Paradoxical leadership and alignment between innovation culture and organizational goals are crucial for successful digital transformation. Leaders should balance stability with innovation and foster an agile environment conducive to transformation.
Objective
This study aims to investigate the impact of paradoxical leadership on digital transformation, using dynamic capability theory to analyze the roles of organizational agility and innovation culture.
Methods
Data was collected in two-time intervals from 258 employees involved in DT initiatives across various sectors in Pakistan. The study utilized PLS-SEM to test the hypothesized relationships.
Results
The findings confirm that paradoxical leadership significantly enhances organizational agility, which in turn positively influences digital transformation. However, contrary to existing literature, the study reveals that an innovation culture, underdeveloped or misaligned with organizational goals, can weaken the positive effect of organizational agility on digital transformation.
Conclusions
The study underscores the importance of adaptive leadership and supportive organizational culture in driving digital transformation, particularly in developing regions, where these factors can significantly impact social and economic development. The insights are valuable for leaders and policymakers striving to overcome digital transformation challenges in similar contexts.
ThomasA. Digitally transforming the organization through knowledge management: a socio-technical system (STS) perspective. Eur J Innovat Manag2024; 27(9): 437–460.
2.
KrausSJonesPKailerN, et al.Digital transformation: an overview of the current state of the art of research. Sage Open2021; 11(3): 21582440211047576.
3.
PaulJUenoADennisC, et al.Digital transformation: a multidisciplinary perspective and future research agenda. Int J Consum Stud2024; 48(2): e13015.
4.
AdelakunOBuiQNTurelO, et al.Survival of the fittest through digital transformation: turning the board’s digital awareness to action. Inf Syst J2025; 35: 1460–1476.
5.
BrazoPVelicia-MartínFPalos-SanchezP, et al.Thrive or dive: navigating the waves of mandatory digital transformation. Eur Bus Rev2024; 37(03): 486–516.
6.
NasiriMUkkoJSaunilaM, et al.Managing the digital supply chain: the role of smart technologies. Technovation2020; 96–97: 102121.
7.
PiccoliGGroverVRodriguezJ. Digital transformation requires digital resource primacy: clarification and future research directions. J Strat Inf Syst2024; 33(2): 101835.
8.
KleinSPSpiethPSöllnerM. Employee acceptance of digital transformation strategies: a paradox perspective. J Prod Innov Manage2024; 41(5): 999–1021.
9.
LesoBHCortimigliaMNGhezziA, et al.Exploring digital transformation capability via a blended perspective of dynamic capabilities and digital maturity: a pattern matching approach. Rev Manag Sci2024; 18(4): 1149–1187.
10.
GutierrizIFerreiraJJFernandesPO. Digital transformation and the new combinations in tourism: a systematic literature review. Tourism Hospit Res2023; 25: 14673584231198414.
11.
RatnaSSaideSPutriAM, et al.Digital transformation in tourism and hospitality industry: a literature review of blockchain, financial technology, and knowledge management. EuroMed J Bus2024; 19(1): 84–112.
12.
SinghNVishnaniSKhandelwalV, et al.A systematic review of paradoxes linked with digital transformation of business. J Enterprise Inf Manag2024; 37(4): 1348–1373.
13.
CieslakVValorC. Moving beyond conventional resistance and resistors: an integrative review of employee resistance to digital transformation. Cogent Business & Management2025; 12(1): 2442550.
14.
TianYOuL. Exploring the influencing mechanisms of different digital transformation stages: an industry perspective. Enterp Inf Syst2024; 18(12): 2417407.
15.
McCarthyPSammonDAlhassanI. Digital transformation leadership characteristics: a literature analysis. J Decis Syst2022; 32(1): 79–109.
16.
SchiumaGSantarsieroFCarlucciD, et al.Transformative leadership competencies for organizational digital transformation. Bus Horiz2024; 67(4): 425–437.
TeeceDJ. The foundations of enterprise performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Acad Manag Perspect2014; 28(4): 328–352.
19.
TeeceDJLindenG. Business models, value capture, and the digital enterprise. J Org Design2017; 6(1): 8.
20.
TeeceDJ. A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. In: CantwellJ (ed) The Eclectic Paradigm: A Framework for Synthesizing and Comparing Theories of International Business from Different Disciplines or Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015, pp. 224–273.
21.
DeviNC. Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity: knowledge sharing and hiding as mediators. J Knowl Manag2024; 28(2): 312–340.
ChenKZhangS. How does open public data impact enterprise digital transformation?Econ Anal Pol2024; 83: 178–190.
24.
KhanMTUllahS. Balancing innovation: the role of paradoxical leadership and ambidexterity in fostering team creativity. Int J Innovat Sci2025; 1–22.
25.
HadjieliasEChristofiMChristouP, et al.Digitalization, agility, and customer value in tourism. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 175: 121334.
26.
LyB. The interplay of digital transformational leadership, organizational agility, and digital transformation. J Knowl Econ2024; 15(1): 4408–4427.
27.
Al-KhatibAWAl-FawaeerMAAlajlouniMI, et al.Conservative culture, innovative culture, and innovative performance: a multi-group analysis of the moderating role of the job type. Int J Innovat Sci2022; 14(3/4): 675–692.
28.
HooiLWChanAJ. Innovative culture and rewards-recognition matter in linking transformational leadership to workplace digitalisation?Leadership Org Dev J2022; 43(7): 1063–1079.
29.
SmithWK. Dynamic decision making: a model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Acad Manage J2014; 57(6): 1592–1623.
30.
ZhangMJZhangYLawKS. Paradoxical leadership and innovation in work teams: the multilevel mediating role of ambidexterity and leader vision as a boundary condition. Acad Manage J2022; 65(5): 1652–1679.
31.
DióssyKLosonciDAranyossyM, et al.The role of leadership in digital transformation–a paradox way to improve operational performance. J Manuf Technol Manag2025; 36(9): 88–113.
32.
YangNChenHWangX-H. Paradoxical leadership behavior and employee creative deviance: the role of paradox mindset and leader–member exchange. J Bus Psychol2024; 39(3): 697–713.
33.
TrieuHDNguyenPVTranKT, et al.Organisational resilience, ambidexterity and performance: the roles of information technology competencies, digital transformation policies and paradoxical leadership. Int J Organ Anal2024; 32(7): 1302–1321.
34.
SparrJLvan KnippenbergDKearneyE. Paradoxical leadership as sensegiving: stimulating change-readiness and change-oriented performance. Leader Organ Dev J2022; 43(2): 225–237.
35.
HossainMIKumarJIslamMT, et al.The interplay among paradoxical leadership, industry 4.0 technologies, organisational ambidexterity, strategic flexibility and corporate sustainable performance in manufacturing SMEs of Malaysia. Eur Bus Rev2023; 36: 639–669.
36.
GaoYYangHSunX, et al.Corporate digital transformation and financing constraints: the moderating effect of institutional investors. Heliyon2024; 10(12): e33199.
37.
MalikMRaziqMMSarwarN, et al.Navigating the change: a case study of the textile industry on digital leadership, digital transformation and innovative business models. Benchmark Int J2024; 32: 550–577.
38.
KhanMTUllahSSamiA, et al.Cultivating a paradoxical mindset: enhancing transformative learning through paradoxical leadership. Leader Organ Dev J2025; 46(02): 334–350.
39.
AlNuaimiBKKumar SinghSRenS, et al.Mastering digital transformation: the nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy. J Bus Res2022; 145: 636–648.
40.
HyunYParkJKamiokaT, et al.Organizational agility enabled by big data analytics: information systems capabilities view. J Enterprise Inf Manag2023; 36(4): 1032–1055.
41.
LiWWarisIBhuttoMY. Understanding the nexus among big data analytics capabilities, green dynamic capabilities, supply chain agility and green competitive advantage: the moderating effect of supply chain innovativeness. J Manuf Technol Manag2024; 35(1): 119–140.
42.
HuWWangL. Knowledge search and firm innovation performance: the role of organizational agility and environmental turbulence. Knowl Manag Res Pract2025; 1–15.
43.
ZhangKLiuHLiY, et al.Effects of social media usage on exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and organizational agility: the moderating role of learning goal orientation. Internet Res2024; 34(2): 398–425.
44.
ZhangYWaldmanDAHanY-L, et al.Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents and consequences. Acad Manage J2015; 58(2): 538–566.
45.
ZhangYHanY-L. Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: antecedents and consequences. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2019; 155: 42–54.
46.
NiuCMengXXiangF. The double-edged sword effect of paradoxical leadership to organizational citizenship behavior. Psychol Res Behav Manag2022; 15: 2513–2527.
47.
ZhaohuiW. How does paradoxical leadership enhance individual ambidexterity? The composite multiple mediating role of psychological safety and thriving at work. Foreign Economics & Management2018; 40(3): 107–120.
48.
GongCRibiereV. Understanding the role of organizational agility in the context of digital transformation: an integrative literature review. VINE J Inf Knowl Man Syst2025; 55(2): 351–378.
49.
ShahruddinSHusainSH. Navigating paradoxes of identity and leadership in the age of digital transformation of construction industry: architects’ experiences and perceptions. Construct Manag Econ2024; 42(7): 591–609.
50.
SenadjkiAAu YongHNGanapathyT, et al.Unlocking the potential: the impact of digital leadership on firms’ performance through digital transformation. Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development2024; 4(2): 161–177.
51.
TanushreeSCKChaubeyA. Evolution of organizational agility research: a retrospective view. Benchmark Int J2024; 31(4): 1181–1224.
52.
AlqiremRAlsmadiAA. Integrating financial techniques for sustainable futures: a digital transformation perspective. Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research2025; 1–16.
53.
NguyenDKBroekhuizenTDongJQ, et al.When it takes three to tango in the digital transformation age: synergies between digital orientation, change commitment and organizational agility. 2020.
54.
LiuFZhangL. The role of digital resilient agility: how digital capability incompatibility affects knowledge cooperation performance in project network organizations. J Knowl Manag2025; 29(1): 25–48.
55.
JaafarMKhanKNSalmanA. A systematic review and framework for organizational agility antecedents towards industry 4.0. Manag Rev Q2025; 1–26.
56.
GhasemaghaeiMHassaneinKTurelO. Increasing firm agility through the use of data analytics: the role of fit. Decis Support Syst2017; 101: 95–105.
57.
TuriJAKhwajaMGTariqF, et al.The role of big data analytics and organizational agility in improving organizational performance of business processing organizations. Bus Process Manag J2023; 29(7): 2081–2106.
58.
Cubillas-ParaCCegarra-NavarroJGVătămănescuE-M. Gliding from regenerative unlearning toward digital transformation via collaboration with customers and organisational agility. J Bus Res2024; 177: 114637.
59.
Martín-de CastroGDelgado-VerdeMNavas-LópezJE, et al.The moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between knowledge assets and product innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change2013; 80(2): 351–363.
60.
CannasR. Exploring digital transformation and dynamic capabilities in agrifood SMEs. J Small Bus Manag2023; 61(4): 1611–1637.
61.
MehralianGFarzanehMYousefiN, et al.Driving new product development performance: intellectual capital antecedents and the moderating role of innovation culture. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge2024; 9(3): 100503.
62.
GhasemzadehPNazariJAFarzanehM, et al.Moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between organizational learning and innovation performance. Learn Organ2019; 26(3): 289–303.
63.
HooiLWChanAJ. Do workplace digitalisation and group diversity matter in linking innovative culture to employee engagement?Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship2024; 13: 214–229.
64.
PolasMRH. Common method bias in social and behavioral research: strategic solutions for quantitative research in the doctoral research. Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research2025; 1–18.
65.
HairJFSharmaPNSarstedtM, et al.The shortcomings of equal weights estimation and the composite equivalence index in PLS-SEM. Eur J Mark2024; 58(13): 30–55.
66.
HairJHollingsworthCLRandolphAB, et al.An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind Manag Data Syst2017; 117(3): 442–458.
67.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Y, et al.Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol2003; 88(5): 879–903.
68.
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18(1): 39–50.
