Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Embedding and sustaining change in digital transformations within financial services
(USC Thesis Other)
Embedding and sustaining change in digital transformations within financial services
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Embedding and Sustaining Change in Digital Transformations Within Financial Services
by
Rami Thabet
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023
© Copyright by Rami Thabet 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Rami Thabet certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Andrew Leone
Jennifer Phillips
Monique Claire Datta, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
Although senior leaders in financial services identify that digital transformation success is
imperative to long term profitability, embedding and sustaining digital transformation and
overcoming organizational normative culture has been a perennial challenge. The study explored
the digital transformation routines responsible for embedding and sustaining digital
transformation and overcoming organizational normative culture. This qualitative study utilized
the Burke-Litwin Model of organizational performance and change as the methodological
approach. The study used a sequential document analysis followed by 12 purposeful, semistructured interviews with senior digital transformation practitioners at LFI, a leading financial
institution with significant digital transformation efforts underway. The key findings identified
that employees who adopted new digital transformation routines reported greater belief in
individual factors including increased alignment with their roles. In addition, the adoption of new
digital transformation routines increased the alignment between employee needs and values, their
day-to-day roles, and the organization’s missions and performance. The employees expressed an
expectation to sustain and coexist digital transformation routines with the organization’s existing
normative routines and culture. The available literature reinforced the findings but in some areas
there was limited alignment due to the nascent nature of the digital transformation research
agenda. The study recommends the universal implementation of digital transformation routines
throughout the organization to embed and sustain digital transformation. In addition, the study
recommends insulating and nurturing the digital transformation culture and climate to
successfully sustain digital transformation success in the organization.
Keywords: digital transformation, digital success, organizational change, digital
leadership, digital transformation failures, digital routines, normative culture, financial services
digitization, fintech, Burke-Litwin model, digital culture, digital climate, digital transformation
routines, agile routines, transactional factors, transformational factors, embedding and sustaining
digital change, strong normative culture, dynamic capabilities, customer technology orientation,
large-scale strategic agility, financial services hegemony, change climate, digital leadership
competency
vi
Dedication
To my beloved family, for your support, inspiration, and understanding throughout this journey.
This is our collective accomplishment, and I am grateful for your love, dedication, and support.
Ahmed, may you write one of these one day.
vii
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my fellow cohort twenty colleagues for your support, comradery, and
expertise. The quality and rigor that you brough to our class discussions, and the expertise that
you graciously shared over the past three years has been enriching. You were exceptionally
engaged and brought the best of yourselves throughout the duration of the program. As the lone
Canadian in the program, you welcomed me with open arms and made me feel at home instantly
and for that I thank you.
I am eternally thankful to my dissertation committee for your stewardship and guidance
throughout the dissertation journey. Your tireless efforts, insightful feedback, and insistence on
excellence was my inspiration throughout the journey. I am forever grateful to Dr. Monique
Claire Datta, my dissertation chair, for her nudging towards precision and clarity on the
definition of the problem of practice, the research questions, and throughout the writing journey.
I am eternally indebted to Dr. Jennifer Phillips for your level of commitment to the problem of
practice, your constant encouragement, and the creating the scaffolding that enabled the
completion of this endeavor. I want to thank Dr. Andrew Leone for serving on my committee
and bringing your expertise in the field to bear on the dissertation.
I would like to acknowledge my professional community colleagues for their support and
encouragement throughout my doctoral program journey. Specifically, I’d like to thank Emma
Ballantyne, Benoit Germain, Rebecca Konefat, Erica Nielsen, Sumit Oberai, Ramesh Siromani,
Jason Storsley, and Peter Tilton for their intellectual and professional support throughout the
writing process. I have had the privilege of the support of an extensive community of colleagues
throughout my career that have made this the capstone to my career in addition to my doctorate.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 1
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 2
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.................................................................... 3
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Organization Context and Mission ..................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.................................................................... 7
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 8
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 8
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Emergence of Digital Transformation .............................................................................. 13
Digital Transformations in Financial Services ................................................................. 18
Impacts of Digital Transformation.................................................................................... 19
The Pervasive Problem of Digital Transformation Failures............................................. 20
Digital Transformation Strategic Responses .................................................................... 22
Building Dynamic Capabilities in Digital Transformation............................................... 24
Normative Culture, Hegemony, and the Change Climate in Financial Services.............. 32
The Role of Leaders in Digital Transformation................................................................ 33
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework........................................................................... 38
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 48
ix
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 49
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 49
Overview of Methodology................................................................................................ 50
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 52
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 53
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 59
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 60
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 61
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 62
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 63
Participants........................................................................................................................ 63
Document Analysis Overview.......................................................................................... 66
Research Question 1: How do Transactional Factors Change for Employees Who
Adopt New Digital Transformation Routines? ................................................................. 70
Research Question 2: What Transformational and Transactional Factors Influence
an Employee’s Propensity to Sustain Routines Within Digital Transformations? ........... 82
Research Question 3: How do Employees Experience Changes in their Work Unit
Climate and Individual Needs and Values due to the Interaction of Digital
Transformation with Normative Culture Routines? ......................................................... 92
Summary of Findings........................................................................................................ 99
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 103
Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................... 104
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 109
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................ 115
Recommendations for Future Research.......................................................................... 116
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 117
References................................................................................................................................... 120
x
Appendix A: Document Analysis Protocol................................................................................. 136
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 137
Interview Protocol Crosswalk..................................................................................................... 143
1
List of Tables
Table 1: Burke-Litwin Transformational Factors Definitions 42
Table 2: Burke-Litwin Transactional Factors Definitions 44
Table 3: Data Sources 51
Table 4: Interview Sampling Criteria 56
Table 5: Demographic Characteristics of Participants 65
Table 6: Document Analysis Inventory & Participant Cross-Reference 67
Table 7: Document Analysis Research Question Finding Alignment 69
Table 8: Transaction Factors that Change Due to Adoption of New Digital
Routines
71
Table 9: Document Analysis Individual and Organizational Performance
Linkages
79
Table 10: Transformational and Transactional Factors that Sustain DT Routines 83
Table 11: Propensity to Sustain DT Influenced by a Management Routine &
Structure
86
Table 12: The Change Experience Due to the Intersection of DT and Normative
Culture Routines
93
Table 13: Transformational and Transactional Themes, Factors, and Findings 100
Table 14: Transactional Factor and Finding 105
Table 15: Digital Transformation Routine Success Factors and LFI Actions 110
Table 16: Dynamic Capability Framework Recommendations 113
Table B1: Interview Items by Research Question 143
2
List of Figures
Figure 1: Digital Transformation Definitional Framework 16
Figure 2: Dynamic Capability Framework for Digital Transformation 26
Figure 3: Comparing Digital Transformation Leadership Models 36
Figure 4: The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change 40
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework: Digital Transformation Routines in Practice 46
Figure 6: Adoption of New Digital Transformation Routine Improved Belief in
Individual Factors
72
Figure 7: Digital Transformation Routine Adoption Enhanced Task and Skill
Abilities
73
Figure 8: Perceived Linkage Between Individual & Organizational Performance
Due to DT Routines
77
Figure 9: Factors that Support the Propensity to Sustain DT Routines 84
3
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Over 25 years ago, Harvard Business Review published John Kotter’s seminal article,
“Why Transformation Efforts Fail.” His recommendations were widely accepted and have
enjoyed a near-cult following, but the emerging consensus is that the success rate of large-scale
transformations over the past 25 years remains unchanged at 30% (Ashkenas, 2015). The onset
of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” has created an imperative towards digital transformation
defined as the use of information and communication technology to develop and enhance
business models (Rizzo, 2018; Verhoef et al., 2021; Vermeulen et al., 2018; Vial, 2019). The
Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated organizations’ digital transformation plans according to 77%
of Chief Executive Officers with some citing digital transformation as their primary strategic
imperative (Yo-Jud Cheng et al., 2021).
The large and accelerated investment levels into digital transformations accompanied
equally robust promises of benefits arising from the investment in and usage of digital
technologies, dubbed the digital dividend. As organizations exit the pandemic, management and
investors alike have begun to demand returns on those digital investments to offset rising
production costs and persistent pressures on economic returns. Financial services, specifically, is
under significant investor scrutiny to demonstrate economies from persistent and sizable
investments in digital transformation (Finalta, 2020). Embedding and sustaining digital
transformation and reaping the digital dividend has become a CEO’s key imperative and viewed
as a crucial driver to maintaining a positive return on equity (ROE), which is a key measure of
sustained profitability and future competitiveness in financial services (Finalta, 2020). Finally,
successful transformations have been correlated with healthier organizational cultures that
exhibit greater diversity and equity and increased employee inclusion, which is a key strategic
4
priority for financial services firms (Kretchmer & Khashabi, 2020). Despite sustained digital
transformation focus and effort, few organizations have been successful in sustaining digital
transformation success. This study explores the organizational digital transformation routines
responsible for achieving successful digital transformation and overcoming an
organization’s normative culture.
Background of the Problem
Research has established the linkage between successful digital transformation and
organizational performance (Agarwal et al., 2010; Majchrzak et al., 2016). Specifically, the
potential of digital transformation to unlock operational efficiencies contributing to cost savings
and consumer experience improvements has been well established (Gust et al., 2017; Pagani,
2013). In addition, the literature has demonstrated the impact of successful digital transformation
on firm growth (Tumbas et al., 2015), financial performance (Karimi & Walter, 2015), and
competitive advantage (Neumeier et al., 2017). These positive impacts are currently dominating
the financial services agenda.
Senior management as well as investors have focused on the use of digital transformation
to reap the benefits of this digital dividend to accelerate firm growth, which makes navigating
successful digital transformation one of the most pressing and dominant problems of practice in
the sector (Deloitte Center for Financial Services, 2022). Historically, digital transformations
were a subset of the overarching topic of general business transformation and change
management topics (Vial, 2019). The focus has been on strategic business change, organizational
structural change, and the overall adoption of change by applying change management principles
(Deloitte Center for Financial Services, 2022; Kotter, 1995; Vial, 2019). The introduction of
technology-based financial firms (fintechs), the encroachment of Silicon Valley’s large
5
technology players into finance, and the global financial crisis have accelerated the focus on
digital transformation and created a significant focus on digital transformation in the main media
and academic research (Agarwal et al., 2010; Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Majchrzak et al., 2016).
The emerging consensus is that innovating with digital technologies to create and enhance
business models, unlock operational performance, and create accelerated growth pathways is a
preeminent firm priority (Deloitte Center for Financial Services, 2022; Hess et al., 2020; Vial,
2019). Despite the need for successful digital transformation, over 84% of all digital
transformations fail primarily due to the insufficient adoption of digital transformation practices
and norms, more ubiquitously called routines (De Los Reyes, 2015; Rogers, 2016).
The research has advanced the understanding of specific aspects of the digital
transformation phenomenon but has highlighted that technology is only one part of the puzzle
required to accomplish successful transformation. Strategy (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Matt et al.,
2015); organizational and structural change (Selander & Jarvenpaa, 2016); and processes,
organizational barriers, and culture (Carlo et al., 2012; Karimi & Walter, 2015) are emerging as
critical enablers of successful digital transformation. These factors are also contributing to the
adoption of literature-based best practices that are improving the performance of digital
transformations. The literature has established clear linkages between structural changes,
including employee roles, skills and routines, organizational structures, and culture, with changes
in value creation (Colbert et al., 2016; Earley, 2014; Fitzgerald et al., 2014; Haffke et al., 2017;
Hartl & Hess, 2017; Maedche, 2016; Singh & Hess, 2020).
Despite a large body of research on the various parts that comprise the digital
transformation agenda, the research has been scarce on the topics of digital routines and their
impact on digital transformation (Vial, 2019). The impact of organizational inertia as a barrier to
6
digital transformation was the focus of several studies (Andriole, 2017; Islam et al., 2017; Svahn
et al., 2017), but the linkages between overcoming that inertia through the sustained and
embedded adoption of digital routines is nascent in the research and will benefit from further
research and exploration. The research on the application to the problem of practice of
embedding and sustaining digital transformation in financial services is even more elusive and is
the basis of this study.
Organization Context and Mission
Established in the late 1800s, the Leading Financial Institution (LFI; a pseudonym), is
among the largest and most successful financial institutions globally. LFI holds a leadership
position in every financial services segment. LFI is recognized for its financial performance, risk
management, product leadership, and transformation efforts. The organization employs over
80,000 employees across 37 distinct geographies with a concentration in North America. The
organization consistently invests 68% to 72% of its annual budget on digital transformation
initiatives. LFI has stated its ambition is to continue to grow at a 10% premium to sector peers
primarily using best-in-class digital solutions delivered through sustained digital transformation.
Despite the focused investment, digital transformation successes have not exceeded industry
benchmarks with only 30% delivering their financial outcomes. Additionally, these digital
transformations have not persisted with the strong organizational normative culture overtaking
the short-lived transformation changes.
Recently, the organization has redoubled its efforts by initiating a large-scale and
pervasive digital transformation focus. Digital transformation employees were organized into
consumer journey teams that are focused on specific organizational and transformation outcomes
that contribute to the organization’s enhanced mission of delivering a 10% premium growth to
7
industry peers. The study focuses on the population of the organization who are engaged in the
consumer journey teams, who come from LFI’s existing normative culture. This study only
includes full-time and full-time contract employees of LFI who are below the level of VicePresident. Participant gender and ethnicity are not criteria for inclusion in the study, but they
must be adults above the age of 18, having worked in digital transformation consumer journeys
for more than six months, having been with the organization for more than eighteen months, and
reside in North America.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore the digital transformation routines within LFI most
responsible for achieving successful digital transformation and overcoming the organization’s
normative culture. Specifically, the study examined and identified the cultural, individual, and
organizational routines necessary to embed and sustain successful digital transformation change.
The problem of practice will identify implementable recommendations to create an optimal
environment to embed and sustain long-lasting digital transformation outcomes for the
organization and employees. The questions that guide the study are:
1. How do transactional factors change for employees who adopt new routines in digital
transformations?
2. What transformational and transactional factors influence an employee’s propensity
to sustain routines within digital transformations?
3. How do employees experience change in their work unit climate and individual needs
and values due to the interaction of digital transformation with normative culture
routines?
8
Importance of the Study
The high failure rate of digital transformations in financial services is an important
problem to solve for two primary reasons. The first reason is that successful digital
transformations are a crucial driver to maintain a positive return on equity (ROE), which is a key
measure of sustained profitability and future competitiveness in financial services (Finalta,
2020). As one of the globally leading financial institutions, LFI’s core strategy is to leverage
digital transformation as the primary mechanism for achieving sustained and persistent growth
and improved profitability in response to shifting consumer preferences (Schofield et al., 2020).
LFI, like all financial services firms, is facing significant disruption and consumer
disintermediation from technology platforms; digitally transforming is the primary response
strategy to maintain ongoing competitiveness (Bughin & Van Zeebroeck, 2017).
The second reason is that successful digital transformations are crucial for building the
required organizational and employee attributes for a digitally disrupted future. These attributes
are critical for positive employee experiences, increased engagement, and lower attrition rates
(Deloitte Center for Financial Services, 2022). As LFI competes more aggressively for digital
talent, successful digital transformations are critical for attracting and retaining talent. Successful
digital transformations have also been correlated with healthier organizational cultures that
exhibit greater diversity and equity and increased employee inclusion, key imperatives for LFI
(Kretchmer & Khashabi, 2020).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The methodological approach for this qualitative study utilized the Burke-Litwin model
of organizational performance and change. The Burke-Litwin model describes key factors that
affect organizational performance and determine how change occurs (Burke, 2018). Specifically,
9
the study used the Burke-Litwin model to understand the component parts of an organization and
how they inter-relate thereby addressing all the elements necessary for the organizational change.
The model includes 12 change forces across three distinct levels: transformational, transaction,
and individual. Transformational factors are deeply embedded characteristics of an organization,
such as strategy and culture. The transactional factors focus on the daily operations of an
organization and include elements such as structure and management practices. Finally, the
individual factors inform the performance attributes of the individual and the organization, such
as values, climate, and motivation (Burke, 2018). The systemically interconnected nature of the
model makes it an idyllic organization design frame to evaluate large and complex change events
such as digital transformation (Church & Burke, 2017).
There are three primary reasons that the Burke-Litwin model is ideal for examining this
problem of practice. First, this model gives primacy to the external change factors as a key
driving ingredient of change. Digital transformation within financial services is a macro-trend
response to an externality and a large exogenous force that will shape the sector and much of
banking transformation over the coming decade, making Burke-Litwin an idea prism (Vial,
2019). Second, digital transformations necessitate a material strategic shift and accompany a
desire for a dramatic culture change (Carlo et al., 2012). The interplay of these forces of change
among other transformational dimensions make Burke-Litwin the most suited model for
examination. Finally, most digital transformational failures in the financial services sector have
failed to create a lasting change impact that persists in the daily operations of the organization
leading to more of the same (Ashkenaz, 2015). Leveraging the model to frame the change forces
at the daily operational level will yield material insights in framing these transformation
challenges.
10
This study utilizes the qualitative method research approach to explore the prevalence of
organizational, cultural, and individual factors critical in embedding and sustaining digital
transformation, specifically in the study site (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The qualitative
approach in the study combines purposeful document analysis and interviews sequentially to
yield more accurate information and support robust interpretation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Mayring, 2001; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The initial phase of purposeful document analysis
was followed by a second phase of interviews of key employees engaged in digital
transformations at LFI (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The qualitative construction of the study
with both document analysis and interviews supports a deep evaluation of self-contained
organizations, like LFI (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Research-based solutions and interventions
were recommended in line with the empirical results and findings.
Definitions
This section contains generally accepted definitions of industry terms within the domain
for the purposes of clarifying the use of the terms throughout this study. While other more
nuanced definitions do exist for these terms, the definitions are those generally accepted in
digital transformation within financial services.
• Digital Transformation refers to the use of information and communication technology to
develop and enhance business models that create organizational value (Rizzo, 2018;
Verhoef et al., 2021; Vial, 2019).
• Organization Transformation is, according to Blumenthal and Haspeslagh (1994),
creating behavioral change through long-term processes that requires management’s
concerted and persistent effort.
11
• Organization Change refers to the outcome and process by which an organization alters a
major component of the organization whether planned, or unplanned, evolutionary, or
more dramatically. For the purposes of this dissertation, the definition will refer to largescale, dramatic, and planned process of altering the organization (Burke, 2018).
• Digital Routines is often utilized to describe recurring employee patterns of behavior for
seizing business opportunities arising through digitization and operating in a digital first
culture (Volberda et al., 2021).
• Embedded and Sustained Change describes the process and outcomes of entrenching
behaviors and practices deeply within the organization that they become routines and
habitual and eventually taken for granted as the normative culture (Lawrence et al.,
2006).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study will follow a standard five-chapter approach including this chapter, the
introduction. This chapter provided the reader with the context, key concepts, and terminology
found in discussions associated with digital transformation. The initial concepts of organizational
change, as well as the organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders were introduced. Chapter
Two, literature review, provides a discussion of the literature surrounding the scope of the study
including the history of digital transformation, its relationship with the delivery of financial
services, sectoral innovation, and the employee experience. It also discusses important
organizational change theories with particular emphasis on the Burke-Litwin model of
organizational change, and the literature on embedding and sustaining organizational change.
Chapter Three, methodology, details the methodology used in this study including the description
of the data sources, selection of participants, data collection methods, the analysis, the
12
researcher, and the ethical considerations. Chapter Four, findings, discussed the findings based
on the analysis of the stakeholder interviews, and documents. Chapter Five, recommendations
and discussion, provides recommended solution paths including an implementation and
evaluation plan. Further, it includes a discussion on the limitations and delimitations of the study,
and recommendations for future research.
13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter provides a review of the literature on digital transformation and the wide
array of topics affecting the phenomenon including organizational normative culture. After
reviewing the emerging nature of digital transformation, the chapter explores the impacts of
digital transformations, the strategic responses to these forces, a more in-depth review about
financial services digital transformation, and the persistent problem of digital transformation
failures. The chapter proceeds to examine the dynamic capabilities required to develop and
sustain digital transformation change including customer and technology orientation and
strategic agility. The chapter then explores leaders’ pivotal role in digital transformations. It
concludes by examining the relevant research on the Burke-Litwin model of organizational
performance and change and the model’s organizational variables that affect Leading Financial
Institution, LFI hereinafter, efforts in embedding and sustaining digital transformation.
Identifying these variables is critical in supporting efforts to embed and sustain digital
transformation routines throughout LFI.
Emergence of Digital Transformation
In recent years, the use of consumer-oriented technologies has become pervasive in the
workplace and life’s daily routines irreversibly shaping academic and practice-oriented research,
corporate priorities and employee and management work routines. Digital transformation, DT
hereinafter, encompasses the vast changes taking place in industries and society from the use of
consumer-oriented technologies (Agarwal et al., 2010; Majchrzak et al., 2016). Digital
transformation has emerged as an important topic in business and information technology
research (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Piccinini et al., 2015). In addition, DT has consumed
practitioner focus, permeated most industries, and shaped a significant part of the strategic
14
agenda (Fitzgerald et al., 2014; Hess et al., 2020; Westerman et al., 2011; Yo-Jud Cheng et al.,
2021). Digital transformation has impacted most organizations and sectors, and it has shaped
organizational priorities and focus for decades to come (Hess et al., 2020). The universal and
altering impacts of DT make it one of the most pressing and pertinent issues to study. This
section addresses the emerging nature of digital transformation, definitions, consumer behavior
shifts, and the disruptive effects of the disruption.
The Nature of Digital Transformation
Digital transformation is an emerging, multi-disciplinary topic calling on expertise across
business, strategy, technology, organizational design, and newly incorporated domains. Vial
(2019) highlighted that technology proficiency is only one part of what organizations will require
to be effective in DT. Proficiency in strategy (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Matt et al., 2015),
processes (Carlo et al., 2012), and organizational structures and culture (Karimi & Walter, 2015;
Selander & Jarvenpaa, 2016) are required to develop the transformation capabilities needed for
value creation (Svahn et al., 2017). Although the research contributed to an improved
understanding of the DT phenomenon, the emergent nature of the topic has made a
comprehensive understanding elusive and evolutionary (Gray & Rumpe, 2017). The expansive
nature of the DT domain has created a variety of definitions that have continued to evolve with
an expanding research agenda (Vial, 2019). Despite the developing nature of the DT research,
the cross-domain perspective is beneficial to establishing a more thorough perspective.
Emerging Definitions of Digital Transformation
The definition of DT has evolved continuously and expanded since 2011 based on an
ever-expanding research and practitioner focus. Vial (2019) created the most recent and
comprehensive review of DT definitions that spanned 28 unique sources with 23 unique
15
definitions. The cited differences have stemmed from the conflation of the DT concept, its
disruptive digital technology sources, and the resulting impacts as opposed to unique definitions
of DT (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Hess et al., 2020; Piccinini et al., 2015). The main definitions of
DT from the literature, as summarized by Vial (2019), are:
• Digital technologies that have instigated disruption and change and were a response
to societal and market disruption.
• Digital transformation as a comprehensive system of change at a societal and
organizational level.
• Digital transformation as a transformation taking place aimed to elicit value creation.
Significant research supported the first definition, while the latter two definitions are the topics
of emerging research and practitioner focus (Hess et al.,2020; Vial, 2019). Despite the evolving
definition of DT, the research underpinning the first definition provides a strong foundation for
the purposes of this study.
This study uses the more expansive definition of DT to adopt a more comprehensive view
of the phenomenon, clarify terms in use, and avoid the conflation of terms. The definition of DT,
summarized by researchers, is the use of information and communication technology in a system
of change to develop and enhance organizational value in response to disruption (Rizzo, 2018;
Verhoef et al., 2021; Vial, 2019). The visual representation of the DT definition in Figure 1 is
based on an adaptation of Vial’s (2019) model and added clarity to guide this portion of the
literature review. The adaptation has demonstrated a system of interactions between digital
technologies, disruption, and strategic responses (Verhoef et al., 2021). These strategic responses
have enabled value creation that have both positive and negative impacts. The value creation is
enabled by structural changes, and impeded by organizational barriers (Vial, 2019). The more
16
expansive definition brings definitional clarity, provides a comprehensive treatment of the
phenomenon, and accommodates the inclusion of employee and management routines.
Figure 1
Digital Transformation Definitional Framework
Note. The framework was produced by Vial in 2019 and has been adapted for the purposes of
this literature review. From “Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research
agenda,” by G. Vial, 2019, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), p. 122. Copyright
2019 by Elsevier B.V.
17
Consumer Behavior Shifts and Disruption
Digital technologies have ushered in a new era where strategic survival is based on
exceeding customers’ enhanced expectations and inviting increased participation in the
organization’s affairs. The ubiquitous access to digital technologies, such as mobile devices and
broadband access (Yoo et al., 2010a), has had a profound and irreversible effect on consumer
behavior (Chanias, 2017; Hong & Lee, 2017). These digital technologies have allowed
consumers to become active and irreversibly engaged participants in the commercial affairs of
organizations small and large (Kane, 2014; Yeow et al., 2018), and most dramatically in
financial services (Chanias, 2017). Consumers no longer view themselves as dependent on the
firms that they transacted with (Lucas Jr. et al., 2013) and have come to expect more services and
more personalized and tailored interactions from these firms (Sia et al., 2016). Consumers of
financial services have come to expect digitized capabilities that are personalized, ubiquitous,
available at any time, and immediately responsive (Sia et al., 2016). Addressing these consumer
behavior shifts resulting from the ubiquitous access to digital technologies became a strategically
critical capability for organizational survival.
The consumer shifts that have occurred because of the ubiquitous access to digital
technologies have created new products, lowered barriers to entry, and have created a more
immediate risk of hindered growth for incumbents. These technologies have facilitated the recreation of existing products enabling distribution through new forms of access to consumers in
the form of services thereby reinventing entire value propositions (Lucas Jr. et al., 2013; Yoo et
al., 2010b). The disruption that has resulted from the mass adoption of these technologies has
come in the form of lowered barriers to entry to previously protected industries such as financial
services (Woodward et al., 2012). Kahre et al. (2017) highlighted that incumbents in sectors such
18
as financial services were accustomed to uninterrupted growth and sustainability of existing
business models and the large-scale adoption of these technologies has eliminated that
confidence. The risks of new innovative products, lowered entry criteria and easier access to
consumers, combined with consistent pressure on lucrative business models has created near
impossible to avoid market disruption that created the impetus for digital transformation and the
race to adopt and sustain digital transformation routines.
Digital Transformations in Financial Services
Digital transformation is critically relevant to financial services, a sector that is most
susceptible to the opportunities and risks of digital disruption. According to Berger (2003) and
Beccalli (2007), DT is particularly relevant to financial services because their business
operations and services are heavily dependent on information processing. Beccalli (2007)
elaborated that financial services firms are technology intensive organizations that have invested
heavily in technology, and recently in DT (Bughin & Van Zeebroeck, 2017; Schofield et al,
2020).
The literature on DT and financial performance in financial services has been scant, but
the two existing studies established that there is no linkage between DT and financial
performance measured through profitability dubbed the profitability paradox (Beccalli, 2007;
Kriebel & Debener, 2019). Financial services have been under significant pressure to increase
profitability while experiencing large-scale consumer adoption of digital technologies, unregulated introduction of new entrants, the impact of large technology platforms encroaching on
profitability pools, and the residual impact of the global pandemic (Bughin & Van Zeebroeck,
2017; Deloitte Center for Financial Services, 2022; Schofield et al, 2020). Deloitte’s Center for
Financial Services (2022) reported that shareholders and investors have increased their calls for
19
financial services firms to deliver on the digital dividend, the increased profitability resulting
from the near constant investment in digital technologies. Digital transformation is the most
relevant transformation topic for boards and senior executives of financial services firms as it is
one of the few levers available for increased profitability despite the lack of evidence for
financial success.
Impacts of Digital Transformation
Digital transformation has created organizational benefits such as operational efficiency,
increased organizational performance, and new value creation. The research has highlighted that
DT has wide ranging societal impacts (Agarwal et al., 2010; Majchrzak et al., 2016), but the
more tangible impacts have been at the organizational level (Vial, 2019). According to Andriole
(2017) and Gust et al. (2017), DT have led to efficiencies resulting from operational process
improvements through automation. Pagani (2013) uncovered various DT cost savings
innovations. In addition to cost effectiveness, researchers cited that DT has been associated with
increases in organizational performance including increased competitiveness (Neumeier et al.,
2017), business growth (Tumbas et al., 2015), and overall financial performance (Karimi &
Walter, 2015). Svahn et al. (2017) identified that DT has created new value through the
introduction of new products and services. Digital transformation efforts have improved quality
of life and employee quality of work (Agarwal et al., 2010; Pramanik et al., 2016), but that
research is in its formative stages. Nonetheless, DT has had a transformative effect on the
organizations that have taken full advantage of this opportunity.
In contrast, though, several unintended and undesirable outcomes have emerged from the
accelerated DT trend that has recently swept organizations, such as uncoordinated sectoral
disruption, the reduced impact of the organization, and increased security, privacy, and ethical
20
considerations. The level of disruption that resulted from DT has created unparalleled crosssectoral disruption unparalleled since the industrial revolution (Agarwal et al., 2010, Svahn et al.,
2017). Lucas Jr. et al. (2013) noted that DT has also shifted the power dynamic away from
organizations and firms to consumers reducing the influence of the firm. Finally, the accelerated
use of digital technologies has created new organization risks, liabilities, and accountabilities
based on security and privacy considerations (Paccinini et al., 2015), and the ethical
considerations that have emerged from automated decision making (Newell & Marabelli, 2015).
Digital transformation and the adoption of digital practices through routines have created a
profound sectoral and organizational shift, and those firms that are not capitalizing on its
transformative benefits have found themselves on the receiving end of undesirable and
unavoidable outcomes.
The Pervasive Problem of Digital Transformation Failures
Digital transformation failure has become so pervasive and commonplace that it has
become a tolerable transformation risk across sectors. According to Rogers, 84% of
organizations have failed at their transformation efforts (Forbes, 2016). In addition, KPMG’s
Global Transformation Study (2016) cited that less than half of senior executives believe that
their DT efforts will realize their intended outcome. A more serious trend is that many senior
executives do not believe that their firms can sustain DT beyond the initial 2 years according to
Kozak-Holland and Procter (2020). Research, surveys, and examples of DT failures have been
scant and under-reported for commercial and brand reputation reasons (Kozak-Holland &
Procter, 2020; Vial, 2019) but there have been notable public examples when the failures were
exceedingly large and public such as the demise of both Research in Motion and Nokia. The
21
commonplace nature of DT failure has not reduced investment enthusiasm reinforcing the
criticality of DT outcomes in the industry.
Despite the overwhelming odds against a successful DT, enterprises have continued to
invest heavily expecting to reap the benefits of a rare success. PwC’s Global Digital IQ Survey
(2015) reported that 31% of companies invested more than 15% of revenues into DT and that by
2019 organizations globally will have spent close to $2.1 trillion on DT with limited success.
Digital transformation failure has become an industry paradox where organizations continued to
invest heavily with the expectation that the majority will fail for the small chance of success as a
response to inevitable digital disruption.
Despite the under-reporting of DT failures, the challenges that emerged in those
transformations were well studied and documented. The challenges that have plagued these
digital transformations fall into four primary categories:
• Lacking a digital customer journey vision that clearly articulated the long-term
ambition of how an organization will interact with its customers digitally (Tiersky,
2017).
• An inflexible technology backbone that hindered an organization’s ability to be
nimble and adaptive to disruptive conditions. This challenge manifests itself through
organizational rigidity, antiquated organizational structures, ineffective talent, and
decaying technology (Tiersky, 2017).
• Change resistance that manifested itself through reluctance to evolve from the
organization’s normative behaviors and routines (Dikert et al., 2016).
• Nonadaptive organizations that were unable to simultaneously operate within their
normative culture and adopt a newly transformed way of working. The literature
22
described it as the inability to become an ambidextrous organization that can
simultaneously be the organization as it is today, and in parts become the organization
it wants to be in the future (Dikert et al., 2017; Tiersky, 2017).
This study focused exclusively on digital transformation routines included in the two latter
categories of DT challenges.
Digital Transformation Strategic Responses
Organizations have responded to consumers’ universal adoption of digital technologies
and their disruptive impacts through the large-scale adoption of strategic DT efforts. These
strategic responses were through: (a) the adaptation of organizational capabilities for value
creation, (b) the adoption of structures and cultures that promote strategic agility and
ambidexterity, and (c) the adoption of new organizational norms, behaviors, and routines to
spark new ways of working (Markus & Robey, 1988; Vial, 2019).
Digital transformation required the creation of organizational capabilities that produced
new value propositions, expanded value networks, and leveraged new distribution channels
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2019; Piccinini et al., 2015). Digital technologies enabled the creation
of new value propositions that either modify, enhance, displace existing business models, or
introduce new services (Barrett et al., 2015). In addition, DT has enabled organizations to
redefine value creation in the industry as a response to disintermediation (Delmond et al., 2017;
Hansen & Sia, 2015). Finally, organizations have used DT to create new distribution and sales
channels augmenting or entirely shifting the business model (Hansen & Sia, 2015). The creation
of a self-disrupting organization through DT that introduces new value pathways has challenged
the organization’s normative business model.
23
The adoption of dynamic capabilities such as organizational ambidexterity and agility has
been core to DT and has helped organizations adapt to environmental changes and disruption.
According to Teece (2007), organizations can build and sustain competitive advantage through
the adoption of dynamic capabilities that enable firms to quickly adapt towards high-payoff
activities by using sensing, seizing, and transforming organizational capabilities. Specifically,
several researchers noted that adopting agility has allowed organizations detect and seize
competitive market opportunities, hallmarks of digital transformations (Fitzgerald et al., 2014;
Hansen & Sia, 2015; Hong & Lee, 2017;). Digital transformation has helped organizations
achieve ambidexterity to support the transformation process and the re-norming of an
organization’s existing culture (Haffke et al., 2017; Svahn et al., 2017). Expanding on the
concept of agility, the literature cited that organizations must adopt structural changes that foster
multi-disciplinary, cross-functional teams (Earley, 2014; Maedche, 2016; Sia et al., 2016; Svahn
et al., 2017). Many of the same researchers stated that DT required a shift of the culture of the
focal organization including its normative values to newer DT values (Haffke et al., 2017; Hartl
& Hess, 2017; Karimi & Walter, 2015). Dynamic capabilities, defined in further detail in the
next section, are critical to DT success that embeds and sustains change into the normative
culture.
Digital transformation has required a fundamental shift in the organization’s norms,
behaviors, and routines supported by changing employee and leader roles and skills. As part of
the strategic response of DT, Hansen et al. (2011) has demonstrated the critical importance of
developing a digital mindset that embodies principles of agility and ambidexterity. In addition,
successful DT has relied on the development of the digital workforce (Colbert et al., 2016) as
well as the creation of new and constantly evolving roles that advance DT (Haffke et al., 2017).
24
Researchers expanded that a new set of technical, analytical, and business skillsets are necessary
to enable DT (Hess et al., 2020) and reinforced through the adoption of new routines (Watson,
2017; Yeow et al., 2018). The research has further highlighted that the largest impediments to
DT are inertia (Andriole, 2017; Svahn et al., 2017), and resistance to the adoption of new
routines (Fitzgerald et al., 2014; Singh & Hess, 2020). Organizations that have shifted the
normative behaviors and routines by developing and adopting new digital mindsets, skills, and
capabilities are weathering the DT upheaval, reinforcing the criticality of digital transformation
routines.
Building Dynamic Capabilities in Digital Transformation
Digital transformation has required organizations to developed new DT capabilities that
are compatible with their past. The development of organizational capabilities for DT has
received little scholarly attention, but the dynamic capabilities model has become an essential
tool for use in the context of DT (Warner & Wäger, 2017). Researchers have noted that the
dynamic capabilities model has become widely used in the context of DT as it explains how
firms respond to rapid technology and market changes through their existing resources to sustain
competitive advantage (Helfat et al., 2007; Teece, 2007; Vial, 2019). Dynamic capabilities
allowed organizations to create, extend, and modify their resource capacity to engage in DT
(Teece, 2007; Warner & Wäger, 2017).
Teece (2007) created the most applicable framing of dynamic capabilities in the context
of DT by arguing that the capabilities structured across three main clusters: (a) sensing
opportunities and threats, (b) seizing opportunities, and (c) transforming the organization’s
business model and resource base. The researchers expanded that firms ensured relevancy in the
emergent digital economy by building dynamic capabilities to quickly create, implement, and
25
transform business models through DT (Teece, 2007; Teece, 2018; Velu, 2017). Incumbent firms
cannot begin building digital capabilities anew ignoring their heritage and therefore must adopt
their dynamic capabilities through DT endeavor. This section addresses dynamic capacity theory
and its component parts, customer and technology orientation augments to the theory and the
growth of large-scale strategic agility routines in organizations.
Dynamic Capability Theory in Digital Transformation
Dynamic capability theory research has expanded to include detailed subprocesses and
ancillary capabilities necessary for DT competency. In practice, dynamic capabilities were the
performance of routines as repeated work patterns (Schilke, 2018; Teece, 2018; Warner &
Wäger, 2017). Since the original inception of the dynamic capability model, Warner and Wäger
(2017) elaborated on the three main capabilities of (a) sensing, (b) seizing, and (c) transforming
with additional subprocesses. In addition, internal enablers, and barriers added to the model to
create a more comprehensive understanding of additional work routines required for success in
DT (Teece, 2018; Warner & Wäger, 2017). The dynamic capability subprocesses, internal
enablers and barriers interact as a set of organization routines that support DT outcomes as
depicted in Figure 2, an adaptation of dynamic capability research.
26
Figure 2
Dynamic Capability Framework for Digital Transformation
Note. The framework was produced by Warner and Wäger in 2017 and has been adapted for the
purposes of this literature review. From “Building dynamic capabilities for digital
transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal,” by K. Warner and M. Wäger, 2017,
Long Range Planning, 57(3), p. 336. Copyright 2018 by Elsevier Ltd.
The first capability cluster, sensing, is a scanning, identifying, learning, and interpreting
activity developed at all levels of the organization and enables quick response to disruptive
shifts. Sensing and shaping up new opportunities and threats in DT requires digital scouting
activities that encompass market scanning, technology validation, and the identification of trends
27
quickly (Teece, 2007). Helfat and Peteraf (2015) added that digital scenario planning routines
further enhance digital sensing capabilities by plotting out various discrete paths that
organizations can take and the impacts on the incumbent firms’ current and future business
models. Teece (2018) and Warner and Wäger (2017) pioneered that digital mindsets refer to the
routines and behaviors that promote employees in incumbent firms to think and act like nontraditional disruptors at market speeds. The creation of robust digital routines that involve digital
scouting, scenario planning, and digital mindset crafting has provided firms with the strategic
foresight to identify opportunities and threats and capitalize through a response strategy.
Addressing opportunities or neutralizing threats has required the development of scaled
and agile seizing routines that involve experimentation and support organizational action and
commitment. Teece (2007) highlighted that rapid prototyping enables an organization to engage
in high stakes disruptive activities while overcoming internal inertia by demonstrating the art of
the possible. Seizing an opportunity is only possible if an organization can efficiently and
effectively redeploy its resources to higher yielding activities therefore requiring digital portfolio
balancing routines (Warner & Wäger, 2017). Digital portfolio balancing because of strategic
agility routines enables firms to co-create with customers, partner externally in unique ways, and
achieve speed and efficiency through new ways of working (Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Teece et
al., 2016). Rapid prototyping and portfolio rebalancing through the strategic redeployment of
agile resources is an imperative organizational competency required for transformational
outcomes.
Seizing and sensing capabilities have helped create and discover opportunities, but firms
require transformation and restructuring routines to gain the full potential of DT change. Svahn
et al. (2017) cited that organizations required new competencies to build technology and
28
innovation ecosystems comprised of internal teams and external firms. In addition, Sebastian et
al. (2017) highlighted that firms had to redesign internal structures, evolve their operational
construct, and streamline their governance models to be compatible with constantly changing
transformation activities. Most digital transformations are at an early stage, but successful firms
have built routines that enable continuous learning and renewal of assets and organizational
structures that enhanced digital maturity according to Teece (2014). Developing innovation
ecosystems and redesigning internal structures has helped organizations build the dynamic
capabilities required to capitalize on DT.
In addition to the three capability clusters and their subprocesses, organizations require
ancillary support mechanisms. Warner and Wäger (2017) expanded on the three capability
clusters of the dynamic capability model by identifying key supporting mechanisms and success
inhibitors. Building the required DT capabilities through the ongoing development and
maintenance of work routines requires (a) the creation of enterprise-wide cross-functional teams,
(b) the culture of fast decision making, and (c) continuous and unwavering executive support
(Helfat & Peteraf, 2015; Warner & Wäger, 2017). Incumbent firms faced some unique internal
barriers given their existing and successful business models that include rigid planning
approaches, various change resistances, and cemented hierarchies (Vial, 2019; Warner & Wäger,
2017). The seizing, sensing, and restructuring routines in the three dynamic capability clusters
are sustained by leveraging the organizational enablers and counteracting the barrier effects.
Customer and Technology Orientation
Recent research has expanded dynamic capability theory to include (a) customer
orientation and (b) technology orientation dimensions; two unique perspectives highly applicable
to DT. Helfat and Peteraf (2015) established that customer orientation introduced the routines
29
focused on the use of digital technologies to interface with customers along key journeys gaining
insights, supporting personalized products, and enhancing customer experience. Vial (2019)
added that customer preferences have changed rapidly, firms have discovered that extreme
customer orientation has created new value and has become a core ingredient of DT success.
Customer orientation competencies were new to most firms and the associated routines were
nascent in most cases but quickly became a key ingredient of DT success (Helfat & Peteraf,
2015; Vial, 2019; Yu et al., 2022). Customer orientation is one of the core enablers of DT
success.
In addition to customer orientation, technology orientation routines have quickly become
a core part of DT success formula. Lavallet and Chan (2019) described technology orientation
routines as the organization’s system of technology innovation and new technology development
to meet the firms’ emerging needs. Yu et al. (2022) added that the literature has emphasized the
presence of organizational technological capability gaps resulting from constant and quickly
evolving changes resulting from disruptive digital technology introductions. Although
technology orientation has been a well-researched information sciences topic, it is emerging as a
key research topic in the context of DT routines and has become a key complementary routine to
the sensing, seizing, and transforming routines in dynamic capability theory.
Large-Scale Strategic Agility
Strategic agility routines, one of the sub-processes of the seizing dynamic capabilities
cluster, has gained significant popularity as a preeminent enabler of DT despite inconclusive
results. Strategic agility has focused on three primary domains of practice, (a) customer agility,
(b) partnering agility, and (c) operational agility (Teece et al., 2016). Most enterprises have
focused on operational agility and with many focused on implementing agile routines in
30
technology initiatives solely (Boston Consulting Group, 2022). Despite wide application across
industries including financial services, most implementations were ineffective due to a failed
understanding of the conditions in which agile routines will be successful (Teece et al., 2016;
Warner & Wäger, 2017). Additionally, academic research on the scaled use of strategic agility
routines has been incomplete with 90% of the existing studies categorized as experience papers,
demonstrating the nascent nature of academic research on the topic (Dikert et al., 2016). Despite
the lack of comprehensive academic research, the experience reports have identified
transformation challenges and success factors that are applicable to this research study.
Agile routines originally meant for small teams have since been subsequently applied to
larger efforts have faced significant organizational challenges. First, various cross-industry
experience reports identified general resistance to change including general, non-specific change
resistance, skepticism towards new ways of working, and resistance to management mandated
agility (Dikert et al., 2016). Additionally, both Dikert et al. (2016) and Vial (2019) wrote that
organizations have realized agile routines are difficult to implement due to general
misunderstanding of agile principles, lack of consistent guidance from the literature, lack of
quality in the agile coaching community, and the simultaneous use of old and new
methodologies. Researchers added that implementing firms experienced that agile routines and
normative organizational structures were often misaligned because of the middle managers’ new
role being unclear, persisting the firm’s normative bureaucracy, and the inherent internal silos
(Cloke, 2007; Dikert et al., 2016). Finally, firms experienced challenges with integrating agile
routines in multi-team environments that would exist in large scale DT endeavors that have
resulted in inconsistent agile routines, resistance from non-agile teams, challenges in
transitioning to an incremental delivery pace, and a reward model that is inconsistent with agile
31
teamwork (Dikert et al., 2016; Federoff & Courage, 2009). Despite the promise that large-scale
agility promises, successful implementations have been elusive.
Despite the numerous challenges with the large-scale adoption of agile routines, the
research summarized 11 strategic success factors that when implemented increased the
likelihood of successful DT. The strategic success factors for the adoption of scaled agile
routines (Dikert et al., 2016) included:
• Management support that is unambiguous, informed, and clearly visible across the
organization.
• An organized commitment to change that is unwavering and non-negotiable.
• Investing in change leaders who have credibility and are unencumbered by the past.
• Customizing the agile approach to meet the organizational needs and create a
transition path from the normative ways of working.
• Test and learn by starting with a pilot to gain acceptance and quickly adapting to the
learnings.
• Training that recognizes the importance of accurate training and ongoing coaching
with a focus on digital mindsets.
• Engaging by starting with agile supporters, including those with previous experience,
and engaging widely and broadly across the organization.
• Communicate the changes to the organization intensively, transparently, and reinforce
the positive experiences initially.
• Ensure values alignment by concentration on agile values through organizational
alignment and communities that promote strategic agility.
32
• Develop team autonomy by allowing teams to self-organize and allowing for organic
mandates to develop.
• Invest in new roles such as digital product owners, pathfinders, and chapter leads who
are change carriers and advocates of strategic agile routines and digital mindsets.
Organizations that have adopted many of these recommendations experienced more robust
adoption of agile routines and fared better through their DT journey. These organizations have
noted that transformation culture was as critical to transformation as enhanced routines and
practice.
Normative Culture, Hegemony, and the Change Climate in Financial Services
Financial services firms, especially large and successful ones in retail and commercial
banking, have historically exhibited robust normative cultures that promote the status-quo.
Organizational culture provides a common language, shared knowledge set, and knowledge of
the behavioral rules to act as a coordinating mechanism in strategic decision making and to
address unforeseen events (Cremer, 1993; Kreps, 1990). Hermalin (2001) posited that as
organizations grew and experienced financial success, they exhibited strong normative cultures
where superior financial performance maintains the status-quo. Financial institution culture has
come to signify a shared set of values and beliefs that reinforced strong cultures in older and
more successful financial firms with significant shareholder value to protect (Thakor, 2016).
While culture is a fluid concept, within financial services it has come to symbolize risk
management prudence as the Financial Stability Board (2014) noted, “while various definitions
of culture exist . . . focusing on the institution’s norms, attitudes, and behaviors related to risk
awareness, risk taking, and risk management or the institution’s risk culture” (p. 1). Despite the
various culture concepts identified, financial services have exhibited and rewarded strong
33
normative cultures that skew to maintaining a risk-prudent status-quo and avoids transformative
disruption in exchange for stability and perseverance.
A strong financial services corporate culture has long served to hegemonize
transformation efforts and the individuals that work in them as a protective mechanism and to
maintain the status-quo. Van den Steen (2010) argued that corporate culture hegemonized
heterogeneous, non-normative beliefs through (a) screening in hiring, (b) selection based on
belief set, and (c) joint learning towards normative beliefs. Without a critical perspective,
normative corporate culture legitimized existing power relations within an organization where
the status quo dominated transformation through overt and more veiled actions (Ogbor, 2001).
Ogbor (2001) further expanded that the hegemony of corporate culture viewed through a critical
theory lens is a tool for domination and the maintenance of the status quo. Empirically,
Woszczyna-Szczepanska (2015) highlighted that successful change and innovation has been
most often successful in organizations that have lesser attributes of strong and normative
cultures. Disruptive digital technologies have created the need to embark on digital
transformations within existing strong and successful corporate cultures that by their very nature
will seek to hegemonize the transformation effort through existing routines.
The Role of Leaders in Digital Transformation
Digital leadership alongside strategy and culture is considered a key ingredient of DT
success, but little is known about the role leadership plays in DT. The current literature has not
provided a comprehensive understanding of DT leadership (McCarthy et al., 2021) and the
literature that does exist defines digital leadership as “doing the right things for the strategic
success of digitalization for the enterprise and its business ecosystem” (El Sawy et al., 2020, p.
142). McKinsey (2021) has cited that having the right digital-savvy and technology proficient
34
leaders is one of the key success factors for ensuring DT success. Enterprises have rushed into
establishing new roles, such as Chief Digital Officers (CDO) among other roles, to take charge
of digital transformations but without additional clarity (Haffke et al., 2017; Singh & Hess,
2020). Although clarity about DT leadership has been elusive, the consensus is that skilled
digital leadership has had an outsized impact on the success of DT (El Sawy et al., 2020), but it
remains a debated and emerging research topic. DT success can only be enabled through a more
comprehensive understanding of the DT leader.
The specific DT leadership roles are less important than the leadership characteristics
exhibited for transformation success. McCarthy et al. (2021) itemized 142 concepts in the
literature that map to eight categories reflecting emerging characteristics of DT leadership. The
DT leadership characteristics included (a) digital strategist, (b) technologist, (c) strategic agility,
(d) digital mindset enthusiast, (e) customer centrist, (f) business process optimizer, (g) data
advocate, and (h) advocate of culture change (El Sawy et al., 2022; McCarthy et al., 2021).
McCarthy et al. (2021) then mapped these characteristics to the most prevalent C-suite positions
in industry demonstrating that DT leadership characteristics were prevalent in most of the Csuite roles. Digital transformation leadership research is at its infancy, but the existing research
has made important advances in identifying the characteristics and leadership routines required
across the enterprise to achieve success in DT.
Digital Transformation Leadership Competency
It is imperative that a digital DT leadership research agenda address the leadership
competencies required for organizational performance. Digital leaders’ competencies have been
critical enablers for the establishment and sustainment of DT and the associated performance and
behavior within those transformations (Schwarzmüller et al., 2018). Schiuma et al. (2021) argued
35
that the emerging nature of the topic, though, means that much of the research is duplicative,
non-complimentary and has significant gaps. Zivkovic (2022) added that the concept of learning
development and agility is gaining consideration to enhance the emerging competency
frameworks associated with DT leadership but required additional research. The two existing DT
competency frameworks, that have overlaps, demonstrate the criticality of clarifying the digital
leadership competencies that leaders require.
The first of the two emerging DT leadership competency models, as depicted in Figure 3,
focus on the impact of the digital leader as a transformation agent. According to Schiuma et al.
(2021), the model identifies six leadership competencies within a transformative leadership
compass that guides the digital leader through continuous and persistent organizational
transformation. The six competencies included (a) transformation catalyst, (b) digital facilitator,
(c) digital visionary, (d) digital pragmatist, (e) technology mentor, and (f) digital communicator
(Schiuma et al., 2021). Although it was helpful to have an emerging competency framework, it
was far from complete and overlapped with many general leadership competencies by the
author’s own admission.
36
Figure 3
Comparing Digital Transformation Leadership Models
Note. The frameworks presented in the figure have been adapted for the purposes of this
literature review from the studies conducted by Schiuma et al. (2021) and Zivkovic (2022). From
“The transformative leadership compass: six competencies for digital transformation
entrepreneurship,” by G. Schiuma et al., 2021, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, 28(5), p. 1279. Copyright 2021 by Emerald Publishing Ltd. From
“Inspiring digital transformation: An integrative leadership competency framework,” by S.
Zivkovic, 2022, Ekonomska Misao i Praksa, 31(1), p. 247. Copyright 2022 by Ekonomska Misao
i Praksa.
37
The second DT leadership competency model focused on the impact of the digital leader
as an innovation catalyst. Zivkovic (2022) identified nine competencies framed around three
primary questions that an innovation leader answers. Zivkovic went on to describe that the
innovation leader would have to answer the why of the transformation and establish a vision, an
innovation, and the flexibility required to address that innovation. Next, the leader would have
shifted to what to transform and have addressed the digital technologies employed, team
empowerment, and the collaboration dynamic necessary (Zivkovic, 2022). Finally, Zivkovic
addressed the how to transform dynamic by articulating competencies associated with emotional
intelligence, experimentation, and continuous learning. Like the previous model from Schiuma et
al. (2021), this competency model also fell short of being comprehensive, but expanded on other
leadership competencies required (Klein, 2020). Digital leadership competencies required for
successful DT are expansive and require digital leadership competencies exercised through the
consistent use of leadership routines.
Leadership Routines and Adoption
The most important role of a leader during DT is the influence on normative employee
behavior and new routine adoption. According to Sow and Aborbie (2018), leadership played a
critical role in digitally transforming the organization and the employee-based involvement that
led to the transformation success. Specifically, though, the role of the leader has evolved in
digital transformations in three specific ways: (a) a stimulator of ideation and innovation or as
the owner-operator of the business, (b) builders of team culture and climate, and (c) the source of
expansive thinking (Woszczyna-Szczepanska, 2015). Warner and Wäger (2017) added that the
role of leadership has expanded to being the main orchestrator of dynamic capability building for
38
DT. With DT expanding, the role of the DT leader has become expansive thereby creating an
ever-elevating performance expectation.
Digital transformation has accelerated leadership to develop new competencies in the
domain of leading through DT. According to Schwarzmüller et al. (2018), leaders in DT have
needed to address seven themes of leadership change, specifically:
• increased health management of employees
• higher job demands of their employees in a new, always-on digital format
• increased technologization and its impact on employees
• increased competency requirements
• constant changes in performance management
• changes to influence behaviors
• increased relationship-oriented, contextual leadership
The combined effect of these new leadership demands in addition to the evolved role of the
leader in DT has created a more challenging environment to lead a transformation within.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
This section addresses the theoretical grounding and conceptual framework of the study.
The theoretical framework is an existing, formal theory that serves to guide the development of
the research, study, and the creation of the conceptual framework (Grant & Osanloo, 2015). The
theoretical framework chosen for this study is the Burke-Litwin model of organizational
performance and change (Burke, 2018). A conceptual framework provides a logical structure of
how the theoretical framework and domain knowledge integrate to guide the study (Grant &
Osanloo, 2015). Conceptual frameworks reflect an approach to guide the development of
research questions and the overall design of the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
39
2016). Specifically, the framework helps establish the research design, sampling procedures, data
collection, and invites inquiry about the relationships between the theoretical model, the existing
literature, the study, and the researcher’s preliminary hypothesis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
study’s conceptual framework includes the Burke-Litwin transformational and transactional
factors as well as domain specific concepts from reviewed literature, such as client journeys and
enterprise agility.
The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
The Burke-Litwin model of organizational performance and change (Burke-Litwin
hereinafter) is a model that predicts behavior and performance outcomes in a cause
(organizational environment) and effect (performance outcome) manner (Burke, 2018; Burke &
Litwin, 1992). The Burke-Litwin model has guided organizational effectiveness assessments and
managed organizational change, making it an effective model for the analysis of embedding and
sustaining DT change (French & Bell, 1999; Martins & Coetzee, 2009). The model was an open
systems theory model with the external environment serving as the input to the model, the
organizational and individual performance as the output, and 10 additional organizational
variables that impact and are impacted by organizational change (Burke, 2018). Burke and
Litwin (1992) envisioned the model with 12 interconnected and related elements, but this has
since been adapted by other researchers. This study will adopt Martins and Coetzee (2009)
version of the Burke-Litwin framework. The model, as depicted in Figure 3, demonstrates the
interconnected elements of the model and the multi-directional influence, but the impact is to be
more heavily weighted on downward facing arrows or influences of changes.
40
Figure 4
The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
Note. The framework was produced by Burke and Litwin in 1992 and has been adapted by
Martins and Coetzee in 2009 in the context of assessing organizational effectiveness. From
“Applying the Burke-Litwin Model as a Diagnostic Framework for Assessing Organisational
Effectiveness,” by N. Martins and M. Coetzee, 2009, SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 7(1), p. 3. Copyright 2018 by The Authors.
Delving more deeply into the Burke-Litwin model, as depicted in Figure 3, highlighted
two distinct sets of organizational dynamics. The first, representing the lower portion of the
figure, is associated with the transactional level of human behavior and the everyday interactions
that create the organizational climate (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Martins & Coetzee, 2009). The
upper portion of the model figure represents the transformational elements that refer to
41
organizational and human transformation and typically represent very large, point in time, and
premeditated changes (Martins & Coetzee, 2009). The transformational variables in the model
are directly affected by changes from the external environment that are the primary instigators of
change (Burke & Litwin, 1992) such as the disruptive effect of digital technologies that cause
digital transformations (Vial, 2019; Warner & Wäger, 2017). These transformational variables,
in turn, influence the transactional factors in the model impacting organizational performance
and effectiveness (Martins & Coetzee, 2009).
The Transformational Factors
The transformational factors affecting organizational performance and effectiveness
summarized by Burke and Litwin (1992), consist of the external environment, leadership,
vision/mission and strategy, organizational culture, and organizational performance (see Table 1
for definitions). These factors are more closely linked to the quintessential definitions of
organizational change and leadership in classical change management research (Burke, 2018;
Kotter, 1995; Stone et al., 2018). Changes in these variables are often associated with significant
external environmental forces that require an overt and revolutionary change event to take place
in the organization (Burke; 2018). The impact of this transformational change is a meaningful
change in the organizational mission that deeply affects the structure of the organization and will
have an altering impact on the organizational culture (Burke, 2018; Burke & Litwin, 1992, Stone
et al., 2018).
42
Table 1
Burke-Litwin Transformational Factors Definitions
Factor Definition
External Environment Conditions outside of the organization that influence its
performance (e.g., competition, new technology,
customer preferences, societal shifts).
Vision/Mission and Strategy The overall purpose of the organization and what it wants to
achieve and how it intends to achieve that purpose.
Leadership The most senior level executives in the organization.
Culture The values, beliefs, and norms that drive the actions of the
organization’s leaders and employees.
Organizational and Individual
Performance
The outcomes, results, and indicators of organizational
achievement.
Note. The transformational factor definitions have been synthesized from “A causal model of
organizational performance and change,” by W. Burke and G. Litwin, 1992, Journal of
Management, 18(3), p. 532. Copyright 1992 by the Southern Management Association.
The Burke-Litwin model’s transformational factors are associated with the macroindustry forces and effects driving DT. Specifically, disruptive digital technologies have had a
seismic impact on the external environment and have either impacted or are putting at risk the
organizational performance across industries and especially in financial services (Chanias, 2017;
Sia et al., 2016; Vial, 2019; Yeow et al., 2018; Yoo et al., 2010a). Organizations have undertaken
DT as a strategic response to the environmental threats and opportunities posed by these new
disruptive technologies (Vial, 2019) and have enhanced their leadership approach for a new
digital era (Warner & Wäger, 2017). The imperative for a new digital culture has become clear
43
for organizations embarking on DT despite its overt clash with the organization’s normative
culture (Vial, 2019; Warner & Wäger, 2017). For this study, the Burke-Litwin transformational
factors are a stable input as LFI has responded to the external environment changes with a DT
imperative. The study focuses on the interplay of the transactional variables of the model
resulting from the impact of the transformational impacts.
The Transactional Factors
The remaining factors in the model are the transactional factors and consist of
management practices, structure, systems, climate, motivation, task, and skill abilities, and needs
and values (Burke, 2018; Burke-Litwin, 1992; Stone et al., 2018) as defined in Table 2. The
transactional factors align with the traditional definitions of management responses to change
events (Burke, 2018; Stone et al., 2018). The impact of the transformational factors on the
transactional variables can influence the performance of the various change interventions and
impact the overall organizational performance (Stone et al., 2018). Although the DT research
agenda about the transformational elements of the Burke-Litwin model has advanced, insights
into the transactional variables as it relates to DT are still nascent (Martins & Coetzee, 2009;
Stone et al., 2018).
44
Table 2
Burke-Litwin Transactional Factors Definitions
Factor Definition
Management Practices The behaviors and actions of managers in the normal course
of events in the organization.
Structure The organizational design that supports the achievement of
the mission (levels, responsibilities, roles, governance,
and decision making).
Systems The policies, procedures, and incentives that support and
reinforce the work within the organization.
Climate The impressions and feelings of members of work groups
within the organization and their relationships.
Motivation Managers and employees’ desire to achieve both their own
work goals and those of the organization.
Task and Skill Abilities The specific skills and abilities that people need to do the
work and their alignment to the requirements of their
roles.
Needs and Values The beliefs that managers and employees of the
organization consider important and what should regulate
behavior.
Note. The transactional factor definitions have been synthesized from “A causal model of
organizational performance and change,” by W. Burke and G. Litwin, 1992, Journal of
Management, 18(3), p. 533. Copyright 1992 by the Southern Management Association.
Despite the sporadic nature of the research on the transactional factors in the BurkeLitwin model with respect to DT, there are linkages to guide the study. Organizations that have
undertaken DT have adopted structures such as client journeys and agile methods as mechanisms
45
for the continuity and maintenance of the large-scale DT work effort (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015;
Tiersky, 2017; Yu et al., 2022). Additionally, the adoption of strategic agility as a pervasive
management practice and system of work has shown early promise and anecdotally affected
motivation and climate (Dikert et al., 2016; Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Vial, 2019), but lacks
empirical evidence (Teece et al., 2016).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study leverages the transactional factors from the
Burke-Litwin model and incorporates salient concepts from the DT literature. This conceptual
framework provides the structure that guides the design of the study and the research questions
(Grant & Osanloo, 2015). The conceptual framework will leverage the adapted version of the
Burke-Litwin transactional elements of the model and overlay two concepts from the DT
literature (a) large-scale, agile client journeys with customer and technology orientation, and (b)
normative financial services culture (Burke, 2018; Burke & Litwin, 1992, Dikert et al., 2016;
Teece et al., 2016; Vial, 2019; Warner & Wäger, 2017) as depicted in Figure 5. More
specifically, client journeys as operationalized in industry practice with customer and technology
orientation features (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015; Yu et al., 2022) underpin the operating structure and
task requirements for employees in DT. The adoption of large-scale, strategic agility as the
prevailing management practice impacts climate and motivation directly and has ancillary
impacts on the remaining transactional elements of the model (Dikert et al., 2016; Teece et al.,
2016; Warner & Wäger, 2017). Anecdotally, DT has been overlayed into existing organizations
with strong normative cultures and underpinning systems. Normative organizational systems and
legacy employee values have a residual impact onto the client journey and scaled agile routine
implementations in DT.
46
Figure 5
Conceptual Framework: Digital Transformation Routines in Practice
47
Large-scale client journeys that have adopted strategic agility have quickly become the
practice norm in industry to progress on DT (Boston Consulting Group, 2022). The impact of the
pseudo-permanent structures of client journeys on DT outcomes is unknown, but many espouse
the effectiveness of the structures on immediate individual performance outcomes as well as the
climate. The study assesses the impact that large-scale client journeys have on the employee
adoption of DT routines and the factors that influence employee propensity to sustain the
adopted routines. The primary research assumption is that adoption of the most impactful
routines and their long-term sustainment in a persistent organizational structure is key to DT
success (Dikert et al., 2016; Vial, 2019; Warner & Wäger, 2017). Through a qualitative in-depth,
semi-structured interview protocol based on the adaptation of the Langley Research Center
methodology (IBM, 2002), and Boston Consulting Group Digital Maturity model (Boston
Consulting Group, 2022), the study aims to uncover salient organizational and cultural identifiers
that are critical for embedding and sustaining digital routines. This study specifically identifies
the structural, task, management practice levers that influence climate and motivation towards
the sustainment of DT routines.
The impact of the organization’s normative culture, especially in highly successful
organizations, is sizable. LFI is a highly successful and large organization with a strong,
normative culture that often skews change to the status-quo (Thakor, 2016). The study assesses
the impacts that this normative culture has on dampening the sustainment influence levers and
what structural and management practices are most impactful to overcoming those normative
influences. Leveraging the same semi-structured interview protocol, the study aims to identify
the normative culture detractors that have the greatest dampening effect on embedding and
sustaining DT routines. Exploring these dimensions supports the understanding of the employee
48
experience within DT routines as the nature of the experience itself may be the key to embedding
and sustaining the routines. The study aims to address the what and the how of sustaining digital
routines to discover new insights aimed a contributing to the literature of DT.
Conclusion
Research shows that DT success is rare and that the understanding of the factors that
influence that success remains elusive. The literature, albeit plentiful, has wide variability, gaps,
and is still under development. The financial benefits of successful DT are clear at the
organizational and industry levels, and shareholders are actively demanding that the digital
dividend is delivered in the coming years. CEOs and senior executives are actively scrambling
for organizational levers that will help them increase the likelihood of DT success that delivers
the digital dividend. Embedding and sustaining DT routines is one small but important
organizational lever that is critical in the success of digital transformations as the research
highlighted. Beyond the financial benefits, DT success holds the promise of greater financial
inclusion and access to alternative financial products that address the unbanked, underbanked,
and marginalized in the population.
49
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to explore the digital transformation routines within LFI
most responsible for achieving successful digital transformation and overcoming the
organization’s normative culture. Effective applied research advances a domain’s quality of
practice and knowledge through the application of research outcomes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Creswell and Creswell (2018) elaborated that qualitative studies based on grounded theory enrich
our understanding of phenomenon based on inductive logic. Digital transformation is an
emerging topic in basic and applied research, and there is still much to learn including
understanding the routines that embed and sustain successful digital practices (Vial, 2019;
Warner & Wäger, 2017). This study explored the digital transformation routines most
responsible for achieving successful digital transformation and overcoming the organization’s
normative culture. Specifically, the study sought to identify and examine the cultural, individual,
and organizational routines necessary to embed and sustain successful digital transformation
change.
This chapter provides details on the research design and methodology used, and the
researcher. This chapter goes on to describe the data collection methods, instrumentation, and the
high-level review of the data analysis approach. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion
about the credibility and trustworthiness of the inquiry, the ethical considerations of the research,
and the limitations and delimitations of the study.
Research Questions
This study explored the digital transformation routines within LFI that are most
responsible for achieving successful digital transformation and overcoming the organization’s
normative culture. The following research questions guided the study:
50
1. How do transactional factors change for employees who adopt new routines in digital
transformations?
2. What transformational and transactional factors influence an employee’s propensity
to sustain routines within digital transformations?
3. How do employees experience change in their work unit climate and individual needs
and values due to the interaction of digital transformation with normative culture
routines?
Overview of Methodology
The study was a qualitative research study that leveraged document analysis and
interview data collection methods sequentially and in that order. Qualitative research explores
explanation and meaning to achieve a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study’s conceptual framework
posits that relationship influences existed between task routines, management routines,
normative policies and procedures, and the overall work climate that impacts motivation to
embed and sustain digital transformation routines.
Initially, the study surveyed a purposely selected set of documents that the organization
provided based on the established criteria. The document analysis explored the management
routines and normative influences on the overall work climate. In the second phase, in-person or
videoconferencing interviews explored interactions between task and management routines in
digital transformation and the normative routines that impacted work climate and motivation.
The interviews established a deeper understanding of how employees experience digital
transformation within the organization. The use of document analysis and interviews was
appropriate for this study given the aim was to understand the influences that digital
51
transformation work and management routines had on climate and motivation. The two methods
provided a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, validated the insights gained
through the study, and supported the reduction of potential bias in the study. The methods also
increased the credibility and trustworthiness of the study by corroborating the findings. The
study did not include quantitative methods as it would have expanded the scope unnecessarily
and the contributions to addressing the research questions would have been limited given the
nature of this study. Table 3 outlines the methods used to answer the research study’s three
questions.
Table 3
Data Sources
Research questions Document review Interviews
RQ1: How do transactional factors change for
employees who adopt new routines in digital
transformations?
X X
RQ2: What transformational and transactional
factors influence an employee’s propensity to
sustain routines within digital transformations?
X X
RQ3: How do employees experience change in
their work unit climate and individual needs and
values due to the interaction of digital
transformation with normative culture routines?
X X
52
The Researcher
I am a senior executive at LFI, the study site, and I am focused on digital transformation
outcomes for the organization. Additionally, I have been engaged in digital transformation for
over 25 years and more recently as a leader of digitization efforts within LFI. My positionality,
content expertise, and lived experience created two major bias dynamics. The first bias dynamic
was a knowledge or content bias where a researcher favors research, assumptions, data, and
findings that support lived experiences or long held convictions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
second bias category was a process and perception bias where study participants respond or
participate based on the researcher’s positionality and background.
Mitigating a researcher’s individual bias enhances the legitimacy and usefulness of a
research study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I addressed the bias by (a) attending to positionality
and reflexivity, (b) conducting a comprehensive and thorough literature review, and (c)
designing a comprehensive and thoroughly reviewed research protocol. First, as Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) highlight, the researcher is overtly declarative in his own positionality and world
views to help design an approach to reduce bias. Employees in my direct reporting line, who
were working with me in their daily capacity or have previously worked for me, were not
eligible to participate in the study. The study managed and mitigated issues of positionality and
power dynamics through the inclusion criteria for the interviews.
Through reflexivity, I considered the fact that I am an insider and part of the normative
culture and thus overcame those two biases or bias perceptions through comprehensive literature
reviews and well-reviewed protocols. This reflexivity created the opportunity to demonstrate a
robust, methodological approach to this study. Beyond the attendance to my immediate
positionality issues, a comprehensive literature review was critical to support bias reduction. The
53
literature review included a multi-dimensional perspective of the topic, cross referenced to
comprehensive literature surveys, included contradictory perspectives from the research, and
incorporated grounded theory through the theoretical framework. Finally, the dissertation
committee and the official Institutional Review Board peer reviewed the study to ensure
secondary validation of the protocols. Transcription checking by interviewees mitigated bias in
addition to experts who peer reviewed the findings. Despite the rigor and care, no research study
is completely bias free, but this research study applied significant diligence in addressing
emerging biases.
Data Sources
The study used two methods of qualitative data collection, document analysis and
interviews. I conducted a purposeful document analysis based on the established criteria.
Sequentially, I engaged in purposeful semi-structured interviews with a purposefully selected
unique set of participants based on established criteria. The following section addresses the
details of the data source methods, the participants, the instrumentation, and data collection
procedures.
Method One: Document Analysis
This study used document analysis as one of the two qualitative data collection methods.
The document analysis used written and official artifacts from LFI that the organization provided
according to the criteria that I had established. The documents were important to contextualize
the study and the findings that emerged during the interviews.
Instrumentation
The document analysis leveraged documents from three distinct categories as Appendix
A, the document analysis protocol, highlights. The documents provided a rich and meaningful
54
description of LFI’s current digital transformation efforts. The documents were instrumental and
described the transformational and transactional elements in the Burke-Litwin model that existed
in the organization.
In addition to contextualizing the digital transformation efforts, the documents framed the
conceptual framework and the insights gleaned from the analysis. They provided a perspective
on the organizational culture, the climate, and the overall management practices, useful inputs
for the data analysis when combined with interview data. The document quality was varied and
increased the insights gained about task and management routines during the interviews. The
documents, as official organizational records, provided insight into the organization’s normative
culture and influence on the digital transformation effort. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated,
document analysis is a natural part of the research setting that is not intrusive or manipulated
during the study which is an important element of the researcher’s bias mitigation strategy.
Data Collection Procedures
LFI provided the documents with their express permission and support based on criteria
that I provided. The inclusion criteria for the documents included the following:
• Created in 2022;
• Created in the digital transformation or risk transformation programs;
• Presented in final format in a governance forum (working documents were excluded
from the data collection);
• Written in English. French documents were excluded to isolate additional cultural
dynamics that may have emerged during the study but were not associated with
digital transformation.
55
The interviews did not identify any additional documents that were relevant to the research
questions. The criteria that I established provided for an adequate number of documents of high
quality and provided a comprehensive perspective.
Based on the criteria that I established, LFI provided an initial set of documents through
their Value Office, a central program management and stewardship function for all digital
transformation efforts. LFI provided the documents in electronic format on a secured electronic
storage system, Confluence. For documents that were outside of the Confluence storage system,
LFI made them available through email to the researcher’s secure LFI email. Documents did not
leave LFI electronic systems due to regulatory restrictions. Analysis occurred on my personal
equipment and is not subject to regulatory restrictions. I requested the documents from LFI
through the organizational process that researchers follow and not by virtue of my position in the
organization. LFI executives that I did not have a relationship with personally or professionally
reviewed and approved the request.
Method Two: Interviews
The second data collection method in this qualitative study used person-to-person
interviews. I interviewed 12 purposeful and unique individuals based on the protocol established
in Appendix B. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) highlighted that interviews are robust data collection
methods to inquire about past events and to gain a deeper understanding of the interviewees’
experiences and sense-making.
Participants
The study included 12 participants that met the established selection criteria through the
two phases of screening. The population size included 48 individuals that met the criteria in the
first purposeful sampling phase: non-executive, senior managers of LFI who are responsible for
56
digital transformation initiatives. The second phase criteria established unique screening
parameters that yielded 12 unique participants as identified in Table 4; I had already identified
the 14 individuals within LFI who met these criteria. Table 4 summarized the criteria for the
interview selection in the two phases. I sought to conduct 12 interviews from the sample of 14
individuals who met the selection criteria, which accounted for some individuals who chose not
to participate, based on a first come-first interviewed basis.
Table 4
Interview Sampling Criteria
Selection Phase Sampling Criteria
Phase 1 selection Non-executive
Senior manager leading a digital
transformation
Fulltime employee of LFI
Phase 2 selection Has been involved in digital
transformation for over nine months
Must currently lead digital transformation
teams in a direct reporting relationship
Has been an employee of LFI for over 5
years
Has participated in senior executive
governance forums related to digital
transformation
Has worked in a non-digital
transformation role at LFI
Has not been a direct or indirect employee
of the researcher at any time in the past
57
All individuals within the sample of 14 individuals were similar in expertise and digital
transformation experiences, and I gained similar insights from the members of the group. The
second phase selection criteria ensured that the interviewees had adequate career progression
within digital transformation to provide meaningful insights. In addition, the criteria further
established that the selected participants had experienced the normative culture of LFI and were
familiar with both task and management routines within digital transformations and outside of
them.
Instrumentation
The study used interview questions uniquely developed but inspired by categories and
topics in Nasa’s Langley Research Center Survey based on the Burke-Litwin model (IBM,
2002). I contextualized the interview questions by further adapting them to the digital
transformation topic based on Boston Consulting Group’s digital maturity framework (Boston
Consulting Group, 2022). The first part of the interview included general questions related to the
interviewee and their role within LFI and its digital transformation journey. The second section,
the heart of the interview, explored topics related to task routines, management routines, and the
routines associated with normative parts of the organizational culture. The third and last section
explored topics related to climate and motivation. The questions and the interview protocol
mirror the conceptual framework through questions that inquired about task routines,
management routines, normative routines, and their impact on climate and motivation. These
questions exposed the elements that are critical to embedding and sustaining digital
transformation routines.
58
Data Collection Procedures
I identified the potential interview participants based on the interview sampling criteria
established in Table 4. These potential participants received an interview invitation from my
USC email soliciting their participation in the interview. The invitation email, as designed in
Appendix B, included a study information sheet that provided further information about the
study, the purpose of the interview, and the interview logistics. Interviewees were encouraged to
schedule interviews during non-work work hours at a time and location of their choosing to
support in their comfort with the interview. In addition, the study information sheet clearly
identified that the invitees were under no obligation to take part in these interviews and could
have withdrawn participation at any time. The invitation ended with a consent-based request to
schedule the interview.
I guided the interview collection method based on the study’s uniquely developed
interview protocol. The interview protocol occurred in two steps: (a) the invitation and (b) the
interview. The first step, the invitation, provided the prospective participant with general
information about the study, the parameters of the study, the confidentiality and privacy
safeguards within the study, and finally solicited the prospective participant’s explicit consent to
take part in the interview. In the second step, I conducted the interview at the agreed upon time
according to the parameters established in the interview protocol in Appendix B. Participants
could have withdrawn at any time from the interview without any impact as the protocol
stipulated.
I conducted the interviews after the document analysis in May and June of 2023. I
scheduled each interview for 90 minutes in duration. The duration of the interviews, albeit on the
lengthier side, ensured thorough coverage of the topic with each interviewee to achieve adequate
59
saturation of the topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I recorded the interviews on a Webex
conferencing format whether the interview was in person or remote. The Webex transcription
service available within the software provided the transcription of the recordings. I
complemented the recording with field notes that captured unique areas of emphasis. The use of
the recording format ensured accuracy when coding the interviews and for the purposes of the
analysis is standard qualitative research protocol and accepted practice (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Data Analysis
The data analysis for this research study involved three distinct phases of data analysis. I
sanitized the document and interview data to remove interviewee and organizational identifying
information. I used manual methods to assign codes to the document analysis and interview
transcripts and created an organized codebook (Maxwell, 2013, Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the
first phase, I identified codes developed from the conceptual framework and applied in the
document analysis including frequency and contextual usage. The second phase focused on the
interview transcripts and similarly created codes developed from the conceptual framework for
the interviews.
The final phase involved aggregating the codes into common themes from the conceptual
framework and aligning to each of the research questions. The identification of themes
established the assumed existence of linkages between task routines, management routines with
work climate, and motivation that increased the likelihood of sustained digital transformation
routines. Chapter Four presents the data analysis.
60
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credible and trustworthy analysis is critical for the legitimacy of the research study and
its applicability to professional practice. Credibility refers to evidence that demonstrates the
authenticity and accuracy of the study’s findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) add that trustworthiness centers on the researcher and
their practices suggesting the logical, ethical, and consistent conduct of the research. As the
researcher, I was the primary instrument throughout this study responsible for the document
analysis, the construction of the interview instrument, and interviewing the participants. The
research study design ensured the accurate, ethical, and consistent collection and analysis of data.
Specifically, I used four primary approaches to ensure credibility and trustworthiness: (a)
member validation, (b) triangulation, (c) reflexivity, and (d) expert validation.
The application of various strategies ensured the credibility and trustworthiness of the
study, a key researcher responsibility (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Interview data is susceptible
to interpretation introducing inadvertent researcher bias (McEwan & McEwan, 2003); therefore,
I provided the interviewees with a transcript to confirm the accuracy of their statements.
Subsequently, a researcher uses two triangulation methods to enhance the credibility of the study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). First through triangulation between the document analysis and the
interview findings to understand areas of convergence and divergence followed by comparison
with industry studies that leveraged other protocols. The third strategy employed experts in the
field to review the findings for methodological gaps, inconsistencies in the approach or the
findings, and the overall findings. I leveraged three established digital transformation experts
with significant global expertise in the domain for the expert review. These individuals only had
access to synthesized findings, not to the original study data. The final strategy used reflexivity
61
to mitigate the researcher identified biases, positionality, and world views in the research design
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as the ethics section explores.
Ethics
I hold a role of influence within the study site, and although I addressed issues of
positionality in the data collection protocols, other issues related to informed consent, voluntary
participation, and confidentiality were present (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Research participants
are members of the study site organization, and they could have been apprehensive about
participating in the study without feelings of duress or being forthcoming with information. I
clearly and repeatedly identified in the interview invitation, the study information sheet that was
part of the interview invitation, and at the beginning of the interview that participation is entirely
voluntary. In addition, as in Appendix B, I added that the interviewee may have withdrawn at
any time during the interview without any repercussions. The study further reinforced this
through the inclusion of the Institutional Review Board’s Information Sheet for Exempt
Research in Appendix B. Ensuring that perspective participants did not feel coerced to
participate and that they were free to share what they would like was critically important in this
study given the strong normative culture within LFI.
Voluntary participation and consent required the researcher to maintain privacy and
confidentiality during and after the conclusion of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Documents shared during the document analysis phase of the study were available through a
two-way password protected and encrypted file shared on LFI’s premises. No one could remove
or destroy the files from LFI’s electronic environment due to regulatory reasons. Interview
recordings were encrypted, password protected, and I was the only individual that could access
them through LFI’s electronic environment which ensured that they could not be compromised. I
62
conducted the data analysis phase on my personal electronic device and at that stage pseudonyms
were used to identify interview participants. I destroyed the interview recordings permanently
upon the completion of the transcription.
The researcher as the primary research instrument is a hallmark of qualitative research
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) but that introduces researcher ethics
complications. I hold a pragmatic worldview and focus on the immediate application of solutions
within the study site to spur innovation, improve productivity, and enhance the employee
experience. I assume that management routines, their efficacy and impact are a large determinant
of embedding and sustaining digital transformation routines. This assumption maybe valid in
some cases but needed rigorous assessment through this study. To minimize the impact of this
assumption, I grounded the work in the comprehensive theoretical and conceptual models and
relied on peer review and feedback from the dissertation committee through the research design,
data collection, and analysis phases.
63
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the digital transformation routines within LFI
most responsible for achieving successful digital transformation and overcoming the
organization’s normative culture. Specifically, the study examined the transformational and
transactional factors necessary to embed and sustain successful digital transformation change.
The study explored the following research questions:
1. How do transactional factors change for employees who adopt new routines in digital
transformations?
2. What transformational and transactional factors influence an employee’s propensity
to sustain routines within digital transformations?
3. How do employees experience change in their work unit climate and individual needs
and values due to the interaction of digital transformation with normative culture
routines?
This study was a sequential qualitative study comprised of a document and artifact analysis
followed by 12 individual, semi-structured 75-minute interviews. The findings in this chapter are
organized by an overview of the participants and document analysis followed by the study’s
research questions and the themes that emerged from the analysis.
Participants
This study used a purposeful sampling method that yielded 14 potential participants.
Twelve participants from the various digital transformation journeys within the organization,
LFI, agreed to take part in the interviews. The study participant selection was based on a twophase criteria approach as outlined in Chapter Three. Participants had a pseudonym assigned to
protect their identity throughout the study. In addition, the study used standard names for LFI
64
organizational constructs referenced by the participants to further protect all identities. All the
participants serve as senior digital transformation practitioners within LFI and are currently
active in digital transformation efforts throughout the organization.
Four participants identified as male, and eight participants identified as female. All
participants are long-term employees of LFI with all but two exceeding 10 years of tenure in the
organization as summarized in Table 5. All but three participants have less than 6 years of digital
transformation experience, and all but three have been in their current digital transformation role
less than two years.
65
Table 5
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Participant Gender Number of
years in
organization
Number of years
in digital
transformation
Number of
years in role
Participant 1 Male 17 years 12 years 4 years
Participant 2 Female 16 years 2 years 3 years
Participant 3 Female 11 years 5 years 1 year
Participant 4 Male 6 years 7 years 1 year
Participant 5 Female 12 years 5 years 1 year
Participant 6 Male 14 years 2 years 2 years
Participant 7 Female 20 years 3 years 1 year
Participant 8 Female 13 years 4 years 1 year
Participant 9 Female 8 years 1 year 1 year
Participant 10 Male 24 years 2 years 1 year
Participant 11 Female 15 years 2 years 1 year
Participant 12 Female 19 years 7 years 7 years
66
Document Analysis Overview
This study used document analysis as one of the two qualitative data collection methods.
LFI provided twenty-one documents that aligned with the established document analysis
protocol criteria. The documents included digital transformation strategy documents,
performance and status memos developed by the digital transformation teams, and digital
transformation maturity assessments. Table 6 summarized the documents. The documents were
assigned a pseudonym to further protect the identity of the participants and ensure the anonymity
of the organization. In addition, the organization provided the documents to me through a secure
and password encrypted mechanism to preserve the confidentiality and security of these
documents throughout the study. There were 14 documents aligned with digital transformation
initiatives whose leaders participated in the interviews. Three of the documents are applicable to
all digital transformation initiatives and interview participants, while the remaining four
documents had no cross-over alignment to interview participants. The interviewees did not
identify any additional documents for review as part of the document and artifact analysis in the
study.
67
Table 6
Document Analysis Inventory & Participant Cross-Reference
Document type Document name Participant cross
reference
Digital Transformation Performance and
Status Memos
Document 1 Participant 8
Document 2 None
Document 3 Participant 10
Document 4 None
Document 5 Participants 2 & 3
Document 6 Participant 1
Document 7 Participants 9 &
12
Document 8 Participant 5
Document 9 Participant 6
Document 10 Participant 11
Digital Transformation Strategies Document 11 None
Document 12 None
Document 13 Participants 2 & 3
Document 14 Participant 1
Document 15 Participants 9 &
12
Document 16 Participant 5
Document 17 Participant 6
Document 18 Participant 11
Document 20 All Participants
Digital Transformation Maturity Assessment Document 19 All Participants
Document 21 All Participants
68
The organization provided numerous, descriptively rich documents that resulted from the
document analysis protocol. However, these documents produced a limited number of findings
that were useful in informing the study’s research questions. Although these documents were not
valuable in addressing every research question, when cross-referenced to interviewees, the
provided an enhanced contextual understanding of interviewees’ comments. The findings from
the document analysis aligned with two specific themes of the research questions as summarized
in Table 7. More specifically the analysis concluded that the documents were of value to one of
the themes aligned to research question one and one of the themes aligned to research question
two.
69
Table 7
Document Analysis Research Question Finding Alignment
Research questions Document type Document
name
Finding
RQ1: How do transactional
factors change for
employees who adopt
new routines in digital
transformations?
Digital
Transformation
Performance &
Status Memos
Document 5 Employees who adopt digital
transformation routines
perceive clearer link
between their individual
needs and performance and
organizational performance
RQ2: What
transformational and
transactional factors
influence an employee’s
propensity to sustain
routines within digital
transformations?
Digital
Transformation
Strategies
Documents
13, 16
An employee’s propensity to
sustain routines is
influenced by management
routines and structures that
reinforce those routines
Digital
Transformation
Maturity
Assessments
Document
19
An employee’s propensity to
sustain routines is
influenced by management
routines and structures that
reinforce those routines
RQ3: How do employees
experience change in
their work unit climate
and individual needs and
values due to the
interaction of digital
transformation with
normative culture
routines?
None None None
70
The document analysis highlighted two specific findings that aligned to research
questions one and two. For research question one, Document 5 identified that employees who
adopt digital transformation routines perceive a clearer link between individual needs and
organizational performance. Document 5 called out “we are increasing frequency of our …
[digital] routines to help provide transparency and work through [organizational] alignment
issues, dependencies, and outcomes,” asserting the link between individual needs and
organizational performance. For research question two, Document 13, 16, and 19 highlighted
that the transactional factors of management routines and structure influenced an employee’s
propensity to sustain routines. Document 19 had the best articulation of a clear linkage between
sustained digital routines and team structures as explored in the subsequent sections. There were
no documents that informed research question three.
Research Question 1: How do Transactional Factors Change for Employees Who Adopt
New Digital Transformation Routines?
The first research question focused on the transactional factors that change for employees
who adopted new digital transformation routines. This portion of the chapter reviews the two
themes that emerged in the participant interviews and to a lesser extent the document analysis.
The themes, as outlined in Table 8, are:
• Employees who adopted new digital transformation routines reported increased
belief in their individual factors.
• Employees who adopted new digital transformation routines perceived clearer
linkages between their individual needs and performance and that of the organization.
71
Table 8
Transaction Factors that Change Due to Adoption of New Digital Routines
Transactional factor themes Transactional factor
identified
Transactional factor findings
Employees who adopted new
digital transformation
routines reported greater
belief in individual factors
Task and Skill Abilities:
Skills and abilities that
employees need to do the
work and the alignment to
their roles
Employees who adopted
digital transformation
routines experienced
greater alignment between
their tasks, abilities, and
roles
Employees who adopted
digital transformation
routines experienced a
greater belief in their
ability to excel in their
roles
Needs and Values: Beliefs
that employees consider
important
Digital transformation
routines reinforced the
alignment between their
day-to-day roles and their
individual beliefs
Employees who adopted new
digital transformation
routines perceived clearer
linkages between their
individual needs and
performance and the
organizational
performance
Needs and Values: Beliefs
that employees consider
important
Employees identified that
their needs and values are
aligned to the
organization’s mission and
performance
Structure: Organizational
design that supports the
achievement of the mission
Employees who adopted
digital transformation
routines expressed that
their work structures
enhanced their
performance and aligned it
with the organizational
performance
72
Theme 1: Employees Who Adopted New Digital Transformation Routines Reported
Greater Belief in Individual Factors
All twelve digital transformation practitioners who were interviewed were asked about
their adoption of new digital transformation routines. Seven of twelve participants reported some
form of digital transformation adoption in their day-to-day work activities. The employees who
adopted new digital transformation routines reported experiencing greater alignment between
their tasks, abilities, and roles. They also reported a greater belief in their ability to excel in their
roles as highlighted in Figure 6. Alternatively, of five employees who did not adopt digital
transformation routines, only two experienced a greater belief in individual factors.
Figure 6
Adoption of New Digital Transformation Routines Improved Belief in Individual Factors
Note. N = 12. Increase in either the task and skill abilities or needs and values individual factors
was included in the calculations. Percentage calculations were based on all interviewees, those
who adopted new digital transformation routines and those who did not adopt new digital
transformation routines respectively. Interviewee absolute numbers for each category included
for clarity.
1 (14%)
Adopted New Digital Transformation Routines
6 (86%)
3 (60%)
Did Not Adopt New Digital Transformation Routines
2 (40%)
Experienced Greater Belief Did not Experience Greater Belief
73
Individual Skills and Abilities
Participants who adopted new digital transformation routines reported greater belief in
their task and skill abilities required for their roles. As Figure 7 shows, there were two different
findings for the participants who adopted new digital transformation routines:
• All six employees who adopted new digital transformation routines experienced
greater alignment between their tasks, abilities, and roles.
• Five of the six employees who adopted new digital transformation routines
experienced a greater belief in their ability to excel in their roles.
Figure 7
Digital Transformation Routine Adoption Enhanced Task and Skill Abilities
Participant 2 is engaged in the organization’s largest and longest running digital
transformation journey. She stated that the new digital routines were instrumental “to empower
the teams on their own” to develop increased autonomy and self-reliance. Participant 2 continued
to describe that the adoption of digital routines became an essential tool for increased alignment
between the tasks and roles, “would absolutely do them as they’re contributing to our digital
transformation, and we can very quickly easily succinctly see how we’re progressing against our
6 (100%)
Greater Alignment Between Tasks, Ability, and Roles
5 (83%)
1 (17%)
Greater Belief in Ability to Excel in Roles
Increase in Alignment or Beliefs No Increase in Alignment or Beliefs
74
goals by having routines in place.” She went on to say that routines increase task and role
alignment by “helping us do more [tasks], faster.”
Participant 1 has the longest tenure in role of the interview participants. He provided his
perspective that “certain routines are important from an alignment perspective which I think is
really essential for digital transformation.” He elaborated that routines are important as they
“allow the team to better understand the work…and takes a lot of the guess work out in your
role.” He built upon this in his reflection that the adoption of routines increased the ease of tasks
and improved task alignment to the roles through increased coordination:
For the squads and across the squads so whether it’s stand-ups or backlog grooming or
sprint planning, or other routine they help coordinate the work, it allows us to manage.
Work is a lot easier; we have the ability to break things down.
Participant 1 also described that there was an increased belief in the ability to excel in the role
from the adoption of the new routines “the routines, the actual work product is better, and the
teams are delivering great work.”
Participant 4 added an additional perspective that routines enhanced the alignment
between the role and the task and provided transparency on the work and the work climate by
saying, “If I go to a stand up, then I know exactly what is happening, or if I go to retros, I know
the morale of the team.” The interview participants who adopted new digital transformation
routines universally identified alignment between tasks, abilities, and roles, and five of them
identified a greater belief in the ability to excel in their role. The interview excerpts provided rich
and nuanced elaborations and perspectives on the enhanced individual skills and ability that
resulted from the adoption of new digital transformation routines.
75
Needs and Values
The seven employees who adopted new digital transformation routines reported that these
routines helped to reinforce the alignment between their day-to-day role and their individual
beliefs. Four of the six employees who adopted new digital transformation routines and reported
an increase in individual factors experienced that these routines reinforced the alignment
between their day-to-day role and their individual belief system. The participants who
experienced the needs and values alignment in their day-to-day roles were the interviewees who
expressed some of the strongest perspectives on individual skills and abilities alignment,
specifically Participants 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The most prominent ideas that these four participants cited as important needs and values
are independence and the ability to change the status quo to transform the organization through
digital transformation. Participant one, when asked to speak about new transformation routines,
highlighted “just because it’s something that exists doesn’t mean that it’s something that has to
continue, we can challenge that.” Later in the interview, he cited independence as a critically
important concept, “it’s important to myself that we have an opportunity to establish our own
climate, our own culture, making decisions around how we engage through our routines.”
Participant four expanded the concept of independence to ownership and said, “ownership, you
know, like they’ve given me, so you have the runway and autonomy to change things…that I
enjoy and appreciate.” The values and needs of independence and the ability to change the
status-quo were the most prominent examples of how new digital transformation routines
reinforced the alignment between their day-to-day role and their belief system.
76
Summary of Theme 1
The transactional factors changed for employees who adopted new digital transformation
routines through a greater belief in their individual factors. Study participants reported greater
skill and ability alignment with their roles and a reinforcement between their day-to-day roles
and their needs and values. Participants also cited quality, performance, and job effectiveness as
the primary indicators that influenced greater skill and ability alignment with their roles due to
the adoption of new digital transformation routines. In addition, they raised that the adoption of
new digital transformation routines reinforced and promoted the key values of independence and
challenging the status quo.
There was one participant who adopted digital transformation routines but did not
experience a greater belief in individual factors. Although there are some indications in the
interview that raise questions about his adoption of new digital transformation routines, there is
insufficient information to establish a robust finding. In addition, one of the participants who
adopted DT routines did not experience a greater belief in their ability to excel in their role.
Despite these two findings, the results are clear that study participants reported greater belief in
their individual factors from the adoption of new DT routines.
Theme 2: Employees Who Adopted New Digital Transformation Routines Perceived
Clearer Linkages Between Their Individual Needs and the Organizational Performance
The researcher asked all 12 digital transformation practitioners about their individual
needs and performance as well as that of the organization. Six of the seven employees who
adopted digital transformation routines perceived a clear linkage between their individual needs
and performance and the organizational performance as summarized in Figure 8. Additionally,
one of the five employees who did not adopt digital transformation routines spoke about a
77
perceived linkage between their needs and performance and that of the organization, but the
mention was cursory. The remainder of the participants who did not adopt digital transformation
routines were silent on the topic.
Figure 8
Perceived Linkage Between Individual & Organizational Performance Due to DT Routines
Note. N = 12. Percentage calculations were based on all interviewees who adopted digital
transformation routines and who did not adopt digital transformation routines respectively.
Absolute numbers of interviewees for each category included for clarity.
1 (14%)
Adopted Digital Transformation Routines
6 (86%)
4 (80%)
Did Not Adopt Digital Transformation Routines
1 (20%)
Perceived Performance Linkage
Did Not Perceive Performance Linkage
78
Document and Artifact Analysis Findings
Despite the limited findings, the document analysis highlighted perceived linkages
between the individual needs and performance and the organizational performance. This finding
was specific to Document 5 that identified interview Participants 2 and 3 as the main authors of
that document. The document, as summarized in Table 9, provided examples where employees’
needs, and performance were highly aligned with the organizational mission and performance. In
addition, the document identified several cases where employees who adopted new digital
transformation routines expressed that the structures that they operate within enhanced their
individual performance in alignment with the organization’s performance.
79
Table 9
Document Analysis Individual and Organizational Performance Linkages
Transactional factor themes Transactional factor findings Document analysis examples
Employees who adopted new
digital transformation
routines perceived clearer
linkages between their
individual needs and
performance and the
organizational
performance
Employees identified that
their needs and values are
aligned with the
organization’s mission and
performance
“Enable all employees to
achieve their maximum
potential, supporting and
advancing our business in
the moments that matter”
“We remain focused on new
ways of working and our
routines and have seen
significant results for our
efforts to date…achieved
at least 80% of targets”
Employees who adopted new
digital transformation
routines perceived clearer
linkages between their
individual needs and
performance and the
organizational
performance
Employees who adopted
digital transformation
routines expressed that
their work structures
enhanced their
performance and aligned it
with the organizational
performance
“We have delivered
significant achievements
that have enabled clients,
while embedding new
ways of working across
the client journey
structure”
“Implemented a modernized
operating model
[structure] to optimize
operational performance,
and deliver sustainable
competitive advantage”
A digital transformation journey identified in its quarterly Digital Transformation
Performance and Status Memo a focus on promoting clear linkages between the individual needs
80
and performance and that of the organization through its digital routines. Language, in Document
5, such as “enable all employees to achieve their maximum potential” and “have seen significant
results for our efforts to date,” conveyed a view of the linkages between the individual and the
organization in terms of performance. The authors of the document, Participants 2 and 3, went on
to describe that the operating structure enhanced their performance alignment with that of the
organization by saying, “operating model [structure] to optimize operational performance.” Only
Document 5 identified that employees who adopted these new routines perceived clearer
linkages between their individual performance and the organizational performance. All other
documents authored by the participants were silent on this theme.
Interview Findings
The interview participants who adopted digital transformation routines provided rich
descriptions on the perceived linkages between their individual performance and that of the
organization. Participant 3, one of the identified authors of Document 5, provided additional
context reinforcing that these routines help create connections between individual performance
and the organization’s overall strategy:
The routines that are used, it’s working to great effect. People have a good understanding
of what their role is and how they contribute directly to the overall strategy that we’re
working towards. I really like that. It’s been a great learning experience for everyone but
there’s a real sense of shared goals and shared accountability.
Participant 2, the other author of Document 5, expanded the point and said that the CEO has
expanded the organizational structures to create more alignment between individual and
organizational performance, “the routines that [the CEO] is putting in place hold us accountable
to operating differently not just in the transformation programs but holistically.”
81
Interviewees identified that DT routines provided a feeling of organizational purpose.
Participant 11 described that the new adopted routines reinforced being “purpose driven” and
established that “there is a reason we’re doing something.” She then elaborated that the routines
“permeate up and down the organization” when asked to describe the individual and
organizational performance alignment. Participant 4 was more direct with his statements about
the alignment to the organizational mission and performance by saying, “I am highly motivated,
by the work I do because I can see the impact right away.” He then went on to describe the
immediacy and direct linkage between his personal performance and the organizations by saying,
“I can think of an idea on the weekend and then next week test it. The week after I can go to
market and the week after I can measure it. I think that’s exciting.” As their comments
demonstrate, Participants 4 and 11 perceived strong linkages between their individual needs and
performance and that of the organization because of new digital transformation routines.
Two participants had anomalous experiences that are worth noting. Participant 6
experienced an opposite effect where the new DT routines clouded business focus and created
organizational diffusion. He stated, “I think there’s a lot of waste in the system, just because it
takes so many people to come around the table just to get aligned.” Participant 10 is the lone
participant who did not adopt digital transformation routines but reported that he perceived
clearer linkages between his performance and the organizations in his normative work routines.
His commentary lacked the specificity, clarity, and detailed articulation about individual and
organizational performance alignment that the participants who adopted new digital
transformation routines conveyed.
82
Summary of Theme 2
Employees who adopted new digital transformation routines reported they experienced
changes in their transactional factors. The interview participants reported perceiving clearer
linkages between their individual needs and performance and the organization’s. The first
perceived clear linkage included the identified alignment between their needs and performance
and the organization’s mission and performance. In the second, participants expressed that the
structures they operated within enhanced their performance in direct alignment with the
organization’s performance. The two transactional factors from the Burke-Litwin model in
Chapter Two, needs and values and structure, are those that changed due to the adoption of new
digital transformation routines.
Research Question 2: What Transformational and Transactional Factors Influence an
Employee’s Propensity to Sustain Routines Within Digital Transformations?
The second research question focused on the transformational and transactional factors
that influence an employee’s propensity to sustain routines within digital transformations. This
section of the chapter reviews two themes that emerged through the document analysis and
participant interviews. As summarized in Table 10, the themes are:
• An employee’s propensity to sustain routines was influenced by a management
routine, structure, and culture that reinforced those routines.
• Employees who actively practiced task requirements reported greater propensity to
sustain routines during digital transformations. This following section will explore
each theme in turn.
83
Table 10
Transformational and Transactional Factors that Sustain DT Routines
Transformational and
transactional factor themes
Transformational and
transactional factor
identified
Transformational and
transactional factor findings
An employee’s propensity to
sustain DT routines was
influenced by a
management routine,
structure, and culture
Management Practices:
Behaviors and actions of
managers in the normal
course of events in the
organization
Employees identified that
consistent management
practices (routine,
structure, and culture)
supported the sustainment
of DT routines
Structure: Organizational
design that supports the
achievement of the mission
Digital management
structures sustained DT
routines
Culture: Values, beliefs, and
norms that drive the actions
of the organization’s leaders
and employees
A digital management
culture was a positive
influence on employee
propensity to sustain DT
routines
Employees who actively
practice task requirements
reported greater propensity
to sustain routines during
digital transformations
Task and Skill Abilities:
Skills and abilities that
employees need to do the
work and the alignment to
their roles
Employees identified that
active practice of task
requirements supported
the propensity to sustain
DT routines
Theme 3: An Employee’s Propensity to Sustain Routines Influenced by Management
Routine, Structure, and Culture that Reinforced DT Routines
The 12 participants were asked about their propensity to sustain digital transformation
routines and how a management routine, structure, and culture influenced the propensity to
84
sustain. Six of the interviewees reported that they have sustained digital transformation routines
on an ongoing basis throughout the past year. The six participants reported varying levels of
impact on the persistence of those routines due to management routine influences, management
structure influences, and management culture influences as summarized in Figure 9. Four of the
participants reported that the presence of a strong and consistent management routine supported
the sustainment of DT routines. By contrast, all six participants reported that a management
structure existed that scaffolded their propensity to sustain the DT routines. Finally, only three of
the participants said that the management culture was conducive to sustaining DT routines.
Figure 9
Factors that Support the Propensity to Sustain DT Routines
12
6
4
6
3
All Participants Sustained
DT Routines
Presence of a
Management
Routine
Presence of a
Management
Structure
Presence of a
Management
Culture
85
Document and Artifact Analysis Findings
The document analysis found that Documents 13, 16, and 19 provided evidence to the
presence of a persistent management routine and management structure that contributed to
employees’ propensity to sustain DT routines. Participants 2 and 3 jointly authored Document
13. Participant authored Document 16 while the organization’s central transformation
coordination office authored Document 19. Documents 13 and 16 are Digital Transformation
Strategies, while Document 19 is a Digital Transformation Maturity Assessment. The
documents, as summarized in Table 11, provided examples of a persistent management routine
and its impact on DT routine sustainment. In addition, Document 19 provided rich descriptions
about the presence of a management structure that promoted DT routines.
86
Table 11
Propensity to Sustain DT Influenced by a Management Routine & Structure
Transformational and
transactional factor themes
Transformational and
transactional factor findings
Document analysis examples
An employee’s propensity to
sustain DT routines was
influenced by a
management routine,
structure, and culture
Employees identified that
consistent management
practices (routine,
structure, and culture)
supported the sustainment
of DT routines
“Three in the box
management routines are a
pre-requisite for alignment
and cohesion”
Digital management
structures sustained DT
routines
“Leverage fundamentally
new ways of working with
our leadership in the
digital transformation
journey to change the
organization”
A digital management
culture was a positive
influence on employee
propensity to sustain DT
routines
The document analysis did
not identify any culture
references
The three documents identified in the document analysis had clear references to
consistent management routines as a desired ongoing state to help support the sustainment of DT
routines. Document 19 was the only documented reference to a consistent management routine
as the expected organizational norm to support sustainment of DT routines. Documents 13 and
16 briefly identified the management structure that was in place to support the persistence of DT
routines. The documents reflected statements such as, “the persistent journey to support our
routines,” and “our structures support our valued agile routines.” None of the documents
87
included references to a digital management culture, operating culture, or climate. Digital
management culture influences were notably absent in all the documentation and emerged during
the participant interviews.
Interview Findings
All six of the twelve study participants who sustained DT routines in their day-to-day
work effort through the past year emphasized the importance of management routines.
Participant 1 said, “What really matters most are individual routines and tasks on a day-to-day
perspective, they are happening regularly.” The six participants cited that the persistent nature of
the digital transformation routines is part of their daily efforts. According to Participant 4, “It’s
around me being active, in terms of daily engagement. Directly sitting down with all [team
members] and sharing the direction.” Participant 11 had rich descriptions about the daily digital
transformation routines but expressed the need to inject creativity to sustain the routines, “I do
have a lot of routines…we’re a bit more creative in our journey…that creativity is required in
order to keep routines fresh and still adding value.” In addition to the persistence of the routine,
all six participants signaled the importance of a digital management structure to sustain the DT
routines.
All six participants identified that a persistent management structure that emphasized
digital content and domain expertise was critical to sustaining DT routines. Participant 4
conveyed this sentiment by saying, “the structure that allows persistence that we have in the
organization, I think, it’s truly best in class.” He elaborated for additional clarity that “you need
to have the right structure and support for the persistence of these routines.” Participant 3
expanded that the management support structure allowed for sustainable and persistent routines
by saying, “daily digital routines are supported by the agile management structure, it really
88
promotes a sustainable work environment.” Participant 2 personalized the impact to her daily
work when she said, “From a day-to-day perspective, my role focuses on the core routines that
keep us functioning. Now, 4 years in, our management structure is important for that.” The
interview perspectives reinforced the finding in the document analysis that a management
structure is critical to employees’ propensity to sustain DT routines.
Four participants cited that the presence of a consistent management routine supported
the sustainment of DT routines. Participant 3 began by saying, “management has given [us]
permission to work that way. It has allowed us…to have some really meaningful digital
transformation.” Participant 2 reinforced the connection between a management routine and the
sustainment of DT routines by saying, “we built our routines, we built the management practices,
and have done a lot of work to align them. Management supports the routines.” Participant 4
clarified that a management practice included active engagement with the daily digital work
activities and that reinforced the sustainment of routines. He said, “There’s engagement from
leaders at the sprint review. They come to the sprint reviews. I think that’s a different level of
support.” In their own contextual manner, each participant highlighted the importance of a
management routine to sustaining digital transformation routines.
Although references to the influence of a digital management culture on DT routine
sustainment was absent in the document analysis, three interview participants raised it as an
important factor. Although this did not meet the threshold for a theme, it is notable to mention.
Participants 2, 3, and 4 highlighted that a digital management culture that actively promotes
digital routines was critical for ongoing sustainment. Participant 4 said, “lots goes into culture. I
think we made great strides. I think as much as we have structure and management support,
digital management culture is important for ongoing participation.” The three participants
89
cemented the point of the importance of a digital management culture to the sustainment of DT
routines.
Summary of Theme 3
Management practice, structure, and culture influenced employee propensity to sustain
DT routines. All interview participants who reported sustaining DT routines successfully over
the past year also reported that a digital management routine was important in sustaining DT
routines. Four of the six participants who reported sustaining DT routines felt that a consistent
management practice was essential to sustain the DT routines for the long term. Finally, three of
the six interview participants who reported sustaining their DT routines cited that a robust digital
management culture is a key enabler. All in all, employees were able to sustain digital
transformation routines through the existence of a management practice, structure, and culture
that promoted digitization.
Theme 4: Employees who Actively Practiced Task Requirements Reported Greater
Propensity to Sustain Routines During Digital Transformations
As previously stated, six participants reported that they had sustained digital
transformation routines on an ongoing basis throughout the past year. Four of these six
participants identified that they practiced digital task requirements actively and that doing so
supported their propensity to sustain routines throughout their digital transformation. The digital
task requirements consisted of prescribed daily and weekly activities specific to advancing
digital transformation. The two remaining participants did not practice task requirements actively
because of their current role requirements. Despite these two participants, there was ample
support for the finding that employees who actively practiced tasks requirements reported greater
propensity to sustain digital transformation routines.
90
Interview Findings
The interview participants who actively practiced task requirements reported a greater
propensity in sustaining digital transformation routines. These participants reported daily and
weekly frequencies in their task requirements. In addition to the temporal element, they reported
a depth of engagement in their task requirements using words such as “worked hard” or “dug
deep.” Participant 12 said, “I would say that every day and week is consistent. I get into the daily
scrums and all that type of work,” when asked about her task requirements that she sustained for
the past year. She went on to explain her level of engagement in digital task requirements as “a
lot of time is spent collaborating on digital, working with different groups to potentially push the
envelope.” She identified her persistence in digital transformation mostly in terms of time and
effort. This supported the notion of sustaining digital transformation routines through task
practice.
Participant 4 described his experience more tactically and spoke about specific task
requirements and how they have supported his persistence:
I think about task practices for my squad, I’ve got three squads. There’s a couple of
things that I’m big on. This may feel a bit tactical, but it’s worked well for me [in
sustaining DT routines]. One is around me being active on the slack channel because it
has all my three squads. Me being active in terms of appreciating folks for demos, you
know, highlighting something, or acknowledging something that’s been delivered. The
second is directly sitting down with [team members] and sharing the direction that we’re
going towards and why and what value it will deliver. To hear directly from them and be
engaged in the work.
91
In contrast to participant 12, he focused on what he does and how he engaged as opposed to the
time and effort nature of the task requirements. Nonetheless, it was evident that he actively
practiced his task routines within his digital transformation journey.
Participant 1 had the most comprehensive and thorough articulation of task requirement
practices that supported his sustained routines. He framed his commentary in terms of role
definition and equated the role requirements with the active practice of task requirement. He
said, “this role requires you to perform different responsibilities at different altitudes and the
cadence really supports from a task perspective.” He expanded, “the day to day again demands
you to be present at different routines.” He had a robust grasp of his daily and weekly efforts
which reinforced the perspective that ongoing practice was critical for the sustainment of digital
transformation routines. He then described in even more detail:
So there’s sometimes where you’re in the trenches and there are sometimes where you’re
providing much more high level direction. But these typically are in the form of different
routines or ceremonies that are consistent with our digital transformation routines. I
would do them even if they weren’t required. The digital routines are aligned to [our]
specific way of working and how we execute and deliver using agile. I think they are
critical and required.
Participant 1 described a comprehensive way of working that promoted the active practice of
task requirements. This contributed to his propensity to sustain digital transformation routines
and the importance of the active practice of task requirements in sustaining DT routines.
92
Summary of Theme 4
The participant findings in this section established that employees who actively practiced
task requirements reported greater propensity to sustain routines during digital transformations.
Four of the six interview participants who sustained digital transformation routines over the past
year reported that persistent task practice supported their ability to sustain digital transformation
routines. Two of those participants commented about time spent and effort expended on task
requirements while the other two participants spoke more about the role requirements and
activities undertaken. Both underscored the importance of active task requirement practice in
sustaining these digital transformation routines.
Research Question 3: How do Employees Experience Changes in their Work Unit Climate
and Individual Needs and Values due to the Interaction of Digital Transformation with
Normative Culture Routines?
The focus of the third research questions was on how employees experienced changes in
their work unit climate and their individual needs and values due to the interaction of digital
transformation and normative culture routines. Interviews with the participants identified two
themes and four findings, as summarized in Table 12. The first theme focused on the work unit
climate as it moderates the interaction between digital transformation and normative culture
routines. The second theme focused on the individual needs and values degradation that
employees experienced due to the interaction of digital transformation and normative culture
systems, policies, and procedures. This section of the chapter will explore each theme in
succession. The document and artifact analysis did not inform the findings for this research
question.
93
Table 12
The Change Experience Due to the Intersection of DT and Normative Culture Routines
Transformational and
transactional factor themes
Transformational and
transactional factor
identified
Transformational and
transactional factor findings
The work unit climate
moderates the interaction
between digital
transformation and
normative culture routines
Culture: Values, beliefs, and
norms that drive the actions
of the organization’s leaders
and employees
Employees identified an
expectation that normative
culture routines thrive and
coexist alongside digital
transformation routines
Climate: The impressions
and feelings of members of
work groups within the
organization and their
relationships
The work unit climate either
acted to avoid or tempered
any conflict between new
and normative cultures
thus promoting
simultaneous positive and
negative coexistence
Employees experienced
individual needs and
values degradation due to
the interaction of digital
transformation routines
and normative culture
systems, policies, and
procedures
Needs and Values: Beliefs
that employees consider
important
Employees believed that
they had to suppress their
individual needs and
values developed within
the digital transformation
to accommodate the
normative culture
Systems: The policies,
procedures, and incentives
that support and reinforce
the work within the
organization
Employees believed that
they had to give primacy
to the normative culture
systems, policies, and
procedures over individual
needs and values
developed within digital
transformations
94
Theme 5: The Work Unit Climate Moderated the Interaction Between Digital
Transformation and Normative Culture Routines
All participants, irrespective of their level of digital transformation adoption, identified
that the work unit climate moderated the interaction between digital transformation and
normative culture routines. Participant 1 summarized this aptly in his statement, “from what I’ve
observed in this transformation program and others is that [our existing] culture overshadows the
need to drive harder on transformation.” It is important to note that the interview participants in
this context used the word culture to refer to climate as it is the common organizational
vernacular. More specifically, two separate findings aligned with this theme:
• The first finding was that the normative culture routines were expected to continue to
thrive and coexist alongside the digital transformation routines even when they were
at odds.
• The second finding was that the work unit climate either acted to avoid or tempered
conflict that arose between new routines and normative culture thus promoting
simultaneous positive and negative coexistence.
We will expand on these findings sequentially in the following section.
Interview Findings
In the first finding, participants both commented about the expectation that normative
culture routines needed to thrive and coexist with newly adopted digital transformation routines.
Participant 1 elaborated on the slower pace of transformation routines to maintain coexistence
with the normative culture by saying, “culturally allowing programs to maybe move out of the
gate at a slower pace because of other kind of softer [climate] side of things.” Participant 4 added
to this by highlighting the organizational expectation of collaboration between transformation
95
culture and normative culture, “I think we’ve made big strides. You know [other colleagues] are
not agile. We need to try to collaborate with stakeholders and risk partners.” Participant 9 then
expanded on her comments by using the word “dichotomy” to describe that the organization
expected that normative culture thrives right beside a digital transformation culture. She went on
to say, “I feel like [LFI] struggles with this wanting to be transformational but also very
traditional.” Participant 8 was more overt and emotive in her description of the organizational
expectations. When asked to comment about the impact of normative culture on digital
transformation routines she said, “not great; these regular task routines should be fixed but if
something is needed from a [normative culture] leadership level that becomes the priority and
other things will be moved around it.” She also commented that in her experience the normative
culture took primacy and transformation is a secondary consideration when at odds.
In the second finding, all participants identified that the work unit climate either acted to
avoid or tempered the conflict between new and normative cultures thus promoting simultaneous
positive and negative existence. Participant 3 began by pointing out that the segregation of the
digital transformation’s work unit climate as a mechanism of avoiding conflict with the
normative culture. She said, “[our work unit climate] was set up as a separate and stand-alone
arm very deliberately…the routines then don’t bump with the rest of the organization.” This
concept of isolation of transformation work unit climate outside of the normative culture
continued with the other participants. Participant 2 embraced this work unit climate isolation in
an even more positive sense saying, “the [leader] was passionate about setting his business up
this way, it was an uphill process to get us there. It feels like the organization is embracing this
for us but we’re still separate.” Her comments demonstrated that the work unit climate tempered
the impact of the conflict with the organization’s normative culture. Several of the participants
96
emphasized the work unit climate promoted simultaneous coexistence between new culture and
normative culture. Participant 12 built upon this by saying, “the organization hasn’t figured out
what transformation is and what regular is, and I say they are one in the same.” She then
emphasized that the inconsistency in the transformation approach is promoting the concept of
coexistence, “everything is inconsistent depending on who leads, so we need to make the
cultures the same.” These participants established the work unit’s role at promoting simultaneous
coexistence between the transformation and normative cultures.
Summary of Theme 5
The participant findings in this section demonstrated that the work unit climate
moderated the interaction between digital transformation and normative cultures. The employees
identified that normative culture routines had to thrive and coexist with digital transformation
routines. In addition, employees experienced that work unit climates either acted to avoid or
tempered the conflict between the new transformation routines and normative cultures thereby
promoting coexistence. Employees highlighted the importance of segregating the digital
transformation unit’s work climate. These findings existed in all the interviews reinforcing the
importance of this theme for promoting the sustainment of digital transformation change.
Theme 6: Employees Experienced Individual Needs and Values Degradation Due to the
Interaction of Digital Transformation Routines and the Normative Culture
All participants experienced individual needs and values degradation due to the
interaction of digital transformation and normative culture systems, policies, and procedures.
Participant 5 said, “If I want to put something small out and practice my craft I can be blocked. I
can’t act on something because I have to go to legal, they have to approve it.” She reinforced that
97
individual needs and values eroded when interacting with the organization’s normative systems.
Specifically, the participants identified two findings in this theme:
• Employees believed they had to suppress their individual needs and values developed
within the digital transformation to accommodate the normative culture.
• Employees were expected to give primacy to the normative culture systems, policies,
and procedures over individual needs and values developed within digital
transformations.
The interview findings section elaborates further on these two findings.
Interview Findings
All employees, in the first finding, believed they had to suppress their individual needs
and values that they had developed within digital transformations to accommodate the normative
culture. Participant 5 explained that she had to “put more things on documents to make people
[normative culture] feel better.” She described that the need to acquiesce to the existing
normative routines drove her current work effort and focus:
I spend way too much time catching everybody [normative culture] up and getting
permission. Making sure everybody’s ok with what I am doing. It’s not necessary but
that’s just part of the structure. I have to accept that I have to do that before I do my
activities. I don’t think that’s adding value.
Participant 8 described that she felt ineffective and experienced an erosion in her daily efforts
because of the normative culture expectation. She said, “there’s a challenge within the larger
organizational construct and it’s not set up to support you. It limits how effective you are.”
In the second finding, all employees reported that they had to give primacy to the
normative culture systems, policies, and procedures over the individual needs and values
98
developed within digital transformations. Participant 12 began by highlighting that the
organization’s normative policies impacted their individual team needs by saying, “we can’t
always create the team we need for transformation by the HR policies.” She expanded that these
policies, procedures, and systems were counter purpose to the spirit of digital transformation:
If we think about the work that would indeed be transformational and what the future
needs to look like. Then organizational compliance which is self-imposed is more risk
averse. They are more focused on the guardrails than they should be and when you think
about transformation you need to think without guardrails and then reign it later. We
can’t do that now, compliance has to come first.
Participant 4 built on this by demonstrating how the normative risk management systems in the
organization have not exhibited accountability for transformation. He said, “I would like my risk
partners to take more ownership. I shouldn’t be the only one taking all the initiative.” Employees
believe that the normative culture systems, policies, and procedures could not change and took
primacy over digital transformation, especially the risk policies and procedures.
Participant 10, on the other hand, had a unique perspective where he felt that the
transformation routines needed to be subservient to the organization’s normative routines. He
perceived that the primacy provided to normative routines was an organizational alignment
mechanism and provided “transparency” thus improving transformational outcomes. He went on
to describe that these normative systems and procedures “absolutely support” transformation
routines by “providing access, and speed of access to trusted high-quality information.” It was a
form of organizational gatekeeping. While all the participants perceived gatekeeping as a
negative dynamic to digital transformation, participant ten regarded it as a strategic enabler.
99
Summary of Theme 6
These findings supported the notion that the organization expected employees to give
primacy to the normative culture systems, policies, and procedures. All participants in the study
perceived receiving clear and consistent signals from the organization about the importance of
the normative systems. It was also evident that digital transformation routines did not have their
own systems, policies, and procedures to rely on and thus conformed to the existing normative
ones. Of the 12 participants, all but one cited more negative impacts of the normative culture on
digital transformation while one perceived acceleration and support from the normative system.
Despite the nuanced findings, all employees believed that normative culture systems, policies,
and procedures had primacy.
Summary of Findings
This study explored the digital transformation routines most responsible for achieving
successful and sustainable digital transformation and overcoming the organizational normative
culture within LFI. Specifically, the study examined the cultural, individual, and organizational
routines that were necessary to embed and sustain successful digital transformation change. The
researcher, using semi-structured interviews and document and artifact analysis, conducted a
qualitative study of senior digital transformation practitioners within LFI. Although the
participant experiences were varied amongst the practitioners, the findings indicated that there
were six common themes along the transactional and transformational factors as summarized in
Table 13.
100
Table 13
Transformational and Transactional Themes, Factors, and Findings
Factor themes Factors Factor findings
Transactional: Employees
who adopted new digital
transformation routines
reported a greater belief in
their individual factors
such as their task and skill
abilities, and needs and
values
Task and Skill Abilities:
Skills and abilities that
employees need to do the
work and the alignment to
their roles
Employees who adopted
digital transformation
routines experienced
greater alignment between
their tasks, abilities, and
roles
Employees who adopted
digital transformation
routines experienced a
greater belief in their
ability to excel in their
roles
Needs and Values: Beliefs
that employees consider
important
Digital transformation
routines reinforced the
alignment between their
day-to-day roles and their
individual beliefs
Transactional: Employees
who adopted new digital
transformation routines
perceived clearer linkages
between their individual
needs and performance
and the organizational
performance
Needs and Values: Beliefs
that employees consider
important
Employees identified
alignment between their
needs and values and the
organization’s mission and
performance
Structure: Organizational
design that supports the
achievement of the
mission
Employees who adopted
digital transformation
routines expressed that
their work structures
enhanced their
performance and aligned it
with the organizational
performance
101
Factor themes Factors Factor findings
Transactional: Management
routine, structure, and
culture influenced an
employee’s propensity to
sustain DT routines
Management Practices:
Behaviors and actions of
managers in the normal
course of events in the
organization
Employees identified that
consistent management
practices (routine,
structure, and culture)
supported the sustainment
of DT routines
Structure: Organizational
design that supports the
achievement of the
mission
Digital management
structures sustained DT
routines
Transactional: Employees
who actively practice task
requirements reported
greater propensity to
sustain routines during
digital transformations
Task and Skill Abilities:
Skills and abilities that
employees need to do the
work and the alignment to
their roles
Employees identified that
active practice of task
requirements supported
the propensity to sustain
DT routines
Transactional: Employees
experienced individual
needs and values
degradation due to the
interaction of digital
transformation routines
and normative culture
systems, policies, and
procedures
Needs and Values: Beliefs
that employees consider
important
Employees believed they had
to suppress their individual
needs and values
developed within the
digital transformation to
accommodate the
normative culture
Systems: The policies,
procedures, and incentives
that support and reinforce
the work within the
organization
Employees had to give
primacy to the normative
culture systems, policies,
and procedures over
individual needs and
values developed within
digital transformations
Transactional: The work unit
climate moderates the
Climate: The impressions
and feelings of members
The work unit climate either
acted to avoid or tempered
102
Factor themes Factors Factor findings
interaction between digital
transformation and
normative culture routines
of work groups within the
organization and their
relationships
any conflict between new
and normative cultures
thus promoting
simultaneous positive and
negative coexistence
Transformational:
Management routine,
structure, and culture
influenced an employee’s
propensity to sustain DT
routines
Culture: Values, beliefs, and
norms that drive the
actions of the
organization’s leaders and
employees
A digital management
culture was a positive
influence on employee
propensity to sustain DT
routines
Transformational: The work
unit climate moderates the
interaction between digital
transformation and
normative culture routines
Culture: Values, beliefs, and
norms that drive the
actions of the
organization’s leaders and
employees
Employees identified that
normative culture routines
had to thrive and coexist
alongside digital
transformation routines
The digital practitioners, who participated in the study, reported being able to overcome
organizational normative culture and achieve successful and sustainable digital transformation
primarily through the effects of the transactional factors. The transactional factors of substantive
impact included the consistent adoption of digital routines, the active practice of digital task
requirements, and the presence of a reinforcing management practice that included routine,
structure, and culture. The transactional impact of climate was important but, in this study, had a
dampening effect sustaining effective digital transformation. The transformational factors,
primarily culture, did not support successful and sustainable digital outcomes in this study. In
Chapter Five, I will discuss the findings in the context of existing literature and provide
recommendations to address the study’s problem of practice.
103
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to explore the digital transformation routines most
responsible for achieving successful and sustainable digital transformation and overcoming
organizational normative culture. The study addressed the following research questions:
1. How do transactional factors change for employees who adopt new routines in digital
transformations?
2. What transformational and transactional factors influence an employee’s propensity
to sustain routines within digital transformations?
3. How do employees experience change in their work unit climate and individual needs
and values due to the interaction of digital transformation with normative culture
routines?
The study did identify the digital transformation routines most responsible for achieving and
sustaining digital transformation and overcoming organizational normative culture and they are:
• The adoption of daily agile practices referred to as new ways of working.
• The use of an enhanced leadership model that includes business, technology, and
digital leaders.
• Management practices that promote team and individual work autonomy.
• Work practices that create an understanding of the digital transformation goal and
outcomes.
• Routines that create and support a unique (non-normative culture) digital culture and
climate.
• Routines that isolate and insulate the digital teams and their culture and working
climate from the organization’s normative culture.
104
This chapter will provide a discussion of the findings and the specific routines most
responsible for digital transformation success in context of the existing literature. The chapter
will then provide recommendations for practice for financial institutions seeking to embed and
sustain digital transformation and overcome existing normative cultures. Finally, the chapter
concludes with the limitations and delimitations of the study and recommendations for future
research.
Discussion of Findings
This section will review the themes that discussed in Chapter Four in the context of the
existing literature. The existing research comparisons are limited given the emergent nature of
the digital transformation topic. The discussion of the findings focuses on the most important
findings from Chapter Four. It is organized by the transactional and transformational factors of
the Burke-Litwin model of organizational performance and change.
Transactional Factors
The Burke-Litwin model of organizational performance and change defined the
transactional change factors in the model to include management practices, structure, systems,
climate, motivation, task, and skill abilities, and needs and values (Burke, 2018; Burke-Litwin,
1992; Stone et al., 2018). Table 2 summarizes the detailed definitions of the transactional factors.
The findings, as summarized in Table 14, indicated that task and skill abilities and needs and
values were the two most significant transactional factors for the achievement of successful
sustainment of digital transformation for the study participants. This section will review the
findings in relation to the existing literature.
105
Table 14
Transactional Factor and Finding
Transactional
factor
Factor finding
Task and Skill
Abilities
Employees who adopted digital transformation routines experienced greater
alignment between their tasks, abilities, and roles
Employees who adopted digital transformation routines experienced a
greater belief in their ability to excel in their roles
Employees identified that active practice of task requirements supported
the propensity to sustain DT routines
Needs and
Values
Digital transformation routines reinforced the alignment between their dayto-day roles and participants’ individual beliefs
Employees identified that their needs and values aligned with the
organization’s mission and performance
Employees believed they had to suppress their individual needs and values
developed within the digital transformation to accommodate the
normative culture
Task and Skill Abilities
The first set of findings aligned to the task and skill abilities factor of the Burke-Litwin
model. All six participants who adopted digital transformation routines reported experiencing a
greater alignment between their tasks, abilities, and their roles leading to the sustainment of
digital transformation routines. Despite the differences in the composition of the study group,
this finding aligns with the digital transformation dynamic capability framework developed by
Warner and Wäger (2017). First, the adoption of digital transformation routines enhanced the
digital sensing, digital seizing, and digital transforming capabilities that resulted in greater
106
alignment between tasks, abilities, and roles (Teece, 2018; Warner & Wäger, 2017). Second, the
finding enhanced organizational digital maturity that resulted from alignment of tasks, abilities,
and roles (Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Sebastian et al., 2017; Teece, 2014). Finally, Svahn et al.
(2017) established that transformation routines that aligned tasks and abilities to roles were
critical to realizing the full potential of digital transformation change. The findings from this
study aligned with and reinforced research that a greater alignment between task skill and
abilities to role is a key enabler to digital transformation success.
Five of the six participants who adopted digital transformation routines reported
experiencing increased belief in their ability to excel in their roles. Dikert et al. (2016)
summarized that values alignment, individual and team autonomy, and digital transformation
mindsets enhanced the adoption and sustainment of digital transformation routines. Although the
research is promising and this finding is in alignment with the existing research and the digital
transformation dynamic capability model (Warner & Wäger, 2017), 90% of the existing
published work are experience papers and do not include large cohort studies across industries
limiting extrapolation. The research in this category is nascent and would benefit from further
exploration. The employees in this study highlighted that employees who adopted digital
transformation routines experienced a greater belief in their ability to excel in their roles.
The next key finding established that four of the six participants who practiced digital
transformation task requirements reported actively persisting and sustaining DT routines. The
existing experience papers have reported that active practice of agile routines that are
synonymous with digital transformation task requirements were one of 11 strategic success
factors to strategic digital transformation success (Dikert et al., 2016). The research to date,
though, has not isolated this finding from other strategic digital agility practices such as team
107
autonomy to conclusively support the finding (Dikert et al., 2016; Vial, 2019). Although
additional research in this area is important, the findings and experience papers support the
notion that the active practice of task requirements is a key enabler of DT success.
Needs and Values
The second set of findings aligns with the needs and values factor of the Burke-Litwin
model. Four of the six employees who adopted new digital transformation routines reported
alignment between their day-to-day role and their individual belief system. The existing
literature supports the concepts of professional independence and autonomy as well as the ability
to change the status quo that emerged in the interviews. Developing individual and team
autonomy and allowing for the organic evolution of mandates increased role and belief system
alignment leading to DT success (Dikert et al., 2016). Unfortunately, there was no literature that
supported the finding that the ability to change the status quo helped align role and individual
belief system in DT; an area for future research. Participants’ adoption of new digital
transformation routines supported the alignment of their individual belief system with their dayto-day roles and enhanced the persistence and sustainment of DT success.
Six of seven digital transformation practitioners who adopted new digital transformation
routines reported that their needs and values align with the organization’s mission and
performance. The literature supports the finding that new digital transformation routines create a
robust alignment mechanism between individual needs and value and the organizational mission
and performance (Hess et al., 2020; Watson, 2017). The digital transformation literature also
speaks to the concept of re-norming the organization’s mission and performance focus in
alignment with the newer DT routines (Haffke et al., 2017; Sia et al., 2016) building on the study
108
findings. This finding has significant digital transformation practice and normative culture
implications that will be prominent in the recommendations.
The final transactional factor finding indicates all interview participants believed that
they had to suppress their individual needs and values developed within the digital
transformation to accommodate the normative culture. This finding aligns with the normative
culture, hegemony, and change climate literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Thakor (2016)
identified that successful financial services firms like LFI are associated with strong normative
cultures. The normative culture normalizes suppression of needs and values as a mechanism of
risk-prudence and stability. Van den Steen (2010) added that normative culture hegemonized
non-normative beliefs like those developed inside digital transformations. This finding and the
research imply that establishing and sustaining digital transformation change will be more
arduous in successful financial institutions whose future financial success is dependent on digital
transformation. The longer-term implications on the sustainment of DT routines because of the
suppression of individual needs and values is an important area to monitor.
Transformational Factors
The Burke-Litwin model of organizational performance and change defined the
transformational change factors in the model to include the external environment, vision and
strategy, leadership, culture, and organizational and individual performance (Burke, 2018;
Burke-Litwin, 1992; Stone et al., 2018). Although this study was more focused on the
transactional factors, the importance of culture to sustaining digital transformation routines and
success emerged as a key transformational finding. Specifically, participants in this study
identified that normative culture routines had to thrive and coexist with digital transformation
routines. This section will discuss the findings in relation to the existing literature.
109
The literature supports the finding that employees expressed the expectation that
normative culture routines needed to thrive and coexist with digital transformation routines. The
digital transformation literature frames the adoption and sustainment of digital transformation
routines as an evolution and progression of normative culture routines (Markus & Robey, 1988;
Vial, 2019). Warner and Wäger (2017) expanded through their dynamic capability model a new
set of digital transformation routines that have no reference to existing normative routines. In
contract though, Van den Steen (2010) and Ogbor (2011) emphasized the normative cultural
influence that hegemonizes change towards the status-quo. The literature and the study’s
findings were silent on whether the coexistence of these cultures negatively impacted the
adoption and sustainment of digital transformation routines, an area where further research is
needed.
Recommendations for Practice
This section will outline two material recommendations based on the key findings from
the study. The recommendations will address the problem of practice of identifying the digital
routines most responsible for achieving successful and sustainable digital transformation and
overcoming organizational normative culture. The first recommendation is to universally
implement the use of digital transformation routines and addresses the first four routines. The
second recommendation is to insulate and nurture the digital transformation culture and climate
which covers the remaining and last two routines.
Recommendation 1: Universally Implement the Use of Digital Transformation Routines
The findings in this study suggest that the comprehensive use of digital transformation
routines led to the adoption and sustainment of digital transformation success. Recommendation
110
1 aligns with the first four routines identified as keys to embedding and sustaining digital
transformation routines, specially:
• The adoption of daily agile practices referred to as new ways of working.
• The use of an enhanced leadership model that includes business, technology, and
digital leaders.
• Management practices that promote team and individual work autonomy.
• Work practices that create an understanding of the digital transformation goal and
outcomes.
LFI needs to universally implement the use of these four digital transformation routines
identified as key to digital transformation success universally throughout the organization in its
various digital programs. Dikert et al. (2016) summarized from their research that the
implementation of 11 strategic success factors throughout the organization increased the
likelihood of successful adoption of digital transformation routines. Table 15 outlines the success
factors and the specific recommended actions for LFI.
Table 15
Digital Transformation Routine Success Factors and LFI Actions
Success factor LFI action
Management support that is unambiguous,
informed, and clearly visible across the
organization
Establish a digital transformation hub with
clearly communicated mandate and crossorganizational accountability
An organized commitment to change that is
unwavering and non-negotiable
CEO and Group Head communication on the
organization’s commitment to digital
transformation
111
Success factor LFI action
Investing in change leaders who have
credibility and are unencumbered by the
past
Increase the number of digital journey
owners, the group interviewed in this
study, working in DT
Customizing the agile approach to meet the
organizational needs and create a transition
path from the normative ways of working
Ensure that agile ways-of-working are
universally and consistent adopted in
digital client journeys
Test and learn by starting with a pilot to gain
acceptance and quickly adapting to the
learnings
No action. This is complete and acceptance
exists
Training that recognizes the importance of
accurate training and ongoing coaching
with a focus on digital mindsets
Source an agile coach for each of the digital
client journeys and focus efforts on digital
mindsets training
Engaging by starting with agile supporters,
including those with previous experience,
and engaging widely and broadly across the
organization
No action. This is complete
Communicate the changes to the organization
intensively, transparently, and reinforce the
positive experiences initially
Create a strategic communications strategy
and approach for digital transformation
with a dedicated communication specialist
Ensure values alignment by concentrating on
agile values through organizational
alignment and communities that promote
strategic agility
Create agile chapters, guilds, and
communities or practice for all job
functions that operate in digital
transformations
Develop team autonomy by allowing teams to
self-organize and allowing for organic
mandates to develop
Reduce enterprise approval policies to
support increased team autonomy
Invest in roles such as digital product owners,
pathfinders, and chapter leads
Establish role definitions and pathways for
digital product owners, pathfinders, and
chapter leaders
112
The adoption of the success factors that reinforce the first four digital transformation routines
supports the development of proficiency, needs and values alignment, and digital transformation
sustainability (Dikert et al., 2016; Federoff & Courage, 2009; Vial, 2019; Warner & Wäger,
2017).
It is critical to implement the 11 success factors to embed and sustain digital
transformation as part of an overall digital transformation framework for the organization. The
implementation of the success factors within a comprehensive digital transformation framework
such as the dynamic capability framework increases the likelihood of successful digital
transformation (Teece, 2018; Vial, 2019; Warner & Wäger, 2017). LFI should establish the
dynamic capability framework to guide the efforts of the digital transformations more
systematically as outlined in Table 16.
113
Table 16
Dynamic Capability Framework Recommendations
Dynamic capability framework
category
LFI recommendations
Digital sensing capabilities Adopt digital discovery routines whereby competitive
intelligence is gathered
Develop digital scenario planning tasks within the
digital routines
Focus digital coaching on crafting digital mindsets at all
levels in the organization
Digital seizing capabilities Develop rapid prototyping disciplines and expectations
Create a digital transformation portfolio approach that
is rebalanced every six months
Digital transforming capabilities Measure the current digital maturity and establish
desired targets and an action plan to increasing digital
maturation
In summary, the universal implementation of digital transformation routines calls for the tailored
adoption of the 11 success factors within a digital transformation framework tailored for LFI.
The implementation of this first recommendation aims to embedding and sustaining digital
transformation success within LFI.
Recommendation 2: Insulate and Nurture the Digital Transformation Culture and Climate
This study’s findings suggest that digital transformation persists from the presence of a
digital culture that reinforces digital task routines, digital structures, professional development,
and domain expertise. This supports the latter two digital transformation routines that the study
identified, (a) routines that create and support a unique (non-normative culture) digital culture
and climate, and (b) routines that isolate and insulate the digital teams and their culture and
working climate from the organization’s normative culture. Insulating and nurturing the digital
114
transformation culture and climate requires the organization to implement a separate set of
policies and procedures that are unique and tailored to digital transformations (Helfat & Peteraf,
2015; Vial, 2019). This separate mechanism would create a new set of policies and procedures to
govern digital transformation efforts outside of the organization’s normative policies and
procedures. Instead of reviewing and enhancing existing policies and procedures to support
digital transformations, LFI should develop a new set of policies and procedures that has the
digital considerations from the outset and marks a departure from the normative policies and
procedures. The implementation of a separate digital transformation culture with its own
organizational policies and procedures is important to embedding sustainable digital
transformation change.
In addition, LFI needs to insulate the digital transformation culture and climate from the
organization’s strong normative culture. The study findings identified that the normative culture
acted to moderate digital transformation routines and hegemonize them towards the normative
culture. Insulating the digital transformation culture by allowing it to develop independently of
the organization will sever the connection with the existing normative culture and its impact
towards the status-quo (Hermalin, 2001). LFI can accomplish this by:
• Establish a Chief Digital Officer role that reports independently to the Group Head
with accountability over all digital transformation efforts.
• Consolidate all digital roles from across the organization into a singular digital
transformation function.
• Provide direct funding that is focused on digital transformation efforts.
In addition to these structural recommendations, insulating the digital transformation culture and
supporting it with its own policies and procedures will avoid the normative culture overtaking
115
the developing digital transformation (Ogbor, 2001). Strong normative cultures, despite the best
of intentions, work to moderate transformation risk. The insulation of the digital transformation
culture and climate, per the recommended actions, is a key step in supporting the sustainment of
successful digital transformation.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are influences on a research study that were outside of the control of the
researcher based on research design and methodology, while delimitations refer to the overt
choices that the researcher made that affect the study and are more akin to the researcher’s scope
choices (Miles, 2019). There are four primary limitations that stemmed from the qualitative
nature of the research study. First, the primary protocols in this research study used a researcher
and interviewees, which create human error opportunities at various stages of the study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Second, the knowledge and proficiency of the researcher was a limitation in
this study. Third, an interviewee’s disposition was a key limitation—their mood, emotional state,
ancillary work influences, and ambitions influenced the responses provided. Finally, the research
study focused on one study site with a small number of participants which impacted the research
study climate. Beyond these limitations, the researcher identified an additional one during the
study period. In the latter phase of the study, the business and strategic priorities for the
organization shifted resulting in a diminished focus on digital transformation. This may have led
to more subdued responses from the interview participants. While the strategic shift was quite
recent and occurred during the latter interviews, recency bias could have crept into the responses.
Probes during the semi-structured interviews attempted to clarify responses potentially
influenced by this dynamic but nonetheless it was an additional limitation to highlight.
116
There were three notable delimitation influences on this study. The first was that the
scope of the research study is a singular study site limiting the population size, different contexts,
and additional parameters that could have influenced new insights about embedding and
sustaining digital transformation change. The second prominent delimitation was based on my
focus on routines and excluding proficiency and know-how factors. The research is clear that
proficiency is one of the keys to sustaining routines in the workplace (Dikert et al., 2016); for the
purposes of this study, this was a condition that was already in place at LFI and among the
interviewees. Finally, the study focused on the transactional elements of the Burke-Litwin model
and would have benefited from a more comprehensive treatment of the entire model in the
context of embedding and sustaining digital transformation routines. An additional delimitation
identified through the study was the choice of conducting an organizational study. The scope of
the organizational study anchored the insights in the context of this specific organization with a
strong normative culture and could have been more diversified through an industry approach.
This will limit the generalizability and applicability of the findings to smaller financial
institutions and other industries. The recommendations for future research could address this
delimitation. No study is without its boundary conditions; despite these limitations and
delimitations, the study has applicability to digital transformation and the use of the BurkeLitwin model in digital transformation evaluative studies.
Recommendations for Future Research
Digital transformation routines most responsible for achieving successful and sustainable
digital transformation and overcoming the organizational normative culture requires additional
research. There are three recommendations for future research stemming from the study. The
three recommendations include:
117
• Expanding the study to an industry-wide, mixed-method approach that explores all
the Burke-Litwin factors within the context of digital transformation routines.
• Investigating whether the coexistence of the digital transformation and normative
cultures supported or negatively impacted the adoption and sustainment of digital
transformation routines.
• A more focused study on digital culture and climate and how it affects the sustained
adoption of digital transformation routines.
Exploration of these topics in future research can provide a richer and more comprehensive
understanding of the routines that result in successful digital transformation.
First, completing an industry-wide, financial services qualitative study will help identify
the potential extensibility of the findings in this study to other financial institutions, both small
and large. The industry-wide study could also identify new findings that are applicable to LFI but
did not emerge because of the study’s limitations and delimitations. The second research
recommendation, expanding to a mixed-method study, will allow for the expansion to a greater
number of participants involved in digital transformations providing additional insights about the
routines associated with successful digital transformations. Finally, this study’s focus was
primarily on the transactional elements of the Burke-Litwin model. Widening the focus to all the
elements of the Burke-Litwin model can support a more comprehensive understanding of the
phenomena that affect digital transformation routines. The nascent nature of digital
transformation literature provides ample opportunity for future research.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to identify the digital transformation routines within LFI
most responsible for achieving successful digital transformation and overcoming the
118
organization’s normative culture. The Covid-19 pandemic accelerated digital transformation
efforts in financial services and LFI, but universal success remains elusive (Finalta, 2020; YoJud Cheng et al., 2021). The research continues to evolve on the underlying mechanisms of
digital transformation success including the recommended digital transformation routines are the
subject of continued research (Vial, 2019). The research on digital routines and their impact on
digital transformation is limited (Vial, 2019), despite the critical importance to the success of
organizations’ digital transformation ambitions. This study examined and identified the
transactional factors necessary to embed and sustain successful digital transformation change
within LFI given the criticality to LFI’s growth and profitability ambitions.
While each of the study participants had unique digital transformation experiences, they
all underscored the importance of taking action to support sustaining digital transformation
success. The study identified six digital transformation routines responsible for embedding and
sustaining digital transformation success. The implementation of these recommendations is
critical to overcoming LFI’s normative culture and persisting digital transformation success. The
first recommendation of universally implementing the use of digital transformation routines is
critical to LFI persisting and sustaining digital transformation practices within its employee base.
The study identified that this was a core ingredient to sustaining the digital transformation
success sought at LFI. The second recommendation is to insulate and nurture digital
transformation culture to create a more sustainable and supportive environment for embedding
and sustaining digital transformation routines, a key to successful digital transformation. The LFI
normative culture is strong and pervasive, and the adoption of newer practices is difficult. This
recommendation is critical to the long-term success of digital transformation within LFI. The
findings from this research indicate that the success of digital transformation is reliant on
119
embedding and sustaining the six digital transformation routines that can overcome the strong
and resistant normative organizational culture.
120
References
Agarwal, R., Gao, G.G., DesRoches, C., & Jha, A.K. (2010). The digital transformation of
healthcare: Current status and the road ahead. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 796-
809. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0327
Andriole, S. J. (2017). Five myths about digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 58(3), 20-22. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/five-myths-aboutdigital-transformation/docview/1885859520/se-2
Ashkenas, R. (2015, January 15). We still don’t know the difference between change and
transformation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/01/we-still-dont-knowthe-difference-between-change-and-transformation
Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Service innovation in the digital age: Key
contributions and future directions. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 135–154.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628344
Beccalli, E. (2007). Does IT investment improve bank performance? Evidence from Europe.
Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(7), 2205-2230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.10.022
Berger, A.N. (2003). The economic effects of technological progress: Evidence from the banking
industry. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 35(2), 141-176.
https://doi.org/10.1353/mcb.2003.0009
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
121
Blumenthal, B., & Haspeslagh, P. (1994). Toward a definition of corporate transformation. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 35(3), 101.
Boston Consulting Group. (2022). Digital agile implementation maturity [Unpublished
manuscript]. Boston Consulting Group.
Bughin, J., & Van Zeebroeck, N. (2017). The best response to digital disruption. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 58(4), 80-86.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1916796320?accountid=14749&parentSessionId=Qr
RdqsE4E92mW51RPWCkm04BQsVX26Hj54nyy7dCg24%3D&pq-origsite=primo
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarlyjournals/causal-model-organizational-performance-change/docview/215258879/se-2
Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen, K., & Boland Jr, R. J. (2012). Dialectics of collective minding:
Contradictory appropriations of information technology in a high-risk project. MIS
Quarterly, 36(4), 1081–1108. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41703499
Chanias, S. (2017, June 5-10). Mastering digital transformation: The path of a financial services
provider towards a digital transformation strategy [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of
the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2017_rp/2
Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (2017). Four trends shaping the future of organizations and
organization development. OD Practitioner, 49(3), 14-22.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Allan-
122
Church/publication/318322567_Four_Trends_Shaping_the_Future_of_Organizations_an
d_Organization_Development/links/596384d1458515a3575ce654/Four-Trends-Shapingthe-Future-of-Organizations-and-Organization-Development.pdf
Cloke, G. (2007). Get your agile freak on! Agile adoption at Yahoo! Music. Agile 2007, 240-
248. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4293603
Colbert, A., Yee, N., & George, G. (2016). The digital workforce and the workplace of the
future. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 731–739.
http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4003
Cremer, J. (1993). Corporate culture and shared knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change,
2(3), 351-386. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/2.3.351
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Delmond, M., Coelho, F., Keravel, A., & Mahl, R. (2017). How information systems enable
digital transformation: A focus on business models and value co-production. IUP Journal
of Business Strategy, 14(3), 7-40.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/howinformation-systems-enable-digital/docview/1953848777/se-2
Deloitte Center for Financial Services. (2022). Digital transformation in financial services.
Deloitte University Press. https://www2.deloitte.com/tr/en/pages/financialservices/articles/digital-transformation-in-financial-services.html
de Los Reyes, R.R. (2015, January 25). We still don’t know the difference between change and
transformation. Business Mirror. https://businessmirror.com.ph/2015/01/25/we-still-dontknow-the-difference-between-change-and-transformation/
123
Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2016). Challenges and success factors for largescale agile transformations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and
Software, 199, 87-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013
Earley, S. (2014). The digital transformation: Staying competitive. IT Professional, 16(2), 58–60.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2014.24
El Sawy, O., Kraemmergaard, P., Amsinch, H., & Lerbech Vinther, A. (2020). How LEGO built
the foundations and enterprise capabilities for digital leadership. In Strategic Information
Management (pp. 133-150). Routledge.
Federoff, M., & Courage, C. (2009, July 19-24). Successful user experience in an agile
enterprise environment [Paper presentation]. HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA,
United States. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02556-3_27
Finalta. (2020). Digital leadership and impact on profitability [Unpublished manuscript]. Finalta.
Financial Stability Board. (2014). Guidance on supervisory interaction with financial institutions
on risk culture. Financial Stability Board. https://www.fsb.org/wpcontent/uploads/140407.pdf
Fitzgerald, M. (2014). How digital acceleration teams are influencing Nestle's 2000 brands. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 1–5.
French, W.L., & Bell, C.H. (1999). Organizational development: Behavioural science
interventions for organizational improvement. (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2015). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Developing a blueprint for your “house”.
Administrative Issues Journal, 4(2), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
124
Gray, J., & Rumpe, B. (2017). Models for the digital transformation. Software and Systems
Modeling, 16(2), 307-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0596-7
Gust, G., Flath, C.M., Brandt, T., Ströhle, P., & Neumann, D. (2017). How a traditional company
seeded new analytics capabilities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3), 215–230.
Haffke, I., Kalgovas, B., & Benlian, A. (2017). The transformative role of bimodal IT in an era
of digital business [Conference session]. Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Waikoloa Beach, HI, United States.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1691&context=hicss-50
Hansen, A. M., Kraemmergaard, P., & Mathiassen, L. (2011). Rapid adaptation in digital
transformation: A participatory process for engaging IS and business leaders. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 10(4), 175-185.
Hansen, R., & Sia, S. K. (2015). Hummel's digital transformation toward omnichannel retailing:
Key lessons learned. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(2), 51-66.
http://rasmusmoelbak.mono.net/upl/website/andet-p-omrdet1/Hansenetal2011.pdf
Hartl, E., & Hess, T. (2017). The role of cultural values for digital transformation: Insights from
a Delphi study [Conference session]. Americas Conference of Information Systems,
Boston, MA, United States. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301371796.pdf
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G.
(2009). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. John
Wiley & Sons.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=u0Tuh5vixLkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=
Helfat,+C.E.,+Finkelstein,+S.,+Mitchell,+W.,+Peteraf,+M.A.,+Singh,+H.,+Teece,+D.J.,
+Winter,+S.G.,+2007.+Dynamic+Capabilities:+Understanding+Strategic+Change+in+Or
125
ganizations.+Blackwell,+Oxford.&ots=uKpX-16rwG&sig=a6rDa3nhwpF8DPAtGwiom6uKFk
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of
dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–850.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43897807
Hermalin, B. E. (2001). Economics and corporate culture. In C. Cooper, S. Cartwright & P. C. Earley
(Eds.), The International Handbook of Organization Culture and Climate ( 1st ed., pp. 137-
152). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., & Wiesboeck, F. (2020). Options for formulating a digital
transformation strategy. In R.D. Galliers, D.E. Leidner, & B. Simeonova (Eds.), Strategic
Information Management (3rd ed., pp. 151-173). Routledge. https://doiorg.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4324/9780429286797
Hong, J., & Lee, J. (2017, December 10). The role of consumption-based analytics in digital
publishing markets: Implications for the creative digital economy [Paper presentation].
International Conference of Information Systems, Seoul, South Korea.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/TransformingSociety/Presentations/4/
IBM Business Consulting Services. (2002). 2002 LaRC organizational performance survey
[Unpublished manuscript]. IBM.
Islam, N., Buxman, P., & Eling, N. (2017). Why should incumbent firms jump on the start-up
bandwagon in the digital era? A qualitative study [Conference session]. 13th International
Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=wi2017
126
Kahre, C., Hoffmann, D., & Ahlemann, F. (2017, January 4). Beyond business-IT alignment –
digital business strategies as a paradigmatic shift: A review and research agenda [Paper
presentation]. 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, HI,
United States. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41736
Kane, G.C. (2014). The american red cross: Adding digital volunteers to its ranks. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 55(4), 1-6. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/americanred-cross-adding-digital-volunteers/docview/1543710557/se-2
Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital
disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 32(1), 39–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1029380
Klein, M. (2020). Leadership characteristics in the era of digital transformation. Business &
Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(1), 883-902.
https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1441
Kotter, J.P., (1995, May). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
Kozak-Holland, M., & Procter, C. (2020). Managing transformation projects. Palgrave Pivot
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33035-4
KPMG. (2016). KPMG global transformation study 2016. KPMG International Cooperative.
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/05/global-transformation-study-2016.pdf
Kreps, D.M. (1990). Corporate culture and economic theory, perspectives on positive political
economy. Cambridge University Press.
127
Kretschmer, T., & Khashabi, P. (2020). Digital transformation and organization design: An
integrated approach. California Management Review, 62(4), 86-104.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620940296
Kriebel, J., & Debener, J. (2020). Measuring the effect of digitalization efforts on bank
performance. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2020(1), 1-11.
https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.5465/AMBPP.2020.22004abstract
Lamarre, E., Smaje, K., & Zemmel, R. (2021). The digital-value guardian: CEOs and digital
transformations. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinseydigital/our-insights/the-digital-value-guardian-ceos-and-digital-transformations
Lavallet, N., & Chan, Y.E. (2018). Role of digital capabilities in unleashing the power of
managerial improvisation. MIS Quarterly, 17, 1-21.
Lawrence, T. B., Dyck, B., Maitlis, S., & Mauws, M. K. (2006). The underlying structure of
continuous change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(4), 59.
Lucas, H., Agarwal, R., Clemons, E. K., El Sawy, O. A., & Weber, B. (2013). Impactful research on
transformational information technology: An opportunity to inform new audiences. MIS
Quarterly, 37(2), 371–382. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43825914
Maedche, A. (2016). Interview with Michael Nilles on “what makes leaders successful in the age
of the digital transformation?”. Business Information Systems Engineering. 58(4), 287–
289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-016-0437-1
Majchrzak, A., Markus, M.L., & Wareham, J. (2016). Designing for digital transformation:
Lessons for information systems research from the study of ICT and societal
challenges. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), 267–278. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628906
128
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal
structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583–598.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632080
Martins, N., & Coetzee, M. (2009). Applying the Burke-Litwin model as a diagnostic framework
for assessing organisational effectiveness. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 7(1), 1-13. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC95887
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business Information
Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339–343. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Sage.
Mayring, P. (2001, February). Combination and integration of qualitative and quantitative
analysis. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research (Vol. 2, No. 1).
McCarthy, P., Sammon, D., & Alhassan, I. (2021). Digital transformation leadership
Characteristics: A literature analysis. Journal of Decision Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2021.1908934
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good, what's not,
and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Neumeier, A., Wolf, T., & Oesterle, S. (2017). The manifold fruits of digitalization –
Determining the literal value behind [Conference session]. 13th International Conference
on Wirtschaftsinformatik, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=wi2017
129
Newell, S., & Marabelli, M. (2015). Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic
decision-making: A call for action on the long-term societal effects of ‘datification’. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(1), 3-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.02.001
Ogbor, J.O. (2001). Critical theory and the hegemony of corporate culture. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 14(6), 590-608.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810110408015
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries,
game changers, and challengers (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UzuTAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq
=osterwalder+and+pigneur&ots=yYIOxiL30u&sig=-
hW552U_mmFkk42U07fwC9VS13k
Pagani, M. (2013). Digital business strategy and value creation: Framing the dynamic cycle of
control points. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 617–632.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.13
Piccinini, E., Gregory, R. W., & Kolbe, L. M. (2015). Changes in the producer-consumer
relationship-towards digital transformation [Conference session]. 12th International
Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Pramanik, I., Lau, R.Y., & Chowdhury, K.H. (2016, June 27 – July 1). Automatic crime detector:
A framework for criminal pattern detection in big data era [Paper presentation]. Pacific
Asian Conference on Information Systems, Chiayi, Taiwan.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2016/311
130
PWC. (2015). 2015 global digital IQ survey. PWC. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/advisoryservices/digital-iq-survey-2015/campaign-site/digital-iq-survey-2015.pdf
Rizzo, D. (2018). The CIO and the digital challenge. In G. Bongiorno, D. Rizzo, & G. Vaia
(Eds.), CIOs and the digital transformation (1st ed., pp. 47-59). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31026-8
Rogers, B. (2016, January 7). Why 84% of companies fail at digital transformation. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2016/01/07/why-84-of-companies-fail-atdigital-transformation/?sh=65f5bb0b397b
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options:
Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS
Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036530
Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic
review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future
research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390-439.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0014
Schiuma, G., Schettini, E., Santarsiero, F., & Carlucci, D. (2022). The transformative leadership
compass: Six competencies for digital transformation entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(5), 1273-1291. https://doiorg.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2021-0087
Schofield, M., Tucker, J., DasGupta, N., Gill, C., & Marshall, B. (2020). It’s time for canadian
retail banks to fast forward into the future. Boston Consulting Group. https://webassets.bcg.com/3c/aa/763666a24400b6105e43a9bff075/canadian-retail-banking-pdf.pdf
131
Schwarzmüller, T., Brosi, P., Duman, D., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). How does the digital transformation
affect organizations? Key themes of change in work design and leadership. Management
Revue, 29(2), 114–138. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26491473
Sebastian, I. M., Ross, J. W., Beath, C., Mocker, M., Moloney, K. G., & Fonstad, N. O. (2020).
How big old companies navigate digital transformation. In Strategic Information
Management (pp. 133-150). Routledge.
Selander, L., & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (2016). Digital action repertoires and transforming a social
movement organization. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), 331–352.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628909
Sia, S.K., Soh, C., & Weill, P. (2016). How DBS bank pursued a digital business strategy. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 15(2), 105-121.
Singh, A., & Hess, T. (2020). How chief digital officers promote the digital transformation of
their companies. In R.D. Galliers, D.E. Leidner, & B. Simeonova (Eds.), Strategic
Information Management (3rd ed., pp. 202-220). Routledge. https://doiorg.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4324/9780429286797
Sow, M., & Aborbie, S. (2018). Impact of leadership on digital transformation. Business and
Economic Research, 8(3), 139-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ber.v8i3.13368
Stone, K. B., Brown, L., Smith, S. L., & Jacobs, J., (2018). Organizational assessment: An
integrated approach to diagnosis and interventions. Organization Development
Journal, 36(1), 67-95. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquestcom.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/organizational-assessment-integratedapproach/docview/2006810941/se-2
132
Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor's comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and
organization. The Academy of Management Review, 346–357.
https://doi:10.5465/AMR.2010.51141319
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing digital innovation in incumbent
firms: How Volvo cars managed competing concerns. MIS Quarterly, 41(1),
239–253.
https://eclass.aegean.gr/modules/document/file.php/TNEY202/Embracing%20Digital%2
0Innovation%20in%20Incumbent%20Firms%20copy.pdf
Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. (2015). Leadership and organizational culture as the normative
influence of top management on employee's behaviour in the innovation process.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 34, 396-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-
5671(15)01646-9
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20141992
Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in
an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43822373
Teece, D.J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40-49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk,
uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review,
58(4):13-35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13
133
Thakor, A. (2016). Corporate culture in banking. Economic Policy Review - Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, 22(1), 5-11.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/corporateculture-banking/docview/1831782249/se-2
Tiersky, H. (2017, March 13). 5 top challenges to digital transformation in the enterprise. CIO.
https://www.cio.com/article/234486/5-top-challenges-to-digital-transformation-in-theenterprise.html
Tumbas, S., Berente, N., Seidel, S., & vom Brocke, J. (2015). The 'digital façade' of rapidly
growing entrepreneurial organizations [Conference session]. Thirty Sixth International
Conference on Information Systems, Forth Worth, TX, United States.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286458540_The_'Digital_Facade'_of_Rapidly_
Growing_Entrepreneurial_Organizations
Van den Steen, E. (2010). Culture clash: The costs and benefits of homogeneity. Management
Science, 56(10), 1718–1738. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40864736
Velu, C. (2017). A systems perspective on business model evolution: The case of an agricultural
information service provider in India. Long Range Planning, 50(5), 603-620.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.10.003
Verhoef, P.C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein,
M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda.
Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
Vermeulen, B., Kesselhut, J., Pyka, A., & Saviotti, P. P. (2018). The impact of
automation on employment: Just the usual structural change? Sustainability, 10(5),
Article 1661. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051661
134
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
Volberda, H. W., Khanagha, S., Baden-Fuller, C., Mihalache, O. R., & Birkinshaw, J. (2021).
Strategizing in a digital world: Overcoming cognitive barriers, reconfiguring routines and
introducing new organizational forms. Long Range Planning, 54(5), 102110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102110
Warner, K., & Wäger, M. (2017). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An
ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326-349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
Watson, H. J. (2017). Preparing for the cognitive generation of decision support. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 16(3), 153-169. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hugh-Watson2/publication/319929429_Preparing_for_the_cognitive_generation_of_decision_support/l
inks/5a5b616b0f7e9b5fb38ca11c/Preparing-for-the-cognitive-generation-of-decisionsupport.pdf
Westerman, G., Calméjane, C., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2011). Digital
transformation: A roadmap for billion-dollar organizations [Unpublished manuscript].
Capgemini Consulting.
Woodard, C. J., Ramasubbu, N., Tschang, F. T., & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). Design capital and
design moves: The logic of digital business strategy. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 537–564.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43825922
135
Yeow, A., Soh, C., & Hansen, R. (2018). Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic
capabilities approach. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 43-58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.09.001
Yo-Jud Cheng, J., Frangos, D., & Groysberg, B. (2021, March 12). Is your c-suite equipped to
lead a digital transformation?. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/03/is-yourc-suite-equipped-to-lead-a-digital-transformation
Yoo, Y., Bryant, A., & Wigand, R.T. (2010). Designing digital communities that transform
urban life: Introduction to the special section on digital cities. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 27(33), 638-640.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02733
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital
innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research,
21(4), 724-735. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322
Yu, J., Wang, J., & Moon, T. (2022). Influence of digital transformation capability on
operational performance. Sustainability, 14(13), 7909.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137909
Zivkovic, S., (2022). Inspiring digital transformation: An integrative leadership competency
framework. Ekonomska Misao i Praksa, 31(1), 237-254.
https://doi.org/10.17818/EMIP/2022/1.11
136
Appendix A: Document Analysis Protocol
The documents that will be analyzed for this study include the following:
1. Digital transformation strategy (North Star) documents developed by the organization
2. Performance and status memos developed by the digital transformation teams
3. Digital transformation maturity assessments
Digital Transformation Strategy (North Star) Document Prompts:
1. How are new digital transformation routines articulated in the strategy North Star
documents? (RQ1)
2. Do the strategy documents include digital transformation employee and management routines
as part of the overall strategy? (RQ2)
3. Does the strategy include routines that change work unit climate? (RQ3)
4. Do the strategies reference current normative culture? If so, how? (RQ2)
Performance and Status Memo Prompts:
1. Do the performance and status memos identify employee performance changes in digital
transformation routines or normative routines? If so, how? (RQ1)
2. Are there any indications in performance and status memos on the adoption of digital
transformation routines and their duration/propensity? (RQ2)
3. Do the performance and status memos discuss employees experience changes? How is that
articulated in the performance memos? (RQ3)
Digital Transformation Maturity Assessment Prompts:
1. Do the maturity assessments measure the propensity to sustain digital transformation
routines? (RQ2)
137
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Interview Invitation
Dear (Participant Name),
Thank you again for your agreeing to participate in an in-person interview to share your insights
and perspectives with me. Please review the attached information sheet for the additional details.
If you are willing to continue with the interview, after reviewing the additional details, please
respond to this email and indicate which of the following times are suitable to schedule the
interview. Details about the meeting location and logistics will be sent upon confirmation of
schedule.
(Three timeslots will be provided to choose from)
If these times are not suitable for you, please suggest three times that would be better, and I will
do my best to accommodate. Thank you for your contribution and I look forward to our
interview.
Sincerely,
Rami
Study Information Sheet
(to accompany interview invitation)
Hello. Thank you for agreeing to participate voluntarily in this interview. This study is being
conducted to explore employee work routines that contribute to embedding and sustaining digital
transformation change in the organization. The study hopes to identify the key cultural and
organizational markers that contribute to digital transformation success.
The interview will take approximately 75 to 90 minutes and will be conducted in English. If
you’d like the interview to take place in French, please let me know. Please note that anything
that you share will be private and handled confidentially. Findings reported in the study will not
be associated with you or your group. In addition, your participation is completely voluntary, and
you can choose to skip any question and end the interview at any time without explanation.
With your permission and consent, I would like to record the audio and video of our interview.
The recording will be used solely for transcription, and you will have the opportunity, if you’d
like, to review it for accuracy. At the end of the study, the video and audio recording will be
destroyed.
Thank you for your consideration in participating in the study. If you’d like to proceed, please
reply to the email that was sent
138
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Embedding and Sustaining Digital Transformation Change in Financial
Services
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Rami Thabet
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Jennifer Phillips
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore the digital transformation routines within LFI most
responsible for achieving successful digital transformation and overcoming the organization’s
normative culture. Specifically, the study will seek to identify and examine the cultural,
individual, and organizational routines necessary to embed and sustain successful digital
transformation change. I hope to identify implementable recommendations that create an optimal
environment to embed and sustain long-lasting digital transformation outcomes for the
organization and employees. You are invited as a possible participant because of your knowledge
and working understanding of digital transformation within the organization.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked a series of questions about the topic for about 75 to
90 minutes. The interview will be recorded via Webex after you’ve provided your consent for the
recording. You can participate in this interview even if you decline to be recorded.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for participating in this study and you will not incur any cost as a
result of the interview or this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. Your name will never be used in a public dissemination of the
information (publications, presentations, etc.).
The interview will be recorded solely for transcription purposes. The transcript will be provided
through the same recording service and no other third party will have access to the recordings.
You can review your interview recording or the transcript upon request. Recordings will be
deleted permanently and promptly at the conclusion of this study.
139
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Rami Thabet (Principal Investigator)
via email at thabet@usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
140
Interview Questions
I. Introduction:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set to
answer my questions. As I mentioned in my introductory email and information sheet, the
interview should take about 75 to 90 minutes, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study – an overview of which was
provided to you in the Study Information Sheet. I’d also like to answer any questions that you
may have about participating in this interview. I am a student at USC, and I am conducting a
study on organizational and individual routines that contribute to digital transformation success.
Specifically, I am interested in exploring the cultural, individual, and organizational routines
necessary to embed and sustain successful digital transformation change. I hope to identify
implementable recommendations that create an optimal environment to embed and sustain longlasting digital transformation outcomes for the organization and employees.
I want to assure you that I am acting solely in the capacity of the researcher in these
interviews. What this means is that the nature of my questions is not evaluative and are not
associated with the organization’s digital transformation work. I will not be making any
judgements on the performance of the teams or individuals. My goal is to understand your
perspective and experiences.
As I mentioned previously in the Study Information Sheet, this interview is confidential. This
means that your name will not be shared with anyone. I will not be sharing this information with
the journey executives, the value-office, or anyone else within LFI. The data for this study will
be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some of what is said as direct quotes,
none of this data will and can be directly attributed to you. I will use pseudonyms to protect
your confidentiality and will do my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you. I am
happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.
As the Study Information Sheet stated, I will keep the data in a password protected computer
and all data will be destroyed promptly at the conclusion of the study.
Do you have any questions about the study before we get started?
I will be using a Webex recording today to accurately capture what you share with me. The
recording is solely for my purposes to ensure that I capture your perspectives completely and
accurately. The recording will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team. Do I have
your permission to record our conversation?
II. Setting the Stage:
I’d like to begin by asking you some background questions, about yourself, your role, and the
work that you do here at LFI.
1. First, tell me about yourself and your role at LFI.
a. What is your current role and what does that entail on a day-to-day basis?
141
b. How did you come about getting involved in the digital transformation work?
c. What roles did have you held in the past?
2. What is the focus of your current digital transformation work?
III. The Heart of the Interview:
I’d like to move on to asking you some questions about the task requirements of the role
that you hold.
3. Building on the focus of your current work, what do your daily and weekly tasks entail?
a. How often do you do these tasks?
b. How do you think these tasks contribution to LFI’s digital transformation?
c. Would you do them if they were not required? Why?
4. How, if at all, are the digital tasks organized as a routine?
a. If, so tell me how you go about them as a set routine? How, if at all, do these
routines contribute to job effectiveness?
b. If your tasks are not all in an established routine, why is that the case?
Now, I’d like to ask you some questions about the management practices within digital
transformation?
5. What are the most prevalent management practices within the digital transformation
work?
a. Do they contribute value to you individually and the work that you do? How?
b. Do these practices motivate you in your task completion?
6. How, if at all, are the management practices built into the digital transformation routines?
a. If they are, is that beneficial or is it an impediment? Why?
b. If they are not, would there be benefits to building them into the transformation
routines? Please elaborate.
Moving on, I’d like to inquire about policies and procedure routines within the
organization not specifically within digital transformation but nonetheless associated with
the outcomes.
7. What are the three most impactful organizational policies, systems, or procedure routines
to your daily work? Why is that? Please rank them in terms of impact to your work.
8. How, if at all, do you these policies, systems, or procedures support or hinder the digital
transformation work that you do?
9. How, if at all, would you modify these policies, systems, or procedures? How would you
do that?
10. What do you think the impact would be if these modifications took place?
11. To what extent are these practices incorporated into your daily or weekly task routines?
Why or why not?
12. How, if at all, would you benefit if they were incorporated into your daily or weekly
routine?
I’d like to ask you some questions about your working environment and the overall climate
that you do your work within. This is your local working department, not the whole of the
organization.
142
13. How would you describe your local working department climate?
a. What do you enjoy about it?
b. What do you not like about it?
14. To what extent are you motivated by the work that you do? Why and please describe
what motivates you about it?
15. How, if at all, are you motivated by your departmental work climate? Why or Why not?
16. In considering your overall motivation, rank what motivates you the most, (1) the task
routines that you are assigned, or (2) the management routines that you are asked to
complete? Why? Please elaborate.
17. In general, what motivates you the most? How would you change your task routines and
the management routines to increase your motivation?
Now we are going to switch our focus and speak about the larger organization, its digital
transformation efforts, and the organizational culture.
18. Tell me about the culture at LFI.
a. What are the positive elements of the culture at LFI.
b. What are the areas of growth for LFI in terms of culture.
19. To what degree is the wider organizational culture supportive of the digital
transformation imperative at LFI?
a. Can you provide a specific example?
20. How, if at all, is the organizational culture supportive of the task routines that are part of
your daily/weekly effort?
a. Can you provide a specific example?
21. In what ways, if any, do the management practice routines resemble the wider
organizational culture?
a. Can you provide a specific example?
IV. Closing Question:
What additional insights or comments would you like to share about our conversation on digital
transformation and work routines that I may not have covered?
Anything additional to add?
V. Closing Commentary:
Thank you and I really appreciate the time that you spent with me today. Your willingness to
share your thoughts and perspectives Is truly appreciated and your contribution is incredibly
helpful for my study. If I find that I have a follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, is
email, ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study.
143
Interview Protocol Crosswalk
The interview questions probe several areas of inquiry and have an alignment with the
study’s overall research questions as highlighted in Table B1.
Table B1
Interview Items by Research Question
Research question Interview item
RQ1: What routines do employees adopt in
digital transformation?
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
RQ2: What factors influence employee
propensity to sustain routines in digital
transformation?
14, 15, 16, 17
RQ3: How do employees experience digital
transformation and normative culture
routines?
13, 18, 19, 20, 21
Icebreakers 1, 2
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Although senior leaders in financial services identify that digital transformation success is imperative to long term profitability, embedding and sustaining digital transformation and overcoming organizational normative culture has been a perennial challenge. The study explored the digital transformation routines responsible for embedding and sustaining digital transformation and overcoming organizational normative culture. This qualitative study utilized the Burke-Litwin Model of organizational performance and change as the methodological approach. The study used a sequential document analysis followed by 12 purposeful, semi-structured interviews with senior digital transformation practitioners at LFI, a leading financial institution with significant digital transformation efforts underway. The key findings identified that employees who adopted new digital transformation routines reported greater belief in individual factors including increased alignment with their roles. In addition, the adoption of new digital transformation routines increased the alignment between employee needs and values, their day-to-day roles, and the organization’s missions and performance. The employees expressed an expectation to sustain and coexist digital transformation routines with the organization’s existing normative routines and culture. The available literature reinforced the findings but in some areas there was limited alignment due to the nascent nature of the digital transformation research agenda. The study recommends the universal implementation of digital transformation routines throughout the organization to embed and sustain digital transformation. In addition, the study recommends insulating and nurturing the digital transformation culture and climate to successfully sustain digital transformation success in the organization.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Sustaining employee engagement and resilience through continuous transformation in digital organizations
PDF
A qualitative study that examines the transformational factors that prevent cybersecurity from being a funding priority in healthcare organizations
PDF
Digital transformation in the resources industry: an exploration of promising management practices
PDF
Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility
PDF
Financial stability and sustainability in online education: a study of promising practice
PDF
Consultants leverage organizational change for successful adoption of agile methods in government organizations
PDF
An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel
PDF
Delivering client discovery training to financial advisors through peer-led podcasts
PDF
Organizational model of individuation and employee retention
PDF
Navigating cultural integration: challenges and strategies for Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the United States
PDF
Middle management’s struggle to sustain change: perspectives of the middle management team in nursing
PDF
Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports
PDF
Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study
PDF
The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace
PDF
Addressing financial barriers to college completion through community cultural wealth
PDF
Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement
PDF
Financial inequity and the impact of acquiring technology competency within the emergency medical service community
PDF
Identifying the environmental and systemic factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women leaders in the male-dominated information technology sector in the United States
PDF
Transformational leadership theory aligned-practices and social workers' well-being: an exploratory study of leadership practices in the context of stress and job burnout
PDF
Effective transformational and transactional qualities of 7-8 intermediate school principals who create and sustain change in an urban school setting
Asset Metadata
Creator
Thabet, Rami
(author)
Core Title
Embedding and sustaining change in digital transformations within financial services
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2023-12
Publication Date
09/29/2023
Defense Date
09/26/2023
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
agile routines,Burke-Litwin model,change climate,customer technology orientation,digital climate,digital culture,digital leadership,digital leadership competency,digital routines,digital success,digital transformation,digital transformation failures,digital transformation routines,dynamic capabilities,embedding and sustaining digital change,financial services digitization,financial services hegemony,fintech,large-scale strategic agility,normative culture,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,strong normative culture,transactional factors,transformational factors
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Datta, Monique (
committee chair
), Leone, Andrew (
committee member
), Phillips, Jennifer (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ramithabet1975@gmail.com,thabet@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113719167
Unique identifier
UC113719167
Identifier
etd-ThabetRami-12405.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ThabetRami-12405
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Thabet, Rami
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20231004-usctheses-batch-1100
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
agile routines
Burke-Litwin model
change climate
customer technology orientation
digital climate
digital culture
digital leadership
digital leadership competency
digital routines
digital success
digital transformation
digital transformation failures
digital transformation routines
dynamic capabilities
embedding and sustaining digital change
financial services digitization
financial services hegemony
fintech
large-scale strategic agility
normative culture
organizational change
strong normative culture
transactional factors
transformational factors