CITATION
Oyinbo, T. B. (2026). The Impact of Digital Transformation on Organizational Leadership Strategies: A Narrative Literature Review. International Journal of Research, 13(1), 429-437. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijr/2026/17
Tolulope
Busayo Oyinbo
Department
of Business Administration, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, National
Open University of Nigeria, Yenegoa Study Centre, Bayelsa state Nigeria.
Email:
toluoyinbo@gmail.com, Orcid ID: 0009-0002-5275-7235
Abstract
Digital transformation (DT) has become a defining feature of
organizational strategy in the twenty‑first century, reshaping how value is
created, delivered, and sustained. Contemporary research increasingly
emphasizes leadership as a central determinant of transformation success,
moving beyond earlier technology‑centric approaches. This narrative literature
review examines how DT has reshaped organizational leadership strategies,
driving a shift from hierarchical, command‑and‑control models toward agile, collaborative,
and data‑driven approaches. Drawing on multidisciplinary literature from
business administration, leadership studies, information systems, and
organizational behavior, the review synthesizes key leadership competencies
required in the digital era and explores the cultural, structural, and ethical
challenges leaders face during transformation. The analysis indicates that DT
is fundamentally a human‑centered process in which leaders act as sense‑makers,
culture‑builders, and ethical stewards rather than mere technology adopters.
The paper concludes by outlining implications for theory and practice and
future research directions related to AI‑augmented leadership and
accountability in digitally mediated decision‑making.
Keywords: digital transformation;
leadership strategy; digital leadership; organizational culture; agility;
narrative literature review
1. Introduction
Digital transformation represents one of the most significant
organizational challenges and opportunities in the contemporary business
environment. Advances in digital technologies, including artificial
intelligence (AI), big data analytics, cloud computing, blockchain, and the
Internet of Things (IoT) have altered competitive dynamics across industries,
compelling organizations to rethink how they operate, innovate, and engage with
stakeholders. Digital transformation extends beyond the digitization of existing
processes to encompass a fundamental reconfiguration of organizational
structures, capabilities, and business models (Vial, 2019).
Despite unprecedented investment in digital technologies, many DT
initiatives fail to achieve their intended outcomes. Empirical reports and
practitioner surveys consistently indicate high failure rates, often attributed
to resistance to change, lack of strategic clarity, misaligned culture, and
leadership shortcomings rather than technical limitations (Kane et al., 2019).
This paradox has prompted scholars and practitioners to shift attention from
technology itself to the organizational and human dimensions of transformation,
particularly the role of leadership in orchestrating complex change.
Leadership plays a pivotal role in navigating the uncertainty,
complexity, and pace associated with digital transformation. Traditional
leadership models characterized by centralized authority, linear planning, and
control‑oriented management were developed for relatively stable environments.
However, digital contexts are inherently volatile, uncertain, complex, and
ambiguous (VUCA), rendering such models increasingly inadequate (Bennett &
Lemoine, 2014). Leaders are now required to guide organizations through
continuous change, manage paradoxes such as efficiency versus innovation, and
balance short‑term performance pressures with long‑term capability
building.
Against this backdrop, the present study asks how organizational
leadership strategies must evolve to effectively guide organizations through
digital transformation. By addressing this question, the review responds to
calls in the literature to move beyond viewing DT as a purely technological or
operational project and instead conceptualize it as a deeply socio‑technical
process that redefines leadership, culture, and organizational design.
Accordingly, this narrative review synthesizes current scholarship on digital
transformation and leadership, with particular attention to structural shifts,
leadership competencies, cultural enablers, and ethical challenges, and
concludes with implications for theory and practice and directions for future
research (Vial, 2019; Verhoef et al., 2021).
2. Methodological
Approach: Narrative Literature Review
This study adopts a narrative literature review methodology, which
is well suited for exploring complex, interdisciplinary phenomena such as
digital transformation and leadership. Narrative reviews enable interpretive
synthesis, conceptual integration, and theory development rather than
statistical aggregation, making them appropriate when the goal is to build
theoretical understanding across heterogeneous studies rather than to produce
quantitative effect sizes (Snyder, 2019; Greenhalgh et al., 2018).
2.1 Search and
selection strategy
The review draws on peer‑reviewed journal articles, scholarly books,
and authoritative practitioner reports from business administration, leadership
studies, information systems, organizational behavior, and strategic
management. Literature was selected based on relevance to digital
transformation, leadership strategy, organizational culture, and ethical
governance, with emphasis on studies published within the last decade to
reflect the rapidly evolving digital context, while seminal works were included
where conceptually foundational.
Searches were conducted primarily in Scopus, Web of Science, and
Google Scholar using combinations of terms including “digital transformation”,
“digital leadership”, “leadership strategy”, “organizational agility”,
“organizational culture” and “algorithmic governance”. Filters were applied to
prioritize English‑language, peer‑reviewed publications; selected industry
reports from reputable consulting and professional bodies were included when
they contributed important empirical or conceptual insights (Snyder, 2019;
Verhoef et al., 2021).
2.2 Analytical approach
and limitations
Rather than aiming for exhaustive coverage, the review focuses on
identifying dominant themes, recurring leadership challenges, and emerging
conceptual frameworks across the selected literature. The analysis relied on
iterative reading and coding of texts to surface patterns related to: (1)
changing leadership roles in DT, (2) structural and cultural enablers of
digital leadership, and (3) ethical and governance issues in digitally mediated
decision‑making (Snyder, 2019; Verhoef et al., 2021).
This approach enables a holistic understanding of how leadership
strategies are evolving in response to digital transformation, but it also
entails limitations. The non‑systematic selection process introduces potential
selection bias and may under‑represent certain regional or sectoral
perspectives, particularly from the Global South. Furthermore, the rapid pace
of technological and organizational change means that some findings may become
quickly outdated. These constraints are characteristic of narrative reviews but
are partly offset by the deeper conceptual integration they afford (Snyder,
2019; Greenhalgh et al., 2018).
3. Digital
Transformation and the Changing Nature of Leadership
Digital transformation has fundamentally altered the context in
which leadership is enacted. The speed of technological change, the
democratization of information, and the blurring of organizational boundaries
have reshaped leader–follower relationships and power dynamics. In many
organizations, knowledge and digital expertise are distributed across networks
rather than concentrated at the top, challenging traditional assumptions about
who holds authority and how it is exercised (Khaw et al., 2022; Özkan et al.,
2024).
3.1 From control to
enablement
In traditional organizations, leadership authority was closely tied
to positional power and control over information. Digital technologies have
significantly reduced information asymmetries, enabling employees at all levels
to access real‑time data and insights. As a result, effective leadership
increasingly involves enabling rather than controlling action (Avolio et al.,
2014).
Leaders are now expected to create conditions that support autonomy,
experimentation, and collaboration. This shift aligns with complexity
leadership theory, which emphasizes adaptive capacity and distributed
leadership in dynamic environments (Uhl‑Bien & Arena, 2018). However,
empirical studies also note that many leaders struggle to relinquish control
and to build the trust and capabilities required for genuine empowerment,
leading to “pseudo‑agility” where traditional hierarchies remain intact beneath
agile rhetoric (Siswadhi et al., 2024; Khaw et al., 2022).
3.2 The decline of
rigid hierarchies
Digital platforms facilitate cross‑functional collaboration and
rapid coordination, undermining rigid hierarchical structures. Organizational
agility depends on the ability to form temporary teams, reallocate resources
quickly, and respond to emerging opportunities. Leadership strategies must
therefore support flatter structures and network‑based forms of organizing,
positioning leaders as orchestrators of networks rather than commanders of
fixed hierarchies (Cui et al., 2025; Khaw et al., 2022).
At the same time, the complete abandonment of hierarchy is neither
feasible nor desirable in most organizations, particularly in regulated or
safety‑critical industries. The challenge for leaders is to design
“ambidextrous” structures that combine clear accountability with flexible,
project‑based forms of work. This tension between structure and fluidity is a
recurring theme in the digital leadership literature and remains an area where
practical guidance is still evolving (Khaw et al., 2022; Özkan et al., 2024).
4. From Hierarchy to
Agility: Structural Shifts in Leadership Strategy
One of the most visible impacts of digital transformation is the
move toward agile organizational forms. Agility refers to the capacity to sense
changes in the environment and respond rapidly and effectively (Teece et al.,
2016). For many firms, this has entailed reconfiguring organizational
structures, decision rights, and performance systems to support faster learning
cycles and closer customer engagement.
4.1 Decentralized
decision‑making
Digital transformation necessitates a redistribution of
decision‑making authority. Leaders increasingly rely on empowered teams to make
context‑specific, data‑informed decisions. This decentralization enhances speed
and innovation while reducing bottlenecks associated with centralized approval
systems.
However, decentralization does not imply the absence of leadership.
Instead, leaders provide strategic direction, articulate a compelling purpose,
and establish shared values and standards that ensure alignment across
decentralized units (Uhl‑Bien & Arena, 2018). The literature suggests that
organizations that decentralize without investing in shared vision, leadership
capability, and data literacy often experience fragmentation and inconsistent
decision quality, underscoring the need for a coherent leadership framework to
accompany structural change (Khaw et al., 2022; Siswadhi et al., 2024).
4.2 Agile leadership
practices
Agile leadership extends beyond the adoption of agile project
management tools. It represents a mindset characterized by iterative learning,
experimentation, customer‑centricity, and tolerance for intelligent failure
(Rigby et al., 2016). Leaders must balance exploration and exploitation,
fostering innovation while maintaining operational stability, and continuously
recalibrating strategy as digital capabilities and market conditions
evolve.
Case‑based research indicates that where leaders actively role‑model
agile behaviors such as rapid experimentation, transparent communication of
assumptions, and openness to feedback, agile practices are more likely to scale
beyond isolated pilot teams. By contrast, when leaders treat agility as a
technique to be delegated to IT or innovation units, organizational impact
tends to remain limited. This highlights the importance of leadership behavior,
not just structure, in achieving genuine agility (Cui et al., 2025; Khaw et
al., 2022).
5. Core Leadership
Competencies in the Digital Era
The literature increasingly emphasizes that successful digital
transformation depends on a distinct set of leadership competencies, often
described as digital leadership capability or digital intelligence. These
competencies integrate technical understanding with strategic, interpersonal,
and ethical capacities (Siswadhi et al., 2024; Cui et al., 2025).
5.1 Data literacy and
analytical thinking
Data literacy enables leaders to interpret analytics, challenge
assumptions, and make evidence‑based decisions. In digitally mature
organizations, strategy formulation is increasingly informed by real‑time data
rather than historical trends or managerial intuition (McAfee &
Brynjolfsson, 2012). Yet studies also note the risk of “data complacency”,
where leaders over‑rely on dashboards without interrogating data quality, bias,
or contextual nuances. Effective digital leaders therefore combine quantitative
literacy with critical thinking and domain expertise (Siswadhi et al., 2024).
5.2 Digital vision and
strategic foresight
A clear digital vision allows leaders to align technology
initiatives with organizational purpose and long‑term value creation. Without
such vision, organizations risk fragmented investments and technology‑driven
rather than strategy‑driven transformation (Kane et al., 2015). Research points
out that successful digital leaders articulate an integrated narrative that
links digital initiatives to stakeholder value, organizational capabilities,
and competitive positioning, thereby providing a coherent reference point for
decentralized experimentation (Khaw et al., 2022; Cui et al., 2025).
5.3 Adaptability and
learning agility
Digital transformation is not a one‑time initiative but an ongoing
process. Leaders must demonstrate adaptability, openness to learning, and
comfort with ambiguity. Adaptive leadership supports organizational resilience
in the face of continuous disruption (Heifetz et al., 2009). Empirical studies
in business and public administration contexts show that leaders who frame
transformation as a learning journey—rather than as a fixed project with a
definitive end‑state are better able to sustain commitment and adjust course as
conditions change (Özkan et al., 2024; Khaw et al., 2022).
5.4 Empathy and human-centered
leadership
Despite its technological orientation, digital transformation
profoundly affects employees’ roles, identities, and job security. Empathy and
emotional intelligence are essential for managing resistance, fostering trust,
and sustaining engagement during change (Goleman, 2017). Human‑centered
leadership practices, such as inclusive communication, participatory
decision‑making, and fair opportunities for reskilling, help mitigate the
social costs of transformation and support a more equitable distribution of benefits
(Siswadhi et al., 2024; Cui et al., 2025).
6. Organizational
Culture as the Enabler of Digital Transformation
A consistent finding across studies is that organizational culture
plays a decisive role in digital transformation outcomes (Westerman et al.,
2014). Cultures that emphasize learning, openness, and collaboration tend to be
more successful in leveraging digital technologies for strategic advantage than
cultures dominated by risk aversion and rigid control (Khaw et al., 2022; Cui
et al., 2025).
6.1 Cultivating a
growth mindset
Leaders shape culture through their behaviors, decisions, and
communication. A growth‑oriented culture encourages experimentation, continuous
learning, and psychological safety. As the half‑life of skills continues to
decline, organizations must institutionalize reskilling and upskilling as
strategic imperatives (Dweck, 2016). Leadership commitment to learning is often
reflected in investments in digital academies, cross‑functional rotations, and
recognition systems that reward learning, not just short‑term results (Verhoef
et al., 2021; Cui et al., 2025).
6.2 Psychological
safety and innovation
Psychological safety enables employees to voice ideas, challenge
assumptions, and learn from failure. In digital contexts, where experimentation
is essential, leadership strategies must explicitly support safe environments
for innovation, rewarding learning and intelligent risk‑taking rather than
punishing all forms of failure. Studies suggest that psychological safety is
especially critical in cross‑functional digital teams, where diverse
professional backgrounds and power asymmetries can inhibit open dialogue if not
actively managed (Verhoef et al., 2021; Khaw et al., 2022).
6.3 Leading hybrid and
remote workforces
Digital transformation has decoupled work from physical location,
accelerating the adoption of hybrid and remote work models. Leadership
strategies have shifted from monitoring presence to evaluating outcomes and
value creation. Trust, clear expectations, and effective digital collaboration
tools are critical for sustaining cohesion and performance in distributed teams
(Contreras et al., 2020). At the same time, leaders must attend to inclusion
and equity concerns, ensuring that remote and on‑site employees have comparable
access to information, visibility, and development opportunities (Özkan et al.,
2024; Khaw et al., 2022).
7. Challenges and
Ethical Implications of Digital Leadership
While digital transformation offers substantial benefits, it also
introduces significant leadership challenges and ethical considerations. These
issues are increasingly central to discussions of digital leadership,
particularly as AI and algorithmic systems permeate organizational
decision‑making (Khaw et al., 2022; Cui et al., 2025).
7.1 Technological
determinism
Technological determinism the belief that technology alone drives
organizational improvement—remains a common pitfall. Leaders who neglect the
social and cultural dimensions of transformation often experience disappointing
outcomes, such as low adoption, shadow systems, and resistance (Vial, 2019).
The literature cautions that treating DT primarily as an IT upgrade, rather
than as an organizational change process, tends to reinforce existing power
imbalances and undercuts the transformative potential of digital tools (Khaw et
al., 2022).
7.2 Digital fatigue and
employee well‑being
The always‑connected nature of digital work increases the risk of
overload, blurred boundaries, and burnout. Leaders must actively promote
digital well‑being by establishing boundaries (e.g., norms for after‑hours
communication), modeling sustainable work practices, and prioritizing mental
health (Mazmanian et al., 2013). Emerging evidence suggests that organizations
that integrate well‑being into their digital strategies through supportive
policies, workload design, and leadership behavior—achieve more sustainable
performance than those that treat well‑being as an individual responsibility
alone (Özkan et al., 2024; Khaw et al., 2022).
7.3 Algorithmic bias
and accountability
As organizations increasingly rely on AI and automated decision
systems, leaders bear responsibility for addressing issues of fairness,
transparency, and accountability. Ethical governance frameworks are essential
to ensure that algorithmic decisions align with organizational values and
societal norms (Floridi et al., 2018). Current research frequently calls for
interdisciplinary approaches to algorithmic governance that integrate legal,
ethical, and technical expertise, but practical models for implementation
remain underdeveloped. This gap places additional pressure on leaders to
develop at least a foundational understanding of how algorithms work and how
their deployment can inadvertently reproduce or amplify bias (Hossain, 2024;
Cui et al., 2025).
8. Implications for
Theory and Practice
The literature reviewed suggests that leadership in digital contexts
is relational, distributed, and adaptive rather than purely hierarchical or
trait‑based. Traditional models are insufficient to explain leadership
effectiveness in digitally transforming organizations, reinforcing the
relevance of complexity leadership, distributed leadership, and socio‑technical
perspectives. Conceptually, DT highlights leadership as a process of enabling
emergent coordination and learning across networks rather than simply setting
direction and monitoring compliance (Siswadhi et al., 2024; Khaw et al., 2022).
From a practical standpoint, the findings underscore the need for
leadership development programs that emphasize digital literacy, adaptive
capacity, and ethical reasoning. Organizations must invest not only in
technology but also in developing leaders capable of guiding continuous
transformation, orchestrating networks of expertise, and embedding
human‑centered values in digital strategies. This includes designing
development interventions that expose leaders to cross‑functional digital
projects, data‑driven decision‑making, and ethical dilemmas associated with AI
and automation (Siswadhi et al., 2024; Cui et al., 2025).
9. Conclusion
Digital transformation is fundamentally a human‑centered process
enabled by technology. Leadership strategies must evolve from
command‑and‑control approaches toward models that emphasize agility,
collaboration, and cultural stewardship. Effective digital leaders act as
vision‑setters, sense‑makers, and ethical guardians, orchestrating distributed
expertise rather than exercising unilateral authority. Ultimately,
organizations that succeed in digital transformation are those whose leaders
align technological innovation with human values, organizational purpose, and
societal expectations (Khaw et al., 2022; Cui et al., 2025).
10. Future Research
Directions
Future research should explore the long‑term implications of
AI‑augmented leadership, particularly the dynamics of human–algorithm
collaboration and decision accountability. Empirical studies across diverse
cultural and institutional contexts are needed to deepen understanding of how
digital leadership practices influence trust, performance, and organizational
legitimacy. In addition, longitudinal and cross‑cultural studies should examine
how digital leadership capabilities develop over time, how leaders navigate
tensions between agility and control, and how governance frameworks can
operationalize accountability and fairness in AI‑mediated decision processes
(Özkan et al., 2024; Khaw et al., 2022).
Declaration: AI tools were used for language editing and sentence restructuring.
Conflict of interest: None
References
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014).
E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and
transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105-131.
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word
makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business
horizons, 57(3), 311-317.
Contreras, F., Baykal, E., & Abid, G. (2020). E-leadership and
teleworking in times of COVID-19 and beyond: What we know and where do we
go. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 590271.
Cui, P., Chang, S., Tian, G., Li, Z., Cheng, C., Chang, L., ...
& Hu, H. (2025). The mediating effects of psychological capital and career
success in the relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction
among nurse managers: a cross-sectional study. BMC nursing, 24(1),
961.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset:
The new psychology of success. Random house.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J.,
Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., ... & Vayena, E.
(2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities,
risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and machines, 28(4),
689-707.
Goleman, D., & Davidson, R. J. (2018). Altered traits:
Science reveals how meditation changes your mind, brain, and body. Penguin.
Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., &
Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic
over narrative reviews?. European journal of clinical investigation, 48(6),
e12931.
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., &
Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard business
press.
Hossain, R. (2024). Adopting
Industry 4.0: A Strategic Solution for Transforming Smart Bangladesh:
Prospective Connections, Opportunities, and Challenges. Pakistan
Journal of Life & Social Sciences, 22(1).
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips,
A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives
digital transformation. MIT Sloan management review.
Khaw, T. Y., Teoh, A. P., Abdul
Khalid, S. N., & Letchmunan, S. (2022). The impact of digital leadership on
sustainable performance: a systematic literature review. Journal of
Management Development, 41(9-10), 514-534.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J.,
& Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email
devices for knowledge professionals. Organization science, 24(5),
1337-1357.
McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E.,
Davenport, T. H., Patil, D. J., & Barton, D. (2012). Big data. The
management revolution. Harvard Bus Rev, 90(10), 61-67.
Özkan, M., Canli, U., Alwhaibi, R., Ustaömer, K., Karaçam, A.,
Orhan, B. E., ... & Gonzalez, P. P. (2024). Predicting functional movement
capacity in adults: the effect of range of motion and isometric strength. BMC
Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 16(1), 145.
Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing
agile. Harvard business review, 94(5), 40-50.
Siswadhi, F., Widyastuti, T., Sawitri, N. N., & Afrianti, F.
(2024). Review of empirical research on transformational leadership and
organizational performance of local government. Ilomata International Journal
of Management, 5(4), 1302–1317.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature
review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal
of business research, 104, 333-339.
Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities
and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation
economy. California management review, 58(4), 13-35.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational
adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The
leadership quarterly, 29(1), 89-104.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong,
J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A
multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of business
research, 122, 889-901.
Vial, G. (2019). Reflections on
quality requirements for digital trace data in IS research. Decision
Support Systems, 126, 113133.
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading
digital: Turning technology into business transformation. Harvard Business
Press.
