Assessment of the findings

5.1.1. The scanning practice and the innovation process

Based on the capacities of dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007; Teece, 2009; Teece, 2014), Yeow et al. (2018) established and defined eleven practices associated with the execution of digital transformation. The scanning practice regards explorative research on both internal and external sources with the aim of finding opportunities (Teece, 2007; Galunic, 2017). Thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews conducted for the single, embedded case study reveals that followers carry out the scanning practice most out of all the eleven practices associated with the execution of digital transformation. This finding is assessed using both leadership literature and innovation literature as (a) leadership literature examines the dynamic between leaders and followers, and (b) innovation literature examines the scanning practice.

Although the concept of leadership was examined in the literature review section of this thesis, the concept of innovation has not yet been examined. Much like the concept of leadership, innovation is also a complex and multifaceted concept (e.g., Rosing et al., 2011; Tidd & Bessant, 2020). However, the interest lies in the innovation process rather than innovation as a concept as a link between the innovation process and the scanning practice is present. Tidd & Bessant (2020) divide the innovation process into three steps: (a) assessing the environment, (b)

developing the plan of action based on said assessment, and (c) implementing the developed plan of action. However, the innovation process is highly unpredictable in practice (Rosing et al., 2011). Although the innovation process is highly unpredictable in practice, the first step as defined by Tidd & Bessant (2020), i.e., assessing the environment, almost always occurs during the innovation process (Rosing et al., 2011). Assessing the environment regards the describing, understanding, and analyzing of internal and external environment of the organization (Tidd &

Bessant, 2020), which is similar to the scanning practice. Thus, as assessing the environment almost always occurs during the innovation process, and assessing the environment is similar to the scanning practice, a link between the innovation process and the scanning practice is

established.

After conducting a meta-analysis on the influence of leadership on innovation, Rosing et al. (2011) found that exploration is the primary requirement of innovation during the earlier

stages of the innovation process. Exploration is a form of organizational learning that regards experimenting, searching for alternatives, and taking risks (March, 1991). Leaders that foster exploration in followers facilitate innovation by followers during the earlier stages of the innovation process (Rosing et al., 2011). This suggests that leaders have an influence on the extent to which followers carry out the scanning practice as a link between the earlier stages of the innovation process and the scanning practice has been established. However, said influence is solely hypothetical. In addition, literature assessing the influence of leadership on innovation does not examine the frequency of innovation by followers; let alone, the frequency of innovation by followers during the earlier stages of the innovation process. Thus, although followers do potentially carry out the scanning practice most out of all the eleven practices associated with the execution of digital transformation, e.g., if leaders foster exploration, sufficient evidence to support this claim is not present.

5.1.2. Employee autonomy and intrapreneurship

Employee autonomy is defined as “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the employee in scheduling the work and in determining the processes to be used in carrying it out” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 79).

Thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews conducted for the single, embedded case study reveals that employee autonomy is the primary facilitator of the ability to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation. This finding is assessed using entrepreneurship literature as entrepreneurship literature on intrapreneurship examines employee autonomy (e.g., Poeisz, 1999; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; van Brussel, 2012; Wiethe-Körprich et al., 2017).

Intrapreneurship is defined as “entrepreneurship within an existing organization”

(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001, p. 498). It is about organizational actors generating, planning, and implementing project ideas within an existing organization (Wiethe-Körprich et al., 2017), which is similar to the eleven practices associated with the execution of digital transformation

established and defined by Yeow et al. (2018). Generating project ideas is similar to the practices developed and established based on the sensing capacity; planning project ideas is similar to the practices developed and established based on the seizing capacity; and implementing project

ideas is similar to the practices developed and established based on the transforming capacity (Wiethe-Körprich et al., 2017; Yeow et al., 2018). Thus, a link between intrapreneurship and the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation is established.

Intrapreneurial behavior is about the behavior of an organizational actor regarding the generating, planning, and implementing of project ideas within an existing organization

(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; van Brussel, 2012; Wiethe-Körprich et al., 2017). Intrapreneurial behavior could be fostered in multiple manners (e.g., van Brussel, 2012). The Triad model presents motivation, capacity, and employee autonomy as variables that determine the chance that an organizational actor adopts a certain behavior (Poeisz, 1999). Assuming the Triad model and the associated three variables as a base to determine the chance that an organizational actor adopts intrapreneurial behavior, employee autonomy is the most important variable as an organizational actor cannot adopt intrapreneurial behavior without the presence of employee autonomy (van Brussel, 2012).

In sum, as employee autonomy is the most important variable for adopting intrapreneurial behavior, and a link between intrapreneurship and the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation has been established, evidence to support the finding that employee autonomy is the primary facilitator of the ability to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation is present. Thus, employee autonomy is likely the primary facilitator of the ability to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation.

Although employee autonomy can be created by followers as an internal asset, leaders are primarily responsible for the extent to which employee autonomy is able to be created (van Brussel, 2012). As leaders are primarily responsible for the extent to which employee autonomy is able to be created, leaders are primarily responsible for the extent to which employee

autonomy is able to be cultivated. Thus, as employee autonomy is likely the primary facilitator of the ability to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation, leaders must ensure that employee autonomy is able to be cultivated in order to facilitate the ability of followers to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital

transformation.

5.1.3. A low level of commitment and organizational change

Commitment is defined as “a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets” (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001, p. 308). Thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews conducted for the single, embedded case study reveals that a low level of commitment is the primary inhibitor of the ability to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation. This finding is assessed using change management literature as change management literature examines commitment (e.g., Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001;

Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Parish et al., 2008; Oreg et al., 2013; Merucrio, 2015).

In this section, commitment a digital transformation strategy that contains exact guidelines for the manner by which organizational actors should carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation is examined. However, although

commitment to such a digital transformation strategy is examined, literature on commitment to organizational change is used as commitment to a strategy is conceptually similar to commitment to organizational change (Parish et al., 2008).

The level of commitment of an organizational actor to a certain change is the most important factor for determining the extent to which said organizational actor contributes to the success of said change (Oreg et al., 2013; Parish et al., 2008). In the context of organizational change, success regards the extent to which the change initiatives of said organizational change are implemented (Noble & Mokwa, 1999). Thus, the level of commitment of an organizational actor to a certain organizational change is the most important factor for determining the extent to which said organizational actor implements the change initiatives of said organizational change.

The three-component model of workplace commitment divides commitment into three forms: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment (e.g., Meyer

& Herscovitch, 2001; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Merucrio, 2015). Assuming the

three-component model of workplace commitment as base to determine the level of commitment of an organizational actor to a certain organizational change, the level of affective commitment of an organizational actor to said organizational change significantly determines the level of

commitment of an organizational actor to said organizational change (Parish et al., 2008).

In sum, the level of commitment of an organizational actor to a certain organizational change is the most important factor for determining the extent to which said organizational actor

implements the change initiatives of said organizational change. Thus, as the level of affective commitment of an organizational actor to a certain organizational change significantly

determines the level of commitment to said organizational change, the level of affective commitment of an organizational actor to a certain organizational change significantly

determines the extent to which said organizational actor implements the change initiatives of said organizational change. If commitment to organizational change is substituted with commitment to the aforementioned type of digital transformation strategy, the level of affective commitment of an organizational actor to said digital transformation strategy significantly determines the extent to which said organizational actor implements the change initiatives of said digital

transformation strategy, i.e., the extent to which said organizational actor carries out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation. Consequently, as the level of affective commitment of an organizational actor to the aforementioned type of digital transformation strategy significantly determines the extent to which said organizational actor carries out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation, evidence to support the finding that a low level of commitment is the primary inhibitor of the ability to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation is present. Thus, a low level of

commitment is likely the primary inhibitor of the ability to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation.

Leaders are responsible for the formation of the digital transformation strategy

(Fitzgerald et al., 2014). In addition, leaders are primarily responsible for ensuring that followers commit to said strategy by adequately communicating said strategy to the followers (Kotter, 2012), which means that leaders are primarily responsible for the extent to which followers commit to the digital transformation strategy. Thus, as a low level of commitment is likely the primary inhibitor of the ability to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation, leaders must ensure that followers commit to the digital transformation strategy in order to counter the inhibiting influence that a low level of commitment has on the ability of followers to carry out the practices associated with the execution of digital transformation.