The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1934-8835.htm

Digital
Digital innovation drivers in retail innovation
banking: the role of leadership, drivers

culture, and technostress inhibitors

Hussein-Elhakim Al Issa 19
HEC Montreal, Quebec, Canada and RMIT University, Hanoi, Vietnam, and
Received 11 August 2023
Mohammed Mispah Said Omar Revised 26 November 2023
8 January 2024
University of Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain Accepted 8 January 2024

Abstract
Purpose – The empirical study of factors related to digital transformation (DT) in the banking sector
is still limited, even though the importance of the topic is universally evident. To bridge that gap, this
paper aims to explore the role of digital leadership (DL), innovative culture (IC) and technostress
inhibitors (TI) to support engagement for improved digital innovation (DI). Based on the literature,
these variables are crucial aspects of digitalisation, even though there is no agreement on their
conclusiveness.
Design/methodology/approach – This quantitative study tested a new conceptual model using survey
data from five major banks in Libya. Partial least squares structural equation modelling was used to analyse
the data from the 292 usable responses.
Findings – The results showed that DL and IC positively affect DI. Techno-work engagement (TE)
mediated the relationship between leadership, culture and innovation. TI played a significant moderating role
in leadership, culture and engagement relationships.
Practical implications – The research findings highlight critical issues about how leadership style and
fostering organisational support in the banking sector can enhance DT. Leaders must demonstrate a
commitment to long-term resource allocation to avoid possible negative effects from digital stress while
pursuing DI through work engagement.
Social implications – The study suggests that fostering organisational support can enhance DT in retail
banks, potentially leading to improved customer experiences and increased access to financial services. These
programs will help banks contribute to societal and economic development.
Originality/value – This timely study examines predictor mechanisms of innovation in retail banking
that resonate within the restrictions of organisational and DI frameworks and the social exchange
theory. Exploring the intervening effect of TE in the leadership, culture and innovation associations is
unprecedented.
Keywords Digital innovation, Digital leadership, Innovative culture, Techno-work engagement,
Technostress inhibitors
Paper type Research paper

© Hussein-Elhakim Al Issa and Mohammed Mispah Said Omar. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. International Journal of
Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both Organizational Analysis
Vol. 32 No. 11, 2024
commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication pp. 19-43
and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/ Emerald Publishing Limited
1934-8835
4.0/legalcode DOI 10.1108/IJOA-08-2023-3905
IJOA Introduction
32,11 The fast changes due to digital transformation (DT) technologies have made business
operations challenging (Vial, 2021). It is easy to get lost in the available advanced
technologies, but the focus must remain on achieving better business outcomes through
innovations. Technology has disrupted many aspects of our personal lives and business
operations. The web, personal computers, mobile phones and smartphones are examples of
20 disruptive technologies that have impacted our lives in many positive ways (Sultan, 2015).
The concept of disruptive innovation suggests that innovations do not come so often and
tend to serve consumers who cannot consume them due to either price, convenience or skill.
Those innovations tend to be of low quality initially but, once established, tend to improve
in quality with time and eventually disrupt the leading innovations and result in the demise
of their companies (Christensen, 1997).
Currently, financial institutions like banks are being disrupted by FinTech companies
(Citi, 2016). If banks do not take steps to use technology to automate their services in every
aspect of their operations, they could potentially lose out to FinTech companies that promise
customers convenience, savings and speed. Presently, the Libyan banking sector has 20
commercial banks that have contributed remarkably to increasing lending to the private
sector while improving financial intermediation. The intense rivalry in this industry makes
survival very tough for ineffective banks. This has been compounded by the Libyan
currency crisis that began in 2014 and has damaged public confidence and trust in the
sector. To restore customer relations, banks have since accelerated digital offerings like
electronic payment systems and accessible travellers’ cheques to help manage liquidity
issues (Ramali, 2018). Thus, this makes questions on determinants of digital innovation (DI)
in the banking sector very timely and critical.
Grand challenges are significant national or global problems that can be addressed
through DI, requiring new approaches (Davidson et al., 2023). Yet banking was selected for
the current study for several reasons. Firstly, there is an unprecedented rise in DI in the
banking sector. Around the globe, banks offer services to align with customer demands and
in tandem with the fourth industrial revolution (Schwab, 2017). Secondly, the advent of
COVID-19 accelerated using digital capabilities in processes, products and assets to improve
productivity, increase customer value, manage risk and manoeuvre through new income-
generating activities (Satell et al., 2021). Thirdly, a remarkable increase in DT investment
appears in all sectors. In 2018 alone, about US$1.3tn was invested in DT. The cornerstones
of DT are disruption and innovation. Specifically, banks are making significant strides in
that respect by expanding services, re-configuring delivery channels, integrating payments
and using technologies like robotic process automation, blockchain, big data analytics and
cloud provider outsourcing (Backbase, 2022), and people are facing more than ever before
sophisticated technology innovations like high-frequency trading and algorithmic trading
(Cziesla, 2014). Finally, innovative digital leadership (DL) concepts are under-studied
(Gierlich-Joas et al., 2020).
For several reasons, studying the current study’s constructs is significant in the banking
sector within the Libyan context. Primarily, DI represents the way for banks’ ability to rise
to the occasion and assert themselves by restoring customer relations following the 2011
revolution aftermath. As a result, banks can now help customers drive value and
productivity to compete at a global level.
Organisations must support their workforce to overcome digital disruptions, as the
constant pressure to update technology hardware and software can sometimes backfire in
the form of technostress. Organisations can counterbalance the undesirable effects of
technostress by affording support mechanisms to rally the technology capabilities for
digital solutions through literacy facilitation, technical support and facilitating additional Digital
involvement, thereby changing perceptions of the availability of resources (Ragu-Nathan innovation
et al., 2008; Schaufeli, 2015; Tarafdar et al., 2015).
Work engagement is a widely accepted factor with a strong positive impact on work
drivers
outcomes, including innovation (Mulligan et al., 2021; Orth and Volmer, 2017). Digital
leaders influence techno-work engagement (TE) through emotional contagion, role
modelling and exchanging attention, favours and resources. Past research has verified the
leadership engagement and the engagement-innovation associations (Garg and Dhar, 2017; 21
Orth and Volmer, 2017). Despite the evidence for the relationship between leadership,
engagement and innovation, to the researcher’s knowledge, little research examined
technology-related work engagement as a mediator between DL and innovation.
Furthermore, an innovative culture (IC) encourages openness to new ideas and cultivates
capabilities to embrace technologies behind product or service development. A solid, IC
provides a consistent innovative orientation as a compass for members facing technological
innovation challenges. An IC stimulates regular technological changes, serious precursors to
leadership, stress and engagement.
In the modern world, especially in the banking sector, innovation and the inclusion of
technology are crucial components. As a result, there have been studies that concentrate on
DT. Still, very few have examined the interaction between the essential elements of DI, DL,
IC, technological work engagement and technological stress inhibitors. Therefore, to further
the literature on management in general and DT in banking in particular, the current
research aims to offer a model of the impact of leadership and culture on DI. TE was
theorised to play a mediating role in the relationships mentioned. This research contributes
by offering new theoretical foresight to the scant research on leadership for DI in retail
banking in a developing country. The study is novel in answering calls for research that
explores culture, leadership and work engagement across industry sectors and in differing
occupations (Bakker and Albrecht, 2018; Benitez et al., 2022; Khaola and Coldwell, 2019;
Kraus et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021).
The research introduces an innovative model integrating DL, creative culture and
technostress inhibitors (TI), offering a comprehensive view of their collective impact on DI. This
contribution is twofold: addressing theoretical gaps and guiding practical strategies for
navigating DT complexities in the banking sector. The study’s significance lies in filling a
literature gap by examining DL, IC and their effects on DI in developing country banking sectors,
responding to cross-sector calls for research and secondly, providing a nuanced understanding of
how TI moderate the link between engagement and innovation, enhancing comprehension of
factors fostering work engagement amid digital stress. Thirdly, it offers context-specific insights
into post-COVID-19 DT challenges and opportunities in developing country banking, guiding
strategies for enhanced competitiveness. Fourthly, it supplies actionable recommendations for
managers, emphasising resource allocation for work engagement development and
organisational support to mitigate digital stress, thus, proposing digital stress management as a
dynamic capability for organisational effectiveness in the DT era.

Literature review
Retail banking digital dynamics
In the evolution of retail banking, banks must modernise their agencies, using digital design
to foster positive affective responses and establish personalised relationships with
consumers (Reydet and Carsana, 2017). Technological advances, encompassing blockchain,
cryptocurrencies, biometrics and AI, are poised to reshape the industry. Blockchain holds
potential for transaction processing and data management revolution, while biometrics and
IJOA AI promise enhanced security, streamlined authentication, improved customer service and
32,11 automated banking processes (Coetzee, 2018). Simultaneously, FinTech start-ups are
disrupting traditional banks’ value chains, ushering in a cashless world and increasing
mobile payments, necessitating traditional institutions to adapt to competitive schemes and
holistic customer understanding (Gupta and Xia, 2018). This transformative landscape
prompts a complex DT in retail banking, impacting organisational outcomes and requiring
22 knowledge of the intricate relationships between technology, culture and institutional
change within regulatory frameworks (Krasonikolakis et al., 2020). The FinTech influence,
meanwhile, is fundamentally altering the retail banking model, fostering disintermediation,
collaboration and co-option among banks and FinTech firms, urging strategic decisions on
operational simplification and product range optimisation (Ferrari, 2016). The challenge lies
in successfully navigating this dynamic interplay of technology, disruption and customer
experience to thrive in the digitised future of retail banking.

Theoretical foundation
This study’s model is supported by the social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964),
organisational innovation framework (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010), DI framework (Wiesböck
and Hess, 2020) and disruptive innovations theory (Christensen, 1997) and so aims to keep
with suggestions to integrate theories (Schilke et al., 2018) (Figure 1).
SET suggests that people respond in kind to initiating actions, and a string of reciprocal
exchanges may convert an economic exchange into a high-quality social exchange
relationship. Employees become more committed to their organisations or more trusting

Figure 1.
Research model
(Cropanzano et al., 2017) when they feel a level of equity from their employers that drives Digital
them to do their very best at work and enhances organisational effectiveness. Accordingly, innovation
work engagement entails exchanging benefits with the bank that will have them devise
innovative solutions.
drivers
The organisational innovation framework integrates innovation determinants into three
meta-constructs: leadership, managerial levers (culture) and business processes. Leaders
promote innovative efforts at the initial stages, in effective group interactions and in their
proficiency to build conditions for innovation execution (Mumford and Licuanan, 2004). An 23
IC is one of the managerial levers that enable innovation. Leaders create ICs by clarifying a
vision and promoting autonomy, calculated risk-taking and motivation.
Similarly, the DI framework suggests organisations can use digital technologies for
innovation categories through enablers (culture) under a dedicated governance approach
(leadership). The importance of leadership in maintaining the survival and progression of
their companies is articulated by Christensen (1997). According to the theory of disruptive
innovations, successful leaders can fall prey to the forces of disruptive innovations. They
can sometimes become the cause of the demise of their organisations by failing to act and
respond to those forces in time. For example, technological innovations overthrew Camillo
Pane as CEO of Coty due to the turbulent impact of social media (Instagram and YouTube)
that swept most dramatically the beauty industry. Conversely, good or innovative leaders
can foster a culture that recognises the importance of the dynamic nature of their companies’
capabilities in terms of resources, processes or values.

Digital leadership and digital innovation

The pursuit of DT is about acquiring technology to enhance value creation by shifting
towards digital solutions (Shiuma, 2021). It involves combining several DIs and bringing
new actors, structures, practices and cultures that threaten the existing rules of the game
(Gierlich-Joas et al., 2020). In a literature review by Crossan and Apaydin (2010), leaders
were found to impact innovative efforts by having sufficient technical and professional
expertise, creative skills and abilities to process complex information.
DL is “doing the right things for the strategic success of digitalisation for the enterprise
and its business ecosystem” (Bresciani et al., 2021a, 2021b, p. 98). DL puts the organisation
in motion early by encouraging employees to identify new practices and opportunities to
advance the organisational vision. An example is L’Oreal executives sending clear messages
about digital initiatives for country brands and Sainsbury staff panel for monthly feedback
on critical issues (Westerman et al., 2012).
Banks find it hard to transition fast to new ways for several reasons. Firstly, they have
grown into massively complex international technology firms that operate a highly
sophisticated network of financial markets, credit markets and payment systems (Shaikh
et al., 2017). Secondly, the challenges and rivalry in the banking sector are intensifying due
to lower profits, increased regulation and FinTech competition (Cziesla, 2014). Thirdly, DT
and related technology development have a 50% failure rate, costing the global economy
trillions of dollars (Weisman, 2019). Therefore, the main issue that banks are now facing is
developing new leadership competencies and not the lack of availability of technology
(Eberl and Drews, 2021). Since leaders are vital in advancing innovation (Denti and Hemlin,
2012), the current study explores the value of DL and IC in nurturing engaged employees to
foster innovation.
While there is general agreement on the impact of leadership on the deployment of DT
processes (Schwarzmüller et al., 2018), strategies for DT are not very structured, typically
lacking the breakdown of the effect of digitally focused leadership and mediating factors on
IJOA innovation (Li et al., 2021). Using technologies must be coupled with new management,
32,11 leadership and structures that help workers become more engaged and change their
working practices while leaping (Larjovuori et al., 2016). Leadership has been suggested as
one of the prime influences that can help employees attain high innovation (Gerlach et al.,
2020). DIs can take the form of technical or concept solutions that demand the support
needed to make the transition, and so it is not enough for leaders to have good digital
24 literacy; they must have “a clear and meaningful vision for the digitalisation process and the
capability to execute strategies to actualise it” (Larjovuori et al., 2016, p. 1144).
DI combines digital solutions driven by opportunities for new technologies and the needs
of applications. An example is the evolutionary path realised by the first enterprise resource
planning systems from relational database systems, mobile application stores from
smartphones and media companies using content platforms to produce and distribute
content further (Wiesböck and Hess, 2020).
Many organisations apply solutions without concepts (Khatri and Samuel, 2019), but the
organisational side must also be innovated. The innovation here is viewed as an economic or
social rather than a technical term (Drucker, 2014). At this point, DL most essential because
it can help the firm keep its values and culture while modernising structures and processes.
Therefore, digital leaders communicate their beliefs of how the future rests in leaps of faith
as they are not simply content with analysing empirical data and deductive thinking. Such
leaders stay well-informed of digital expertise and support processes to search, select and
structure innovation capabilities. They focus on generating innovative ideas that help create
value for customers, design digitally enabled services quickly using advanced technologies
and build organisational capability to deliver services that meet and often exceed customer
expectations (Tanniru, 2018). During DT, the role of DL to inspire and effect innovation is
imperative, and numerous past studies supported the positive impact of leadership on
innovation in different contexts (Gerlach et al., 2020; Khosravi et al., 2019; Magesa et al.,
2021). A recent bibliometric analysis (Tigre et al., 2023) highlighted an evolving DL
paradigm emphasising fostering innovation and adaptability as essential for success in a
digital landscape. Based on the above logic, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1. DL is positively and significantly related to DI.

Innovative culture and digital innovation

An IC represents members’ shared values and beliefs about creating and developing innovative
solutions. It encourages openness to new ideas and cultivates capabilities to embrace
complicated technologies underlying new products or service development (Ali and Park,
2016). DT requires continuous innovation, with new digital solutions quickly becoming
obsolete. An IC helps determine innovative events and influences how people interpret and
respond to these events. Thus, a solid, IC provides a consistent perception of innovative
orientation that serves members well when facing technological innovation challenges.
ICs are shared values and beliefs facilitating innovation by leveraging internal-based
competencies, leading to competitive advantage (Martín-de Castro et al., 2013). For example,
Chen et al. (2012) found that a more robust IC facilitates technological innovation by
continuously building norms and routines to invest in innovation efforts.
Past studies have found some support for the relationship between culture and innovation
in different settings (Durcikova et al., 2011; Naveed et al., 2022; Slater et al., 2014). For
example, Kohli and Melville (2019) found in their literature review that a learning culture
promotes opportunities for DI. However, Santos-Vijande et al. (2021) found in a sample of 502
hotels and knowledge-intensive business service firms in Spain that IC does not ensure the
exploitation of organisational skills and resources but affects the management style of Digital
service innovation. Given these arguments, this hypothesis is proposed: innovation
H2. IC is positively and significantly related to DI. drivers

Digital leadership and innovative culture

The DI framework suggests that leadership is associated with organisational factors and 25
guides IC as an enabler that facilitates DI. Scholars have asserted the role played by
leadership in an understanding culture, which includes the values and assumptions of
members and vice versa (Al Issa, 2019; Schein, 2004). For example, Chen et al. (2012) found
in a study involving 102 senior managers and 258 employees in Taiwanese strategic
business units transformational leadership behaviours stimulated technological innovation
while an IC substituted leadership in enabling technological innovation. Although some past
studies have been carried out to determine the effects of leadership on organisational
outcomes, limited studies have paid attention to assessing DL’s influence on IC within the
banking sector (Damanpour, 1991; Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt, 2016). Based on these
arguments, this hypothesis is formulated:

H3. DL is positively and significantly related to an IC.

The mediating role of techno-work engagement

TE refers to the level of motivation at work and typically includes vigour, dedication and
absorption, as Schaufeli et al. (2002) indicated. Research showed that work engagement
mediates between several job resources and employees’ outcomes, for example, between
leadership and service innovation and performance (Özsungur, 2019). Work engagement
includes an attitude that makes employees capable of “thinking out-of-the-box” and ready to
entertain new ideas and generate innovative solutions (Eldor, 2017). High-performing
organisations boost employees’ experience by adopting two digital workplace factors: TE
and responsive DL. The focus on work experience is vital to delivering outstanding
customer-focused DI (Mäkiniemi et al., 2020). Furthermore, DL effectively communicates an
articulated vision that links innovation strategy with crucial workplace factors like
technological engagement and culture.
Fostering TE in the digital workplace is critical because of its widely accepted impact on
innovation (Kassa, 2021; Orth et al., 2020; Schaufeli et al., 2017). The connection of
engagement with innovation can be substantiated if we analyse its dimensions. Firstly,
vigour is persistently feeling energetic, which stems from an intrinsic motivation to pursue
pursuits with relentless vitality. Secondly, dedication is propelled by positive feelings that
expand the cognitive and behavioural range, creating a sense of pride and meaning in our
actions. Thirdly, absorption generates an urge to become fully immersed in what we do by
losing the sense of time, which is an essential component for the frequent failures typical of
innovative undertakings. Note that all dimensions tap into intrinsic motivation, positive
affect and psychological resilience (Madrid et al., 2014; Orth and Volmer, 2017). Empirical
findings also support engagement’s significant positive influence on innovation (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007; Kim and Koo, 2017; Orth et al., 2020; Trabucchi et al., 2021).
The SET has found strong evidence that supports its explanation of the direct influence
of leadership on engagement through the exchange of attention, favours and resources
(Decuypere and Schaufeli, 2020; Garg and Dhar, 2017; Kassa et al., 2021). For example, a
study by Amor et al. (2020) showed that transformational leaders foster work engagement
IJOA directly and through empowerment. If the leader successfully provides job resources
32,11 through social exchange or as part of the DT strategy of resource allocation, then leadership
would drive work engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).
In general, culture exercises its effect by shaping the behaviour of members and is, thus,
vital for improving work engagement and performance (Schein, 2004). Since culture paves
the way for resources and working conditions by creating suitable work environments,
26 different culture types can influence work engagement (Crawford et al., 2014). Furthermore,
a recent study by Meng and Berger (2019) found a positive significant relationship between
culture and engagement. They also found engagement to mediate the relationship between
culture and overall job satisfaction.
When employees feel they have certain economic and social benefits and control over their
jobs, that correlates positively with their engagement in innovative work behaviours (Parzefall
et al., 2008). Furthermore, previous research found work engagement to be a viable mediator,
especially in the leadership–innovation association (Agarwal et al., 2012; Mulligan et al., 2021;
Özsungur, 2019). For instance, Tian and Zhang (2020) studied a sample of 318 employees and
found that work engagement partially mediated the relationship between empowering
leadership and innovative behaviour. In the current study, it is proposed that the effective
operation of banks results from leadership qualities that echo a culture that inspires engaged
employees. Given the discussion above, the following hypotheses are put forth:

H4. TE significantly mediates the relationship between DL and DI.

H5. TE significantly mediates the relationship between IC and DI.

The moderating role of technostress inhibitors

TI reduce employee information and communication technology levels and job-related
strain outcomes. Examples include end-user training, technical support and user
participation in the planning and implementing of new ICT solutions (Fuglseth and Sørebø,
2014). Based on the DI framework, the guidance of a dedicated governance approach
represented in DL must allocate resources like TIs to help employees cope with the fast and
constant changes produced by DT. Leadership is vital for leveraging organisational support
by allocating desperately needed resources in the DT quest (Rohwer et al., 2022).
Technostress is any toxic effect on people’s minds owing to technology usage (Nisafani
et al., 2020). According to the cognitive evaluation theory (Ryan et al., 1983), people become
less innovative when extrinsically oriented due to perceived externally controlled
conditions, increased dependency on technology, reduced self-efficacy and changing
technology culture (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). The dimensions of technostress tell the story
in more detail. Techno-overload lessens the time to adapt to new technologies (Tarafdar
et al., 2015). Techno-invasion imposes constant connectivity and diminishes feelings of
being free (Brown, 2014). Techno-complexity requires time and effort to learn new
technologies (Fitzgerald et al., 2014). Techno-insecurity makes employees fear losing their
jobs (Sweeney, 2015). Lastly, techno-uncertainty lowers motivation as employees focus on
routines to avoid endless upgrades and pressure to keep current (Chandra et al., 2019).
To counter these adverse effects, organisations extend support with TIs that sustain
technology work conditions and restore the balance for a DI environment (Fuglseth and
Sørebø, 2014). Firstly, TIs provide literacy facilitation which encourages sharing
technology-related knowledge. Secondly, technical support provision saves employees
time and effort by addressing technical problems. Thirdly, TIs facilitate involvement,
enabling end users to participate in the technology introduction and implementation Digital
(Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). innovation
The effect of leadership on technostress has been well documented (Bauwens et al., 2021;
Fieseler et al., 2014; Larjovuori et al., 2016). For example, 129 information technology
drivers
managers surveyed concluded that a statistically significant relationship exists between
transactional and laissez-faire leaders and technostress (Boyer-Davis, 2019). Likewise, an IC
stimulates frequent technological changes, which are severe precursors to technostress; 27
therefore, it is anticipated that TIs will strongly moderate the relationship between IC and
techno work engagement.
Mixed results have been noted regarding the influence of techno stressors on job
outcomes (Srivastava et al., 2015). Some research found that technostress is negatively
related to various work-related outcomes (Alam, 2016; Shu et al., 2011), yet some studies
showed a positive influence (Chandra et al., 2019). For example, Wang et al. (2008) found that
highly innovative organisations have the highest levels of technostress. Still, past studies
emphasised the importance of TIs and their likely powerful relationship with several
outcomes in various contexts (Hwang et al., 2021; Li and Wang, 2021; Nisafani et al., 2020;
Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). The current study fills the gap in limited studies that explore TIs’
effect on the DT of the banking sector. From the above discussion, this study sought to put
forth the following hypotheses:

H6. TIs significantly moderate the relationship between DL and TE.

H7. TIs significantly moderate the relationship between IC and TE.

Methods
The population and sample
A complete data list of banks was obtained from the Central Bank of Libya (2022) with an
established focus on the largest five banks in Libya for data collection convenience and
lower cost. The listing showed 19 banks comprising almost 600 branches across the nation.
Due to the practical challenges, time constraints and specific characteristics of the
population under study, purposive sampling was chosen as a suitable method, offering
flexibility and efficiency in participant selection. Firstly, the researchers encountered
difficulties obtaining a list of the target population of bank managers. Secondly, the target
population are notorious for having hectic schedules requiring selection participants based
on specific characteristics, ensuring a more efficient data collection process. Therefore, the
researchers used expert judgment to identify and choose hard-to-reach managers in closer
proximity, providing ease, speed and affordability in the sampling process. As purposive
sampling allows for the selection of elements that represent a cross-section of the population,
the questionnaires were administered to executives and experts considered active in the
decision-making and with unique knowledge of their bank’s operations and strategy
(Lavrakas, 2008). Out of 700 surveys distributed between September and December 2022,
305 were returned, and 292 met the criteria for inclusion, resulting in an acceptable response
rate of 41.7%, given the data collection challenges in Libya. Recognising the inherent bias
among surveyed managers presents an avenue for research improvement. Future studies
could explore diversifying the sampled managerial pool, implementing data triangulation
and incorporating comparative analyses. These strategies serve as practical approaches to
address and mitigate biases associated with sampling managers.
IJOA Measures
32,11 The measures used (Appendix) were adapted from instruments used in previous studies using
the five-point Likert-like scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Researchers
controlled for enterprise size and age since prior studies reported their association with
innovation (Cheng et al., 2012).
DL. DL comprised six items based on Zeike et al. (2019), with an internal consistency of
28 0.872. The DL instrument represents capabilities to communicate and inspire a transformative
vision of the enterprise’s digital future, including eliciting collaboration, involvement and
development of all members in digitalisation (Larjovuori et al., 2016).
DI. DI comprised six items adapted from Paladino (2007) and an internal consistency of 0.93.
DI represents the enterprise’s ability to successfully adopt new ideas, products and processes.
TI. TI comprised 10 items adopted from Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) with an internal
consistency of 0.925. TI embodies the mechanisms that reduce stress by using information
and communication technologies.
TE. TE comprised three items based on Schaufeli et al. (2017) and had an internal
consistency value of 0.702. TE expresses “a positive experience of well-being regarding the
use of technology at work” (Mäkiniemi et al., 2020, p. 1).
IC. IC comprised three items based on Chen (2012) and had an internal consistency value
of 0.781. IC represents a lasting and implied set of values, beliefs and assumptions that
embrace innovation, growth and new resources while valuing flexibility, adaptability,
creativity, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, distinguishing an enterprise and its members
(Cameron and Quinn, 2011).

Results
Statistical procedures in the current study were handled by SPSS v20 and partial least
squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The choice for structural equation
modelling using PLS for hypotheses testing was made because of its robust variant
analysis. PLS-SEM modelling of first- and second-order constructs is easily achieved, and
latent variable scores are attained to make predictions while building higher-order
constructs (Al Issa and Abdelsalam, 2021). PLS-SEM was chosen to explain variance in
internal constructs and predictive models, especially for non-normal data and complex
models. Despite biases, it predicts outcomes in quantitative research contexts (Sarstedt et al.,
2017). The current study included data coding and cleaning, reliability assessment, missing
data, outliers’ detection and assessment of normality, linearity, multicollinearity,
homoscedasticity and CMV. No signs of non-response bias were identified, as evidenced by
an independent sample t-test assessing the study’s variables. The t-test results revealed no
significant difference between early and late responders during the two-month data
collection period (Pallant, 2013), with all p-values exceeding 0.05. Descriptive statistics were
analysed about the respondents’ demographic profiles (Table 1).
The initial analysis showed significant correlations between corporate frugality,
entrepreneurial orientation and crisis preparedness (Table 2). The current study originated
from a single source and adopted several procedural remedies to minimise the effects of
common method variance (CMV) (MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012). Firstly, this was done
by protecting the respondents’ anonymity and reducing evaluation apprehension. Secondly,
an improved understanding of items was achieved by being available to explain
questionnaire items further. Thirdly, Harman’s single-factor test was carried out as
recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986). The measured variables did not load to a
single factor that accounted for the variance below the cut-off value of 50%. This indicated
that the data was accessible from common bias. Normality was determined for all variables
Gender Occupation Tenure Firm age Size Firm ownership
Digital
innovation
Male 174 Chief executive Less than 3 years 58 Less than 10 years Less than 50 State-owned 119 drivers
(59.6%) officer 26 (8.9%) (19.9%) 59(20.2%) employees 92 (40.8%)
(31.5%)
Female Executive 36 Between 3 and Between 10 and Between 50 and Non-state-owned
118 (12.3%) 5 years 43 (14.7%) 20 years 54 (18.5%) 250 employees 33 44 (15.1%)
(40.4%) (11.3%) 29
Middle Between 6 and Between 21 and Between 251 and Public 59 (20.2%)
management 62 10 years 70 (24%) 30 years 37 (12.7%) 500 employees 94
(21.2%) (32.2%)
Other leadership/ Between 11 and Between 31 and More than 500 Non-public 70
supervisory 168 20 years 78 (26.7%) 40 years 51 (17.5%) employees 73 (24%)
(57.5) (25%)
More than 21 years More than 40 years
43 (14.7%) 91 (31.2%) Table 1.
Distribution of
Source: Table by authors respondents

Constructs Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Gender 1.40 0.492

Tenure 3.01 1.343
0.099
Firm age 3.22 1.542 0.105 0.392**
Size 3.45 1.91 0.12 0.067 0.107
DI 3.55 0.99 0.053 0.160** 0.136* 0.087
DL 3.56 0.884
0.023 0.128* 0.172** 0.086 0.661**
TI 3.63 0.914 0.09 0.143* 0.174** 0.134* 0.773** 0.611**
TE 3.69 0.707 0.028 0.114 0.157** 0.110 0.770** 0.714** 0.860**
IC 3.67 0.935 0.050 0.158** 0.133* 0.014 0.726** 0.648** 0.605** 0.595** Table 2.
Notes: DI = digital innovation; DL = digital leadership; TI = technostress inhibitors; TE = techno-work Descriptive statistics
engagement; IC = innovative culture; N ¼ 290; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 and correlation
Source: Table by authors matrix

using the Q–Q plot, which was very close to a straight line, and the histogram was near a
bell shape. Multicollinearity was not an issue, with variance-inflated factor (VIF) below 5,
showing a peak for an engagement at 4.804, while tolerance was above 0.20, the lowest for
the TE at 0.208. Constructs’ correlations are displayed in Table 2, revealing the significance
between variables and other descriptive statistics.

Measurement model assessment

In this section, authors evaluated convergent validity through higher than 0.5 average
variances extracted (AVE). Also, composite reliability thresholds were acceptable from
0.833 to 0.945. The cross-loadings were assessed for discriminant validity, demonstrating
loadings more than cross-loadings. Finally, Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion revealed
that square roots for all AVEs were more than inter-construct correlations (Table 3).
Discriminant validity is confirmed when measures assessing different constructs show a
low correlation after considering measurement error. The researchers found cross-loading
and the Fornell–Larcker criterion methods suitable due to sufficient indicators per construct,
IJOA minimal correlations and the constructs’ distinctiveness in a sizable sample. While
32,11 alternative methods like the HTMT index were deemed less effective – shown not to
outperform modern CFA techniques – the researchers acknowledge the limitations of these
approaches in providing a comprehensive view of discriminant validity. They emphasise
the importance of considering context, theory and empirical results in the interpretation of
evidence, suggesting opportunities for future research to explore recommended techniques
30 for discriminant validity assessment like CICFA (sys) and x2(sys) (Hair et al., 2017; Rönkkö
and Cho, 2022).

Structural model assessment

Next, the predictive precision of the model was assessed by R2 value for innovation at 0.711
while for engagement R2 was 0.805, which is considered substantial if above 0.75 and
moderate if above 0.5 as per Hair et al. (2017) (Table 4 and Figure 2). Then, the effect sizes (f2)
were considered large, medium and small between innovation and TE, IC and DL 0.350,
0.278 and 0.014, respectively (Cohen, 1988). The Q2 was medium at 0.519 (omission distance
D ¼ 7) for innovation and TE at 0.502, and small at 0.291 for IC, which means the model has
predictive relevance. Last of all, relative predictive relevance from q2 on innovation was
0.516 (TI), 0.445 (TE), 0.516 (DL) and 0.459 (IC), indicating a sizeable predictive relevance for
all constructs.

Discussion
The results show a positively significant direct impact of leadership on innovation. This
supported the organisational innovation framework, which posits that leaders must have
technical and professional expertise and creative skills to process complex information to

Constructs DI DL IC TE TI

DI 0.861
DL 0.682 0.783
IC 0.732 0.651 0.835
TE 0.775 0.752 0.616 0.791
Table 3. TI 0.773 0.614 0.611 0.738 0.774
Discriminant validity Notes: DI = digital innovation; DL = digital leadership; TI = technostress inhibitors; TE = techno-work
(Fornell–Larcker’s engagement; IC = innovative culture
criterion) Source: Table by authors

Hypothesis Standard beta t-statistics p-values Decision

H1. DL ! DI 0.356*** 6.247 0.000 Accept

H2. IC ! DI 0.500*** 8.208 0.000 Accept
H3. DL ! IC 0.652*** 16.587 0.000 Accept
H4. DL ! TE ! DI 0.295*** 6.418 0.000 Accept
H5. IC ! TE ! DI 0.108*** 3.637 0.000 Accept
H6. DL * TI ! TE 0.051** 2.090 0.037 Accept
H7. IC * TI ! TE 0.063** 2.212 0.027 Accept

Notes: DI = digital innovation; DL = digital leadership; TI = technostress inhibitors; TE = techno-work

Table 4. engagement; IC = innovative culture; N ¼ 290; *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01
Structural estimates Source: Table by authors
 Digital
innovation
drivers

31

Figure 2.
Model estimates

influence innovation. This aligns with past studies that showed a positive and significant
relationship between leadership and innovation (Benitez et al., 2022; Bresciani et al., 2021a,
2021b; Fu et al., 2018; Vaccaro et al., 2012). For example, a recent paper by Magesa and
Jonathan (2021) revealed four digital leaders’ characteristics: promoting innovation by being
anticipatory, digitally savvy and a risk taker.
The DI framework theorises that organisations must develop a governance style that lets
them deploy digital enablers like culture and capabilities to achieve DI. In the current model,
IC urges openness to new ideas and cultivates capabilities to embrace complicated
technologies underlying new product or service development (Ali and Park, 2016). The H2,
which proposed IC is positively related to DI, was supported. This is consistent with
previous research that found a positive association between culture and innovation in
different settings (Durcikova et al., 2011; Naveed et al., 2022; Slater et al., 2014). For example,
Sareen and Pandey (2021) found that a culture for innovation stimulated innovation in a
sample of 151 senior executives at knowledge-intensive business services firms.
The H3 found that DL is positively and significantly related to an IC. This finding aligns
with the claim about the entangled nature of culture and leadership, with leaders shaping
culture and then being shaped soon by culture (Schein, 2004; Bass and Avolio, 1993).
However, most research favours a leader’s influence on culture (Sarros et al., 2008) because to
become more transformational, leaders must articulate the changes required while their
behaviour becomes symbols of the new culture (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Past research also
found a strong association between leadership and culture (Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt, 2016).
IJOA The H4 was also accepted, and according to the SET, employees respond in kind to
32,11 initiating actions by leaders. This work engagement response is an exchange of benefits with
the organisation, which leads engaged workers to look for ways of adding value to processes,
leading to innovation. Furthermore, past research found leadership associated with work
engagement (Amor et al., 2020; Decuypere and Schaufeli, 2020) and work engagement with
innovation (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Kim and Koo, 2017) and found work engagement a
32 viable mediator in several models (Agarwal et al., 2012; Mubarak et al., 2021).
Equally, the H5 was accepted and in line with past conceptualising about how culture
shapes members’ behaviour to improve work engagement. Past studies found a positive
culture-engagement association (Meng and Berger, 2019), but to the researcher’s knowledge,
studies examining the mediation role of engagement between culture and innovation are
non-existent.
The third research objective was to evaluate the moderating effect of TI on the
relationship between DL, IC and TE. The corresponding final hypotheses, H6 and H7, were
accepted. As such, a moderator such as TI might modify the connection’s strength and
direction. Based on the DI framework, the guidance of a dedicated governance approach
represented in DL must allocate resources like TI to help cope with the fast and constant
changes produced by DT. As a supporting mechanism, TI reduce the harmful effects of
wasted time on continuous upgrades and routine work to keep current with constantly
changing technologies, depriving employees of the time and energy needed for innovation.
The present study results show that TI can moderate IC effects to render heightened techno
work engagement. Consistent with previous studies, the current results revealed a strong
association between TI and their moderation with stressors, strain and various
organisational outcomes (Nisafani et al., 2020; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008).
Furthermore, we can analyse the moderating effect’s slope by looking at the upper line in
Figure 3, which represents a high level of the moderator construct TI with a steeper slope
than the lower line, which means a low level of the moderator construct TI. Thus, this makes
sense that the simple slop plot confirms the positive interaction term: Higher TI levels entail

Figure 3.
Interaction effect of
technostress
inhibitors on digital
leadership–work
engagement
association
a stronger relationship between DL and work engagement, while lower levels of TI lead to a Digital
slightly weaker relationship between leadership and work engagement. innovation
The moderation effect of TI is more pronounced in the IC–TE association. The
interpretation of the interaction in the graph shown in Figure 4 is such that, for low TI
drivers
moderation, there appears to be a slight and negative effect with a percentage decrease in
slope from culture on work engagement. However, during high TI, IC had a more robust
impact on work engagement. The logic is the bigger the difference between the two slopes 33
(low TI and high TI), the stronger the moderator’s interaction effect on the independent and
dependent variables is.

Conclusion
The current study examined the influence of DL, IC, TE and TI on Libyan banks’ DI in their
DT endeavours. TE was proposed to mediate the relationship between DL and innovation
and between IC and innovation. While the SET underpinned the research framework,
several other supporting theories, namely, the organisational and DI frameworks, provided
additional understanding of the theorised relationships.
As suggested by the social exchange theory, the current study found that people respond
in kind to initiating behaviours that arise from the leadership process and a cultural stance.
Reciprocal high-quality exchanges expressed in work engagement and innovation will most
likely follow. The organisational innovation and DI frameworks also prefigured leadership,
culture and business processes as determinants of innovation. A key inference from this
study is that fostering organisational support will enhance DT in retail banks. The
importance of this topic encourages researchers to investigate other critical predictor
mechanisms of DI in banks, especially in developing countries that desperately need to keep
up with organisational development for DT.

Figure 4.
Interaction effect of
technostress
inhibitors on
innovative culture–
work engagement
association
IJOA Theoretical and practical implications
32,11 This research intended to shed light on factors in the contemporary DT reality rife with
disruptive forces that quickly render new digital solutions obsolete. The study explains the
association between leadership and innovation in the digital world by incorporating
engagement as a viable mediating factor. DT is part of a new imperative for organisational
development to survive and reap superior performance. As a source of competitive
34 advantage, DI must be coupled with a new kind of leadership and support structures that
help workers become engaged to make the leap. It turns out that adopting appropriate
strategies can lead to the innovations desired.
The study’s main contribution is to the management field and DT in banking, particularly
in developing countries. The research offered a model that conceptualised the impact of DL
and IC on DI, and TE was theorised to play a mediating role in the relationships (Porfírio
et al., 2021). The moderating role of TI was also explored as a support mechanism for work
engagement to improve DI. These nascent theoretical insights also answer calls for research
investigating culture, leadership and work engagement across industry sectors and in
differing occupations (Kraus et al., 2021; Bakker and Albrecht, 2018). Furthermore, this study
answers calls to investigate DT in the banking sector in developing countries to redesign and
reengineer their lagging services from the ground up to increase their competitiveness
(Tsindeliani et al., 2022), especially post-COVID-19 (Wu and Olson, 2020).
The current study contributes to the ignored matter regarding the shortage of practical
implications in management research (Salminen et al., 2014). The findings guide decision
makers and managers to focus their resources on developing work engagement and
providing the organisational support necessary to reduce the adverse effects of digital
stress, which can be a dynamic capability that improves organisational effectiveness
through DT momenta. Moreover, the findings suggest that DT is a drastic formal change
that disrupts culture by adopting new technological infrastructure and digital skills that
strain the shift for employees and the whole organisation. Thus, leadership must not stress
technology implementation without seeing the presence of the right leadership skills and
attributes to make an effective change. So, in addition to digital knowledge, leadership
characteristics, such as creating trust, team development, altruism and role modelling, are
better suited for change towards DT.
Another practical implication is linked to industry pragmatism in the financial services
industry. This explains how technostress engagement can be anticipated to promote DL
efforts and IC for innovation. Technostress engagement is a manageable variable
conceivable to cultivate by banking leaders and so can be tailored to develop pertinent
digital influence and culture for DT pursuits. The present research also indicates that while
DL and IC individually were related to DI, when combined in a complete model, IC was not
found related to engagement and so not vital unless moderated by TI.
The commitment to TI as a resource is a valuable undertaking in DT. However,
managerial relevance requires this to be viewed with future timing for optimal impact
(Jaworski, 2011). A definite piece of advice to managers is to allocate the TI as a resource
resolutely. By doing this, leaders show faith in their communication and resource allocation
to employees. DT strategies can help organisations evade delays or failure if extended
digital stress is wearing away silently at key factors of DI.
The present study identifies crucial concepts, theories and research gaps in the domain,
paving the way for future research and enriching the empirical understanding of DL. It
explores how DL tackles distinctive challenges posed by digital technologies, adeptly
handling a firm’s dynamic capabilities and embracing a market orientation to thrive in
the swiftly changing and intricate digital landscape (Tigre et al., 2023). The analysis of
leadership’s impact on innovation contends that leadership plays a pivotal role in data Digital
governance and DT, providing valuable insights for addressing challenges associated with innovation
the adoption and utilisation of technology. This contribution can potentially enhance
discussions about the broader landscape of digital advancements (Davidson et al., 2023).
drivers

Study limitations and research future directions

A limitation in the present research is related to the smaller sample size, and future research
should be carried out with a larger sample to make the study’s cross-sectional nature more
35
generalisable. Therefore, future replication of the study should include a larger sample size
in a longitudinal approach. Another suggestion for future direction is to examine other
leadership styles as predictors of different configurations of innovative outcomes with other
potential mediators like coping strategies that help ease the transition of concurrently
increased demands from DT efforts with limited resources. Exploring the impact of digital
culture and innovation on bank performance, risk-taking and lending decisions could also be
worthwhile.

References
Agarwal, U.A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. and Bhargava, S. (2012), “Linking LMX, innovative work
behaviour and turnover intentions: the mediating role of work engagement”, Career Development
International, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 208-230, doi: 10.1108/13620431211241063.
Alam, M.A. (2016), “Techno-stress and productivity: survey evidence from the aviation industry”,
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 50, pp. 62-70.
Ali, M. and Park, K. (2016), “The mediating role of an innovative culture in the relationship between
absorptive capacity and technical and non-technical innovation”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1669-1675.
Al Issa, H. (2019), “Organisational culture in public universities: empirical evidence”, Asian Journal of
Business and Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 41-70, doi: 10.22452/ajba.vol12no1.2.
Al Issa, H. and Abdelsalam, M.K. (2021), “Antecedents to leadership: a CB-SEM and PLS-SEM
validation”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol. 16 No. 8,
pp. 1403-1414, doi: 10.18280/ijsdp.160801.
Amor, A.M., Vazquez, J.P.A. and Faíña, J.A. (2020), “Transformational leadership and work
engagement: exploring the mediating role of structural empowerment”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 169-178.
Backbase (2022), “Banking 2025, four pillars of the digital-first bank”, available at: www.backbase.com/
resources/banking-2025-whitepaper/?utm_source¼google&utm_medium¼cpc&utm_campaign¼
banking_2025_RSA_us&utm_content¼whitepaper&gclid¼Cj0KCQjw1ZeUBhDyARIsAOzAqQI
wLhxxuGFEAqJJR2Dl8hJFL1AT-Y4_uQ2MLPDwWR67MyRyE_jEJ4waAhbnEALw_wcB
Bakker, A.B. and Albrecht, S. (2018), “Work engagement: current trends”, Career Development
International, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 4-11.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328, doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership and organisational culture”, Public
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 112-121.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1994), Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational
Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bauwens, R., Denissen, M., Van Beurden, J. and Coun, M. (2021), “Can leaders prevent technology from
backfiring? Empowering leadership as a double-edged sword for technostress in care”, Frontiers
in Psychology, Vol. 12, p. 702648.
IJOA Benitez, J., Arenas, A., Castillo, A. and Esteves, J. (2022), “Impact of digital leadership capability on
innovation performance: the role of platform digitisation capability”, Information and
32,11 Management, Vol. 59 No. 2, p. 103590.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boyer-Davis, S. (2019), “The empirical relationship between leadership style and technostress”, ASBBS
Proceedings, Vol. 26, pp. 99-112.
36 Bresciani, S., Ciampi, F., Meli, F. and Ferraris, A. (2021a), “Using big data for co-innovation processes:
mapping the field of data-driven innovation, proposing theoretical developments and providing
a research agenda”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 60, p. 102347.
Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., Romano, M. and Santoro, G. (2021b), Digital Transformation Management
for Agile Organisations: A Compass to Sail the Digital World, Emerald Publishing, Bingley.
Brown, J., Stubbings, C. and Sethi, B. (2014), “The future of work”, PwC, available at: www.pwc.com/gx/
en/services/people-organisation/workforce-of-the-future/workforce-of-thefuture-the-competing-
forces-shaping-2030-pwc.pdf
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2011), Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework, John Wiley and Sons, San Fransisco, CA.
Central Bank of Libya (2022), available at: https://cbl.gov.ly/en/
Chandra, S., Shirish, A. and Srivastava, S.C. (2019), “Does technostress inhibit employee innovation?
Examining the linear and curvilinear influence of technostress creators”, Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 44 No. 1, p. 19.
Chen, M.Y.C., Lin, C.Y.Y., Lin, H.E. and McDonough, E.F. (2012), “Does transformational leadership
facilitate technological innovation? The moderating roles of innovative culture and incentive
compensation”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 239-264.
Cheng, C.C. and Krumwiede, D. (2012), “The role of service innovation in the market orientation—new
service performance linkage”, Technovation, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 487-497.
Chen, M.Y.C., Lin, C.Y.Y., Lin, H.E. and McDonough, E.F. (2012), “Does transformational leadership
facilitate technological innovation? The moderating roles of innovative culture and incentive
compensation”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 239-264.
Christensen, C.M. (1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Citi, G. (2016), “Digital disruption: how FinTech is forcing banking to a tipping point”, available at:
www.ivey.uwo.ca/media/3341211/citi-2016-fintech-report-march.pdf
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Coetzee, J. (2018), “Strategic implications of Fintech on South African retail banks”, South African
Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Crawford, E.R., Rich, B.L., Buckman, B. and Bergeron, J. (2014), “The antecedents and drivers of
employee engagement”, Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 57-81.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E.L., Daniels, S.R. and Hall, A.V. (2017), “Social exchange theory: a critical
review with theoretical remedies”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 479-516.
Crossan, M.M. and Apaydin, M. (2010), “A multi-dimensional framework of organisational
innovation: a systematic review of the literature”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47
No. 6, pp. 1154-1191.
Cziesla, T. (2014), “A literature review on DT in the financial service industry”, 27th Bled eConference,
eEcosystems, June 1 - 5, 2014, Bled, Slovenia.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organisational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-590.
Davidson, E., Wessel, L., Winter, J.S. and Winter, S. (2023), “Future directions for scholarship on data governance,
digital innovation, and grand challenges”, Information and Organization, Vol. 33 No. 1, p. 100454.
Decuypere, A. and Schaufeli, W. (2020), “Leadership and work engagement: exploring explanatory Digital
mechanisms”, German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 69-95.
innovation
Denti, L. and Hemlin, S. (2012), “Leadership and innovation in organisations: a systematic review of
drivers
factors that mediate or moderate the relationship”, International Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, p. 1240007.
Drucker, P. (2014), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Routledge, NY.
Durcikova, A., Fadel, K.J., Butler, B.S. and Galletta, D.F. (2011), “Research note—knowledge
37
exploration and exploitation: the impacts of psychological climate and knowledge management
system access”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 855-866.
Eberl, J.K. and Drews, P. (2021), “Digital leadership–Mountain or molehill? A literature review”,
International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Springer, Cham, pp. 223-237.
Eldor, L. (2017), “The relationship between perceptions of learning climate and employee innovative behavior
and proficiency”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1454-1474, doi: 10.1108/PR-08-2016-0202.
Ferrari, R. (2016), “FinTech impact on retail banking–from a universal banking model to banking
verticalisation”, The FinTech Book: The Financial Technology Handbook for Investors,
Entrepreneurs and Visionaries, Wiley, pp. 248-252.
Fieseler, C., Grubenmann, S., Meckel, M. and Müller, S. (2014), “The leadership dimension of coping with
technostress”, 2014 47th HI International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, pp. 530-539.
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D. and Welch, M. (2014), “Embracing digital technology: a new
strategic imperative”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 55 No. 2, p. 1.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fu, L., Liu, Z. and Liao, S. (2018), “Is distributed leadership a driving factor of innovation
ambidexterity? An empirical study with mediating and moderating effects”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 388-405, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0134.
Fuglseth, A.M. and Sørebø, Ø. (2014), “The effects of technostress within the context of employee use of
ICT”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 40, pp. 161-170.
Garg, S. and Dhar, R. (2017), “Employee service innovative behavior: the roles of leader-member
exchange (LMX), work engagement, and job autonomy”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 242-258.
Gerlach, F., Hundeling, M. and Rosing, K. (2020), “Ambidextrous leadership and innovation
performance: a longitudinal study”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 383-398.
Gierlich-Joas, M., Hess, T. and Neuburger, R. (2020), “More self-organisation, more control – or
even both? Inverse transparency as a digital leadership concept”, Business Research,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 921-947.
Gupta, A. and Xia, C. (2018), “A paradigm shift in banking: unfolding Asia’s Fintech adventures”, Banking
and Finance Issues in Emerging Markets, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, Vol. 25, pp. 215-254.
Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, LA.
Hwang, I., Kim, S. and Rebman, C. (2021), “Impact of regulatory focus on security technostress and
organisational outcomes: the moderating effect of security technostress inhibitors”, Information
Technology and People, doi: 10.1108/ITP-05-2019-0239.
Jaworski, B.J. (2011), “On managerial relevance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 211-224.
Kassa, A.G. and Tsigu, G.T. (2021), “Corporate entrepreneurship, employee engagement and
innovation: a resource-based view and a social exchange theory perspective”, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1694-1711.
IJOA Khaola, P. and Coldwell, D. (2019), “Explaining how leadership and justice influence employee
innovative behaviours”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 193-212,
32,11 doi: 10.1108/EJIM-08-2017-0103.
Khatri, V. and Samuel, B.M. (2019), “Analytics for managerial work”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 100-100.
Kim, M.S. and Koo, D.W. (2017), “Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance
38 in hotel employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 12, pp. 3044-3062.
Kohli, R. and Melville, N.P. (2019), “Digital innovation: a review and synthesis”, Information Systems
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 200-223.
Khosravi, P., Newton, C. and Rezvani, A. (2019), “Management innovation: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of past decades of research”, European Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6,
pp. 694-707.
Krasonikolakis, I., Tsarbopoulos, M. and Eng, T.Y. (2020), “Are incumbent banks bygones in the face of
digital transformation?”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 60-69.
Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N. and Roig-Tierno, N. (2021), “Digital
transformation: an overview of the current state of the art of research”, SAGE Open, Vol. 11
No. 3, p. 21582440211047576, doi: 10.1177/21582440211047576.
Larjovuori, R.L., Bordi, L., Mäkiniemi, J.P. and Heikkilä-Tammi, K. (2016), “The role of leadership and
employee well-being in organisational digitalisation”, Tiziana Russo-Spenaand Cristina Mele, 1159.
Lavrakas, P.J. (2008), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods, Sage Publications, Oaks, CA.
Li, L. and Wang, X. (2021), “Technostress inhibitors and creators and their impacts on university
teachers’ work performance in higher education”, Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 315-330.
Li, H., Wu, Y., Cao, D. and Wang, Y. (2021), “Organisational mindfulness towards DT as a prerequisite
of information processing capability to achieve market agility”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 122, pp. 700-712.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542-555.
Madrid, H.P., Patterson, M.G., Birdi, K.S., Leiva, P.I. and Kausel, E.E. (2014), “The role of weekly high-
activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: a multilevel and
interactional model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 234-256.
Magesa, M.M. and Jonathan, J. (2021), “Conceptualising digital leadership characteristics for
successful DT: the case of Tanzania”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 777-796.
Mäkiniemi, J.P., Ahola, S. and Joensuu, J. (2020), “A novel construct to measure employees’
technology elated experiences of well-being: empirical validation of the techno-work
engagement scale (TechnoWES)”, Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.16993/sjwop.79.
Martín-de Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., Navas-Lopez, J.E. and Cruz-Gonzalez, J. (2013), “The
moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between knowledge assets and product
innovation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 351-363.
Meng, J. and Berger, B.K. (2019), “The impact of organisational culture and leadership performance on
PR professionals’ job satisfaction: testing the joint mediating effects of engagement and trust”,
Public Relations Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 64-75.
Mubarak, N., Khan, J., Yasmin, R. and Osmadi, A. (2021), “The impact of a proactive personality on innovative
work behavior: the role of work engagement and transformational leadership”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 989-1003, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-11-2020-0518.
Mulligan, R., Ramos, J., Martín, P. and Zornoza, A. (2021), “Inspiriting innovation: the effects of leader- Digital
member exchange (LMX) on innovative behavior as mediated by mindfulness and work
engagement”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 10, p. 5409.
innovation
Mumford, M.D. and Licuanan, B. (2004), “Leading for innovation: conclusions, issues, and directions”,
drivers
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 163-171.
Naveed, R.T., Alhaidan, H., Al Halbusi, H. and Al-Swidi, A.K. (2022), “Do organisations really evolve?
The critical link between organisational culture and organisational innovation toward
organisational effectiveness: pivotal role of organisational resistance”, Journal of Innovation and 39
Knowledge, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 100178.
Nisafani, A.S., Kiely, G. and Mahony, C. (2020), “Workers’ technostress: a review of its causes, strains,
inhibitors, and impacts”, Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 29 No. sup1, pp. 243-258.
Orth, M. and Volmer, J. (2017), “Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on
innovative behaviour: the cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy”, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 601-612.
Özsungur, F. (2019), “Ethical leadership, intrapreneurship, service innovation performance and work
engagement in chambers of commerce and industry”, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1059-1081.
Paladino, A. (2007), “Investigating the drivers of innovation and new product success: a comparison of
strategic orientations”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 534-553.
Pallant, J. (2013), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for
Windows, 4th ed., McGraw Hill Open University Press, England.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Porfírio, J.A., Carrilho, T., Felício, J.A. and Jardim, J. (2021), “Leadership characteristics and DT”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 124, pp. 610-619.
Parzefall, M.R., Seeck, H. and Leppänen, A. (2008), “Employee innovativeness in organisations: a review
of the antecedents”, Finnish Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 165-182.
Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B.S. and Tu, Q. (2008), “The consequences of
technostress for end users in organisations: conceptual development and empirical validation”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 417-433.
Ramali, K. (2018), “Digital payment methods in Libya report”, available at: https://medium.com/@
khadejahussein/digital-money-libya-11883c69242e
Reydet, S. and Carsana, L. (2017), “The effect of digital design in retail banking on customers’
commitment and loyalty: the mediating role of positive affect”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 37, pp. 132-138.
Rohwer, E., Flöther, J.C., Harth, V. and Mache, S. (2022), “Overcoming the ‘dark side’ of technology—a
scoping review on preventing and coping with Work-Related technostress”, International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19 No. 6, p. 3625.
Rönkkö, M. and Cho, E. (2022), “An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
Ryan, R.M., Mims, V. and Koestner, R. (1983), “Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal
context to intrinsic motivation: a review and test using cognitive evaluation theory”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4, p. 736.
Salminen, R.T., Oinonen, M. and Haimala, J. (2014), “Managerial implications in solution business
studies: analysis of type of relevance addressed”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 29 Nos 7/8, pp. 562-573.
Santos-Vijande, M.L., Lopez-Sanchez, J.Á., Pascual-Fernandez, P. and Rudd, J.M. (2021), “Service
innovation management in a modern economy: insights on the interplay between firms’
IJOA innovative culture and project-level success factors”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 165, p. 120562.
32,11
Sareen, A. and Pandey, S. (2021), “Organizational innovation in knowledge intensive business services:
the role of networks, culture and resources for innovation”, FIIB Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 1,
p. 23197145211020737.
Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K. and Santora, J.C. (2008), “Building a climate for innovation through
40 transformational leadership and organisational culture”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 145-158.
Satell, G., Kates, A. and McLees, T. (2021), “4 Principles to guide your digital transformation”, available
at: https://hbr.org/2021/11/4-principles-to-guide-your-digital-transformation
Sattayaraksa, T. and Boon-Itt, S. (2016), “CEO transformational leadership and the new product
development process: the mediating roles of organisational learning and innovation culture”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 730-749.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schaufeli, W.B. (2015), “Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model”, Career Development
International, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 446-463, doi: 10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025.
Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M. and De Witte, H. (2017), “An ultra-short measure
for work engagement”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schilke, O., Hu, S. and Helfat, C.E. (2018), “Quo Vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review
of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research”, Academy of
Management Annals, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 390-439, doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0014.
Schwab, K. (2017), The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Crown Publishing Group, NY.
Schwarzmüller, T., Brosi, P., Duman, D. and Welpe, I.M. (2018), “How does the DT affect organisations?
Key themes of change in work design and leadership”, Management Revu, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 114-138.
Shaikh, A.A., Glavee-Geo, R. and Karjaluoto, H. (2017), “Exploring the nexus between financial sector
reforms and the emergence of digital banking culture–evidence from a developing country”,
Research in International Business and Finance, Vol. 42, pp. 1030-1039.
Shu, Q., Tu, Q. and Wang, K. (2011), “The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology dependence
on computer-related technostress: a social cognitive theory perspective”, International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 923-939.
Slater, S.F., Mohr, J.J. and Sengupta, S. (2014), “Radical product innovation capability: literature review,
synthesis, and illustrative research propositions”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 552-566.
Srivastava, S.C., Chandra, S. and Shirish, A. (2015), “Technostress creators and job outcomes:
theorising the moderating influence of personality traits”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 355-401.
Sultan, N. (2015), “Reflective thoughts on the potential and challenges of wearable technology for
healthcare provision and medical education”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 521-526.
Sweeney, P. (2015), “How globalisation and technology drive insecurity”, available at: https://
socialeurope.eu/insecurity
Tanniru, M. (2018), “Digital leadership”, Management of Information Systems, InTech., doi: 10.5772/
intechopen.76045.
Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E.B. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2015), “Technostress: negative effect on performance
and possible mitigations”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 103-132.
Tian, G. and Zhang, Z. (2020), “Linking empowering leadership to employee innovation: the mediating Digital
role of work engagement”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 48
No. 10, pp. 1-8.
innovation
Tigre, F.B., Curado, C. and Henriques, P.L. (2023), “Digital leadership: a bibliometric analysis”, Journal
drivers
of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 40-70.
Trabucchi, D., Bellis, P., Di Marco, D., Buganza, T. and Verganti, R. (2021), “Attitude vs
involvement: a systematic literature review at the intersection between engagement and
innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1730-1762, doi: 41
10.1108/EJIM-05-2020-0171.
Tsindeliani, I.A., Proshunin, M.M., Sadovskaya, T.D., Popkova, Z.G., Davydova, M.A. and Babayan,
O.A. (2022), “Digital transformation of the banking system in the context of sustainable
development”, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 165-180, doi: 10.1108/
JMLC-02-2021-0011.
Vaccaro, I.G., Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2012), “Management innovation
and leadership: the moderating role of organisational size”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 28-51.
Vial, G. (2021), “Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda”, Managing
Digital Transformation Understanding the Strategic Process, 1st ed., Routledge, pp. 13-66,
available at: www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003008637-4/understanding-digital-
transformation-gregory-vial
Wang, K., Shu, Q. and Tu, Q. (2008), “Technostress under different organisational environments: an
empirical investigation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 3002-3013.
Weisman, R. (2019), “A leadership approach to successful DT using enterprise architecture”, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Westerman, G., Tannou, M., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P. and McAfee, A. (2012), “The digital advantage: how
digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry”, MIT Sloan Management and
Capgemini Consulting, MA, Vol. 2, pp. 2-23.
Wiesböck, F. and Hess, T. (2020), “Digital innovations”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 75-86.
Wu, D.D. and Olson, D.L. (2020), “The effect of COVID-19 on the banking sector”, Pandemic Risk
Management in Operations and Finance, Springer, Cham, pp. 89-99.
Zeike, S., Bradbury, K., Lindert, L. and Pfaff, H. (2019), “Digital leadership skills and associations with
psychological well-being”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
Vol. 16 No. 14, p. 2628.

Further reading
Ardi, A., Djati, S.P., Bernarto, I., Sudibjo, N., Yulianeu, A., Nanda, H.A. and Nanda, K.A. (2020), “The
relationship between DT leadership styles and knowledge-based empowering interaction for
increasing organisational innovativeness”, International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and
Change, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 259-277.
Filotto, U., Caratelli, M. and Fornezza, F. (2021), “Shaping the DT of the retail banking
industry. empirical evidence from Italy”, European Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 366-375.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B. and Meyer, R.E. (2017), The Sage Handbook of Organisational
Institutionalism, Sage, LA.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organisational
innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4/5,
pp. 525-544.
Kothari, U. and Seetharaman, A. (2020), “Impact of digital transformation on retail banking industry in
the UAE”, Re-imagining Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology and Systems: A
IJOA Continuing Conversation: IFIP WG 8.6 International Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of
IT, TDIT 2020, Tiruchirappalli, India, December 18–19, 2020, Proceedings, Part I, Springer
32,11 International Publishing, pp. 425-438.
Lukas, B.A., Menon, A. and Bell, S.J. (2002), “Organising for new product development speed and
the implications for organisational stress”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 349-355.
O’Cass, A. and Viet Ngo, L. (2007), “Market orientation versus innovative culture: two routes to
42 superior brand performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8, pp. 868-887, doi:
10.1108/03090560710752438.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, Pearson education,
Noida.
Schiuma, G., Schettini, E. and Santarsiero, F. (2021), “How wise companies drive digital transformation”,
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 122.
Schiuma, G., Schettini, E., Santarsiero, F. and Carlucci, D. (2021), “The transformative leadership
compass: six competencies for DT entrepreneurship”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-01-2021-0087.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson Education,
Boston, MA.
Utoyo, I., Fontana, A. and Satrya, A. (2020), “The role of entrepreneurial leadership and configuring
core innovation capabilities to enhance innovation performance in a disruptive environment”,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, p. 2050060.

Appendix
Digital innovation
 The quality of our digital solutions is superior compared to our competitors.
 The features of our digital solutions are superior compared to our competitors.
 The applications of our digital solutions are totally different from our competitors.
 Our digital solutions are different from our competitors in terms of product platform.
 Our new digital solutions are minor improvements of existing products.
 Some of our digital solutions are new to the market at the time of launching.
Technostress inhibitors
Literacy facilitation
 I am strategic about the way I manage my academic workload.
 I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my overall career goals.
 I regularly seek advice and help from teaching staff.
 Time spent on private study.
Technical support provision
 Our end-user help desk is well staffed by knowledgeable individuals.
 Our end-user help desk is easily accessible.
 Our end-user help desk is responsive to end-user requests.
Involvement facilitation
 Our end users are rewarded for using new technologies.
 Our end users are consulted before introduction of new technology.
 Our end users are involved in technology.
Techno-work engagement Digital
 At my work, I feel bursting with energy (vigor). innovation
 I am enthusiastic about my job (dedication). drivers
 I am immersed in my work (absorption).
Innovative culture
 We are energetic about being innovative in this firm (innovativeness).
43
 We are encouraged to try new things and to take advantage of opportunities in this firm
(rapid exploitation of advantageous circumstances).
 We will be rewarded for our risk taking in this firm (risk taking).

Corresponding author
Hussein-Elhakim Al Issa can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]