Digital Leadership And Institutional Performance In Higher Education: Faculty Digital Readiness As A Mediating Capability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66635/90wy6205Keywords:
Digital leadership, Faculty digital readiness, Higher education, Institutional performance, Digital transformationAbstract
Digital transformation in higher education requires more than technology adoption; it depends on leadership capability, faculty readiness, and the ability of institutions to convert digital strategy into academic practice. This study examines how Digital Leadership Competencies, Management of Digital Leadership Barriers, and Digital Leadership Strategic Vision influence Institutional Performance and Stakeholder Outcomes through Faculty Digital Readiness. Grounded in Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Learning Organisation Theory, the study adopts a quantitative cross-sectional design and uses PLS-SEM to analyse data collected from 500 respondents from higher educational institutions. The findings show that all three digital leadership dimensions significantly enhance Faculty Digital Readiness. Faculty Digital Readiness, in turn, significantly improves Institutional Performance and Stakeholder Outcomes. The mediation results reveal that Faculty Digital Readiness fully mediates the effects of Digital Leadership Competencies and Digital Leadership Strategic Vision on institutional outcomes, while partially mediating the effect of Management of Digital Leadership Barriers. These results indicate that digital leadership does not automatically produce institutional performance; rather, its impact becomes meaningful when leadership capability, strategic vision, and barrier management are translated into faculty-level digital readiness. The study contributes by positioning Faculty Digital Readiness as the operational pathway through which digital leadership creates measurable institutional value in higher education.
References
1.Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Barlou, O., & Beligiannis, G. N. (2020). Leadership types and digital leadership in higher education: Behavioural data analysis from University of Patras in Greece. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(4), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.4.8
2.Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the “E” to e-leadership: How it may impact your leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00132-8
3.Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. BCcampus.
4.Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095
5.Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: Student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1
6.Carvalho, A., Alves, H., & Leitão, J. (2022). What research tells us about leadership styles, digital transformation and performance in state higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(2), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2020-0378
7.Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D., & Giovando, G. (2023). Digital workplace and organization performance: Moderating role of digital leadership capability. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(1), Article 100334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100334
8.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
9.Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
10.Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
11.Ghamrawi, N., & Tamim, R. M. (2023). A typology for digital leadership in higher education: The case of a large-scale mobile technology initiative (using tablets). Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 7089–7110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11079-1
12.Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
13.Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
14.Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
15.Jameson, J., Rumyantseva, N., Cai, M., Markowski, M., Essex, R., & McNay, I. (2022). A systematic review and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education. Computers and Education Open, 3, Article 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100115
16.Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation: Becoming a digitally mature enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press.
17.Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05040249
18.Mollah, M. A., Choi, J.-H., Hwang, S.-J., & Shin, J.-K. (2023). Exploring a pathway to sustainable organizational performance of South Korea in the digital age: The effect of digital leadership on IT capabilities and organizational learning. Sustainability, 15(10), Article 7875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107875
19.Ratajczak, S. (2022). Digital leadership at universities: A systematic literature review. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 10(4), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL10_NO4_7
20.Rienties, B., & Toetenel, L. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.074
21.Senadjki, A., Au Yong, H. N., Ganapathy, T., & Ogbeibu, S. (2024). Unlocking the potential: The impact of digital leadership on firms’ performance through digital transformation. Journal of Business and Socio-Economic Development, 4(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-06-2023-00504
22.Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
23.Selwyn, N. (2020). Telling tales on technology: Qualitative studies of technology and education. Routledge.
24.Sheninger, E. (2019). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times (2nd ed.). Corwin.
25.UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO.
26.Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
27.Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.
