The Role of Leadership in a Digitalized World

The analysis of the theoretical content of our dataset highlighted that only a small set of studies explicitly refers to the extant theoretical frameworks describing the impact of digital transformation on leadership. Advanced information technologies theory, according to which the adoption of information technologies influences changes in organization structure, information use, and decision-making processes, is used as common ground. Scholars agree on the high impact of technology in leadership behavior and identify Information Technologies (IT) developments as a driver for creating disruptive changes in businesses and in leadership roles across different organizational functions. These changes are so dramatic that scholars started to adopt a new terminology to characterize the e-world, e-business and e-organizations. Recent studies have been discussing the notion of digital ubiquity, describing the pervasive proliferation of technology. With this term, scholars refer to a context in which technological equipment is prevalent and constantly interacts with humans. It describes a scenario in which "computer sensors (such as radio frequency identification tags, wearable technology, smart watches) and other equipment (tablets, mobile devices) are unified with various objects, people, information, and computers as well as the physical environment".

In terms of leadership theoretical frameworks, scholars seem to turn to a plethora of different theories and definitions. Horner-Long and Schoenberg contrapose two main theoretical approaches: universal theories and contingency theories. The former supports the view that leaders differ from other individuals due to a generic set of leadership traits and behaviors which can be applied to all organizations and business environments. The latter argues that, in order to be effective, leadership should adopt a style and behaviors that match the context. The authors empirically explore leadership profile characteristics, comparing e-business leaders and leaders from traditional bricks and mortar organizations. Results do not clearly support any of the two approaches. They suggest that in both contexts most leadership characteristics are equally valued. However, certain characteristics distinguish e-world leaders from leaders in traditional industries. While Horner-Long and Schoenberg analyze leader profile differences across industries, Richardson and Sterrett adopt a longitudinal design, exploring how digital innovations influenced the role of technology-savvy K-12 district leaders across time. They base their work on a unified model of effective leadership practices that influence learning. Although the leadership practice model is maintained across time, the authors recognize some shifts in the way those practices are implemented.

Only Obschonka specifically adopts a universal perspective, drawing from trait approach theory. By analyzing the language used to communicate via Twitter, the authors identify the personality characteristics that distinguish the most successful managers and entrepreneurs.

Heinz follows a contingency approach, emphasizing the need to take into account the context and consider situational aspects that can influence leadership and cooperation practices.

Most studies in our sample assume that the change in context due to technological advancement may influence leadership. According to Lu, it cannot be assumed that "leadership skills identified in offline context should be transferred to virtual leadership without any adjustment".

However, some authors make this assumption tacitly, without explicitly addressing any related theoretical framework. Bolden and O'Regan report that "there is no one approach to leadership," since leadership is context specific and must be adapted to the needs of the day. Similarly, Lu maintains that effective leadership behaviors are determined by the situation in which leadership is developed.

To address the diversity of situations and contexts, Jawadi overcomes the limits of a pure contingency approach and embrace complexity, adopting the framework of leadership behavioral complexity theory. In a context characterized by complex and unanticipated demands, a leader needs to develop a behavioral repertoire that allows dealing with contradictory and paradoxical situations. As contingencies are evolving so rapidly as to be considered in a state of flux, an effective leader needs to be able to conceive and perform multiple behaviors and roles.

Avolio, make a step forward in defining the role of context.

Similarly to Bartol and Liu, the authors adopt a structurational perspective (Adaptive Structure Theory) as the main theoretical framework. According to their point of view, digital technologies and leadership reciprocally influence and change each other in a recursive relationship. In their perspective, not only technology influences leadership, but also leaders appropriate technology, and it is through the interaction between information technology and organizational structures that the effect of technology on individuals, groups, and organizations emerges. In this view, the context is not only shaping and being shaped by leaders; it is part and parcel of the construct of e-leadership itself. Avolio remarkably paved the way for the conceptualization of e-leadership, which has since been adopted by many other authors to inform their studies.

Similarly, Orlikowski develops a Structurational Model of Technology, whereby technology influences the context in which actors perform but is also designed and socially constructed by its users.

Looking at leaders' relationships with their teams, scholars refer to the following main theories: transactional leadership theory, transformational leadership theory, and leader-member exchange theory (LMX;). Transactional and transformational leadership are among the most influential and discussed behavioral leadership theories of the last decade. They distinguish transformational leaders, who focus on motivating and inspiring followers to perform above expectations, from transactional leaders, who perceive the relationship with followers as an exchange process, in which follower compliance is gained through contingent reinforcement and rewards. Previous studies reveal that leadership styles may influence virtual team interactions and performance. As such, Hambley explores the effects of transactional and transformational leadership on team interactions and outcomes, comparing teams interactions across different communication media: face-to-face, desktop videoconference, or text-based chat. Likewise, Lu compares virtual and offline interactions, drawing on transactional and transformational leadership theories to understand whether leadership styles of individuals playing in Massive Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) can be associated to their leadership status in offline contexts. However, this association is found to be significant only with offline leadership roles in voluntary organizations, not in companies. Results in Hambley also show that the association between leadership style and team interaction and performance does not depend on the communication medium being used.

While transactional and transformational leadership theories adopt a behavioral perspective in which the focal point is the leader behavior with regards to the follower, leader-member exchange theory (LMX) introduces a dyadic point of view. Leader-member exchange theory focuses on the nature and quality of the relationship between leaders and their team members. The quality of this relationship, which is characterized by trust, respect, and mutual obligation, is thought to predict individual, group and organizational outcomes. Jawadi uses the concept of leader-member exchange as a dependent variable, exploring how multiple leadership roles influence cooperative and collaborative relationships in virtual teams. Bartol and Liu build on leader-member exchange theory to suggest policies and practices HRM professionals can use to implement IT-information sharing and positively influence employee perceptions.

The democratization of informational power gave momentum to distributed power dynamics. Moving beyond the centrality of the sole vertical leader, the shared leadership approach emphasizes the role of teams as a potential source of leadership. Shared leadership is "a manifestation of fully developed empowerment in teams" in which leadership behaviors that "guide, structure, or facilitate the group may be performed by more than one individual, and different individuals may perform the same leadership behaviors at different times".

Acknowledging the relevance of increased connectivity in the digital era, some studies underscore the importance to take into account a network perspective. Lynn Pulley and Sessa contrapose the industrial economy to the current networked economy. Bartol and Liu define networked organizations as those organizations characterized by three major types of connectivity: inter-organizational (also known as boundaryless;), intra-organizational, and extra-organizational. Kodama views the organization as the integration of different types of networked strategic communities, wherein knowledge is shared and assessed. Sullivan uses a network representation to depict shared leadership. Gordon explores how the network is embedded in the concept of web that is currently accepted.