See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352115508

Digitalization and Work Behaviour: A Paradigm Shift

Chapter · January 2021

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7231-3.ch008

CITATION READS

1 1,893

1 author:

Navreet Kaur
Chitkara University
4 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Navreet Kaur on 04 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

102

Chapter 8
Digitalization and
Work Behaviour:
A Paradigm Shift

Navreet Kaur
Chitkara Business School, Chitkara University, India

ABSTRACT
The digital economy has brought in its wake numerous issues of a technological kind.
It has affected every element within the organization (e.g., structure, informal work
relationships, culture, and most importantly, managerial leadership). Because of
new technologies emerging every day, the process of change has become persistent,
and a paradigm shift has been witnessed in the management of workplace behaviour.
The chapter has three sections. Concepts underlying organizational behaviour and
the meaning of digitalization are discussed in the first section; the second section
is an analysis of the changing leadership framework and its role in digital business
transformation, and the third section highlights the positive and negative effects of a
digital workplace on employee behaviour. The discussion concludes with comments
on the significance of a digital workplace in COVID-19 era. The primary objective of
this chapter is to identify and organize the accumulated knowledge on the implications
of digital transformation for organizational behaviour and provide critical insights.

INTRODUCTION

Information and communication technology has had a massive impact on business

and work life as a whole. With the onset of organizational digitalization, spread of
the internet and a change in the economic superstructure, a paradigm shift has been

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7231-3.ch008

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

witnessed in workplace behaviour and its management. The primary objective of

this review article is to identify and organize the accumulated knowledge on the
implications of digital transformation for organizational behaviour and provide
critical insights thereof. The chapter comprises of 3 sections: Concepts underlying
organizational behaviour and the meaning of digitalization are discussed in the first
section; the second section is an analysis of the changing leadership framework and
its role in digital business transformation; and the third section highlights the positive
and negative effects of a digital workplace on employee behaviour. The discussion
concludes with comments on the significance of a digital workplace in Covid-19 era.

THE MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR IN

THE CONTEXT OF A DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

The effects of digitalization on all aspects of business have been quite widespread.
However, a study of the impact of such a change on organizational work life remained
neglected for quite some time (Foerster-Metz et al., 2018). The two salient features
of the third wave economy are a boom in the service sector and a complex, ever
changing IT mainframe. A change in the nature of work, the workplace and the
worker is witnessed with the evolution of the industrial economy into a knowledge-
based one. Hojeghan & Esfangareh (2011, p. 309) state that this digital economy
“is based on electronic goods and services produced by an electronic business and
traded through electronic commerce.”
Of the various macro and micro variables that affect behaviour within organizations,
an individual himself is the most significant entity. As per the OB model (Newstrom
& Davis, 1997), there are three basic elements that define an organization and are
in a reciprocal relationship with each other viz. structure, technology, and informal
social groups. The organization is not located in a vacuum; there is a socio-economic-
political-cultural environment around it which acts and interacts with it (Richards,
2018). The change in the economic structure and order very conspicuously depicts
the interdependences between the three determinants mentioned. The external factors
have influenced the internal environment of the enterprise: its goals, vision and
mission. The technological revolution apart from changing the reporting lines and
the direction of businesses has impacted work environments and workflows and also
individual and group behaviour. The induction of tech-savvy and digitally sound Gen
Y has brought with it a distinct value system and new attitudes (DuBrin, 2002). In
sum, technology has affected both the composition of the work force and its psyche.
The onslaught of technologies like advanced algorithms, robotics, and analytics
is a megatrend that demands companies to be proactive in their approach. It is

103
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

important here to understand the minute differences in terms associated with a

software-controlled economy. The 2 stages preceding digital transformation are:

a. Digitization

According to Ernst & Young (2011), “Digitization means the conversion of analogue
information to digital (computer-readable) information.” The analogue information
is encoded into zeroes and ones so that computers can store, process, and transmit
such information (Bloomberg, 2018).The manufacturing of a transistor and
microprocessor in the 20th century paved the way for the conversion of traditional
media such as video, sound or picture into the binary language of bits and bytes.
Converting handwritten or typewritten text into digital form is also an example of
digitization. With an increase in the amount and complexity of digital information,
the global storage capacity has also increased manifolds.

b. Digitalization

The application of IT or digital technologies by enterprises to attain efficiency

in business processes (Li et al., 2016) such as communication (Ramaswamy &
Ozcan, 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010), distribution (Leviäkangas, 2016), or business
relationship management (Baraldi & Nadin, 2006), achieve data transparency and
thus, enhance customer experiences is referred to as digitalization (Pagani & Pardo,
2017). For instance, creating mobile communication channels for better customer
relationship management (Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2016). Automation and the use of
computer-controlled equipment results in a change in job descriptions. The global
consulting firm, Simon-Kucher & Partners reports that a company on operating an
online platform may already be 80 percent digitalized thus requiring only 20% to
create customer value. However, implementing the technology behind such an online
platform is not digitalization; it is shifting the business process to such a platform.
‘Digital transformation’ is not possible without digitization and digitalization.
It is an organization-wide response to ever evolving digital technologies involving a
transformational change in the management of front line areas such as information
technology, operations, marketing, supply chain, and strategy formulation, leading
to development of new business models (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2014; Kane et al., 2015;
Pagani & Pardo, 2017). Digital transformation is inherently linked to innovative
changes in the business model as a result of implementation of digital technologies
(Sebastian et al., 2017) which is beset with challenges since it shakes the status quo
by making the core business model obsolete (Teece, 2010). However, as the new
business logic gets internalized in the company’s culture, it leads to value creation
(e.g., Pagani & Pardo, 2017; Zott & Amit, 2008).

104
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

The drivers of digital transformation viz. digital technology, digital competition,

and digital customer behaviour reflect the influence of the external environment on
the organization. Web 2.0, big data, cloud computing, crypto currencies, artificial
intelligence, and block chain have resulted in virtual businesses (Chen et al., 2012;
Iansiti & Lakhani, 2014; Ng & Wakenshaw, 2017) and in firms becoming increasingly
capital intensive. The coming in of new technologies has had far reaching effects on
the retail sector in particular. Digital information rich firms such as Apple, Microsoft,
Amazon, Facebook and Chinese companies like Alibaba have an edge over others in
terms of valuation. Furthermore, the digital revolution has brought about a change
in the consumer mindset and behaviour. Consumer focus has shifted to the online
market place affecting both online and offline sales (Kannan & Li, 2017).This is
an era of the ‘knowledge customer’ who is more connected and aware of what the
market offers (e.g., Lamberton & Stephen, 2016; Verhoef et al., 2017) by virtue of
new social media tools and new AI-based technologies. Firms need to appropriately
adapt to these changes.
Research shows that there are four interlinked ‘strategic imperatives of digital
transformation’ (Verhoef et al., 2019) viz. required digital resources, required
organizational structure, digital growth strategies, and required metrics. Some of
these prerequisites for a successful technological transformation are in the purview
of this paper. The utilization of digital resources, both tangible and intangible, lies in
the hands of the employees. Barney’s (1991) resource-based view about factors that
make the workforce a source of competitive advantage is particularly relevant here.
The intellectual capital of a firm and knowledge management through maintaining of
extensive databases, are of prime importance today. Delivering value to the customer
is at the heart of a digital transformation and efficient storage of data helps identify
trends in consumer behaviour.
Digital resources include digital assets, digital agility, digital networking capacity,
and big data analytics capability. Digital assets (both hardware and software) are
the basis for transforming a business digitally. For instance, big data containing
customer metrics can be analyzed by employees possessing analytical skills and digital
capabilities resulting in customization of services (e.g., Verhoef et al., 2016).‘Digital
agility’ defined as the ability of cashing upon market opportunities well in time, a
flexibility in terms of modifying existing digital assets and discarding skills that have
become obsolete (Eggers & Park, 2018; Lavie, 2006) is a crucial digital capability
in the 21st century workplace. A quick response to market changes in a dynamic
and unpredictable environment (Lee et al., 2015; Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011; Tallon
& Pinsonneault, 2011) might involve interchanging of organizational roles and
responding to customer needs amidst intensified competition due to the advent of
new technology (Chakravarty et al., 2013). Social capital building through digital
networking capability is another much needed skill. Competitive advantage depends

105
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

upon the strength of partners and ecosystems that companies choose to collaborate
with (Accenture, 2017).A network comprising of heterogeneous stakeholders like
customers and suppliers results in value creation and growth of platforms (McIntyre
& Srinivasan, 2017; Thomas et al., 2014).
Gathering of digital data and possessing of digital technologies by organizations
has no utility in the absence of big data analytics capability which includes data
management, data visualization and business skills (Verhoef et al., 2016). Formulation
of strategies depends on quick decision making which further relies on reliable
data (Accenture, 2018). To create value from big data, it is imperative to have a
workforce that has strong digital and analytical skills and is continuously trained
for skill updation (e.g., Kübler et al., 2017). Digital transformation is unlikely
without restructuring marked by separate business units, agile organizational
forms and digital functional areas (Eggers & Park, 2018). The disconnection of
headquarters from autonomous business units allows room for experimentation and
idea generation; agile organizational forms marked by flexibility, decentralization,
effective communication and an atmosphere of innovation and creativity are the
result of de-layering of the tall bureaucratic structure. The IT function apart from
facilitating data flows must also play a supportive role in digital value creation
via fast and explorative responses (Leonhardt et al., 2017) and by the data analyst
assuming the role of a marketing researcher.
Undertaking digitalization projects like automating processes or up-skilling
workers in using digital devices do not amount to digital transformation. Bloomberg
(2018, para. 22) calls it a “customer-driven strategic business transformation’
that requires cross-cutting organizational change as well as the implementation
of digital technologies”. To sum up, digitization and digitalization are essentially
about technology, but digital transformation is about the customer and requires the
organization to make a change in its core competency.

E-LEADERSHIP

The decisive influence of the leader in the evolution of a digitally run enterprise
cannot be negated. In today’s turbulent business environment marked by volatility,
complexity and discontinuous, often disruptive changes, the traditional model of
leadership has become obsolete in many ways (Horner-Long & Schoenberg, 2002).
The cardinal personality characteristics of a leader today are agile thinking, tolerance
for ambiguity, and digital skills which translate into his capacity to lead employees
through fast paced changes – mainly technological in nature – and to make them
change ready. Larjovuori et al. (2016) defined digital leadership as “the leaders’
ability to create a clear and meaningful vision for the digitalization process and the

106
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

capability to execute strategies to actualize it.” (p. 1144). VOPA plus model for
digital leadership designed by Buhse (2014) delineates four aspects that are central
to the leader gaining trust of the employees viz. Networking, Openness, Agility,
and Participation.
New digital tools have made the dissemination and access of information faster and
easier thus bestowing employees with both expert and informational power (French
& Raven, 1959) which has made them efficient and professionally independent.
This autonomy has in turn enhanced their sense of responsibility and their ability
to actively participate in strategic decision making. (Barley, 2015; Schwarzmüller
et al., 2018).There is a change in power relationships and organizations have
become ‘starfish like’ (Brafman & Beckstrom, 2007) with a wider span of control.
The leader in such a situation is mainly a facilitator and is expected to manifest an
inclusive style of leading and not a control-seeking one (e.g., Schwarzmüller et al.,
2018). An interesting paradox here is that autonomy sometimes leads to isolation,
worker alienation, poor accountability and weak social bonding (Lynn Pulley &
Sessa, 2001; Van Wart et al. 2017; Roman et al. 2018) particularly in employees
who find empowerment difficult to handle. Hence, leaders need to be mentors
who enable followers to face the challenges that accompany increased autonomy
(Schwarzmüller et al., 2018).
A learning environment must be created wherein the leader without losing sight
of the vision and mission of the organization instils in the workforce a collective
ambition (Lynn Pulley & Sessa, 2001). E-leadership as opposed to traditional face-
to-face leadership is marked by the ability to communicate via ICTs viz. Information
and Communication Technologies which involves choosing the right digital tool
and sending unambiguous messages in both synchronous and asynchronous modes
(Roman et al. 2018, p. 5). Studies by Horner-Long & Schoenberg (2002) and
Schwarzmüller et al. (2018) show that virtual communication is the key to effective
leadership and emotional intelligence needs to be supplemented by entrepreneurial
and risk-taking competencies along with decisiveness, a tolerance for ambiguity,
and problem-solving abilities. ‘High speed decision making’ and the accompanying
innovative solutions can only be possible if leaders have the capability to process
Big Data. This points at the need to collaborate with IT managers, for data analysis
and for deriving meaningful conclusions (Harris & Mehrotra, 2014; Vidgen et al.,
2017). In this digital age, an exchange of ideas between different stakeholders results
in tangible benefits in the form of innovation and e-leaders need to make optimal
use of networking opportunities (Avolio et al., 2014). Another visible paradigm
shift is the need for the leader to blend two different profiles in his persona viz.
technical-mindedness and people-orientation in order to effectively bring about
a digital transformation (Diamante & London, 2002). A challenge during such a

107
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

process may be the resolution of generational conflicts between the tech-savvy Gen
Y and the sceptical, change resistant, older generation (Coutu, 2000).
A bigger challenge is managing of virtual teams which have been defined as
“interdependent groups of individuals that work across time, space, and organizational
boundaries with communication links that are heavily dependent upon advanced
information technologies” (Hambley et al., 2007, p. 1). These new age work groups
depict a ‘dispersed’ organizational structure and the ‘competency to network’ finds
a special application here. Virtual teamwork due to its very nature of heterogeneity
brings together varied perspectives and enables easy accessibility of global talent
(Jawadi et al., 2013; Gupta & Pathak, 2018). However, this geographical distance
has a flip side to it in terms of the leader being devoid of a personal connect with
the team members which results in difficulties in interpersonal relationships. In the
absence of verbal and non verbal cues, the team’s thoughts, feelings, moods and
actions remain largely hidden from observation (Jawadi et al., 2013). Other than
educational, functional, and geographical differences, cultural diversity between team
members may undermine collaboration, thus restricting the leader from inculcating
team spirit and trust (Gupta and Pathak, 2018). To manage a multicultural team
with its share of similarities and differences, a virtual team leader needs to have
good cross-cultural skills (Schwarzmüller et al., 2018). To avoid conflicts, clear
communication norms in terms of regular feedback, unambiguity, recognition and
monitoring of each member’s performance and an early detection of communication
problems, are more important than behavioural norms (Jawadi et al., 2013).
In the start up phase, it is imperative that the entire team is aware of the diverse
skills possessed by each member (Malhotra et al., 2007) in order to clearly distribute
the roles and tasks (Jawadi et al., 2013) and leverage its potential to arrive at innovative
solutions. However, there are neutralizers and substitutes of virtual team leadership
in the form of high performing, self -managing work teams (SMWTs) that can define
their own collective leadership style (Gupta & Pathak, 2018). Pearce et al. (2009) refer
to ‘shared and empowered leadership’ among virtual team members characterized
by an equitable distribution of leadership responsibilities and participative decision
making (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003) which lead to healthy power dynamics (Hoegl
& Muethel, 2016).
From the aforementioned research it is quite evident that away from the traditional
notions of leadership, the role of the c-suite executives has been recasted into that
of a digital change agent or a digital enabler whose task is the development of a
digital strategy by creating and sustaining a digital culture in the organization (Gerth
& Peppard, 2016) with the aid of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). There is an
increased ambidexterity in the role of CEOs and CIOs alike. A continual dialogue
with the internal and external stakeholders by choosing the appropriate social media
platform has transformed CEOs into “Chief Engagement Officers” who actively

108
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

contribute to the engagement of followers and customers (Tsai & Men, 2017).
Such a dialogue as suggested by Grafström & Falkman (2017) is a powerful tool to
overcome organizational crisis and sustain the company image, build an employee
value proposition, position the brand and propagate organizational values.
The competence model gives two dimensions that are crucial for e-leadership:
(1) attitudes, competencies and behaviours required in the digital age e.g., digital
literacy and (2) competencies that help drive digital transformation e.g., strong
leadership skills (Capgemini Consulting, 2015; Westerman et al., 2012). In a study
on upper level managers, Zeike et al. (2019) found a positive correlation between
low digital skills and psychological well-being defined by WHO (2009) as “a state
of well-being in which the individual realises his or her own abilities, can cope
with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able
to make a contribution to his or her community”. It is a blend of “feeling good and
functioning effectively” (Huppert, 2009, p. 137). Digital leadership skills are seen as
an internal job resource of leaders that help them cope with excessive job demands
and hence, are associated with health outcomes. These are essentially personality
characteristics such as self efficacy, optimism, resilience and social skills along
with a sense of meaningfulness in life and a push towards realization of potential
(Faltermaier et al., 2017).
From a macro perspective, an issue critical to e-leadership is that of ethics
within the organization. Brown et al. (2005, p. 120) define ethical leadership as
“the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions
and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers
through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision making.” The
question addressed here is about the reciprocal influence between technology and
organizational structure at the heart of which is the leader. The leader must display
integrity in terms of:

a. Protecting workers’ privacy by using sensitive personal data (such as that

collected by way of electronic surveillance) discreetly (Kidwell & Sprague,
2009). Lack of face-to-face interactions in a virtual communication set-up
may trigger aggressive and unethical behaviours. Hence, leaders must be role
models in terms of implementation of national and international data security
policies (Gheni et al., 2016).
b. Refraining from misuse of technology such as gaining access to confidential
organizational information by breaching cyber security (Jones, 2017) and using
it for the purpose for which it is intended. Transparent and authentic leadership
is required because ethics affects power dynamics, safety perceptions of the
employees, and human resource management.

109
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

DIGITAL WORKPLACE: EFFECTS ON EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOUR

The thoroughly complex information-intensive digital work environment is equally

demanding for the employees. Corbin-Herbison (2019) has reported the effects of
such a workplace on employee engagement, communication, talent acquisition and
revenue generation. Increased employee engagement results from easy accessibility
of documents through a quick search engine, from transparency in regard to business
changes allowing informed decision-making, and a shared social network with
instant messaging and also enabling stronger employee -customer relationships. In
addition, those workers who might feel bored at work get variety and new challenges
due to digital transformation. Some employees may find using new technologies
a source of inspiration which may lead to techno-work engagement. Technology
helps centralize organisational information and processes and facilitates in building
a strong employee value proposition thus attracting talent. Customized software
makes onboarding of new hires quicker and training easier. Digitalization has also
led to positive changes in terms of making the work less physically or emotionally
demanding by, for example, automating the repetitive, mundane, and physically
challenging work processes. Resources are, thus, optimally utilized because of
system efficiency resulting in increased revenue. Also, digital technologies such as
advanced algorithms, robotics, and analytics amongst others are transforming the
dynamics of the workforce and aiding in human resource management. The digital
revolution has made companies think of re-designing and restructuring themselves.
However, technology-induced life has a downside to it. The loss of traditional
face-to-face communication makes some employees isolated and unenthusiastic;
heavy dependency on technology and system glitches lead to stress; and upgradation
of software apart from being costly leads to employee resistance towards constant
updation of their skills which further induces a fear of job loss. Also, a centralized
information management system is a threat to data security and susceptible to cyber
attacks.
Pirkkalainen and Salo (2016) after an extensive review of research concluded that
there are four interrelated ‘dark side’ technology-related phenomena with negative
consequences: technostress, IT ‘addiction’, IT anxiety, and information overload.
These affect organizational outcomes and have a negative impact on attitudes,
thoughts, and behaviours of the employees which further leads to ill-health and a
decline in quality of life. Studies report that the increased use of information and
communication technologies (ICTs) at work and the threat or fear of having to use
them in the future have resulted in ‘technostress’. It is caused by the constant need to
adapt to fast evolving technologies, and the associated physical, social, and cognitive
demands. The term ‘technostress’ was coined by Craig Brod in the early eighties.
He defined it as “a modern disease of adaptation caused by an inability to cope with

110
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

new computer technologies in a healthy manner”. Cenfetelli and Schwarz (2011)

define it as an individual state in which “too much information is provided beyond
the user’s needs resulting in perceptions of being overwhelmed”. Technostress
marked by feelings of anxiety, fatigue, and scepticism can also take the form of
‘techno-addiction’ – the compulsive and excessive use of technologies showing
symptoms characteristic of substance addictions, a psychological state of maladaptive
dependency on IT use that is manifested through IT-seeking obsessive-compulsive
behaviours that take place at the expense of other important activities (Xu et al.
2012). The term ‘IT or computer anxiety’ was coined in the sixties to describe the
trauma of employees undergoing computerisation in their company. In its extreme
form it can become ‘technophobia’ marked by a high resistance to using technology.
Deloitte research (Conner et al., 2018) suggests an increased ‘cognitive overload’
on the employee due to ‘information overload’. Constant streams of information
that remains unprocessed leads to ‘cognitive scarcity’ which results in poor decision
making. Lack of perceptual selectivity results in heaps of unfiltered information, a
lack of focus and a ‘choice overload’ hindering individuals from choosing the right
alternative while decision making. The low priority e mails are received in a row
and a lot of time is lost in reading them. There is a depletion of two of the scarcest
resources viz. time and attention. Hence, the issue of employee technology-related
well-being in the context of organizational digitalization remains of paramount
importance to researchers and practitioners alike.
According to Marsh (2019), the above mentioned negative effects can be
minimised in two ways:

a. Redesigning and Enriching a Digital Workplace

b. Training the employees

Deloitte research (Conner et al., 2018) in the context of designing work

environments for digital health talks about ‘positive technology’. For a positive
transformative impact of digital and mobile technologies, it is important to design
workplaces in a manner that healthy technology habits are imbibed by the employees.
Flexitime, for instance, is devoid of rest pauses and ironically leads to overwork
rather than giving autonomy. Among some of the other negative effects of digital
gadgets is wakefulness because of exposure to blue screen light emitted by mobile
devices which reduce melatonin required for good sleep. Also physical disconnection
affects social well-being. The bulk of information to be processed in a limited time
leads to FOMO i.e. fear of missing out. Comparisons with others’ social profiles
depicting an overly rosy picture prompt individuals to question the quality of their
lives leading to anxiety and depression.

111
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

The challenge is to maintain a humane workplace through a blend of technology

and physical connectedness. Digital addiction can be overcome by monitoring
application usage patterns through smart meters. Artificial intelligence can be
made use of to categorise mails making urgent mails easier to access. The Chatbot
software containing a smart filter that blocks social media feed from refreshing and
preventing distraction can be installed. CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) that
sets into motion a positive thinking process through cognitive restructuring can
be carried out by the AI-enabled Chatbot. The individual becomes aware of his
automatic negative thoughts and is able to identify the reasons behind the same.
The ‘nudge strategy’ based on psychological principles encourages productive
flows by helping users decide whether to continue a digital activity. This could be in
the form of ‘reminders’ to break free from the flow of data usage; ‘social proof’ where
employees are made aware of the work rules. Comparisons with other employees
are made on IT usage as well as on number of working hours and a notification is
sent likewise; or a ‘commitment’ to a digital detox. Employees can be alerted by
employers to not attend emails while on vacation or in non-work hours. Nudging,
thus, can be viewed as a human-centred design conducive to productive uses of
technology. Committing to a ‘digital detox’ and striking a work-life balance is an
interesting and effective technique which revolves around exercising self control
in regard to technology usage. It is essentially a weekly schedule designed to make
small changes each day such as unsubscribing from unnecessary emails; unfollowing
unimportant people; cutting down on clutter by uninstalling mobile apps and; not
attending to the phone while at home and, staying off social media on Sundays.
A digital skills gap was observed by Lloyds Bank UK Consumer Digital Index
2020. It says that 53% of the UK workforce does not have the digital skills for work
and only 34% of employees report that their workplace gives them digital skills
support which is critical today for productivity, engagement, wellbeing and other
work-related outcomes. 47% of the workforce does not have the skills to communicate
digitally at work, 33% don’t know how to stay safe when working digitally, 44%
are not competent enough to handle online information and content at work, and
41% are lacking in the ability to handle online transactions. The use of technology
at home may not transfer to the workplace. Apart from investing in digital tools, it
is imperative to train employees to use them optimally and to measure their digital
readiness.
The content of a digital-training program, according to Marsh (2018) should
include:

1. Raising the level of digital literacy of the employees:

112
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

“Digital literacy is the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately

use digital tools and facilities ....” (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006, p. 255). Becoming
digitally literate is a process involving continuous learning and adaptation wherein the
individual goes through three stages: digital competence (in which a range of skills
are gained), digital usage (in which these skills are used in an applied setting), and
finally digital transformation (in which the application of skills leads to innovation
and creativity). Van Deursen, et al. (2012) have reported that employees are losing
nearly 8 percent of productive time due to poor IT resources or inadequate digital
skills. Soule et al. (2016) gave the concept of ‘digital dexterity’ to describe the ability
of the organisation as a whole to move swiftly to exploit new digital opportunities.
Digital dexterity is only possible if employees do not resist technology-related
changes and are willing to retrain themselves.
Marsh (2018) has introduced the Digital Workplace Skills Framework which,
apart from skills also includes approaches and mindsets that need to be fostered
in employees. It is based on the conceptualisation of digital literacy as including
technical, cognitive, and socio-emotional skills. The four overlapping skill areas of
the framework include:

a. Using the digital workplace competently and safely

b. Finding, processing and applying information
c. Creating content and connecting with people
d. Reflecting on and adapting one’s digital practices

The framework is all about training employees to establish (be aware of what is
available and how to use it), safeguard (know about the potential risks in the digital
environment and manage them), optimise (their personal digital working environment
in order to maximise productivity) and, innovate (i.e. leverage digital workplace
tools and resources to arrive at novel ideas, solutions, and ways of working).

2. Blending mindfulness principles with technology usage

Marsh (2017) talks about how technology enhances the mind’s tendency to jump
from one thought to the other, to remain distracted, reactive and in a ‘quick mode’.
This ‘monkey mind’, as mindfulness practitioners call it, needs to be quietened. For
digital devices and apps to serve us we need to adopt the mindfulness approach which
includes qualities of purposeful attention and broad awareness that help mitigate
stress. “Using technology consciously” includes seven techniques (Marsh, 2017) viz.
‘Zoning’ which includes ‘zoning out’ from technology at specific times and places
and intentionally ‘zoning in’ to technology at the appropriate time; ‘focusing’ by
closing down distracting applications; ‘filtering’ out the ‘noise’ by connecting to

113
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

people and content that is important; ‘dialling down’ by muting notifications from
particular applications, for example; ‘pausing’ to restore presence and posture by
logging off, ‘de-cluttering’ by deleting unimportant data, ‘reflecting’ on how one
uses technology and continuously looking for ways to reduce its negative impact.
Thus, mindfulness techniques of technology use pave the way for a digital detox.

CONCLUSION

Apart from its broader social implications and macroeconomic consequences, a

profound re-alignment in the nature of doing business has surfaced due to Covid-19.
A Bitkom study as reported by Roland Berger (2020, April 2), an international
management consultancy headquarted in Munich, reveals that 43 percent of German
companies surveyed predict that the number of employees working from home
will increase in the next five to ten years. The same study shows that 30 percent of
firms already rely on teleworking and 35 percent of the employees seek flexibility,
prefer working from home and would quit their job if not allowed to do so. Home
office does provide freedom, increased employee productivity, reduced turnover,
and lower organizational costs but is, ironically, associated with a greater degree of
personal responsibility and a blurring of the boundaries between professional and
private lives. A study by Kaspersky, a cybersecurity company with headquarters
in Moscow, reported by Financial Express Bureau (2020, May 27) also shows that
the ‘new normal’ has resulted in work and family lives getting merged leading to a
work-life imbalance. With an increase in social distancing and no travel, nearly a third
(31%) of workers reported that they are spending more time working than before as
opposed to 46% who said they spend more time on personal activities. Besides, half
(51%) of employees have started watching more adult content and that too on the
same devices that they use for work-related purposes. This risky behaviour can lead
to malware infections if employees do not pay attention to the websites they visit.
Companies somehow have to keep a check on such deviance by finding a balance
between user convenience, business necessity and security.
Managers and affected employees must, therefore, jointly examine how the
balance between private and professional needs can be maintained. Other than some
concrete benefits like increased employee productivity, reduced turnover, and lower
organizational costs, a major pitfall of flexible work arrangements is the loss of human
connection aggravated due to ‘social distancing’. A social disconnect takes a toll on
idea generation, quick solution of problems, team cohesion, and the expression of
human qualities of empathy and collaboration. Maintaining a meaningful interpersonal
connect despite remote work arrangements is necessary for a positive company
culture and employee experiences – a major challenge for leaders, managers, and

114
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

organizations. Remote companies that have digital workplaces marked by a culture

of close interaction, cooperation, and continuous socializing between organizational
members will be successful in minimising business disruptions.

REFERENCES

Accenture. (2017). Accenture Technology Vision 2017. https://www.accenture.

com/_acnmedia/PDF-45/Accenture-News-Release-Accenture-Technology-Vision-
2017-Forecasts-A-Future-Of-Technology-For-People-By-People.pdf
Accenture. (2018). Accenture Technology Vision 2018. https://www.accenture.
com/_acnmedia/Accenture/next-gen-7/tech-vision-2018/pdf/Accenture-TechVision-
2018-Tech-Trends-Report.pdf
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. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003
Baraldi, E., & Nadin, G. (2006). The challenges in digitalising business relationships:
The construction of an IT infrastructure for a textile-related business network.
Technovation, 26(10), 1111–1126. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.016
Barley, S. R. (2015). Why the internet makes buying a car less loathsome: How
technologies change role relations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(1),
5–35. doi:10.5465/amd.2013.0016
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
Bloomberg. J. (2018, April 29). Digitization, digitalization, and digital
transformation: Confuse them at your peril. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
jasonbloomberg/2018/04/29/digitization-digitalization-and-digital-transformation-
confuse-them-at-your-peril/?sh=4b79bd632f2c
Brafman, O., & Beckstrom, R. A. (2007). The starfish and the spider: The unstoppable
power of leaderless organization. Penguin Books.
Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-
Wesley.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social
learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

115
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

Buhse, W. (2014). Management by Internet: Neue Führungsmodelle für

Unternehmen in Zeiten der digitalen Transformation. Kulmbach: Börsenmedien
AG. doi:10.100740567-014-0039-y
Bureau, F. E. (2020, May 27). Risky behaviour at work: How Covid-19 changed
the way people work. https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/risky-
behaviour-at-work-how-covid-19-changed-the-way-people-work/1971396/
Capgemini Consulting. (2015). Digital Leadership—Führungskräfteentwicklung im
Digitalen Zeitalter. https://www.capgemini.com/consulting-de/wp content/uploads/
sites/32/2017/08/14-10-16_digital_leadership_v11_web_17102016.pdf
Cenfetelli, R. T., & Schwarz, A. (2011). Identifying and testing the inhibitors
of technology usage intentions. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 808–823.
doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0295
Chakravarty, A., Grewal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). Information technology
competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: Enabling and facilitating
roles. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 976–997. doi:10.1287/isre.2013.0500
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics:
From big data to big impact. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 36(4),
1165–1188. doi:10.2307/41703503
Connor, J., Jen, F., Jim, G., & Hogan, S. K. (2018). Positive technology: Designing
work environments for digital well-being. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.
com/us/en/insights/focus/behavioral-economics/negative-impact-technology-
business.html/
Corbin-Herbison, C. (2019, September 13). Pros and cons of digital workplace
– striking a human balance. Interact. https://www.interact-intranet.com/blog/pros-
cons-digital-workplace/
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The Role of Leadership in a
Digitalized World: A Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1938. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.01938 PMID:31507494
Coutu, D. L. (2000). Too old to learn? Harvard Business Review, 78(6), 37–42.
Diamante, T., & London, M. (2002). Expansive leadership in the age of
digital technology. Journal of Management Development, 21(6), 404–416.
doi:10.1108/02621710210430597

116
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective
leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4),
435–457.
DuBrin, A. J. (2002). Fundamentals of organizational behaviour: An applied
perspective (2nd ed.). Pergamon Press Inc.
Eggers, J. P., & Park, K. F. (2018). Incumbent adaptation to technological change:
The past, present, and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent response. The
Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 357–389. doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0051
Ernst & Young LLP. (2011). The digitisation of everything: How organisations
must adapt to changing consumer behaviour. https://www.the-digital-insurer.com/
wp-content/uploads/2014/04/200-EY_Digitisation_of_everything.pdf
Faltermaier, T., Ulich, D., Leplow, B., & von Salisch, M. (2017). Grundriss der
Psychologie (2nd ed.). Kohlhammer Verlag.
Foerster-Metz, U., Marquardt, K., Golowko, N., Kompalla, A., & Hell, C. (2018).
Digital transformation and its implications on organizational behaviour. Journal of
EU Research in Business.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Institute for Social Research.
Gerth, A. B., & Peppard, J. (2016). The dynamics of CIO derailment: How CIOs
come undone and how to avoid it. Business Horizons, 59(1), 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.
bushor.2015.09.001
Gheni, A. Y., Jusoh, Y. Y., Jabar, M. A., Ali, N. M., Abdullah, R. H., Abdullah, S., &
Khalefa, M. S. (2016). The virtual teams: E-leaders challenges. Proceedings of the
2015 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e), Melaka,
Malaysia, August 24-26, 2015, 38–42. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7403483
Grafström, M., & Falkman, L. L. (2017). Everyday narratives: CEO rhetoric on Twitter.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(3), 312–322. doi:10.1108/
JOCM-10-2016-0197
Gupta, S., & Pathak, G. S. (2018). Virtual team experiences in an emerging economy:
A qualitative study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(4), 778–794.
doi:10.1108/JOCM-04-2017-0108

117
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007 b). Virtual team leadership:
The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction
styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
103(1), 1–20. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.004
Harris, J. G., & Mehrotra, V. (2014). Getting value from your data scientists. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 56(1), 15–18.
Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. (2016). Enabling shared leadership in virtual project
teams: A practitioners’ guide. Project Management Journal, 47(1), 7–12. doi:10.1002/
pmj.21564
Hojeghan, S. B., & Esfangareh, A. N. (2011). Digital economy and tourism impacts,
influences and challenges. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 308–316.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.136
Horner-Long, P., & Schoenberg, R. (2002). Does e-business require different
leadership characteristics? An empirical investigation. European Management
Journal, 20(6), 611–619. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00112-3
Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes
and consequences. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 1(2), 137–164.
doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital ubiquity: How connections, sensors,
and data are revolutionizing business. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 90–99.
Jawadi, N., Daassi, M., Favier, M., & Kalika, M. (2013). Relationship building in
virtual teams: A leadership behavioral complexity perspective. Human Systems
Management, 32(3), 199–211. doi:10.3233/HSM-130791
Jones, M. (2017). E-leadership case study and the impact of (un)faithful appropriation
of technology. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Management
Leadership and Governance (ICMLG 2017), Wits Business School, University of
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, March 16-17, 2017, 191–199. http://
toc.proceedings.com/34017webtoc.pdf
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Philips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy,
not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review and
Deloitte University Press, 14, 1–25.
Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. A. (2017). Digital marketing: A framework, review and
research agenda. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 22–45.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.006

118
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

Kidwell, R. E., & Sprague, R. (2009). Electronic surveillance in the global workplace:
Laws, ethics, research, and practice. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2),
194–208. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2009.00228.x
Kübler, R. V., Wieringa, J. E., & Pauwels, K. H. (2017). Machine learning and big
data. In P. Leeflang, J. Wieringa, T. Bijmolt, & K. Pauwels (Eds.), Advanced methods
for modeling markets (pp. 631-670). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53469-5_19
Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social
media, and mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda
for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146–172. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0415
Larjovuori, R. L., Bordi, L., Mäkiniemi, J. P., & Heikkilä-Tammi, K. (2016). The role
of leadership and employee well-being in organisational digitalisation. Proceedings of
the 26th Annual European Association for Research on Services (RESER) Conference,
University of Naples Federiico II, September 8-10, 2016, 1141-1154. https://www.
researchgate.net/profile/Milena_Jael_Silva-Morales/publication/308033532_
Changes_in_the_intellectual_structure_of_service_innovation_and_service_
system_research_in_the_digital_age_a_bibliometric_analysis_from_1986_to_2015/
links/5b1844000f7e9b68b4245425/Changes-in-the-intellectual-structure-of-service-
innovation-and-service-system-research-in-the-digital-age-a-bibliometric-analysis-
from-1986-to-2015.pdf#page=1153
Lavie, D. (2006). Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to
technological change. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 153–174. doi:10.5465/
amr.2006.19379629
Lee, O. K. D., Sambamurthy, V., Kim, K. H., & Wei, K. K. (2015). How does IT
ambidexterity impact organizational agility? Information Systems Research, 26(2),
398–417. doi:10.1287/isre.2015.0577
Leonhardt, D., Haffke, I., Kranz, J., & Benlian, A. (2017). Reinventing the IT
function: the role of IT agility and IT ambidexterity in supporting digital business
transformation. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, June 5-10, 2017, 1, 968-984. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/317380735_Reinventing_the_IT_function_The_Role_of_IT_
Agility_and_IT_Ambidexterity_in_Supporting_Digital_Business_Transformation
Leviäkangas, P. (2016). Digitalisation of Finland’s transport sector. Technology in
Society, 47(1), 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.07.001

119
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

Li, F., Nucciarelli, A., Roden, S., & Graham, G. (2016). How smart cities transform
operations models: A new research agenda for operations management in the digital
economy. Production Planning and Control, 27(6), 514–528. doi:10.1080/09537
287.2016.1147096
Lloyds Bank UK Consumer Digital Index. (2020, May 21). UK Consumer Digital
Index 2020. Lloyds Bank. https://www.lloydsbank.com/banking-with-us/whats-
happening/consumer-digital-index.html
Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. R. (2011). Understanding the link between information
technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35(4), 931–954. doi:10.2307/41409967
Lynn Pulley, M., & Sessa, V. I. (2001). E-leadership: Tackling complex challenges.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(6), 225–230. doi:10.1108/00197850110405379
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. The Academy
of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70. doi:10.5465/amp.2007.24286164
Marsh, E. (2017, April 12). 7 approaches to mindful technology use. LinkedIn. https://
www.linkedin.com/pulse/6-approaches-mindful-technology-use-elizabeth-marsh/
Marsh, E. (2018). The Digital Workplace Skills Framework: Ensuring the workforce is
ready to work digitally. Digital Work Research 2018. https://digitalworkresearch.com/
wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-Digital-Workplace-Skills-Framework-final.pdf
Marsh, E. (2019, January 10). Is your organisation’s digital workplace causing
technostress? LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/your-organisations-digital-
workplace-causing-elizabeth-marsh/
Marsh, E. (2019, June 11). Half of the workforce isn’t ready for the digital workplace.
LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/half-workforce-isnt-ready-digital-
workplace-elizabeth-marsh/
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy
development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer
Sciences, 5(4), 1–9. doi:10.11120/ital.2006.05040249
McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy:
Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 141–160.
doi:10.1002mj.2596
Newstrom, J. W., & Davis, K. (1997). Organizational behavior: Human behavior
at work. McGraw-Hill.

120
Digitalization and Work Behaviour

Ng, I. C. L., & Wakenshaw, S. Y. L. (2017). The internet-of-things: Review and

research directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 3–21.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.003
Pagani, M., & Pardo, C. (2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in
a business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 185–192. doi:10.1016/j.
indmarman.2017.08.009
Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2009). Where do we go from here?
Is shared leadership the key to team success? Organizational Dynamics, 38(3),
234–238. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.008
Pirkkalainen, H., & Salo, M. (2016). Two decades of the dark side in the information
systems basket: Suggesting five areas for future research. https://aisel.aisnet.org/
ecis2016_rp/101
Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2016). Brand value co-creation in a digitalized
world: An integrative framework and research implications. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 93–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.07.001
Richards, L. (2018, November 8). Factors affecting organizational behaviour. bizfluent.
https://bizfluent.com/info-8131521-factors-affecting-organizational-behavior.html
Roland Berger. (2020, April 2). Digital workplace in the era of Covid-19: How the
current crisis will change the culture of our work. https://www.rolandberger.com/
ru/Insights/Publications/Digital-workplace-in-the-era-of-Covid-19.html
Roman, A., Van Wart, M., Wang, X., Liu, C., Kim, S., & McCarthy, A. (2018). Defining
E‐ leadership as competence in ICT‐mediated communications: An exploratory
assessment. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 853–866. doi:10.1111/puar.12980
Schwarzmüller, T., Brosi, P., Duman, D., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). How does the
digital transformation affect organizations? Key themes of change in work design
and leadership. Management Review, 29(2), 114–138.
Sebastian, I. M., Ross, J. W., Beath, C., Mocker, M., Moloney, K. G., & Fonstad, N.
O. (2017). How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 16(3), 197–213.
SouleD. L.PuramA. D.WestermanG. F.BonnetD. (2016). Becoming a digital
organization: The journey to digital dexterity. Working Paper. doi:10.2139srn.2697688

121
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

Tallon, P. P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between
strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: Insights from
a mediation model. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35(2), 463–486.
doi:10.2307/23044052
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range
Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
Thomas, L. D., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting
platforms in context. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198–219.
doi:10.5465/amp.2011.0105
Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2017). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs’ communication
styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New Media & Society,
19(11), 1848–1867. doi:10.1177/1461444816643922
Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2012). Ctrl Alt Delete:
Lost productivity due to IT problems and inadequate computer skills in the
workplace. Technical Report. Universiteit Twente. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/259703359_CTRL_ALT_DELETE_Lost_productivity_due_to_IT_
problems_and_inadequate_computer_skills_in_the_workplace/citations
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., &
Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations
and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.
doi:10.1177/1094670510375599
Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X. H., & Liu, C. (2017). Integrating ICT adoption
issues into (e) leadership theory. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 527–537.
doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.003
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian,
N., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection
and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.09.022
Verhoef, P. C., Kooge, E., & Walk, N. (2016). Creating value with big data analytics
– Making smarter marketing decisions. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315734750
Verhoef, P. C., Stephen, A. T., Kannan, P. K., Luo, X., Abhishek, V., Andrews, M.,
Bart, Y., Datta, H., Fong, N., Hoffman, D. L., Hu, M. M., Novak, T., Rand, W., &
Zhang, Y. (2017). Consumer connectivity in a complex technology-enabled and
mobile-oriented world with smart products. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 40,
1–8. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2017.06.001

122
 Digitalization and Work Behaviour

Vidgen, R., Shaw, S., & Grant, D. B. (2017). Management challenges in creating
value from business analytics. European Journal of Operational Research, 261(2),
626–639. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.023
Westerman, G., Tannou, M., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2012) The
digital advantage: How digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. MIT
Sloan Management and Capgemini Consulting, 2, 2–23. https://ide.mit.edu/sites/
default/files/publications/TheDigitalAdvantage.pdf
World Health Organization. (2009). Meeting of Regional Experts on Promotion
of Mental Well-Being: Report of the Meeting. http://www.searo.who.int/entity/
mental_health/documents/seament-159.pdf
Xu, Z., Turel, O., & Yuan, Y. (2012). Online game addiction among adolescents:
Motivation and prevention factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(3),
321–340. doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.56
Zeike, S., Bradbury, K., Lindert, L., & Pfa, H. (2019). Digital Leadership Skills and
Associations with Psychological Well-Being. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2628. doi:10.3390/ijerph16142628
PMID:31340579
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business
model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1),
1–26. doi:10.1002mj.642

123

View publication stats