Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Organizational roles in the context of digital transformation: A

micro-level perspective
Alessia Zoppelletto a, Ludovico Bullini Orlandi b, Alessandro Zardini c, Cecilia Rossignoli c,
Sascha Kraus d, e, *
a
University of Trento, Department of Economics and Management, Trento, Italy
b
University of Bologna, Department of Management, Bologna, Italy
c
University of Verona, Department of Business Administration, Verona, Italy
d
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Faculty of Business & Economics, Bolzano, Italy
e
University of Johannesburg, Department of Business Management, Johannesburg, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Digital transformation (DT) at the micro level implies organizational changes in roles, individual skills, lead­
Digital transformation ership styles, and managerial approaches. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the individual attitudes and
Individual behaviors that lead to DT in organizations. Thus, we investigated DT at the micro level to explain the individuals
Micro level
who manage DT. For this, we developed a multiple-case study of 38 Italian firms by analyzing data regarding
Managerial approaches
Chief digital officer
seven large firms and 31 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to allow for cross-case analysis. Our findings
SMEs suggest that approaches differ for managers in SMEs and large firms. In large firms, a “digital transformation
Large firms conductor” (often called “chief digital officer”) oversees DT processes, whereas in SMEs, there is a “digital
transformation peer-tutor” approach to DT. A bottom-up, informal, persuasive, and empathic approach char­
acterizes the peer tutor. However, in large firms, a conductor approach is used to drive the necessary changes.

1. Introduction addition, more recent studies have focused on a micro-level analysis of

In recent years, the concept of digital transformation (DT) has
become central to the management and information system debate
(Song et al., 2022; Vial, 2019). DT has been defined as “changes in ways
of working, roles, and business offering caused by the adoption of digital
technologies in an organization, or in the operation environment of the
organization” (Parviainen et al., 2017, p. 64). Indeed, DT can lead to
profound changes in organizational operations, products, processes, and
business models, which also require a change in organizational culture,
leadership, mindsets, attitudes toward risks, and the propensity to
accept ambiguity and constant change (Kane et al., 2015; Kraus et al.,
2022).
The academic literature on DT has been increasing and has focused
on various research issues, such as providing a uniform and widely
accepted theoretical definition of DT (Vial, 2019), investigating the
ways in which DT changes firms’ business models (Bouncken, Kraus,
et al., 2021; Bouncken, Qiu, et al., 2021; Endres et al., 2022; Ghezzi &
Cavallo, 2020; Trischler & Li-Ying, 2022), or identifying organizational
strategies to manage DT (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Fischer et al., 2020). In
DT to better understand the individuals (or key agents) who oversee DT
strategy in organizations (Ferraris et al., 2022; Kraus, Jones, et al., 2021;
Porfírio et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2020).
In regard to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), a paucity of
studies has investigated the ways that individuals deal with DT at the
micro level (Scuotto et al., 2021), whereas most of the micro-level
studies have analyzed the context of large firms (e.g., Berman et al.,
2020; Haffke et al., 2016; Horlacher & Hess, 2016; Singh & Hess, 2017a;
Singh et al., 2020). Indeed, studying large and small firms can lead to a
more structured understanding of DT (Fischer et al., 2020) because these
firms undertake DTs that use entirely different sets of resources and
organizational approaches (Fischer et al., 2020; L. Li et al., 2018) and
exhibit varying levels of technology acceptance (Camilleri, 2019; Mar­
oufkhani et al., 2020) and digital maturity (Fletcher & Griffiths, 2020).
Studies on large firms have highlighted that these firms are facing DT
with sufficient and more structured capabilities, routines, and business
processes, compared with SMEs, which usually have a lower capabilities
and resources base (Li et al., 2018, p. 1130; Madrid-Guijarro et al.,
2021).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sascha.kraus@zfke.de (S. Kraus).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113563
Received 15 February 2022; Received in revised form 7 December 2022; Accepted 14 December 2022
Available online 21 December 2022
0148-2963/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Zoppelletto et al.
However, the literature on SMEs’ DT at the micro level is still
emerging, and most of the existing contributions focus on the individual
digital capabilities of SMEs’ employees that are needed to effectively
harness DT (e.g., digital skills, e-skills training; Depaoli et al., 2020;
Lehner, 2018), which highlights that the ability of SMEs to innovate
depends on employees who have appropriate individual digital capa­
bilities (Scuotto et al., 2021). To contribute to the literature on the ways
that SMEs deal with their DT at the micro level, recent studies have
started to investigate the issue of who is managing the digital transition
(Franco et al., 2021; Kraus, Jones, et al., 2021), which characteristics are
needed for this role (Porfírio et al., 2021), and the ways that this indi­
vidual should be embedded in the organization to manage DT (W. Li
et al., 2016).
Therefore, despite the growing recognition of the importance of
studying the issues associated with DT in SMEs at the micro level of
analysis, there is still a lack of research that seeks to identify the in­
dividuals who initiate, support, and manage DT in SMEs. Therefore, by
employing the lens of different managerial approaches (e.g., Bianchi
et al., 2022; Gold, 1983; Vu & Tran, 2021), the present study aims to
address this gap by providing distinct contributions to the related
literature. First, the study contributes to the literature by analyzing the
individuals who oversee the management and the coordination of the DT
activities in SMEs to identify the managerial approaches that were
adopted.
Second, although some recent studies have been conducted on the
chief digital officer (CDO) role in large firms (Singh & Hess, 2017a;
Singh et al., 2020; Tumbas et al., 2017), the issue of who manages DT
has attracted limited research attention in the case of SMEs when
compared with large firms. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, no
studies have compared SMEs’ and large firms’ approaches to DT at the
micro level of analysis. Researchers have asserted the importance of
analyzing DT by comparing SMEs with large firms (Horváth & Szabó,
2019) and, in particular, that it is crucial to identify the individual
characteristics of the key figures who lead DTs.
Therefore, we developed the following research questions (RQs):
RQ 1: Who are the individuals who initiate, support, and manage DT
in SMEs?
RQ 2: What are the differences (if any) in the DT management ap­
proaches of SMEs compared with those of large firms?
To address the aforementioned research gaps, we developed a
multiple-case study approach to analyze data on 38 Italian enterprises.
By comparing 31 SMEs with seven large enterprises, our analysis shows
that even if it is not defined as a specific organizational role, in larger
businesses and in small firms, there is a key person (or a small group of
people) who is in charge of embracing the opportunity that is offered by
DT. We highlight two approaches to DT that are taken by the individuals
who are in charge of managing the DTs of these firms and many dif­
ferences were identified by analyzing these two approaches.
The findings of this study expand the understanding of DT at the
micro level and offer valuable insights for firms to identify the different
roles and position to properly manage DT. Moreover, the findings pro­
vide new theoretical insights about the ways that SMEs cope with DT
and, in particular, in regard to the person who is responsible for man­
aging and coordinating DT activities in SMEs.
2. Literature review
2.1. Brief overview of digital transformation literature on large firms and
SMEs
The academic literature on DT has increased consistently in the past
few decades, but a comprehensive, widely accepted definition of DT has
been lacking until recently. Vial (2019) study finally offered a clear,
non-redundant definition of DT that also explained how the concept
2
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
differs from the previous terms and concepts employed in the informa­
tion systems literature. His main idea is that DT is a holistic and
comprehensive concept (Evans & Price, 2020) that can be viewed as a
superset of digitalization, digitization, digital technology implementa­
tion, and digital capability development (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). Our
study relies on Vial (2019) definition of DT as “a process that aims to
improve an entity by triggering significant changes to its properties
through combinations of information, computing, communication, and
connectivity technologies” (p. 118), which highlights that DT is not
organization-centric and includes other entities, existing in the broader
“individual, organizational, and societal contexts” (Legner et al., 2017,
p. 301). Notably, Vial’s study was founded on the fundamental idea that
an organization’s DT always involves structural changes to not only its
technologies, business models, strategies, structures, and processes but
also its leadership and culture (Alos-Simo et al., 2017; Guy, 2019; Vial,
2019). Thus, it also helps understand the impact of DT at the micro level
and comprehension of the contributions of organizational actors to the
building and maintenance of DT at the individual, team, and division
levels (Durugbo, 2016).
To develop a more structured literature review and to define the
research gaps clearly (Kraus et al., 2020; Kraus, Mahto, et al., 2021), we
decided to frame all the collected literature on DT in a conceptual matrix
(see Fig. 1). One axis of this matrix displays the firms’ dimensions: large
organizations versus SMEs. The other axis represents the organizational
level of analysis: micro, meso, and macro. While the meso level refers to
the organizational level, the macro level refers to a broader, interfirm
network or ecosystem level (Durugbo, 2016).
At the macro level, the related literature has considered two main
issues. The first is the role of the ecosystem in supporting DT in SMEs and
in large firms. These studies found that SMEs usually do not have an
adequate level of resources and capabilities to implement DT (Li et al.,
2018) but can rely on the relational capital of entrepreneurs and on
integrating resources inside the ecosystem (Pelletier & Cloutier, 2019).
Second, large firms can benefit from an ecosystem perspective to in­
crease their awareness that DT involves all actors and relative in­
terdependencies within the ecosystem (Subramaniam et al., 2019). DT
at the macro level affects business networks because “the primary
impact of the use of the digital technology is to create new bonds be­
tween actors through a new actor taking a position in the network”
(Pagani & Pardo, 2017, p. 189). Simultaneously, business networks
could support SMEs in their DT because of the diffusion of new infor­
mation technology (IT) standards in the network and the consequent
cost reduction for new IT adoption (Kauffman et al., 2010).
In regard to the meso level of DT analysis, the matrix quadrant has
received the most research attention. Given that the present study’s aim
was not to explore this level, we introduced only a few examples from
this vast stream of literature. Studies at this level have mainly consid­
ered the structures (Snow et al., 2017), the culture (Guy, 2019), and the
strategies (Fischer et al., 2020) that can sustain the DT of organizations.
They have revealed that DT is a holistic concept that considers all the
organizational dimensions, such as business models, strategies, cultures,
processes, and capabilities (Vial, 2019) and that DT often causes, but
simultaneously requires, organizational changes in SMEs (Garzoni et al.,
2020) and in large firms (Fischer et al., 2020).
Lastly, DT can be viewed through a micro-level approach in terms of
individuals’ skills and role changes (Vial, 2019) because DT requires
them to develop new skills (Colbert et al., 2016) and play new roles, as is
suggested in the literature on the CDO role (Singh & Hess, 2017a; Singh
et al., 2020). Indeed, large firms have the organizational structure,
culture, and necessary resources to rely on a new executive role that can
initiate, support, and manage the process of DT, namely, that of the CDO
(Singh & Hess, 2017a). However, in the context of SMEs, there is still
limited literature about the executive role that leads DT (Papagiannidis
et al., 2020).
A. Zoppelletto et al.
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework and research gap.
2.2. Organizational role that leads digital transformation in large firms
and in SMEs
Prior studies have investigated firm-level DT and have underlined
the importance of digital technologies as a crucial enabling factor of DT
(Hanna, 2016) and the leading role that is played by managers to direct
people and to foster DT (Goodwin, 2018).
Porfírio et al. (2021) demonstrated that management characteristics
are more prevalent in SMEs at the beginning of a DT process than those
in a firm. Indeed, organizational DT cannot be left to chance. The firm’s
governance mechanism needs to make an individual accountable for
managing its information assets (Evans & Price, 2020) because identi­
fying the individuals who lead organizations’ DT has become pivotal to
ensuring successful DT (Papagiannidis et al., 2020; Singh & Hess,
2017b).
The literature about the figures who deal with DT in large firms is
increasing and revolves around specific roles, such as IT manager, and
executive positions, such as chief information officer (CIO) and, more
recently, CDO (Papagiannidis et al., 2020; Singh & Hess, 2017b). The
CDO executive role differs from the CIO role, which is more focused on
technologies and information systems because of its focus on DT stra­
tegies and capability development (Haffke et al., 2016). Increasingly,
CIOs have been expected to extend their roles from pure technologists to
business strategists to embrace the opportunities of DT, which thereby
expands their responsibilities and tasks (Berman et al., 2020; Peppard
et al., 2011).
According to Singh and Hess (2017a), high levels of market pressure
to implement DT and the complexity of coordinating DT activities
triggered the creation of the CDO position. The CDO needs a specific set
of competencies (Singh & Hess, 2017a) and a specific hierarchy position
(Singh et al., 2020) to pursue the DT process in organizations; however,
all these issues can typically be addressed only in large and structured
firms.
Regarding SMEs, there is an insufficient amount of research about
the leadership roles that addresses DT (e.g., Franco et al., 2021; W. Li
et al., 2016). Fachrunnisa et al. (2020, p. 69) argued that successful DT
in SMEs results from “an agile leader who can guide his team and
continually influence the team behavior by defining, spreading, and
maintaining the organizational vision” toward DT. This is in line with
Porfírio et al. (2021), who stated that when SMEs begin their DT,
management characteristics are more relevant than firm characteristics.
In particular, a democratic leadership style, an efficient strategic man­
agement process, and coherent managers’ actions toward the firm’s
3
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
mission are characteristics that favor the development of DT processes.
In addition, Franco et al. (2021) analyzed the field of digital entre­
preneurs and described the changes in entrepreneurial practice because
of DT.
Moreover, some scholars (e.g., Berman & Korsten, 2014) have begun
to adopt the term “e-leader” to indicate managers who initiate a large
digitalization process in their organizations. Further, W. Li et al. (2016)
created a diagnostic model to enable decision-makers in SMEs to
implement effective e-leadership by successfully aligning business
strategy and digital technology and thus improving the enterprise’s
longevity and growth chances.
For approaching DT, SMEs’ leaders are expected to adopt a more
inclusive style of leadership (Schwarzmüller et al., 2018) by creating
favorable conditions for the development of their collaborators’ ideas
through bidirectional communication and interaction. Moreover, DT
requires leadership agility—meaning the individual capability to affect
people and to make a change—particularly in the workforce’s culture,
behavior, and mindset (Shaughnessy, 2018).
Except for the stated literature, there is a lack of research that
identifies (1) the individuals who initiate, support, and manage DT in
SMEs and (2) the differences (if any) between the approaches to DT of
those individuals and the people in charge of DT in large firms. This gap
led us to define the following propositions:
Proposition 1. Individuals who initiate, support, and manage DT in SMEs
have different profiles to those of similar individuals in large firms.
Proposition 2. The management approach of individuals who foster DT in
SMEs have different characteristics to those in large firms.
To fully grasp the details about the individuals that oversees DT in
SMEs and in large firms it is, first, necessary to compare the character­
istics and the skills of the individuals and the activities that they perform
to manage DT. The lens that provides the right level of freedom to
analyze the managerial competencies and activities jointly with their
respective connections to organizational-level phenomena is that of
managerial approaches. Prior studies have analyzed the managerial
approaches that connect managers’ competencies and activities to
higher-level organizational phenomena, such as technological innova­
tion (Gold, 1983), environmental sustainability (Bianchi et al., 2022),
and ethical morality (Vu & Tran, 2021).
In this study, we approach the organizational phenomena of DT by
using the same analytical lens and a grounded theory approach, as is
described in the next section.
A. Zoppelletto et al.
3. Methodology
To explore the ways that SMEs and large firms deal with DT, we
chose a multiple-case study design (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006)
that allows cross-case analysis and is less vulnerable to criticism about
the generalizability of the results. The case study is an exploratory
methodology that represents a suitable approach in contexts where there
is limited existing research (e.g., Ferraris, Erhardt, et al., 2019) because
it preserves the complexity and the richness of data, which makes it most
suitable for understanding the role and the practices that are related to
the figure that oversees DT.
We selected our sample in two steps. We searched for firms that (1)
engaged in DT activities and (2) adapted their roles to this strategic
change.
3.1. Data
We conducted semi-structured interviews with each firm’s digital-
enabling figures and collected field notes (see Table 1). During the in­
terviews, we posed open-ended questions to facilitate the exploration of
each interviewee’s managerial competencies and activities to elicit in­
formation about their DT approach. We interviewed at least two digital-
enabling figures from each firm. We supplemented our interviews with
secondary data, including public data about our selected interviewees,
such as internal job descriptions that were published on their firms’
official websites, their firms’ management reports, and press releases, to
triangulate our findings.
In terms of the empirical setting, we developed a multiple-case study
by including data on 38 Italian firm cases, which included seven large
firms and 31 SMEs (Table 2 provides an overview of our sample).
Large firms were used as the initial unit to develop a protocol for the
case studies because in large firms the organizational roles to support
and to manage DT are formalized and established (e.g., CDO, digital
strategist, IT manager, among others; Singh & Hess, 2017b). Indeed, to
identify SMEs’ relevant individuals and emerging roles among the
workers of the organization, we applied the same protocol to the SMEs in
our study. This process was employed to better understand the com­
monalities and the differences (between large firms and SMEs) in regard
to the specific characteristics of the actors and the relevant traits that
emerged during the analysis.
We applied the theoretical replication logic to select the cases, that
is, we chose firms that were varied sizes and from different industries
and which were (1) engaged in DT activities and (2) were adapting the
roles of the firm toward this strategic change.
We conducted interviews with at least two digital-enabling figures
for each firm that were developing specific DT projects (e.g., top exec­
utives, such as CDOs and CEOs, managers, such as IT managers and
quality managers, and employees that were involved in DT activities).
To properly understand the management dynamics, follow-up
Table 1
Collected data.
Collected data Number Note
Interviews 94 The interviews were conducted in 2019. Two
interviews were conducted for each firm with at
least two digital-enabling figures.
Notes from direct 153 We recorded each interview on audiotape for
observations pages reasons of transparency and traceability. Each
interview lasted between 60 and 130 min.
Several notes were taken during the interviews
and were transcribed verbatim after.
Internal documents 98 We reviewed available secondary data,
including public data about our selected
interviewees, management reports of their
firms, press releases, and firm-internal job
descriptions that were published on the official
websites of the firms.
4
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
interviews were conducted and, in some firms, we implemented more
than two interviews and interviewed other “team members” that worked
alongside the individuals who fostered DT in the firm.
All the interviews lasted between 60 and 130 min. After each
interview was transcribed, we used memos to elaborate on the processes
by collecting ideas and experiences and by making comparisons
(Urquhart, 2013).
3.2. Data analysis
We employed grounded theory approach and used various tech­
niques to analyze concepts and to build a theory that used qualitative
data collection (Bouncken, Kraus, et al., 2021; Bouncken, Qiu, et al.,
2021; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). We pursued grounded theory principles
by collecting and analyzing data iteratively to reach a point of theo­
retical saturation, in line with Strauss and Corbin (1990) recommen­
dations, which build on three coding phases: open, axial, and selective.
Primarily, during analysis, we highlighted and coded each tran­
scribed interview (Yin, 2015). We used open coding and carefully
examined the transcripts to understand the data until the research team
agreed on the key categories that had emerged from the empirical ma­
terial (Charmaz, 2005; Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2015). First, each
researcher analyzed the data independently and thereafter compared
results to achieve a consensus.
Second, we used sensitized theory-driven coding to identify the axial
codes. We evaluated the categories by organizing similar themes into
homogeneous groups (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Then, to create higher-
level categories, we analyzed these categories through the lenses of
available frameworks (Singh & Hess, 2017b; Vial, 2019) by highlighting
the specific aspects about firms that adapt firm roles to DT. By doing so,
we proceeded in raising the abstraction by linking the identified cate­
gories and by relating them to the existing literature until we achieved
data saturation and determined the axial codes (Urquhart, 2013).
Eventually, moving incrementally to a higher level of coding (Yin,
2015), we defined two selective codes, namely, DT conductor and DT
peer tutor.
4. Results
In this study, we explain the methods by which digital issues are
managed in small firms in which DT management roles have not yet
been appointed and digital leadership has not yet been defined.
Next, we present our findings by analyzing the DT role and its
management style to distinguish between SMEs’ approach to DT man­
agement and that of large firms.
In Section 4.1, we identify the individuals who initiate, support, and
manage DT inside SMEs and large firms. In Section 4.2, we explore the
individual characteristics and the management approaches to DT in
SMEs. Subsequently, in Section 4.3, we explain the styles that are
adopted by the CDOs of larger firms and their DT approaches.
4.1. Individuals who initiate, support, and manage DT inside SMEs and
large firms
For large firms, the recent literature on CDOs underlines the ways
that digital-leading figures help their organizations to create business
value by exploiting the potential of digital technologies (Horlacher &
Hess, 2016; Tumbas et al., 2017). Indeed, as technological innovation
increases organizational change and adaptation, it also redefines exist­
ing roles that promote digital transitions (Carayannis et al., 2017).
These digital-enabling roles were observed in all the selected cases
and are characterized by promoting the need and the benefits of DT.
For large firms, our findings highlight that in most cases a specific
person is appointed to lead DT, even though in our sample the CDO
position was not diffused. As is highlighted in Table 2, CDOs, digital
strategists and IT managers together with IT managers and, in one case,
A. Zoppelletto et al. Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563

Table 2
Sample overview.
Case Dimension Industry (ILO Spokesperson for Role Gender Year Education Team members Annual Employees
classification) DT of turnover
birth (Euros)

1 Large Food IT manager CDO M 1971 Master of Computer Team elaboration 235,000,000 279
Science of programmed
data: Four IT
specialists and IT
manager
2 Large Food IT manager IT manager M 1979 Master of Computer IT manager, three 227,000,000 437
Science IT specialists &
external consultant
3 Large Food Digital strategist Digital F 1982 Media and Digital 220,000,000 331
strategist Communication management
Degree and Master department: digital
of strategist and team
Business Data leaders for each
Analytics department
4 Large Food IT manager and IT manager/ M 1977 Master of Computer IT manager/head of 165,000,000 76
head of Science administration and
administration head of external
administration consultants
5 Large Packaging IT manager IT manager M 1984 Master of Computer General manager 94,000,000 227
Science and IT manager
6 Large Food General manager General M 1982 Master of Economics General manager 87,000,000 65
manager and external
consultant
7 Large Food IT manager IT manager M 1975 Master of Computer IT manager and 58,000,000 310
Science external consultant
8 Medium Commerce Employee Project M 1982 Economics Degree Project manager, 65,000,000 130
manager and Master of shareholder, and IT
General manager
/controller Management
9 Small Commerce Employee Quality M 1963 High School Quality manager 20,000,000 20
manager Diploma of
Accounting
10 Small Commerce Employee Controller M 1989 International Controller, IT 12,000,000 37
Economics Degree external consultant
and Master of and shareholder
Finance and Control
11 Small Agriculture Employee Production M 1980 Master of Production 10,000,000 21
technician Agricultural Science technician, IT
and PhD in external consultant
Agricultural Science and shareholder
12 Small Leather, Employee Accountant M 1990 Economics and Accountant 9,800,000 26
footwear (entrepreneur’s Business Degree
successor)
13 Small Commerce Shareholder Accountant F 1969 Master of Business Accountant/ 6,000,000 14
Administration and shareholder
Corporate Law, and
Business Consultant
14 Micro Food Shareholder Quality M 1970 High School Quality manager 5,000,000 7
manager Diploma from the
Industrial Technical
Institute
15 Small Commerce Shareholder Quality M 1993 Master of Quality manager/ 4,296,600 13
(entrepreneur’s manager Environmental shareholder
successor) Control Engineering
16 Micro Services Shareholder IT manager M 1970 Master of Computer IT manager/ 3,900,000 8
Science shareholder and
sales account
executive/

shareholder
17 Small Commerce Shareholder Accountant F 1990 High School Accountant/ 3,000,000 11
(entrepreneur’s Diploma of shareholder
successor) Accounting
18 Micro Commerce Shareholder Sales account M 1977 Master of Industrial Sales account 2,600,000 5
executive Engineering executive/
shareholder
19 Small Services Employee Accountant M 1977 High School Accountant 2,043,371 46
Diploma of
Accounting
20 Micro Graphical Shareholder IT manager M 1966 High School IT manager/ 2,000,000 11
Diploma of shareholder and
sales account
(continued on next page)

5
A. Zoppelletto et al. Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563

Table 2 (continued )
Case Dimension Industry (ILO Spokesperson for Role Gender Year Education Team members Annual Employees
classification) DT of turnover
birth (Euros)

Industrial executive/
Informatics shareholder
21 Micro Services Shareholder Sales account M 1973 High School Sales account 1,800,000 19
executive Diploma from the executive/
Industrial Technical shareholder
Institute
22 Micro Construction Shareholder Sales account M 1990 Master of Political Sales account 1,800,000 16
(entrepreneur’s executive Science executive/
successor) shareholder
23 Micro Mechanical Employee Sales account M 1988 Master of Business Sales account 1,457,078 8
engineering executive Administration and executive
sector Corporate Law
24 Micro Mechanical Shareholder Production M 1980 High School Production 1,000,000 1
engineering (entrepreneur’s technician Diploma from the technician/
sector successor) Industrial Technical shareholder
Institute
25 Micro Agriculture Employee Production M 1984 Agricultural Science Production 1,000,000 5
technician Degree technician
26 Micro Mechanical Shareholder Production M 1981 High School Production 930,000 9
engineering technician Diploma from the technician/
sector Industrial Technical shareholder
Institute
27 Micro Services Shareholder Sales account M 1986 Master of Industrial Sales account 700,000 7
(entrepreneur’s executive Engineering executive/
successor) shareholder
28 Micro Mechanical Shareholder IT manager M 1984 High School IT manager/ 600,000 4
engineering Diploma from the shareholder
sector Industrial Technical
Institute
29 Micro Services Shareholder Accountant M 1965 High School Accountant/ 550,000 5
Diploma of shareholder
Accounting and
Master of Law
30 Micro Food Shareholder Sales account M 1980 Environmental Sales account 550,000 15
executive Control Engineering executive/
Degree shareholder,
production
technician/

shareholder and
marketing
manager/
shareholder
31 Micro Food Shareholder Production M 1975 Master of Business Production 500,000 10
(entrepreneur’s technician Administration technician/
successor) shareholder
32 Micro Electrical Shareholder IT manager M 1982 High School IT manager 500,000 5
engineering Diploma from the
sector Industrial Technical
Institute
33 Micro Commerce Shareholder Accountant F 1984 High School Accountant/ 433,000 3
(entrepreneur’s Diploma of shareholder
successor) Accounting
34 Micro Transport Shareholder Production M 1981 High School Production 141,000 3
(entrepreneur’s technician Diploma from the technician/
successor) Industrial Technical shareholder
Institute
35 Micro Services Shareholder Sales account M 1975 Master of Law Sales account 100,000 4
executive executive/
shareholder
36 Micro Services Shareholder Sales account M 1973 Master of Law and Sales account 100,000 2
executive Lawyer executive/
shareholder
37 Micro Services Shareholder IT manager M 1981 Master of Business IT manager/ 34,000 5
Administration and shareholder and
Corporate Law, and controller/
Business Consultant shareholder
38 Micro Agriculture Employee Production M 1982 Agricultural Science Production 30,000 6
technician Degree technician

6
A. Zoppelletto et al.
the general manager deal with DT in large firms.
For SMEs, our findings highlight that even if a specific business po­
sition has not yet been defined (as can happen in large firms), in all the
analyzed cases, an individual (or a small group of people) is in charge of
understanding digitalization and of embracing the opportunities that are
offered by the digital revolution.
In this regard, Table 2 shows that in our sample of SMEs, the DT
spokesperson is usually a shareholder (manager or owner). In almost all
the cases, this figure is a male, is aged between 30 and 50 years, and has
a high level of education. In many cases, the individual has a varied
educational background and does not have a specific degree in computer
science, unlike those in large firms. In fact, the interviews revealed that
these figures developed specific IT competencies and skills that were
recognized by other workers, which legitimized them to hold the DT
leader role in the SME.
Interestingly, in one-third of the observed cases, this role was held by
the firm’s key employees, who worked in very different departments
(from quality manager to an IT position, and from production techni­
cians to controllers). Therefore, these “DT leaders” (or spokespeople for
DT) adopted a bottom-up approach in SMEs because they belonged to
different hierarchical levels and did not hold a new, managerial,
recognized position.
Furthermore, these informal spokespeople for DT did not always act
alone but also in small teams that comprised 2–3 members, as one
interviewee explained:
I’m trying to extend the digital culture to 4–5 employees within the
firm to make sure that they support me in the digital transition.
(Production technician, SME 11).
Moreover, in most of the observed cases, the entrepreneur (or at least
one of the shareholders) was also a DT team member. In almost one-
third of the observed cases (nine cases out of 31), the spokesperson
was the entrepreneur’s successors. This aspect underlines the strategic
importance of a DT project for a firm.
4.2. Peer-tutor approach to digital transformation in SMEs
DT should not be considered an isolated process because it represents
a whole-firm transformation that affects all the internal and external
organizational variables (Gobble, 2018; Horlacher & Hess, 2016; Vial,
2019). Nevertheless, in terms of strategic responses to DT, the DT
leaders of the SMEs in this study highlighted some difficulties in
conceiving DT holistically and in adopting a global digital strategy
(Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Coakes et al., 2010; Matt et al., 2015). In regard
to this, a quality manager commented:
In our firm, there isn’t a defined digital strategy. Our main idea is to
update our digital system and to implement the CRM. (Quality
manager, SME 9).
Indeed, DT projects are usually supervised by key organizational
figures, who are considered a kind of specialist in digitalization. In these
firms, digital leaders still view DT as a single project that is to be
developed and thus adopt a project-oriented management approach
toward it. The tendency is to have a limited view of the DT’s effects
inside and outside the organization, which therefore restricts the po­
tential of the impact. For instance, as one study participant explained:
While many tend to describe the DT as a path, for me it is more a
specific project, the ERP [Enterprise Resource Planning] project.
(Project manager, SME 8).
This view of DT implies that SME digital leaders are aware of the
digital maturity level of only specific aspects or areas of the organiza­
tion, which contributes to the limiting of their DT approach.
According to Porfírio et al. (2021), “there are some management
characteristics that facilitate the development of DT or make it difficult”
(p. 616). In the observed SMEs, DT leaders facilitated DT development
7
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
by adopting an informal leadership approach. During our interviews, it
emerged that DT leaders defined themselves as people who provided
informal coordination for their firm’s DT activities. For example:
Inside the firm, there isn’t a specific figure in charge to address the
topic of digitalization and to whom formally recognized digital tasks
are given. Every-one knows that I’m always here if there is any
digital-related issue. I help others to accelerate the adoption of dig­
ital tools in the organization. (Accountant, SME 12).
Moreover, to accelerate DT adoption, these leaders worked as
informal coordinators between the firm’s functional units to increase
cross-functional cooperation toward DT, as one participant stated:
When we speak about digital issues, I cover the role of a link between
the various business functional units; therefore, I have the chance to
observe and evaluate the points of contact between the units and to
help people working and cooperating to develop the DT project. (IT
manager, SME 28).
In addition, the informal leadership approach promotes activities to
redesign and to redistribute workers’ tasks because of DT, as was
affirmed by a technician:
I attend workshops offered by the Chamber of Commerce to deepen
the issues related to digitization. I’m an entrepreneur; therefore, I
care about DT in my organization. If there is any criticality or pos­
sibility of improvement, I suggest modifying the activities and roles
or implementing digital tools. Of course, I try to collaborate with my
employees to find a role that better fits every-one’s capabilities.
(Production technician, SME 31).
The interviewees highlighted that although new roles to manage DT
in SMEs had not yet been formalized, the redistribution of activities and
tasks to encourage digitalization paths inside organizations had been
performed. As was highlighted by these DT spokespeople, they also
negotiated role redefinition:
Digital transformation also impacts on structure and roles. More than
anything, we try to transfer some activities from one employee to
another, from one department to another in a branch, reorganizing
the activities according to the simplifications allowed by digitaliza­
tion. However, the basic structure remains the same. (Project man­
ager, SME 8).
Digital tools today are very important and upskilling is the key. I try
to speak with other employees to negotiate with them on the adop­
tion of digital tools. A new task to do is not welcomed because it
implies a new responsibility, a new role. But I bet on the possibility to
improve the work of everybody with the adoption of digital tools. (IT
manager, SME 16).
Referring to DT, Shaughnessy (2018) highlighted that leaders should
encourage people to accept change, in particular, in regard to the
workforce’s culture, behavior, and mindset. Similarly, the spokespeople
for DT that we interviewed highlighted a persuasive and engaging
management approach toward DT because they recognized the impor­
tance of inspiring and convincing people in the organization and making
them enthusiastic about digital issues. For example, a manager of a small
firm stated:
I’m the so-called digital evangelist. I come from the IT sector (and
now I’m one of the two shareholders of this firm) and I want to bring
digitalization into the firm, into all the related processes. Digital
allows you to automate processes and do more things at the same
time. I always try to spread exciting information regarding DT and
the opportunity that can offer. (IT manager, SME 16).
Given that DT leaders try to foster DT projects in SMEs, they also try
to reduce the resistance to DT and the silo mentality, as one interviewee
explained:
A. Zoppelletto et al.
I’m the only one in charge of programming. I would like to move
forward, focus on digital and push the firm. It is very difficult since
the workforce is resistant to change from this point of view. They are
artisans and prefer the business as usual. (IT manager, SME 23).
Moreover, they enable and encourage the workforce’s cultural shift
toward DT, try to build a digital mindset among the workforce, and lay
the basis for a digital culture shift. Our interviews highlighted that these
DT-enabling figures focused on being supportive (not judgmental) and
facilitated the personal and professional development of the workforce.
As two interviewees commented:
We are trying to move toward a digital improvement of the firm and,
especially, of the people working there. The serious difficulty is to
make these improvements understood. The change is always seen as
a risky situation. It forces you to go from a position of “rest” to a
situation of activity. We’re finding it difficult to bring the whole
structure with us to face these small changes. However, we put a lot
of effort in trying to enable people to understand DT value. (Quality
manager, SME 9).
I’m trying to extend the digital culture to 4–5 employees within the
firm to make sure that they support me in the digital transition. I
prefer to start with them and then enlarge the group. This transition
has to start smoothly and be perceived in the right way. (Production
technician, SME 11).
In small firms, the digital alphabetization initiatives are still not
widespread and the specialists in digitalization possess most of the firm’s
digital skills (acting as the internal digital adviser). Indeed, the same
production technician of SME 11 asserted:
In this firm, digital know-how is stocked in some departments. If I left
the firm, no one would go ahead with the digitalization project.
From the interviews with the spokespeople for DT, their attempts to
develop an empathic management approach to the development of DT
also emerged. That is, in the absence of standardized digital training
procedures, SMEs’ DT leaders attempted to sensitize the other workers
to the adoption of new digital-oriented behaviors:
Of course, I try to collaborate with my employees to find a role that
better fits every-one’s capabilities. When we implement new tech­
nology, I always try to provide support for learning new skills,
listening to input and feedback and their concerns about new digital
tools. (Production technician, SME 31).
In addition, digital alphabetization and a digital culture shift toward
DT require specific interpersonal skills of the digital leader to enable
people’s capacities. As a controller stated:
To promote adopting new digital skills in the organization, I always
try to use my relational skills to empathize with people and allow a
smooth digital transition. (Controller, SME 10).
Given that DT leaders have legitimacy from their organizations for
their activities, these study participants acted as digital entrepreneurs by
seeking opportunities from DT and support firms in governing trans­
formations that arose from the integration of digital technologies,
which, in some cases, led to a business model redefinition (Bharadwaj
et al., 2013; Matt et al., 2015). As a manager stated:
We decided to change our business model to follow DT and to go
toward the customer…Ours is a new business model that is born
thanks to a web-based technology. (IT manager and shareholder,
SME 37).
These digital leaders highlight an entrepreneurial approach to DT
management because their activities are characterized by the scarcity of
economic resources that are devoted to developing DT (Li et al., 2018).
Therefore, digital project development often does not follow the firm’s
real digital needs but is linked with the discovery of external resources,
8
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
such as public calls for digital projects, tax advantages, or incentives that
relate to digital themes (Pelletier & Cloutier, 2019). Indeed, some par­
ticipants commented:
In this firm, we are continuously hunting for incentives, particularly
to invest in digital. (IT manager, SME 28).
To buy technologically advanced equipment, we benefit from In­
dustry 4.0 tax incentives, otherwise it would be impossible to afford
such an investment. (Sales account executive, SME 22).
4.3. Conductor approach to digital transformation in large firms
The DT leaders of large enterprises highlighted a holistic approach to
DT management, which was underlined by a firm-wide digital (trans­
formation) strategy that was consistent with their level of digital
maturity (Evans & Price, 2020). Such a strategy goes beyond functional
thinking and holistically addresses the opportunities that originate from
digital technologies (Singh & Hess, 2017b; Vial, 2019). From the in­
terviews with DT leaders of large firms, it emerged that there was a
shared long-term DT strategy at the management level. As one partici­
pant commented:
In the firm, the specific field of digitalization is not IT management.
Digitization is first and foremost a long-term strategic choice and
therefore its main focus is on the general management and the firm
owners. (IT manager, Large Firm 5).
Furthermore, DT is considered a whole-firm transformation, as was
expressed by the digital strategist of the same firm:
Digitization is not a whim of IT, but it has a general involvement. It
must be wanted by the general director and must be shared by all.
The objectives must be clear, digital tools must be simple to use and
must be within every-one’s reach, and every-one must bring their
own contribution. (IT manager, Large Firm 5).
From the interviews with the DT leaders, it also emerged that there
was organization-wide digital maturity awareness:
With the arrival of digital strategists, digital moved away from a
purely marketing theme to a broader discourse at the corporate level.
We started by understanding how we were positioned from the point
of view of digital maturity. Therefore, we assess the digital maturity
level of each department. (Digital strategist, Large Firm 3).
Moreover, the DT leader holds the important role of planning and
coordinating DT issues; therefore, an orchestrating approach in the
management of DT emerged from the interviews. A DT leader supported
the DT strategy definition at the executive level:
We’ve been doing 4.0 since the new management arrived, especially
since the ownership changed. One of the pillars of the new firm
owner is that the firm should adopt an advanced management system
and therefore we adopted SAP. My role is to support this strategy and
to support the shareholders in the definition of every single step for
the implementation. (IT manager, Large Firm 5).
In these organizations, the DT leadership is also characterized by
autonomy in decisions and a decentralized decision-making process in
regard to DT issues. Further, the implementation of a digital strategy in
large organizations has been promoted by the creation of new leadership
roles that foster DT (e.g., digital strategists and CDOs), as has been
underlined by practitioners (Fitzgerald et al., 2013) and academics
(Horlacher & Hess, 2016; Singh & Hess, 2017b; Tahvanainen & Luoma,
2018).
Indeed, the interviews that we conducted suggest the presence of
these formalized organizational roles that foster digital change:
We have hired a figure for a new role: the digital strategist that will
take the digital approach on all business processes starting from a
A. Zoppelletto et al.
mapping of the level of digitalization of people within the firm.
(Digital strategist, Large Firm 3).
Moreover, the orchestrator role of the DT leader emerged from the
fact that this figure contributes to the diffusion of the DT strategy from
the division level to the individual worker level, as was highlighted by
one interviewee:
A very important aspect is the involvement of people. Workers
within the firm need to understand exactly why a certain investment
in digitization is being made, and they need to be prepared in every
way to deal with it because then digitization needs to be controlled
by people. It’s not a self-feeding system that runs on its own. My
objective is to apply the DT strategy and make it comprehensible to
all. (IT manager, Large Firm 7).
As was observed empirically (see Table 2), large firms have adapted
the roles of their governance architects to manage their DT because
these experts are often included in and supported by corporate de­
partments. The organizing logics require more coordination between
organizational executives; therefore, these key figures also have a formal
role in improving cross-unit collaboration (Singh & Hess, 2017b).
Eventually, these specialized experts facilitate organizational coor­
dination (Singh & Hess, 2017b) and adaptation because DT activities
need an adequate organizational design to support the pursuit of DT
activities (Singh et al., 2020). Indeed, orchestrating also means the
design of efficient strategic planning of DT activities:
Inside our new digital management department, we put at least one
person (named “champion”) for each department we want to digi­
talize. For example, if the marketing process is the one more
impacted by digitalization, we need at least one senior manager from
the marketing department to be the “insider” and then a team leader
who creates the strategy and gains trust to implement it inside the
department. (Digital strategist, Large Firm 3).
Furthermore, DT leaders in large firms are characterized by an
advocacy approach to DT competencies training. In fact, they act to
strengthen workers’ digital mindset and motivation:
We’ve been digital since a long time, so we have this mindset to
update and evolve. Digital helps you. It’s like your library and all the
data you have allow you to do statistics. Besides, without verbal
communication, just with data, it’s hard to keep things going. And
then it’s very important to educate people. (CDO, Large Firm 1).
They also promote innovative forms of e-skills training, such as peer-
to-peer digital training at each level and e-skills training before and after
the development of a digital project and the creation of digital acade­
mies. As was explained by the CDO of firm 1, who has confidence in
peer-to-peer approaches to digital learning:
Digital works if people are properly trained, which is why the firm
has put a lot of time into training. At each level, training was carried
out over several days. At first, the training was done for the IT
managers by the firm that installed SAP. Then, we trained the
managers of the various departments with the assistance of the
external firm and finally, the various managers trained their col­
laborators. The training lasted for a long time. It was very tiring and
very elaborate but important, basic. Every-two to three years there
are system updates. Now, after 10 years, we can say that we feel well
aligned, at 95 %. (CDO, Large Firm 1).
Moreover, the interviews highlighted the importance of skills
training for individuals because DT increasingly requires individuals to
perform new tasks (Colbert et al., 2016). The DT leaders of the large
firms promoted structured and progressive e-skills training, which was
developed through innovative forms of digital alphabetization, such as
internal academies:
9
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
We have a digital academy that deals with issues related to the world
of digital marketing. In this academy, the tools that are available for
digital marketing are offered through workshops held by guests who
are experts in the field and these workshops target our employees by
also bringing experiences of other realities. We do this once every-
three to four months. (Digital strategist, Large Firm 3).
Therefore, this figure, because of an advocacy approach to DT
competencies training, promotes a digital culture and mindset at all
organizational levels: top management, executive, departmental, and
workforce. Indeed, an IT manager commented:
The most important issue before going to invest in digitalization is
training. This means both ex ante and ex post preparation at any level
because one of its fundamental assumptions is that the goal of digi­
tization has to be shared. The broadest possible the sharing of a goal,
the more it brings motivation. (IT manager, Large Firm 5).
All these activities are difficult to implement without considerable
investments in DT activities. In this regard, DT leaders showed a careful
approach to DT issues, combining specific investments with business
needs. As was stated by the IT manager of Large Firm 2, these in­
vestments must focus on and match corporate needs:
Before investing in digital, you must surely understand what is worth
digitizing, identifying what can bring advantages and disadvantages
and what can serve the firm. You have to analyze process by process
and understand where to put forms of digitalization, trying to make
life easier for people and also thinking about their digital training.
As was underlined by the interviewee, currently, larger-sized enter­
prises invest in firm-wide tailored digital projects, assess internal needs,
and train internal teams for their implementation. Moreover, tailoring
digital projects means avoiding “the more, the better” approach to
digital investments, as was explained by the CDO of Large Firm 1:
We only exploit our SAP system in part because otherwise we would
have too much data and we would not be able to manage it. It is
essential for us to have only the necessary data. It is true that the
more data you have, the more efficient and effective decisions you
may make, but you also need to have a focus on the data you want to
analyze. For us, digitization is important also because we see it as a
source of data.
A parsimonious approach to DT is reliant on tailored digital systems,
as was explained by the IT manager of Large Firm 7:
We need to create digitalized systems tailored to the firm. We need to
match the investment in digitalization to the needs of the firm.
5. Discussion
5.1. Summary of findings
DT has increased organizational change and adaptation in large en­
terprises and in SMEs, especially by redefining the existing organiza­
tional roles. By analyzing 38 case studies, we developed a data structure
(Figs. 2 and 3)—according to the Gioia and Thomas (1996) method­
—that visualizes the ways by which coding levels were connected during
the data analysis.
Indeed, Proposition 1 was confirmed because two profiles emerged
at the end of the analytical process. The DT conductor and the DT peer
tutor are profiles that identify the two managerial approaches to DT,
emerging from the two selective codes of the digital-enabling figures in
large enterprises and in SMEs. The selective codes emerged through the
analysis of the axial codes (sensitized by the literature) that connected
all the open codes that represented the general content of the statements
of the interviewees. The axial codes related to the two profiles and
identified the typical characteristics of each management approach,
which appeared to differ significantly and thus Proposition 2 was also
A. Zoppelletto et al.
Fig. 2. Data structure: DT peer-tutor approach.
confirmed.
5.1.1. Peer-tutor approach: SMEs
The first selective code relates to the peer-tutor approach to DT
(Fig. 2).
In terms of strategic responses to DT, the interviews highlighted that
SMEs’ DT leaders tended to conceive DT as a single project and hence
lacked a holistic view of the phenomenon.
These leaders were key organizational figures who managed the DT.
They had different roles, came from a wide range of hierarchical levels,
and usually worked alone or in small teams.
These spokespeople for DT acted as a project-oriented “peer tutor”
because (1) they used an informal leadership style, (2) they inspired and
convinced peers and individuals below and above their hierarchical
level about DT by trying to reduce the widespread resistance to DT and
10
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
the silo mentality and promote a digital culture, and (3) they acted as
digital entrepreneurs to collect the necessary resources.
Furthermore, this managerial approach is characterized by the
bottom-up perspective that these figures adopted when working as
informal coordinators between the firms’ departments.
Even without a formalized role, they have legitimacy (from man­
agers and from colleagues) to foster activities and to redesign and to
redistribute workers’ tasks. Moreover, the interviews revealed that these
actors held most of the firms’ digital competencies because the attempts
toward digital alphabetization that were promoted in the observed SMEs
were still limited.
Further, the peer-tutor approach to DT was identified by these key
figures’ attempts to seek opportunities from DT by acting as digital en­
trepreneurs, by fostering the firms’ responsiveness to the market, and by
promoting their key business partners’ digital innovations.
A. Zoppelletto et al.
Fig. 3. Data structure: DT conductor approach.
Ultimately, the peer-tutor approach to DT is marked by financial
constraints that affect the DT activities; therefore, this approach is often
fragmented and not tailored to the specific needs of firms. Indeed, SMEs’
digital investments seem to be strongly linked to the availability of
external opportunities and resources, such as public calls for digital
projects, tax advantages, and incentives that related to digital themes.
5.1.2. Conductor approach: Large firms
The second selective code relates to the conductor approach to DT
(Fig. 3). The observed cases portrayed a more holistic and comprehen­
sive approach to DT management, which was underlined by a shared
long-term DT strategy at the management level, a view of DT as a whole-
firm transformation, and an organization-wide digital maturity
awareness.
Further, the conductor approach to DT was marked by the formal­
ization of new roles (e.g., the CDO and digital strategist roles), which, in
turn, required more coordination between organizational executives.
11
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
This second approach also revealed the importance of DT leaders as
orchestrators. These figures supported DT strategy definition at the ex­
ecutive level and had autonomous and decentralized decision-making
processes for DT issues.
Moreover, they were able to diffuse the DT strategy from the division
level to the individual worker level, which thus embraced all organi­
zational levels—the top management, the executive, the departmental,
and the workforce—and ultimately guaranteed efficient strategic
planning.
Their advocacy approach to DT competencies training proved to be,
as is underlined by the literature, a fundamental aspect for developing a
digital culture shift. The DT leaders strengthened workers’ digital
mindset and motivation, promoted innovative forms of e-skills training,
and encouraged a digital culture shift at all organizational levels. In
addition to highlighting this approach, the interviews identified the
importance of new tasks; therefore, the necessary e-skills training was
conducted in an innovative form (e.g., internal academies) and an
A. Zoppelletto et al.
intradepartmental peer-to-peer approach to digital learning was often
promoted.
Furthermore, the conductor approach to DT was marked by a
parsimonious orientation toward DT investments in an attempt to invest
resources in line with business needs. Large-scale tailored digital pro­
jects require focused digital investments, a specific assessment of in­
ternal needs and economic resources, internal teams for advocating DT,
and external consultants’ support (in particular, for more difficult
challenges).
6. Conclusion
Our study contributes to a better understanding of the DTs of firms at
the micro level of analysis by comparing DT leaders’ management ap­
proaches in SMEs and large firms, which underlines the need to inves­
tigate the attitudes and behaviors of the individual who leads the DT in
these enterprises. Our findings highlight that in SMEs it is not only en­
trepreneurs or managers that foster DT. Indeed, other employees can fill
this emerging role and become a DT peer tutor. Even if it is not defined
as a specific organizational role, in larger-sized companies and in small
firms there is a key person (or a small group of people) who is in charge
of understanding digitalization and embracing the opportunities that are
offered by the digital revolution.
In addition to this, we identified many differences between the ap­
proaches to DT by firms of different sizes: the grade of the understanding
of the DT phenomenon (holistic versus project-oriented), the organiza­
tional design of roles and tasks (the orchestrator approach versus the
informal leadership approach), the approach to e-skills training and
culture shift (the advocacy approach versus the persuasive and empathic
one), and the way in which digital-enabling investments are realized (a
parsimonious approach versus an entrepreneurial one).
6.1. Theoretical contributions
Although all the available studies that compare large firms and SMEs
tend to focus on a specific DT-related theme, such as Industry 4.0 (e.g.,
Müller et al., 2021), this study has developed this comparison, mainly to
improve the theoretical understanding of the attitudes of SMEs and large
firms toward DT by offering a broader perspective about the individuals
who manage DT and their activities in SMEs and in large firms. To
contribute to the literature that has underlined the importance of
analyzing DT by comparing SMEs with large firms (Horváth & Szabó,
2019), the topic of DT in SMEs and large firms was analyzed at the micro
level to identify the persons that foster, manage, and coordinate DT in
these organizations and the activities that these figures develop.
In line with the existing literature, our research shows that the
Fourth Industrial Revolution has created several challenges for firms,
and particularly for smaller ones, that require specific and well-prepared
figures to manage these (Fachrunnisa et al., 2020; Franco et al., 2021).
This study builds on previous efforts to extend the emerging
knowledge of scholars in regard to the individual in charge of managing
and coordinating DT activities in SMEs. Although prior studies on SMEs
have only identified entrepreneurs and managers as the individual in
charge of DT (Berman & Korsten, 2014; Franco et al., 2021; W. Li et al.,
2016), this study suggests that this role can also be filled by a firms’ key
employees who have developed e-skills and possess significant digital
knowledge (as was observed in one-third of the analyzed case studies)
and who work not only in the IT department but also in other areas, such
as the quality or marketing departments. Moreover, these spokespeople
for DT often develop their DT projects with the help of colleagues and
work in small teams.
The study confirms the relevance of an inclusive style of leadership
(Schwarzmüller et al., 2018) that creates a favorable environment in
which communication and interaction among workers become crucial.
Our study enriches this viewpoint by evidencing the relevance of the
coordination role that is performed by this spokesperson, which (even in
12
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
the cases in which it is not well formalized) increases the adoption of DT
in the firm. This work shows that, as coordinators, these figures increase
cross-departmental cooperation on DT and allow the redesign of activ­
ities and the redefinition of tasks among workers.
Our findings confirm the importance of this DT leader acting to
promote digital alphabetization (Shaughnessy, 2018) and add that this
spokesperson has an “evangelist” role when engaging with other people
to enable the firm’s digital culture shift by promoting a data-driven
approach in the firm and by reducing the silo mentality and the resis­
tance to change.
Moreover, the study attempted to address a gap in the literature by
highlighting that these figures can also act as “digital entrepreneurs” by
seeking digital business model innovation (Vial, 2019; Kraus et al.,
2019; Muhic & Bengtsson, 2021) and by developing or by changing the
business models of their SMEs by leveraging the opportunities that are
offered by DT and thus innovating and adapting to new market needs.
To conclude, our findings show that the so-called “DT peer tutor” has
developed in micro, small, and medium-sized firms and these in­
dividuals have adopted a bottom-up approach to guiding DT, which is
characterized by informal coordinators that drive the necessary changes
across the firm.
6.2. Implications for practice
Our study has managerial implications and offers valuable insights
for firms that want to manage DT properly. First, to develop a holistic
approach to DT, firms should create favorable and facilitating conditions
for developing new recognized roles to manage the digital transition.
Many organizations (regardless of their size) have still not identified all
the roles and positions that foster, manage, and coordinate DT despite
recognizing the importance and the value of DT.
The governance structures of SMEs should promote the peer-tutor
approach to DT and value the key emerging organizational roles that
(1) inspire other employees in regard to DT, (2) try to reduce the
widespread resistance to DT and the silo mentality, and (3) promote a
digital culture. Moreover, SMEs’ decision-makers should legitimize and
recognize those digital “evangelists” by formalizing their organizational
role. Furthermore, these firms should redefine tasks, activities, and
processes with the help of this spokesperson for DT and promote digital
alphabetization by taking appropriate steps and exploiting the available
corporate information assets.
Given that SMEs often have limited financial resources available to
invest in DT, our findings highlight that the incentives play a crucial role
because they are often a key factor that influences SMEs’ decisions to
invest in their DT. Governments should play an active role in mitigating
the barriers that smaller firms face during their digital transitions.
Moreover, governments can offer specific programs to improve e-skills
adoption and digital training in SMEs.
The governance structures of larger firms should take advantage of
the potential of the conductor approach to DT thereby relying on their
structured business processes and their strategic and digital technology
experiences to fully exploit the opportunities of digitalization. In
particular, CIOs and CDOs should have different roles and coordinate to
establish new governance processes in line with the firm’s needs. Our
study shows that firms should appoint a key individual to lead their
digital business strategy to increase digitization initiatives. Moreover,
our findings highlight that in large firms, the roles of leading DT (and the
related tasks) are progressively becoming more defined. Some organi­
zations have already appointed a digital strategist or a CDO. However,
there is still some confusion about the expected activities and the role of
the person that guides organizations through their DT journeys.
6.3. Limitations and further research directions
Given the exploratory nature of this study, several limitations should
be considered when interpreting the results, which can be regarded as
A. Zoppelletto et al.
presenting opportunities for further research.
First, given that this is a qualitative study, the generalization of the
results is only possible to a limited extent. We addressed this limitation
partially by choosing a multiple-case study approach, by including firms
that have different dimensions and operate in different industries, by
interviewing multiple informants for each case, and by triangulating our
interview data with secondary data.
Second, the data that we collected used interviewees’ subjective
views, and such assessments are prone to include bias, errors, and
judgments. Although we partially addressed this limitation by inter­
viewing at least two digital-enabling figures for each firm, future studies
should collect data from a larger number of interviews and use addi­
tional secondary data.
Last, although the analysis considered several economic sectors, it
was conducted in Italy, which constrains the generalizability of the
findings to other countries. Therefore, it would be interesting to
compare the DT of SMEs and large firms in a different socioeconomic
context or to conduct a cross-cultural study to compare and to validate
the results in diverse cultural settings (e.g., Ferraris, Del Giudice, et al.,
2019).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Alessia Zoppelletto: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data
curation. Ludovico Bullini Orlandi: Writing – original draft, Formal
analysis, Data curation.. Alessandro Zardini: Writing – original draft,
Supervision, Project administration, Data curation. Cecilia Rossignoli:
Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Project
administration, Conceptualization. Sascha Kraus: Writing – review &
editing, Writing – original draft, Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Alos-Simo, L., Verdu-Jover, A., & Gomez-Gras, J. (2017). How transformational
leadership facilitates e-business adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117
(2), 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2016-0038
Berman, S., Baird, C. H., Eagan, K., & Marshall, A. (2020). What makes a Chief Digital
Officer successful? Strategy and Leadership, 48(2), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SL-12-2019-0180
Berman, S., & Korsten, P. (2014). Leading in the connected era. Strategy and Leadership,
42(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-10-2013-0078
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business
strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3
Bianchi, G., Testa, F., Tessitore, S., & Iraldo, F. (2022). How to embed environmental
sustainability: The role of dynamic capabilities and managerial approaches in a life
cycle management perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1),
312–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2889
Bouncken, R. B., Kraus, S., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Knowledge and innovation-based
business models for future growth: Digitalized business models and portfolio
considerations. Review of Managerial Science, 15, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11846-019-00366-z
Bouncken, R. B., Qiu, Y., Sinkovics, N., & Kürsten, W. (2021). Qualitative research:
Extending the range with flexible pattern matching. Review of Managerial Science, 15,
251–273.
Camilleri, M. A. (2019). The SMEs’ technology acceptance of digital media for
stakeholder engagement. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(4),
504–521. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-02-2018-0042
Carayannis, E., Grigoroudis, E., Giudice, M., Peruta, M., & Sindakis, S. (2017). An
exploration of contemporary organizational artifacts and routines in a sustainable
excellence context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21, 35–56. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0366
Charmaz, K. C. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st Century: Applications for advancing
social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 507–535). CA: Sage.
Coakes, E., Amar, A. D., & Luisa Granados, M. (2010). Knowledge management, strategy,
and technology: A global snapshot. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23
(3), 282–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410391011036076
13
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
Colbert, A., Yee, N., & George, G. (2016). The digital workforce and the workplace of the
future. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 731–739. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2016.4003
Depaoli, P., Za, S., & Scornavacca, E. (2020). A model for digital development of an
interaction-based approach. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27
(7), 1049–1068. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-06-2020-0219
Durugbo, C. (2016). Collaborative networks: A systematic review and multi-level
framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(12), 3749–3776. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1122249
Endres, H., Huesig, S., & Pesch, R. (2022). Digital innovation management for
entrepreneurial ecosystems: Services and functionalities as drivers of innovation
management software adoption. Review of Managerial Science, 16, 135–156. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00441-4
Evans, N., & Price, J. (2020). Development of a holistic model for the management of an
enterprise’s information assets. International Journal of Information Management, 54,
Article 102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102193
Fachrunnisa, O., Adhiatma, A., Lukman, N., & Ab. Majid, M. N. (2020). Towards SMEs’
digital transformation: The role of agile leadership and strategic flexibility. Journal of
Small Business Strategy, 30(3), 65–85.
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
Ferraris, A., Degbey, W. Y., Singh, S. K., Bresciani, S., Castellano, S., Fiano, F., &
Couturier, J. (2022). Microfoundations of strategic agility in emerging markets:
Empirical evidence of Italian MNEs in India. Journal of World Business, 57(2), Article
101272.
Ferraris, A., Del Giudice, M., Grandhi, B., & Cillo, V. (2019). Refining the relation
between cause-related marketing and consumers purchase intentions: A cross-
country analysis. International Marketing Review, 37(4), 651–669. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IMR-11-2018-0322
Ferraris, A., Erhardt, N., & Bresciani, S. (2019). Ambidextrous work in smart city project
alliances: Unpacking the role of human resource management systems. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 680–701.
Fischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2020). Strategy archetypes for
digital transformation: Defining meta objectives using business process
management. Information and Management, 57(5), Article 103262. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.im.2019.103262
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2013). Embracing digital
technology: A new strategic imperative | Capgemini Consulting Worldwide. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 55(1), 1–13.
Fletcher, G., & Griffiths, M. (2020). Digital transformation during a lockdown.
International Journal of Information Management, 55 June, 10–12. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102185
Franco, M., Godinho, L., & Rodrigues, M. (2021). Exploring the influence of digital
entrepreneurship on SME digitalization and management. Small Enterprise Research,
28(3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2021.1938651
Garzoni, A., De Turi, I., Secundo, G., & Del Vecchio, P. (2020). Fostering digital
transformation of SMEs: A four levels approach. Management Decision, 58(8),
1543–1562. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2019-0939
Ghezzi, A., & Cavallo, A. (2020). Agile business model innovation in digital
entrepreneurship: Lean startup approaches. Journal of Business Research, 124,
610–619. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.013.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation:
Sensemaking during strategic change in Academia. Administrative Science Quarterly,
41(3), 370–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393936
Gobble, M. M. (2018). Digital strategy and digital transformation. Research-Technology
Management, 61(5), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1495969
Gold, B. (1983). Strengthening managerial approaches to improving technological
capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.4250040303
Goodwin, T. (2018). Digital Darwinism – Survival of the fittest in the age of business
disruption. London: Kogan Page.
Guy, J. S. (2019). Digital technology, digital culture and the metric/nonmetric
distinction. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 55–61. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.005
Haffke, I., Kalgovas, B., & Benlian, A. (2016). The role of the CIO and the CDO in an
organization’s digital transformation. In Paper presented at the 2016 International
Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2016.
Hanna, N. K. (2016). Mastering digital transformation: Towards a smarter society, economy.
Bingley: Emerald.
Horlacher, A., & Hess, T. (2016). What does a chief digital officer do? Managerial tasks
and roles of a new C-level position in the context of digital transformation. In
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol.
2016 March, pp. 5126–5135). doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2016.634.
Horváth, D., & Szabó, R. Z. (2019). Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do
multinational and small and medium-sized firms have equal opportunities?
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techfore.2019.05.021
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not
technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 14, 1–25.
Kauffman, R. J., Li, T., & Van Heck, E. (2010). Business network-based value creation in
electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(1), 113–144.
https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415150105
A. Zoppelletto et al.
Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic
literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 16, 1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4
Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J. J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N., & Weinmann, A. (2022). Digital
transformation in business and management research: An overview of the current
status quo. International Journal of Information Management, 63, Article 102466.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102466
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
Kraus, S., Mahto, R. V., & Walsh, S. T. (2021). The importance of literature reviews in
small business and entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955128
Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F. L., & Spitzer, J. (2019). Digital
entrepreneurship: A research agenda on new business models for the twenty-first
century. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(2), 353–375.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2018-0425
Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P., Mädche, A.,
Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2017). Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the
business and information systems engineering community. Business & Information
Systems Engineering, 59(4), 301–308.
Lehner, F. (2018). ICT skills and competencies for SMEs: Results from a structured
literature analysis on the individual level. In The impact of digitalization in the
workplace (pp. 55–69). Springer.
Li, W., Liu, K., Belitski, M., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2016). e-Leadership through
strategic alignment: An empirical study of small- and medium-sized enterprises in
the digital age. Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/
10.1057/jit.2016.10
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
Madrid-Guijarro, A., Martin, D. P., & García-Pérez-de-Lema, D. (2021). Capacity of open
innovation activities in fostering product and process innovation in manufacturing
SMEs. Review of Managerial Science, 15, 2137–2164.
Maroufkhani, P., Tseng, M. L., Iranmanesh, M., Ismail, W. K. W., & Khalid, H. (2020). Big
data analytics adoption: Determinants and performances among small to medium-
sized enterprises. International Journal of Information Management, 54, Article
102190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102190
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
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014), Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook. London: Sage.
Muhic, M., & Bengtsson, L. (2021). Dynamic capabilities triggered by cloud sourcing: a
stage-based model of business model innovation. Review of Managerial Science, 15(1),
33–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00372-1
Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K.-I. (2021). The role of absorptive capacity and
innovation strategy in the design of Industry 4.0 business models: A comparison
between SMEs and large enterprises. European Management Journal, 39(3), 333–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.01.002
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
Papagiannidis, S., Harris, J., & Morton, D. (2020). WHO led the digital transformation of
your firm? A reflection of IT related challenges during the pandemic. International
Journal of Information Management, 55, Article 102166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2020.102166
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
Pelletier, C., & Cloutier, L. M. (2019). Conceptualising digital transformation in SMEs: An
ecosystemic perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26
(6–7), 855–876. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2019-0144
Peppard, J., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. P. (2011). Clarifying the ambiguous role of the
CIO. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(1), 31–44.
Porfírio, J. A., Carrilho, T., Felício, J. A., & Jardim, J. (2021). Leadership characteristics
and digital transformation. Journal of Business Research, 124, 610–619. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.058
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
Scuotto, V., Nicotra, M., Del Giudice, M., Krueger, N., & Gregori, G. L. (2021).
A microfoundational perspective on SMEs’ growth in the digital transformation era.
Journal of Business Research, 129, 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2021.01.045
Shaughnessy, H. (2018). Creating digital transformation: Strategies and steps. Strategy
and Leadership, 46(2), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-12-2017-0126
Singh, A., & Hess, T. (2017a). How chief digital officers promote the digital
transformation of their firms. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1), 1–17.
Singh, A., & Hess, T. (2017b). The emergence of chief digital officers. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 16(1), 31–44.
14
Journal of Business Research 157 (2023) 113563
Singh, A., Klarner, P., & Hess, T. (2020). How do chief digital officers pursue digital
transformation activities? The role of organization design parameters. Long Range
Planning, 53(3), Article 101890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.07.001
Snow, C. C., Fjeldstad, Ø. D., & Langer, A. M. (2017). Designing the digital organization.
Journal of Organization Design, 6, 7. doi: 10.1186/s41469-017-0017-y.
Song, Y., Escobar, O., Arzubiaga, U., & De Massis, A. (2022). The digital transformation
of a traditional market into an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Review of Managerial
Science, 16(1), 65–88.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Subramaniam, M., Iyer, B., & Venkatraman, V. (2019). Competing in digital ecosystems.
Business Horizons, 62(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.013
Tahvanainen, S., & Luoma, E. (2018). Examining the competencies of the chief digital
officer. In Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems 2018:
Digital Disruption, AMCIS 2018, New Orleans.
Trischler, M. F. G., & Li-Ying, J. (2022). Digital business model innovation: Toward
construct clarity and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00508-2
Tumbas, S., Berente, N., & vom Brocke, J. (2017). Three types of chief digital officers and
the reasons organizations adopt the role. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 121–134.
Urquhart, C. (2013), Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. London:
Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781526402196.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsis.2019.01.003
Vu, M. C., & Tran, T. (2021). Trust issues and engaged Buddhism: The triggers for skillful
managerial approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-019-04273-x
Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford
Publications.
Alessia Zoppelletto is a Ph.D student at the University of Trento, Italy. She worked for
three years as a research fellow at the University of Verona. She has been involved in an
extended research project of digital transformation of SMEs. She developed a deep
research interest in investigating the potential cross-fertilization effects between digital
transformation and sustainability. She is specifically interested in organizational topics
such as how digital transformation can affect inter-firm business networks, about which
she recently published in a peer-reviewed Journal. She teaches Organization Theory and
Public Management at the eCampus Telematic University. In the last years, she has pre­
sented several papers at National and International conferences.
Ludovico Bullini Orlandi is Assistant Professor in Organization and HRM at the Uni­
versity of Bologna, Italy. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics and Management from the Uni­
versity of Verona. His research interests are mainly focused on the effect of digital
transformation on HR and organizations. He teaches Organization Theory at the degree
course in Management and Marketing at the University of Bologna. He has held visiting
periods and research collaborations at the School of Economics and Management at the
University of Lund and the IISM of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He has also
taught at the International MBA at the CUOA Business School, at the Catholic University of
Lille, and the University of Verona.
Cecilia Rossignoli is Full Professor of Organization Science at the University of Verona,
Italy, Department of Business Administration. She is a member of the faculty of the
Graduate School of Accounting and Management University of Udine and University of
Verona. Her research and teaching interests cover the area of Organization Studies and
Information Systems. Cecilia Rossignoli has published, among others, on Journal of Inno­
vation & Knowledge, Review of Managerial Science, Journal of Business Research, European
Management Journal, Industrial Marketing ManagementElectronic Markets, and Journal of
Intellectual Capital. She is a Member of AIS (Association for Information Systems) and
member and co-founder of ItAIS (Italian Chapter of AIS). She served as President of itAIS
from 2015 to 2019.
Alessandro Zardini is Associate Professor of Organization Science at the University of
Verona, Italy, Department of Business Administration. He is didactic director of the Master
in ICT Management at the CUOA Business School (Vicenza, Italy). His research and
teaching interests cover the area of Organization Studies and Management Information
Systems. Alessandro has published, among others, on Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal
of Business Research, Review of Managerial Science, European Management Journal, and
Journal of Intellectual Capital. He is a member of AIS (Association for Information Systems)
and member of ItAIS (Italian Chapter of AIS).
Sascha Kraus is Full Professor of Management at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano,
Italy, and Distinguished Visiting Professor (SARChI Entrepreneurship Education) at the
University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He holds a doctorate in Social and Economic
Sciences from Klagenfurt University, Austria, a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Man­
agement from Helsinki University of Technology and a Habilitation (Venia Docendi) from
Lappeenranta University of Technology, both in Finland. Before, he held Full Professor
positions at Utrecht University, The Netherlands, the University of Liechtenstein, École
Supérieure du Commerce Extérieur Paris, France, and Durham University, United
Kingdom, as well as Visiting Professor positions at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
and at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.