives, operational undergoing rapid changes due to current digital transformation tech- benefits, and the encouragement of participation (Altayar, 2018; nologies. With the integration of the Internet, blockchain, big data, Seepma et al., 2020; AlNuaimi et al., 2021a). artificial intelligence (AI), and related technologies, the changing dy- McGrath and McManus (2020) reported that many business leaders namics of customer demand, and the disturbances stemming from nowadays are rushed into investing in large-scale, radical digital COVID-19, business operations changes have become problematic. transformation and hoping for the best. This leads to expensive digital Therefore, organizations, especially in the public sector, are seriously transformation failures that result in management departures, layoffs, exploring the opportunities emerging digital transformation technolo- and a back-to-basics strategy wherein digital efforts are sidelined, thus gies provide to enhance organizational agility and the flexibility needed remaining in the pilot-project stage (Siebel, 2019). The leading cause of to adapt to changing environments and meet government and customer this is the growing disconnect between rhetoric and reality, accompa- demands. However, public sector organizations are still facing many nied by the ongoing strategy–execution gap (Li, 2020). Throughout In- barriers to implementing digital transformation, such as the lack of dustry 4.0, many studies are available that could enable organizations to administrative skills, data availability, lack of resources, lack of tech- pursue digital transformation and innovate their processes to generate nological capabilities (Ferraris et al., 2020), and environmental uncer- many benefits. However, for organizations to remain successful and to tainty related to public management in the public sector (Oliva et al., survive in today’s disruptive market environment, they must tackle the * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.K. AlNuaimi), [email protected] (S. Kumar Singh), [email protected] (S. Ren), p.s.budhwar@aston. ac.uk (P. Budhwar), [email protected] (D. Vorobyev). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.038 Received 4 September 2021; Received in revised form 12 March 2022; Accepted 15 March 2022 Available online 21 March 2022 0148-2963/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 challenges that digital transformation, innovation, commitment, new expectations (David and Bitektine, 2009). NIT also explains how orga- skill sets, and other rapidly emerging new technologies pose (Scuotto, nizations interact with their environments to survive and succeed amidst Magni, Palladino, and Nicotra, 2022). competition and challenges. Institutions/organizations are viewed as Nevertheless, many organizations fail with digital transformation products of shared understandings and shared interpretations of because they begin with technological changes without building holistic acceptable norms of collective activity, such as policies, practices, and plans and coherent digital strategies (DSs) (Stefanova and Kabakchieva, job titles (Parsons, 1956; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). NIT highlights three 2019; Bresciani et al., 2021a). Leaders must ensure that their organi- fundamental forces that shape organizations. The first is coercive pres- zations develop digital mindsets and the agility required to respond to sures, which often stem from government-sponsored agencies, the de- disruptions related to digital technologies (Vial, 2019). Consequently, mands of the powerful, or resource-controlling organizations. The this study aims to combine several internal factors that could influence second is imitative pressures, which result from decision-maker’s digital transformation in the public sector to understand their in- dependence on other organizations’ behavior to guide their organiza- teractions and contributions to organizational agility. Thus, this study tions. The third is normative pressure, i.e., social expectations generated aims to: (1) examine the relationship between organizational agility and through professionals and other actors’ implicit or explicit efforts about digital transformational leadership, including this relationship’s influ - adopting particular policies and practices (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). ence on digital transformation; and (2) determine whether any positive NIT has commonly been used to understand the organizational moderation effect of digital strategy on organizational agility, digital change concerning implementing advanced technology by investigating transformational leadership, and digital transformation exists. We drew external pressures/factors on organizations’ practices and cultures upon institutional theory (INT: Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Green- (Adebanjo et al., 2018; Dubey et al., 2019). Change and innovation have wood et al., 2017) and new institutional theory (NIT: Greenwood, been explained within NIT by emphasizing the sociocultural aspects of Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2008) to examine and find the answer to organizing using two approaches: (1) considering the relationship be- these two research questions. tween stasis and change, seeing continuity and homogeneity as well as Thus, this study has several key contributions to advance theory and change and heterogeneity amongst organizations (Greenwood et al., practice in the field. First, INT is often used to explain the adoption and 2017); and (2) perceiving stasis and change as the outcomes of planning, spread of formal organizational structures and organizational culture structures, activities, and actions at multiple levels of analysis, including change, including written policies, standard practices, and new forms of the societal, field, organizational, and individual levels (Scott, 2013). organization (Suddaby et al., 2010). However, the utilization of INT in This study opted to use these two NIT approaches to explore digital investigating organizational agility in the literature is lacking. Dubey transformation as a complex and radical coercive change in the public et al. (2018a) recommended augmenting INT in future research to shed sector organization, emphasizing leadership, strategy, and, more light on the influence of organizational agility in the context of digital importantly, organizational agility. transformation technologies. This paper intends to bridge this gap by utilizing INT, emphasizing new institutional theory (NIT) to investigate 2.2. Digital transformation this phenomenon. Second, our study fills in the lack of understanding of how organizational agility, leadership, and strategy can contribute to Digital transformation (DT) is characterized by planned changes digital transformation, especially when many public and private sector built on a foundation of advanced technologies (Bresciani et al., 2021b). organizations are pushing the need to deploy digital transformation to Digital transformation can be described as an organizational shift to big survive during and post COVID-19 (Li, Hu, Zhao, and Li, 2021). Orga- data, analytics, the cloud, mobile communication technologies, and nizations are more likely to succeed with digital transformation by social media platforms to provide goods and services (Bresciani et al., focusing on internal abilities, leadership, relationships, and the align- 2021b; Nwankpa and Roumani, 2016). Nasiri et al. (2020) also ment of digital transformation with business strategy, which, in turn, described digital transformation as a tool for transforming business enhances their agility to respond to environmental turbulence (Li et al., processes, cultures, and organizational aspects to meet changing market 2021). Finally, our study advances extant literature on digital trans- requirements brought about by digital technologies. Digital trans- formation and organizational agility in the context of the public sector formation is characterized by three elements: (1) reexamining and organization. However, recent literature investigating the impact of redefining firm boundaries; (2) the opening up of products and services digital transformation technologies in the context of public sector or- to community input, as well as reducing property rights; and (3) ganization’s supply chain knowledge domain (Frossling and Ek, 2020; reshaping organizational and product identities (Parmentier and Man- Nekrasov and Sinitsyna, 2020; Seepma et al., 2020; AlNuaimi et al., gematin, 2014). NIT views digital transformation as a radical institu- 2021a), or have been qualitative and conceptual studies (Durao et al., tional change that diffuses through and disrupts both fields and 2019; Guarnieri and Gomes, 2019). Hence, this study aims to fill this gap organizations (Del Giudice et al., 2021; Hinings et al., 2018). Digital by investigating various internal factors influencing digital trans- transformation comprises the combined effects of several digital in- formation implementation in the public sector organization. novations and technologies, bringing about novel actors, structures, practices, values, arrangements, and beliefs that change, destroy, 2. Literature review and hypotheses development replace, or complement existing rules of the game within organizations, ecosystems, industries, or fields (Westerman, Bonnet, and McAfee, 2014; This study’s theoretical framework is based on one primary theory: Scuotto, Arrigo, Candelo, and Nicotra, 2020; Parmentier and Man- the NIT theory. NIT has been widely used in the digital transformation gematin, 2014; Krimpmann, 2015). Digital transformation entails literature to investigate various aspects of digital transformation (Dubey various consequences that reshape business models, impact employment et al., 2018b; Shashi et al., 2020; Verhoef et al., 2021). However, what is among leaders, employees, and knowledge workers, and impact orga- missing in the literature is the use of this theory to investigate internal nizational cultures (Scuotto, Nicotra, Del Giudice, Krueger, and Gregori, aspects related to digital transformation implementation, such as lead- 2021; Legner et al., 2017; Loebbecke and Picot, 2015). ership, OA, and DS, which are addressed in this section. 2.3. Leadership and digital transformation 2.1. Institutional theory (INT) and new institutional theory (NIT) From an NIT perspective, digital transformation represents an INT is a prominent perspective in contemporary organizational organizational change in digitally-enabled institutional arrangements research. It encompasses a large body of theoretical and empirical work that diffuse through fields and organizations. Digital transformation emphasizing the importance of cultural understandings and shared must gain legitimacy through the organization’s belief system to succeed 637 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 (Hinings et al., 2018). From an NIT perspective, leadership is considered organizational agility (OA) is defined as the organization’s ability to a fundamental element of organizational values and belief systems; identify unexpected changes in the environment and respond swiftly and when organizations change over time, leadership must also change and efficiently by utilizing and reconfiguring internal resources, thus gaining adapt (Biggart and Hamilton, 1987). Organizations shift to digital a competitive advantage in the process (Zitkiene ˙ and Deksnys, 2018). transformation by genuinely changing how they operate and deliver From an NIT perspective, agility can be explained by emphasizing the their products/services by promoting digital cultures that flourish concept of cognitive factors (DiMaggio, 1991). Specifically, agile in- (Bresciani, Ferraris, Romano and Santoro, 2021; Chierici, Tortora, Del stitutions should focus on the representation, use, and development of Giudice, and Quacquarelli, 2021). It would not be possible without the content and structure of knowledge structures both to address value leaders who create platforms for this and drive stakeholders toward commitments and facilitate the capacity for action in changing envi- action (Sainger, 2018). ronments (Walsh, 1995). The role of a leader in assuring and propelling the shift to Industry Menon and Suresh (2021) expanded the notion of organizational 4.0 has been highlighted in the literature (Li et al., 2016; Porfírio et al., agility in the context of ICT adoption. They identified eight factors that 2021). Leaders can help companies to succeed in the digital age through could influence organizational agility: (1) the ability to sense the envi- three habits: (1) following the trends of emergent technologies; (2) ronment; (2) the organizational structure; (3) the adoption of ICT; (4) determining the direction of the digital change and investment strategy; organizational learning; (5) human resource strategies; (6) leadership; and (3) leading the team to change swiftly and precisely (Swift and (7) willingness to change; and (8) collaboration with stakeholders. On Lange, 2018). Leaders with digital transformation mindsets, also known the one hand, digital transformation has improved organizational agil- as “digital leaders,” can build collaborative networked organizations ity, as digitization leads to new occupational profiles and specific stress and find digital competencies (Frankowska and Rzeczycki, 2020; Bres- on the organizational fabric and agility (Del Giudice et al., 2018; Jesse, ciani et al., 2021c). Transformational leadership (TFL) has been spe- 2018). Ghasemaghaei et al. (2017) argued that, by utilizing data ana- cifically highlighted in the digital transformation literature investigating lytics, firms could enhance their agility by achieving greater levels of fit leadership in a digital environment. Transformational leaders engender between analytical tools, data, employees’ capabilities, and firm tasks. trust, seek to develop leadership in others, exhibit self-sacrifice, and On the other hand, technology competencies and digital transformation serve as moral agents, focusing both themselves and their followers on (Rane et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020) and e-commerce capabilities (Li objectives that transcend the immediate needs of the workgroup (Avo- et al., 2020) are vital for improving organizational agility. Digital lio, 1999). Hence, digital leadership is considered a combination of the transformation is also considered a prerequisite for information pro- transformational leadership style and digital technology (De Waal et al., cessing capability to achieve agility (Li et al., 2021). Thus, we propose 2016). that organizational agility influences digital transformation: The extant literature indicates that transformational leadership fa- H2: Organizational agility positively influences digital cilitates organizations’ innovation capability, which is the foundation of transformation. digital transformation (Sasmoko et al., 2019; Lei et al., 2020; AlNuaimi et al., 2021b). Ardi et al. (2020) also investigated digital leadership from 2.5. The relationship between leadership and organizational agility in a transformational leadership perspective and determined that digital digital transformation transformational leadership positively influences organizational inno- vativeness and performance. Hence, following the above discussion, as From an NIT perspective, for an organization to move toward an well as INT views of organizational change and leadership, we propose institutionally novel change, a high degree of organizational capacity is the following hypothesis: needed that involves these skills and resources within the organization H1: Transformational digital leadership positively influences digital and its mobilization. Mobilization, in this sense, is an act of leadership transformation. (Greenwood and Hinings, 1996). NIT also posits that organizations should improve and guard their legitimacy when proposing any changes 2.4. Organizational agility and digital transformation by adopting organizational practices and seeking leaders with “desir- able” qualities/practices (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995). According to INT, institutional environments are vital in (re)forming Meanwhile, agile firms must foster five agile human attributes: (1) organizational structures and actions. From the NIT perspective, de- forging a common purpose; (2) embedding core values; (3) enriching cisions are not driven entirely by rational goals of efficiency but also by work; (4) promoting personal growth; and (5) providing commensurate social and cultural factors and concerns for legitimacy (Scott, 1995). returns (Shafer et al., 2001). With these human attributes and proper Digital transformation (DT) can be viewed through the lens of institu- leadership, firms can become flexible and quickly adaptive to change by tional pressure (Liu et al., 2010; Dubey et al., 2018b; Gupta et al., 2020). making the necessary changes to the organizational structure. Thus, it The decision to implement digital transformation may not be due to can easily be assumed that the leadership style used in an organization internal motives; institutions are likely to be stimulated to adopt and use may influence organizational agility. Leadership is vital for improving technology via external isomorphic pressures, such as competitors, firms ’ organizational agility through leaders’ ability to alter their busi- customers, or the government (Bresciani et al., 2021; DiMaggio and ness situations and organizations’ readiness to reverse unsuccessful Powell, 1983). Mimetic, coercive, and normative forces can play a role strategic decisions (Ahammad et al., 2020). However, the existing in influencing institutions to adopt digital transformation (Teo et al., literature markedly fails to establish how this relationship occurs or 2003). Regardless of the pressure, organizational change is considered a even the interdependence level between these variables (de Oliveira precondition and can become a bottleneck for digital transformation if et al., 2012). not adapted properly (Teichert, 2019). Organizations need to change In the present study, organizational agility is viewed as a manifes- their traditional processes, structure, and management towards more tation of continuous improvement, continuous delivery, communica- agile processes and management practices. tion, team and people maturity, and flexibility. An agile organization is Agility refers to a system’s ability to meet rapidly changing needs represented by teams working together, being motivated, gifted, self- and other external stimuli cost-effectively without compromising the disciplined, organized, and showing a remarkable ability to improvise quality of its products and services (Ganguly et al., 2009). It allows firms (Stettina and Heijstek, 2011). It requires proper leadership to provide to replace existing processes by applying new procedures and resources, power distribution, authority, and responsibilities among the members, and it is instrumental in redesigning organizational structures based on thus contributing to the team’s motivation and confidence (Gunase- new conditions (Troise, Corvello, Ghobadian, and O’Regan, 2022; Fer- karan, 1999). Hence, organizational leadership plays an essential role in raris et al., 2022; Darvishmotevali et al., 2020). Meanwhile, enforcing an organization’s commitment to improving organizational 638 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 agility (Raeisi and Amirnejad, 2017). NIT views leadership skills as a set program quickly introduced and implemented in a planned amount of of activities required to manage institutional change. These skills time. Instead, it must be understood as a dynamic, continuous process include being charismatic (envisioning, energizing, and enabling), (Lipsmeier et al., 2020). Data need to be continuously collected, cleaned, instrumental (structuring, controlling, and rewarding), and institutional securely stored, and execrated in the digital environment to support (ensuring that changes stick) (Nadler and Tushman, 1990). Such leaders analyses and generate meaningful output in a feedback loop. Subse- are linked to transformational leadership in the literature; for example, quently, the extracted data should be processed to expand all employees transformational leaders drive followers’ values, attitudes, and emotions and the organization (Correani et al., 2020). Hence, digital trans- (Bass and Avolio, 1993). These leaders can improve organizational formation requires a comprehensive revision of the firm’s operations, agility through their ability to develop appropriate relationships with strategy, leadership skills, innovation capability, and business models subordinates and encourage them to think beyond their personal needs (Schwertner, 2017; Correani et al., 2020). operate effectively in complex and risky situations. Transformational Although digital transformation offers many opportunities for to- leaders prepare themselves and their employees to take appropriate day’s firms, many academics and practitioners struggle to grasp it, action when facing challenges and potential opportunities (Burke and mainly because it differs from the well-established concept of IT-enabled Collins, 2001; Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014). In fact, in agile organizations, organizational transformation (Wessel et al., 2021). This is due to the the leadership constantly adjusts courses of action and development complexity of the digital transformation processes, as it involves tech- trajectories. Such leaders are not satisfied merely with periodic strategy nology, a clear vision, and a detailed digital strategy to complete the reviews, which is why companies such as Nokia have failed (Doz and necessary steps. In other words, digital transformation requires targeted Kosonen, 2008). organizational restructuring and entails consequences for the metrics In the context of the present study, transformational leadership has used to adjust performance (Verhoef et al., 2021). Developing a digital been found to influence e-business adoption (Alos-Simo et al., 2017) and strategy that embraces corporate and business strategies has been the to improve organizational agility (Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014; Akkaya predominant digital transformation success factor (Porfírio et al., 2021). and Tabak, 2020; Wanasida et al., 2020). In addition, transformational For this reason, we see the emergence of the role of the chief digital leadership affects organizational creativity (Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014), officer (CDO) as key to operationalizing digital strategy and making sure organizational innovation (Pirayesh and Pourrezay, 2019), and inno- that it is aligned with the company’s purpose and mission (Henriette vation projects’ performance (de Oliveira et al., 2012). Trans- et al., 2016). Senior managers and workers cannot benefit from digital formational leadership can also improve organizational learning transformation if they cannot effectively implement it. Organizations orientations to achieve higher levels of organizational ambidexterity, that focus on developing solid digital strategies can use them to drive which manifests organizational agility (Ojha et al., 2018). In addition, digital transformation and improve top executives’ decision-making Lin (2011) showed that transformational leadership has a positive and processes (Mikalef et al., 2019). Porfírio et al. (2021) consider a digi- significant effect on public sector organizations’ agility and supports tal strategy to be a synergetic sum of information technology (IT) and service recovery performance. Hence, we propose the following information systems (IS) strategic initiatives, driven by managers’ de- hypothesis: cisions about exploiting these available infrastructures. Consequently, H3a. Digital transformational leadership positively influences no matter how talented leaders are in coping with risk and uncertainty organizational agility. or how well they manage the flexibility/efficiency tradeoff, all is for Agile organizations should spread organizational agility, workforce naught if these activities are not aligned with good strategies (Teece agility, and system agility (Muduli, 2016). Organizational agility has et al., 2016). Hence, we propose the following hypothesis: four fundamental skills: responsiveness; flexibility; speed; and compe- H4a. Digital strategy moderates the relationship between digital tence (Akkaya and Tabak, 2020). It means that all employees need to transformation leadership and digital transformation. change their actions by implementing adequate information systems, Organizational agility is limited in terms of the managerial guidance precise and fast instructions, and support from top leadership (Larjo- it provides. The role of managers is limited without having a strategy vuori et al., 2016). As to dimensions of organizational agility, culture, and adjusting it when needed (Teece et al., 2016). Hence, agility and leadership, and organizational change have significant positive re- strategy work in tandem. In this context, organizations need to develop lationships with organizational performance (Dalvi et al., 2013). adequate organizational agility to implement an agile digital strategy Transformational leadership can influence organizational agility and (Shams et al., 2021). In some cases, agility will need to be sacrificed to digital transformation by creating a cultural context that embodies its aid strategy (Teece et al., 2016). Organizations need to understand that mission statement and guides employee behavior toward attaining the agility is a complex, adaptive strategy. It focuses on specific applications requisite skills (Babnik et al., 2014). Thus, we propose that organiza- and issues that accompany organizational change, including (1) stra- tional agility can also mediate the relationship between digital trans- tegic analysis, which is concerned with gaining insight into the organi- formational leadership and digital transformation: zation’s current and future competitiveness; (2) strategic choice, which H3b. Organizational agility mediates the relationship between dig- is concerned with deciding which option or configuration to adopt; and ital transformational leadership and digital transformation. (3) strategic implementation (McCarthy and Tsinopoulos, 2003). This is why Franken and Thomsett (2013) called for organizations to acquire 2.6. The moderating role of digital strategy strategic agility, which focuses on rapidly and flexibly adapting to un- foreseen changes in the external environment. Dacin et al. (2002) studied the concept of deinstitutionalization in However, strategy moves quickly in the digital transformation context; governments and customers increasingly demand higher qual- the broader context of institutional change. The traditional beliefs and ity products and services and greater adaptability and customization practices have weakened and disappeared due to new beliefs and capability to meet their changing needs (Henriette et al., 2016). Hence, practices. It highlights the importance of having an excellent strategy to to have agile digital strategies, organizations must have strategies that manage this shift (Dacin et al., 2002). Suddaby et al. (2013) conceptu- alized strategy in the context of NIT as comprising three interrelated define the role of information systems in the organization, the business goals to be achieved through digital transformation, the selection of the aspects: (1) practices, which refer to the routinized types of behavior upon which actors draw in their strategizing activities; (2) praxis, which digital transformation standards and architecture, and how digital transformation is deployed (Lee et al., 2006). A digital strategy must represents the activities that are informed and guided by concrete, unfolding strategies; and (3) practitioners, who are the actors perform- include a clear vision for the organization’s development and be sup- ported by the unlimited possibilities of digital technologies to compete ing and engaging with the strategy work based on their education and experience. However, digital transformation is not a typical project or in today’s market (Vial, 2019; Schwertner, 2017). Moreover, strategic 639 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 alignment and governance through establishing a digital strategy and scales and items developed and used for the study. We used the pro- ensuring agility, collaboration, and digital expertise are the primary cedure used in other studies (Butts et al., 2015; Ng et al., 2019) to collect enablers of digital transformation success (Fischer et al., 2020). There- data from the target sample. It took three weeks to receive the ques- fore, digital strategy formulation is vital for identifying all of the firm ’s tionnaires from the target sample, with 513 completed responses being business model elements that must be modified according to the scope of returned and validated. Thus, the total sample size of this current study its digital transformation (Correani et al., 2020; Morakanyane et al., was 513. The response rate was 85.5%, which is more than adequate for 2020). Because market needs and technology standards currently vary the public sector organizations. Table 1 provides the participants’ de- across locations and change over time, developing an agile digital mographic details. strategy to meet specific local business needs becomes a critical issue (Lee et al., 2006). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: 3.2. Data analysis H4b. Digital strategy moderates the relationship between organiza- tional agility and digital transformation. After completing the data collection, the data were analyzed and This paper’s conceptual model, including hypotheses, is presented in presented using a partial least squares structural equation modeling Fig. 1. (PLS-SEM) tool (SmartPLS 3.3.3), which can assess the measurement instrument, conceptual model, and multigroup analysis (MGA) simul- 3. Methodology taneously. Since this study conducted comprehensive reasoning to test hypotheses grounded in a robust theoretical framework, the choice of This study utilized a quantitative approach to examine the re- SEM as a data-analysis method is justified because PLS-SEM can handle lationships among digital transformational leadership, organizational model complexity with fewer restrictions than other methods (Ringle agility, digital strategy, and digital transformation in public sector or- et al., 2012). In addition, PLS-SEM can deliver valid results even for ganizations. Since the data used in this study are primary data collected small and medium sample sizes (Chin, 1998). to enrich the literature in the business management field, we conducted survey research via questionnaires. 4. Results 3.1. Data collection 4.1. The measurement model The present study’s population comprises public sector organizations We assessed the constructs’ reliability using the internal consistency located in the capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi. We chose Abu Dhabi measure analysis, obtaining acceptable values for Cronbach’s alpha and because it contains all federal public sector organizations and many composite reliability (CR). However, DS demonstrated an unacceptable local government organizations. The confidentiality of all participants average variance extracted (AVE) value. Therefore, we dropped item was ensured, and they were free to discontinue their participation at any DS2 to improve the model’s internal consistency and reliability and time. A total of 600 electronic questionnaires were sent to employees’ avoid having an issue with the model. Table 2 summarizes the results of emails in public sector organizations after receiving approval from their convergent validity and internal consistency reliability. All indicators leadership. These organizations were chosen because they have already and constructs meet the required measurement criteria. Specifically, the adopted digital technologies to operate and provide services to the outer loadings (λ) are all above 0.612, demonstrating that indicator public. reliability is achieved (Chin, 1998; Henseler et al., 2009). In addition, The items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from Cronbach’s alpha values are above the acceptable threshold of 0.5. The (1) “Strongly disagree” or “Never” to (5) “Strongly agree” or “Always.” AVE values are >0.50, denoting that convergent validity is also achieved Six indicators were adapted and modified to fit the DT context from (Hair et al., 2010). Furthermore, CR values are 0.864 or higher, well previous TFL scales (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Chen and Chang, 2013) to above the required minimum level of 0.70, thus demonstrating internal measure DTL. For the measurement of OA, six items were adapted from consistency (Hair et al., 2014). In other words, the results show that the Cegarra-Navarro et al. (2016). Four statements were adapted from Li model has good convergent validity and internal consistency. et al. (2021) to measure DS. A total of five indicators were adapted to Discriminant validity is how a construct is unique from its counter- measure the DT (Nasiri et al., 2020). In addition to the demographic parts. We checked the discriminant validity of the measures by deter- questions, a question was added to check whether the respondents were mining whether the square root of the AVE for each construct was more aware of a shared DS in their organizations, which could be helpful later significant than its correlation with the other factors. As shown in in the analysis and discussion part of the study. Appendix A provides all Table 3, the AVE’s square root for each construct was more significant Fig. 1. Conceptual model. 640 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Table 1 Participants’ profile (N = 513). Gender N % Age group N % Education N % 1) Male 249 48.5 1) 18–24 years 46 9.0 1) High school/ diploma 117 22.8 2) Female 264 51.5 2) 25–30 years 148 28.8 2) Four-year college/ university 262 51.1 3) 31–37 years 111 21.6 3) Higher education 134 26.1 4) 37–44 years 128 25.0 5) 45 + years 80 15.6 Experience N % Years implementing DT N % 1) Up to 2 years 25 4.9 1) 1–2 years 72 14.0 2) 3–5 years 61 11.9 2) 3–5 years 138 26.9 3) 6–10 years 86 16.8 3) 6–10 years 116 22.6 4) 11–15 years 76 14.8 4) >10 years 187 36.5 5) 16–19 years 57 11.1 6) >20 years 208 40.5 generated by the variables. The Q values for DT (0.409) and AO (0.243) Table 2 were above 0, which means that the model has predictive relevance Measurement model. (Chin, 2010). Items Loadings Cronbach’s α CR AVE Finally, the goodness of fit was determined using SmartPLS by Digital transformation leadership - 0.924 0.941 0.725 calculating the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; 0.076) (DTL) 0.811 and the normed fit index (NFI; 0.866). SRMR values below 0.08 mean DTL1 0.855 that the data fit the model (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Henseler et al., 2014), DTL2 0.837 whereas for NFI values (which are between 0 and 1), the closer the value DTL3 0.797 is to 1, the better the fit (Lohmoller, 1989). Therefore, we can conclude DTL4 0.818 DTL5 0.971 that the model predicts and tests the hypotheses. DTL6 Digital transformation (DT) - 0.840 0.887 0.612 4.3. The direct and indirect results of the structural model testing DT1 0.745 DT2 0.713 DT3 0.765 We tested the proposed hypotheses using SmartPLS, as shown in DT4 0.737 Fig. 2. The direct effect results determined that H1 was supported (β = DT5 0.612 0.282; p < 0.001), as was H2 (β = 0.638; p < 0.001), demonstrating that Organizational agility (OA) - 0.871 0.903 0.607 DTL has a positive impact on OA and DT. Further, H3a was supported (β OA1 0.720 = 0.233; p < 0.001), indicating the positive relationship between OA OA2 0.670 OA3 0.730 and DT. H3b was also supported (β = 0.149; p < 0.001), demonstrating OA4 0.655 the mediation impact of OA on the DTL–DT relationship. However, the OA5 0.794 results of the moderation test revealed that H4a (β = 0.005; p = 0.915) OA6 0.765 and H4b (β = 0.003; p = 0.961) were not supported. The results are Digital strategy (DS) - 0.791 0.864 0.614 summarized in Table 4. DS1 0.651 DS3 0.762 To further explore the moderating effect DS has on how DT relates DS4 0.755 DTL and OA in organizations that share their DSs compared to organi- zations that do not, we conducted an MGA. MGA aims to compare the explained variance among groups caused by heterogeneity (Klesel et al., Table 3 2019). To do this, we utilized the PLS-MGA test, the parametric test, and Fornell–Larcker criterion. the Welch–Satterthwaite test in SmartPLS. In PLS-MGA, a result is sig- DS DT DTL OA nificant at the 5% probability of error level if the p-value is<0.05 or>0.95 for a distinct difference of group-specific path coefficients DS 0.783 (Sarstedt et al., 2011). The parametric and Welch–Satterthwaite tests are DT 0.751 0.782 DTL 0.565 0.688 0.852 parametric significance tests for the difference in group-specific PLS- OA 0.624 0.688 0.638 0.779 SEM results that assume equal variances across groups (Henseler, 2012). These two tests are considered the most conservative PLS-SEM tech- niques for assessing the differences between the two groups’ path co- than the correlation between any pair of factors, thereby confirming the efficients (Md Noor et al., 2019). The MGA results (see Table 5) do not scale’s discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981). reveal any significant difference, confirming that DS does not have any moderating effect on the relationship between DTL, OA, and DT in both 4.2. The structural model groups (shared vs. not shared DS), indicating insignificant results both for H4a and H4b. Before testing the structural model, we first tested its collinearity. Collinearity is measured using the variance inflation factor (VIF), and, 5. Discussion ideally, the VIF values should be close to and lower than 3 (Hair et al., 2019). The results show that all VIF values are below this threshold, The current study has examined the conceptual model comprising suggesting no collinearity among the constructs. We also examined the several variables, namely digital transformational leadership and orga- adjusted R value, which indicates the model’s predictive power by nizational agility, and how they interact and influence digital trans- showing the endogenous variable’s variance that the exogenous vari- formation under the moderation influence of digital strategy. We ables can explain. The adjusted R value (0.684) indicates that all the formulated the relationships among the identified variables based on constructs combined explain 68.4% of the variance in DT. Further, we new institutional theory (NIT); the results for the hypotheses proposed checked the Q values to assess the predictive relevance values are discussed in detail below. 641 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Fig. 2. PLS path model from SmartPLS. Table 4 Hypothesis testing. H# Relationship В Std Dev T Statistics P-Value Results H1 DTL → DT 0.282 0.043 6.505 0.000 Supported** H2 OA → DT 0.233 0.052 4.44 0.000 Supported** H3a DTL → OA 0.638 0.034 18.524 0.000 Supported** H3b DTL → OA → DT 0.149 0.033 4.494 0.000 Supported** Moderation Relationship В Std Dev T Statistics P- Value 5% CILL 95% CIUL Results H4a DS*DTL → DT 0.005 0.051 0.102 0.915 -0.070 0.097 Not Supported H4b DS*OA → DT 0.003 0.055 0.048 0.961 -0.084 0.097 Note: ** p < 0.001. Table 5 Multigroup analysis (MGA) results. Construct Path coefficients-diff (shared DS p-value original 1-tailed (shared DS p-value new (shared DS vs. p-value (parametric p-value (Welch–Satterthwaite vs. not shared) vs. not shared) not shared) test) test) DS*DTL → –0.096 0.823 0.355 0.387 0.353 DT DS*OA → –0.123 0.789 0.422 0.309 0.366 DT 5.1. Discussion of findings 2018). Therefore, organizations need to seek leaders who have the transformational leadership abilities to digitally transform their opera- Based on the extant literature, we had proposed that digital trans- tions to stay relevant and compete in the Industry 4.0 era (Li et al., 2016; formational leadership significantly positively influences digital trans- Porfírio et al., 2021). formation (i.e., H1). The results show that digital transformational Similarly, H2, which proposed that organizational agility signifi - leadership positively affects digital transformation, supporting H1. This cantly influences digital transformation, was also supported. As ex- finding is consistent with our investigation of the literature and NIT, pected, organizations’ agility capability can help shape the change suggesting that transformational leaders are better equipped to handle organizations aim to implement, as the literature suggests (Li et al., organizational change, especially in a digital environment(De Waal 2021). Our findings suggest that, for organizations to be agile, they must et al., 2016). From a neo-institutional perspective, these findings affirm disrupt their traditional processes, structure, and management (Tei- that transformational leaders can promote digital values and shift the chert, 2019; Darvishmotevali et al., 2020), which is precisely what must organizational belief system towards achieving any organizational be done to attain any organizational change, such as digital trans- change, such as digital transformation (Hinings et al., 2018; Sainger, formation. Organizations must focus on improving their cognitive 642 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 abilities by improving organizational learning and supporting proper between digital transformational leadership, organizational agility, and knowledge management practices (Menon and Suresh, 2021) to be agile digital transformation in either group (shared vs. not shared digital and implement digital transformation initiatives as conceptualized by strategy) in the UAE public sector organizations. NIT (DiMaggio, 1991; Walsh, 1995). In addition, organizations need to One possible reason for these unexpected results related to the adopt agile ICT systems and HR strategies to be more agile in a digital moderation effect of digital strategy is that the UAE public sector or- environment, as suggested by Menon and Suresh (2021). ganization has rushed to implement digital strategy due to governmental H3a. proposed that digital transformational leadership has a positive pressure. Western-based IT consultants in the UAE public sector orga- relationship with organizational agility, while H3b proposed that nizations develop and implement digital strategies based on their organizational agility mediates the relationship between digital trans- private-sector experience, which could be problematic and may not formational leadership and digital transformation. The results of the work as expected in the public sector organization. A winning strategy data analysis confirmed the positive association between digital trans- should allow management to rethink their business model to evaluate formational leadership and organizational agility (H3a). These results their existing culture, tasks, and resources to efficiently formulate were in line with earlier studies that suggested that transformational effective business strategies to maintain a future approach flow (Roth- leaders can promote organizational agility through relationship building aermel, 2013; Correani et al., 2020). One possible reason is the lack of with subordinates and encourage employees to innovate and take involvement of the entire organization. When the survey asked the calculated risks when facing challenges and potential opportunities participants whether they were involved in the digital strategy devel- (Burke and Collins, 2001; Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014). Wanasida et al. opment, almost all the answers were “Never.” Recent literature has (2020) found that transformational leadership positively impacts suggested that digital strategy should focus not only on digitizing and increasing firms’ organizational agility, as transformational leadership digitalizing but also on how to implement these changes by engaging the tends to make the organization change quickly to meet digital trans- entire organization and its people (Ahmed Khamis et al., 2020; Correani formation demands. Hence, organizations seeking to succeed in digital et al., 2020; Lipsmeier et al., 2020). Another possible reason is that UAE transformation must look for leaders with transformational leadership public sector organization is still experimenting with digital trans- attributes to see the problems from many different perspectives that formation technologies, such as AI and big data. The leadership and the could affect organizational agility. employees are still in a learning stage and therefore not grasping the full Furthermore, H3b was empirically-supported, relevant to the previ- benefits of digital strategy; it could take some time to train everyone on ous hypothesis (H3a). This finding supports this study’s assumptions digital transformation to help them understand these new concepts and that transformational leaders can influence organizational agility and flourish. Regardless of the reasons, digital strategy is considered a key digital transformation in many ways, such as creating a link between the enabler for digital transformation by coordinating the digitalization organizational change mission statement and employee behavior, initiatives in line with a common strategic direction (Lipsmeier et al., leading to greater agility (Babnik et al., 2014). Such leaders also have 2020). the ability and willingness to teach and inspire their subordinates to be creative (Veiseh and Eghbali, 2014) and improve their innovation 5.2. Implications for theory capability (Pirayesh and Pourrezay, 2019). Such ability to encourage knowledge creation and innovation is essential for firms’ survival and The current study offers four contributions that can help advance agility in a dynamic and unpredictable digital environment (Ferraris research in behavioral and organizational culture in the context of et al., 2022; Akkaya and Tabak; 2020). digital transformation. First, the study responds to the call to utilize INT Finally, the last set of hypotheses examined the moderation effect of to investigate organizational agility in the digital transformation era and digital strategy. H4a hypothesized that digital strategy moderates the how this influences institutions (Dubey et al., 2018a). We empirically relationship between digital transformational leadership and digital investigated how organizational agility is positively associated with transformation, and H4b hypothesized that digital strategy moderates digital transformation and how organizational agility can act as a the relationship between organizational agility and digital trans- mediator between digital transformational leadership and digital formation. Neither hypothesis was supported. The digital strategy does transformation. Due to this, the present study adds to the scant literature not moderate the relationship between digital transformational leader- on INT on the adverse impact of organizational agility to support digital ship and digital transformation, which was not anticipated based on transformation, which has been far outweighed by utilizing theories much recent literature suggesting that digital strategy can drive digital such as RBV and dynamic capability framework (Elia et al., 2021). The transformation by improving decision-making processes (Mikalef et al., previous literature on digital transformation and organizational agility 2019). Further, the digital strategy does not moderate the relationship has predominantly been either exploratory in nature (Al Humdan et al., between organizational agility and digital transformation, which was 2020; Shashi et al., 2020) or focused only on resources and capabilities, also not expected because the digital strategy has been found to be able such as organizational behavior (Felipe et al., 2017; Li et al., 2021), IT to enforce strategic alignment and governance to ensure collaboration capabilities (Irfan et al., 2019; Pattij et al., 2020), flexibility (Ghase- and organizational agility (Fischer et al., 2020). Lee et al. (2006) maghaei et al., 2017), innovative behavior, and creativity (Ravichan- asserted that digital transformation is not simply a matter of standards dran, 2018; Mihardjo and Rukmana, 2019; Darvishmotevali et al., and architecture but that its successful strategy rests on how digital 2020). Our findings suggest the apparent value of the NIT perspective in transformation is deployed and shared. To further investigate this, we exploring organizational agility and digital transformation as a complex examined the scale used for digital strategy. The present study measured and interrelated organizational challenge in the public sector organi- digital transformation by adopting the digital-technology–business- zations, emphasizing the role of leadership and strategy. strategy alignment scale developed by Li et al. (2021). These authors Second, this paper contributes to the literature by investigating the developed this scale after an extensive literature review and surveying leadership role in the relationship between organizational agility and chief information officers (CIOs), subsequently conducting a pre-test digital transformation. The leadership role in organizational agility is a and validation among Ph.D. students in a US university, and finally pervasive theme in the existing literature (Dalvi et al., 2013; Raeisi and organizing a pilot study with professional IT consultants, which resulted Amirnejad, 2017; Akkaya and Tabak, 2020; Wanasida et al., 2020). in a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.897. Hence, the digital strategy scale However, the literature on the role of leadership in digital trans- may not be the issue. For this reason, this study also conducted MGA to formation is still nascent (Ardi et al., 2020; Porfírio et al., 2021); the compare the moderating effect of digital strategy in organizations that concept of how digital leadership may induce organizational agility and share their digital strategies compared to organizations that do not. We digital transformation has been little explored to date. The conceptual- observed that digital strategy does not moderate the relationship ization of digital transformational leadership and the findings of our 643 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 study can serve as the basis for future researchers to explore our model private sector to streamline processes and reduce bureaucracy to help and expand it further to yield further insights in other areas, such as create more agility required for digital transformation to succeed. knowledge management and technology-based workspace behavior. Third, many wealthy governments in the region have been employ- Third, the study enriches the limited research and insights on the role ing global consulting firms to bring knowledge from the private sector to of strategy in influencing digital transformation to conceptualize digital their governments without considering the cultural and organizational strategy as a moderator between digital transformational leadership and context. An effective national digital strategy must address the cultural, digital transformation and between organizational agility and digital educational, and ideological challenges of the government information transformation. Recent research on the role of strategy in digital trans- environment and decision-making (Korovkin, 2019). Governments formation comprises mainly conceptual and systematic reviews (Hanelt should be careful when contracting any consultancy firms and look et al., 2020; Saleh and Awny, 2020; Kitsios and Kamariotou, 2021). This beyond fancy presentations and promises by first recruiting local spe- has been reflected in a call for researchers to fill this gap with empirical cialists, of which there are many, to address these cultural issues before studies and different theoretical frameworks (Hanelt et al., 2020). We engaging a consultant. Finally, from a strategic perspective, for the responded to this call by providing novel insights utilizing NIT as a public sector organization to succeed in digital transformation, this theoretical framework, highlighting that strategy alone cannot induce study suggests the pursuit of change and strategy involvement (bottom- digital transformation in organizations regardless of how skilled the up) instead of expecting employees to follow whatever comes from the leaders are and how agile an organization is. Successful digital strategy top. Public sector organizations have been reported to have lower requires other contributing factors, such as business model alignment employee commitment to change, especially in the UAE (AlNuaimi and (Correani et al., 2020) and organizational evolvement in terms of Khan, 2019). strategy (Lipsmeier et al., 2020). The current study’s insights may help future researchers to develop our conceptual framework to include these 6. Limitations and suggestions for future research factors. Finally, there is a pressing need to investigate digital transformation Although this paper has produced several encouraging results, it has in the public sector firms to redesign and reengineer government ser- some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, this study was vices from the ground up to fulfill government requirements and cus- conducted on a small sample size in UAE public sector organizations. tomers’ needs to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government Future work can access a larger sample drawn exclusively from many services (Mergel et al., 2018), especially post-COVID-19 (Agostino et al., UAE government sectors. Second, this paper is limited by factors that 2021). Our study’s findings thus contribute to this recent research trend could influence digital strategy. It would be worthwhile investigating in the public sector organizations. other recently discussed variables not included in this paper, such as digital culture (Weritz et al., 2020; Abhari et al., 2021), knowledge 5.3. Practical implications management (Zoppelletto et al., 2020), and innovation (Abdalla and Nakagawa, 2021). The third limitation is that data for this study were Although this study was conducted in the context of the UAE, its collected only in one country. Future research could develop this study findings and implications can inform practice in many governments and by collecting data from countries with different digital transformation other organizations, including businesses. Our study provides four implementation maturity levels and considering other cultural factors. important insights for practice. First, the findings suggest that digital Finally, we used a cross-sectional research design when the UAE gov- transformation is a radical institutional change that disrupts organiza- ernment was rapidly enforcing digital transformation technologies tional culture by adopting new IT infrastructure and force-feeding new ahead of EXPO 2020 and in response to the COVID-19 crisis; most likely, digital skillsets, which overload the transition for employees and the the respondents had not benefited from the full capabilities of digital entire organization. All this affects the acceptance of the new technology transformation. Hence, it would be useful to employ a case study or a and delays the digital strategy’s progress. Therefore, government lead- longitudinal study to check the maturity of digital transformation ership should not emphasize technology adoption without considering implementation and capture its stability and lessons learned across time how to obtain managers with the appropriate leadership skills and at- or settings. tributes to make such change successful. Hence, our study suggests that, in addition to digital knowledge, transformational leadership attributes, CRediT authorship contribution statement such as engendering trust, seeking to develop teams, self-sacrifice, and leading by example, may best fit organizational changes towards digital Bader K. AlNuaimi: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal transformation. This finding can also guide human resource and training analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Sanjay Kumar Singh: departments during their career and recruitment planning decisions for Writing - review & editing, Resources, Visualization, Methodology, Su- any digital transformation endeavors. pervision. Shuang Ren: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Pawan Second, organizations should develop procedures to promote orga- Budhwar: Supervision, Visualization. Dmitriy Vorobyev: Visualiza- nizational agility, positively influencing digital transformation. Unfor- tion, Supervision. tunately, public sector organizations are currently among the largest and most complex, in which public-sector organizational leaders are pres- sured to do more with less (Rieckhoff and Maxwell, 2017). Many Declaration of Competing Interest organizational practices focus on following procedures and processes, thus allowing for minimal creativity and employee agility (Sanatigar The authors declare that they have no known competing financial et al., 2017; Banihashemi et al., 2019). However, our study suggests that interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence governments should embrace the concept of agility and learn from the the work reported in this paper. Appendix A. . Construct measurement instrument 644 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Construct Source Measures Digital Transformational Chen and Chang (2013), Podsakoff et al. DTL1:Our leaders inspire all members with the digital transformation plans for our organization. leadership (DTL) (1990), Podsakoff et al. (1996) DTL2:Our leaders provide a clear digital transformation vision for the organization’s members to Six items follow. DTL3:Our leaders motivate team members to work together for the same digital transformation goals. DTL4:Our leaders encourage all members to achieve digital transformation goals for our organization. DTL5:Leaders in my organizations act by considering the digital transformation beliefs of all members. DTL6:Our leaders stimulate all members to think about digital transformation ideas. Organizational Agility (OA). Cegarra-Navarro et al. (2016) OA1:We can rapidly respond to customers’ and government’s needs. Six items OA2:We can rapidly adapt production, process, and activities to meet demand fluctuations. OA3:We can cope with problems from suppliers and partners rapidly. OA4:We rapidly implement decisions to face market and government changes. OA5:We continuously search for forms to reinvent or redesign our organization. OA6:We see the market and government changes as opportunities for rapid capitalization and growth. Digital Strategy (DS) Li et al. (2021) DS1:In my organization, we integrate digital technology and business strategy to attain strategic Four items alignment with the government and other partners. DS2:In my organization, we create a shared vision of the role of digital technology in business strategy. DS3:We jointly plan how digital technology will enable the business strategy. DS4:In my organization, we confer before making strategic decisions. Digital Transformation Nasiri et al. (2020) DT1:In my organization, we aim to digitalize everything that can be digitalized. Five items DT2:In my organization, we collect large amounts of data from different sources. DT3:In my organization, we aim to create more robust networking with digital technologies between the different business processes. DT4:In my organization, we aim to enhance an efficient customer interface with digitality. DT5:In my organization, we aim at achieving information exchange with digitality. Babnik, K., Breznik, K., Dermol, V., & Sirca, N. T. (2014). The mission statement: References Organisational culture perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(4), 612–627. Abdalla, S., & Nakagawa, K. (2021). The interplay of digital transformation and Banihashemi, S. A., Heidarnia, Z., & Allahyari, V. (2019). Ranking effective factors on collaborative innovation on supply chain ambidexterity. Technology Innovation organizational agility in public sector using AT Kearney model and TOPSIS method Management Review, 11(3), 45–56. (Case study: Hospitals in Birjand). Journal of Healthcare Management, 9(4), 41–51. Abhari, K., Ostroff, C., Barcellos, B., & Williams, D. (2021). Co-governance in digital Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational transformation initiatives: The roles of digital culture and employee experience. culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112–121. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. (1987). An institutional theory of leadership. The Sciences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 429–441. Adebanjo, D., Teh, P.-L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2018). The impact of supply chain relationships Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., Romano, M., & Santoro, G. (2021a). Building a digital and integration on innovative capabilities and manufacturing performance: The transformation strategy. In S. Bresciani, A. Ferraris, M. Romano, & G. Santoro (Eds.), perspective of rapidly developing countries. International Journal of Production Digital transformation management for agile organizations: A compass to sail the digital Research, 56(4), 1708–1721. world (pp. 5–27). Emerald Publishing Limited. Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lema, M. D. (2021). New development: COVID-19 as an Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., Romano, M., & Santoro, G. (2021b). Digital leadership. In accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money & S. Bresciani, A. Ferraris, M. Romano, & G. Santoro (Eds.), Digital transformation Management, 41(1), 69–72. management for agile organizations: A compass to sail the digital world (pp. 97–115). Ahammad, M. F., Glaister, K. W., & Gomes, E. (2020). Strategic agility and human Emerald Publishing Limited. resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), Article e100700. Bresciani, S., Huarng, K. H., Malhotra, A., & Ferraris, A. (2021). Digital transformation as Ahmed Khamis, A. S. A., Joseph, A., Asif, M. K., Hock, O. Y., & Mohammad Imtiaz, H. a springboard for product, process and business model innovation. Journal of (2020). Influence on internal control through digitalization of assets: A study on Business Research, 128, 204–210. Ministry of Interior, UAE. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Burke, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Gender differences in leadership styles and Finance and Management Sciences, 10(1), 13–24. management skills. Women in Management Review, 16(5), 244–257. Akkaya, B., & Tabak, A. (2020). The link between organizational agility and leadership: Butts, M. M., Becker, W. J., & Boswell, W. R. (2015). Hot buttons and time sinks: The A research in science parks. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 1–17. effects of electronic communication during nonwork time on emotions and work- Al Humdan, E., Shi, Y., & Behnia, M. (2020). Supply chain agility: A systematic review of nonwork conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 763–788. definitions, enablers and performance implications. International Journal of Physical Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Soto-Acosta, P., & Wensley, A. K. (2016). Structured knowledge Distribution & Logistics Management, 50(2), 287–312. processes and firm performance: The role of organizational agility. Journal of AlNuaimi, B. K., & Khan, M. (2019). Public-sector green procurement in the United Arab Business Research, 69(5), 1544–1549. Emirates: Innovation capability and commitment to change. Journal of Cleaner Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, C.-H. (2013). The determinants of green product development Production, 233, 482–489. performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and AlNuaimi, B. K., Khan, M., & Ajmal, M. M. (2021). The role of big data analytics green creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119. capabilities in greening e-procurement: A higher order PLS-SEM analysis. Chierici, R., Tortora, D., Del Giudice, M., & Quacquarelli, B. (2021). Strengthening digital Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, Article e120808. collaboration to enhance social innovation capital: An analysis of Italian small AlNuaimi, B. K., Singh, S. K., & Harney, B. (2021). Unpacking the role of innovation innovative enterprises. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 610–632. capability: Exploring the impact of leadership style on green procurement via a Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. natural resource-based perspective. Journal of Business Research, 134, 78–88. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336. Alos-Simo, L., Verdu-Jover, A. J., & Gomez-Gras, J.-M. (2017). How transformational Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, leadership facilitates e-business adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117 W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. (2), 382–397. 655–690). Springer. Altayar, M. S. (2018). Motivations for open data adoption: An institutional theory Correani, A., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Natalicchio, A. (2020). perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 633–643. Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital Ardi, A., Djati, S., Bernarto, I., Sudibjo, N., Yulianeu, A., Nanda, H., & Nanda, K. (2020). transformation projects. California Management Review, 62(4), 37–56. The relationship between digital transformational leadership styles and knowledge- Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional based empowering interaction for increasing organisational innovativeness. change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(3), 259–277. 45(1), 45–56. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Dalvi, M. R., Shekarchizadeh, A. R., & Baghsorkhi, G. R. (2013). Investigating of Sage. organizational agility components (culture, leadership, organizational change and 645 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 customer services) on the organizational performance based on the satellite model Gupta, S., Modgil, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Bag, S. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and (Snowa Company as a case study). GJPAST Journal, 3(4), 15–29. institutional theories for Industry 4.0 and digital supply chain. Supply Chain Forum: Darvishmotevali, M., Altinay, L., & Koseoglu, ¨ M. A. (2020). The link between An. International Journal, 21(3), 139–157. environmental uncertainty, organizational agility, and organizational creativity in Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. (2010). L.(2010). the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, Article Multivariate data analysis. Pearson. e102499. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to David, R. J., & Bitektine, A. B. (2009). The deinstitutionalization of institutional theory? report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. Exploring divergent agendas in institutional research. In D. A. Buchanan, & Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business 160–175). Sage. research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Papa, A., Tarba, S. Y., Bresciani, S., & Warkentin, M. (2021). Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2020). A systematic review of A Self-Tuning Model for Smart Manufacturing SMEs: Effects on Digital Innovation. the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 68–89. organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197. Del Giudice, M., Soto-Acosta, P., Carayannis, E., & Scuotto, V. (2018). Emerging Henriette, E., Feki, M., & Boughzala, I. (2016). Digital transformation challenges. Paper perspectives on business process management (BPM): IT-based processes and presented at the MCIS. ambidextrous organizations, theory and practice. Business Process Management Henseler, J. (2012). PLS-MGA: A non-parametric approach to partial least squares-based Journal, 24(5), 1070–1076. multigroup analysis. In W. Gaul, A. Geyer-Schulz, L. Schmidt-Thieme, & J. Kunze de Oliveira, M. A., Dalla Valentina, L. V. O., & Possamai, O. (2012). Forecasting project (Eds.), Challenges at the interface of data analysis, computer science, and optimization performance considering the influence of leadership style on organizational agility. (pp. 495–501). Springer. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(6), 653–671. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., De Waal, B., van Outvorst, F., and Ravesteyn, P. (2016). Digital leadership: The Straub, D. W., … Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: objective-subjective dichotomy of technology revisited. Paper presented at the 12th Comments on Ronkk ¨ o ¨ and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance ECMLG 2016. 182–209. DiMaggio, P. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: The Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path case of US art museums. The New Institutionalism (supra). https://nyuscholars.nyu. modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics, & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New edu/en/publications/constructing-an-organizational-field-as-a-professional-project- challenges to international marketing (pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing th. Limited. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), Review, 147–160. 52–61. Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2008). The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia’s rollercoaster Hu, L., & t., and Bentler, P. M.. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance experience. California Management Review, 50(3), 95–118. structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Dubey, R., Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T., & Childe, S. J. Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. (2018). Supply chain agility, adaptability and alignment. International Journal of Irfan, M., Wang, M., & Akhtar, N. (2019). Impact of IT capabilities on supply chain Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 129–148. capabilities and organizational agility: A dynamic capability view. Operations Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data Management Research : Advancing Practice through Theory, 12(3–4), 113–128. and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: Integrating institutional Jesse, N. (2018). Organizational evolution - How digital disruption enforces theory, resource-based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management, 30 organizational agility. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(30), 486–491. (2), 341–361. Kitsios, F., & Kamariotou, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence and business strategy towards Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B. T., & Roubaud, D. digital transformation: A research agenda. Sustainability, 13(4), 2025. (2018). Examining top management commitment to TQM diffusion using Klesel, M., Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., & Niehaves, B. (2019). A test for multigroup institutional and upper echelon theories. International Journal of Production Research, comparison using partial least squares path modeling. Internet Research, 29(3), 56(8), 2988–3006. 464–477. Dur˜ ao, N., Ferreira, M. J., Pereira, C. S., & Moreira, F. (2019). Current and future state of Korovkin, V. (2019). National digital economy strategies: A survey of Africa. ORF Issue Portuguese organizations towards digital transformation. Procedia Computer Science, Brief. 164, 25–32. Krimpmann, D. (2015). IT/IS organisation design in the digital age–A literature review. Felipe, C. M., Roldan, ´ J. L., & Leal-Rodríguez, A. L. (2017). Impact of organizational International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 9(4), 1208–1218. culture values on organizational agility. Sustainability, 9(12), 2354. Larjovuori, R.-L., Bordi, L., Makiniemi, ¨ J.-P., and Heikkil¨ a-Tammi, K. (2016). The role of Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., & Pellicelli, A. C. (2020). “Openness” of public governments in leadership and employee well-being in organizational digitalization. In T. Russo- smart cities: Removing the barriers for innovation and entrepreneurship. Spena, and C. Mele (Eds.), What’s ahead in service research? New perspectives for International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(4), 1259–1280. business and society: Reser 2016 proceedings (pp. 1159-1172). RESER Proceedings. Ferraris, A., Degbey, W. Y., Singh, S. K., Bresciani, S., Castellano, S., Fiano, F., & http://www.sda-se.com/news/proceedings-of-reser-2016-published/. Couturier, J. (2022). Microfoundations of strategic agility in emerging markets: Lee, O.-K., Banerjee, P., Lim, K. H., Kumar, K., Hillegersberg, J. v., and Wei, K. K. (2006). Empirical evidence of Italian MNEs in India. Journal of World Business, 57(2), Article Aligning IT components to achieve agility in globally distributed system 101272. development. Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 48-54. Fischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2020). Strategy archetypes for Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Bohmann, T., Drews, P., … Ahlemann, F. digital transformation: Defining meta objectives using business process (2017). Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information management. Information & Management, 57(5), Article 103262. systems engineering community. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(4), Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with 301–308. unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), Lei, H., Leaungkhamma, L., & Le, P. B. (2020). How transformational leadership 39–50. facilitates innovation capability: The mediating role of employees’ psychological Franken, A., & Thomsett, H. (2013). When it takes a network: Creating strategy and capital. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 41(4), 481–499. agility through wargaming. California Management Review, 55(3), 107–133. Li, F. (2020). Leading digital transformation: Three emerging approaches for managing Frankowska, M., & Rzeczycki, A. (2020). In Reshaping supply chain collaboration - The role the transition. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(6), of digital leadership in a networked organization (pp. 353–364). Springer. 809–817. Frossling, C., and Ek, L. (2020). Relating integrative capabilities and institutional logics to Li, H., Hu, Q., Zhao, G., & Li, B. (2021). The co-evolution of knowledge management and digital transformation: A case-study of a public sector organization. [Master’s thesis, business model transformation in the post-COVID-19 era: Insights based on Chinese University of Gothenburg]. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/66333/1/ e-commerce companies. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ gupea_2077_66333_1.pdf. JKM-03-2021-0177 Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R., & Farr, J. V. (2009). Evaluating agility in corporate Li, H., Wu, Y., Cao, D., & Wang, Y. (2021). Organizational mindfulness towards digital enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 118(2), 410–423. transformation as a prerequisite of information processing capability to achieve Ghasemaghaei, M., Hassanein, K., & Turel, O. (2017). Increasing firm agility through the market agility. Journal of Business Research, 122, 700–712. use of data analytics: The role of fit. Decision Support Systems, 101, 95–105. Li, L., Lin, J., Turel, O., Liu, P., & Luo, X. (2020). The impact of e-commerce capabilities Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: on agricultural firms ’ performance gains: The mediating role of organizational Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management agility. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(7), 1265–1286. Review, 21(4), 1022–1054. Li, W., Liu, K., Belitski, M., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2016). E-leadership through Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). The SAGE Handbook of strategic alignment: An empirical study of small-and medium-sized enterprises in the Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE. digital age. Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 185–206. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Meyer, R. E. (2017). The Sage handbook of Lin, W.-B. (2011). Factors affecting the effects of service recovery from an integrated organizational institutionalism. Sage. point of view. Total Quality Management, 22(4), 443–459. Guarnieri, P., & Gomes, R. C. (2019). Can public procurement be strategic? A future Lipsmeier, A., Kühn, A., Joppen, R., & Dumitrescu, R. (2020). Process for the agenda proposition. Journal of Public Procurement, 19(4), 295–321. development of a digital strategy. Procedia CIRP, 88, 173–178. Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A framework for research and Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., Gu, J., & Chen, H. (2010). The role of institutional pressures development. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1–2), 87–105. and organizational culture in the firm ’s intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain management systems. Journal of Operations Management, 28(5), 372–384. 646 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model Sainger, G. (2018). Leadership in digital age: A study on the role of leader in this era of transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. digital transformation. International Journal on Leadership, 6(1), 1–6. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(3), 149–157. Saleh, A., and Awny, M. M. (2020). Digital transformation strategy framework. Paper Lohmoller, ¨ J.-B. (1989). Predictive vs. structural modeling: PLS vs. ML. In J.- presented at the 29th International Conference of the International Association for .-B. Lohmoller ¨ (Ed.), Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares (pp. Management of Technology: Towards the Digital World and Industry X.0, IAMOT 199–226). Springer. 2020. McCarthy, I., & Tsinopoulos, C. (2003). Strategies for agility: An evolutionary and Sanatigar, H., Hadi Peikani, M., & Gholamzadeh, D. (2017). Identifying organizational configurational approach. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(2), 103–113. agility and leadership dimensions using Delphi technique and factor analysis. McGrath, R., & McManus, R. (2020). Discovery-driven planning. Harvard Business Review. International Journal of Public Leadership, 13(4), 276–294. https://hbr.org/1995/07/discovery-driven-planning. Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least Md Noor, S., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., & Barghi, R. (2019). Inscription of a squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In destination as a world heritage site and residents’ perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of M. Sarstedt, M. Schwaiger, & C. R. Taylor (Eds.), Measurement and research methods in Tourism Research, 24(1), 14–30. international marketing (pp. 195–218). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Menon, S., & Suresh, M. (2021). Factors influencing organizational agility in higher Sasmoko, W. M., & L. W., Alamsjaha, F., and Elidjena.. (2019). Dynamic capability: The education. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(1), 307–332. effect of digital leadership on fostering innovation capability based on market Mergel, I., Kattel, R., Lember, V., & McBride, K. (2018). Citizen-oriented digital orientation. Management Science Letters, 9(10), 1633–1644. transformation in the public sector. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th Schwertner, K. (2017). Digital transformation of business. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 15 Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data (1), 388–393. Age. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage. myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. Scuotto, V., Arrigo, E., Candelo, E., & Nicotra, M. (2020). Ambidextrous innovation Mihardjo, L. W., & Rukmana, R. A. (2019). Customer experience and organizational orientation effected by the digital transformation: A quantitative research on fashion agility driven business model innovation to shape sustainable development. Polish SMEs. Business Process Management Journal, 26(5), 1121–1140. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 293–30420. Scuotto, V., Nicotra, M., Del Giudice, M., Krueger, N., & Gregori, G. L. (2021). Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., & Krogstie, J. (2019). Big data analytics capabilities A microfoundational perspective on SMEs’ growth in the digital transformation era. and innovation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities and moderating effect of Journal of Business Research, 129, 382–392. the environment. British Journal of Management, 30(2), 272–298. Seepma, A. P., de Blok, C., & Van Donk, D. P. (2020). Designing digital public service Morakanyane, R., O’Reilly, P., McAvoy, J., & Grace, A. (2020). Determining digital supply chains: Four country-based cases in criminal justice. Supply Chain transformation success factors. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii Management, 26(3), 418–446. International Conference on System Sciences. Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., & Ericksen, J. (2001). Crafting a human Muduli, A. (2016). Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: An resource strategy to foster organizational agility: A case study. Human Resource empirical study. Management Research Review, 39(12), 1567–1586. Management, 40(3), 197–211. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and Shams, R., Vrontis, D., Belyaeva, Z., Ferraris, A., & Czinkota, M. R. (2021). Strategic organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77–97. agility in international business: A conceptual framework for “agile” multinationals. Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., & Rantala, T. (2020). Managing the digital supply chain: Journal of International Management, 27(1), Article e100737. The role of smart technologies. Technovation, 96–97. Shashi, Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., and Ertz, M. (2020). Agile supply chain Nekrasov, A., & Sinitsyna, A. (2020). Complex digital model of transport logistic system management: Where did it come from and where will it go in the era of digital transformation. In J. Kacprzyk (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems (pp. transformation? Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 324-345. 244–251). Springer. Siebel, T. M. (2019). Digital transformation: survive and thrive in an era of mass extinction: Ng, T. W., Yam, K. C., & Aguinis, H. (2019). Employee perceptions of corporate social RosettaBooks. responsibility: Effects on pride, embeddedness, and turnover. Personnel Psychology, Elia, S., Giuffrida, M., Mariani, M. M., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Resources and digital 72(1), 107–137. export: An RBV perspective on the role of digital technologies and capabilities in Nguyen, D. K., Broekhuizen, T., Dong, J. Q., & Verhoef, P. C. (2020). When It takes three cross-border e-commerce. Journal of Business Research, 132, 158–169. to tango in the digital transformation age: Synergies between digital orientation, Stefanova, K., & Kabakchieva, D. (2019). Challenges and perspectives of digital change commitment and organizational agility. Paper presented at the ICIS 2020. transformation. In Conferences of the Department of Informatics (pp. 13–23). Science J.K. Nwankpa Y. Roumani IT capability and digital transformation: A firm performance and Economics Varna. perspective. Paper presented at the ICIS2016 2016 Dublin, Ireland. Stettina, C. J., & Heijstek, W. (2011). Five agile factors: Helping self-management to self- Ojha, D., Acharya, C., & Cooper, D. (2018). Transformational leadership and supply reflect. Paper presented at the European Conference on Software Process Improvement. chain ambidexterity: Mediating role of supply chain organizational learning and Suddaby, R., Elsbach, K. D., Greenwood, R., Meyer, J. W., and Zilber, T. B. (2010). moderating role of uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 197, Organizations and their institutional environments—Bringing meaning, values, and 215–231. culture back in: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Oliva, F. L., Couto, M. H. G., Santos, R. F., & Bresciani, S. (2019). The integration Journal, 53(6), 1234-1240. between knowledge management and dynamic capabilities in agile organizations. Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., & Lˆ e, J. K. (2013). Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional Management Decision, 57(8), 1960–1979. theory. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 329–344. Parmentier, G., & Mangematin, V. (2014). Orchestrating innovation with user Swift, M., & Lange, D. (2018). Digital leadership in Asia-Pacific . Korn Ferry. communities in the creative industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: 83, 40–53. Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of Review, 58(4), 13–35. organizations-I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(1), 63–85. Teichert, R. (2019). Digital transformation maturity: A systematic review of literature. Pattij, M., Van de Wetering, R., & Kusters, R. J. (2020). Improving agility through enterprise Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(6), architecture management: The mediating role of aligning business and IT. Atlanta: 1673–1687. Association for Information Systems (AIS). Teo, H.-H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt Pirayesh, R., & Pourrezay, Z. (2019). The effect of transformational leadership style and interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 19–49. organizational innovation on improving environmental performance of Troise, C., Corvello, V., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2022). How can SMEs successfully environmental polluters companies case study: Lead producer companies in Zanjan navigate VUCA environment: The role of agility in the digital transformation era. province. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 10(7), 1687–1695. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, Article 121227. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader Scuotto, V., Magni, D., Palladino, R., & Nicotra, M. (2022). Triggering disruptive behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, technology absorptive capacity by CIOs. Explorative research on a micro-foundation commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, lens. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, Article 121234. 22(2), 259–298. Veiseh, S., & Eghbali, N. (2014). A study on ranking the effects of transformational Porfírio, J. A., Carrilho, T., Felício, J. A., & Jardim, J. (2021). Leadership characteristics leadership style on organizational agility and mediating role of organizational and digital transformation. Journal of Business Research, 124, 610–619. creativity. Management Science Letters, 4(9), 2121–2128. Raeisi, N., & Amirnejad, Q. (2017). Investigating the effect of organizational leadership Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & on organizational agility: Mediating role of organizational commitment. International Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 1154–1168. research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. Rane, S. B., Narvel, Y. A. M., & Bhandarkar, B. M. (2019). Developing strategies to Viaene, S. (2018). Orchestrating organisational agility. Ivey Business Journal. https:// improve agility in the project procurement management (PPM) process. Business iveybusinessjournal.com/orchestrating-organizational-agility/. Process Management Journal, 26(1), 257–286. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. capacity and organizational agility. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27 Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down (1), 22–42. memory lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321. Rieckhoff, K., & Maxwell, J. (2017). Organizational agility in the public sector: How to be Wanasida, A. S., Bernarto, I., and Sudibjo, N. (2020). The effect of millennial agile beyond times of crisis. McKinsey & Company. transformational leadership on IT capability, organizational agility and Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor’s comments: A critical look at organizational performance in the pandemic era: An empirical evidence of fishery the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv. startups in Indonesia. International Conference on Global Innovation and Trends in Rothaermel, F. (2013). Strategic management: Concepts. McGraw-Hill Irwin. 647 B.K. AlNuaimi et al. Journal of Business Research 145 (2022) 636–648 Economy 2020, 3(1). https://adi-journal.org/index.php/conferenceseries/article/ Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). The nine elements of digital view/408. transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(3), 1–6. Weritz, P., Braojos, J., & Matute, J. (2020). Exploring the antecedents of digital Zitkiene, ˙ R., & Deksnys, M. (2018). Organizational agility conceptual model. Montenegrin transformation: Dynamic capabilities and digital culture aspects to achieve digital Journal of Economics, 14(2), 115–129. maturity. USA: Salt Lake City. Zoppelletto, A., Orlandi, L. B., Zardini, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2020). Assessing the role of Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Blegind Jensen, T. (2021). knowledge management to enhance or prevent digital transformation in SMEs: Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled Critical knowledge factors required. Paper presented at the 2020 IEEE International organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22 Conference on Technology Management, Operations and Decisions (ICTMOD). (1).

Journal

Journal of Business Research – Unpaywall

Published: Jun 1, 2022

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy

Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy

Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy

References (137)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies