The Evolution of Leadership Theories in the Digital Era: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda
Keywords:
digital leadership, leadership theories, e-leadership, digital transformation, systematic literature review, qualitative research, future research agendaAbstract
This study aimed to explore how leadership theories have evolved in response to digital transformation and to develop a future research agenda for leadership studies in digitally mediated organizations. This qualitative study adopted a systematic review–oriented exploratory design supported by semi-structured expert interviews. Participants were 22 senior managers, organizational development consultants, digital transformation specialists, and university faculty members in Tehran who had direct experience with leadership, digitalization, or organizational change. Participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and continued until theoretical saturation was achieved at the nineteenth interview, followed by three additional interviews to confirm conceptual stability. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis in NVivo software. Coding was conducted in three stages: open coding, axial clustering, and selective theme integration. The findings indicated that leadership theory in the digital era has moved beyond individual-centered models of authority, charisma, and hierarchical influence toward relational, distributed, adaptive, data-informed, and ethically accountable forms of leadership. Four main categories emerged: the transition from heroic leadership to networked leadership, the rise of digital and algorithmic mediation in leadership processes, the reconstruction of trust and communication in virtual and hybrid environments, and the emergence of ethical, human-centered, and adaptive leadership capabilities. Participants emphasized that digital leadership is not merely technology use by leaders but a transformation in how influence, decision-making, coordination, and accountability are enacted. The study suggests that digital-era leadership requires theoretical integration across e-leadership, complexity leadership, shared leadership, ethical leadership, and human–machine collaboration. Future research should move from descriptive accounts of digital leadership toward multi-level, longitudinal, cross-cultural, and evidence-based models that explain how leadership evolves when authority, intelligence, and organizational agency are distributed across humans, technologies, and networks.
References
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00062-X
Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.005
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938
Gierlich-Joas, M., Hess, T., & Neuburger, R. (2020). More self-organization, more control—or even both? Inverse transparency as a digital leadership concept. Business Research, 13, 921–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00130-0
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
Kane, G. C., Phillips, A. N., Copulsky, J., & Andrus, G. (2019). The technology fallacy: How people are the real key to digital transformation. MIT Press.
Larson, L., & DeChurch, L. A. (2020). Leading teams in the digital age: Four perspectives on technology and what they mean for leading teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101377
Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.010
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. SAGE Publications.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.
