Archetypes of a Digital Leader. Development of a Competency Requirements Profile

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Appendices

1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Definition
1.2 Target Setting and Research Question

2 Literature Review
2.1 Part I: Definitions of Terms
2.1.1 The Digitalization and Digital Transformation of the Economy
2.1.2 Leader, Leadership, Digital Leader and Digital Leadership
2.1.2.1 Leader and Leadership
2.1.2.2 Digital Leader and Digital Leadership
2.1.3 Overview of Existing Leadership Theories
2.1.4 Competency in the Context of Leadership
2.1.4.1 “KompetenzAtlas“ after Erpenbeck & Heyes
2.1.4.2 Competency-Management for Leaders
2.2 Part 2: The Need for the Digital Leader
2.2.1 Leading the Digital Change in Companies
2.2.2 Digital Status Quo of Companies - Identify the Digital Maturity
2.2.3 Existing Archetype- and Competency-Approaches
2.2.3.1 Crisp Research: Digital-Leader-Quadrant
2.2.3.2 PWC: The Five Archetypes of the CDO
2.2.3.3 Deloitte: Six Competencies of a CDO
2.2.3.4 Digital Leadership Excellence
2.2.3.5 Ambidextry of Leadership
2.2.4 Necessity for a Novel Archetype-Model for the Digital Leader...

3 Research Methodology
3.1 Methodical Approach and Research Design
3.2 The Expert-Interview: Method of Data Collection
3.2.1 Expert Selection and Acquisition
3.2.2 The Sample
3.2.3 Method of Data Analysis
3.3 Validation and Verification of the Model

4 Process of Modelling and Analysis of the Results
4.1 Initiating Modelling Process: First Draft of the Model
4.2 First Iteration Results: Second Draft of the Model
4.3 Second Iteration Results: Final Draft of the Model

5 Discussion and Limitations

6 Conclusion and Outlook

List of References

Bibliography

List of Internet Sources

Appendix

List of Abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of Figures

Figure 1: Digital Leadership Matrix (own illustration, based on Crummenerl & Kemmer, 2015)

Figure 2: Development of Leadership Theories (own illustration, based on Northouse, 2021, p. 4)

Figure 3: The "VOPA+ Model" (own illustration, based on Petry, 2016, p. 44)..

Figure 4: Digital Maturity Matrix (own illustration, based on Capgemini Consulting &MIT, 2011)

Figure 5: Digitally Maturing Organizations are far more likely to develop the right Types of Leader (own illustration, based on Kane et al., 2018, p. 14)

Figure 6: Competence Modeling Process for the Archetype Model of the Digital Leader (own illustration, based on Sonntag & Schmidt-Rathjens, 2005, p. 6If.)

Figure 7: 1st Draft of the generated Archetype-Model (own illustration)

Figure 8: Archetypes of a Digital Leader: A Competency-Requirement Profile (own illustration)

List of Tables

Table 1: How Collaboration is changing in the Digital Age - Influencing Factors (own illustration, based on Crummenerl & Kemmer [Capgemini], 2015, p. 3).

Table 2: Comparison of Classical and New Leadership Approaches (Lippold, 2017, p. 364)

Table 3: Who leads Digital Progress? (own illustration, based on Kane et al., 2019, p.38)

Table 4: Differences between Classical Values and the Digital Mindset (Buhse, 2012, p. 249)

Table 5: Capabilities and skills of the CDO (own illustration, based on Harting et al., 2015, p. 9)

Table 6: Integrated Competency Model for DLP-Management (Reinhardt & Lueken, 2018, p. 7)

Table 7: Competencies and Skills of DL in order to successfully navigate Digital

Trends (own illustration, based on Kane et al., 2018, p. 14)

Table 8: Methodology of the Qualitative Literature Analysis and Expert-Interviews (own illustration, based on Kotzab, 2019, p. 8)

Table 9: Selected Quality Criteria for the Validity and the Verification of Models (own illustration, based on Hofmann, 2020, p. 242)

Table 10: Initial Allocation between Challenges and Cross-cutting Competencies (own illustration)

Table 11: Evaluation of the Quality Criteria based on the Expert-Interviews (own illustration, based on Gerberich, 2011, p. 386)

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Definitions in the Context of Digital Transformation (own illustration, based on Schallmo & Rusnjak, 2017, p. 4)

Appendix 2: Transformation Model of Deloitte (own illustration, based on Deloitte, 2017) XXV

Appendix 3: The Platform-Fund 15 (Schmidt, 2021)

Appendix 4: Differences between a Leader and a Manager (own illustration, based on ChangingMinds, n.d.)

Appendix 5: Challenges of Digitalization and required competencies of the DL (Lindner & Greff, 2019, p. 630 ff.)

Appendix 6: Approaches of Leadership Research (own illustration, based on Northouse, 2021; Lippold, 2019; Becker, 2015; Schweizer, 2019)

Appendix 7: One-dimensional classification of leadership styles (own illustration, based on Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958)

Appendix 8: Ohio-State-Leadership-Quadrant (own illustration, based on Lippold, 2019, p. 353) XXXI

Appendix 9: Situational Maturity Model (own illustration, based on Lippold, 2019, p. 22) XXXII

Appendix 10: Distinction between Transactional and Transformational Leadership (own illustration, based on Stock-Homburg & GroB, 2019, p. 522)

Appendix 11: Elements of the Transformational Leadership (own illustration, based on Wunderer 2007, as cited in Stippler et al., 2010, p. 8)

Appendix 12: The “KODE® KompetenzAtlas” (KODE GmbH, 2017)

Appendix 13: The 16 most important Leadership Competencies (Erpenbeck, 2013, p. 428; translated into English)

Appendix 14: Roadmap to the DT of Business Models (Schallmo & Rusnjak, 2017, p. 13; translated into English)

Appendix 15: The What and the How of Digital Transformation (Westerman, Calmejane, Bonnet, Ferraris, & McAfee, 2011, S. 59)

Appendix 16: Digital Leader Matrix (own illustration, based on Velten et al., 2015)

Appendix 17: Detailed Describtion of the “PWC - five Archetypes of a CDO” (Friedrich et al., 2016, S. Ilf.)

Appendix 18: Comparison between Conventional and Digital Leadership (Reinhardt, 2017)

Appendix 19: Different Types of Interviews (own illustartion based on Kaiser, 2014, p. 3)

Appendix 20: Ten Steps of conduction an Expert-Interview (own illustration, based on Kaiser, 2014, p. 12)

Appendix 21: Interview Guideline First Iteration (own illustration)

Appendix 22: Interview Guideline Second Iteration (own illustration)

Appendix 23: Steps of deductive category development (own illustration, based on Mayring, 2014, p. 96)

Appendix 24: General Information about the Sample of the 1st Iteration (own illustration)

Appendix 25: General Information about the Sample of the 2nd Iteration (own illustration)

Appendix 26: 1st Draft of the generated Archetype-Model (own illustration)

Appendix 27: Definitions of the applied Competencies for the AT of the DL (own illustration)

Appendix 28: 2nd Draft of the generated Archetype-Model (own illustration)

Appendix 29: Explanation and Idea behind the Model as provided to the Experts from the second Round of Interview (own illustration)

Appendix 30: Analysis and Coding Guideline of the transcribed Interviews (own illustration)

Appendix 31: The Transcripts of the Interviews (separate Document)

“First, you must be disciplined and focused. You need a point of view. Your initiatives should be interconnected — and it’s the leader’s job to connect the dots for everyone in the organ- ization. [...] The second lesson concerns the journey a leader must embark on before undertaking a transformation. You have to go through a period of rewiring your brain — getting yourself to the point ofprofoundly believing that the world is changing [...J. Third, you have to get people in your organi- zation to see the need for change as existential. Fourth, you have to be all in—you must make a bold, sustained commit- ment to the transformation. Fifth, you must be resilient. [...] Sixth, during the transformation you have to listen and act at the same time. You need to allow new thoughts to constantly come in, and you need to be open [...J, while still having the courage to push people forward. Finally, you must embrace new kinds of talent, a new culture, and new ways of doing things. [...]”

Jeffrey R. Immelt (former CEO General Electric, 2017)

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Definition

As the former CEO of General Electric Jeffrey R. Immelt stated in the opening quote, leaders need to focus on several characteristics and competencies. Most of the lessons named by Immelt refer both to the leader in the classic sense and, in particular, to a new understanding of leadership. This kind of a new leadership style is often referred to as Digital Leadership or Leadership 4.0 (Consultingheads, n.d.). The demands associated with it, arise from the increasingly complex and dynamic requirements that are emerging as a result of Digitalization and the Digital Trans­formation of the professional world as well as society. Those two occurrences have a wide-ranging impact on the business environment. Quoting Gary Hamel (2009, as cited in Petry, 2016, p. 22) on this occasion demonstrates that Digitalization and Digital Transformation is said to have the biggest impact on our economy since the industrial revolution: “We are on the cusp of a management revolution that is likely to be as profound and unsettling as the one that gave birth to the modem industrial age” (c.f. Hentrich & Pachmajer, 2016, p. 74). From the perspective of companies and managers, this may result in both, opportunities and challenges. The emerging trends of new and powerful technologies such as big data, Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (Al), and machine learning as well as e-commerce could ena­ble large productivity gains for the economy. In contrast to this, the disruption to existing business models, as well as established markets, will disarrange the envi­ronment and radically reshape the circumstances for dozens of companies, business leaders and employees (OECD & UK Department for BEIS, 2018, p. 2)¹. Accom­panying with this, neologisms like ‘dynaxity’ (Kastner, 2017), a combination of dynamics and complexity, or ‘dynaxibility’ (Henning et al., 2011), a combination of dynamics, complexity and ability, or the acronym VUCA²-World (e.g. in: Ciesielski & Schutz, 2016, p. 4; Creusen et al., 2017, p. 56) emerge. The world we are living in is driven by accelerating changes. The current state of the art changes within a blink of an eye. Companies cannot rely on the fact that their business model will still generate profits in the future. In the past, people had the luxury of being able to rest on their former successes. Today, stagnancy and the lack of innovations can mean that a company may no longer exist in the near future. Digital mature companies like Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft - the so called “Digital Big-5” - and many more are defining the modern-day market rules. The aim is not only to conquer and dominate the Internet and the Digital Cloud econom­ically, but also to use it to change sectors and industries (Kollmann, 2020, p. 19). They dominate the main levels of (e-)commerce and assert their market power pri­marily against smaller retailers. Furthermore, a new generation of entrepreneurs is constantly challenging the established business models of cumbersome, slow and rigid organizations, which ultimately face the risk of losing their competitive edge. With regard to the workplace and the situation in companies, observations indicate that a variety of new possibilities as well as enormous challenges emerge. Employ­ees, for instance, have the possibilities to work from almost everywhere, commu­nication is shifting to digital platforms, and new management approaches are de­manded (Agile and Lean Management, Design Thinking, Holocracy, etc.). Increas­ingly more and more people are using “digital tools”, e.g.: Messengers (E-Mail, WhatsApp, etc.) to communicate, social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to in­teract, search engines like Google to inform and educate oneself, content platforms (YouTube, Netflix, etc.) for the purpose of entertainment, or video call providers (Zoom, MS Teams, etc.). In recent years, all of this has led to a fundamental change in society as a whole and will probably continue to do so. Of course, these changes are also noticeable in companies: everyday (work) life without computers, Internet, tablets and smartphones is hard to imagine (Brosi et al., 2015, p. 155). This results in many new challenges for executives who require new competencies in regard to the difficulties associated with the DT (Crummenerl & Kemmer, 2015, p. 3).

1.2 Target Setting and Research Question

Originating from the described problem in chapter 1.1, this thesis aims to develop a valid model of different archetypes of the DL and to provide those various arche­types with individual competencies. The archetypes match the respective chal­lenges for corporations in their digitalization and transformation process. In order to develop such archetypes and the associated competency requirements, the fol­lowing research questions will be answered throughout the thesis to define the boundaries of the case. First, it is important to figure out, (1) ‘how various leader­ship approaches as well as existing archetype and competency approaches can be combined to create a new competency requirement profile of a Digital Leader?’. Resulting from this, the question occurs (2) ‘what different archetypes of a Digital Leader emerge in terms of their competencies in the course of the Digitalization and Digital Transformation?’. In an environment characterized by transformation, in which long-term planning and reliable predictions are becoming increasingly im­possible, competent leaders are becoming indispensable and even vital for organi­zations (Kode GmbH, 2021). Organizations must identify leaders who possess a comprehensive set of competencies for the emerging requirements.

To address this issue, the outline of the thesis is as follows: section 2 introduces a comprehensive overview of the related literature and the definitional boundaries as well as existing approaches are provided. In section 3 the utilized research meth­odology is covered. This is followed, in section 4, by the presentation of the elabo­rated model and the results from the interviews will be connected to the research questions. In section 5, the work and the model are discussed and assessed in terms of potential limitations. Finally, a conclusion and outlook for further research re­quirements regarding the topic is provided in section 6.

2 Literature Review

In section 2, a qualitative literature analysis is conducted. In general, it can be de­fined as a "review or summary of existing knowledge" (Zuhlke, 2007, p. 130, as cited in Trapp, 2012, p. 74). Additionally, a qualitative literature analysis aims to develop a hypothesis based on relevant literature in the topic area under investiga­tion. By reading and summarizing the relevant literature, the main theoretical ap­proaches of the respective authors will be identified. Subsequently, the core theses of the most important theoretical approaches in the research area will be evaluated and compared (Kotzab, 2019, p. 8 & 12). As represented in table 8 (section 3.1), the literature analysis is a secondary research and follows a qualitative evaluation procedure. Following the development of the research questions, an area-wide search was conducted by using several databases³ and the main theoretical ap­proaches were summarized. Since DLP and the role of the DL is often discussed in literature, it is important to gain an overview of the various opinions and set a valid standard for the thesis. The analysis, presentation and classification of the existing literature seems to be a successful approach to meet this purpose. As a final key thesis, a first draft of an Archetype-Model was created from the findings obtained which was the basis for the conducted expert-interviews.

2.1 Part I: Definitions of Terms

Part 1 of the literature review has the purpose to provide the reader with important theoretical backgrounds in order to set the conceptional framework for this thesis. It starts with a brief excursus on the topic of Digitalization and Digital Transfor­mation. Ultimately, this also results in the need to talk about a Digital Leader in the first place. Therefore, the section proceeds with covering the definitions of (Digital) Leader and (Digital) Leadership. Further, common theories and approaches regard­ing the leadership of companies in the course of time are presented. Finally, a brief introduction into the theory of ‘competencies’ will be provided.

2.1.1 The Digitalization and Digital Transformation of the Economy

“Digital should be seen less as a thing and more of a way of doing things. ”
(Domer & Edelman, 2015, p. 1)

Although the following master's thesis is not intended to deal in detail with Digital­ization in general and the DT of the working environment, it is of great importance that its fundamentals and terminology are understood. For this purpose, a brief in­troduction to the concepts of Digitalization and DT is appropriate in addition to section 1.1. The economic environment in which companies currently operate is characterized by complexity and far-reaching change (VUCA-environment). Often described with the buzzword “Digitalization”, a key driver of these changes is the exponential technological development. Its strong influence on society as well as companies and their entire stakeholders increases rapidly. In literature the term ‘age of acceleration’ is often associated with this (Petry, 2016, p. 11). Digitalization and DT are discussed intensively in most of the companies these days and are consid­ered the most important trend of recent years. These topics are omnipresent in both the professional and private life. Petry (2016, p. 21) presents various studies in which CEOs and executives are interviewed⁴. The prevailing opinion sees Digital­ization as the central transformation driver, which will have a significant impact on the majority of companies. Therefore, a transformation towards a ‘Digital Com­pany’ must take place to remain adaptable in the long-term (Walch, 2016).

In terms of definitional delimitations, it is important to implement strict bound­aries between the terms of “Digitization, Digitalization, and Digital Transfor­mation”. Digitization is commonly understood as the process of converting from an analog to a digital form. However, this conversion from analog to digital processes takes place without the process itself being changed in any way, but merely the "tool" with which it is run through (Gartner, 2021b). In contrast, the term Digitali­zation has several meanings. For example, the Gartner Glossary (2021a) defines it as: “[...] the use of digital technologies to change a business model and provide new revenue and value-producing opportunities; it is the process of moving to a digital business”. The “Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon” (Bendel, 2018) describes Digi­talization either as the digital conversion and execution of information and commu­nication as well as the digital modification of instruments, devices and vehicles, or the digital revolution. Hess (2019) understands Digitalization as the introduction of digital technologies in companies and thus as a driver of DT. This understanding is also shared by Petry (2016, p. 22). He defines ‘Digitalization’ in two different mo­dalities. First, there is the technological understanding. To be more precisely, the preparation of information for processing or storing in a digital technical system. Secondly, it refers to a more generic interpretation. The ongoing technological de­velopments drive the transformation process of companies or even entire industries. This is linked to far-reaching strategic, organizational and socio-cultural changes. Since Digitalization rather refers to the digital development process in relation to companies and their digital turnaround, this term is more appropriate for this work.

Likewise, various definitions coexist for the terminology of Digital Transfor­mation. For example, Fitzgerald et al. (2013, p. 2) determine DT as the use of new digital technologies, like social media, embedded devices, or mobile analytics in order to enable major business improvements. This includes creating new business models, streamlining operations, or enhancing customer experience. Schallmo and Rusnjak (2017, p. 4) present a variety of different definitions (an overview of the suggested definitions can be found in appendix 1). In line with Fitzgerald et al. (2013, p. 2), the definition provided by Capgemini (2011, p. 5) is most applicable to the subject of this paper: “Digital transformation - the use of technology to rad­ically improve performance or reach of enterprises - [...]. Executives in all indus­tries are using digital advances such as analytics, mobility, social media and smart embedded devices [...] to change customer relationships, internal processes, and value propositions". In the context of DT, various influencing variables have an impact on companies and can confront them with problems. By handling them suc­cessfully, they can represent great opportunities. In a study, Crummenerl and Kem­mer (2015, p. 3) identified the following influencing variables for companies:

Table 1: How Collaboration is changing in the Digital Age - Influencing Factors (own illustration, based on Crummenerl & Kemmer [Capgemini], 2015, p. 3)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Along with the different understandings of DT, different levels of DT can also be identified. Even though there is no precisely defined subdivision, experts at Deloitte have drawn a fairly detailed picture of the various transformation levels (Deloitte, 2017). Based on their Transformation Model (appendix 2), it can be seen that DT plays a central role across the entire organization in many different aspects and has a transformative influence on current conditions. DT has a central influence at the organizational level of a company, i.e. in the development of a suitable busi­ness model and management processes. Furthermore, it influences the individual employees in many aspects, e.g. their motivation, the development of new skills and the training and further education. In addition, the culture in a company is gen­erally on the verge of change and the right mindset must be created, especially in dealing with mistakes and continuous learning in these volatile times. Finally, of central importance is the company's digital environment. This includes the techno­logical platform on which the protagonists at the aforementioned levels can interact.

Furthermore, technologies and innovations must be driven forward. Sassenrath (2017, p. 20 f.) and Kollmann (2020, p. 4) arrive at a somewhat different subdivi­sion, which also illustrates the transformation on several levels. They differentiate between a “Digitalization of Processes”, i.e., that business processes are automated by software in order to create networks in production and logistics which streamline processes, accelerate them and make them more efficient. Furthermore, there is a “Digitalization of Products”, i.e., the benefits to the customer that arise from soft­ware functions or digital content. Ultimately, a “Digitalization of Business Models / of Platforms”⁵ is observed. Customers pay for a service provided in ways that have become possible through Digitalization. Companies need to shift from offering only products to offering services. Platform business models has been proving to be very prosperous and efficacious. Using the Digitalization, those platform models lever­age the trends created by digital opportunities to create an exponentially scalable business model that represents significant value to customers and users (Hentrich & Pachmajer, 2020, p. 88ff.). The “Platform-Fund 15” (Schmidt, 2021; appendix 3) shows, how the fifteen biggest digital companies around the globe, with a plat­form business model as main source of revenue, outperform other indices.

Finally, a connection to the quote at the beginning of this section 2.1.1 can be drawn. Digitalization is not just an IT-based issue. It rather can be observed in var­ious day-to-day activities. Therefore, it is important to accept those transformations and start to deal with them, according to Domer and Edelman (2015, p. 1), to un­derstand “Digital” as a way of doing things rather than just a thing. This under­standing of digital change and its integration into one's own mindset is a core re­quirement for leaders in order to successfully guide a company through the DT.

2.1.2 Leader, Leadership, Digital Leader and Digital Leadership

2.1.2.1 Leader and Leadership

Primarily, it is important to distinguish the definition of leadership from manage­ment, since those terms are often erroneously used as synonyms. However, many authors note clear differences, or even speak of opposing approaches. Therefore, sharp definitional boundaries should be drawn here (Rosenstiel, 2009, S. 196, as cited in Sarges, 2013, p. 114). In considering management and leadership, the the­sis, in the following, is guided by the subdivision and definition of Lippold (2017, p. 332). Accordingly, a distinction is made between the classic factual managerial tasks, leadership tasks and administrative tasks from business administration, which can be classified as corporate management and as a part of the management of or­ganizations. This contrasts with the person- and behavior-related act of personnel management. This component, which also belongs to the whole management, is referred to as personal leadership. This is supported by Felfe (2009, p. 3). He di­vides "leadership" of organizations into three areas of different scope. First to be mentioned is corporate management as higher-level areas. They cover all segments required for the management of an organization, usually performed by the manag­ing directors, board members, owners, etc. The second area is the management of all personnel as a function of corporate management. This is consequently referred to as personnel management or human resources. Since all employees of an organ­ization are in the area of responsibility of the personnel management, this covers evenly also the leaders. The two areas just mentioned are general management func­tions that usually affect the entire organization. They are therefore also referred to as "depersonalized" management (Turk, 1995, as cited in Felfe, 2009, p. 3). In con­trast to this, the third area is personal leadership. This concept is considered next. According to Felfe (2009, p. 3), personal leadership or employee leadership is the direct and targeted exertion of influence by superiors on employees in the organi­zation. A similar definition of this interactive relationship of leaders with employ­ees is provided by Rosenstiel und Comelli (2003, p. 77 & 97). They depict leader­ship as a goal-related exertion of influence. It is successful when those being led perform their tasks appropriately in order to achieve certain goals, usually derived from the company's objectives⁶. In summary, the following distinction, inspired by Bennis (1989, as cited in Peters, 2015, p. 12) can be made: managers are primarily concerned with doing the essential core tasks and generally doing ‘things’ right to maintain the status quo. The focus is on systems and structures and on perfectly organizing, planning and monitoring the processes. To ensure this, a manager leads very strictly according to specifications, as well as analytically and factually de­tached. The leader, on the other hand, in his function as a person-oriented com­mander, is focused on formulating a meaningful goal for the employees. First and foremost, the leader should develop a vision that provides a common orientation and direction for the employees. The leader's focus is on people and their trust. They think in the long-term, especially asking after the what and why, thus challenging the status quo to permanently evolve (Bennis, 1989, as cited in Peters, 2015, p. 12)⁷.

To complete this introduction to the topic of leadership, further important points will be considered below. Becker (2015, p. 13 ff.) distinguishes between leadership exercised directly, i.e., by people, or indirectly, i.e., by structures (organizational charts or incentive systems) (cf. Yuki, 2013, p. 5). Furthermore, the distinction pro­vided by Bruch (Bruch et al., 2006, p. 5), is based on three levels: leadership of the organization (corporate leadership), leadership of employees (employee leadership) and self-leadership. Depending on the level of leadership, there are different fo­cuses. A CEO will be more concerned with corporate management as the overarch­ing corporate leadership. A department head, on the other hand, will focus more on the leadership of the employees in his department. Self-leadership will be practiced to a similar extent by both a CEO and a department head (Wagner, 2018, p. 11). Conclusively, it is necessary to briefly discuss the semantic distinction between leader and leadership. Referencing Stippler et al. (2010, p. VI), the former refers to the person who exercises the leadership, i.e., leads others to affect change. Leader­ship, on the other hand, is the process by which the leader promotes that very change. It usually refers to the joint action of the leader, the led, and the situation itself. Most modem leadership theories emphasize the interaction of the leader and the led (cf, section 2.1.3). In contrast, it is mostly rejected that leadership depends only on the person leading (cf. Reggio et al., 2008, as cited in Stippler et al., 2010, p. VI). Particularly in times of DT, this would not be expedient for companies.

2.1.2.2 Digital Leader and Digital Leadership

Subsequently, what is meant by the term Digital Leader respective Digital Leader­ship? First of all, DLP consists out of the terms ‘Digital’ and ‘Leadership’. The later has been presented in section 2.1.2.1. According to the dictionary, “Digital” means “using a system of receiving and sending information [...] showing information by using figures ...” (Oxford Dictionary, 2010). But DLP is far more profound than simply combining these two terms. The Digital Magazin: Digitalisierung & E-Com- merce (2020) distinguishes between two basic understandings: first, DLP refers to "the ability of managers to take the right measures in times of digitalization". New media and digital technologies must be used to make the company innovative. An efficient collaboration between management and employees should be achieved. The second approach relates to advancing Digitalization in a company and to drive forward the DT. Leaders must teach the employees to ensure competitiveness for the business. He or she encourages the employees to use new communication chan­nels, making corporate processes more agile and flexible (cf. Consultingheads, n.d.). Some similar approaches and definitional proposals can also be found in the literature. Lindner (2019, p. 30), e.g., provides the following definition: "Digital Leadership is a cross-cutting competency (also cross-sectional competency) as well as a collective term for various methods, theories, and tools that describe leadership and, in particular, leadership competency in the digital age." Similar to this master’s thesis, the competencies he addresses result from the challenges identified⁸. Wagner (2018, p. 13) detects four possibilities to interpret DLP in this context. One is the literal translation, i.e. leadership with digital technologies. Furthermore, there are two forms of the analogous translation: leadership of digital talents and digital mar­ket leadership. And finally, there is the holistic interpretation, including the former three, namely the successful leadership in times of DT. Further current proposed definitions can be found in Petry (2016), Velten et al. (2015), Deloitte and Heads! (Harting et al., 2015) and Crummenerl & Kemmer (2015). The former hypothesizes that DLP can be used for three different aspects: (1) the adequate corporate leader­ship in the digital economy era, (2) the adequate human resource management in the digital economy era, or (3) for a digitally pioneering company (Petry, 2016, p. 11). Velten et al. (2015, p. 8 f.) understand a DL "as a Digital Leadership-character and as the person(s) responsible for the DT in the company. (...) The DL represents the Digitalization of the company. He or she is characterized by in-depth knowledge and a pronounced 'digital-first thinking'. The DL leads a team with a high degree of participation, stimulates new innovations, and also breaks new ground for the pro­gress of the DT." Deloitte and Heads! (Harting et al., 2015, p. 9) describe that DLs are responsible for "creating a vision for the digital future of the company, giving the organization a clear direction, and actively involving every individual in the transformation process.” Finally, the following figure 1 generated by Crummenerl & Kemmer (2015, p. 10), draws a very specific picture of different types of leaders.

Figure 1: Digital Leadership Matrix (own illustration, based on Crummenerl & Kemmer, 2015)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Depending on the digital intensity of leadership and the intensity of transformation management, the four types, named in figure 1, arise. The DL, who must lead by example, represents a complete mixture of the expert leader and the change leader.

Finally, it is important to define the distinction to the concept of e-leadership (Electronic-leadership), as DLP also implies this to a large extent, e-leadership has been practiced since the beginning of the millennium and the term was first used by Avolio et al. (2000). Often, this is referred to as virtual leadership (Lang et al., 2014, p. 362). It describes leadership using modem, computer-supported ICT⁹. Avolio et al. (2000, p. 617) define the term as follows:"[...] E-Leadership is a social influence process mediated by AIT to bring about changes in attitudes, emotions, thinking and behavior, and/or performance [...]." Therefore, the ability of e-lead- ership must naturally also be found within the competencies of a DL.

The presented definitions, especially by Velten et al. (2015), Harting et al. (2015), and Crummenerl & Kemmer (2015), serve as the definitional understanding for this thesis. Since this thesis deals with the person of the DL, the elaborated AM refers to the initiator of the DT in a company, who in turn prepares all other execu­tives and employees for the DT. As can be seen at this early point of the thesis, executives play a central role in the successful DT of organizations. It is therefore not surprising that a very large proportion of the billions of dollars spent annually on employee development by companies worldwide and across sectors is spent on the development and training of leaders (Riggio, 2008, p. 383; cf. Prokopeak, 2018). In order to find or develop the right executives who can master the chal­lenges posed by Digitalization and DT, a model is needed that elaborates the indi­vidual competencies required for this purpose (section 4 and 5).

2.1.3 Overview of Existing Leadership Theories

Leadership has been a fascinating topic for mankind for centuries resulting in vari­ous different leadership theories over the recent years in order to adapt to the cir­cumstances of the environment (Northouse, 2021, p. 2). Figure 2 shows the most important approaches of classical and modem leadership research over time. Ap­pendix 6 gives a more detailed overview with the respective corresponding subcat­egories. A selection of the most relevant approaches in terms of this thesis is pre­sented in detail below. The classical approaches date back to the beginning and middle of the 20th century and, at first, were still very much focused on the role of the leading person. Especially the trait approaches consider the person of the leader as the center of the consideration. The other classical approaches (e.g., behavioral approaches, the situational approaches, the relational approaches) as well as the re­cent approaches (new leadership approaches, the emerging pproaches and the new approaches in terms of Digitalization and DT), increasingly include the environ­ment of the leader and focus in particular on the interaction with the people being led. As can be seen in figure 2 approaches are not simply replaced by new ones. Rather, many new approaches refer to previous ones and the Digital Leader requires a variety of characteristics that result from the different theories.

Figure 2: Development of Leadership Theories (own illustration, based on Northouse, 2021, p. 4)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The fact that the trait- and skill-oriented approaches to leadership are currently tak­ing a back seat may well be due to the current Zeitgeist, according to which all people are bom equal and differences only result from unequal opportunities (Becker, 2015, p. 20). Nevertheless, there are characteristics which can be traced back to the trait approaches that a leader definitely needs, e.g.: aptitudes (intelli­gence, alertness, verbal fluency, judgment); performance (knowledge, high exper­tise); responsibility (reliability, perseverance, self-confidence); participation (activ­ity, sociability, cooperativeness, adaptability); and personality traits (extraversion, openness to experience, aspiration to power) (Rosenstiel, 2003, as cited in Lippold, 2019, p. 6; House et al., 1996 & Robbins, 2003, as cited in Becker, 2015, p. 20f.). On the following pages, some selected leadership approaches are introduced.

Leadership-Style-Continuum

(Behavioral Approach; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958)

Ancestry and genetic prerequisites as a building block of leadership success gave way to the idea of a leader's learnable behavior in dealing with situations. The Lead­ership-Style-Continuum is considered the ‘classic’ among behavioral research ap­proaches (Lippold, 2019, p. 12). On a one-dimensional continuum, the authoritarian and the cooperative leadership styles are considered as the extreme points between which leaders can shift and move (appendix 7). Authority in this context means that the manager assigns tasks to the employees and prescribes the way in which the tasks are to be performed. The employees do not receive any personal appreciation from the manager. Co-operative leadership, on the other hand, allows employees to distribute tasks themselves and to discuss them and the related objectives in the group. All members of the group receive a high level of appreciation from the leader (Schreyogg & Koch, 2020, p. 528f.). Leaders should not focus on one of the seven possible styles which lay along the continuum¹⁰, but should be able to apply differ­ent leadership styles depending on the constellation of the situation. A leader must therefore correctly assess various influencing factors in order to be able to adapt his or her leadership behavior to the respective circumstances (Lippold, 2019, p. 12).

Ohio-State-Leadership-Quadrant

(Behavioral Approach; Halpin & Winer, 1957, as cited in Lippold, 2017, p. 352)

A second important behavior-oriented leadership approach was developed at the Ohio-State-University by Halpin and Winer (1957, as cited in Lippold, 2017, p. 352). According to this approach, the entirety of a leader and his or her behavior can be classified and assessed along two independent dimensions. These are, on the one hand, the performance or task orientation (Initiating Structure) and, on the other hand, the employee or relationship orientation (Consideration) (Lippold, 2017, p. 352). The first dimension - Initiating Structure - refers to the function of managers to accomplish tasks. This includes organizing, scheduling and controlling upcom­ing work and deadlines, defining and structuring role responsibilities, and planning future goals (Becker, 2015, p. 26; Northouse, 2021, p. 395). Consideration, as the second dimension, refers to the behaviors of leaders aligned with employees' needs. Leaders with a high level of awareness of this dimension inquire about employees' well-being, ensure their satisfaction, mediate conflicts, and attend to the personal career goals and opportunities of the employees (Becker, 2015, p. 26). As a result of these two dimensions, four basic leadership styles can be identified in the form of the Ohio-State-Leadership-Quadrant: bureaucratic, authoritarian, relationship- oriented, and cooperative leadership style (appendix 8)¹¹. The two dimension rep­resent two independent factors that together serve to describe leadership behavior (Lippold, 2019, p. 13). Leaders require both, the task as well as the relationship component, in order to reach a specific goal. Therefore, those dimensions of behav­ior need to be combined in favor of the maximum achievable benefit.

The Situational Maturity Model

(Situational Approach; Hersey & Blanchard, 1981/1988, as cited in Lippold, 2017, p. 362)

In the Situational Maturity Model the most suitable leadership style is selected de­pending on the task-relevant maturity level of the employee. The model (appendix 9) considers a total of three dimensions. The starting point are the two dimensions of relationship-orientation (y-axis) and task-orientation (x-axis), which are ex­panded by the task-relevant maturity level of the employee as the third dimension. The resulting four leadership styles are: the “Authoritarian (instructing/telling) Leadership Style”¹², the “Integrating (selling) Leadership Style”¹³, the “Participa­tive Leadership Style”¹⁴, and the “Delegation Style”¹⁵ (Stock-Homburg & GroB, 2019, p. 555). The basic assumption of this model is that the task-oriented leader­ship requirement decreases as the task-relevant maturity level of the employee in­creases. A leaders is more likely to have to sell the task to an employee with high motivation but low task-oriented knowledge. In contrast, he or she must rather del­egate the task when motivation is low. In the context of the DL, participative and integrating leadership styles are particularly suitable, in which employees are in­volved and a two-way exchange takes place. This requires mutual trust. For optimal leadership, the leader must therefore be competent in all four leadership styles (Jung 2006, as cited in Lippold, 2017, p. 363.). Especially in the digital age, leaders must flexibly adapt the leadership style to the respective situational circumstances. In crisis situations, leaders often seem to be more directive, decision-oriented, and as­sertive in their behavior (Mulder & Stemerding, 1963, as cited in Yuki, 2013, p. 37), rather analogous to the characteristics of managers. In situations where inno­vations are to be driven forward, in contrast, a more participative and integrative approach is suitable. However, one of the main criticisms of this approach implies that managers can be overwhelmed by the pressure of having to master all four characteristics (Lippold, 2017, p. 363).

Transformational Leadership

(New Leadership Approach; Bass, 1985)

Transformational leadership (in distinction to transactional leadership”¹⁶; for dif­ferences see appendix 10), as one of the new leadership approaches can also be described as a hybrid form, as it combines various previous approaches and theories (Antonakis et al., 2004, as cited in Sohm, 2007, p. 20). Starting with the work of Bass (1985), studies explored visionary or charismatic¹⁷ leadership theories in par­ticular. This led to the development of the transformational leadership style (cf. appendix 11), which describes successful leadership as a process that transforms people and organizations (Northouse, 2021, p. 3). Transforming leadership “ap­peals to the moral values of followers in an attempt to raise their consciousness about ethical issues and to mobilize their energy and resources to reform institu­tions” (Yuki, 2013, p. 321). Additionally, this approach particularly also considers the emotional aspects of leadership in dealing with employees and situations (Robbins & Judge, 2017, p. 432ff). Central to this approach are the competencies of the leader to stimulate the employee to look at things and problems in a com­pletely new way. The leader is reaching this intention by empowering the followers through charismatic behavior, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individual appreciation, in order to change the level of aspiration and attitude of the employee and to set his or her commitment to higher goals. Transformational leadership can help to anchor visions in companies and implement them successfully, particularly in change processes by driving creativity and innovation among employees and within teams (Stock-Homburg & GroB, 2019, p. 523). This approach is one of the most researched leadership theories of the last decades (Kauffeld et al., 2019, p. 115) and, due to its strong applicability in times of transformation and change, is also of exceptional relevance for addressing the idea of the DL.

Super Leadership, Agile Leadership & Virtual Leadership

(New approaches in terms of the DT; Lippold, 2017, p. 363ff.; Lippold, 2019, p. 30ff.)

In the course of Digitalization and DT and the associated technological change in the communication of employees and teams, novel leadership approaches emerged. The emerging leadership approaches” mentioned by Northouse (2021, p. 3), which have also become increasingly present, particularly since the beginning of the twenty-first century, will not be discussed further here and can be found in the over­view in appendix 6. In order to understand the relevance of these new leadership approaches, it must first be clarified how the environmental situation for leaders has changed in recent years (in addition to section 2.1.1). Leaders used to be able to operate from local corporate headquarters and reach almost all employees per­sonally on site. Nowadays in contrast, they have to communicate with a heteroge­neous group of employees across different locations. At the same time, leadership must take into account generational and cultural differences in how they interact with technology. While generational differences were also a challenge for leaders of the last century, technologies and circumstances did not change at the pace they do today. Since the end of World War II, there are now four different generations, all of which can be found in a company (Lippold, 2019, p. 29)¹⁸. Due to the incred­ibly rapid change in technologies, all of these generations now have completely different knowledge and experience, which a manager must combine. In summary, according to Lippold (2019, p. 23), the following three central challenges for lead­ers in the digital age can be identified and form the basis of the new leadership approaches: (1) Digitalization and technological change, (2) media-mix and com­munication across distances, and (3) generational change and hybrid work cultures. These challenges are addressed by the concepts of "Super Leadership," "Agile Leadership" and "Virtual Leadership," among others.

The super leadership approach (one of the transformational leadership theories; Manz & Sims, 1987 and 1991, as cited in Lippold, 2019, p. 30) addresses the chal­lenges of a decentralized working environment in which employees cannot always be reached directly. The focus is on less rigid forms of organization, and the leader attempts to motivate and enable employees to achieve a high degree of self-organ­ization or independence - "Self-Leadership" (Lippold, 2019, p. 30). The leader is thus the "Super Leader" who creates more flexible framework conditions for the employees (Stock-Homburg & GroB, 2019, p. 568f.).

Agile leadership (originally from software development; a practice-related man­ifestation of the new approach of shared leadership¹⁹) empowers employees to self- determine the way in which tasks are accomplished and involves them in key deci­sions (Lippold, 2017, p. 366). Employees should be able to recognize and assess their competencies themselves and evaluate each other. It is important that hierar­chical structures are broken down. In extreme cases agile leadership can lead to management functions being temporarily transferred to individual employees ac­cording to the motto "employees choose their boss" (Schirmer & Woydt, 2016, p. 200). Agile methods include, for example, Scrum, IT-Kanban, or Design Thinking.

Finally, a brief explanation of the virtual leadership approach follows²⁰. Despite the physical absence of leaders, leadership can still take place. Employees should be successfully managed with the help of modem ICT or social media (Wald, 2014, p. 356ff.). The central challenge here arises from the distance between the leader and the led. This leads to a lack of personal connection and information, which in turns makes it more difficult to build social relationships and trust. The latter is one of the essential basic elements for all the more modem approaches of leadership, in which the interaction between leader and led is in the foreground and employees are to be given more responsibilities through mutual trust. Dealing with this dis­tance, i.e. successful communication with modem media, as well as building and maintaining trust under virtual conditions, becomes essential in times of globaliza­tion and, especially since 2020, in times of pandemics. In the context of virtual leadership, four perspectives emerge for leaders (Wald, 2014, p. 362ff.): “(1) Vir­tual leadership as leadership from a distance - leading from a distance; (2) Virtual leadership as e-leadership - leading with new media; (3) Virtual leadership as lead­ership with new relationships - shaping new leadership relationships; and (4) Vir­tual leadership as emergent leadership - leveraging emergent leadership.”

To conclude, the following table 2 summarizes the key differences between the classical and the modem approaches. The essential difference lies in the under­standing of the roles of the leader and the employees and how the two actors interact with each other. The classic structures are still strongly oriented toward the leader actually leading in the first place. Her or she does not tolerate any other opinion besides his own and feels superior to the "subordinates" because of his position.

Table 2: Comparison of Classical and New Leadership Approaches (Lippold, 2017, p. 364)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The newer approaches aim at a more mixed role image. Leaders usually still have the decision-making power, but employees are included in the decision-making process. The leader knows he cannot be the expert everywhere and the combined knowledge of a team is always greater than his own considered alone. Trust, respect and appreciation of each other are essential prerequisites in dealing with each other.

2.1.4 Competency in the Context of Leadership

This part of the literature review deals with the theory of competencies in the con­text of leadership. According to the Bundesinstitut fur Berufsbildung (BIBB, n.d.), the term competency and the associated concept can be defined as “[...] the com­bination of knowledge and skills of an individuum to overcome action require­ments. Individuals are considered competent if they are able to regenerate currently required actions on the basis of knowledge, skills and abilities [...]". A similar def­inition can be found in Krumm et al. (2012, p. 3). They, too, describe competencies as the “abilities, skills and other characteristics that contribute to the effective man­agement of complex situations”. Competencies can be applied to the following four levels: (a) individuals, (b) teams, (c) companies, and (d) organizations (Westhoff, 2007, p. 29). Since this work is primarily concerned with the DL as an individual and his or her competencies, the individual level is particularly relevant. In general, competencies are generated from resources and represent a multidimensional con­struct consisting of the totality of knowledge, skills, attitudes, personality traits, talents, relationships, networks, etc. (North et al., 2018, p. 37). Competencies arise when people organize their skills and knowledge toward a goal of action, are able to motivate themselves to act, and can solve a task successfully and according to a situation. Therefore, competency goes beyond pure knowledge and also includes values, attitudes, norms, emotional aspects and the ability to motivate oneself and to act. Briefly summarized, “competencies are founded by knowledge in the narrow sense, constituted by rules, values and norms, personalized by interiorization pro­cesses, disposed as skills, consolidated by experience and realized on the basis of will” (Heyse & Erpenbeck, 2010, p. XI). With regard to the acquisition of compe­tencies, there are five possibilities in addition to the genetic aspects: (1) family so­cialization, (2) formal and (3) non-formal learning, and (4) informal and (5) non- intentional learning (North et al., 2018, p. 45).

2.1.4.1 “KompetenzAtlas“ after Erpenbeck & Heyes

Considering not all competencies are the same, nowadays, a differentiated compe­tency architecture is assumed (Erpenbeck, 2012, p. 18). The so-called meta-com- petencies form the foundation. These are general abilities for self-organization (e.g., self-knowledge capacity, value openness, situation and context identification ca­pacity). This is followed by the basic-competencies, which are personal (P), activ­ity-related (A), professional-methodical (P), and social-communicative competen­cies (S) (Erpenbeck, 2012, p. 19). Person-related competencies refer, for example, to readiness for action, creative ability, and pronounced reliability. Activity-related competencies may include decision-making ability, mobility, and initiative. Social- communicative competencies include the ability to work in a team, communication skills, and a sense of duty. In combination with technical-methodical competencies, they enable employees and managers to perform and create products. Competencies in order to interact with employees ultimately ensure flexibility and the ability to innovate, and thus the survival of the company (Heyse & Erpenbeck, 2010, p. XIII). The scientifically proven “KompetenzAtlas”, developed by Erpenbeck and Heyes, is based on these four basic-competency groups and distinguishes between 64 de­fined sub-competencies (also key-competencies)²¹. With the help of the “Kompe­tenzAtlas”, interpretations can be made along individual sub-competencies. This results in a wide variety of coping strategies and strengths of individuals, groups, organizations (Heyse & Erpenbeck, 2010, p. XIV). The individual basic-competen­cies, each consisting of four core-key-competencies of the respective basic compe­tency and additionally four further key-competencies at the interface to the other three basic-competency groups. Each individual basic-competency contains sixteen key-competencies (Haring & Litzcke, 2017, p. XXI). The latest version of the “KompetenzAtlas” is attached in appendix 12.

2.1.4.2 Competency-Management for Leaders

Especially for leaders, competencies play a central role, especially in dynamic and turbulent times. The mere learning of knowledge, skills and qualifications is not sufficient. Often, those three terms are regarded as competencies - and this is where it is often difficult to make an exact terminological distinction. However, according to the definitions, competencies refer to the ability to act in difficult situations. Knowledge, however, never represents the ability to act, but is ‘merely’ an opera­tionally important prerequisite for it. Skills and qualifications include abilities to act, but none in the creative, self-organizing sense. They, likewise, are operative prerequisites for real competencies (Kode GmbH, 2021a). The founders of Kode²² therefore refer to competencies as prerequisites for action, i.e., the basic abilities to find one's way in new, open, unmanageable, dynamic situations and to be able to act actively (Kode GmbH, 2021a). Hence, leaders urgently need to transform what they have learned into competencies and thus acquire leadership competencies, as a special case of competencies (Haring & Litzcke, 2017, p. XX). According to Erpenbeck (2012a, p. 113) this “leadership competency” is defined as "the ability to act creatively and in a self-organized manner in unexpected, (future) open lead­ership situations". The SIBE²³ presents a catalog of sixteen leadership competencies based on the testimony of executives from approximately 150 companies. Accord­ing to this, the five most important ones are: results-oriented action, communication skills, teamwork skills, decision-making skills and holistic thinking. The remaining competencies can be found in appendix 13. Leadership competencies are among the so-called cross-cutting competencies (Erpenbeck, 2012, p. 21f.). Cross-cutting competencies form the framework of the elaborated archetype model in this thesis. Other cross-cutting competencies include "innovation competency," "digital media competency," "agility/flexibility," "intercultural competency," and "network com­petency" (Ciesielski & Schutz, 2016, S. 119). These competencies cannot be de­fined as partial competencies and must be formed through the interaction and inte­gration of various key-competencies (e.g. the PAPS from the “KompetenzAtlas” as well as other basic competencies in the context of DT) in overlapping situations (Erpenbeck, 2013, p. 317). In addition to the cross-cutting competencies, further situation-specific competencies are relevant, depending on the concrete leadership requirement (Haring & Litzcke, 2017, p. XXff.). For companies, it is advisable to first determine which fields of competency arise in the context of the requirements. It is therefore necessary - in the case of DT and the search for a DL - to conduct a preceding digital maturity analysis (section 2.2.2) and a company-specific task and requirements analysis (not part of this work).

On the basis of the competencies within the “KompetenzAtlas”, in addition to the cross-sectional competencies and the introduced approaches to determine ar­chetypes and competencies of a DL in section 2.2.3, the first draft of the AM elab­orated in this thesis was generated (figure 7 / appendix 26). The further steps of the elaboration-process of the final draft of the model are described in section 4.

2.2 Part 2: The Need for the Digital Leader

In part 2 of the literature review, the main goal is to implement the need for a new way of leadership in the digital economy. Hence, it is defined how and out of which position this “Digital Leader” is leading the DT. Furthermore, a concept to identify the digital maturity of a company is presented. Lastly, in section 2.2.3, a variety of existing (Archetype-) Models of a Digital Leader respective a CDO are introduced.

2.2.1 Leading the Digital Change in Companies

„ One of the most important [...] leadership responsibilities is to guide andfacilitate the
process of making a major change in an organization. A major change may involve [...]
different objectives [...]. The change process can be described as having different stages,
such as unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. [...] People typically transit through a se-
ries of emotional stages as they adjust to the needfor a drastic change in their lives. Un-
derstanding [...] these change processes helps leaders guide andfacilitate change. “
(Yuki, 2013, p. 101)

In the context of the changes and challenges occurring with the DT, the fundamental success of a company is caught between the stability of structures and the automa­tion of processes on the one hand and the ability to adapt to changing requirements on the other (Blessin & Wick, 2017, p. 386f.). However, in the often-cited VUCA- environment, the entire conception of a company and the current state of knowledge might be rethought and redesigned. If it comes to these circumstances and with regard to the quote by Yuki (2013, p. 101), first and foremost the executives in a company are called upon. Leaders continue to be seen as the linchpin in change projects. They have to set the strategy, and they have to initialize, proclaim and exemplify the need for change. Thereby it is within their area of responsibility to ensure that collaboration works in the digital world (Crummenerl & Kemmer, 2015, p. 3). Often, the idea of change, especially in medium-sized and family-owned com­panies, comes up against an entrenched tradition and anchoring of long-established structures. Wherever change meets tradition, tensions and uncertainty arise (Raskino & Waller, 2015, p. 89). Therefore, the idea and motivation for change must be firmly embedded in the structures and units of the entire organization in order to make the transformation sustainable and successful. Therefore, it is first important to define where exactly the impetus for digital change must come from in a company. Looking at the structure of a company there are three possibilities: the institutional perspective, the functional perspective, and the process-oriented perspective (can be neglected here) (Lippold, 2017, p. 20ff.). Starting with the func­tional perspective thus, corporate governance, also referred to as management (cf. Section 2.1.2.1) subdivides itself based on different areas of activity. The literature speaks of a “Canon of Five” (Steinmann & Schreyogg, 2005, as cited in Lippold, 2017, p. 23): planning, organization, personnel deployment, leadership and control (Lippold, 2017, p. 23). Also important at this point is the institutional approach. Accordingly, a company is structured on the basis of three levels: the upper man­agement level (consisting of the executive board and heads of corporate divisions), the middle management level (consisting of division managers, main department managers and department heads) and the lower management level (consisting of group managers, workshop managers and office managers). In the context of new leadership approaches (as in this thesis), there is talk of breaking down hierarchies and softening the traditional leadership roles in organizations. In terms of DLP, the following emerges: on the one hand, every leader in a company must of course be a DL to some extent and possess a digital mindset. However, the basis for the model presented in this paper is the assumption that there is some form of a DL who must be positioned fairly high up in the corporate hierarchy. He or she needs the neces­sary authorities to enforce the transformation. This can either be one person, a team of several DLs, or perhaps a Digital Leader Unit consisting of a top-level Chief DL and a team of DLs at a level below, which can act in a supportive capacity for other departments. Westerman et al. (2012, p. 20; cf. Petry, 2016, p. 303) determine that, initially, it must be the responsibility of the company's management to successfully master DT and the associated challenges. In the following table 3, Kane et al. (2019, p. 38) represents that the digital progress within companies should primarily lay inside the CEO's office area of responsibility:

Table 3: Who leads Digital Progress? (own illustration, based on Kane et al., 2019, p. 38)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Depending on the size of the company and the type of company, this results in different possibilities. For example, in smaller companies, the CEO may well have to assume the role of the top DL (C3 a., E14, para. 10). If we look at larger organi­zations, the DL should at least be found in top management. Raskino & Waller (2015, p. 9Iff.) describe how every single member of the C-Level-Board need to be involved in the transformation process. In addition to this, especially the CDO, as a member of the C-Level executives, comes into the focus of attention. This ex­ecutive has been appointed as a member of the C-level management in an increasing number of companies in response to the DT (also within the companies of three of the experts). Even though this executive is often associated with the DL, the under­standing and competencies of a DL might slightly differ compared to a CDO.

Apart from the position from which the DL leads the transformation process, leaders, in general, need to challenge themselves and alter their leadership style. A culture-study by the “New Quality of Work Initiative”²⁴, launched by the German Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (2014), attempted to generate a dif­ferentiated picture of the most relevant competencies and requirements for leaders in the context of DT with the help of a survey of 400 executives. As a result, ten core statements on "good leadership" in today's world were made, most of which are closely related to the approaches of new leadership (section 2.1.3). In particular, (1) flexibility and diversity are key factors for successful leadership. The most im­portant goal is (2) the development of process-competency and (3) the formation of networks is the preferred model for the future. (4) Hierarchical management is not considered contemporary and is rejected, and (5) the ability to cooperate is preferred to the sole focus on returns. Furthermore, a good leader should (6) constantly coach himself personally and (7) motivation is linked to self-determination and apprecia­tion. Likewise, (8) social issues are gaining relevance. (9) Leaders also desire a paradigm shift in leadership culture. As a final point, it was noted that (10) the (right) leadership culture is a highly controversial topic that requires thinking be­yond right and wrong (Forum Gute Fuhrung, 2014, p. 6ff.).

Both, Crisp Research (Velten et al., 2015) and Capgemini (Crummenerl & Kemmer, 2015) conducted studies to identify the expectations, challenges, and key requirements for leaders in the digital age - for DL. In the case of Crisp Research (Velten et al. 2015, p. 23), these were: (1) taking on a role model and motivator function (87 %²⁵); (2) pushing through new impulses and ideas (86 %); (3) promot­ing the digital capabilities of employees (84 %); (4) enforcing and implementing the digital strategy (83 %); (5) acting as an "evangelizer" (strong affirmer) of Dig­italization (81 %). The Capgemini study (Crummenerl & Kemmer, 2015, p. 4f.) came to similar conclusions. These are related to the influencing factors mentioned in section 2.1.1 (Crummenerl & Kemmer, 2015, cf. table 1). Accordingly, leaders must (1) drive change and act as role models for DT. They must (2) recognize the performance of employees in the form of regular feedback as well as (3) promote (remote-) collaboration overall. Another important point is the (4) continuous de­velopment and promotion of employees and oneself. Leaders (5) must also be able to make important decisions. They need to rely on the expertise of employees and encourage their participation. Finally, leaders (6) must be able to provide orienta­tion in transformational times. Buhse (2012, p. 249) summarizes the differences between classical values within a company and the digital mindset (table 4).

Table 4: Differences between Classical Values and the Digital Mindset (Buhse, 2012, p. 249)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The insights gained so far can be confirmed by the model in figure 3. The basic VOPA-model with the four characteristics Networking, Openness, Agility and Par­ticipation goes back to Buhse (2014, as cited in Petry, 2016, p.44) and is based on an analysis of diverse business model innovations. The four dimensions are consid­ered to be the central aspects of Digitalization (Petry, 2016, p. 43f.). The model is supplemented by the fifth dimension "Trust" to obtain the "VOPA-Plus-Model".

Figure 3: The "VOPA+ Model" (own illustration, based on Petry, 2016, p. 44)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Concluding, the DL must be familiar with new technologies and be confident in dealing with them, but rather he or she must sensitize people throughout the organ­ization to technological and digital change and generally create the right mindset for the change. Since most of the current leading managers still grow up in a pre­digital, “slower” world and a large number of technological advances are uncharted territory for them, executives need new competencies in connection with Digitali­zation and dealing with employees (Reinhardt & Lueken, 2018). Leaders must in­troduce new digital methods of communicating with individual teams and employ­ees as the physical distance increases. However, what many find most difficult is the fact that in an agile business environment, executives must relinquish much of their "power" to employees, requiring a great deal of mutual trust. Those require­ments result in the central research question: which competencies are critical for executives and which different archetypes of a DL emerge in this context?

2.2.2 Digital Status Quo of Companies - Identify the Digital Maturity

Before a company can start with the DT, it is necessary to figure out the current digital maturity level and where the need for change is located. Schallmo & Rusnjak (2017, p. 13) have developed and established a roadmap for companies to address this question, among others. The roadmap (appendix 14) consists of five phases: “Digital- (1) -Reality, (2) -Ambition, (3) -Potential, (4) -Fit, and (5) -Implementa­tion”. In the overall picture of the DT process, each of these phases is equally im­portant. A company must become aware of the digital reality in which it finds itself. This is often referred to as digital maturity. Following this, the company can then actively search for suitable (Digital) Leaders with whom it can then jointly analyze phases (2) to (5) and attempt to implement them. Small and medium-sized compa­nies in particular, but also large traditional, often rather conservative and rigid cor­porations, do not have an easy time finding an approach to this complex topic and sometimes have serious deficits with regard to Digitalization and DT. In order to approach those challenges in a structured manner and from the very beginning, it is advisable for companies to first conduct a digital maturity analysis. One of the best- known approaches results from a study conducted over several years by Capgemini Consulting and the MIT Center for Digital Business beginning in 2011 (Westerman et al., 2011)²⁶. In the study, a total of more than 150 C-level executives from 50 international corporations were asked about new digital challenges and the use of new technologies. One of the main results of the study was the development of the "Digital Maturity Matrix" (figure 4). In order to successfully undergo the DT, many factors need to be mastered. These factors can be broken down into "The What" and "The How" and are shown in appendix 15. The former refers to the so-called inner box, which consists of strategic assets, digital capabilities and investments, and the nine digital elements. These involves the specific set of elements that need to be implemented by the organization as well as the required resources used and needed to do so. The outer boxes (digital vision, governance, and engagement) are the paths that leaders take to lead the transformation to a successful outcome. This provides a kind of scaffolding that should enable leaders to effectively build the elements of “The What" (Westerman et al., 2011). The organization should have the capabilities and culture to be able to add value to these elements. These two overarching elements result in the two axes of the matrix: “Digital Intensity” on the Y-axis and “Transformation management intensity” on the X-axis. Companies can now be categorized into four different types, each with a different starting point from which to approach the DT (figure 4).

Figure 4: Digital Maturity Matrix (own illustration, based on Capgemini Consulting & MIT, 2011)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

If one is not in the upper right quadrant, i.e., not yet a "Digirati", companies should take action to address weaknesses in their DT process, or create a roadmap to in­crease maturity. The next step, based on this analysis of the situation, would then be to hire suitable Digital Leaders to acquire the missing digital competencies within the company and successfully master the DT process by implementing a digital strategy (digital goals and visions)²⁷ (Westerman et al., 2011).

An appropriate DL (so far also frequently a CDO) who can execute the digital strategy and consolidate it within the company is one of the essential key points. The following section is therefore devoted to previous models and approaches for identifying the various competencies of different executives in the digital age.

2.2.3 Existing Archetype- and Competency-Approaches

In addition to the “Kompetenz-Atlas” by Erpenbeck and Heyes (KODE GmbH, 2017), there are already approaches to determine competencies and archetypes of a DL, or respective the CDO. Following, some of those approaches are introduced.

2.2.3.1 Crisp Research: Digital-Leader-Quadrant

Starting with the aforementioned study by Crisp Research (Velten et al., 2015), for the first time, a detailed profile of a DL was generated based on a survey of 503 executives from companies (with more than 500 employees) in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The central question of the study was what distinguishes leaders and visionaries in the digital age (skills and mindset) in order to successfully shape the DT in their own company. According to the study, the DL should, among other things, have an awareness of the fact that his or her own company is strongly af­fected by Digitalization and that there is an associated high need for transformation in various areas of the company. The DL sees DT positively and as a constructive opportunity that can be used as a basis for solving major ecological and economic challenges (cf. section 6: the “Transformation-Trilogy”, [Rump, 2021, p. 4f.]). For him, Digitalization is an opportunity for continuous personal as well as organiza­tional development. The DL has an overview of the strategic direction (projects and initiatives) with regard to the DT of the company and provides support in initiating, moderating and implementing it. He or she brings innovations to life quickly and purposefully, advances as a visionary and triggers new development processes. The core characteristics include strategic thinking, the active promotion of a culture of innovation within the company, and the critical and constructive questioning of es­tablished business processes and IT-systems. As a role model, the DL motivates

[...]

---

¹ “OECD”: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; “UK Department for BEIS”: The United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

² The abbreviation VUCA stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity.

³ Including the university catalogs of the universities of Frankfurt and Mainz, the Springer databases, Google Scholar, and the secondary literature cited in the retrieved texts.

⁴ For example: according to the ‘CEO Briefing 2014’ by Accenture 52% out of 1.041 managers indicated that the own specific industry is going to be completely or rather significantly transformed by Digitalization . Likewise, surveys conducted by IBM (IBM CEO-Study with 1.700 CEOs and managing directors), EY (1.025 international companies) as well as Capgemini Consulting (Change Management Studies) revealed that the vast majority of respondents consider Digitalization to be the key transformation driver.

⁵ In this context, Kollmann (2020, p. 4) also speaks of a "3-P model for a digital strategy".

⁶ Lies (2018, Gablers Wirtschaftslexikon) defines leadership similarly, but somewhat more broadly, and emphasizes that there is not yet "the one" uniformly valid and recognized definition of leader­ship. Rather, leadership refers to the “people-, behavior-, trait-, interaction- and/or motivation-ori­ented tasks of management.”

⁷ An extensive tabular overview of the differences between “Leader” & “Manager”, as presented in Sarges (2013, p. 114 f.) and referencing the website changingminds.org, is appended (appendix 4).

⁸ The results of the study conducted by Lindner are provided in appendix 5. He distinguishes be­tween four main challenges arising in relation with Digitalization. This results in four solution ap­proaches for leaders and the respective competencies.

⁹ ICT is also referred to as Advanced Information Technology (AIT) or tele media.

¹⁰ An explanation of this approach and the seven styles can be found within (Becker, 2015, p. 23ff.).

¹¹ A more detailed extension of these four behavioral dimensions is provided by Blake and Mouton. (1964, as cited in Lippold, 2019, p. 13ff), who formed a grid from the Ohio State Leadership Quad­rant — the Managerial Grid. A brief description of this can be found in Lippold (2019, p. 13ff.).

¹² A high task orientation and low relationship orientation and the task-relevant maturity level of the employee is little too low. The manager clearly tells the employee what to do and how to do it.

¹³ A high task and high relationship orientation and the task-relevant maturity level of the employee is also little too low. The employee's opinion is taken into account in the decision-making process, but the final decision usually rests with the manager.

¹⁴ A high relationship orientation and low task orientation and the employee's task-relevant maturity level is medium to high. The employee plays an active role in decision-making and follow-through.

¹⁵ A low task and relationship orientation and the employee's task-relevant maturity level is medium to high. Decision-making authority and responsibility for execution is (almost) completely trans­ferred from the manager to the employee.

¹⁶ According to the classic understanding, companies tend to be managed on a transactional basis. Companies or leaders exchange payment, for a service to be rendered by the employee. The ration­ally acting employee is only committed for financial reasons. Accordingly, the relationship between leader and led is a rather unemotional one and one is merely in a pure structure of performance and reward to each other (Becker, 2015, p. 38f.)..

¹⁷ A detailed overview of the theory of a charismatic leader can be found in Yuki (2013, p. 309ff.).

¹⁸ According to Lippold (2019, p. 29) those four different generations are the “Baby Boomers” (year of birth: 1945 - 1965), the “Generation X” (1965 - 1980), the “Generation Y” (1980 - 1995) and the “Generation Z” (since 1995).

¹⁹ The shared leadership theory is explained within Lippold (2019, p. 3If.).

²⁰ Virtuality describes properties of a concrete object that cannot be realized physically, but can be realized through the use of additional specifications (Lippold, 2019, p. 35).

²¹ A detailed description of the 64 competencies can be found within Heyse/Erpenbeck (1999,2007 as cited in Heyse & Erpenbeck, 2010, p. XIV). The “KompetenzAtlas” itself is backed up with about 250 synonyms and takes into account regional, industry and activity-specific differences.

²² Kode GmbH is a company and a network of consultants who support organizations and people in the development, further education and training of competencies by means of the software-based KODE®-procedures. The process developers Prof. Dr. Volker Heyse and Prof. Dr. John Erpenbeck, support in the background and permanently develop the processes further. Both professors are ex­perienced experts in the field of competency theory.

²³ The School of International Business and Entrepreneurship of the Steinbeis-Hochschule Berlin.

²⁴ In German: “Initiative Neue Qualitat der Arbeit“ (INQA)

²⁵ The value in the parenthesis is made up of the votes of the respondents of the study that fully agreed or tended to agree.

²⁶ Other suitable and recommendable approaches to determine the Digital Maturity, are:

1. “Digital Marketing Maturity” - Boston Consulting Group & Google (Field, Patel, & Leon, 2018)

2. “Forrester Digital Maturity Model” - Forrester Research (Gill & VanBoskirk, 2016)

3. “Maturity Model of Digital Business Processes” — Bitkom (2020)

4. The “d.quarks Method” — PWC, Dr. Carsten Hentrich and Michael Pachmajer (2016)

²⁷ Capgemini (2015) also uses the framework of this matrix as a basis for specifying the digital capabilities of leaders. With regard to this purpose, it has already been presented in section 2.1.2.2.