Abstract
In the era of digital disruption, the cultivation of digital leadership and the construction of digital platforms have received high attention from a wide range of technological enterprises. However, their impact on the sustainable competitive advantage of enterprises is still unclear. Based on a knowledge perspective, this study develops a theoretical framework that links the digital leadership, platform digitization capability and sustainable growth. The findings from technological enterprises reveal that digital leadership has a positive and significant effect on sustainable growth. Platform digitization capability plays a mediating role in this relationship. Additionally, digital infrastructure investment as well as digital talent training and development positively strengthens the relationship between digital leadership and platform digitization capability. This study uses regression analysis and structural equation modelling to examine the underlying mechanism through which digital leadership influences the sustainable growth of technology enterprises, thereby expanding its application within the existing field of knowledge management. It provides a robust theoretical framework and actionable guidelines for both academics and technological business practitioners.
Keywords: Digital leadership, Firm sustainable growth, Platform digital capability, Technology-based enterprises
Subject terms: Business and management; Business and management; Information systems and information technology; Science, technology and society
Introduction
In a VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) world, ongoing digital transformation is significantly altering traditional business structures. Organizations that fail to capitalize on emerging digital trends risk becoming less agile, less competitive, and ultimately falling behind1,2. This process of digital disruption creates a dynamic and multi-faceted landscape that introduces new leadership challenges3. As a result, digital leadership (DL) has become indispensable for organizations striving to navigate digital disruption effectively and sustain competitiveness4. However, businesses often encounter a range of technical, cultural and organizational challenges in their pursuit of digital transformation5. Consequently, achieving sustainable growth amid ongoing digital disruption has become a pressing challenge that business managers must urgently address6,7.
Firm sustainable growth (FSG) is a complex and multi-dimensional process, with one of its key drivers being the ability to attract and retain customers who value sustainability8. To achieve this, companies need to demonstrate social responsibility, transparency and integrity, while consistently ensuring high-quality products and services9. This, in turn, requires enterprises to have green innovation capabilities, leaders to possess strong business sustainable leadership capabilities to effectively guide their organizations in a digital environment10–12. Thus, the demand for competent digital leadership has become increasingly urgent for organizations striving to achieve sustainable business growth13. While prior studies emphasize the notable influence of digital leadership on promoting sustainable growth, there are still several limitations:
Firstly, Digital leadership is an emerging leadership paradigm in the digital age, and its impact on firms’ sustainable growth remains underexplored. Digital leadership is described as an integration of transformational leadership and digital expertise14, enabling leaders to navigate dynamic environments and capitalize on digital opportunities15. With the rapid advancement of digital technology, digital skills have become indispensable in the modern era. However, these skills are highly diverse and influence the effectiveness of digital leadership to varying degrees16. As a result, more research is required to clarify the impact of digital leadership on achieving sustainable growth.
Second, there is a lack of in-depth research exploring the processes linking digital leadership to sustainable growth, and it serves a crucial function in addressing the challenges posed by digital disruption17,18. Previous scholars have predominantly conceptualized digital leadership as the fusion of leadership capacities and digital technologies aimed at supporting decision-making with a focus on facilitating business development through e-leadership19–22. While these studies have examined leadership from the perspective of managerial perceptions, the influence of digital platforms on both organizations and their members has been largely neglected during the development process. In reality, platform digitization is essential for fully maximizing the value from IT-enabled business initiatives23. Accordingly, clarifying the true essence of digital leadership alongside platform digital capabilities (PDC) is essential to understanding how these capabilities contribute to sustainable growth through digital leadership. Moreover, the extent to which digital leadership influences sustainable growth through platform digital capabilities must also account for key factors such as digital infrastructure investment (DII) and the digital talent training and development (DTTD)24. These elements shape the relationship between digital leadership and an organization’s platform digital capabilities to varying degrees and through diverse mechanisms25. Therefore, this paper explores the impact of digital infrastructure and digital talent development on digital leadership, platform digital capabilities and sustainability, analyzing how these factors interact to drive sustainable growth.
Third, the boundary conditions of digital leadership remain underexplored. The effectiveness of digital leadership is likely contingent upon multiple contextual factors, such as digital infrastructure investment and digital talent training and development in digital technologies24. These factors may influence the relationship between digital leadership and platform digital capabilities to varying degrees and through different mechanisms25, however, their specific effects remain unclear. Therefore, this study explores the moderating roles of digital infrastructure investment and digital talent training and development within the proposed research model.
In summary, this study seeks to address three research questions to bridge the existing research gap.
RQ1: What is the impact of digital leadership on firm sustainable growth?
RQ2: What mediating mechanisms explain this relationship༟.
RQ3: What moderating mechanisms influence this relationship༟.
In summary, this study aims to address the challenges of firm sustainable growth in the context of digital disruption. Grounded in knowledge-based view, this paper examines the instrumental role of digital leadership in addressing these challenges and promoting sustainable growth. Specifically, it investigates how digital leadership enhances platform digital capabilities and, in turn, drives firm sustainable growth under different boundary conditions. First, the study assesses the relationship between digital leadership and firm sustainable development from a knowledge-based perspective. Second, it explores the mediating role of platform digital capabilities in the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable development. Third, it examines the moderating effects of digital infrastructure investment and digital talent training and development on the relationship between digital leadership and firm sustainable development. This study employs a questionnaire survey to collect data, and uses empirical research methods to test research hypotheses and answer research questions. These investigations will deepen our understanding of the mechanisms, processes, and boundary conditions through which digital leadership influences firm sustainable growth, and will offer practical insights for enterprises and policy makers who is seeking to leverage digital leadership to achieve sustainable growth.
Theories and hypotheses
Knowledge-based view
The knowledge-based view is an important extension of the resource-based view, positioning knowledge as a distinct strategic resource26. Emphasizing the efficient exchange of knowledge and the pursuit of optimal strategies, the knowledge-based view offers a new perspective for organizational innovation and development, significantly influencing contemporary management practices27. The knowledge-based view asserts that a firm’s knowledge base and capabilities are key determinants of its effectiveness in the knowledge economy28. Knowledge management, as a crucial element of the knowledge economy, serves as a catalyst for organizational transformation by facilitating the sharing, creation and dissemination of knowledge. Consequently, it enables enterprises to achieve sustainable growth amid economic globalization and knowledge-based development29. From a knowledge-based perspective, digital leadership influences the knowledge systems of managers and senior management within an organization, and this impact is reflected in the digital business decisions the organization makes in the future30. This enhances the platform’s digital capabilities and ultimately contributes to sustainable growth. Additionally, knowledge exchange activities related to digital technologies, such as investment in digital facilities and training and development of digital talent, also serves a function in cultivating business sustainability. Therefore, drawing from the knowledge-based view, we have developed a research framework that connects digital leadership, platform digitization capability and sustainable growth, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Research model.
Digital leadership and firm sustainable growth
Sustainable growth refers to an enterprise’s ability to strategically invest human, material and financial resources in a planned, rational and systematic manner over a specific period. This approach aims to enhance economic efficiency, strengthen competitiveness and ensure long-term survival and development31.
From the standpoint of the knowledge-based perspective, digital leadership assumes a pivotal role in propelling sustainable organizational growth through multiple approaches. First, digital leadership drives digital transformation and knowledge innovation, which directly influences firm performance and long-term sustainability. Previous studies have identified a positive relationship between digital leadership and the success of digital transformation initiatives32. Leaders who prioritize digitalization can enhance system efficiency and productivity through digital knowledge innovation, thereby supporting green transformation and organizational adaptability, which in turn promotes sustainable growth33.
Second, digital leadership supports the advancement of green innovation, thereby achieving sustainable growth for enterprises. Existing research has demonstrated that digital leadership plays a significant role in promoting green innovation34, exerting a significant direct positive influence on various aspects of corporate green innovation35. Given the clear impact of green innovation on sustainable growth, digital leadership therefore contributes indirectly to sustainable outcomes.
Thirdly, digital leadership strengthens green cultural identity and knowledge acquisition among employees, enabling firms to respond more effectively to digital disruption and achieve sustainable growth. Previous studies have shown that digital leadership can enhance organizational performance by cultivating a supportive organizational culture and improving employees’ digital knowledge and skills, as validated in organizational research conducted in Korea32. Based on these insights, we make the following proposition:
H1: Digital leadership contributes positively to firm sustainable growth.
Roles of platform digitization capability
Against the backdrop of digital transformation, digital platform capability describes a firm’s capacity to utilize digital platforms and associated technologies to enable information connectivity and facilitate resource integration with external partners36. From the knowledge-based view, digital leadership plays a crucial role in enhancing digital platform capabilities through multiple mechanisms37,38. This influence manifests in three ways: Firstly, digital capabilities of an organization’s management enhance internal IT infrastructure and data integration. This helps leaders to more precisely recognize, develop, choose, and align the core organization’s information and technology business processes more accurately, thereby facilitating the construction and optimization of the organization’s digital platform39. Secondly, digital leadership strengthens an organization’s technological absorptive capacity, promoting knowledge sharing and improving its ability to integrate new knowledge40. This, in turn, enhances the efficiency and effctiveness of the organization’s digital platform41. Finally, digital leadership enables management to leverage expertise in building extensive social networks, engaging external users and partners in the development of the organization’s digital platform. This involvement promotes continuous self-renewal and iteration of the platform, further strengthening its overall capability42. In summary, we present the following hypothesis:
H2: Digital leadership facilitates platform digitization capability.
Research has demonstrated that digitization and transformation significantly enhance an organization’s sustainable growth by driving its digital and platform evolution43. Digital platform capabilities, which integrate ICT (information and communications technology) resources with both internal and external assets, enable seamless integration between various partners44,45. This transformation fundamentally reshapes network management and improves company performance to achieve sustainability by deeply revolutionising network management development46,47. For resource-constrained entrepreneurial enterprises, the generation of value is becoming progressively dependent on internal collaboration and the exchange of information with external stakeholders48. The shift from traditional linear value chains to interconnected networks has made digital platform capabilities a critical enabler of network expansion and efficiency49. This technological and social architecture helps bridge information exchange gaps, supporting firm sustainable development50,51.
H3: Platform digitization capability exerts a positive influence on firm sustainable growth.
Research has shown that a core aspect of digital leadership is the ability to develop and manage digital platforms, which organizations can leverage to facilitate information sharing, collaborative innovation and overall business model innovation using digital technologies52. These capabilities not only enhance internal efficiency and innovation potential but also strengthen an organization’s competitive position and long-term sustainability through open innovation methods and collaborative competition strategies49,53. To achieve this, organizations require robust digital platform capabilities, including the ability to collect, process and analyse data, and decision-making processes based on such insights33. Additionally, research indicates that a highly competitive market environment positively influences the linkage between digital leadership and digital platform capabilities, further accelerating organizational innovation and sustainable business development. This implies that in a dynamic and competitive market environment, effective digital leadership significantly contributes to strengthening digital platform capabilities, which in turn drives business sustainability42. Drawing on this, the following hypothesis is developed:
H4: Platform digitization capability mediates the relationship between digital leadership and firm sustainable growth.
Moderating effect of digital infrastructure investment and digital talent training and development
Digital infrastructure investment can further enhance the effect of digital leadership on platform digital capabilities. This is mainly reflected in two aspects. Firstly, digital infrastructure investment is instrumental in supporting the strategic goals of enterprise business units. In the process of digital transformation, investment in digital infrastructure can promote the effectiveness of digital leadership. This form of effectiveness promotes both the competitive performance of business units and the development of digital platforms54. Furthermore, managers who harness digital leadership are often able to effectively utilize digital infrastructure to acquire knowledge related to digital change, integrate information technology capabilities with team capabilities, and promotes platform digital capabilities55. This highlights the moderating role of digital infrastructure investment in promoting the relationship between digital leadership and platform digital capabilities. Secondly, digital infrastructure investment not only enhances internal business information and knowledge flows, but also optimizes the operational efficiency of digital platforms, promotes the execution of digital leadership, and thereby strengthens the platform digitalization capabilities of enterprises. For example, as hospitals continue to improve and upgrade their digital infrastructure, patient information and medical strategies can be seamlessly integrated through digital platforms, enabling efficient knowledge and information flows. This demonstrates the significant role of digital infrastructure investment in enhancing the effectiveness of digital leadership. On this basis, this article proposes that:
H5: Digital infrastructure investment exerts a positive moderating effect on the relationship between digital leadership and platform digitization capability.
With the continuous evolution of digital technology, human resources require continuous professional development to maintain competitiveness. Digital talent training and development involve human resource management practices, education systems, in-house training programs, and policy support from governments and NGOs56. Such initiatives help cultivate talents with digital skills, thereby enhancing the organizational competitiveness and adaptability. In the digital economy, digital talents play a crucial supporting role in leadership development, mainly in two ways. Firstly, digital talent training and development enable employees to acquire digital knowledge and enhance their digital abilities, thereby strengthening their implementation of digital leadership and ultimately improving platform digital capabilities57; Secondly, digital talent training and development can enhance employee job satisfaction and performance during digital transformation processes58, which is beneficial for strengthening the digital culture and team consensus within the organization. Ultimately, it enhances the effectiveness of digital leadership on platform digital capabilities. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:
H6: Digital talent training and development positively moderates the relationship between digital leadership and platform digitization capability.
Method
The research process of this work is shown as below, see Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Research process.
Measurement of variables
Digital leadership
Digital leadership (DL) is defined as an integration of transformational leadership and digital expertise14, enabling leaders to navigate dynamic environments and capitalize on digital opportunities15. Drawing on the definition of digital leadership proposed by El Sawy et al59. and the Six E-competency model for measuring e-leadership developed by Avolio et al60. and Roman et al61., this paper measures digital leadership in the context of the digital economy. Specifically, digital leadership is assessed across five dimensions: digital communication and coordination, digital motivation and change management, building and sustaining digital teams, digital technological expertise and fostering digital trust. See Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Measurements.
Firm sustainable growth
Cancino et al.62. argues that technological innovation is seen as a means of optimizing the efficient and sustainable use of resources within socio-bio-economic systems. Sustainable growth is often linked to the efficient use of such resources and protection of the ecosystem. The study categorized sustainable growth into five dimensions: scientific, technological, economic, social and cultural. Accordingly, paper adopts the framework proposed by Cancino et al62. to measure sustainable growth across five dimensions, see Fig. 3.
Digital infrastructure investment
Gideon et al63. measured digital infrastructure investment across three dimensions: Internet access, landline telephone subscription, and mobile cellular subscription. However, these indicators do not fully reflect the actual situation in China. Drawing on Gideon et al.63. definition of investment in digital facilities, this study extends and redefines the digital facilities investment as investment in digital technology such as information technology systems, big data, digital media platforms, blockchain, cloud platform, and digital twins, etc.) and ICT. These investments focus on building, upgrading and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to supports digital services and applications. Based on this definition, this paper refines and adapts the corresponding measurement indicators, see Fig. 3.
Platform digitization capability
This paper adopts the definition and measurement model of platform digital capability proposed by Benitez et al.52.. In this study, platform digital capability is defined as the ability of organizations to integrate IT infrastructure, business processes and data to develop and leverage digital platforms that drive consistent performance. Platform digital capability is measured across three dimensions: IT infrastructure integration, business process integration and data integration. See Fig. 3.
Digital talent training and development
There is currently no universally established method for measuring digital talent training and development in academia. However, based on the explorations of digital human resource measurement by Varadaraj and Al Wadi64, Strohmeier65 and Jie and Zhisheng66, digital talent can be defined as human resources equipped with digital skills who play a critical role in driving and enabling organizational digital transformation.
Esteban-Lloret et al67. considers training and development as a process of transferring relevant skills, knowledge and competencies to employees to improve their performance in both current and future tasks. Similarly, Boadu et al68. argue that training and development contribute to improving organizational structure, efficiency, workforce competencies, and productivity. Drawing on these perspectives, this paper defines digital talent training and development as a process aimed at nurturing employees’ digital skills, knowledge and competencies to drive and enable organizational digital transformation. Referring to Khan et al69. for the definition and measurement and development and incorporating the context of digital economy, this paper assesses digital talent training and development across three dimensions: training design, on-the-job training, and training delivery style. See Fig. 3.
Control variable
Referring to Tang et al.70. and Xie et al.71., firm age, industry, size, R&D intensity, net profit, and ownership significantly impact firms’ operations and are therfore used as control variables in this study. Industry is represented as a binary variable (0,1), where 1 represents the service sector. Firm size is measured by the number of employees while R&D intensity is assessed as the ratio of R&D investment to sales. Ownership is also represented by a binary varibale (0,1), where 1 represents state-owned enterprises.
Data collection
This paper uses a questionnaire to obtain data and test hypotheses. The questionnaire collected demographic data of the respondents (not included in the regression model), enterprise characteristic data (included as control variables in the regression model), and variable measurement scales using a 7-point Likert scale. This study selected Chinese technological enterprises. Because China’s economy is growing rapidly, with a large number of technology-based enterprises and a massive digital scale, which is representative and can be used as a guidance for areas lagging behind in digitalization. All participants involved in this study provided written informed consent prior to data collection. The research content and methodology have been approved by the Ethics Committee of Sichuan University of Arts and Science and comply with the ethical principles for human subject research as outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The data collection process is as follows:
Firstly, this study invited corporate executives to evaluate the questionnaire and make improvements to questions that were either not aligned with the actual situation of the company or difficult to understand; Secondly, between July 5th and July 18th, 2025, a pre-research phase was conducted in which 46 pre-survey questionnaires were collected. The pre-research results show that all the Cronbach’s α and KMO value are greater than 0.7, and meet the dimensionality test criteria, indicating good reliability and validity. Finally, the questionnaire was distributed. The study sent survey request messages to executives of technology-based companies through alumni platforms and corporate campuses supported by the team’s research projects. The questionnaires were distributed after obtaining consent.
In this study, from May 21 st to June 2nd 2025, a total of 468 questionnaires were distributed. Of these, 351 were returned but 8 questionnaires that failed the attention test were excluded. Ultimately, 343 valid questionnaires were obtained, resulting in a validity rate of 73.3%. The enterprise of this study is widely distributed across various regions in China, as shown in Fig. 4. The characteristics of the respondents and the basic information of the surveyed firms are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Fig. 4.
Distribution of enterprises.
Table 1.
Characteristic of respondents.
| Gender | Education | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondents | % | Respondents | % | ||
| Male | 190 | 55.39% | Below Undergraduate | 28 | 8.16% |
| Female | 153 | 44.61% | Undergraduate | 133 | 38.78% |
| Age (years) | Master’s Degree | 174 | 50.73% | ||
| Respondents | % | Doctoral Degree | 8 | 2.33% | |
| 18–30 | 56 | 16.33% | |||
| 31–40 | 149 | 43.44% | |||
| 41–50 | 104 | 30.32% | |||
| 51+ | 34 | 9.91% | |||
Table 2.
Characteristics of sample firms.
| Firm Age | Industry | Employees | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3–5 years (exclusive) | 76 | 22.16% | Service industry | 153 | 44.61% | Fewer than 50 | 81 | 23.62% |
| 5–8 years (exclusive) | 111 | 32.36% | Non-service industry | 190 | 55.39% | 50–199人 | 111 | 32.36% |
| 8–12 years (exclusive) | 78 | 22.74% | 200–499人 | 90 | 26.24% | |||
| 12–20 years (exclusive) | 46 | 13.41% | 500–1999人 | 46 | 13.41% | |||
| 20 years and above | 32 | 9.33% | 2,000 and above | 15 | 4.37% | |||
| R&D investment by sales | Profitability | Ownership | ||||||
| Less than 2% | 96 | 27.99% | Very low | 57 | 16.62% | Privately owned (including foreign-funded) | 198 | 57.73% |
| 2%−4% (exclusive) | 69 | 20.12% | Low | 77 | 22.45% | State-owned | 145 | 42.27% |
| 4%−8% (exclusive) | 61 | 17.78% | Average | 92 | 26.82% | |||
| 8%- 20% (exclusive) | 61 | 17.78% | High | 71 | 20.70% | |||
| 20% and above | 56 | 16.33% | Very high | 46 | 13.41% |
Reliability and Validity
First, to test the reliability and validity of the sample data, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used as a reliability test. As shown in Table 3, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for DL, DII, DTTD, PDC, and FSG were 0.950, 0.906, 0.902, 0.896, and 0.890, respectively, all exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.7. This indicates that the sample data exhibit strong internal consistency. Furthermore, the analysis in Table 3 shows that DL, DII, DTTD, PDC, and FSG have KMO values greater than 0.7, factor above 0.6, AVE values exceeding 0.5, and CR above 0.7. The results confirm that the sample data demonstrate good construct validity.
Table 3.
Reliability and validity analysis.
| Valuables | KMO | Factor loading | AVE | CR | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Digital leadership | 0.909 | 0.925 | 0.8347 | 0.9619 | 0.950 |
| 0.917 | |||||
| 0.905 | |||||
| 0.915 | |||||
| 0.906 | |||||
| Digital infrastructure investment | 0.751 | 0.925 | 0.8428 | 0.9415 | 0.906 |
| 0.926 | |||||
| 0.903 | |||||
| Digital talent training and development | 0.754 | 0.919 | 0.8366 | 0.9389 | 0.902 |
| 0.915 | |||||
| 0.910 | |||||
| Platform digital capabilities | 0.751 | 0.907 | 0.8281 | 0.9353 | 0.896 |
| 0.917 | |||||
| 0.906 | |||||
| Firm sustainable growth | 0.884 | 0.830 | 0.6947 | 0.9192 | 0.890 |
| 0.854 | |||||
| 0.817 | |||||
| 0.834 | |||||
| 0.832 |
Second, the maximum variance method was used for factor rotation to conduct principal component analysis on each variable, excluding the control variables. As shown in Table 4, all latent variable dimensions align well with the corresponding question items set in this study. The results confirm that the study demonstrates strong dimensional consistency.
Table 4.
Variables one-dimensional analysis.
| Item | DL | FSG | DII | DTTD | PDC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DL1 | 0.866 | 0.255 | − 0.024 | 0.019 | 0.191 |
| DL2 | 0.888 | 0.192 | − 0.002 | 0.060 | 0.142 |
| DL3 | 0.844 | 0.262 | − 0.002 | 0.014 | 0.190 |
| DL4 | 0.870 | 0.223 | − 0.021 | 0.018 | 0.170 |
| DL5 | 0.868 | 0.249 | 0.007 | 0.028 | 0.103 |
| PDC1 | 0.198 | 0.212 | − 0.014 | 0.081 | 0.860 |
| PDC2 | 0.204 | 0.273 | − 0.045 | 0.064 | 0.848 |
| PDC3 | 0.234 | 0.242 | − 0.003 | − 0.022 | 0.840 |
| DII1 | − 0.018 | 0.095 | 0.919 | 0.054 | − 0.005 |
| DII2 | − 0.032 | 0.033 | 0.921 | 0.078 | − 0.031 |
| DII3 | 0.018 | 0.048 | 0.899 | 0.073 | − 0.012 |
| DTTD1 | − 0.003 | 0.057 | 0.069 | 0.915 | 0.059 |
| DTTD2 | 0.077 | − 0.004 | 0.045 | 0.912 | 0.018 |
| DTTD3 | 0.022 | − 0.027 | 0.089 | 0.906 | 0.025 |
| FSG1 | 0.270 | 0.783 | 0.011 | 0.024 | 0.102 |
| FSG2 | 0.236 | 0.796 | 0.068 | 0.018 | 0.185 |
| FSG3 | 0.206 | 0.787 | 0.007 | 0.020 | 0.127 |
| FSG4 | 0.202 | 0.772 | 0.065 | − 0.029 | 0.235 |
| FSG5 | 0.196 | 0.780 | 0.093 | 0.005 | 0.199 |
Third, we conducted a validation factor analysis on the 343 firm data using AMOS software to validate the core variable: DL, DII, DTTD, PDC, and FSG. As shown in Table 5, the result indicated that the 5-factor model has the best fit among all tested models. The model fit indices confirm strong structural validity, RESEA = 0.020 (< 0.05), SRMR = 0.0253 (< 0.05), χ2/df = 1.136 (< 3), IFI = 0.996, RFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.995, GFI = 0.953, NFI = 0.967, and CFI = 0.996, all exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.9. These findings confirm that the model fits well and that the questionnaire used in this study demonstrates strong structural validity.
Table 5.
Multi level CFA.
| Type | IFI | RFI | TLI | GFI | NFI | CFI | x2/df | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Baseline model (5 factors) |
0.996 | 0.961 | 0.995 | 0.9530 | 0.967 | 0.996 | 1.136 | 0.020 | 0.0253 |
| 4 factors model | 0.863 | 0.810 | 0.839 | 0.815 | 0.838 | 0.862 | 5.485 | 0.115 | 0.0981 |
| 3 factors model | 0.754 | 0.692 | 0.717 | 0.712 | 0.731 | 0.753 | 8.884 | 0.152 | 0.1268 |
| 2 factors model | 0.610 | 0.537 | 0.556 | 0.625 | 0.591 | 0.608 | 13.346 | 0.190 | 0.1620 |
| single-factor model | 0.492 | 0.411 | 0.426 | 0.515 | 0.477 | 0.490 | 16.971 | 0.216 | 0.1777 |
Further, to evaluate the presence of common method bias across the variables in this research: (1) Harman’s Single-Factor Test was employed by carrying out a factor analysis on all measured variables. The findings demonstrate that 36.258% of the variance was accounted for by the first major factor, while the second major factor accounted for 15.192%, both of which are below the recommended threshold of 40%; (2) Multi level CFA to test common method bias, see Table 5. With the adjustment of factor combinations, the fitting degree of key indicators shows a downward trend, and the fitting degree of single factor models (x2/df = 16.971, SRMR = 0.1777, CFI = 0.490, TLI = 0.426, IFI = 0.492, etc.) is the lowest. Therefore, the questionnaire data do not exhibit significant common methodological bias.
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
The correlation, mean and standard deviation (S.D) of the study variables are shown in Table 6. The results indicate that DL is positively correlated with PDC (P < 0.01), DL is positively correlated with FSG (P < 0.01), and PDC is positively correlated with FSG (P < 0.01). The findings align with the model’s predictions in this paper. Additionally, the correlation coefficients between other variables below 0.7, and the VIFs values for all the models are less than 10, confirming that there is no serious issue of multicollinearity in this study.
Table 6.
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.
| Variables | Age | Service | emp | RD | NP | Owner | DL | PDC | DII | DTTD | FSG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1 | ||||||||||
| Service | 0.037 | 1 | |||||||||
| emp | − 0.04 | − 0.272** | 1 | ||||||||
| RD | 0.165** | − 0.066 | 0.01 | 1 | |||||||
| NP | 0.161** | − 0.002 | 0.252** | 0.343** | 1 | ||||||
| Owner | 0.152** | − 0.051 | − 0.009 | 0.197** | 0.096 | 1 | |||||
| DL | 0.220** | − 0.061 | − 0.03 | 0.364** | 0.270** | 0.230** | 1 | ||||
| PDC | 0.240** | 0.062 | − 0.079 | 0.456** | 0.258** | 0.154** | 0.453** | 1 | |||
| DII | 0.036 | 0.03 | − 0.076 | 0.02 | 0.004 | 0.113* | − 0.004 | − 0.021 | 1 | ||
| DTTD | − 0.025 | 0.053 | − 0.074 | 0.081 | − 0.026 | 0.021 | 0.072 | 0.088 | 0.147** | 1 | |
| FSG | 0.389** | 0.012 | − 0.049 | 0.346** | 0.306** | 0.368** | 0.531** | 0.501** | 0.112* | 0.04 | 1 |
| Mean | 2.554 | 0.554 | 2.423 | 2.743 | 2.918 | 0.423 | 3.854 | 4.019 | 4.013 | 4.099 | 3.922 |
| SD | 1.234 | 0.498 | 1.119 | 1.446 | 1.277 | 0.495 | 1.818 | 1.675 | 1.787 | 1.708 | 1.451 |
N = 343, *p<0.05, **p<0.01.
Regression analysis
Main and mediating effects
The results of the regression analysis of the model of this study are shown in Table 7.
Table 7.
Main and mediating effect analysis.
| Variables | M1-M3 DV: FSG | M4-M5 DV: PDC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
| Age | 0.284(0.054)*** | 0.237(0.05)*** | 0.211(0.049)*** | 0.144(0.066)** | 0.105(0.063)* |
| Service | 0.005(0.136) | 0.029(0.125) | 0.009(0.121) | 0.061(0.166) | 0.080(0.158) |
| emp | − 0.084(0.063) | − 0.053(0.058) | − 0.037(0.056) | − 0.090(0.076) | − 0.064(0.073) |
| RD | 0.181(0.049)*** | 0.09(0.046) | 0.013(0.047) | 0.387(0.059)*** | 0.311(0.058)*** |
| NP | 0.194(0.057)*** | 0.133(0.053)** | 0.116(0.051)* | 0.120(0.069) | 0.069(0.066) |
| Owner | 0.270(0.134)*** | 0.220(0.125)*** | 0.219(0.12)*** | 0.047(0.164) | 0.005(0.157) |
| DL | 0.360(0.037)*** | 0.285(0.037)*** | 0.301(0.046)*** | ||
| PDC | 0.248(0.042)*** | ||||
| R2 | 0.324 | 0.427 | 0.468 | 0.247 | 0.318 |
| F | 28.339 | 37.452 | 38.557 | 19.678 | 23.768 |
| Max VIFs | 1.252 | 1.288 | 1.497 | 1.252 | 1.288 |
N = 343, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. Digital leadership (DL); Platform digital capabilities (PDC); Firm sustainable growth (FSG).
Model 1 (M1) represents the regression model analyzing the impact of control variable (CV) on the dependent variable FSG. The results indicate that Age, Service, Emp, RD, NP, and Owner positively influence FSG.
M2 extends M1 by incorporating the independent variable DL. The analysis shows that DL positively affects FSG (β = 0.360, p < 0.001), thus hypothesis 1 is supported.
M3 includes the mediator PDC while controlling for DL. The results demonstrate that PDC positively affects the dependent variable FSG (β = 0.248, p < 0.001). Therefore, hypothesis 3 is supported.
M4 examines the effect of the control variable on the mediator PDC.
M5 examines the relationship between the independent variable DL and the mediator PDC. The findings show that DL positively affects PDC (β = 0.301, p < 0.001), therefore, hypothesis 2 is supported.
Considering the results of regression models M2, M3, and M5, the findings indicate that DL positively affects FSG, PDC positively affects FSG, and DL positively affects PDC. Based on the definition of a moderator, these results suggest that PDC plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between DL and FSG. To confirm the robustness of the mediating effect, we conducted a Bootstrap analysis using PROCESS to generate Table 8. The results shows that the positive effect of PDC on DL-FSG relationship is significant. The direct effect of DL on FSG is 0.2278, with a confidence interval of [0.1547,0.3009], indicating significance as the interval does not contain zero. The indirect effect of DL on FSG through PDC is 0.0595, with a confidence interval of [0.0313,0.0952], confirming mediation. The total effect of DL on FSG is 0.2873, with a confidence interval of [0.2152,0.3594], further supporting the mediation hypothesis. Since all confidence intervals exclude zero, these results validate that PDC serves as a partial mediator in the DL-FSG relationship; therefore, hypothesis H4 is supported.
Table 8.
Bootstrap analysis of mediating effect of PDCs.
| Item | Coeff | S.E | LLCI | ULCI | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 0.2873 | 0.0366 | 0.2152 | 0.3594 | 100% |
| Direct | 0.2278 | 0.0372 | 0.1547 | 0.3009 | 79.29% |
| Indirect | 0.0595 | 0.0164 | 0.0313 | 0.0952 | 20.71% |
Bootstrap CI = 95%, 5000 times.
Moderating effects
In this study, the interaction terms were mean-centered before conducting the regression analysis of moderated effects to mitigate covariate interference. The results of the regression analyses are presented in Table 9, with M6-M7 testing the moderating effect of DII in DL-PDC relationship and M8-M9 testing the moderating effect of DTTD in DL-PDC relationship.
Table 9.
Moderating effect of DII and DTTD.
| Variables | M6-M9 DV: PDC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | |
| Age | 0.106(0.063)* | 0.091(0.062)* | 0.107(0.063)* | 0.103(0.063)* |
| Service | 0.081(0.158) | 0.059(0.155) | 0.078(0.158) | 0.064(0.157) |
| emp | − 0.067(0.073) | − 0.063(0.071) | − 0.063(0.073) | − 0.071(0.072) |
| RD | 0.311(0.058)*** | 0.294(0.057)*** | 0.308(0.059)*** | 0.302(0.058)*** |
| NP | 0.07(0.067) | 0.057(0.065) | 0.071(0.067) | 0.067(0.066) |
| Owner | 0.009(0.159) | − 0.002(0.155) | 0.004(0.158) | 0.005(0.156) |
| DL | 0.299(0.046)*** | 0.294(0.045)*** | 0.298(0.046)*** | 0.297(0.046)*** |
| DII | − 0.038(0.042) | − 0.043(0.041) | ||
| DTTD | 0.038(0.044) | 0.035(0.044) | ||
| DL*DII | 0.194(0.023)*** | |||
| DL*DTTD | 0.129(0.024)** | |||
| R2 | 0.317 | 0.352 | 0.317 | 0.332 |
| F | 20.87 | 21.622 | 20.864 | 19.886 |
| Max VIFs | 1.289 | 1.293 | 1.291 | 1.292 |
N = 343, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. Digital leadership (DL); Platform digital capabilities (PDC); Digital infrastructure investment (DII); Digital talent training and development (DTTD).
The results of M7 showed that the interaction term of DL and DII positively affected PDC (β = 0.194, P < 0.001). This indicates that the positive effect of DL on PDC is further strengthened as DII increases, confirming that higher levels of DII enhance the relationship between DL and PDC. Therefore, Hypothesis H5 is supported.
The results of M9 showed that the interaction term of DL and DTTD positively affected PDC (β = 0.129, P < 0.01). This suggests that the positive effect of DL on PDC is further strengthened when DTTD levels are higher. Thus, Pseudo-H6 is supported, confirming that DTTD enhances the relationship between DL and PDC.
To further illustrate the moderating effects, we used PROCESS software to generate interaction plots. Figure 5 show that as DII increases, the slope of DL against PDC becomes steeper. This indicates that higher levels of DII enhance the positive relationship between DL and PDC, reinforcing the significance of Hypothesis 5.
Fig. 5.
Moderating effect of digital infrastructure investment.
Figure 6 demonstrates that when DTTD increases, the slope of DL against PDC also becomes steeper. This suggests that higher levels of DTTD strengthen the positive effect of DL on PDC, confirming Hypothesis 6. These results further validate the moderating roles of DII and DTTD in amplifying the relationship between DL and PDC.
Fig. 6.
Moderating effect of digital talent training and development.
Robustness test
Furthermore, this study employs SEM method to check the robustness of the model. The data was imported into SmartPLS 4 software, and the structural equation model was estimated, as illustrated in Fig. 7. The results in Fig. 7 show that the path coefficients of DL-PDC-FSG are 0.423, 0.504, respectively and both p < 0.001. The moderating effect of DII is significant and positive (coefficient 0.222, p < 0.01), while the moderating effect of DTTD is significant and positive (coefficient 0.098, p < 0.05). These findings indicate the robustness of the results.
Fig. 7.
Robustness test.
Conclusion and discussion
Conclusion
Based on the knowledge-based perspective, this study explores the impact mechanism of digital leadership on firm sustainable growth and answers the research questions posed. The results indicate that digital leadership has a positive impact on the firm sustainable growth; Platform digitization capability plays a mediating role in it; Digital infrastructure investment and digital talent training and development play significant moderating roles. Our data analysis results support the research hypothesis, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10.
Summary of research questions and hypotheses.
| Research questions | Hypotheses | Models | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| RQ1: What is impact of digital leadership on firm sustainable growth? | H1: Digital leadership contributes positively to firm sustainable growth | M1 | H1 Supported |
| RQ2: What mediating mechanisms explain this relationship? |
H2: Digital leadership facilitates platform digitization capability; H3: Platform digitization capability exerts a positive influence on firm sustainable growth; H4: Platform digitization capability mediates the relationship between digital leadership and firm sustainable growth |
M5,M3,M1-M5 | H2, H3, H4 Supported |
| RQ3: What moderating mechanisms influence this relationship? |
H5: Digital infrastructure investment exerts a positive moderating effect on the relationship between digital leadership and platform digitization capability; H6: Digital talent training and development positively moderates the relationship between digital leadership and platform digitization capability. |
M7,M9 | H5,H6 Supported |
Theoretical implications
The era of digital disruption presents unprecedented challenges and opportunities for organizations, requiring them not to only stay ahead technologically but also to make fundamental shifts in leadership, digital capabilities and sustainable growth72. This paper builds on relevant research and data analysis to test key hypotheses related to these challenges and transformations. The main contributions are as follows:
First, this study creatively constructs variable measures for digital talent training and development, providing a valuable reference for future research. Given the limited existing research on measuring digital talent training and development, this paper integrates insights from established theories and corporate research. Drawing on the works of Varadaraj and Varadaraj and Al Wadi64, Esteban-Lloret etal67,69, this study defines digital training and development across three key dimensions: training design, on-the-job training, and training delivery styles.
Secondly, drawing on the knowledge-based view, this study reveals the internal mechanism through which digital leadership influences sustainable growth. While extensive research has examined DL from various perspectives such as digital culture32, artificial intelligence73, and green organizational identity73, the role of the platform digital capabilities remains largely overlooked. In the era of digital disruption, platform digital capabilities are critical to the sustainable growth of enterprises, yet their impact remains underexplored. To bridge this research gap, this study constructs a knowledge- based theoretical framework linking digital leadership, platform digitization capability and sustainable growth. Compared with perspectives such as organizational identity and digital culture, this study starts with knowledge flow and opens up the internal “black box” of how digital leadership affects firm sustainable growth. This is an attempt to introduce the knowledge-based perspective into the field of digital leadership and sustainability, which will lay a theoretical foundation for future research.
Finally, this study examines the moderating effect of digital infrastructure investment and digital talent training and development in shaping the relationship between digital leadership and platform digitization capability. The findings identify key enabling conditions under which digital leadership enhances platform digitization capability. Specifically, digital leadership drives sustainable business development through multiple pathways, including strengthening information technology infrastructure and data integration, enhancing technological adoption, facilitate knowledge sharing and knowledge absorption, and building social networks. On this basis, this study examines the enhanced impact of two factors, digital leadership and platform digitization capability, and further investigates the mediating role of platform digitization capability in the relationship between digital leadership and sustainable growth.
Management implications
This study offers two key management insights for digital disruption and uncertain environments:
Firstly, the findings show the importance of digital leadership in driving firm sustainable growth. In the era of digital disruption, enterprises should pay attention to simultaneously improving all five dimensions of digital leadership, namely digital communication and coordination, digital motivation and change management, building and sustaining digital teams, digital technological expertise and fostering digital trust. Technological enterprises can achieve sustainable growth by enhancing these capabilities.
Secondly, platform digital capability plays a crucial role in promoting sustainable growth. In the era of digital disruption, executives must actively utilize all available resources to support the digital development of their platforms. Specific measures include focusing on deep data mining, analysis, and application capabilities, enhancing the digital technology and data processing capabilities of platform employees, and increasing investment in digital infrastructure. These measures will facilitate the digital transformation of enterprises in terms of products, processes, and profit strategies, ultimately supporting long-term sustainable growth.
Thirdly, digital infrastructure investment and digital talent training and development serve as moderating factors in the relationship between digital leadership and platform digitization capability. This suggests that the improving digital infrastructure and fostering the development of digital professionals collectively enhance the platform’s overall performance, especially in terms of digital technology capabilities and competitiveness. Consequently, as organizations continue to prioritize digital leadership, investment in digital infrastructure and digital talent development will emerge as key drivers in strengthening platform capabilities, making them essential components of future digital strategies.
Limitation
In the process of exploring the correlation between digital leadership, platform digitization capability and sustainable growth, this paper is inevitably limited by the researcher’s own cognitive boundaries and depth of understanding, leading several research limitations.
Firstly, in terms of basic theoretical support, this study explored the impact of digital leadership on firm sustainable growth solely from the perspective of knowledge-based view. As a result, it lacks a comprehensive framework that integrates multiple theories. Subsequent research could adopt multiple theoretical perspectives, such as organizational identity and organizational culture, to develop more in-depth models, thus obtain more comprehensive and persuasive conclusions.
Secondly, in terms of methodological support, this study used cross-sectional data and empirical research methods to test the research hypotheses, therefore lacks validation based on panel data or big data approaches. In addition, all studies based on questionnaire data inevitably have some biases in variable measurement. Future research could collect data from listed companies or use data mining method to obtain large-scale datasets to test the hypotheses, thereby providing broader support for the research model in this study.
Finally, this study is limited by its contextual focus as it is conducted within the Chinese context. China is a developing country, yet it has a highly advanced digital infrastructure and digital industry ecosystem, and a large-scale pipeline for cultivating grassroots digital talents. These factors indicate that China represents a unique context distinct from many other global markets. Therefore, our conclusion may be most applicable to countries and regions with similar digital development conditions. Future research can be extended to other markets and economies to obtain more universal research conclusions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their efforts to help us to improve this paper.
Author contributions
P.L. and Y.X. led study conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, and initial drafting; Y.X. also secured funding and supervised the project. J.Y. contributed to conceptualization and data curation, acted as corresponding author. A. Z., L.A.A., Y.G., and J.Y. designed visualizations and explained the results; Y.X. and J.Y. managed ethics and informed consent. All authors contributed to writing original draft and reviewed the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing [Grant Number CSTB2022NSCQ-MSX0502].
Data availability
The datasets used of this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Zeike, S., Bradbury, K., Lindert, L. & Pfaff, H. Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.16, 2628 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Troise, C., Corvello, V., Ghobadian, A. & O’Regan, N. How can SMEs successfully navigate VUCA environment: The role of agility in the digital transformation era. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change.174, 121227 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 3.Petry, T. Digital leadership. In Knowledge Management in Digital Change: New Findings and Practical Cases 209–218 (2018).
- 4.Chen, L. & Zhao, X. The impact of digital leadership on safety performance - A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon.10.1080/10803548.2024.2397873 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Nadkarni, S. & Prügl, R. Digital transformation: A review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Manage. Rev. Q.71, 233–341. 10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E. & Zampieri, R. The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Front. Psychol.10, 1938 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hu, L., Chang, T.-W., Lee, Y.-S., Yen, S.-J. & Ting, C.-W. How does sustainable leadership affect environmental innovation strategy adoption? The mediating role of environmental identity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.20, 894 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chan, R. Y., He, H., Chan, H. K. & Wang, W. Y. Environmental orientation and corporate performance: The mediation mechanism of green supply chain management and moderating effect of competitive intensity. Ind. Mark. Manag.41, 621–630 (2012). [Google Scholar]
- 9.Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. J. Manag.45, 1057–1086 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zada, M., Zada, S., Dhar, B. K., Ping, C. & Sarkar, S. Digital leadership and sustainable development: Enhancing firm sustainability through green innovation and top management innovativeness. Sustain. Dev.10.1002/sd.3488 (2025). [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zarifis, A. Leadership in Fintech Builds Trust and Reduces Vulnerability More When Combined with Leadership in Sustainability. (2024).
- 12.Khan, M. K., Hussain, P., Hussain, M. J. & Michael, K. Innovation at the nexus of technology and sustainability: CEO leadership and digital transformation in China. Sustain. Futures.9, 100494 (2025). [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ziadlou, D. Strategies during digital transformation to make progress in achievement of sustainable development by 2030. Leadersh. Health Serv.34, 375–391 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.d. Waal, A. & Heijtel, I. Searching for effective change interventions for the transformation into a high performance organization. Manag. Res. Rev.39, 1080–1104 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ismail, A. H., Dora, T. & Prasatia, Y. M. F.E. Leading the Digital Transformation: Evidence from Indonesia. (2023).
- 16.Grishchenko, N. Spatial-temporal evolution of digital skills in the EU countries. Telemat. Inform.94, 102185–102185 (2024). [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kane, G. C., Phillips, A. N., Copulsky, J. & Andrus, G. How digital leadership is (n’t) different. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.60, 34–39 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 18.Peng, B. Digital leadership: State governance in the era of digital technology. Cult. Sci.5, 210–225 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sasmoko, S., Mihardjo, L., Alamsjah, F. & Elidjen, E. Dynamic capability: The effect of digital leadership on fostering innovation capability based on market orientation. Manage. Sci. Lett.9, 1633–1644 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 20.Avolio, B. J. & Kahai, S. S. Adding the “E” to E-leadership:: How it may impact your leadership. Organ. Dyn.31, 325–338 (2003). [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kahai, S., Avolio, B. J. & Sosik, J. J. E-leadership. The Wiley Blackwell Handb. Psychol. internet work, 285–314 (2017).
- 22.Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. & Dodge, G. E. E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Leadersh. Q.11, 615–668 (2000). [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wu, L., Sun, L., Chang, Q., Zhang, D. & Qi, P. How do digitalization capabilities enable open innovation in manufacturing enterprises? A multiple case study based on resource integration perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.184, 122019 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 24.Fadhly, A. A., Sabrena, N. N., Zulkefli, M. H., Izuan, M. M. & Heri, Y. Enhancing academic performance: investigating the nexus between digital leadership and the role of digital culture. Bottom Line. 37, 253–276 (2024). [Google Scholar]
- 25.Carlos, M. A. Digital Leadership and Transformation in Contemporary Times. Int. J. Digit. Strategy Gov. Bus. Transformation (IJDSGBT). 13, 1–20 (2024). [Google Scholar]
- 26.Curado, C. The knowledge based-view of the firm: from theoretical origins to future implications. (2006).
- 27.Nickerson, J. A. & Zenger, T. R. A knowledge-based theory of the firm—The problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci.15, 617–632 (2004). [Google Scholar]
- 28.Butt, M. A. et al. Individual knowledge management engagement, knowledge-worker productivity, and innovation performance in knowledge-based organizations: the implications for knowledge processes and knowledge-based systems. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory. 25, 336–356 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wong, D. M. In 2010 International Symposium on Information Technology. 1444–1449 (IEEE).
- 30.de Araujo, L. M., Priadana, S., Paramarta, V. & Sunarsi, D. Digital leadership in business organizations. Int. J. Educ. Adm. Manag. Leadership, 45–56 (2021).
- 31.Rubio, S. J. & Aznar, J. Sustainable Growth and Environemtnal Policies (Nota di Lavoro, 2000).
- 32.Shin, J., Mollah, M. A. & Choi, J. Sustainability and organizational performance in South Korea: The effect of digital leadership on digital culture and employees’ digital capabilities. Sustainability15, 2027 (2023). [Google Scholar]
- 33.Mollah, M. A. et al. Nexus among digital leadership, digital transformation, and digital innovation for sustainable financial performance: Revealing the influence of environmental dynamism. Sustainability16, 8023 (2024). [Google Scholar]
- 34.Niu, S., Park, B. I. & Jung, J. S. The effects of digital leadership and ESG management on organizational innovation and sustainability. Sustainability14, 15639 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 35.Sarfraz, M., Ivascu, L., Abdullah, M. I., Ozturk, I. & Tariq, J. Exploring a pathway to sustainable performance in manufacturing firms: The interplay between innovation capabilities, green process, product innovations and digital leadership. Sustainability14, 5945 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 36.Jose, B., Alvaro, A., Ana, C. & Jose, E. Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Inf. Manag.10.1016/j.im.2022.103590 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 37.Albannai, N. A., Raziq, M. M., Malik, M., Scott-Kennel, J. & Igoe, J. Unraveling the role of digital leadership in developing digital dynamic capabilities for the digital transformation of firms. Benchmarking Int. J.10.1108/BIJ-10-2023-0756 (2024). [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kawiana, I. G. P. Digital leadership: Building adaptive organizations in the digital age. Jurnal Multidisiplin Sahombu3, 170–179 (2023). [Google Scholar]
- 39.Westerman, G., Tannou, M., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P. & McAfee, A. The digital advantage: How digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. MITSloan Manage. Capgemini Consulting MA2, 2–23 (2012). [Google Scholar]
- 40.Ardi, A., Bernarto, I., Berlianto, M. & Nanda, K. Empowering knowledge-based interaction in digital startup. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci.6, 1273–1286 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 41.Agote, L., Aramburu, N. & Lines, R. Authentic leadership perception, trust in the leader, and followers’ emotions in organizational change processes. J. Appl. Behav. Sci.52, 35–63 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 42.Annarelli, A., Battistella, C., Nonino, F., Parida, V. & Pessot, E. Literature review on digitalization capabilities: Co-citation analysis of antecedents, conceptualization and consequences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change166, 120635 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 43.Zhuge, K., Lin, W., Yuan, Y., He, H. & Zhang, Y. Does digital capability promote sustainable development of new ventures? The dual impact of green knowledge creation and green pressure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health20, 2274 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Mikalef, P. & Pateli, A. Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res.70, 1–16 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 45.Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O. & Parker, G. G. Vol. 29, 381–400 (Informs, 2018).
- 46.Helfat, C. E. & Raubitschek, R. S. Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Res. Policy47, 1391–1399 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 47.Teece, D. J. Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Res. Policy47, 1367–1387 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 48.Lin, F.-J. & Lin, Y.-H. The effect of network relationship on the performance of SMEs. J. Bus. Res.69, 1780–1784 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 49.Cenamor, J., Parida, V. & Wincent, J. How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity. J. Bus. Res.100, 196–206 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 50.Karimi, J. & Walter, Z. Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: The case of the newspaper industry. Long Range Plann.49, 342–360 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 51.McIntyre, D. P. & Srinivasan, A. Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strateg. Manag. J.38, 141–160 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 52.Benitez, J., Arenas, A., Castillo, A. & Esteves, J. Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Inf. Manag.59, 103590 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 53.Bhutani, S. & Paliwal, Y. Digitalization: A step towards sustainable development. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev.8, 11–24 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 54.Queiroz, M., Tallon, P., Coltman, T. & Sharma, R. Digital infrastructure, business unit competitiveness, and firm performance growth: The moderating effects of business unit IT autonomy. (2020).
- 55.Yamin, T. & Murwaningsari, E. Exploring the interplay between digital technology, transformational leadership and agility for enhancing organisational performance. Bus. Ethics Leadersh.7, 73–88 (2023). [Google Scholar]
- 56.Muniroh, M., Hamidah, H. & Abdullah, T. Managerial implications on the relation of digital leadership, digital culture, organizational learning, and innovation of the employee performance (case study of PT. Telkom digital and next business department). Manage. Entrepreneurship: Trends Dev.1, 58–75 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 57.Siyi, C., Yu, Q. & Al-Samawi, A. Effects of digital education on human resource development. Hum. Syst. Manage.42, 691–706 (2023). [Google Scholar]
- 58.Spitzer, B., Morel, V., Buvat, J. & Kanakadandi, S. In ICERI2015 Proceedings. 3488–3499 (IATED).
- 59.El Sawy, O. A., Malhotra, A., Park, Y. & Pavlou, P. A. Research commentary—Seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: It takes three to tango. Inf. Syst. Res.21, 835–848 (2010). [Google Scholar]
- 60.Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S. & Baker, B. E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. Leadersh. Q.25, 105–131 (2014). [Google Scholar]
- 61.Roman, A. V. et al. Defining e-leadership as competence in ICT‐mediated communications: An exploratory assessment. Public Adm. Rev.79, 853–866 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 62.Cancino, C. A., Paz, A. I. L., Ramaprasad, A. & Syn, T. Technological innovation for sustainable growth: An ontological perspective. J. Clean. Prod.179, 31–41 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 63.Gideon, N., Chuks, O. & Korku, T. G. Digital infrastructure and employment in services: Evidence from Sub-Saharan African countries. Telecommun. Policy45, 102153- (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 64.Varadaraj, A. & Al Wadi, B. M. A study on contribution of digital human resource management towards organizational performance. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Bus. Adm.7, 43–51 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 65.Strohmeier, S. Digital human resource management: A conceptual clarification. German J. Hum. Resource Management: Z. für Personalforschung. 34, 345–365 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 66.Jie, Z. & Zhisheng, C. Exploring human resource management digital transformation in the digital age. J. Knowl. Econ.15, 1482–1498 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Esteban-Lloret, N. N., Aragón-Sánchez, A. & Carrasco-Hernández, A. Determinants of employee training: Impact on organizational legitimacy and organizational performance. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.29, 1208–1229 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 68.Boadu, F., Xie, Y., Du, Y. F. & Dwomo-Fokuo, E. MNEs subsidiary training and development and firm innovative performance: The moderating effects of tacit and explicit knowledge received from headquarters. Sustainability10, 4208 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 69.Khan, R. A. G., Khan, F. A. & Khan, M. A. Impact of training and development on organizational performance. Glob. J. Manag. Bus. Res.11, 63–68 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 70.Tang, H., Xie, Y., Liu, Y. & Boadu, F. Distributed innovation, knowledge re-orchestration, and digital product innovation performance: The moderated mediation roles of intellectual property protection and knowledge exchange activities. J. Knowl. Manage.27, 2686–2707 (2023). [Google Scholar]
- 71.Xie, Y., Boadu, F. & Tang, H. Does internationalization encourage state-owned enterprises to utilize subsidies to innovate? Evidence from high-tech and automobile manufacturing industries of Chinese listed companies. Chin. Manage. Stud.16, 803–829 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 72.Jakubik, M. & Berazhny, I. Managing the global economy. In Proceedings of the Management International Conference, Monastier di Treviso, Italy, 24–27 May, (University of Primorska Press, 2017).
- 73.Munir, S., Mahmood, G., Abdullah, F. & Noreen, A. Exploring the impact of digital leadership on sustainable performance with mediating role of artificial intelligence. J. Account. Finance Emerg. Econ.9, 213–226 (2023). [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used of this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.