Digital leadership in tanzania

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/367204324
Conceptualizing digital leadership characteristics for successful digital

transformation: the case of Tanzania
Article in Information Technology for Development · October 2021
CITATIONS READS
34 3,048
2 authors:
Mawazo M. Magesa Joan Jonathan

Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA)
15 PUBLICATIONS 253 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Joan Jonathan on 17 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2021.1991872
Conceptualizing digital leadership characteristics for successful

digital transformation: the case of Tanzania
Mawazo Mwita Magesa and Joan Jonathan
Centre for Information and Communication Technology, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The objective of this study was to examine the attributes of a compelling Digital leadership; digital
leader to lead Digital Transformation in a formal organization. The study transformation; exploratory
conceptualized a digital leader with 26 characteristics grouped into 5 factor analysis; confirmatory
roles. Sample respondents were drawn from some organizations in factor analysis; digital
development
Tanzania and a self-reported questionnaire was used for data collection.
Preliminary analysis involved examining inter-correlation among
leadership attributes, dropping 3 out of 26. Exploratory factor analysis
of 23 items produced 7 factors which were grouped into 5 roles while
dropping 2 factors with one item each. Only 4 factors and 13 items
qualified for confirmatory factor analysis which provided better fit for
the sample data. The validity check showed that the digital leadership
construct somehow converges and the four factors were different from
one another. It is implied that good digital leader is anticipated to
foster economic growth, promote innovation and entrepreneurship, and
improve service deliveries.
1. Introduction
Digital technologies change the way services are delivered, businesses are conducted, people com-
municate, and even the way relationships are sustained. Firms are putting in place initiatives to
explore digital technologies in order to exploit the benefits thereof to transform key business oper-
ations – production, organizational structures, and business management. These dynamics invari-
ably lead to the concept of Digital Transformation (DT). Firms adopting DT and thus using digital
technologies are likely to be competitive in this digital era (Magesa & Sanga, 2020).
Digitally transforming firms increase productivity, create value, and improve social welfare (Ebert
& Duarte, 2018), thus exerting pressure on firms to go digital. The migration into the digital realm is
motivated by the need to survive and accrue business competitive advantages. According to Forres-
ter Research (2015), DT facilitates business transformation via Digital Development (DD). DT focuses
on setting clear objectives that are tied directly to measurable business outcomes for businesses to
thrive and prosper. Thus, the ideal Digital Leadership (DL) embraces innovations which improve DD
by creating jobs, improving access to markets, promoting and commercializing products, and enhan-
cing the acquisition of knowledge.
ICT adoption and DT represent two enabling mechanisms which work to improve business
efficiency, effectiveness, and transformation of business models adopted. Consequently, the duo
enhances interactivity and flexibility; and smoothly connects business transactions and
CONTACT Mawazo Mwita Magesa [email protected] Centre for Information and Communication Technology, Sokoine
University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3218, Morogoro, Tanzania
Silvia Masiero is the accepting Associate Editor for this paper
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2021 Commonwealth Secretariat
2 M. M. MAGESA AND J. JONATHAN
organizations to their customers. Factors which make firms adopt DT and use ICT include the lower
prices of ICT devices and global network connectivity (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Magesa & Sanga, 2020);
pressure from customers, employees, competitors (Westerman et al., 2011); and globalization –
which increases competition and pressurizes companies to go digital to survive and attain competi-
tive advantages (Westerman et al., 2011). Firms are, therefore, considering adopting ICT and digitally
transform their service delivery, operations, and change structures of their organizations.
Despite the positive effects, contemporary literature indicates that several project failures are
major issues in the DT context (Kozak-Holland & Procter, 2020; Rajala & Aaltonen, 2020). Examples
of DT failures are scant and are always under-reported for commercial reasons (Kozak-Holland &
Procter, 2020). Digital project failures rate remain high despite the efforts made in the past
decades to improve ICT projects management (Hidding & Nicholas, 2017).
Studies accord project failures to the reluctance on the part of business management to change
their management methodology and plan. This failure includes not involving the users right from the
early stage of project conception, inadequate communication of change processes, leaders not
managing user resistance to digital changes within the organization, and leaders over-emphasizing
the technical aspects of project delivery (Damoah & Akwei, 2017; Ebad, 2018). Abouzahra (2011)
attributed the failure to unclear project scopes, undefined risks, undefined stakeholders, and poor
digital communication. Poor conceptualization of management requirements; misunderstanding
of the requirements, changes in the requirements, inadequate requirements, and unclear require-
ments may lead to project failure (El Emam & Koru, 2008; Pan et al., 2008). Likewise, inadequate
support, lack of executive engagement with the project, ineffective sponsorship, and overall lack
of commitment of senior management may lead to project failure (El Emam & Koru, 2008).
Organizations are always eager to register successes in their DT initiatives. Years of research on
transformations have shown that success rates of these transformation efforts have been consist-
ently low (less than 30% succeed), which suggests that DTs are not accomplished easily (De la Bou-
tetière et al., 2018). A successful DT involves implementing the best digital solutions step-by-step
and the DT implementation process requires an understanding of how data, design, and technology
will impact the transformation across the organization. Organizations need to understand the
success factors of DT to be able to aim at a strategical transformation. These factors are those
things that must go well to ensure success for DT initiative. Thus, success of DT initiative can be
achieved when a digital solution has been implemented based on the stipulated steps to attain
its goals and its users are fully using it without difficulty. This success is gained when acceptance
of digital solution and process changes is achievable. Heeks (2002) argues that for a successful initiat-
ive (i.e. DT), most stakeholder groups attain their major goals and do not experience significant
undesirable outcomes.
Among the success factors for DT identified by some scholars (e.g. Cichosz et al., 2020; Moraka-
nyane et al., 2020; Sing & Amin, 2020) include having visionary leaders who can set roadmaps for
organizations to follow. Such a leader should exhibit strong DL traits required to cultivate a
digital culture and should develop digital vision for an organization (Morakanyane et al., 2020).
DT success depends on a leader with a vision supported by empowered, knowledgeable and colla-
borative employees (Cichosz et al., 2020) who can formulate and align DT strategies that provide for
growth (Sing & Amin, 2020). Willcocks (2021) acknowledges that the DT is costly, difficult, and require
investment, which necessitates early investment in digital talent and building technological plat-
form. Heeks (2002) asserts that today’s IS success may be tomorrow’s IS failure, and vice versa.
To implement digital projects successfully and minimize failures, scholars including Creasy and
Anantatmula (2013), Ebad (2018), and Hughes et al. (2017) have emphasized good leadership and
management support. Leadership characteristics for DT that are sought in this digital era include
innovation, digital skills, strong networks, collaboration, participatory engagement, and vision.
Valentine and Stewart (2015) emphasize that a digital leader should govern technology for competi-
tive advantage and business performance. They also observe that a digital leader should direct and
govern technology-enabled strategy, plan to maximize the advantages of technology, enhance
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 3
performance at all levels of the organization, and clarify additions from progress reviews and com-
ments. Thus, transforming a firm via DD requires a leader with a digital mindset.
Strategic DT of a firm led by a digital leader promotes DD and general development. Also, Digital
Transformation Strategy (DTS) serves to coordinate, prioritize, and implement a pre-digital organiz-
ation’s transformation efforts and; as a long-term objective, to govern its journey to achieve the
desired future state of being digitally transformed (Matt et al., 2015). DTS improves DD which in
turn, informs the firm’s development. DTS reliably improves organizational performance and has a
positive relationship with short- and long-term financial performance (Wang et al., 2020). DT relies
on a digital leader (Euler, 2015) and DL is essential to the success of any DT of a firm (El Sawy
et al., 2016).
This research investigates the pertinent issue of DL in DT observed during the initiation,
implementation, and management of DT processes. This is because the available literature pays
more attention to corporate management and structure for effective adoption of DT while relegating
DL. Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine the characteristics of Digital Leadership in
implementing effective DT. The research focuses more on the developing countries because these
countries are on the verge of adopting digital technologies. As its contribution, the study conceptu-
alizes DL into different dimensions with different characteristics and based on a clear methodology
and statistical analyses, the study establishes the dimensions and characteristics that define DL.
2. Digital leadership and transformation

DT is conceptually described as a process that aims to improve the performance of an entity by trig-
gering significant changes in its properties through combining information, computing, communi-
cation, and connectivity technologies (Vial, 2019). Firms adopting DT become more competitive as
the DT increases productivity, value creation, and social welfare (Ebert & Duarte, 2018), thus putting
pressure on organizations to go digital in order to survive and accrue competitive advantages.
The social goals of DT include fostering the development of a more innovative and collaborative
culture in industry and society; and improve the accessibility and quality of digital services offered to
the population (Ebert & Duarte, 2018). The economic objectives of the DT include implementing new
and innovative business models, increasing income generation, productivity, and value addition in
the economy (Ebert & Duarte, 2018).
While analyzing the DT of society, Norqvist (2018) argues that organizational development and
the presence of competencies are influenced by the DD that; in turn, is influenced by the DT of
society. The use of digital technologies to transform various processes, tasks, and activities or to
offer services within the society lead to DD. According to Qureshi (2019), DD is a kind of development
achieved through the use of digital technologies; that is, the ICT devices. Thus, the adoption and use
of ICT lead to improvements in social welfare.
In conceptualizing DD, Qureshi (2019) outlines three different but interconnected perspectives of
development: economic, social, and human. This study adopts the three of Qureshi’s perspectives in
describing how digital technologies affect development as their conceptualization is based on the
fact that individuals are agents of change and that human agency is key for the use of ICTs for achiev-
ing development outcomes. Thus, under good DL, a firm can digitally transform its processes, ser-
vices, and operations to lead to DD, that is economic, social and, human development.
Contemporary discourses on development consistently identify ICT as a requirement for econ-
omic growth and the improvement of social conditions (Avgerou, 2003). According to Tripathi
and Inani (2020), ICTs stimulate economic growth, foster development, and support all economic
activities such as trade, education, health care, entertainment, and other related activities around
the world. Heeks (2016) observes that ICTs provide employment to individuals and increase
demand for products. World Bank (2012) asserts that ICTs serve to reduce poverty, increase pro-
ductivity, boost economic growth, and improve accountability and governance. Other scholars
such as Birke and Knierim (2020) and Magesa et al. (2014) have shown how ICTs have improved
agricultural farming practices and marketing among smallholders. The ultimate outcomes of the
application of ICTs have been improved economic growth of individuals, societies, and countries
at large.
Digital technologies can also be used to introduce and diffuse the concepts of knowledge
sharing, community development, and equality, and thus implicate social development (Kamel,
2008). Gigler (2011) assumes a direct relationship between ICTs and social development. Qureshi
(2019) equated social development with government programs that offer healthcare, education,
environmental protection, and other public services. Improved social development includes
enhanced access to formal and non-formal education, improved access to health services, and
improved knowledge and access to social programs of the government (Gigler, 2011). Scholars
have indicated how DT has influenced social development in sectors like education, teaching, and
lifelong learning methods (Mahenge & Sanga, 2016; Tchamyou et al., 2019); and in medicine,
health outcomes and well-being (Aceto et al., 2018; Kouton et al., 2020).
Human development focuses on the improvement of the lives of the people and intends to
provide more freedom and opportunities to live the lives they value (UNDP, 2020). Human develop-
ment broadens individual people’s freedom to pursue the lives they choose (Sen, 2013). Qureshi
(2019) points that in pursuing the freedom to life choices, income is seen to be an instrument of
this freedom forcing individuals to pursue their goals. To determine the impact of ICTs on human
well-being, it is necessary to enhance people’s ability to access and use information through ICT.
It can lead to improvement in people’s lives when their abilities to access and use information
through ICTs are transformed into expanded human and social abilities in the economic, political,
social, and cultural dimensions of their lives (Gigler, 2011). While well-being may vary considerably
between individuals (Qureshi, 2019), development, which is about expanding the choices people
have, make people lead lives that they value. Again, a motivated and innovative digital leader can
utilize digital technologies to foster human development in different countries. Examples of
human development are found in governance, service provisions, and building citizens’ trust
(Adesola, 2012; Mahmood et al., 2019), entrenching democracy (Adesola, 2012), and enhancing
human informational capabilities (Magesa et al., 2020).
Digital Transformation is affected by project failures, that is the inability to meet budgetary pro-
jections, functional, and time objectives (Finch, 2003). The failures include the system not meeting its
objectives, the system not delivering or delivered but failed to meet project specifications, the
system not being adopted by stakeholders, benefits not being realized, and the system not
meeting the needs and expectations of stakeholder groups (Hughes et al., 2017). Some statistics
of DT failure cases include Forbes who reported that 84% of companies fail at DT (Rogers, 2016),
and Morgan (2019) who reported that a staggering 70% of DTs fail. In developing countries, ICT
project failures are reported in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Malaysia, and South Africa
(Masiero, 2016; Rajala & Aaltonen, 2020). Scholars such as Dada (2006), Gunawong and Gao
(2017), and Hossan et al. (2006) reported failures of the e-governments which were expected to
transform the public administrative system and to improve the efficiency of public service in devel-
oping countries. In Heeks (2003), Heeks provided a baseline assessment of e-government failures in
the developing world stating that total failures stood at 35%, partial failures at 50%, and success
cases at 15%.
Examples of failures cited include Indira Gandhi Conservation Monitoring Centre in India. This
project was intended to be a national information provider based on a set of core environmental
information systems but never became operational (Puri et al., 2000). The Tax Computerization
Project in Thailand’s Revenue Department set out seven areas of taxation that were to be computer-
ized. Unfortunately, only two areas were partly computerized at the end of the project (Kitiyadisai,
2000). The creation of a set of touch-screen kiosks for remote rural communities in South Africa’s
North-West Province which were initially well received by the communities was removed within
less than a year later because the kiosks lacked updated or local content and interactivity which
led to their disuse (Benjamin, 2001).
Thus, firms need to have DTS since the failure to plan may be an obstacle to digital maturity
within an organization. Matt et al. (2015) argued that a DTS is supposed to coordinate, prioritize,
and implement a pre-digital organization’s transformational effort and; as a long-term objective,
to govern its journey to achieve the desired state of being digitally transformed. SAP (2017) reported
that 84% of global companies considered DT as critical to their survival in the next five years. SAP
(2017) also found that DT was cited as a top-three driver of future revenue across all industries
and among companies of all sizes. Within organizational contexts, DTS enabled organizations to
quickly profit from the innovative image within their industries owing to their DT intentions and
highly developed knowledge of social actors (Chanias et al., 2019).
DTS of a firm can lead to its development. However, Euler (2015) insisted that DT relies on leader-
ship, especially DL. El Sawy et al. (2016) noted further that DL is essential to the success of any DT and
requires a focus on customer engagement, the need for advanced technical tools, a high capacity for
storage, and framing of the culture to support DT in different forms. Digital leaders can lead digital
natives and provide leadership during the process of DT (Euler, 2015). Morakanyane et al. (2020)
identified DL among the factors leading to successful DT. DT is about leadership and Kane et al.
(2015) pointed out that what separates digital leaders from the rest is a clear digital strategy com-
bined with a culture and leadership poised to drive the transformation.
Thus, organizations require digital leaders who must focus on generating innovative ideas that
create value for customers, design digital-enabled services quickly using advanced technologies,
and build organizational capability to deliver such services to meet customer expectations
(Tanniru, 2018). A digital leader is one who can make quick and right decisions and influence
others to achieve desired goals (De Waal et al., 2016). These abilities require agility within the infor-
mation technology under the co-leadership of IT executives (Tanniru, 2018), with the central role in
driving fast decision-making processes and propelling the change.
To windup, scholars have described DL differently based on digital technology and digitalization,
innovative behavior, environment (context) in which it is applied, and existing leadership styles and
theories. Mihardjo and Sasmoko (2020) point out that DL comprises the culture and competence of a
leader to use digital technology to add value to the organization. De Waal et al. (2016) conceived DL
in terms of accomplishment of goals that rely on ICT through the direction of human assistants and
uses of ICT.
We adopt a definition by El Sawy et al. (2016) who define DL as doing the right things for the stra-
tegic success of digitalization for the enterprise and its business ecosystem. According to El Sawy
et al. (2016), such a definition indicates the difference between leadership and management.
Bennis and Townsend (1989) argued that leadership is about doing the right thing for the success
of the organization while management is about doing the thing right.
3. Conceptualizing digital leadership

There are different views about how DL is conceived, measured, and investigated upon. The
different views come from contexts or points of departure. Contexts are situational opportunities
and constraints that explain the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior (Johns, 2006);
contexts include multiple levels, that is meaning can exist at the individual level, the group level,
the organizational level, the societal level, as well as across these respective levels (Hernandez
et al., 2011).
Thus, scholars identify at least two leadership styles – transactional and transformational leader-
ship. Transactional leadership makes clear what actions and roles followers must take to achieve
goals. The motive is to do what is expected by the leader (Kark et al., 2018). Transformational leader-
ship transforms followers, prompt the followers to think about the interests of the organization
rather than their own interests, boosting their morale, encouraging them to examine how their
values align with those of the organization, appealing to their ideal sense of what the organization
can be, and encourage them to do their best for the greater good (Bass, 1985).
Based on Hambrick and Mason (1984), DL can be considered as part of the study about leadership
based upon the upper echelon theory where the characteristics of the manager determine the
output of an organization. DL is created by combining a person’s leadership skills and digital capa-
bility to optimize the benefit of digital technology in order to increase business performance
(Wasono & Furinto, 2018). Günzel-Jensen et al. (2018) point out that DL is linked with three leader-
ship styles – transactional, transformational, and empowering (authentic) leadership. They also assert
that the three styles of leadership go hand in hand with innovative behavour. According to them,
innovation is critical for organizations to identify the kind of innovation needed in new product
development and continuous improvement. Tidd and Bessant (2020) argue that innovation is gen-
erally driven by the ability to see relationships, opportunities and take advantage of those opportu-
nities. Thus, it is expected that a digital leader should display a wide range of capabilities and may be
explored based on a combination of leadership styles (transactional, transformational, and empow-
ering). This suggests that DL relates to digital technologies, strategies, and skills, and has different
attributes; that is leadership characteristics and behavours.
This study explores five (5) roles of DL showing characteristics, behavour, or skills necessary for
describing a digital leader during Digital Transformation. These roles are inspirational role, visionary
role, absorbing uncertainty role, innovative role, and adaptation role. These are summarized in
Table 1.
Based on the discussions above, Table 1 describes a summary of the characteristics of different
roles of a digital leader. The roles and the associated characteristics and behavours of a digital
leader are conceptualized and presented in a framework in Figure 1. The framework shows a
Table 1. Descriptions of characteristics of roles of digital leader

Roles, characteristics, and descriptions
1 Inspirational role
Convincing Unusually able to persuade others of his/her viewpoint
Influence Capacity to influence the organization, convince others to influence
Enthusiastic Demonstrates and imparts strong positive emotions for work
Trustworthy Deserves trust, can be believed and relied upon to keep his/her word
Motivational Stimulates others to put forth efforts above and beyond the call of duty and make personal sacrifices
Openness Willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to his/her own
2 Innovation role
Anticipatory Anticipates, attempts to forecast events, considers what will happen in the future
Digital savvy Prepared to meet emerging business challenges, anticipates and responds to new paradigms of
competition, navigating complexity and leveraging on data and analytics to make decisions
Risk taker Willing to invest major resources in endeavors that do not have high probability of successful
Confidence Thinks positively about the future and is willing to take the risks necessary to achieve their personal and
professional goals
Transparency Practises what one says, set crystal-clear expectations and communicate effectively with every team
member
Diplomatic Skilled at interpersonal relations, tactful, facilitating participation in decision making
3 Absorbing uncertainty role
Sensible Based on or acting on good judgment and practical ideas or understanding
Communicative Communicates with others frequently
Direction Providing vision and purpose
Agile Adapt to an ever-changing and uncertain environment
Collaborative Works jointly with others (i.e. management and followers)
Lobbyist Ability to network in order to lobby for both resources and stakeholder support
4 Adaptation role
Informed Knowledgeable; aware of information
Planning Prioritize activities
Decisive Makes decisions firmly and quickly
Curiosity Desire to know or learn something – open the mind, enable growth, and encourage new ideas
Inspirational Inspires emotions, beliefs, values, and behaviors of others, inspires others to be motivated to work hard
5 Visionary role
Visionary Has a vision and imagination of the future
Encouraging Gives courage, confidence, or hope through reassuring and advising
Focused Maintain focus while focusing on achieving results
Figure 1. Digital leadership conceptual framework
digital leader is expected to execute different roles to which we can associate his/her skills, charac-
teristics, and behaviors. The framework signals that an effective digital leader requires a new way of
operating, where conscious choices need to be made based on priorities and areas of focus. Based
on the conceptual framework proposed, this research will study the attributes (i.e. characteristics and
behaviors) of digital leaders that can facilitate DT within an organization.
4. Hypotheses
Leaders motivate and inspire people around them in order to create attractive visions of future
states, boosting follower goals, and inspiring enthusiasm and optimism (Afshari et al., 2012).
According to Afshari et al. (2012), leadership involves intellectual stimulation which aims at devel-
oping followers’ capacities to higher levels and the practices of this process stimulate effort to
become more innovative and creative (Afshari et al., 2012). Bass et al. (2003) point out that a
leader must influence, inspire, motivate and mentally stimulate others. Innovation enables a firm
to create new digital products and services and enhance and expand them into new domains
(Mihardjo & Sasmoko, 2020).
Leaders should adapt approaches to strategize for new digitization challenges and enable their
firms adapt and change markets through creating innovative business-models via DT. Uncertainty
means unclear situations or lack of predictability (Petry, 2018) and leaders must develop the individ-
ual capacity and competence to better manage uncertainties and create organizations with strong
dynamic capabilities with which to adapt to change i.e. leaders should define a vision and develop
growth for the future (Mihardjo et al., 2019). A visionary leader is required to quickly adapt and
provide the direction and to become a mastermind in transforming the digital businesses (Mihardjo
& Sasmoko, 2020). Thus, the characteristics of the five roles in Table 1 can be considered as factors
that represent the attributes of a digital leader necessary for DT. This leads us to the following five
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Different characteristics of inspirational role have positive influence on the ability of a digital leader
to lead DT;
Hypothesis 2: Different characteristics of the innovation role have positive influence on the ability of a digital
leader to lead DT;
Hypothesis 3: Different characteristics of absorption uncertainty role have positive influence on the ability of a
digital leader to lead DT;
Hypothesis 4: Different characteristics of adaptation role have positive influence on the ability of a digital leader
to lead DT; and
Hypothesis 5: Different characteristics of a visionary role have positive influence on the ability of a digital leader
to lead DT.
To test the above five hypotheses, the next two sections will describe the research methodology
adopted and discuss the results.
5. Methodology
This research employed a quantitative research design in studying the constructs that define the
characteristics and behaviors of a digital leader. This involved a self-reported questionnaire com-
pleted by respondents drawn from some organizations in Tanzania. Survey questions were com-
posed based on the items presented in Figure 1 and described in Table 1. Questions were
categorized based on the roles of a digital leader. Targeted organizations were those with a high
degree of digitalization, both public and private and have more than 20 employees, and were
founded five years prior to the survey. The respondents were the management teams, senior
staff, and other employees. Digital leaders and their followers in their sections were also requested
to volunteer in completing the questionnaire. The completed surveys were collected through phys-
ical visits and contacts through telephone calls, email, professional social media (Facebook and
WhatsApp), and personal networking.
After the data collection exercise, incomplete and wrongly filled questionnaires were discarded.
Questionnaires which were well filled out were included in data analysis. The reliability of the ques-
tionnaire was tested and found to be adequate.
6. Research findings
6.1. Respondents and characteristics
A total of 212 respondents were involved in this study and were drawn from 4 universities, 2 respon-
dents from media companies, 1 respondent from the ministry, 1 respondent from the insurance
company, 2 respondents from the examinations council, and 4 respondents from regulatory auth-
orities. These organizations had a minimum of 50 employees each and some had more than 500
employees. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the respondents.
Table 2 shows that the majority of the respondents were males 155 (73.1%) while females were 57
(26.9%). A large section of the respondents were drawn from universities – 99 (46.8%) respondents
had masters degrees and 85 (40.3%) had doctorate degrees. In terms of age, 155 (73.3%) respon-
dents were of the ages between 30 and 50. The data also show that the majority of respondents
Table 2. Characteristics of respondents

Gender Education level Age Work experience
Sex T T% Education T T% Range T T% Years T T%
Female 57 26.9 Bachelor 26 12.2 20–30 20 9.40 <3 29 13.7
Male 155 73.1 Doctorate 85 40.3 31–40 73 34.5 <6 29 13.7
Total 212 100 Form Six 1 0.70 41–50 82 38.8 <10 37 17.3
Masters 99 46.8 50–70 37 17.3 >10 117 55.4
Total 212 100 Total 212 100 Total 212 100
117 (55.4%) had worked for 10 years in the same organizations. The respondents were as well cate-
gorized in terms of leadership skills as illustrated in Table 3.
The study involved respondents in leadership positions and others not in leadership positions.
Table 3 shows that 116 (54.7%) of the respondents were leaders while others i.e. 124 (58.3%) of
respondents had attended leadership training at some point. The table also shows that 84
(72.3%) of the leaders have assumed leadership positions for 3–10 years.
In terms of the education levels, the study involved people with different educational back-
grounds. The majority of the respondents had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree; these are expected
to have good knowledge of leadership and also can provide a valid assessment of the quality of
leaders. Most of the respondents were aged above 30 years, thus were considered matured
enough to rank leadership attributes in their institutions. Also, as most of the respondents were
leaders, their leadership knowledge and experience could have facilitated the correct assessment
of leadership attributes.
The respondents rated 26 attributes which were used to describe constructs of DL as depicted in
Table 1. Attributes were ranked on a seven-point scale from 1 to 7 where 1 = greatly inhibits, 2 =
somewhat inhibits, 3 = slightly inhibits, 4 = has no impact, 5 = contributes slightly, 6 = contributes
somewhat, and 7 = contributes greatly.
6.2. Analysis of the results

The preliminary analysis involved examining the inter-correlation among leadership attributes to
identify and remove variables which did not correlate with any other variables or correlated
highly with other variables (r > .90). The correlation analysis of variables in Table 1 resulted in drop-
ping three (3) variables (Transparency; Curiosity; and Focused) due to poor correlation. Table 4 shows
the structure and loadings of DL items.
Hence, a single item was dropped for each role to be tested by Hypotheses 2, 4, and 5 respect-
ively. Analyses of the remaining 23 variables were followed by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The objective of using EFA was to reduce the factors to
a smaller set of summary factors, to assess multicollinearity among factors which are correlated,
to evaluate the construct validity, and to examine factors or relationship structure. The use of
CFA was meant to verify the factor structure of a set of observed variables and; hence, to test
the hypothesis that a relationship between the observed variables and their underlying latent con-
struct exists.
6.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis

Out of the 23 variables, 7 factors with given values greater than 1.0 were obtained and accounted for
73.75% of the total variance depicted in Table 4. Also, the scree plot indicated that a 7-factor solution
should be extracted. The EFA was again conducted on the 23 variables which specified the extraction
of 7 factors and interestingly the 7-factor solution explained the same percentage that is 73.75%, of
the total variance. The results showed that all variables were correctly correlated in the sense that
Table 3. Leadership characteristics

Whether a leader Whether attended leadership training Years of Leadership
A leader? T T% Attended? T T% Years T T%
No 96 45.3 No 88 41.7 <2 17 14.5
Yes 116 54.7 Yes 124 58.3 3–5 52 44.7
Total 212 100 Total 212 100 6–10 32 27.6
11–20 12 10.5
21–30 2 1.3
>31 2 1.3
Total 116 100
Table 4. Factor structure and loadings of DL items

NO Roles and variables Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Inspirational role
Convincing 0.64
Influence 0.57
Enthusiastic 0.65
Trustworthy 0.68
Motivational 0.68
Openness 0.43
2 Innovation role
Anticipatory 0.72
Digital savvy 0.71
Risk taker 0.70
Confidence 0.40
3*
Diplomatic 0.55
4 Absorbing uncertainty role
Sensible −0.53
Communicative −0.51
Direction −0.51
Agile 0.40
Collaborative 0.63
Lobbyist 0.63
5 Adaptation role
Informed 0.64
Planning 0.73
Decisive 0.38
6*
Inspirational −0.48
7 Visionary role
Visionary −0.62
Encouraging −0.63
*Role has a single variable hence cannot be grouped.
there was no variable with low correlation or correlation > 0.9. Sampling adequacy was examined
using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure to assess the suitability of the data for EFA. The suit-
ability of the data for EFA was found to be 0.69 and KMO values for individual variables was >
0.50, confirming that EFA was appropriate for the sample data. Item communalities (except for
one item) were greater than 0.50 indicating that the sample size was adequate. The EFA produced
7 factors for loading items, but two factors were loaded with one item each. We first checked how
the model fitted the data using six fit indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR), the relative chi-square test, and Coefficient of determination (CD). As
per Hu and Bentler (1999), CFI, and TLI are expected to be greater than or close to .95 to indicate
acceptable fit, and SRMR should be less than .08 for acceptable fit. Browne and Cudeck (1992)
argued that the RMSEA value of .05 or less is considered a good fit and .08 indicates an accep-
table fit. Table 4 shows the EFA results indicating how attributes were grouped into DL roles
based on the factor loading. All items loaded appropriately as the minimum loading value was
0.3. Based on the loading factors, items were grouped into five roles. Items in the first factor
appear to represent the inspirational role of a digital leader, items in the second factor represent
the innovation role of a digital leader, items in the fourth factor represent the ability of a digital
leader to absorb uncertainties, items in the fifth factor represent the adaption role of a digital
leader while items in the seventh factor represent the visionary role of a digital leader. The
third and sixth factors were each loaded with one item, hence were not grouped into roles.
Again, another single item was dropped for each role to be tested by Hypotheses 2 and 4
respectively.
6.2.2. Confirmatory factor analysis

To conduct the CFA based on the factors in Table 4, only items with loading factor >0.5 were
selected. All items; that is 2, of the seventh factor, the first 5 items of the first factor, the first
3 items of the second factor, and the items with negative correlation, that is 3, in the fourth
factor were included in the CFA test. Items in the fifth factor were not included after ignoring
one item with loading <0.5. Thus, a total of 4 factors and 13 items formed a model to be
tested by CFA after dropping some items while fitting the model. This means that the inspira-
tional role remained with 5 items, the innovation role and absorbing uncertainty role remained
with 3 items each, and the visionary role remained with 2 items when the adaptation role was
dropped. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was tested with 5 items after rejecting 1 item; Hypothesis 2 was
tested with 3 items after rejecting 3 items; Hypothesis 3 was tested with 3 items after rejecting
3 items; Hypothesis 4 was rejected, and Hypothesis 5 was tested with 2 items after rejecting 1
item.
The CFA model was tested using maximum-likelihood estimation with robust standard errors
(MLR) conducted in Stata and AMOS. MLR was used because it produces standard errors and
chi-square test statistics that are robust to deviations from normality. We first checked how the
model fitted the data using six fit indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR), the relative chi-square test, and Coefficient of determination (CD). As per Hu
and Bentler (1999), CFI and TLI are expected to be greater than or close to .95 to indicate accep-
table fit, and SRMR should be less than .08 for acceptable fit. Browne and Cudeck (1992) argued
that the RMSEA value of .05 or less is considered a good fit, .08 indicates acceptable fit, and .10
or more a poor fit. Relative chi-square values of less than or equal to 2 are considered a good
fit and values between 2 and 3 are considered acceptable fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
CD is represented as a value between 0.0 and 1.0 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). A value of
1.0 indicates a perfect fit, and is thus a highly reliable model for future forecasts, while a value
of 0.0 would indicate that the calculation fails to accurately model the data at all (Schermelleh-
Engel et al., 2003).
The six fit indices for the CFA model are illustrated in Table 5. All indices indicate acceptable fit.
The CD value indicates a perfect fit while the relative χ 2 value indicates a good fit. Also, the value of
RMSEA indicates a good fit. Based on the fit indices, we can conclude that the CFA model provides a
better fit for the data.
Based on the CFA test results in Table 5, the following Hypotheses can be acceptable:
Hypothesis 1: The inspirational characteristics of a digital leader that have positive influence on her/his ability to
lead DT include the ability to convince, influence and motivate; enthusiastic; and trustworthy;
Hypothesis 2: The innovation characteristics of a digital leader that have positive influence on her/his ability to
lead DT include anticipatory; digital savvy; and risk taker;
Hypothesis 3: The absorption uncertainty characteristics of a digital leader that have positive influence on her/
his ability to lead DT include sensible communicative rapport and direction;
Hypothesis 4: The adaptation characteristics of a digital leader have no influence on her/his ability to lead DT;
and
Hypothesis 5: The visionary characteristics of a digital leader that have positive influence on her/his ability to
lead DT include visionary and encouraging.
Table 5. Fit indices for the three CFA models

CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR CD Relative χ 2 (χ 2/df) χ 2 (df)
0.979 0.971 0.052[0.029, 0.072] 0.041 1 1.57 87.893(56)
6.2.3. Exploring the CFA model output

The output of the CFA model is presented in Table 6 and basically, the columns are the same as those
presented for regression models. The rows present the standardized factor loadings and intercepts.
The last row lists the chi-squared values for the model, which are explained while fitting the model to
the data. The standardized factor loadings listed in the Coef. column and the corresponding p-values
listed in the P>|z| column are the most important information that can be explored. The p-values for
all the factor loadings are below the typical cut-off of .05, leading to the rejection of the null hypoth-
eses that the factor loadings are equal to 0; hence, the factor loadings are statistically significant.
We get standardized factor loadings because the variances for some factors were set to 1 to scale
the latent variable and for model identification. The standardized factor loading for the Communi-
cative variable is 0.826; meaning that one standard deviation increase in ABSORB leads to a 0.826
standard deviation increase in the response to the Communicative question. The strongest factor
loading of the thirteen items is Encouraging with a value of 1.251, which is the measure of VISION-
ARIES. Each factor has its strongest factor which is its best measure and Motivational is the weakest
factor loading with a value of 0.405.
Table 6. Measurement model output

Standardized Coef. OIM Std. Err. Z P>z [95% Conf. Interval]
Sensible <-
Absorb 1 (constrained)
_cons 5.797 0.063 92.05 0.000 5.674 5.921
Communicative <-
Absorb 0.826 0.073 11.3 0.000 0.683 0.969
_cons 5.943 0.052 115.35 0.000 5.842 6.044
Direction <-
Absorb 0.723 0.069 10.52 0.000 0.588 0.858
_cons 5.887 0.051 116.23 0.000 5.788 5.986
Convincing <-
Inspire 1 (constrained)
_cons 6.028 0.083 72.84 0.000 5.866 6.191
Influence <-
Inspire 0.710 0.055 12.85 0.000 0.602 0.818
_cons 5.929 0.078 76.23 0.000 5.777 6.082
Enthusiastic <-
Inspire 1.035 0.099 10.47 0.000 0.841 1.228
_cons 5.759 0.086 66.74 0.000 5.590 5.929
Trustworthy <-
Inspire 0.629 0.068 9.26 0.000 0.496 0.762
_cons 6.061 0.068 89.06 0.000 5.928 6.195
Motivational <-
Inspire 0.405 0.078 5.18 0.000 0.252 0.558
_cons 5.939 0.072 81.93 0.000 5.797 6.081
Anticipatory <-
Innovation 1 (constrained)
_cons 6.321 0.109 58.09 0.000 6.107 6.534
Digitalsavvy <-
Innovation 1.021 0.046 22.35 0.000 0.932 1.111
_cons 5.920 0.118 50.34 0.000 5.689 6.150
Risktaker <-
Innovation 0.980 0.040 24.53 0.000 0.902 1.058
_cons 6.241 0.109 57.21 0.000 6.027 6.454
Visionary <-
Visionaries 1 (constrained)
_cons 5.863 0.052 112.98 0.000 5.761 5.965
Encouraging <-
Visionaries 1.251 0.269 4.65 0.000 0.724 1.778
_cons 5.816 0.050 115.57 0.000 5.717 5.915
Notes: LR test of model vs. saturated: chi2(56) = 87.89, Prob > chi2 = 0.0042.
The intercept for each item labeled _cons appears below each factor loading in the Coef. column.
The intercepts are the predicted values of the items when their respective factors are 0 or its mean.
The intercept for Communicative is 5.943; which means that when ABSORB is at its mean, the Com-
municative is predicted to be 5.943 on its scale from 1–7.
6.2.4. Validity of DL model

The validity of the model under study is obtained using two types of validity; namely, Conver-
gent validity and Discriminant validity. Convergent validity is concerned with whether or not a
set of items share a high proportion of common variance. According to Hair et al. (1998), the
criteria suggested for convergent validity include factor loadings should be above 0.5; average
variance extracted (AVE) should reach 0.5 as a minimum, and composite reliability (CR) should
be above 0.6–0.7. Table 7 presents the results of both Convergent validity and Discriminant
validity.
All the items have factor loadings above 0.6 except for one item which has factor loading at
0.393. All the four factors have an AVE value that is above 0.5 except one item which has an AVE
value at 0.484 (which is still above the cut-off point of 0.5), thus they all show good levels of
internal consistency. Three values of CR are above 0.6 while one is less than 0.5. Based on
these facts, it can be said that the measurement model satisfied the criteria of convergent
validity.
The discriminant validity, on the other hand, is the extent to which a construct is distinctive from
others. Based on Fornell and Larcker (1981), we assess whether or not the four factors are different
from one another by testing to see if the square root of the AVE for any given two factors is greater
than the correlation between these two factors. The results presented in Table 7 show such facts, and
it can be said that the four factors have distinctive properties that capture different aspects of the
roles of DL.
In summary, based on the EFA model, it can be argued that the EFA model better explains the
data. However, the CFA indicates that the model converges somewhat when the factors were
different from each other. The convergent validity of the model was satisfied and the discriminant
validity was also met. Despite the lower number of items included, the CFA model fitted well the
data. Though it was not included in the results, the one factor, two, and three factors CFA model,
fitted well the data. It can be generalized that the CFA model fitted well the data. To improve the
validity, especially the convergent validity, more items can be included in the CFA model with
large sample size.
Table 7. Validity of the DL construct

Latent Discriminant validity
variables SL SSL SQL NI AVE SVE CR 1 2 3 4
1 Inspire 0.849 0.721
Inspire 0.642 0.412
Inspire 0.843 0.711
Inspire 0.649 0.421
Inspire 0.393 0.154 2.419 5 0.484 0.696 0.421 0.696
2 Innov 0.947 0.897
Innov 0.895 0.801
Innov 0.926 0.857 2.555 3 0.852 0.923 0.852 −0.066 0.923
3 Absorb 0.836 0.699
Absorb 0.844 0.712
Absorb 0.752 0.566 1.977 3 0.659 0.812 0.659 0.042 0.059 0.812
4 Vision 0.678 0.460
Vision 0.875 0.766 1.225 2 0.613 0.783 0.613 0.057 −0.016 0.423 0.783
Notes: Innov – Innovation, Vision – Visionary, SL – Standardized Loading, SSL – Square of Standardized Loadings, NI – Number of
Indicators, AVE – Average Variance Extracted. SVE – Square Root of AVE, CR – Composite Reliability, SQL – Sum of Squared
Standardized Loading.
7. Implications for digital leadership in digital development

This study presented the conceptualization of DL and analysis of its characteristics necessary for DT
of the firm. The literature has indicated that leadership is an important quality in firms as it intro-
duces changes and innovation. In the context of digital technologies, scholars differ in describing,
conceptualizing, and even designating the roles and characteristics of DL. This may be attributed
to the challenging processes of DT and the challenging environment in which digital leaders
work which Bennett and Lemoine (2014) describe as VUCA to reflect the volatility, uncertainty, com-
plexity, and ambiguity of general conditions and situations. Very briefly, volatility means nature and
dynamics of change; uncertainty means lack of predictability; complexity means the multiplex of
forces; and ambiguity means the haziness of reality (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014).
The study informs firms, researchers, and policymakers of the importance of planning DTS, imple-
menting DT, and eventually DL leading such a transformation. Initially, the study proposed a frame-
work with five dimensions and a total of 26 characteristics. Other scholars also made attempts to
explore or conceptualize the DL. Zupanzic et al. (2016) considered knowledge (consolidated from
organizational members, shared within the team to develop understanding, brought internally
from the external organization) as a benefit accrued from DL. In the present study, the informed
characteristics of the adaptation role have been described as the ability, knowledge, and awareness
of a digital leader in issues related to digital technologies and DT.
In his DL framework, Hensellek (2020) argued that a digital leader must possess a digital mindset;
that is, attitude towards digital technologies in general and their uses, and digital skill-set; that is,
understand digital technologies, use them sensibly, recognize opportunities, and assess risks associ-
ated with DT. Another scholar, Prince (2018), proposed digital skills and technologies as constructs of
DL comprising the mastering of and ability to use digital technologies. Also, El Sawy et al. (2016) pro-
posed changes in mindset and skill-set of people at all levels of the organization (top management
and all employees) to implement a successful DTS. A clear analysis of the five dimensions of the
present study and their characteristics reveal that a digital leader should develop both a digital
mindset and skill-set to lead the DT, inspire, and help organizational employees to adapt and
adopt digital changes.
Prince (2018) added two more constructs for a DL: these constructs are connectivities (a collabora-
tive digital culture to encourage knowledge-sharing) and digital strategies (the ability to transform
business value chains into value networks and capabilities in big data analytics). However, going
through DL constructs by Prince (2018), one can learn that the model contains some leadership
styles (e.g. Transactional, Transformational) and some constructs contain items such as capabilities
in big data analytics that can be accomplished by other team members. However, the framework
proposed in this study also captures the two constructs: collaborative – to work jointly with
others (management and followers) and visionary – to have a vision and imagination for the future.
Based on the above descriptions and frameworks from other scholars, one can conclude that the
DL framework developed in this study is more comprehensive and it has grouped characteristics into
roles. The framework has also captured more characteristics of DL than other frameworks. This makes
the developed framework suitable for adoption while one is dealing with DL in DT.
The implications for researchers, practitioners and policymakers can be drawn from the present
study. One of the main implications comes from close relationship between digital technologies and
economic development. Economic wealth is a critical prerequisite for ICT diffusion as digital technol-
ogies depend on specific infrastructures. Economic wealth can enable a digital leader to transform a
firm by establishing digital infrastructure which can support DT. As a result, firms with higher levels
of digital infrastructures will be the ones with greater DD. Even in developing countries, firms are
increasingly digitally transforming their operations and service delivery. Adeleye and Eboagu
(2019) revealed that ICT development in 54 African countries has a statistically significant positive
relationship with economic growth. In Kenya, Ndung’u (2018) found that digitization emerged as
a driver for inclusive economic growth, thus facilitating the creation of jobs. Mwantimwa’s (2019)
assessment of how ICTs enhance business in 182 firms in Tanzania revealed that ICTs are essential for
fostering socio-economic development. Analyzing a group of 10 countries from the Middle East and
24 from the OECD, Habibi and Zabardast (2020) showed that ICT has a more positive effect on econ-
omic growth, especially in countries with better access to education. Another study by Myovella et al.
(2020) examined how the diffusion of digital technologies in 41 Sub-Saharan Africa and 33 OECD
countries affects economic growth. The nature of DL is dynamic and central to integrating culture
and competence in optimizing digital technology to create value and thus, under good DL these
transformations will be successful and will lead to growth.
In developing countries, some actions and inventions of digital leaders with vision and mission
can promote DD. Using simpler digital technologies like mobile phones and the Internet, it is poss-
ible to design and develop digital applications that can be used by many people including lower-
income earners and those living in remote areas. The current widespread use of mobile phones
for financial transactions and banking via sim-banking contribute to development in developing
countries. Another implication of using digital technologies for economic development can be
found in tele-centers or information kiosks. These initiatives were introduced by policy-makers
and private organizations to foster the adoption and use of ICT in developing countries. The
centers enable poor people to receive information about their governments, market prices,
health, and education (Ashraf et al., 2007). In Tanzania, Lwoga and Chigona (2020) found that
tele-centers enabled rural women to build social, financial, human, and political capabilities
leading to economic development. As the financial capabilities of individuals grow, their digital capa-
bilities improve, their ability to acquire additional and more advanced ICT goods and services equally
grow, and their DD increases. Digital leaders and entrepreneurs can exploit such opportunities by
developing digital applications relevant to individuals. Again, this DT can lead to DD and develop-
ment in general.
ICT has been integrated into service delivery in health (e-health), education (e-education), and
business (e-commerce) to improve the delivery in both the public and private sectors. ICT has
also been integrated into social development to disseminate and share information in agriculture,
governance, and human empowerment. All these are DDs which requires leaders with good DL
skills to deliver to the public. The ultimate goal of DL is to efficiently deliver the services leading
to economic, social, and human development.
DT can be perceived as a threat to employees and the current status quo. We can consider DL as a
social influence process mediated by advanced information technology to produce a change in atti-
tudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and/or performance with individuals, groups, and/or organiz-
ations. In this respect, a digital leader has an inspirational role to employees about the benefits of
DT with tangible proof of concept, even if the successful experiments are small in scale.
Currently, in most complex networked organizations the traditional hierarchical leadership
models do not work properly. Thus, DL requires networking with every employee and the use of
influence and knowledge brokering. This requires digital leaders to reshape their leadership roles
and functions to adapt to the complex networked organizations. This helps digital leaders to
build common understanding and agreement of what can or cannot be accomplished thereby
enhancing the effectiveness of these networks. As per Petry (2018), leadership needs to be more net-
worked, open, participative, and agile.
8. Conclusion
The study has shown the influence of DT in managing firms. The study has revealed that leaders with
digital mindsets are change agents toward DT. The study has as well presented strategies that digital
leaders can employ to manage the transformation process and perform their day-to-day duties. DT
of the services can lead to efficient and time management; improve businesses, and even establish a
network of participants. The transformation leads to DD, and development in general.
Based on the study results, it is important that firms and organizations develop criteria for asses-
sing the characteristics, behaviors and roles of digital leaders. The essence is to have a leader who
can initiate and spearhead DT and also motivate the employees to adopt the digital technologies.
The ultimate is to ensure firms embrace digital technologies in service deliveries, leading to
development.
With the attributes of digital leaders identified with EFA, the transformational leadership style fits
better to be adopted by digital leaders. Digital leaders are expected to inspire positive changes in
their followers; are concerned and involved in the DT process; and are also focused on helping
every member of the group succeed as well. As the DT process requires team work, adopting trans-
formational leadership style can facilitate and encourage cooperation among digital leaders and
their followers for the success of their works. The ultimate is the successful DT with a happy team.
As DT is just more than developing digital technologies, it should be aligned with organization
culture for its adoption. Failure to align the DT effort with employee beliefs, values and behaviors
can create additional risks to an organization’s culture. Effort can be made to shift the culture to
understand, embrace, and advance DT. Thus, culture may also influence the way we judge
leaders, and a research can be conducted which incorporates a component of culture. A study of
this nature may easily generalize its results across sectors, organizations and culture.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Dr Mawazo Mwita Magesa is a Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Information and Communication Technology of
Sokoine University of Agriculture. His research interests include ICT for sustainable development, digital transformation
and development, systems analysis and design, and computer-assisted decision-making.
Ms Joan Jonathan is an Assistant Lecturer at the Centre for Information and Communication Technology of Sokoine
University of Agriculture. Her research interests include ICT for Development (ICT4D), Machine Learning and Data
Mining for Disease Prediction and Detection, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data Analytics, Public Health Surveillance
Systems and Digital Transformation.
ORCID
Mawazo Mwita Magesa http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3852-5120
References
Abouzahra, M. (2011, November 4–6). Causes of failure in healthcare IT projects. 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Management Science, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19, 46–50. IACSIT Press.
Aceto, G., Persico, V., & Pescapé, A. (2018). The role of information and communication technologies in healthcare:
Taxonomies, perspectives, and challenges. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 107, 125–154. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2018.02.008
Adeleye, N., & Eboagu, C. (2019). Evaluation of ICT development and economic growth in Africa. NETNOMICS: Economic
Research and Electronic Networking, 20(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11066-019-09131-6
Adesola, S. A. (2012). Entrenching democracy and good governance: The role of ICT. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 3(15), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2012.v3n15p80
Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors affecting the transformational leadership role of principals
in implementing ICT in schools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(4), 164–176.
Ashraf, M. M., Swatman, P., & Hanisch, D. J. (2007). Some perspectives on understanding the adoption and implemen-
tation of ICT interventions in developing countries. The Journal of Community Informatics, 3(4), https://doi.org/10.
15353/joci.v3i4.2354
Avgerou, C. (2003). The link between ICT and economic growth in the discourse of development. In M. Korpela, R.
Montealegre, & A. Poulymenakou (Eds.), Organizational information systems in the context of globalization (pp.
373–386). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35695-2_23
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Benjamin, P. (2001). Community development and demoratisation through information technology. In R. Heeks (Ed.),
Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform (pp. 194–
210). Psychology Press.
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92(1/2), Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2389563
Bennis, W. G., & Townsend, R. (1989). On becoming a leader (Vol. 36). Addison-Wesley
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation
of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825919 https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/
2013/37:2.3
Birke, F. M., & Knierim, A. (2020). ICT for agriculture extension: Actor network theory for understanding the establish-
ment of agricultural knowledge centers in South Wollo, Ethiopia. Information Technology for Development, 26(3),
591–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2020.1727826
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–
258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Chanias, S., Myers, M. D., & Hess, T. (2019). Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: The case
of a financial services provider. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsis.2018.11.003
Cichosz, M., Wallenburg, C. M., & Knemeyer, A. M. (2020). Digital transformation at logistics service providers: Barriers,
success factors and leading practices. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(2), 209–238. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2019-0229
Creasy, T., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2013). From every direction–How personality traits and dimensions of project managers
can conceptually affect project success. Project Management Journal, 44(6), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.
21372
Dada, D. (2006). The failure of e-government in developing countries: A literature review. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries, 26(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00176.x
Damoah, I. S., & Akwei, C. A. (2017). Government project failure in Ghana: A multidimensional approach. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-02-2016-0017
De la Boutetière, H., Montagner, A., & Reich, A. (2018). Unlocking success in digital transformations. McKinsey &
Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/unlocking-success-in-digital-
transformations
De Waal, B., van Outvorst, F., & Ravesteyn, P. (2016, November 10–11). Digital leadership: The objective-subjective
dichotomy of technology revisited. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Management, Leadership and
Governance ECMLG 2016, Bucharest, Romania. pp. 52–60
Ebad, S. A. (2018). An exploratory study of ICT projects failure in emerging markets. Journal of Global Information
Technology Management, 21(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1462071
Ebert, C., & Duarte, C. H. C. (2018). Digital transformation. IEEE Software , 35(4), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018.
2801537
El Emam, K., & Koru, A. G. (2008). A replicated survey of IT software project failures. IEEE Software, 25(5), 84–90. https://
doi.org/10.1109/MS.2008.107
El Sawy, O. A., Kræmmergaard, P., Amsinck, H., & Vinther, A. L. (2016). How LEGO built the foundations and enterprise
capabilities for digital leadership. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2), 141–166
Euler, T. (2015). Digital leadership: Leading successfully in the age of digital transformation. Digital Hills. https://medium.
com/digital-hills/digital-leadership-leading-successfully-in-the-age-of-digital-transformation-part-1-35190fdbe2a6
Finch, P. (2003). Applying the Slevin-Pinto project implementation profile to an information systems project. Project
Management Journal, 34(3), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400305
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Forrester Research. (2015). Digital transformation in the age of the customer: A spotlight on insurance. https://
insuranceblog.accenture.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Digital-Transformation-in-the-Age-of-the-Customer-
POV.pdf
Gigler, B.-S. (2011). Informational capabilities-the missing link for the impact of ICT on development. In E-Transform
knowledge platform working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2191594
Gunawong, P., & Gao, P. (2017). Understanding e-government failure in the developing country context: A process-
oriented study. Information Technology for Development, 23(1), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.
1269713
Günzel-Jensen, F., Hansen, J. R., Jakobsen, M. L. F., & Wulff, J. (2018). A two-pronged approach? Combined leadership
styles and innovative behavior. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(12), 957–970. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01900692.2017.1303711
Habibi, F., & Zabardast, M. A. (2020). Digitalization, education and economic growth: A comparative analysis of Middle
East and OECD countries. Technology in Society, 63, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101370
Hair, J. F., Balck, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of
Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
Heeks, R. (2002). Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations. The
Information Society, 18(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290075039
Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? iGovernment working paper.
Heeks, R. (2016). Examining “Digital Development”: The shape of things to come? In Development Informatics Working
Paper (Issue 64). University of Manchester. https://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/gdi/publications/
workingpapers/di/di_wp64.pdf
Hensellek, S. (2020). Digital leadership: A framework for successful leadership in the digital age. Journal of Media
Management and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/JMME.2020010104
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a
more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1165–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2011.09.009
Hidding, G. J., & Nicholas, J. M. (2017). A new way of thinking about IT project management practices: Early empirical
results. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 27(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10919392.2016.1263113
Hossan, C. G., Habib, M. W., & Kushchu, I. (2006, September 3–5). Success and failure factors for e-government projects
implementation in developing countries: A study on the perception of government officials of Bangladesh.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Mobile Government, Mobile Government Consortium International,
Brighon, UK. pp. 136–151.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Hughes, D. L., Rana, N. P., & Simintiras, A. C. (2017). The changing landscape of IS project failure: An examination of the
key factors. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(1), 142–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2016-
0029
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2),
386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687
Kamel, S. (2008, May 18–20). The use of ICT for social development in underprivileged communities in Egypt. 2008
Proceedings, 58, 2008 International Conference on Information Resources Management, Niagara Falls, Ontario,
Canada. https://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2008/58
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transform-
ation. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press, 14, 1–25 .
Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., & Vashdi, D. R. (2018). Motivated or demotivated to be creative: The role of self-regulatory focus in
transformational and transactional leadership processes. Applied Psychology, 67(1), 186–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/
apps.12122
Kitiyadisai, K. (2000, May 24–26). The implementation of IT in reengineering the Thai Revenue Department. Information
flows, Local Improvisations and Work Practices, Proceedings of the IFIP WG9. 4 Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.
Kouton, J., Bétila, R. R., & Lawin, M. (2020). The impact of ICT development on health outcomes in Africa: Does economic
freedom matter? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00689-3
Kozak-Holland, M., & Procter, C. (2020). The challenge of digital transformation. In M. Kozak-Holland & C. Procter (Eds.),
Managing transformation projects (pp. 1–11). Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33035-4_1
Lwoga, E. T., & Chigona, W. (2020). Telecenters and the expansion of human capabilities among rural women. Global
Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 69(6/7), 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-11-2019-0136
Magesa, M. M., Michael, K., & Ko, J. (2014). Access to agricultural market information by rural farmers in Tanzania.
Agricultural Market Information Services in Developing Countries, 4(7), 264–273.
Magesa, M. M., Michael, K., & Ko, J. (2020). Access and use of agricultural market information by smallholder farmers:
Measuring informational capabilities. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 86(6),
e12134. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12134
Magesa, M., & Sanga, C. (2020, May 18–22). Silent adoption of bring-your-own-device in Tanzania higher learning insti-
tutions – adoption policies. 2020 IST-Africa Conference (IST-Africa), Kampala, Uganda. pp. 1–10.
Mahenge, M. P. J., & Sanga, C. (2016). ICT for e-learning in three higher education institutions in Tanzania. Knowledge
Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 8(1), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.013
Mahmood, M., Weerakkody, V., & Chen, W. (2019). The influence of transformed government on citizen trust: Insights
from Bahrain. Information Technology for Development, 25(2), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2018.
1451980
Masiero, S. (2016). The origins of failure: Seeking the causes of design–reality gaps. Information Technology for
Development, 22(3), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1143346
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(5),
339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5
Mihardjo, L. W. W., Sasmoko, S., Alamsyah, F., & Elidjen, E. (2019). The influence of digital leadership on innovation man-
agement based on dynamic capability: Market orientation as a moderator. Management Science Letters, 9(7), 1059–
1070. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.3.018
Mihardjo, W. W. L., & Sasmoko, S. (2020). Digital transformation: Digital leadership role in developing business model
innovation mediated by co-creation strategy for telecommunication incumbent firms. In B. Orlando (Ed.), Strategy
and behaviors in the digital economy (pp. 1–18). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82517
Morakanyane, R., O’Reilly, P., McAvoy, J., & Grace, A. (2020, January 7–10). Determining digital transformation success
factors. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, USA. pp. 4356–
4365. https://doi.org/10125/64274
Morgan, B. (2019). Companies that failed at digital transformation and what we can learn from them. Forbes. https://www.
forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2019/09/30/companies-that-failed-at-digital-transformation-and-what-we-can-
learn-from-them/?sh=54757538603c
Mwantimwa, K. (2019). ICT usage to enhance firms’ business processes in Tanzania. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship
Research, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0170-6
Myovella, G., Karacuka, M., & Haucap, J. (2020). Digitalization and economic growth: A comparative analysis of sub-
Saharan Africa and OECD economies. Telecommunications Policy, 44(2), 101856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.
2019.101856
Ndung’u, N. S. (2018). Next steps for the digital revolution in Africa: Inclusive growth and job creation lessons from Kenya
[Working Paper 20]. Brookings Institution. https://media.africaportal.org/documents/Digital-Revolution-in-Africa_
Brookings_AGI_20181022.pdf
Norqvist, L. (2018). Analysis of the digital transformation of society and its impact on young people’s lives. Youth
Partnership
Pan, G., Hackney, R., & Pan, S. L. (2008). Information Systems implementation failure: Insights from prism. International
Journal of Information Management, 28(4), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.07.001
Petry, T. (2018). Digital leadership. In K. North, R. Maier, & O. Haas (Eds.), Knowledge management in digital change (pp.
209–218). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73546-7_12
Prince, K. A. (2018). Digital leadership: Transitioning into the digital age. James Cook University. https://doi.org/10.25903/
5d2bdd672c0e5
Puri, S. K., Chauhan, K. P. S., & Admedullah, M. (2000). Prospects of biological diversity information management. In
Information Ows, Local Improvisations and Work Practices. Proceedings of the IFIP WG9.4 Conference 2000, Cape
Town.
Qureshi, S. (2019). Perspectives on development: Why does studying information and communication technology for
development (ICT4D) matter? Information Technology for Development, 25(3), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02681102.2019.1658478
Rajala, T., & Aaltonen, H. (2020). Reasons for the failure of information technology projects in the public sector. In
H. Sullivan, H. Dickinson & H. Henderson (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of the public servant (pp. 1–19). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_78-1
Rogers, B. (2016). Why 84% of companies fail at digital transformation. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
brucerogers/2016/01/07/why-84-of-companies-fail-at-digital-transformation/#3fb0801e397b
SAP. (2017). SAP Study Reveals Four Key Traits of a Digital Transformation Leader. https://news.sap.com/2017/07/sap-
study-reveals-four-key-traits-digital-transformation-leader/
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of
significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74
Sen, A. (2013). A survey of sustainable development: Social and economic dimensions (6th ed.). Island Press.
Sing, R., & Amin, S. (2020). 5 digital transformation success factors for 2021. https://searchcio.techtarget.com/tip/5-digital-
transformation-success-factors
Tanniru, M. R. (2018). Digital leadership. In M. Pomffyova (Ed.), Management of information systems (pp. 93–110). InTech.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76045
Tchamyou, V. S., Asongu, S. A., & Odhiambo, N. M. (2019). The role of ICT in modulating the effect of education and
lifelong learning on income inequality and economic growth in Africa. African Development Review, 31(3), 261–
274. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8268.12388
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2020). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. John
Wiley & Sons
Tripathi, M., & Inani, S. K. (2020). Does information and communications technology affect economic growth? Empirical
evidence from SAARC countries. Information Technology for Development, 26(4), 773–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02681102.2020.1785827
UNDP. (2020). Human Development Report 2020. https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020.pdf
Valentine, E., & Stewart, G. (2015, January 5–8). Enterprise business technology governance: Three competencies to
build board digital leadership capability. Proceedings of 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, USA. pp. 4513–4522. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.539
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Wang, H., Feng, J., Zhang, H., & Li, X. (2020). The effect of digital transformation strategy on performance. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 31(3), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2019-0166
Wasono, L. W., & Furinto, A. (2018). The effect of digital leadership and innovation management for incumbent telecom-
munication company in the digital disruptive era. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(2.29), 125–
130. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.29.13142
Westerman, G., Calméjane, C., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2011). Digital transformation: A roadmap for billion-
dollar organizations [Consulting report]. MIT Center for Digital Business and Capgemini Consulting.
Willcocks, L. (2021). How to succeed at digital transformation. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/londonschool
ofeconomics/2021/01/29/how-to-succeed-at-digital-transformation/?sh=1046e842358a
World Bank. (2012). ICT for greater development impact: Information and communication technology 2012–2015.
Zupanzic, T., Verbeke, J., Achten, H., & Herneoja, A. (2016, August 24–26). Digital leadership. Proceedings of the 34th
International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Oulu,
Finland. Complexity & Simplicity, vol. 1, pp. 63–68.
View publication stats

Digital leadership in tanzania

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital leadership in tanzania

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital leadership in tanzania

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Conceptualizing digital leadership characteristics for successful digital

Article in Information Technology for Development · October 2021

Mawazo M. Magesa Joan Jonathan

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Conceptualizing digital leadership characteristics for successful

2. Digital leadership and transformation

3. Conceptualizing digital leadership

Table 1. Descriptions of characteristics of roles of digital leader

Figure 1. Digital leadership conceptual framework

Table 2. Characteristics of respondents

6.2. Analysis of the results

6.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis

Table 3. Leadership characteristics

Table 4. Factor structure and loadings of DL items

6.2.2. Conﬁrmatory factor analysis

Table 5. Fit indices for the three CFA models

6.2.3. Exploring the CFA model output

Table 6. Measurement model output

6.2.4. Validity of DL model

Table 7. Validity of the DL construct

7. Implications for digital leadership in digital development

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

View publication stats

You might also like