Amelia Gustafsson & Jesper Tuvebrink

Digital Leadership

When Implementing Digital Transformation

in the Pulp and Paper Industry

Industrial Management and Engineering

Master Thesis

30 ECTS

Semester: Spring 2023

Supervisor: Hans Björkman
Acknowledgements
This master thesis has been written by two students at Karlstad University
together with an external actor which acted as a case company in this study. The
thesis covers 30 ECTS within the field Master of Science in Industrial
Engineering and Management. Both authors of this study have consistently
worked closely together throughout this period and are equally involved in all
presented material.

As authors of this study, we would like to direct our warmest gratitude to our
supervisors within the case company who have provided us with support,
guidance and transparency through the research and shown great commitment
and engagement in our work. We would also like to thank the case company for
letting us apply our study to their contextual environment. Through this, we
hope that our contribution will be useful to actors within the organization as
well as the industry. We would also like to direct a special thank you to all
involved respondents within the case company that provided us with openness
and willingness to contribute with reflections and experiences that were
imperative in order to conduct the study.

Lastly, we would like to address our humblest gratitude towards our supervisor
Hans Björkman who has guided, commented and provided us with constructive
criticism throughout this period of time.

Sincerely,
Amelia Gustafsson & Jesper Tuvebrink
Karlstad University
1st of June, 2023

3
Abstract
Over the past few years, there has been a surge in literature regarding the digital
transformation. Its popularity derives from the tremendous potential it has
proven in production companies, in previous studies. This has increased its
attention among actors within the industrial business area. Despite this
overwhelming popularity, the literature does not address the research area in
relation to the slow-moving pulp and paper industry. At the same time,
incumbent companies within the industry have proven to be incapable of
adopting the digital transformation in the rapid pace of today’s volatile
environment. This research therefore intends to investigate the crucial factors
an incumbent company within the pulp and paper industry needs to adopt to
achieve a higher absorption of novel digital trends.

In order to investigate the subject, a qualitative case study was applied to a

company within the category. The material was retrieved through semi-
structured interviews with relevant actors within the case company and analyzed
through thematic analysis. This revealed nine clearly outlined themes of
insufficient corporate infrastructure that emphasizes essential organizational
capabilities. These findings suggest that there are a number of capabilities that
leaders and decision-makers need to adopt in order for the organization to
conduct a more efficient and sustainable approach of digital transformation.
This research therefore proposes a framework with outlined leadership
capabilities to consider in transformation initiatives, within the pulp and paper
industry. The framework will help leaders in shaping the process of
implementing and maintaining digital transformation. These capabilities
stimulate the support activities, which are the surrounding procedures and
activities that support the organization in transformation initiatives, and are
imperative for an organization to possess within the given context. By reducing
the ambiguity and resistance to change the framework will help leaders in
improving the decision making of transformation initiatives. The ultimate goal
is to establish a unified organizational vision, based on digital transformation, to
strengthen the overall long-term sustainability.

Keywords

Digital Transformation, Pulp and Paper Industry, Digital Leadership,

Leadership Capabilities, Organizational Capabilities, Support Activities.

4
Sammanfattning
Tidigare studier påvisar att digital transformation blivit ett allt vanligare
forskningsområde. Detta på grund av de positiva effekter transformationen
medfört inom ett flertal produktionsföretag. Konceptet har ökat
uppmärksamheten inom industrisektorn, där det nu blivit allt vanligare att
anamma digital transformation. Trots denna trend uppvisar befintlig litteratur
en avsaknad av studier inom forskningsområdet, i relation till den långsamt
rörliga kartong- och massaindustrin. Samtidigt påvisar etablerade företag inom
industrin en brist på förmågan att anpassa sig till den digitala transformationen.
Denna forskningsstudie syftar därför till att undersöka vilka faktorer som kan
vara avgörande för ett företag inom kartong- och massaindustrin att anamma i
strävan att uppnå en högre absorption av nya digitala trender.

För att undersöka ämnet genomfördes en kvalitativ fallstudie hos ett företag
inom kartong- och massaindustrin. Materialet erhölls via semistrukturerade
intervjuer med relevanta aktörer inom fallföretaget och analyserades med hjälp
av tematisk analys, vilket visade på nio tydliga teman i form av bristande
infrastruktur. Detta resultat tyder på att ledare och beslutsfattare behöver besitta
ett visst antal kvalifikationer för att organisationen ska kunna uppnå en mer
effektiv och hållbar digital transformation. Denna studie har därför upprättat ett
tydligt ramverk med definierade kvalifikationer som ledare bör eftersträva vid
digital transformation inom kartong- och massaindustrin. Ramverket är avsett
att användas som stöd för ledare vid implementering och upprätthållande av
transformativa initiativ. Genom att stimulera viktiga stödfunktioner med hjälp
av dessa kvalifikationer kan den organisatoriska tvetydigheten och acceptansen
för sådana initiativ öka. Det ultimata målet är att etablera en enhetlig
organisatorisk vision, baserat på digital transformation, för att stärka den
övergripande långsiktiga hållbarheten.

Nyckelord

Digital Transformation, Kartong- och Massaindustri, Digitalt Ledarskap,

Ledarskapskvalifikationer, Organisatoriska Kvalifikationer, Stödfunktioner.

5
List of Figures

Figure 1 – Theoretical framework for leadership when implementing digital

transformation (p.26)

Figure 2 – Illustration of the method in the study (p.30)

Figure 3 – Adjusted framework for leadership when implementing digital

transformation (p.51)

List of Tables

Table 1 – Brief and holistic outline of the essentials within each chapter (p.15)

Table 2 – Entities of the managerial framework (p.27)

Table 3 – Brief overview of the subsections within the methodology (p.28-29)

Table 4 – Detailed participant list (p.31-32)

Table 5 – Overview of the allocated themes from the interviews (p.37)

6
Abbreviations
CR Corporate Responsibility

CDR Corporate Digital Responsibility

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DWS Design Work Systems

HFE Human Factor Engineering

IT Information Technology

STS Socio-Technical Systems

7
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 11
1.1. PROBLEMATIZATION................................................................................................................... 12
1.2. PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTION ...................................................................................... 13
1.3. CONTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................................ 14
1.4. DISPOSITION OF THE STUDY...................................................................................................... 15
2. THEORY ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.1. DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 16
2.2. SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 17
2.3. CHANGE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 18
2.3.1. Organizational Change and Development ................................................................................... 19
2.3.2. Model for Change ....................................................................................................................... 20
2.4. LEADERSHIP ................................................................................................................................. 20
2.4.1. Traditional Leadership ............................................................................................................... 21
2.4.2. Digital Leadership ..................................................................................................................... 22
2.5. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.................................................................................................... 23
2.5.1. Corporate Social Responsibility ................................................................................................... 23
2.5.2. Corporate Digital Responsibility ................................................................................................. 24
2.6. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 25
3. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 28
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN AND STRATEGY ........................................................................................ 29
3.2. CASE STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 30
3.3. DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................................................................... 31
3.3.1. Participants ................................................................................................................................ 31
3.3.2. Interviews ................................................................................................................................... 32
3.3.3. Secondary Sources ....................................................................................................................... 33
3.4. DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 33
3.5. TRUSTWORTHINESS ..................................................................................................................... 35
3.6. ETHICS ........................................................................................................................................... 36
4. RESULT........................................................................................................................... 37
4.1. KNOWLEDGE ............................................................................................................................... 38
4.2. EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................. 39
4.3. VISION ........................................................................................................................................... 39
4.4. COMMUNICATION........................................................................................................................ 40
4.5. FREQUENT AND DRASTIC IMPLEMENTATIONS ...................................................................... 41
4.6. SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 42
4.7. EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................ 43
4.8. MOTIVATION ................................................................................................................................ 44
4.9. SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................................................... 46
5. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 48
5.1. VISION THROUGH COMMUNICATION ...................................................................................... 48
5.2. THE IMPERATIVE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE .............................................................................. 49
5.3. EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 50
5.4. FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION..................................................................... 51
6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 52

8
 6.1. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................... 53
6.2. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 53
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................
APPENDIX A - INTERVIEW GUIDE .......................................................................................

9
10
 1. Introduction
In just a short period of time, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly altered
today's industrial business climate (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020). Digital adaptation
has accelerated on both industrial and organizational levels (Schwarzmüller et
al., 2018). This advancement has imposed a distinct gap between organizations
when it comes to economic profit (Kraus et al., 2021). Nowadays,
competitiveness is reflected through advanced digital technology and resources
(Verhoef et al., 2021). Digitalization has changed the way of viewing industrial
competitiveness, leaving incumbents that lack digital capabilities behind
(Iveroth & Hallencreutz, 2020). Not only does it affect the organizational
operations and internal processes, it might also open up for novel business
opportunities as well as reshaping the value chain (Parviainen et al., 2017).
Digitalization focuses on improving the existing organizational processes
through digital technology. It requires digital transformation, which involves a
change in attitude, mindset and operational processes, in order to obtain a
successful digital adaptation (Verhoef et al., 2021). Achieving digital
differentiation necessitates operational activities that enable an organization to
implement and manage its digital transformation effectively (Konopik et al.,
2022). These activities, also known as support activities, are designed to support
digital transformation initiatives of an organization by providing the necessary
resources, tools, culture and infrastructure (Willmott, 2014). However, drastic
organizational changes, such as technological infusions, can lead to negative
reactions among employees (Imran et al., 2021). The pandemic has thereby
emphasized a greater need for a human-centric approach to digital
transformation to address social sustainability (Mazali, 2018), although
companies are facing challenges in generating such resources at a natural and
rapid level (Kraus et al., 2021). An organization's ability to address these human
needs will have a direct impact on the overall organizational performance and
success (Bhasin et al., 2021). In today’s digital era, organizations need to adapt
a digital leadership approach in order to maintain competitive advantage
(Parviainen et al., 2017). It involves a continuous process of unlearning,
relearning and adapting towards disruptive changes through support activities
(Dutta et al., 2020). In order to address these support activities, leaders have to
possess the right capabilities, such as knowledge and competence (Baškarada et
al., 2017). Digitalization thereby calls for leaders with a differentiated mindset
in relation to organizational growth. It requires leaders that are able to initiate,
manage and guide the organization through digital transformation, more
precisely digital leaders (Abbu et al., 2020).

11
 1.1. Problematization

The area of change management and digital leadership theory is well-researched,

particularly in the context of highly volatile businesses where the environment
changes rapidly (Tsai et al., 2009) as new processes and systems are frequently
implemented (Singh & Waddell, 2004). In contrast, the pulp and paper industry
has been insulated from drastic changes in the surrounding environment for a
longer time, due to steady demand for products and low rate of competitors
(Gerdin et al., 2021; Van den Berg et al., 2000). A long-established business
model and a static culture might have imposed a high level of resistance to
change within the industry (Erwin & Garman, 2010). Additionally, the pulp and
paper industry is highly regulated with strict environmental and safety standards
and companies may be hesitant to adopt new technologies as it is not clear if
the final result will meet these standards (Söderholm et al., 2019). However, due
to increasing demand for everyday paper products, as well as an expanding
demand for paper solutions, the industry is undergoing one of the most
significant transformations in decades (Berg & Lingqvist, 2019).

The pulp and paper industry can be considered an extreme case of late adoption
and shows a uniquely high level of resistance to change which classifies them as
a slow-moving industry (Berg & Lingqvist, 2019; Van den Berg et al., 2000).
Firstly, the sector is commonly known for its lengthy production cycles that
causes organizations to be particularly vulnerable to disruptions, which makes
changes liable to cause significant repercussions (Lund et al., 2020). A change in
one end can become counterproductive in another part of the integrated
production line. Secondly, effecting any disruptive change would entail
significant risk-taking due to the high capital cost of equipment (Del Rio et al.,
2022; Pätäri et al., 2016). The implementation of digital transformation requires
a comprehensive change management structure that is better suited for the
digital era (Schiuma et al., 2021). As a result, previous studies are combining the
two theories, change management and digital leadership, to support change
efforts and explore how digital leaders can effectively navigate digital
transformation within different industries and contexts (Kupiek, 2021).

Furthermore, other studies have investigated the synergy of human and

technology in terms of Socio-Technical Systems (STS) theory in relation to
digital leadership from an organizational perspective (Imran et al., 2021). STS
touches upon the relationship between technological and social factors to
identify how technology interacts with social structures, work processes, human
behavior, and organizational culture (Vial, 2021). Given the pulp and paper

12
industry's long-standing history with traditional work ways and culture, it is
crucial to investigate the challenges employees might experience when
integrating new technologies and the potential social impacts that follows.
Drastic changes create insecurities and reactions among workers (Imran et al.,
2021), which emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of how
technological infusions can affect the workforce. This research therefore aims
to use the synergy between change management and digital leadership, and
additionally include the STS theory as a tool for understanding the vital
perspectives of employees' situations, while simultaneously embodying a
corporate responsible mindset. The purpose is thereby to develop a
conceptualized framework, outlining the essential leadership capabilities to
address support activities when implementing digital transformation in the pulp
and paper industry. These leadership capabilities refer to the skills, qualities and
attributes that leaders need to obtain in order to guide organizations to adopt
and leverage digital transformation initiatives over time (Baškarada et al., 2017).
In this study, support activities are defined as the procedures, guidelines and
activities that enable, develop and maintain organizational core processes
(Willmott, 2014). Moreover, efficiently transitioning employees into new
workways, as Willmott (2014) further explains.

1.2. Purpose and Research Question

To gain an understanding of leaders' situation within the pulp and paper

industry, it is essential to understand the drivers of change, as well as potential
barriers that might arise. These components are vital for organizations to
address in order to develop suitable organizational capabilities and support
activities for digital transformation (Willmott, 2014). The pandemic has imposed
a greater need for organizational culture and employee well-being for ensured
productivity (Imran et al., 2021). Unfortunately, some organizations fail to grasp
the importance of such a human-centric approach, meanwhile companies that
understand the concept might lack the knowledge and capabilities to implement
it within the business (Kotter, 2007). Previous research has touched upon the
literature of change management, digital leadership and STS in terms of
organizational change in an industrial context (Imran et al., 2021; Kupiek, 2021),
but in the absence of the slow-moving pulp and paper industry. The thesis
therefore covers a conceptual framework for digital leadership when
implementing digital transformation within the pulp and paper industry,
specifically demarcated to capabilities and support activities based on the
mentioned theories. This research gap leads to following research question:

13
RQ1: What are the important digital leadership capabilities, to address support activities,
when implementing digital transformation in the pulp and paper industry?

Companies tend to conceptualize digital transformation as a disposable process,

with a fixed beginning and end, generally resulting in failure (Kotter, 2007).
Digital transformation involves continuous strategic changes in a business and
is essential for firms to remain competitive in today's disruptive era (Li et al.,
2018). Organizations must learn to create support activities, through the use of
leadership capabilities, to maintain changes (Kupiek, 2021). This fallacy leads to
the second research question, which primarily addresses the maintenance of
digital transformation:

RQ2: How can digital leaders maintain the implementation of digital transformation, through
the use of support activities, within the pulp and paper industry?

1.3. Contribution

Earlier research within digital transformation has touched upon the complexity
of digital implementations and how companies must adapt in order to maintain
their competitiveness (Vial, 2021). Despite this, literature demonstrates a
deficiency in providing specific guidelines on how companies should
implement, formulate and evaluate digital transformation processes (Matt et al.,
2015). The emergence of digital transformation is a relatively recent
phenomenon where further conceptual and empirical research is required from
an organizational view (Ivančić et al., 2019; Matt et al., 2015; Warner & Wäger,
2019). It is therefore imperative to investigate the development of organizational
leadership and the necessary competencies and capabilities of digital
transformation (Imran et al., 2021). The thesis thereby contributes to the
literature with useful insights, providing shared value and alignment between
management and employees, as well as entities throughout companies within
the pulp and paper industry. This will close the gap between the theoretical and
practical applications for firms to use in organizational contexts.

14
 1.4. Disposition of the study

Table 1 provides a concise and comprehensive summary of each chapter within

the study.
Table 1: Brief and holistic outline of the essentials within each chapter.

Chapter 1. Introduction The section presents the case from a

holistic perspective and outlines the
problematization, purpose and related
research questions of the study.

Chapter 2. Theory Within this section relevant theories are

presented, in line with the subject, and
discussed in a manner that supports this
thesis as well as providing the reader with
proper knowledge regarding the subject.

Chapter 3. Methodology This section outlines the processes and

procedures used to conduct the empirical
study as well as the empirical context and
the ethical choices taken.

Chapter 4. Result The results from the interviews are shown

from the empirical study in this section,
highlighting the most significant findings.

Chapter 5. Discussion The section reviews empirical findings in

relation to the theory.

Chapter 6. Conclusion All the conclusions drawn from the study

are gathered under this section, outlining
its contribution to the body of knowledge
and the industry, followed by practical
implications, limitations and future
recommendations.

15
 2. Theory
Following chapter covers relevant theory within the chosen research area. Previous research
provides valuable insights on the concept of digital transformation and related theories such as
Socio-Technical Systems (STS), Change Management, Leadership and Corporate
Responsibility (CR).

2.1. Digital Transformation

The interdisciplinary concept of digital transformation requires an intersectional

investigation of various fields within the given concept (Tarafdar & Davison,
2018). A cross-disciplinary exchange of knowledge provides a comprehensive
understanding of digital transformation, due to its multiple functional areas
(Loebbecke & Picot, 2015). Approaching digital transformation and its various
fields separately might result in relevant aspects being ignored (Verhoef et al.,
2021). Literature divides the concept into three phases; digitization,
digitalization and digital transformation, where the first two incremental phases
function as a significant base in order to obtain the latter phase (Loebbecke &
Picot, 2015; Parviainen et al., 2017).

Research describes digitization as the transformation of analog to digital

processes (Li et al., 2016; Sebastian et al., 2020), or as the integration of
Information Technology (IT) into existing operations, along with the facilitation
of cost-efficient resources through the use of IT (Lai et al., 2010). The terms
digitalization and digital transformation are both generated by digitization and
used interchangeably by researchers to refer to the same concept (Verhoef et al.,
2021), although some have made an active attempt to separate the definition of
the two concepts (Imran et al., 2021).

Digitalization outlines the influence as well as function of digital technology on

organizational change in terms of novel sociotechnical structures through digital
resources (Li et al., 2016). In the context of digitalization, IT functions as a
critical factor for new business opportunities through the alteration of
traditional business processes (Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2016). Parida et al. (2019,
p. 12) characterizes digitalization as “the use of digital technologies to innovate
a business model and provide new revenue streams and value-producing
opportunities in industrial ecosystems”. Organizations implement digital
technology to maximize their corporate processes as well as creating added
customer value through enhanced customer experiences (Pagani & Pardo,
2017). Moreover, digitalization does not merely focus on economic savings but

16
encompasses the development of customer experiences as well (Verhoef et al.,
2021).

Digital transformation refers to the organizational change that gives rise to novel
business models (Pagani & Pardo, 2017). It impacts an entire organization, its
way of conducting business and outreaches digitalization. Hinings et al. (2018)
defines digital transformation as the overall impact of various digital
advancements that alters the organizational ecosystem. Additionally, Vial (2021)
describes the concept as a process that triggers substantial organizational
development through the integration of information, communication and
technology. Furthermore, it involves rearranging processes to alter a firm’s
business logic (Li et al., 2016) or value creation process (Gölzer & Fritzsche,
2017). Digital transformation is thereby connected to alterations in the business
model, due to the implementation of digital technology (Sebastian et al., 2020).

These descriptions demonstrate the meaning of digitalization and digital

transformation where the first concept refers to the integration of digital
technology in business models and processes, meanwhile the latter encompasses
a broader scope that involves the organizational changes necessary to adapt and
embrace digitalization to the fullest (Imran et al., 2021). Initially, focus was
placed on digital technology until researchers realized that digital transformation
involved more than just a technological shift (Verhoef et al., 2021). Not only
does it refer to technology but the integration of strategy, human resources and
organizational culture as well (Davis et al., 2014). Schuldt & Friedemann (2017)
identified the main organizational challenges in the context of digital
transformation as lack of resources and strategies to process digitization as well
as knowledge, structure and supportive culture to manage the transformation.
These challenges are vital to understand in order for organizations to achieve
digital transformation to its full potential.

2.2. Socio-Technical Systems

To grasp the essence of digital transformation and put it into practical use, a
comprehensive and holistic perspective is imperative (Imran et al., 2021). This
is due to the fact that it involves the integration of technological-driven changes
across an organization's entire operations, beyond its products and service
offerings (Vial, 2021). Incorporating a Socio-Technical Systems (STS) approach
offers leaders a comprehensive understanding of the systems being
transformed, as well as providing useful guidelines for analyzing the
implementation process (Mitki et al., 2019). Digital leaders that embrace an STS

17
perspective will therefore gain a more holistic view of the digital transformation
process (Fuchs & Hess, 2018; Imran et al., 2021).

STS theory is an interdisciplinary perspective that investigates the relationship

between the two main categories, namely technical and social systems (Davis et
al., 2014). The first category represents advanced digital technologies (Gilchrist,
2016) and the latter encompasses cultural, human and organizational factors
(Davis et al., 2014). Developing a strategy to implement changes in one system,
such as digital technologies, without considering its impact on other parts of the
organization, such as the social system, will result in a restricted effectiveness
(Hendrick, 1997). This prevalence imbalance dynamic is a widespread
phenomenon in today's organizations (Imran et al., 2021). It is essential that the
organization recognizes itself as a complex system composed of interrelated
components (Davis et al., 2014) and elevates the adoption of the socio-technical
systems theory (Imran et al., 2021).

Within the STS theory there are a couple of valuable instruments for assessing
and changing the workplace environment for employees (Lundgren et al., 2022).
Some practitioners have identified Design Work Systems (DWS) and Human
Factors Engineering (HFE) as important tools and strategies within STS
theories (Baxter & Somerville, 2011). The primary refers to the design of work
processes, where the capabilities and limitations of both humans and technology
should be considered (Waterson et al., 2002). Waterson et al. (2002) explain that
these processes must be adaptable and flexibly designed in order to be easily
modified to accommodate changes in technology and business environments.
The latter strategy refers to the ability of designing equipment and systems to
ensure that they are safe, efficient, and user-friendly, which helps to ensure that
technology is designed to work with, rather than against, human abilities
(Vicente, 2008). It is in every corporation's core values to create long lasting,
sustainable and value creating processes (Govers & Van Amelsvoort, 2019).
Digital leaders should possess a mindset that uses the STS approach to address
organizational well-being and maintain a sustainable work environment in the
digital era (Van Amelsvoort & Van Hootegem, 2017).

2.3. Change Management

This section handles the concept of Change Management through the following sub-sections:
Organizational Change and Development and Model for Change.

18
 2.3.1. Organizational Change and Development

In the current volatile and transformative business environment, change has

become an integral part of an organization's DNA, impacting both operations
and strategy (Burnes, 2004). Hence, embedding a forward-thinking mindset and
determining the necessary changes, as well as managing them, should be
incorporated into every organization's core processes (Todnem, 2005). Despite
its importance, earlier literature on change management highlights in multiple
cases, in various sectors, that organizations struggle to achieve their goals in
change initiatives (Bellantuono et al., 2021). The failure to realize these goals can
often be attributed to factors such as lack of management support, unclear
objectives and inadequate communication (Balogun & Hailey, 2008). While
many traditional models, such as Kotter's eight step model (2007), are still being
utilized, they are deemed insufficient or imbalanced with the volatile
environment of today (Pregmark, 2022). It becomes imperative to establish a
comprehensive and effective framework for organizational change that supports
businesses in their change processes (Balogun & Hailey, 2008).

Change management has become a crucial strategy in the success of digital

transformation initiatives within manufacturing industries (Ghobakhloo &
Iranmanesh, 2021). Digital transformation involves transforming conventional
business models and changing the way organizations operate (Dowell &
Muthulingam, 2017). There is a lack of support frameworks for leaders and
organizations to possess the ability to manage digital transformation processes
and a more structured approach is therefore required (Bordeleau & Felden,
2019). Current literature primarily focuses on technological aspects, neglecting
the managerial and organizational dimensions (Cimini et al., 2017). Therefore,
it becomes crucial to shift the focus from technological to social aspects when
implementing digital strategies (Sivathanu & Pillai, 2018). Change management
policies should thereby address the social aspects of change as well by
empowering, engaging and educating employees to be a part of the digital
transformation (Kagermann, 2015). In relation with Cohen and Levinthal’s
(1990) approach regarding absorptive capacity, an organization's prior
knowledge is imperative as it lays the foundation for novel learning capabilities.
They further posit that organizations with more knowledge are more suited to
recognize the value information regarding new trends and assimilate it into their
own knowledge base (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). However, Kossek (2016)
posits that it is critical for employees to perceive new initiatives in the right
manner, since they have to feel motivated and at the same time compensated

19
for their engagement. Otherwise, it could create a phenomenon called "job
creep”, which is the concept used to describe the imbalance between workload
and responsibilities in relation to benefits and rewards (Kossek, 2016). A
competent change management strategy is posited to reduce the bureaucracy
and promote hyper connectivity, innovation and knowledge sharing (Moeuf et
al., 2018; Quinton et al., 2018).

2.3.2. Model for Change

Traditional change models reflect organizational requirements when managing

change, but need to be adapted towards today’s volatile environment (Pregmark,
2022). Pregmark (2022) therefore emphasizes a need for a new model for
change, based on previous literature, where she highlights essential factors such
as vision, purpose and culture, in order to conduct a successful change process.
Contemporary contexts might aggravate the ability to define a future vision
(Pregmark, 2022). A clear unified purpose is vital to establish in order to create
a shared value within the organization (Fredberg & Pregmark, 2018). People are
able to pursue actions without a distinct roadmap (Fredberg & Pregmark, 2016).
Companies should therefore concentrate on building a corporate strategy as well
as structures that enable organizational development and experience, compared
to a strict roadmap (Pregmark, 2022). Research demonstrates a positive relation
between emotions and capabilities in terms of creativity and openness to
change, where focus should be on generating such emotions rather than
managing resistance (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). In order to achieve a successful
organizational change, it is imperative to ensure that the entire system adapts
and aligns with the new conditions (Beer, 2009). Fredberg and Pregmark (2018)
thereby suggest that focus should be on altering the corporation, through their
approach “when the seed changes the soil”. This implies managing surrounding
factors within the organizational culture such as driving capabilities, to form a
new way of working (Fredberg & Pregmark, 2018). As a result, Fredberg &
Pregmark (2018) demonstrates that the culture will adapt towards the new
standard. As shown, Pregmark (2022) promotes a utilization of organizational
capabilities to continuously form the future.

2.4. Leadership

This section outlines different aspects of Leadership, in terms of definition and area of use,
through the sub-sections: Traditional Leadership and Digital Leadership.

20
 2.4.1. Traditional Leadership

The classic literature on leadership addresses two types of leadership,

transactional and transformational (Bach & Sulíková, 2021). Transactional
leadership is based on a reciprocal relationship between the leader and its
employees where a system of reward and punishment are utilized to provoke a
desired behavior within the organization (Burns, 1978). Rewards are linked to
the attainment of predetermined goals while punishments refer to the failure of
achieving those goals (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Transactional leadership utilizes
an extrinsic approach to motivate a certain behavior within the organization
where employees are driven by factors outside the actual organization through
rewards (Burns, 1978). This leadership style focuses more on the adaptation
towards technological changes and less on organizational behavior and culture
(Nging & Yazdanifard, 2015). It is suitable for maintaining, reinforcing and
improving existing corporate knowledge (Jansen et al., 2009). A positive
correlation was found between transactional leadership and short-term outcome
(Baškarada et al., 2017). On the other hand, Baškarada et al. (2017) explains that
transformational leadership focuses on improving the organizational
performance through altered values and behavior. The transformational
approach covers both technological changes and human aspects (Nging &
Yazdanifard, 2015). This leadership style aims at regulating the organizational
behavior through vision where the main focus lies on the implementation of
such a vision (Barbuto et al., 2005). Transformational leadership is known for
creating an environment of loyalty and trust, valuable for achieving high goals
(Bach & Sulíková, 2021). It reflects an intrinsic approach of motivation, where
a behavior is triggered via autonomy and self-determination (Jensen & Bro,
2018). By doing so, leaders encourage employees to strive towards a higher
ambition than only creating value for stakeholders (Fredberg & Pregmark,
2018), which in turn requires leaders to promote “acceptance to failure” in order
to enhance creativity (Amabile, 1998).

Bach and Sulíková (2021) points out that focusing mainly on transactional
leadership is not optimal to maintain success in the long run. Meanwhile other
researchers claim that neglecting transformational leadership results in a failure
of implementing change (Nging & Yazdanifard, 2015). Solely approaching
transformational leadership results in employees inhibiting creativity due to
leader dependency (Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2013). Furthermore, while some
researchers advocate transformational leadership in front of transactional
leadership (Baškarada et al., 2017; Birasnav, 2014), others claim that the context

21
determines the relevant leadership style (Yukl, 2012). The modern literature
demonstrates a strong relationship between transactional and transformational
leadership, emphasizing the importance of balancing these two types in order
to maintain an effective leadership approach (Baškarada et al., 2017; Yang et al.,
2021). Baškarada et al. (2017) explain this as a symbiosis of styles, where an
ambidextrous approach that emphasizes agility and an open leadership mindset
is necessary to suit today's volatile environment. This follows the mindset of
Amabile’s (1997) approach that combines the two earlier mentioned concepts
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to establish a creative and productive
workforce. The central critique in leadership literature refers to the concerns
about organizations being over-managed and insufficiently led (Ghasabeh et al.,
2015). As Gasabeh et al. (2015) emphasize, corporations are incapable of
implementing organizational change effectively, resulting in the need for
managerial guidelines for digital leadership.

2.4.2. Digital Leadership

Today’s digital era has disruptively altered businesses, which forces

organizations to adapt towards such changes in order to maintain competitive
advantage (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020). This change has given rise to the need for
a new leadership style, a leadership that prepares and develops the organization
through digitalization, moreover a digital leadership (Mihardjo et al., 2019).
Digital leadership differs from the classic types of leadership (Bach & Sulíková,
2021). Erhan et al. (2022) view the concept as the integration of leadership skills
and digital technology, which is necessary in order to create value for
organizations. Hambrick and Mason (1984) formulates that leaders play a critical
role in determining the strategic direction and impacts the successfactor of a
company directly. Digital leadership is outlined as a concept that guarantees an
effective implementation of digitalization and its impact on the ecosystem
(Erhan et al., 2022). The volatile environment requires organizational leaders to
possess certain capabilities such as agility, participation, networking and open
leadership mindset (Guzmán et al., 2020). These capabilities help leaders to
efficiently navigate and adapt to the digital environment (Erhan et al., 2022).
Agile qualities are important to address critical scenarios (Guzmán et al., 2020).
Bach & Sulíková (2021) refers to the concept as a leader who anticipates
technical development through internal and external communication based on
a vision. Networking and open capabilities reflects the leader’s willingness to
actively engage with employees and establish a network of collaboration with
the organization (Mihjardo et al., 2019). Organizations should not be

22
traditionally guided through a top-down-structure (Nging & Yazdanifard, 2015),
instead modern literature emphasize an ambidextrous leadership approach
(Baškarada et al., 2017). Digital leadership involves granting employees
autonomy (Bach & Sulíková, 2021). Participation functions as a valuable
characteristic for managing the expertise and insights of employees to improve
organizational success (Pearce & Conger, 2002). This leadership style
encourages employees to take part in the decision-making process (Guzmán et
al., 2020). Digital leadership thereby concentrates on the organization as a whole
and not just the implementation of digital technology (Erhan et al., 2022).

2.5. Corporate Responsibility

This section highlights Corporate Responsibility (CR) that refers to a company's obligations
and commitments which extend beyond profitability and legal obligations. Narrowing the
spectrum down, companies have more specific responsibilities to different entities that have to
be looked at from their own point of view. This has led to the emergence of the concepts:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR).

2.5.1. Corporate Social Responsibility

The emergence of the concept of CSR is closely linked to the increasing societal
importance firms constituted in the aftermath of World War II, this because of
the war's enormous impact on both society and the environment. (Orbik &
Zozuľaková, 2019). CSR is driven by the concept that “not only is doing good
the right thing to do, but it also leads to doing better” (Bhattacharya & Sen,
2004, p. 9), which highlights its multi beneficial aspect. In today's society it has
become necessary to include sustainability in businesses. Sustainability involves
three concepts that often refer to the triple bottom line (TBL) framework where
economy, society and environment are central factors (Slaper & Hall, 2011).
However, other researchers propose a nested view derived from the traditional
one that highlights the importance of integrating all three factors of TBL
(Giddings et al., 2002). Giddings et al. (2002) illustrate a vision that emphasizes
the importance of economical sustainability that rely on the social aspects, such
as intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction within a company. In turn, the
environment is decisive for fostering these social aspects (Giddings et al., 2022).
In general, literature considers it imperative for companies to define their role
in the community and implement social and ethical standards within their
organizations (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). Moreover, organizations have started
to facilitate new digital technologies, which they integrate into their operations,
because it is now essential for companies to stay competitive in today's business

23
world (Verhoef et al., 2021). Technology is recognized as a fundamental driver
of today’s civilization and social change (Orbik & Zozuľaková, 2019). Orbik &
Zozuľaková (2019) further emphasizes that the concept of digital
transformation plays a crucial role in enabling companies to significantly
enhance their performances in social and environmental areas and thereby
contributing to their social responsibilities.

2.5.2. Corporate Digital Responsibility

The rapid advancements of technology have brought profound changes to both

private- and working lives and enabled a wide variety of systems with vast
capabilities (Herden et al., 2021; Lobschat et al., 2021), which has led to the
emergence of the concept Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR). The origin
of this concept could be drawn to the emergence of digital transformation which
is regarded as a large disruption to today's society and has presented both
opportunities as well as risks (Herden et al., 2021). These new technologies
possess the ability to enhance corporate businesses through various approaches
and have also proven to contribute largely to the society and environment
(Herring & Roy, 2007), which is considered enough incentive for companies to
pursue digital transformation (Herden et al., 2021). Moreover, the rise of digital
technology poses new ethical challenges since these technologies gather large
amounts of sensitive data through various methods (Lobschat et al., 2021). This
raises potential concerns due to the risks of exploiting AI systems for
unintended purposes, such as unauthorized access to sensitive data, which also
highlights the urgency for a high level of data security (Richter & Riemer, 2013).

To ensure ethical design and usage of new digital technology, the concept CDR
establishes commonly known shared norms and values that companies should
follow to guide their operations (Lobschat et al., 2021). Lobschat et al. (2021)
further explain that it is the corporations and stakeholders that develop and
utilize the technologies that stand accountable for any ethical issues. Therefore,
organizations need to establish a well formulated framework that determines
how to act responsibly, balance legal obligations, and manage economic impacts
(Schwartz & Carroll, 2003). Ultimately, the role of technology in CDR is
complex and companies must be conscious of the ethical implications of their
digital operations.

24
 2.6. Summary

In order to establish managerial guidelines for digital transformation, it is

essential to increase the knowledge on how organizations are able to obtain a
sustainable competitive advantage through the continuous development of
specific resources, strategies and organizational structure. This section
summarizes important takeaways from the literature and thereby creates a
theoretical foundation to address the research questions. According to the
literature, digital leadership addresses a combination of transactional- and
transformational leadership, and concludes that there is a need for valuable
characteristics from both styles (Baškarada et al., 2017). Baškarada et al. (2017)
explain this as an ambidextrous leadership approach which is posited as crucial
to successfully manage digital transformation and organizational change.
Leaders equipped with ambidextrous capabilities will allow them to leverage the
strength from both styles while minimizing the limitations (Yang et al., 2021).
Furthermore, digital leadership involves a collaborative and decentralized
structure (Yazdanifard, 2015) where employees are encouraged to participate in
the decision-making process to utilize their expertise and insights for improved
organizational success (Guzmán et al., 2020; Pearce & Conger, 2002). However,
decentralizing the decision making requires digital leaders to have an acceptance
to failure (Amabile, 1998).

Involving employees in the design and construction of the new ways of working
with digital technologies also requires leaders to fully understand the synergies
between humans and machines in order to understand their capacity, as well as
their limitations (Vicente, 2008). Leaders who design processes through various
STS tools and strategies are set to increase the well-being amongst employees
(Imran et al., 2021), as well as the efficiency and safety (Vicente, 2008). Involving
employees in activities outside of their work role is claimed to be a challenge
due to the additional tasks placed on an employee, which can lead to job creep
(Kossek, 2016). Focus should therefore be on creating a vision through a
purpose to demonstrate the need for change and related benefits (Pregmark,
2022). This in turn would help in the reduction of resistance towards change
within the business and achieving a unified organizational value (Fredberg &
Pregmark, 2018). Digital leaders should provide corporations with a strategy
based on autonomy and communication, followed by loyalty and support for
maintained self-determination (Jensen & Bro, 2018). This leads to an enhanced
creativity and absorptive capacity, as well as organizational performance
(Amabile, 1998).

25
The digital transformation provides, in addition to efficiency and safety,
increased potential to improve its corporate social responsibilities (Orbik &
Zozuľaková, 2019). However, there are many risks tied to the digital
transformation, such as insecure data and data securities, which has raised
attention to the concept of CDR that is essential to embrace before an
organization takes its first step into the digital journey (Lobschat et al., 2021).
Incorporating a mindset which emphasizes sustainability through the use of a
nested vision of the TBL can also benefit organizations in the pursuit of a
sustainable development (Giddings et al., 2002). The literature highlights the
necessity of modifying traditional models for change (Pregmark, 2022), resulting
in the need for renewing models for change, adjusted towards today’s disruptive
environment. Previously mentioned literature has therefore been summarized
into a model (figure 1), with a related table (table 2), that functions as a
theoretical framework for leadership when implementing digital transformation
within the pulp and paper industry. Its validity will be evaluated within the
context of the industry.

Figure 1: Theoretical framework for leadership when implementing digital transformation.

26
Table 2: Entities of the managerial framework.

People Tools Process

Digital Supportive and Digital Technology Vision through

Transformation Learning Culture to Purpose
Manage the
Transformation

STS Socio-Technical Design Work Support

System Perspective Systems and
Human Factor
Engineering

Change Empowering, Models and Communicating the

Management Engaging and Frameworks for Structure and
Educating Change Guidelines

Leadership Ambidextrous Granting Competence

Leadership Autonomy and through Education
Accepting Failure

Corporate Social Security through Responsible

Responsibility sustainability Rules and Development
Regulations

27
 3. Methodology
This thesis is based on a qualitative approach to retrieve appropriate answers to
the problematization of the study. There were nine interviews conducted, each
with an employee within the case company, to get a holistic view of the context
within the case company. Throughout the study there has been an emphasis on
creating trustworthy answers while maintaining an ethical stance. Therefore, the
study also included other sources of data, such as a literature study and
organizational documents based on previously conducted workshops regarding
digital transformation. The retrieved data were handled with high care to remain
anonymity and security through the study. Below is a table that briefly shows
the subsections within the methodology section.
Table 3: Brief overview of the subsections within the methodology.

Subsection Overview

Research Design and Strategy A mapping of the approach that was

chosen to retrieve a sufficient amount
of data as well as maintaining the
objective.

Case Study Why a case study is used in this study,

a brief introduction to the case
company and why it acts as a
representative for the industry.

Data Collection Detailed outline of the essential

elements on how the data was
retrieved, namely: Participants,
Interviews and Secondary Sources.

Data Analysis An explanatory section about how the

retrieved data was transcribed, openly
coded and thematically analyzed.

28
Table 3: Brief overview of the subsections within the methodology.

Trustworthiness A comprehensive subsection that

delves into the trustworthiness of the
obtained thesis through credibility,
transferability, dependability and
confirmability.

Ethics An outline of how this thesis chose to

take an ethical stance when
conducting the research study.

3.1. Research Design and Strategy

To address the research problem, the study was structured in such a way as
shown in the illustration (figure 2). The process is linearly outlined but evolved
into an iterative pattern throughout the study. A literature study was conducted
to identify relevant theories and concepts related to the research topic, which
established a strong theoretical foundation, allocating gaps in the existing
research. Based on these gaps, research questions were formulated and outlined
to contribute to both the literature and the companies within the pulp and paper
industry. The research questions formulated in the thesis served as a guidance
for both the data collection and analysis process of the research. It ensured that
the gathered information was relevant, informative and consistent with the
research objectives. All sources were retrieved from either Google Scholar or
general search and verified via Karlstad University’s library database, to make
sure they were peer reviewed and demonstrated reliability.

The theory was continuously altered to match the findings of the study from
the analysis (Gray, 2017). A model was formulated, based on the existing
literature, which then was applied on the case company to evaluate its
functionality. To answer the research questions a qualitative case study was
conducted through semi-structured interviews. Gray (2017) argues that a
qualitative case study is a great way to gain insights on how people, processes
and companies interact in a particular setting. By delving into the details of a
case, an in-depth analysis of the topic was obtained (Eisenhardt, 1989). Case
study investigations were particularly suitable for the preliminary stages within
the research study where a comprehensive perspective was required in order to
define variables of the research topic (Matthews & Ross, 2010). This approach
enabled one to explore practices and situations that have not been thoroughly

29
studied or understood, as for the topic of digital transformation in the context
of the pulp and paper industry (Ivančić et al., 2019). Thereafter a thematic
analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the retrieved results and to identify
patterns within the given set of data (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The
primary model initially tested in the context of the pulp and paper industry was
adjusted based on the findings from both the primary and secondary sources,
leading to the development of a more accurate model, tailored to the specific
context.

Figure 2: Illustration of the method in the study.

3.2. Case Study

In this case, Stora Enso Skoghall was used and referred to as a case company,
to reflect the pulp and paper industry. Stora Enso is a world-leading actor of
renewable products in packaging and biomaterials where Skoghall’s mill, located
in western Sweden, is a modern producer of world class consumer packaging
board for both liquid and dry food packaging (Stora Enso, n.d.). Skoghall’s mill
therefore functions as a relevant representative for the pulp and paper industry
as a whole. The case was suggested by Stora Enso Skoghall who stands in front
of an overwhelmingly digital transformation within the near future. The
transformation will affect the organizational management and thereby needs to
be outlined through a leadership perspective. In order to gain a profound
comprehension of the topic and the organizational standpoint, preparatory
work was done by collecting data via informal meetings with experts at the mill
(Imran et al., 2021).

30
 3.3. Data Collection

In this section the thesis outlines the methods used to gather data and specific details regarding
the process in the subsections: Participants, Interviews and Secondary Sources.

3.3.1. Participants

The study used a selection of nine participants in the interviews, all from the
case company, to receive a comprehensive view and a sufficient amount of data
in order to answer the research questions. The study used approximately two
employees from each of the different levels within the case company, also
referred to as participants, to further strengthen the reliability of the answers
based on their organizational rank. The roles spanned from leaders and
decision-makers, down to “on the floor” workers. Through this, the study
received more precise results since it brought perspectives from both parties. In
turn, this enabled a comparison between the parties to allocate a potential
correlation of the results. The positions were outlined in terms of two types,
“Type 1” and “Type 2”, to provide the participants with full anonymity. “Type
1” refers to participants with a managerial position, while “Type 2” comprises
those who do not hold such a position. Unfortunately, one interview got
canceled resulting in a redundancy in one level. However, the retrieved data was
confirmed to be sufficiently met, despite the reduction of participants. There
has been an active choice to limit the data collection to actors within the case
company due to the demarcation of internal support activities.
Table 4: Detailed participant list.

Position Participant Duration Date Digital or Transcribed

in person words

Type 1 1 35:34 2023-02- In person 3039

20

Type 1 2 57:52 2023-02- Digital 5695

22

Type 2 3 27:20 2023-02- In person 2176

23

Type 1 4 45:52 2023-02- In person 3982

23

31
Table 4: Detailed participant list.

Type 2 5 36:18 2023-02- In person 3674

24

Type 1 6 22:49 2023-02- Digital 2517

27

Type 1 7 23:10 2023-02- In person 2600

28

Type 2 8 43:56 2023-03- In person 3566

02

Type 2 9 22:52 2023-03- In person 2431

03

In total: 4:40:09 29680

3.3.2. Interviews

Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews, due to the

flexible approach the method brought, which provided more fruitful answers
(Gray, 2017). Semi-structured interviews facilitated reciprocity between the
interviewer and participant (Kallio et al., 2016), which allowed the interviewer
to ask spontaneous follow up questions in response to the participants answers
(Baumbusch, 2010). Additionally, the method gave the participants the freedom
to express themselves verbally (Kallio et al., 2016). Semi-structured interviews
were based on predetermined questions (Rubin & Rubin, 2011) grounded in
prior knowledge within the research area (Wengraf, 2001). The method
established a framework for the interviews, but was not rigidly followed (Kallio
et al., 2016). By providing the participants with guidance on the research topic,
semi-structured interviews allowed for a comparable data collection among the
participants to attain an in-depth analysis of the research area (Gill et al., 2008).

The semi-structured interviews within the study were based on a framework

designed by Kallio et al. (2016) in order to ensure the validity of the research;

(I) Firstly, the method of semi-structured interviews was evaluated to determine if

it could potentially address the research questions.

(II) Secondary research was thereafter conducted through a literature study to

acquire a comprehensive understanding of the topic and thereby create a conceptual
foundation for the interviews.

32
(III) An interview protocol referred to as an interview guide was established, based
on the theoretical framework, to examine the topic through previous knowledge.
The guide followed a systematic order of standard questions that were presented in
a similar manner for each participant.

(IV) The interview guide was then tested on an external actor of the study at the
case company to validate and adjust the scope of the preliminary questions for
improved quality and reduced ambiguity within the data collection. The interview
guide was updated along the interview process to filter out irrelevant information
and obtain more precise answers.

(V) Finally, a universal semi-structured interview guide was presented in the

appendix (see appendix A) for further researchers to replicate.

The use of semi-structured interviews opened up for a reordering of questions

along the interview, which improved the flow (Dincer & Dincer, 2013; Wahyuni,
2012). The method involved follow-up questions based on the participants’
answers, which enabled the interviews to diverge in different directions while
focusing on the main topic (Gill et al., 2008). Semi-structured interviews in
terms of open-ended questions allowed the participants to freely express their
thoughts and opinions to obtain in-depth information (Buys et al., 2022). The
interviews were provided in both physical and digital forms, based on the
interviewees’ preferences. All interviews were held in Swedish since it was the
native language of the interviewees.

3.3.3. Secondary Sources

The study adopted an interview-based approach as its primary source of data in

its aim to answer the research questions and develop a framework with practical
recommendations for leaders within the pulp and paper industry. However, as
Gray (2017) points out, a robust case study requires multiple sources of
information to enhance its validity. Therefore, this study included secondary
sources to improve its comprehension. Secondary sources involved confidential
reports and documents based on previously conducted workshops within the
case company, which broadened the organizational perspective. In addition, the
study conducted several formal and informal meetings with senior staff on site,
who are directly involved in the digital transformation process.

3.4. Data Analysis

The qualitative analysis of data was structured in overlapping phases, due to the
transparency it provides for both the qualitative researchers and readers (Lester

33
et al., 2020). All material from the interviews was scrutinized through
transcription, open coding and thematic analysis in order to identify common
patterns and condense the collected data (Gray, 2017), grounded in a practical
approach by Braun & Clarke (2006);

(I) Data was familiarized through initial analysis of collected data in terms of
documents, records and transcriptions. Transcribed data enhanced the
comprehension of the participants' viewpoints and accelerated the qualitative
analysis later in the process.

(II) Open coding was conducted to generate preliminary concepts from the data.
This involved identifying and categorizing various concepts, as well as properties
and dimensions without predetermined categories.

(III) Potential coded data extracts were sorted into 192 first order codes followed
by 53 second order codes, and collated into nine themes that were identified by
combining different fragments of ideas, drawing connections between them to
reveal patterns. Initial codes formed themes as well as subthemes, meanwhile some
codes were irrelevant.

(IV) The themes were thereafter reviewed. Codes that overlapped with other
extracts, or did not provide any coherent pattern, were either altered or removed
within each theme.

(V) The themes were then refined and named to identify the aspect of the data that
the themes captured and outlined in the “Result” section.

(VI) The report was thereafter produced, providing sufficient evidence of identified
themes within the data.

Thematic analysis served as a fundamental method for pattern recognition

within the data collection (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The method
functioned as an essential technique to identify, analyze, organize, describe and
report identified themes within the given data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Thematic analysis was an effective approach for evaluating the perspectives of
the interviewed participants, emphasizing resemblances as well as unexpected
insights among the interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017). It
served as a useful tool when summarizing essential characteristics of extensive
data sets as it compelled researchers to adopt a structured methodology when
processing data (Gray, 2017). The method allowed for significant flexibility
through a versatile approach, which was adapted to fit the needs of various
studies (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Thematic analysis was broadly applied across

34
various epistemologies and research questions, where trustworthiness was
reflected through a rigorous analytical approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Nowell
et al., 2017).

3.5. Trustworthiness

In addition to traditional quantitative measures of validity and reliability,

trustworthiness is grounded in four complementary criteria; credibility,
transferability, dependability and confirmability (Maher et al., 2018). These
criteria provided a comprehensive framework for assessing the quality of the
research (Cope, 2014). The validity of the thesis was enhanced by combining
the literature review with empirical research (Gray, 2017). Credibility was
achieved through a data collection triangulation in terms of interviews, literature
study and organizational documents (Nowell et al., 2017). Furthermore,
credibility was obtained through the alignment of interviews and research
questions, verified by external uninvolved actors such as organizational experts
within the given area, co-opted professors and postgraduates (Gray, 2017; Stahl
& King, 2020). A distinct communication between the researchers and the
interviewed participants, based on the purpose and aim of the thesis,
contributed to further credibility (Gray, 2017). Transferability was provided via
comprehensive descriptions of the study for others to replicate in further
contexts (Stahl & King, 2020). Dependability was addressed through traceability
via a comprehensive framework of references (Gray, 2017; Tobin & Begley,
2004) and further reflected by generalizing the study via an available interview
guide (Kallio et al., 2016). The reliability of the study was enhanced by external
reviews of the thesis and its result, which in turn increased the overall
dependability (Gray, 2017). The last and final criteria, confirmability, was
conducted by motivating the theoretical, methodological and analytical choices
along the thesis as well as demonstrating relevant conclusions and
interpretations of the research (Koch, 1994; Tobin & Begley, 2004). Overall,
confirmability was attained by meeting the three criterias; credibility,
transferability and dependability (Nowell et al., 2017). The authors of this thesis
are employed at Stora Enso which could have affected the analysis of the study.
However, the employment has been progressing for a relatively short period,
less than a year, which limited the degree to which the analysis was shaped by
the organizational core values.

35
 3.6. Ethics

The thesis was conducted in terms of a conscious consideration of ethics to

create a respectful relation to all the involved within the study (Gray, 2017). As
physical interviews might hamper the ability of participants to express their
emotions, ethical standards were prioritized through consent, confidentiality,
privacy, beneficency and integrity (Schrems, 2014). The interviewed participants
were fully informed of the aim and purpose of the study and also provided with
relevant material, before and during the interview, to create an understanding of
the topic and assist them in the interview (Gray, 2017). Informed consent was
preserved by giving the participants the possibility to voluntarily participate and
withdraw from the study at any time. (Aluwihare-Samaranayake, 2012; Richards
& Schwartz, 2002). The interview was offered in both physical and digital forms
to accommodate the needs and preferences of the participants. Confidentiality,
privacy and anonymity was maintained through the study. Confidentiality was
reflected through informed consent (Kaiser, 2009). Privacy and anonymity were
handled in terms of the General Data Collection Regulation (GDPR), where
personal data was secured, and participants were anonymized and referred to
through code names (Strandberg, 2019). Data was carefully handled by only
keeping the research records from the interviews available for the researchers
and deleted after finalizing the study. Beneficence was upheld by conducting the
interviews in a familiar and safe environment for the participants, namely within
the case company (Nowell et al., 2017). The participants were not intentionally
pressed on any information or put in an uncomfortable situation. Honesty and
integrity were addressed by recording the interviews to avoid misinterpretations
and false research findings of the collected data (Orb et al., 2001).

36
 4. Result
This section highlights the findings retrieved from the conducted interviews.
The results are presented in the form of different themes that were found
throughout open coding and thematic analysis (table 5). The main and most
significant themes in this section are traces of an insufficient infrastructure.
Furthermore, we will refer to the participants as “PX”, where “P” stands for
“participant” and “X” acts as an identifier, ranging from one to nine, to
distinguish the participants. The “X” variable was randomly assigned to each
interview in order to enhance anonymity.
Table 5: Overview of the allocated themes from the interviews.

Themes Overview

Knowledge Traces of a knowledge gap

Education Insufficient educational support

Vision Lack of unified vision and purpose

Communication Unstructured communication channels

Frequent and Inadequate structures and frameworks for

Drastic improved implementation processes
Implementations

Support Lack of physical and qualitative support

Involve Employees Limited employee involvement in the

transformation of work activities

Motivation Lack of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Sustainability Limited development through sustainable and

responsible implementations

37
 4.1. Knowledge

It appears that digital transformation is generally a vague concept which entails

various questions among an organization. It requires leaders to create a shared
corporate understanding of the concept to reduce the ambiguity and unify the
organization towards the same goal:
How do we manage this? How do we follow up on it? What does it cost? What risks
do we have? How do we maintain our environmental standard? Digital transformation
is about keeping track of all these parameters all the time. Constantly receiving
information about how things are going. Identifying deviations faster and
implementing improvements. - P1

The employees are well aware of the importance of digital transformation in

achieving a more autonomous process where leaders need to minimize decisions
in relation to operators. In general, there has been a recurring trend where
knowledge seems to be the foundation for the digital transformation within the
organization:
There are many possibilities with working towards a more autonomous process and
minimizing the decisions that an operator has to make, but it also requires a lot of
knowledge from those who work with it. - P2

The case company demonstrates a shared view of restructured resources

through digital transformation. The employees outline a common
understanding of digital transformation and its impact on work tasks through
increasingly higher demand for knowledge in order to manage digital
transformation,

For example, digital transformation means that there will be a reduction of manual
tasks in the form of operators and workers, but at the same time there will be a higher
demand for automation personnel who adjust sensors and calibrate digital equipment
and ensure that everything is working. We will be transferring resources there. - P1

furtherly:

Some tasks that are currently handled by an engineer may be taken on by an operator
with a stronger industrial IT background. There will be fewer but more skilled
individuals working. - P1

The employees presented an uncertainty when it comes to knowledge within the

case company, since expertise is vital for obtaining a holistic perspective of the
industry:

38
 But I do not know if there is a control room that has the whole picture at once. I am
not convinced that they realize that they may not have a bird’s-eye view. - P9

4.2. Education

When it comes to digital transformation, the participants experience a need for

increased education and training to create a foundation of knowledge for the
concept and thereby obtain successful implementations of changes. The
employees are patient with the fact that the younger generation possesses a
higher technical knowledge and interest than the elderly, which can be naturally
reflected along with a rejuvenation of the industry. Although, this cannot be
taken for granted. The industry must invest in the knowledge advancement of
the organization itself along with the digital transformation,
Yes, I believe there is an increased need for competence and education, but the
development improves as the factory gets rejuvenated. Today’s youth starts out with
so much more. It will come naturally when there is a rejuvenation of the factory, but
then it is important not to take for granted that it will happen without the industry
itself. - P8

and the solution is to invest in education in order to create a cohesive

organization:
If we want to get as many as possible out of these 100 to reach the goal within, let us
say five years, then it is important to get them over the threshold and education is the
way to do it. - P1

At the same time, the existing education related to implementations of change

needs to be increased, streamlined and coordinated among departments as well
as within the whole organization for optimal digital adaptation,
Just considering small changes, there are actually not enough education programs
available. For example, if you receive new equipment and so on. - P9

and:

I have received brief instructions on how to use an internal system, but I know
colleagues who have never seen such a course because it was introduced during the
pandemic. It became an obstacle. Otherwise, these are the types of courses we need
to have in general related to other systems. - P8

4.3. Vision

It is easy to lose track of what a company is striving towards in terms of vision

and goals. There is an overall agreement on the relevance of a distinct vision

39
where digital transformation needs to be balanced with the goals and strategies
of the organization through a unified corporation:
In particular, one must investigate what proportion of the organization should be
involved and then allow it to take time. If only 10 out of 600 people participate in this
journey it will not be of any use. In order to achieve a uniform movement towards
digitization, the whole company must strive towards a digital future. Just a few people
involved is not enough. - P3

This movement is not a quick fix, moreover a long-term investment:

A long-term perspective, that is what we want to strive towards and something you
cannot avoid, unless you really implement and work with it for a long time. - P1

It can be inferred that communication is crucial in the process of implementing

organizational changes. In particular, the emphasis is placed on clear and
personalized communication that conveys the purpose of a change, rather than
simply the vision:

Vision is not something workers work with, but rather something they want to see a
purpose in. - P1

The majority of the employees highlighted the importance of communicating

the benefits and purpose of a change:
…be clear about why you make the decision. Communicate the benefits, because the
disadvantages are motivated by the common people themselves. - P1

4.4. Communication

Clear and transparent communication is described as an essential tool for

accepting digital transformation initiatives where communication should be
done, not just on an organizational level, but at a personal level as well, taking
concerns and opinions of employees into account:

…then I believe that the new is usually better. That is often the reason why a system
is changed. If you are just given it in your lap, ‘hope you can handle this now’, then it
becomes negative. - P1

It is observed that misleading communication channels are sometimes chosen:

One does not explain why. It is just thrown out there and it needs to be done and it
is stressful… - P6

This leads to confusion, stress and negative effects on the organizational

performance:

40
 Many times, things are brought up. ‘This is how it is’ and we do not understand why.
It works better to do things in the way that we always have done it. Sometimes new
directives come to live and we do not really understand at all. It impairs the process.
- P8

It also creates a negative mindset which aggravates the comprehension of the

transformation:

…and benefits for whom? Is there anyone who has statistics? I do not see my benefits
and if we do not generally know our benefits, then I have a hard time motivating those
under me to use it and explaining what their benefits will be. - P5

As a whole, the participants highlight the importance of communication for an

improved acceptance of change:

There are many and various types of counterarguments. If they had just provided
better information, people might have realized that ‘Yes, the purpose is to make it
better.’ instead of speculating on their own. So, I think that it is an area where the
company can improve. - P9

Communication is outlined to be transparent and inclusive, involving all

employees in the initial process:

As always, it is important to be transparent, open and show why a change is being

made and explain the benefits so that people understand it. If you understand it,
everything becomes much easier. And if it is a bigger project, it is good to involve
everyone from top to bottom and let them be a part of it from the beginning so that
everyone’s perspectives are taken into account in a change. - P6

Overall, communication is emphasized as the foundation for a successful

adaptive control:

When things go wrong, I believe that communication is the key to making it better. -
P2

4.5. Frequent and Drastic Implementations

Rapid implementations was highlighted as a recurring theme in the conducted

interviews. These integrations of technology and IT-system are hard to adjust
to:
There's a lot of new things coming in and the current implementations are not fully
completed before the new ones are implemented and functioning. - P6

This can be both software and hardware implementations. Regardless of which

of the two is implemented, it is explained that the employees experience a higher

41
pressure as well as a loss of motivation due to the instability of the nature that
these swift changes bring,
Above all, there should probably not be too much introduced at once. It is important
to work in the new system and allow it to acclimate. - P3

and:
...it is like there is too little user perspective for those who work with the equipment.
- P2

At the same time there are a lot of initiatives regarding the digital transformation
that the case company work with, there is always a focus on the production
process which causes the digitalization to be a secondary objective in many
participants eyes,
...in the meantime, we must continue to run the factory. We have to take care of things
that have nothing to do with digitalization. - P4

Since:

…that is where the money is made and the value is created. - P2

4.6. Support

In these implementations, both employees and leaders perceive that there is a

lack of clarity, support and engagement for the systems and technologies that
are established. These technological advancements are eventually integrated into
the ordinary day-to-day work that they conduct,

There is none to get help from because the focus has been shifted to something else.
It is like people do not stay with the new thing long enough to make sure it works
over time. Instead, they launch it for almost a few weeks and then when you try to
turn to someone for help, that person has moved on to a new project or a new role,
and the consultant who worked on this for two years is gone. - P1

while another participant explained:

Sometimes I hesitate to push and implement new things that would actually be
beneficial, because I know that there is a shortage of people in IT and automation and
they have to prioritize all urgent matters all the time. So, I think it is a big challenge. -
P5

There is a concern regarding the correlation between support, education and the
development:

42
 What will my new job responsibilities be and will I have support along them, so that
I can handle it? - P1

Another participant emphasized:

There are new systems all the time and very poor training. It almost always comes
down to self-learning. One misses a bit of support alongside. - P3

The majority of the participants believe that the support could be improved
through both quality and clarity:

…as soon as things do not go well, there is no one to turn to. There is no
communication channel, no one to call, no one who can take you all the way to the
finish line. When you are a manager, you also get everyone else's problems. - P2

The quality of the existing support systems is understood to be deficient. Many

participants refer to the computerized learning and guiding tools that are used
today. It is explained that these videos and E-learning courses are difficult to
adjust to and receive the proper support from. Furthermore, it is expressed to
not fully live up to the ordinary ways of support where there is direct interaction
with a human,

…there are a lot of videos to watch there. However, sometimes you have watched it
three times and it still has not solved my problem. - P7

and:
…in recent years, there has been more and more of a trend towards self-education via
computer systems. However, this means that you do not get feedback and input from
others on how they perceive things, so the education becomes very one-sided. - P3

These concerns raise questions whether the digital transformation is creating

efficiency or if it even entails the opposite. If the new technology is perceived
as difficult to understand and there is a lack of clarity and quality in the support,
could it impair the vision? One participant emphasized:
We have forgotten what support functions are and what the real business is, the one
we rely on. In that aspect, I think it is very challenging with all these support functions
that are no longer support functions because they somehow relinquish their service
mindset. - P2

4.7. Employee Involvement

There are traces of dissatisfaction regarding the decision taken above the
factory. Since the case company is a large multi division industry with lots of

43
resources, it is often explained that decisions are made with no regards to the
situations at the pulp and paper industry:
…there is a lot of pressure from the organization above the mill, which has also caused
problems. - P3

The perceived pressure shows that there might be a lack of understanding as to

why some changes are made. This is further emphasized through:

This is what Stora Enso is planning to carry out on a large scale, and then they just
push it out. - P7

However, it seems to be a sort of blind trust that everything will sort itself out,
and in the end, be a contribution to the core values within the case company:
However, the changes will surely be good in the end. - P5

These actions and decisions that exclude the employees within the decisions
process could be drawn to leadership capabilities that are often related to the
concept of transactional leadership, discussed within the theory. However, there
are several of the participants that request a more accommodating style of
leadership:

We need to have all kinds of leadership. It is diversity that is the strength. - P4

Transformational leadership has shown to be something many participants see

as a way to benefit the mill and the organization as a whole. A request for
involving the employees, affected the by change, in the decision-making process
has shown a strong trace in the interviews,

…it is important that they feel involved in the decision, even if they are not the ones
who actually make it, they know that themselves. Being involved in shaping it, makes
them feel like a contributor. - P1

and further discussed:

…and it is important for me as a manager to emphasize that if changes are made,
operators should be involved in the projects because then they can catch such small
details. - P7

4.8. Motivation

Employees within the mill also express that the digital transformation is
increasing their workload. These changes are experienced by the participants to
increase the responsibilities that their roles contain. One participant expressed:

44
 The digital transformation initiatives remove workload which can be seen as a positive
thing, but it also creates a new workload in a different way. - P1

Another participants noted:

No matter how good an improvement is, it still constitutes an additional task. - P2

Some participants also reflected that the rewards are not correlating with the
rising responsibilities and work tasks that come with the digital transformation.
One participant explained:
It has sparked discussions within the group about whether the demands are increasing
more than the rewards. - P1

One significant trace that derives from the increasing responsibilities and
workloads is that the motivation does not parallelly follow. The participants
experience a lack of reward systems when it comes to the digital field:
One does not really keep up with the journey that the requirements demand. I believe
that there probably is a lot brewing in the background regarding motivation. Digital
transformation also adds some status to the profession when you look at the tasks
and qualifications required, and then you want it to follow through all the way. - P1

The employees highlight motivation as a key factor in advancing the digital

transformation within the organization in terms of increased status and
recognition that comes with being proficient in digital technologies:
Somehow, I feel that there should be some encouragement to engage in the digital
world. Is there no incentive? - P8

The case company demonstrates a need for motivation to be communicated on

both an organizational level,
When it comes to control and how the process is actually run, I believe that one must
find things where they really believe it will provide a good payback. - P2

as well as an individual level:

Why should I, as an operator, fill this in? Well, later when we have statistics on this,
we can see that this is the equipment that has caused many issues and we have lost so
many tons because of it. Therefore, for example, we can justify an investment or a
larger intervention. It is important to explain why people should do different things,
because then they also become motivated, since they also want to replace this. - P5

Other highlights the importance of how the projects are outlined and conducted
as these activities determine the motivation employees has towards the changes,

45
 A change is not something you do quickly, it requires a lot of engagement and
commitment. - P2

and the goal is to obtain motivation through engagement:

We try to have operator representatives in all of our investment projects, with some
assigned to specific projects. This is very beneficial for the project implementation,
but also for the engagement and self-esteem of the operator, who becomes very
important in this project. - P2

Overall, motivation is mentioned as a vital factor to successful implementation

of digital transformation within the case company:
The goal is to get participation and as a result, engagement from people. - P6

4.9. Sustainability

In general, the corporate mindset reflects a triple bottom line perspective. The
importance of continuous improvements has been highlighted in the daily work
routine to enhance processes and reduce potential risks. The described
organizational advancements align with the social aspect of the triple bottom
line perspective,
For me, improvements are everyday work. All safety reports that come in often result
in improvement work, not only to reduce the noted risk, but also to improve the
process. It usually goes hand in hand, addressing issues, as well as finding new ways
to improve our operations. - P1

along with:

If you manage to successfully make changes that everyone finds beneficial, such as
reducing workload while enhancing functionality or improving safety, then that
change will naturally become a higher priority. - P5

Continuous improvements were also highlighted through the environmental

aspect of triple bottom line, in form of environmental and safety reports:
I would say that the most powerful tool one has is the reporting of deviations related
to the environment and safety. - P2

The importance of achieving value for money and the effectiveness of

digitalization efforts, in relation to the advancement of sustainability, was
further discussed directly related to the balance of the economic and social
aspects:
It is a massive job to take on improvements and achieve desired effects. It is important
to use tools to provide value for money. Digitalization can sometimes feel like a wave

46
 sweeping you over with things you should have done, but it is important to remember
that there is still more to life than just digitalization. It is important to keep this in
mind. - P2

These traces of results were found positively related to the sustainable work that
saturates the general mindset of the organizational day-to-day work.

47
 5. Discussion
In the context of the ongoing digital transformation, the pulp and paper industry
is experiencing one of the largest transformations of all times. As a result, the
study demonstrates a distinct need for digital leadership to create a shift in the
organizational mindset and adopt transformational initiatives. While emphasis
often is put on safety and environmental standards within the industry, due to
strict regulations, focus should remain on strengthening social and
environmental areas through the potential of digital transformation. To enable
this, an organization must create a unified movement towards digital
transformation through the right leadership capabilities. The research exhibits
clear traces of essential capabilities derived from overarching patterns of
insufficient infrastructure. The main findings highlight the importance of
enabling a change in the organizational culture through support activities, by
addressing the right leadership capabilities, in terms of; knowledge, vision and
communication, consistency and support, responsibility and sustainability. This
study explores the importance of digital leadership and identifies key capabilities
for facilitating and maintaining the transition towards digital transformation.

5.1. Vision through Communication

In this research, the perspective of digital leadership highlights the importance

of taking the whole organization into consideration when embracing digital
transformation and not just the implementation of digital technology (Erhan et
al., 2022). This can be seen as a critical factor throughout the study in terms of
challenges to accomplish change initiatives, which can be drawn to the lack of
unclear objectives and inadequate communication, in line with the literature
(Balogun & Hailey, 2008; Bellantuono et al., 2021). The analysis shows an
experienced lack of culture, vision and purpose which are crucial factors for
addressing a successful change process. As Pregmark (2022) suggests, creating
a vision through purpose could be an appropriate way of addressing this. The
purpose of a change is necessary to convey in order to obtain organizational
acceptance for novel initiatives and thereby move the business in the wanted
direction (Fredberg & Pregmark, 2018). Communicating, not only the vision but
also the purpose behind the change, is shown to be a fruitful factor for aligning
the corporation with the organizational vision (Pregmark, 2022).

Results show a lack of understanding regarding the social factors in the decision-
making processes, for example when a new technology or process is
implemented. This can be drawn to the transactional leadership style where

48
leaders act more as a boss rather than a leader (Burns, 1978). There is a
possibility that due to the deeply rooted bureaucratic culture of the industry and
its traditional nature, it is common for leaders to adopt such a transactional style.
However, using such a leadership approach may also limit the industry’s ability
to innovate and adapt towards the changing circumstances in the long term
(Baškarada et al., 2017). The result demonstrates the importance of transitioning
from guiding an organization through the traditional top-down structure
towards granting employees responsibility and autonomy, supported by Nging
& Yazdanifard (2015) as well as Bach & Sulíková & (2021). Autonomy, in terms
of loyalty and support, has been identified as a desirable characteristic for
enabling job-satisfaction through self-determination (Amabile, 1998; Jensen &
Bro, 2018). As vital as autonomy is, full autonomy is observed to result in
conflicting ideas within the organization. This in turn might hamper the
organizational coordination and collaboration (Nging & Yazdanifard, 2015),
which can result in a deviation from the corporate vision and core value.
Traditional guidance is therefore still pertinent to use as a means to preserve
safety and relevance in implementations (Gasabeh et al. (2015). Focus should
be on creating organizational attachment with autonomy by establishing a
strategy based on freedom with directions (Pregmark, 2022). It is clear that it
would be beneficial to create a framework with guidelines to exhibit responsible
implementations through shared values in terms of CR (Balogun & Hailey, 2008;
Lobschat et al., 2021; Schwartz & Carroll, 2003). Leaders within this context
should therefore obtain a certain set of leadership capabilities based on an
ambidextrous leadership approach to elevate the overall organizational
motivation, trust, loyalty and creativity (Amabile, 1998; Bach & Sulíková, 2021;
Jensen & Bro, 2018). By doing so, leaders will be equipped with capabilities to
conduct and maintain successful transformation initiatives, just as previous
research demonstrates (Baškarada et al., 2017).

5.2. The Imperative Role of Knowledge

To become a digital leader who possesses the ability to contribute to an

organization's digital transformation journey, knowledge and competence
becomes central. The analysis shows that there is a lack of knowledge regarding
the subject of digital transformation within all the investigated levels of the case
company. This emphasizes the necessity of creating a learning and supportive
culture to enhance the overall knowledge capacity (Pregmark, 2022). Thus, there
is a strong need for leaders to possess and communicate essential organizational
capabilities in terms of knowledge (Schuldt & Friedemann, 2017). In turn,

49
leaders need to promote a cross-disciplinary approach of knowledge exchange
to enhance the absorptive capacity and thereby alter the organizational
capabilities to successfully maintain transformation initiatives (Loebbecke &
Picot, 2015).

The analysis shows a distinct trend of focus on technological knowledge, in

absence of the social values of digital transformation, as declared by Cimini et
al. (2017) in further contexts. This creates a chasm between workers' experience
of new digital solutions and decision makers' perception of the workers'
experience. The knowledge deficiency therefore has to be accommodated by
addressing valuable capabilities in terms of STS tools, such as human factor
engineering and design work systems, to obtain a cohesive organizational view
(Baxter & Somerville, 2011). Leaders who obtain an STS approach can
contribute to a more sustainable implementation of technological processes
within the corporation (Van Amelsvoort & Van Hootegem, 2017), which in turn
will improve the overall organizational maintenance of digital transformation in
the long-run.

5.3. Employee Engagement

Since the need for improved knowledge is evident across all levels of the
corporation, there should be a high emphasis on educating the organization in
the field of digital transformation. It would therefore be relevant to establish a
clear and structured training and development program that emphasizes the user
perspectives. It is not enough to make educational programs user-friendly. A
support structure should also be established along with the educational
programs. Such a structure would benefit the implementation and maintenance
of new technology, as it provides employees with comfort and reliability
(Bordeleau & Felden, 2019). By enhancing the organizational trust, the structure
can also help an organization to reduce the risk of employees mistrusting new
technologies (Van Amelsvoort & Van Hootegem, 2017). However, the study
has shown an imbalance between the workload, increased responsibilities and
rewards offered when contributing to organizational initiatives. Therefore,
motivation and engagement are imperative factors to consider, as they drive
employees to take initiative and support an organization’s digital transformation
process (Amabile, 1997). Digital leaders must develop capabilities to work with
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in symbiosis to increase engagement, improve
performance and creativity, and enhance the organizational well-being (Bach &
Sulíková, 2021). Extrinsic motivation, in terms of rewards and recognition,
functions as a valuable tool to encourage the organization to achieve the

50
implementation of digital transformation (Nging & Yazdanifard, 2015).
Although intrinsic motivation needs to be complemented in order to drive long-
term persistence and maintenance of the transformation (Amabile, 1998).

5.4. Framework for Digital Transformation

The evaluation of the theoretical framework (figure 1) in the context of the pulp
and paper industry highlights valuable insights on transformation initiatives.
This results in an adjusted framework for leaders to follow when facing digital
transformation (figure 3). Findings retrieved from the result formulate a novel
framework in terms of a foundation of leadership capabilities. However, in
contrast to the theoretical framework that is based on a direct approach of
managing digital transformation, this novel framework demonstrates that
leaders should focus on addressing surrounding organizational factors, in terms
of support activities. This to guide and support the culture to unlearn, relearn
and adapt towards organizational change initiatives, similar to the concept
“when the seed changes the soil” inspired by Fredberg & Pregmark (2018). To
achieve this, leaders must possess the right capabilities to trigger these support
activities to flourish. By incorporating such a framework, the pulp and paper
industry could enhance its overall corporate responsibilities through social and
environmental performance (Orbik & Zozuľaková, 2019). It involves
establishing a vision based on the purpose to use digital transformation as a
means to enforce the social and environmental performance of an organization.

Figure 3: Adjusted framework for leadership when implementing digital transformation.

51
 6. Conclusion
Today’s volatile environment continuously impacts the development of the pulp
and paper industry, which calls for a need to adapt towards digital workways.
Incumbent industries that lack digital capabilities need a more structured
organizational approach when implementing digital transformation. This is
important to take into consideration in order to keep up with the development
and stay competitive. This study aimed to investigate the relation between digital
transformation, leadership capabilities and sustainability to maintain industrial
competitiveness. Thereby, the purpose of the study was to understand how to
guide leaders through successful and sustainable implementation as well as
maintenance of digital transformation;

RQ1: What are the important digital leadership capabilities, to address support activities,
when implementing digital transformation in the pulp and paper industry?

RQ2: How can digital leaders maintain the implementation of digital transformation, through
the use of support activities, within the pulp and paper industry?

In order to establish a successful and sustainable transition towards digital

transformation, a digital leader must create and maintain a culture that supports
sustainability and safety through digital transformation. The key to guide the
organization towards the transformation is a long-term vision where the goal
and purpose is communicated (Fredberg & Pregmark, 2018). It becomes
imperative to expand the organizational knowledge base through persistent,
coordinated and streamlined education that emphasizes this vision. Likewise,
maintaining the implementation initiatives through improved support to ensure
a smooth digital transition, is just as crucial to create a foundational knowledge
for digital transformation. The digital transformation has the potential to
contribute to all three dimensions of the traditional TBL framework, if the
mindset changes regarding sustainability (Giddings et al., 2002). Furtherly,
incorporating a nested view could leverage these possibilities generated from
the digital transformation as it establishes a more cohesive corporate vision of
sustainability. When a company operates with a clear sense of purpose and
demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the impact on economic, social
and environmental aspects, the sustainable benefits will eventually follow in the
long run (Orbik & Zozuľaková, 2019). Leaders need to focus on leveraging
these leadership capabilities through support activities to alter and extend the
culture towards digital transformation (Pregmark, 2022). The organization
progresses as it gains further capabilities, which in turn expands the foundational

52
knowledge, ultimately leading to a change in the corporate culture (Fredberg &
Pregmark, 2018). In turn, the corporation becomes self-learning in a way that
develops an organizational absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). An
organization that continuously evolves and improves through a self-learning
approach is set to maintain the digital transformation initiatives.

6.1. Managerial implications

The initial stages of digital transformation lays a foundation for future

organizational implementations. It is therefore vital to focus on leveraging these
stages to establish and maintain long-term success. The diffuse and abstract
layout of digital transformation inhibits the perception of the concept within
organizations which aggravates the decision-making process for future
organizational development. Consequently, the research has identified the
importance of a clear vision that unifies a corporation in its digital
transformation journey to reduce ambiguity and resistance. It is therefore a
strong need to possess proper capabilities that support the organizations, in
initiatives towards creating a distinct unified vision, through support activities.
Hence, a framework (figure 3) with outlined leadership capabilities is imperative
to follow in order to address digital transformation. The framework helps
leaders in shaping the process of implementing and maintaining digital
transformation, by reducing the ambiguity and thereby improving the decision
making of transformation initiatives. In hand, the framework provides proper
capabilities needed to address the support activities required to maintain a
corporate foundation of unlearning, relearning and adaptance towards digital
transformation. Ultimately, it implies establishing a self-learning culture that
obtaines and maintaines a cohesive vision by evolving along with the volatile
environment.

6.2. Limitations and Future Recommendations

This study has investigated the leadership role in digital transformation within
the context of an incumbent, slow-moving firm struggling to adopt rapid
changes in the market. However, the research has some limitations, as it could
have involved more external factors connected to the case company, such as
customers and partners. External actors could have been included in the data
collection process to obtain a more comprehensive industrial perspective of the
company. This perspective could be useful as companies should always strive to
meet their customers’ and partners’ requirements. The aim of this study is to
investigate the internal processes within an organization, which explains the

53
exclusion of external actors. Another potential limitation is the researchers’
relationship with the case company, as employees. Although the employment
has been ongoing for less than a year, providing the study with transparency, it
is important to acknowledge this potential bias and impact it might have on the
objectivity of the text.

Throughout the study, several areas of interest were identified that could be of
relevance to investigate in further research, such as complications of
implementing digital technologies within a continuous process with shift-
working personnel provided with long vacations. This is an ongoing problem
within the industry on how to motivate, communicate and involve personnel in
the development. The last area of interest involves focusing on a specific part
of the organization within the same research field as the current study.

54
 References
Abbu, H., Mugge, P., & Gudergan, G. (2022). Successful digital leadership
requires building trust: For companies to excel in the new, rapidly changing
innovation environment, their leaders must focus on trust. Research-Technology
Management, 65(5), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2095168

Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: A view of

the participants' and researchers' world from a critical standpoint. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(2), 64-81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100208

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what

you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165921

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). Harvard Business School
Publishing.

Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy,
engagement, and creativity at work. Harvard Business Press.

Bach, C., & Sulíková, R. (2021). Leadership in the context of a new world:
Digital leadership and industry 4.0. Managing global transitions, 19(3), 209-226.
https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.19.209-226

Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (2008). Exploring strategic change. Pearson Education.

Barbuto Jr, J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and

transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26-40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100403

Baškarada, S., Watson, J., & Cromarty, J. (2017). Balancing transactional and
transformational leadership. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(3),
506-515. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-02-2016-0978

Baumbusch, J. (2010). Semi-structured interviewing in practice-close research.

Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 15(3), 255-258.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2010.00243.x

55
Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design
methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 4-17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003

Beer, M. (2009). High commitment high performance: How to build a resilient organization
for sustained advantage. John Wiley & Sons.

Bellantuono, N., Nuzzi, A., Pontrandolfo, P., & Scozzi, B. (2021). Digital
transformation models for the I4.0 transition: Lessons from the change
management literature. Sustainability, 13(23), Article 12941.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312941

Berg, P., & Lingqvist, O. (2019, August 7). Pulp, paper, and packaging in the next
decade: Transformational change. McKinsey & Company: Paper, Forest Products &
Packaging. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/paper-forest-products-and-
packaging/our-insights/pulp-paper-and-packaging-in-the-next-decade-
transformational-change#/

Bhasin, G., Yadav, S., Srivastava, S., & Kharbanda, R. (2021). People centric
leadership as a critical factor in enhancing the absorptive capacity of an
organization for managing business transformation: Biographical study from
Indian HR professionals. Review of International Geographical Education Online,
11(7).

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why,
and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management
Review, 47(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166284

Birasnav, M. (2014). Relationship between transformational leadership

behaviors and manufacturing strategy. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 22(2), 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-10-2011-0520

Bordeleau, F. È., & Felden, C. (2019). Digitally transforming organisations: A

review of change models of industry 4.0. ECIS 2019 Proceedings.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301379432.pdf

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics.

Pearson Education.

56
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

Buys, T., Casteleijn, D., Heyns, T., & Untiedt, H. (2022). A reflexive lens on
preparing and conducting semi-structured interviews with academic colleagues.
Qualitative Health Research, 32(13), 2030-2039.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221130832

Cimini, C., Pinto, R., & Cavalieri, S. (2017). The business transformation
towards smart manufacturing: A literature overview about reference models and
research agenda. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), 14952-14957.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2548

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new

perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1),
128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553

Cope, D. (2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of

qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(1), 89-91.
https://www.doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.89-91

Davis, M. C., Challenger, R., Jayewardene, D. N., & Clegg, C. W. (2014).

Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: A call for bravery. Applied
Ergonomics, 45(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.02.009

Del Rio, D. D. F., Sovacool, B. K., Griffiths, S., Bazilian, M., Kim, J., Foley, A.
M., & Rooney, D. (2022). Decarbonizing the pulp and paper industry: A critical
and systematic review of sociotechnical developments and policy options.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 167, Article 112706.

Dincer, B., & Dincer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility decisions: A

dilemma for SME executives? Social Responsibility Journal, 9(2), 177-187.
https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-07-2011-0028

Dowell, G. W., & Muthulingam, S. (2017). Will firms go green if it pays? The
impact of disruption, cost, and external factors on the adoption of
environmental initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1287-1304.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2603

Dutta, G., Kumar, R., Sindhwani, R., & Singh, R. K. (2020). Digital
transformation priorities of India’s discrete manufacturing SMEs: A conceptual
study in perspective of industry 4.0. Competitiveness Review: An International Business
Journal, 30(3), 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-03-2019-0031

57
Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double-edged sword: Transformational
leadership and individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54-68.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00786.x

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy

of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

Erhan, T., Uzunbacak, H. H., & Aydin, E. (2022). From conventional to digital
leadership: Exploring digitalization of leadership and innovative work behavior.
Management Research Review, 45(11), 1524-1543. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-
05-2021-0338

Erwin, D. G., & Garman, A. N. (2010). Resistance to organizational change:

Linking research and practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
31(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011010371

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic

analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme
development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

Fredberg, T., & Pregmark, J. (2016). Transformation in a tightly nested system:

Employing fast cycles of change. In D. A. Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 24, pp. 185-219). Emerald
Publishing.

Fredberg, T., & Pregmark, J. E. (2018). Organization renewal through

entrepreneurial initiatives: When the seed changes the soil. In D. A. Noumair &
A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 26,
pp. 99-126). Emerald Publishing.

Fuchs, C., & Hess, T. (2018). Becoming agile in the digital transformation: The
process of a large-scale agile transformation. ICIS 2018 Proceedings.

Gerdin, C., Lingqvist, O., Luse, A., Mori, L., Singh, K., & Vainberg, G. (2021,
August 24). Tapping digital’s full potential in pulp and paper process optimization.
McKinsey & Company: Paper, Forest Products & Packaging.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/paper-forest-products-and-
packaging/our-insights/tapping-digitals-full-potential-in-pulp-and-paper-
process-optimization

58
Ghasabeh, M. S., Soosay, C., & Reaiche, C. (2015). The emerging role of
transformational leadership. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(6), 459-467.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2015.0090

Ghobakhloo, M., & Iranmanesh, M. (2021). Digital transformation success

under industry 4.0: A strategic guideline for manufacturing SMEs. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(8), 1533-1556.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-11-2020-0455

Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O'brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and
society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable
development, 10(4), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199

Gilchrist, A. (2016). Industry 4.0: the industrial internet of things. Apress.

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data
collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental
Journal, 204(6), 291-295. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192

Govers, M., & Van Amelsvoort, P. (2019). A socio-technical perspective on the

digital era: The lowlands view. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 4(2), 142-
159. https://doi.org/10.46364/ejwi.v4i2.589

Gray, E. D. (2017). Doing Research in The Business World. Sage Publications.

Guzmán, V. E., Muschard, B., Gerolamo, M., Kohl, H., & Rozenfeld, H. (2020).
Characteristics and skills of leadership in the context of industry 4.0. Procedia
Manufacturing, 43, 543-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.167

Gölzer, P., & Fritzsche, A. (2017). Data-driven operations management:

Organisational implications of the digital transformation in industrial practice.
Production Planning & Control, 28(16), 1332-1343.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1375148

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as

a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628

Hendrick, H. (1997). Organizational design and macroergonomics. In G.

Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 594-636).
John Wiley & Sons.

59
Herden, C. J., Alliu, E., Cakici, A., Cormier, T., Deguelle, C., Gambhir, S.,
Griffiths, C., Gupta, S., Kamani, S., Kiratli, Y., Kispataki, M., Lange, G., Moles
de Matos, L., Moreno, L., Nunez., H. Pilla, V., Raj, B., Roe, J., Skoda, M... &
Edinger-Schons, L. M. (2021, March). “Corporate Digital Responsibility” New
corporate responsibilities in the digital age. In Sustainability Management Forum|
NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum, 29(1), 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-
020-00509-x

Herring, H., & Roy, R. (2007). Technological innovation, energy efficient design
and the rebound effect. Technovation, 27(4), 194-203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.11.004

Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and
transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1),
52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004

Imran, F., Shahzad, K., Butt, A., & Kantola, J. (2021). Digital transformation of
industrial organizations: Toward an integrated framework. Journal of Change
Management, 21(4), 451-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1929406

Ivančić, L., Vukšić, V. B., & Spremić, M. (2019). Mastering the digital
transformation process: Business practices and lessons learned. Technology
Innovation Management Review, 9(2), 36-50.
https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1217

Iveroth, E., & Hallencreutz, J. (2020). Leadership and digital change: The digitalization
paradox. Routledge.

Jansen, J. J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration
and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008

Jensen, U. T., & Bro, L. L. (2018). How transformational leadership supports

intrinsic motivation and public service motivation: The mediating role of basic
need satisfaction. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 535-549.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017699470

Kagermann, H. (2015). Change through digitization—Value creation in the age

of Industry 4.0. In H. Albach, H. Meffert, A. Pinkwart, & R. Reichwald (Eds.),
Management of permanent change (pp. 23-45). Springer.

60
Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632-1641.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309350879

Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic
methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-
structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031

Koch, T. (1994). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(5), 976-986. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2648.1994.tb01177.x

Konopik, J., Jahn, C., Schuster, T., Hoßbach, N., & Pflaum, A. (2022). Mastering
the digital transformation through organizational capabilities: A conceptual
framework. Digital Business, 2(2), Article 100019.

Kossek, E. E. (2016). Managing work-life boundaries in the digital age.

Organizational Dynamics, 45(3), 258-270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.07.010

Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. In R.

Sandell & R.R. Janes (Eds.), Museum management and marketing (pp. 20-29).
Routledge.

Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., & Roig-
Tierno, N. (2021). Digital transformation: An overview of the current state of
the art of research. Sage Open, 11(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047576

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational

leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management
Review, 12(4), 648-657. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306717

Kupiek, M. (2021). Digital leadership, agile change and the emotional organization:
Emotion as a success factor for digital transformation projects. Springer.

Lai, K. H., Wong, C. W., & Cheng, T. E. (2010). Bundling digitized logistics
activities and its performance implications. Industrial Marketing Management,
39(2), 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.08.002

61
Lester, J. N., Cho, Y., & Lochmiller, C. R. (2020). Learning to do qualitative data
analysis: A starting point. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 94-106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320903890

Li, F., Nucciarelli, A., Roden, S., & Graham, G. (2016). How smart cities
transform operations models: A new research agenda for operations
management in the digital economy. Production Planning & Control, 27(6), 514-
528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1147096

Li, L., Su, F., Zhang, W., & Mao, J. Y. (2018). Digital transformation by SME
entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1129-
1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12153

Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International

Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2370.2009.00277.x

Lobschat, L., Mueller, B., Eggers, F., Brandimarte, L., Diefenbach, S., Kroschke,
M., & Wirtz, J. (2021). Corporate digital responsibility. Journal of Business Research,
122, 875-888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.006

Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model
transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research
agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(3), 149-157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.002

Lund, S., Manyika, J., Woetzel, J., Barriball, E., & Krishnan, M. (2020). Risk,
resilience, and rebalancing in global value chains. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/risk-
resilience-and-rebalancing-in-global-value-chains

Lundgren, C., Berlin, C., Skoogh, A., & Källström, A. (2022). How industrial
maintenance managers perceive socio-technical changes in leadership in the
industry 4.0 context. International Journal of Production Research. Advanced online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2101031

Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., & De Eyto, A. (2018). Ensuring rigor
in qualitative data analysis: A design research approach to coding combining
NVivo with traditional material methods. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918786362

62
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies.
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57, 339-343.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5

Matthews, R., & Ross, E. (2010). Research methods: A practical guide for the social
sciences. Pearson Education.

Mazali, T. (2018). From industry 4.0 to society 4.0, there and back. Ai & Society,
33(3), 405-411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0792-6

Mihardjo, L., Sasmoko, S., Alamsjah, F., & Elidjen, E. (2019). Digital leadership
role in developing business model innovation and customer experience
orientation in industry 4.0. Management Science Letters, 9(11), 1749-1762.
https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.6.015

Mitki, Y., Shani, A. B., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2019). Developing new capabilities:
A longitudinal study of sociotechnical system redesign. Journal of Change
Management, 19(3), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1490337

Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., & Barbaray, R. (2018).
The industrial management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0. International
Journal of Production Research, 56(3), 1118-1136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1372647

Nging, T. K., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). The general review of how different
leadership styles cause the transformational change efforts to be successful.
International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 2(9), 1130-1140.
https://www.ijmae.com/article_117720_b9555f984891084e8e676a39acbbc6e
4.pdf

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic
analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-
5069.2001.00093.x

Orbik, Z., & Zozuľaková, V. (2019). Corporate social and digital responsibility.
Management Systems in Production Engineering, 27(2), 79-83.
https://doi.org/10.1515/mspe-2019-0013

63
Pagani, M., & Pardo, C. (2017). The impact of digital technology on
relationships in a business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 185-192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.009

Parida, V., Sjödin, D., & Reim, W. (2019). Reviewing literature on digitalization,
business model innovation, and sustainable industry: Past achievements and
future promises. Sustainability, 11(2), 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020391

Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., Kääriäinen, J., & Teppola, S. (2017). Tackling the
digitalization challenge: How to benefit from digitalization in practice.
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 5(1), 63-77.
https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm050104

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys
of leadership. Sage.

Pregmark, J. E. (2022). Renewing models for change. The Learning Organization,

29(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-05-2021-0056

Pätäri, S., Tuppura, A., Toppinen, A., & Korhonen, J. (2016). Global
sustainability megaforces in shaping the future of the European pulp and paper
industry towards a bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics, 66, 38-46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.009

Quinton, S., Canhoto, A., Molinillo, S., Pera, R., & Budhathoki, T. (2018).
Conceptualising a digital orientation: Antecedents of supporting SME
performance in the digital economy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 26(5), 427-439.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2016.1258004

Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2016). Brand value co-creation in a digitalized

world: An integrative framework and research implications. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 93-106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.07.001

Richards, H. M., & Schwartz, L. J. (2002). Ethics of qualitative research: Are

there special issues for health services research? Family practice, 19(2), 135-139.
https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/19.2.135

Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2013). Malleable end-user software. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 5, 195-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-013-
0260-x

64
Ritter, T., & Pedersen, C. L. (2020). Digitization capability and the digitalization
of business models in business-to-business firms: Past, present, and future.
Industrial Marketing Management, 86, 180-190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.019

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Sage.

Schiuma, G., Schettini, E., & Santarsiero, F. (2021). How wise companies drive
digital transformation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity,
7(2), Article 122.

Schrems, B. M. (2014). Informed consent, vulnerability and the risks of group-

specific attribution. Nursing Ethics, 21(7), 829-843.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733013518448

Schuldt, J., & Friedemann, S. (2017, April). The challenges of gamification in

the age of Industry 4.0: Focusing on man in future machine-driven working
environments. 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON),
1622-1630. https://doi.org/10.1109/educon.2017.7943066

Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-

domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435

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://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2018-2-114

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 R. D.
Galliers, D. E. Leidner, & B. Simeonova (Eds.), Strategic information management
(5th ed., pp. 133-150). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429286797-6

Singh, M., & Waddell, D. (Eds.). (2004). E-business innovation and change
management. IGI Global.

Sivathanu, B., & Pillai, R. (2018). Smart HR 4.0–how industry 4.0 is disrupting
HR. Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(4), 7-11.

65
Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how
does it work. Indiana Business Review, 86(1), 4-8.
https://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2011/spring/pdfs/article2.pdf

Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research:

Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of
Developmental Education, 44(1), 26-28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45381095

Stora Enso. (n.d.). Skoghall Mill. Retrieved 2023-04-11, from

https://www.storaenso.com/en/about-stora-enso/stora-enso-
locations/skoghall-mill

Strandberg, P. E. (2019). Ethical interviews in software engineering. 2019

ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and
Measurement (ESEM). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.07993.pdf

Söderholm, P., Bergquist, A. K., & Söderholm, K. (2019). Environmental

regulation in the pulp and paper industry: Impacts and challenges. Current
Forestry Reports, 5(4), 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00097-0

Tarafdar, M., & Davison, R. M. (2018). Research in information systems: Intra-

disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 19(6), 523-551. https://www.doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00500

Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative

framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388-396.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x

Todnem, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review.

Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500359250

Tsai, Y., Lin, J. Y., & Kurekova, L. (2009). Innovative R&D and optimal
investment under uncertainty in high-tech industries: An implication for
emerging economies. Research Policy, 38(8), 1388-1395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.006

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and
thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study.
Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Van Amelsvoort, P., & Van Hootegem, G. (2017). Towards a total workplace
innovation concept based on sociotechnical systems design. In P. Oeij, D. Rus,

66
& F. D. Pot (Eds.), Workplace Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 281-299).
Springer.

van den Berg, A., Masi, A. C., Smucker, J., & Smith, M. R. (2000). Manufacturing
change: A two-country, three-industry comparison. Acta Sociologica, 43(2), 139-
156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016990050079590

Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian,
N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection
and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022

Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research

agenda. In A. Hinterbuber, T. Vescovi, & F. Checchinato (Eds.), Managing Digital
Transformation (pp. 13-66). Routledge.

Vicente, K. J. (2008). Human factors engineering that makes a difference:

Leveraging a science of societal change. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(1),
1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220600723484

Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms,

cases, methods and methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting
Research, 10(1), 69-80. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2103082

Warner, K. S., & Wäger, M. (2019). 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

Waterson, P. E., Older Gray, M. T., & Clegg, C. W. (2002). A sociotechnical

method for designing work systems. Human Factors, 44(3), 376-391.
https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497628

Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-

structured methods. Sage.

Willmott, P. (2014, May 1). Digital strategy. McKinsey Digital.

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-
insights/digital-strategy

Yang, H., Peng, C., Du, G., Xie, B., & Cheng, J. S. (2021). How does
ambidextrous leadership influence technological innovation performance? An
empirical study based on high-tech enterprises. Technology Analysis & Strategic

67
Management. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1985105

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what

questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088

68
 Appendix A - Interview Guide
Generally, new technologies and processes are introduced within today’s
industries, resulting in increased productivity, smaller margins of error, better
communication, etc. This technological development is often linked to the
concept of "digital transformation," which also includes the processes and
activities surrounding the implementation of the technology. The goal of this
thesis is to facilitate the so-called digital transformation at Stora Enso Skoghall
by creating guidelines and supportive frameworks for leaders in the surrounding
activities so that the organizational implementation of new technologies will be
as smooth as possible.

● What does digital transformation mean to you?

○ If they do not know what it means, explain it to them.

● What are your current challenges and/or concerns regarding digital

transformation in the pulp and paper industry?

● How do you consider decision-makers/leaders to communicate and involve

employees in this change process? And how do you communicate the need for
change?

● How do you experience changes being received at the plant?

○ Do you have an example where it was not well received?

○ How do you think decision-makers can prepare for and handle

resistance to change within the organization?

● What types of support and resources do you think are necessary for a
successful implementation of digital transformation?

○ If so, why?

● Do you think the organization needs to educate employees in digital changes?

○ How does the organization/decision-makers ensure that employees

can adopt new digital technologies and processes?

● What is required of leaders to manage the transition of employees to new roles

and areas of responsibility as a result of digital transformation?

● What support do you consider important in balancing work and private life?

69
● How do you assess the impact of digital transformation on your team and the
way you work together? (For example, the aspect of working from home)

● Can digital transformation impact an inclusive and equal workplace?

● How do you think the organization should align digital transformation with its
overall goals and strategies?

○ Do you have any idea of what a digital cardboard plant would look like?

● How do you work towards continuous improvements?

● How are the changes documented and followed?

● How do you measure the success of digital transformation?

● How do you maintain changes that have been implemented?

○ Do you have any examples of previous implementations to share?

● Do you have any concrete examples of when you were affected by a change?
It could be any form of change, small or large.

○ How did you perceive it?

○ Was it communicated in an appropriate way?

○ Did you receive all the knowledge and guidance required for an
effective transition to the new work methods?

○ Is there anything that could have been done differently?

70